I wasn't saying there are lots of businesses out there that can hire all willy nilly, but mookie pretty much summed it up on the point that I was trying to make: the blog, pledge, thingy...is asking companies not to hire under any circumstances, no matter if they are doing well nor not. I understand that companies do have to shed positions in times of hardship...didn't think I had to explicitly say that.


I don't think it's a matter of them contributing anything, A company hires first and foremost for their own profit. When times are good they hire to fill demand, when bad they lay off and don't hire. The economy benefits from this as a side effect. The memo or whatever it is, asks for companies to NOT hire as implies this should be done even if they would like to, and are financially ready to do so. So really, this is asking companies more than anything to contribute; contribute to a pledge to spite Obama.

It took a day for the stock market to crash in 1929...took 12 years for the economy to recover. I see many opponents angry that Obama hasn't waved a magic wand and fixed everything; using that as an excuse to say he's such a bad president etc...but I remember that it always is faster to destory than to build.

If you are a student of economic history, you will know that recoveries after credit crises are long and drawn out. But I guess scholarly studies don't make for good sloganeering.

If you care to educate yourself: http://www.economics.harvard.edu/fil..._Aftermath.pdf

Yeah the idea being you don't have a right to govern your country unless you have served your country. That Heinlein was a smart cookie.

Well yeah but the rest of it it didn't really address my question did it?

It's an interesting possibility, yeah. Although it does create a couple of caveats, e.g. disabled persons (who may not be physically able to serve) or conscienscious objectors (again, they're not all just lazy hippies). It also risks creating a very jingoist kind of state and society by favouring military thinking.

However if you expand it to civil service - not just military, but helping serve your country by building, saving lives, and doing tough jobs that others don't want to - then I'd say we have a deal. Virtually anyone can serve their country in some way, and IMO it would set a good precedent - might teach people a few things about the value of their vote, too. That's partially why I have somewhat conservative views on immigration myself - I really think it's unfair and stupid to give citizenship (and rights that come with it) to people who've done nothing to so much as prove their worth to the country they want to live in. So I'm all in favour of checks and balances for civic duty - and military duty along with it. I think the former's even more important as far as vote requirements go.

And in that, by the way, there's no need to exclude drug addicts. While drugs certainly cause problems, there are also many instances where drug addicts are perfectly capable of performing good civic or military duty; and other instances where people who've really done more than their share for the society who've fallen into addiction and deserve help, not removal of rights. I can bet your right now that the rates of substance abuse are far, far higher among Iraq or Afghan vets than among the general population - it's not just street trash that does it. You wanna tell them the country doesn't owe them anything?

On the other hand I didn't say I agreed with it.

You don't?

It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure whether I like it or not. If they'd had it at the beginning it would have excluded some of my favorite founders, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin among them. Well, Franklin helped organize the very first Colonial Militia, so he may qualify, but still...

It would also keep out anyone who doesn't qualify for the military, though public service may be an alternative. Basically I just don't like the idea of voting requirements in general.

That is what Heinlein was getting at in Starship Troopers. The majority of "Citizens" in the Federation were civil service and not military. :yep:

It's been decades since I read any of his stuff but I thought it was any type of public service like CCIP says.

I do however support at least some voting requirements. All voters should be verified citizens.

Same here, though I have pretty much everything he wrote. In storage. :damn:

Well, yeah, there's that. But that's also true on other levels. Theoretically only Americans can vote in American elections, but Californians can't vote in Utah elections, and Salt Lakers can't vote in Provo elections. Citizenship as a requirement is sensible.

And I will say it again - if you actually READ the link - nowhere does it ask anyone to do anything - it is the simple stated intent of the writer to put forth their own plan of action for themselves. Yet you persist in trying to paint it as something it is not.

ROFL - you and gimpy are still acting like this was some request that companies follow - and it doesn't have any such request. Of course - your "scholarly studies" would have indicated that - but facts shouldn't get in the way of slamming those opposed to you, apparently....

Regarding your source - they are proven wrong - although we have hindsight where they did not:

The housing collapse has already lasted 6 years, and continues on - the only thing from keeping it from falling completely off the map is the difficulties banks now have proceeding with foreclosures.

