namelesstavern.net

Narrock wrote:

araby wrote:and my plan to totally whore out my eyes to black (liquid) eyeliner

Get the perma-eyeliner.

Noo thanks, my 60 year old patient has that and she looks ridiculous, like Baby Jane. I'll just take the wrinkles without the black tattoo.

My mom is happy she got it done. It made her eyelids sting for a few days, but she's quite content with having gotten it done.

Narrock wrote:My mom is happy she got it done. It made her eyelids sting for a few days, but she's quite content with having gotten it done.

Aren't you against tattooing?

Tossica wrote:Not necessarily faked everything no but the media has certainly sensationalized several stories to make them seem like bigger deals than they actually were.

Well, it's not just the politicians, but they certainly overhype things, it's the whole media thing.

Everything is overanalyzed nd extreme reported currentl, on both TV and the web.

Diekan, can you come back to Planet Earth. Obviously CNN and Jack Cafferty are there to prop up the GOP in your mind, but I think you've been smoking a bit too much Ganja Weed in college, man.

Harrison wrote:

Narrock wrote:My mom is happy she got it done. It made her eyelids sting for a few days, but she's quite content with having gotten it done.

Aren't you against tattooing?

For myself, yes. I don't care if other people do it. I just didn't like that Biohazard tat somebody was talking about a few weeks ago.

lyion wrote:

Tossica wrote:Not necessarily faked everything no but the media has certainly sensationalized several stories to make them seem like bigger deals than they actually were.

Well, it's not just the politicians, but they certainly overhype things, it's the whole media thing.

Everything is overanalyzed nd extreme reported currentl, on both TV and the web.

Diekan, can you come back to Planet Earth. Obviously CNN and Jack Cafferty are there to prop up the GOP in your mind, but I think you've been smoking a bit too much Ganja Weed in college, man.

I don't think they're doing it on purpuse, but you can't deny that the GOP IS depending on fear to get re-elected. CNN IS playing right into their hands by fueling the fears of the American public with every broadcast.

Your tin foil hat is slipping. You might want to tighten that shit.

Are you really that dumb? Seriously...

The GOP has done nothing for this country on the domestic side 'sept give tax breaks to the rich... well you've seen the house resolutions that they shot down over the past few years. Resolutions that would have helped MILLIONS of people - but you're to dumb and or blind to see it.

I watched both Fox and CNN earlier tonight and in the 15 minutes of EACH station I counted something in the area of:

"Terrorsim" - being used 25 times.
"Fear" - being used 10 times.
"Attacks" - being used at least 15 times.

That's roughly a total of 50 FIFTY you clueless shmuck mentions of terror and fear in a 15 minute segment of televised news. You think Fox is doing it JUST for ratings? You're a fool if you do. CNN? Maybe, or they're trying to "inform" the American people of how poorly a job the current administration is doing.

Either way, it really only HELPS the GOP. Come election time they're going to pour it on hard. FEAR FEAR FEAR - "We're the only ones who can keep YOU safe!"

That's ALL they have.

Why bother - arguing politics with someone who didn't feel the need to finish his high school diploma "because he doesn't need it" is like arguing abstinence with a 15 year old angsty emo chick before she goes on to pull her weekly train.

You think it's all hype - you keep watching the media... the closer we get to election the more fear they'll be pushing.

Diekan wrote:I don't think they're doing it on purpuse, but you can't deny that the GOP IS depending on fear to get re-elected. CNN IS playing right into their hands by fueling the fears of the American public with every broadcast.

I watch a lot of CNN, and between them parading endless Democrats and Clinton Admin people who consistently bash the Bush Administration, I believe the exact opposite.

If anything, I think this latest episode was underplayed, especially with CNNs very whimsical coverage.

People are interested in national security, especially with the knowledge fundamentalist groups are trying to kill Westerners. I don't think that's fear so much as common sense. I respect people who want no part in any war or anything overseas, but that doesn't change the fact many take the threat seriously and want our government involved.

Liberals claim to want focus on the war on terror, but want it fought without the intelligence, interrogation and detention tools necessary to win. They cite cooperation as some kind of magical answer.

The only problem is the British and other European legal systems generally permit far more intrusive surveillance and detention policies than the Bush Administration has ever contemplated.

Lucky for us. If we had been the ones coordinating or in the know, the New York Times or CNN likely would've run front page ads from leakers who feel it's their duty to spill top secret info, with the ACLU right behind filing lawsuits to protect the terrorists

No, the GOP is depending on non partisan moderates who can tell the DNC would rather we lose in Iraq and leave the potential for millions to die than actually use wise and intelligent policies that do not violate actual rights.

Unfortuantely, they Bush administration will never get a fair shake from most of the mainstream media.

Even more comically, with Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and Reid out there, the GOP really gets as much proof as they need while getting almost no representation on CNN.

I realize you are in college and don't keep up with business, but in addition, the economy is booming, Diek. Thats a poor place to try and blast the W Administration.

