The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

James Carville: 55% of voters think Obama is a Socialist

There is plenty of inefficiency in the US. There are plenty of offices were people don't do as much as they should. Saying that the Chinese are robots and only do what they're told still seems a bit much. There are lazy people on both sides and there is institutional laziness on both sides.
 
01solara said:
I know a man personally that went to two plants owned by the same company one in China and one in Chattanooga. To get the same output the plant in China required three times as many people. He asked through a translator why was that and after several attempts finally got an answer. They had to assign the work so that three hundred people were used to get it done. They didn't assign enough people to get the work done. They assigned how many people the plant must employ and then adjusted the work load so that would get only that goal. It is hard to explain second hand but it was a powerful story and the man had been to both and was is very successful. The company ended up closing the plant in China and bringing the jobs back to the USA. We need a lot more of that to dig ourselves out of this hole. They did not save any money using cheap chinese labor when they added overhead and shipping costs it was cheaper to bring the jobs back to Americans.
Click to expand...

My older brother's been to China, working in energy. He noted the same thing, and observed that often they can get more done by using 1900-variety technology than modern. Why? Because the culture hasn't prepared people for a mass-production factory mindset. It isn't any defect in the Chinese people, or anything special about Americans, it's that there's a cultural gap not easy to bridge because it's like skipping a couple or three generations of development. As an illustration, he saw a dam they were building, with a concrete core and earth-fill front sloping gently; there were hundreds of thousands of people employed making that earth-fill face -- each trudging along with a sort backpack-like basket of dirt and rock. The reason wasn't that they couldn't get equipment, it was that they couldn't train enough handlers/drivers. Even the dam design took that into consideration: they couldn't make a fully modern dam, because they couldn't employ fully modern methods to build it.

But when that gap is gone, when the new workers in China are as accustomed as we are to more technologically advanced ways of doing things -- watch out.
 
altlover85 said:
There is plenty of inefficiency in the US. There are plenty of offices were people don't do as much as they should. Saying that the Chinese are robots and only do what they're told still seems a bit much. There are lazy people on both sides and there is institutional laziness on both sides.
Click to expand...

It's not inefficiency, it's acculturation. Where does China get all its workers for expanding industries? From the countryside, mostly. Those people just aren't educated enough or sufficiently exposed to technology to be trained to do much more than rote motions. The Soviet Navy had the same trouble; they had all they could do to have a trained officer corps, so for seamen, they scraped up what they could and trained them like monkeys.

People who understand their jobs are more productive.
 
I thought 01solara was saying that the workers were being intentionally lazy. I must have misread. My apologies.
 
illiset, can you explain more about how Blue Dogs came to be and why the people that vote for them don't vote for Republicans? I'm curious and don't really understand.
 
iiiset said:
Nope, not really. As many as 10 of the democrats were so-called "blue dogs." Not liberal but simply labeled Democrat due to the party history in their home region... voters used to voting for Democrats with maybe a streak of populism (loudmouthed, anti-intellectual semi-socialism) but not going to vote for a non-conservative candidate.
Click to expand...

You're saying that this is the reason that it is not the Democrats' fault that they couldn't get more of their legislation passed even with a filibuster proof majority. You're actually saying "the reason that the Democrats' didn't have a majority was because the Democrats were preventing the Democrats from passing their legislation." This is what you're saying. So the majority doesn't count. Never mind working with one or two Republicans at all, they can't even work with themselves to pass anything.

My question is, doesn't this show how bad the Democrats (the ones in office, not necessarily the party) are at governing? That they can't even agree? This is like hyper-hyper-partisanship. When you can't even work within your own party, let alone with the other one.

I don't know. I mean I'm no Republican, I've got a whole different set of problems with those asshats. But I mean come on. Our Congress is indefensible. Come on.
 
iiiset said:
Like I said, their coalition was only on paper. Many democrats are conservative. They never had the votes to undertake the projects they undertook.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Coalition? They're members of the same party! Not have the votes? The Democrats had 60 votes! The Democrats are hurting the Democrats?

Somehow the Republicans time after time though are able to fully align with each other. Forty votes always. What does this show?

This is exactly the mindset that should be discouraged. That just because ten members or something are a little less to the left (but still on the left) that we should just give up because there's no way they'll ever listen. Like they are republicans. They are not republicans! They are all democrats! They have the power!
 
Can anyone tell us if the richest one or two percent of the U.S. is once again paying the tax level required of them before Ronald Reagan?
 
stillscion20 said:
My question is, doesn't this show how bad the Democrats (the ones in office, not necessarily the party) are at governing? That they can't even agree? This is like hyper-hyper-partisanship. When you can't even work within your own party, let alone with the other one.
Click to expand...

No, it does not.

The Dems have the majority they have because they used a big tent approach, which says let's focus on what we can agree on, and yes we will have disagree on some things. That's how you have pro- and anti-choice dems, blue and yellow dog dems.

The GOP at this time has more of a purity model - if you don't meet the purity test, you're left out.

Well not surprisingly, in a big party model not every member will agree. As was pointed out earlier, it's a political party, not a monolith in which every members agrees on all the issues.

The GOP is able to align all the time because they a) aren't the big tent party and tend to be more "pure"; b) aren't trying to govern but to just obstruct, which is easier.