Unemployment started rising majorly in 8/2007 - more than 4 years ago that your paper said was needed to see recovery. In case you haven't been paying attention - unemployment has NOT been improving. Especially considering the fact that the unemployment rate does not even count those who have given up looking for work. Real world estimates of unemployment - 22% - using the way it has historically been rated instead of the "new math" introduced in 1994.

http://usawatchdog.com/real-unemployment-rate-2011/

At least they got the debt explosion part right. We are up to our eyeballs in debt. For what? Nothing good has come of it - unless you count massive bailouts to banks, GM, and loads to Sunpower, Solyndra and electric car companies in Europe.....

The reality is that "hope and change" has left us with no hope... and change is about all we have left in our pockets. That isn't success, that isn't results, and sorry - but the worst of it has hit (and continues to do so) on Obama's watch. Had he dealt with the economy instead of trying to force through the DREAM act, had he focused on jobs (like he promised to do so repeatedly) instead of Obamacare that the majority disagreed with, had he focused on the main struggle this country faced instead of spending time on gay rights issues (such as ending DADT and deciding to stand idly by while the DoMA gets attacked), had he spent mroe time trying to find solutions to get people working instead of trying to punish business in between his apology tour of the world, then maybe your arguements would carry some weight. But, they don't.

hrm, well, i could walk over to somebody with a gun and say, "I resolve that people should give me money, or they will get shot"...and it would still be a request. You're pigeon holing the issue, and basically hinging your whole argument that the phrase isn't in there, where the writing in on the wall.

yeah, maybe the worst did hit on Obama's watch, but who was it who inherrited a good economy in 2000? oh wait. Bush would be like Ismay, getting off the Titanic just before she sunk, and trying to blame it on Smith, who drown in the mess Ismay had a large hand in making.

Ok Haplo. You've got it all figured out, apparently. I'll be sure to let Rogoff and Reinhart know that Haplo's destroyed their study in one post on the Subsim forums.

Can't argue the reality so all you have left is sniping sarcasm? Thats sad.

No, your making a strawman. There is a huge difference between an immediate threat of violence against others unless they part with their personal property, and the statement that a person / business will not act further unless the attacks against it cease. The description you gave above was a criminal action in any state in the US. There is nothing criminal in a business refusing to hire. Comparing apples to oranges with hyperbole and prevarication won't make you right.

Again a total strawman. The titanic sunk because of substandard materials and bad design after collision. Smith was captain - he chose to listen to the "insistence" of Ismay. Smith was responsible for the safety of his ship - his choice to cave to company pressure resulted in the collision damage that sank the Titanic. Does not make Ismay innocent, but last I checked, George Bush wasn't advising Obama. If Ismay had been captain during the collision, then left the captains chair to Smith after, you would be correct in saying that Ismay was THE one responsible. But that isn't the case, and we both know it.

No one disputes that Obama inherited an economy in trouble. However, if you think you can "blame Bush" for Obama's failed fiscal policies, or his intense avoidance of economic focus for the last nearly 3 years, your sadly mistaken. I mean, cmon - even Obama has figured out that he can't "blame Bush" any more - thats why he has turned to blaming Congress.

Of course, the fact that the Democratically controlled Senate won't pass his ideas, and the reality that they refuse to take up any economic legislation that originates (and passes) in the House, goes to show that the left not only isn't backing him fully, but that they are the ones more interested in playing politics with the economy.

I could go into how your source on unemployment rate is screwy, how using unemployment rate is not really an accurate measurement due to introducing other factors that skew it higher or lower (participation rate, birth/death adjustment, etc) and a better measurement would be total jobs lost/regained from peak employment month, and how they're study isn't "proven wrong," as it's an examination of historical data and not a subjective statement, and blah blah blah

But then sooner or later you realize you're dealing with someone who wouldn't listen anyways and you just cut bait.

here we are again, raging at Obama that he couldn't fix everything in 3 years, when that's never been done before from a downturn this severe. Straw Man I may have, But the seeds for this collapse were sewn long before Obama, and expecting everything to be fixed Immediately is naive, or just good ammunition for the Right if people are dumb enough to believe it.

Not only has Obama not fixed anything, he's made it worse.

data?

Unemployment climbing.
Deficit exploding.
Median income lower.
Housing economy worse than ever.
More people than ever on government aid.

How much more data do you need?