The "economic boom" is a house of cards, artificially inflated by the staggeringly huge deficit spending. You CANNOT deficit spend your way to economic prosperity, eventually the piper must be paid. That's what Nazi Germany tried to do right at the beginning, and for a while it worked. But eventually the hollow shell starts to collapse. That's one reason why Germany had to start attacking its neighbors, they needed the influx of fresh resources to prop themselves up. Indeed, I believe that to be one of the unspoken reasons for the Iraqi invasion; remember people like Wolfowitz saying it'd cost the US taxpayer nothing, and there'd be huge oil revenues?

Not to mention, I guarantee you the economy is NOT booming here in Silicon valley, or indeed most of the rest of California. Also, how many of those "new jobs" created in this "boom" are low grade service sector jobs, and how many are real professional careers? I am willing to bet it's a far higher percentage of the former compared to the latter than ever in our history, especially given how many of the latter are being shipped off to India, etc. with outsourcing. Low grade service sector jobs are indeed "jobs", but they neither help preserve the middle class, nor provide an avenue for people to rise from class to class.

-Arlos

Let's compare some numbers.

Average wages versus year:

1992 - $22,935.42
1996 - $25,913.90
2000 - $32,154.82

By doing the math you will find that from the time Clinton took office until the end of his last term the average wage in the United States rose by roughly 28.7%

Now, let's take a look at more recent numbers.

2002 - $33,252.09
2005 - $37,870.00

Using the average from 2000 you'll find that the average wage in the United States has only risen some 15.1%

Under Clinton we saw a nice jump of 28% in our wages... Under Bush we've seen just 15%.

Why does this matter? Here's why...

Using the calculator http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl which is sponsored by the DOL.

$10,000 in 1996 would have the same buying power as $10975.14 in 2000 - ok this IS important because that is a difference of 8.85%.

To break it down...

If you were making $10,000 in 1996 you would have had to make $10975.14 in 2000 in order to maintain your lifestyle and to continue buying what you normally bought. You'll notice that the average wage in 2000 was $32,154.82, which was UP from 25,913.90 from 1996. That's a difference of 19.4%.

This means that you would still be in the BLACK by 10.6%



Now, let's take at a look at what's happened under Dubya's watch.

From the time Dubya took office to 2005 we saw a national increase in wages of 15.1%.

That might not sound too bad... however when you take a look at what that increase can buy you - you'll see a completely different story.

$10,000 in 2000 has the same buying power of $11134.46 in 2005, which translates into 10.2% increase.

Keeping in mind that wages only rose 15.1% - after the deduction you're left with 4.9% of your income.

What this all means is that while Clinton was in office you had 10.6% of YOUR money left over after living to invest, save, spend, do whatever.

Under Bush's watch you only 4.9% of YOUR money left to invest, save, spend, do whatever.

To sum this all up...

Under the Clinton administration we saw a 28.7% increase in wages across the board, and at the end of the day you were left with 10.6% of your money.

Under Bush we've seen a 15.1% increase in wages and at the end of the day you're only left with 4.6% of your money.

This proves, in my mind, that the GOP is not looking after YOUR [the individual] best interest.

arlos wrote:The "economic boom" is a house of cards, artificially inflated by the staggeringly huge deficit spending. You CANNOT deficit spend your way to economic prosperity, eventually the piper must be paid. That's what Nazi Germany tried to do right at the beginning, and for a while it worked. But eventually the hollow shell starts to collapse. That's one reason why Germany had to start attacking its neighbors, they needed the influx of fresh resources to prop themselves up. Indeed, I believe that to be one of the unspoken reasons for the Iraqi invasion; remember people like Wolfowitz saying it'd cost the US taxpayer nothing, and there'd be huge oil revenues?

Not to mention, I guarantee you the economy is NOT booming here in Silicon valley, or indeed most of the rest of California. Also, how many of those "new jobs" created in this "boom" are low grade service sector jobs, and how many are real professional careers? I am willing to bet it's a far higher percentage of the former compared to the latter than ever in our history, especially given how many of the latter are being shipped off to India, etc. with outsourcing. Low grade service sector jobs are indeed "jobs", but they neither help preserve the middle class, nor provide an avenue for people to rise from class to class.

-Arlos

I've been saying that for two years and no one has been listening.

A computer programmer who was once making 50 grand a year gets laid off because his job is outsourced to India. He's now unemployed. After a while of fruitless searching he ends up taking a construction job that pays 30 grand a year. While he and his family now have to deal with a 20 thousand dollar a year DECREASE in thier income - the Bush administration can pat themselves on the back because a "new" job has been created.

Numbers are easy to manipulate.

Really?

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#b00-0000

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html

All my sources are GOVERNMENT run web sites. The Social Security Department and the Department of Labor.

All I can say is...







LOL.

Lyoin,

I don't need a business background to see what's going on around me. Yeah, I am a full time student, but I also work full time as well. Without coming across as an arrogant dick... yes with my bonus and everything else I come very close to 6 figures a year. So, no I don't 'struggle,' no the price of gas doesn't really affect me much - but - that's not the point. I DO see tons of people around me who are having a VERY hard time. I got lucky, period. For a "Yankee" to land in the position I am in now in the deep south? Yeah... it was luck.