Now some might want the Dems to be more purist, but you don't win bigger majorities that way, and bigger majorities are very helpful despite disagreements within the party, because with majorities go the agenda setting power of committee chairs.

Every congress, this one included, has its share if difficulty and humor. It's the nature of the beast.
 
01solara said:
Obama promised his stimulus plan would "put the country back to work with shovel ready jobs". When are you going to hold him accountable for the failure of his policies to create jobs or economic growth.
Click to expand...

So, if we look at some data, Note that anything over 50 is expansion.

Manufacturing
ISM+Manufac.png


Industrial Production
IP.png


And Capacity Utilization, which though still low is trend in the right direction.
capac.png


And the GDP, growing for the last 3 quarters
fredgraph.png


Jobs are still a problem. Although the Stimulus has staunched joblessness totals, we're still at 9.5% unemployment.

Nate Silver points out four reasons for why hiring has been slow: increased productivity, low capacity utilization, low hours worked and overall uncertainty.

We've seen employers maintain productivity with a lesser workforce, so they're not hiring. And the overworked employees are too scared to leave. So we're in something of a vicious circle.

It's hard to see what Washington can do to interrupt the cycle for the better, though there's much they could do to worsen it, starting with a Herbert Hoover austerity model.
 
It is interesting how what should be political discourse turns to petty insults in a matter of a few messages. In the end we all want the same thing and it would be best to not let our tempers flare. I've previously being attacked on these forums for being a Democrat. I am not a voter and therefore not registered as either. As a permanent resident of the USA, I have most of the rights of a citizen but cannot vote. It is therefore my obligation to speak up and make my voice heard but only if that voice is the voice of reason. Bashing others' political views with insults rather than facts or at least well defined opinions is an insult to ourselves. Please think about that the next time you feel inclined to insult someone on here.
The Democrats on here are right, Obama is not a socialist. I also saw that there was a comment about the Democrats not being as tolerant as they make themselves out to be, this is also true. A Republican minority is simply not Black, Hispanic or gay enough. When it comes to blocking presidential appointees, the Senate unfortunately has arcane rules where one single Senator can block an appointment. Both Republican and Democratic presidents use recess appointments for this reason. Bush used them and Obama is using them. These two political heroes for the parties have both their downfalls and their good so please be careful before you place them on to high a pedestal.
 
altlover85 said:
illiset, can you explain more about how Blue Dogs came to be and why the people that vote for them don't vote for Republicans? I'm curious and don't really understand.
Click to expand...

There are Blue-Dog type Democrats here who aren't Republicans because they agree with Republicans only on two things: leave everyone's guns alone, and balance the stinking budget! I know two who would be thrilled to be part of a gay wedding where everyone smoked pot and had a gun on the preferred hip (or thigh, or ankle, or wherever), and afterward if anyone had gotten hurt they'd go to the clinic where they wouldn't have to worry about insurance because coverage would be guaranteed, and the newlyweds would settle into their Basic Housing guaranteed by law.

Now, how many Republicans can you see endorsing that?

CoolBlue71 said:
Can anyone tell us if the richest one or two percent of the U.S. is once again paying the tax level required of them before Ronald Reagan?
Click to expand...

Not even close.

But if the top bracket were boosted back up there, guess what? Bush wouldn't have had any deficits.......
 
There is no question that the wealthy pay a higher overall tax rate than any other group. That is an American tradition. But there is also no question that their tax rates have fallen more than any other group’s over the last three decades. The only reason they are paying more taxes than in the past is that their pretax incomes have risen so rapidly — which hardly seems a great rationale for a further tax cut.
Click to expand...

NYTimes

so lets get the two things straightened out here.

the rich pay more because they now hold more of the overall money than ever before. their tax rates have gone down, but they pay more.

The only trickle this republican agenda has created, is to increase the trickle of money into the hands of the gov't, not the people the rich employ.

it is a real disconect that repubs and democrats have.
 
justapixel said:
A simple google search reveals that you are not telling the truth.

The rich share of income tax paid doubled from 15% to 28% of all taxes paid.

Share_of_Taxes(1).jpg




http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percent_of_taxes_does_the_top.html
Click to expand...

Um.. that's pretty misleading. It doesn't address what percentage of the wealth they control.

Because although yes.. they may be paying a larger percentage of the taxes... they still pay a lower percent of what they make than that paid by a minimum wage employee with no health insurance.

But nice try. At least you're not just posting total lies and paranoid conspiracy theories.
 
At a time like this, those who have more should be giving more. Were I in that top 1%, I'd happily pay 3/4 of my income until the economy is back on track and the budget balanced. For that matter, I'd sign over half my net worth if it went to fixing infrastructure.

Now, assuming all the 1% did that (and similar ratios for those in the next fifteen percent) someone calculate what effect that would have -- I'm going to grab some breakfast. :wave:
 
JasunStrikesBack said:
(If 90% of the wealth is controlled by 1% of the people but they only pay 28% of the taxes... that's pretty lop-sided.)
Click to expand...

Here's an idea the Republicans should love, since it's from the Bible:

at the end of each year, all landowners pony up a tithe -- not ten percent of their income, but ten percent of their net worth. :badgrin:
 
Thanks illiset and Kulindahr for the information! It makes more sense to me now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top