I watched the price of gas down here shoot up from 2.90 a gallon to 3.10 a gallon TODAY. A 20 cent increase and why? Oh, because of the reduction of 400,000 barrels - or so will be the "excuse" the oil companies will use now. People are starting to have to decide on whether to cut back on their groceries or buy gas to get to work and THAT is rediculous.

I see and know a lot of people who work two jobs just so they can afford to pay the rent and bills - and no - they're not living in condos either.

I may not be as business savy as a lot of other posters here and I freely admit it. But, I see what I see...

I just can't see how the ecomony is booming when people are keeping less of their money now than they did 10 years ago. For the economy to boom, people have to spend... if they don't have as much money, spending decreases...

Hey, you won't get me to defend the gouging going on by NYME and the collusive oil markets. Likewise, I'd love to see legislation to help prevent outsourcing. However, the PACs for both are in bed with both political parties.

The simple truth is tax cuts work better than tax increases for revving up the economy, as has been proven over and over. You can certainly argue about the issues of outsourcing and the need for more protectionism, but right now there are a lot of good jobs and opportunities. It's a far different situation than when we were in recession in 2001 following the dot com bubble bursting.

The US economy is growing at a nice rate. There is a good amount of job creation, with average wage rising, and with record numbers of home ownership. Amazingly, the main people pushing gloom and doom are left rags with their woe is us mentality due to the evils of Bush and that Soulless Cheney. They've been screaming this since 2002, but we still are doing quite well.

Interestingly enough, your previous statistics were comparing an 8 year period with a 2 year period. You also didn't go into home ownership and other economic indicators, as well as personal equity and family ownership.

No, the chicken little democrats will scream things are terrible until we actually do hit a recession, and then claim they told you so. However, it's been the typical doom and gloom bullshit for several years with nothing but actual sustained growth and equity.

Diekan wrote:Really?

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#b00-0000

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html

All my sources are GOVERNMENT run web sites. The Social Security Department and the Department of Labor.

All I can say is...

So you say your dollar went further when Clinton was president?

All I can say is...







ROFL





LOL.

So you're saying that your dollar went further in the 90's because Clinton was the president?

All I can say is...







ROFL

My God you're brainwashed.

YOU yourself are in college as well and you could benefit from an increase of the Pell, I'm sure. You yourself are a hardcore supporter of soliders and yet you don't seem to mind that our veterans are coming home to slashed benefits... etc etc etc.

At least I can admit when the Demos screw up. Yeah, Clinton deserved to be impeached - not because of the blow job he got, but because he lied to the nation. Yes, I will freely admit that, in my opinion, the DNC has been hijacked by the extreme left. Yes, there are a lot of things I don't particularly care for in the DNC.

At least even Lyion can admit that he doesn't like everthing Bush does...

But you...

This man can do absolutely no wrong can he? After showing you the hard numbers from government web sites that PROVE that a dollar went further during the Clinton years... after showing you the house resolutions that would have HELPED the average American that were shot down by the GOP... you STILL can't see that they don't give a frog's ass about you.

Talk about tunnel vision.

Lyion,

The numbers I used during Bush's era ran from 2000 to 2005 - 5 years. I couldn't find much data for the 2006 year, yet. But, with the prices of gas I am better that 4% will translate into 3% or less come the end of the year.

Diekan wrote:My God you're brainwashed.

YOU yourself are in college as well and you could benefit from an increase of the Pell, I'm sure. You yourself are a hardcore supporter of soliders and yet you don't seem to mind that our veterans are coming home to slashed benefits... etc etc etc.

At least I can admit when the Demos screw up. Yeah, Clinton deserved to be impeached - not because of the blow job he got, but because he lied to the nation. Yes, I will freely admit that, in my opinion, the DNC has been hijacked by the extreme left. Yes, there are a lot of things I don't particularly care for in the DNC.

At least even Lyion can admit that he doesn't like everthing Bush does...

But you...

This man can do absolutely no wrong can he? After showing you the hard numbers from government web sites that PROVE that a dollar went further during the Clinton years... after showing you the house resolutions that would have HELPED the average American that were shot down by the GOP... you STILL can't see that they don't give a frog's ass about you.

Talk about tunnel vision.

Lyion,

The numbers I used during Bush's era ran from 2000 to 2005 - 5 years. I couldn't find much data for the 2006 year, yet. But, with the prices of gas I am better that 4% will translate into 3% or less come the end of the year.

You obviously don't pay close attention to everything. I have said numerous times in past threads that I don't agree with everything Bush does. In fact, I don't even like him that much anymore. The conservatives were the driving force behind finally doing something about illegal immigration. But I never lauded Bush for that. Go back and find those threads. I also don't agree with everything the conservatives do, but I will take them over the liberals/dems any day of the freakin week, when the overall picture is looked at carefully. Clinton was a pos president... unscrupulous, immoral, and a complete liar. If the dollar did stretch further during his presidency it had absolutely nothing to do with him being president. Yes, I have a business degree. I took poli-sci, economics, and all the other business classes associated with getting the Bachelor degree.

Clinton was not, and I repeat, was not the cause for the dollar going further during his presidency. If you believe that he was then you should go back and take economics 101 and study the history of our economics.