# What is an HONEST assessment of today's IBEW job market?



## Mozzy49 (Feb 21, 2013)

Seems like the more I read there is always so many Journeymen around that are working a few months then off for 12+ months. I find this amazing right now as the Stock Market is at a all time high at a 15K+ Dow. Granted I know the Dow is up because of us just printing Money rather than a true reflection of the economy and GDP growth but at the same time the Dow is a reflection of companies making money -- which granted contradicts my statement that the Dow isn't a true economy gauge -- yet I challenge you to have a reason how the Dow can be soaring yet Unemployment stagnant to improving at a snails pace as well as the GDP. Are companies saying basically they just don't trust it? and are taking the money and just hoarding it right now waiting for the other shoe to drop? 

I just expected the Construction market to seriously be up right now as the Market has never in history been as high as it is currently. While I am doing great on my investments I wish it was also reflected in job stability which doesn't seem to prove the case. Here in Chicago I have a friend in the IBEW and another in the Fitters Local - 1 has now been sitting for 8 months and the other just got benched and is looking at at least 6 months. 

Back to My question is this the "new Normal"? Because if the industry isn't booming in a GREAT market -- will it ever be booming again. Yes I know it's better now than in 2008-2011 but it still isn't hat great compared to the 90's and early / mid 00's. 

Granted I am lucky in so much as all the EC connections I have but right now I can't even afford to use them to help my friends as I need to keep em for myself if need be - as the economy just seriously has me concerned not just for right now but the long term as well. Maybe there are some that have been in for 20+ years who can shed better light here but right now unless it doesn't seem like there a mechanism there to spur a growth period. Maybe I am wrong and I pray I am and you can educate me on that fact.


----------



## Going_Commando (Oct 1, 2011)

Mozzy49 said:


> Seems like the more I read there is always so many Journeymen around that are working a few months then off for 12+ months. I find this amazing right now as the Stock Market is at a all time high at a 15K+ Dow. Granted I know the Dow is up because of us just printing Money rather than a true reflection of the economy and GDP growth but at the same time the Dow is a reflection of companies making money -- which granted contradicts my statement that the Dow isn't a true economy gauge -- yet I challenge you to have a reason how the Dow can be soaring yet Unemployment stagnant to improving at a snails pace as well as the GDP. Are companies saying basically they just don't trust it? and are taking the money and just hoarding it right now waiting for the other shoe to drop?
> 
> I just expected the Construction market to seriously be up right now as the Market has never in history been as high as it is currently. While I am doing great on my investments I wish it was also reflected in job stability which doesn't seem to prove the case. Here in Chicago I have a friend in the IBEW and another in the Fitters Local - 1 has now been sitting for 8 months and the other just got benched and is looking at at least 6 months.
> 
> ...


It seems like the companies that are making big money are just hoarding it and not spending it, with a few exceptions. The exceptions seem to be why some guys in construction are booming right now and some are sitting on their duffs. There just isn't enough work to go around so the market appears to be hugely competitive for construction work, so prices are lower to get said work. Hopefully things pick up this summer in my area, as it is pretty slow right now.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Politics run this country ,and this topic is political , there is no way around.

The corporations that are doing well in the market because they have all of their labor outside the USA and it's going to stay that way for now.

Wall st fears employment numbers going up here because the fed will stop the presses and jack up rates to hold wages down (inflation) so ones the employment number reaches 6.5% he will raise rates and scweeze off the money supply, Why he picked that number is political so you will have to read up on that elsewhere , we are not allowed to talk about that here.

The economy we have right now is what wall st wants ,, sad.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Honest assessment of the market.

Okay...three things - the IBEW can do better about promoting itself and until it does it will miss out on work opportunities. There are many things we can do on this front that we are starting to do, but we should do more.

Second thing - the IBEW can do better about punishing illegal and unethical contractors - whether union or non union. Nothing hurts the industry more than using under qualified workers and workers that do not pay taxes. Since the contractors refuse to police themselves, the IBEW stands as perhaps the only organized nationwide force that can do so.

Third thing - the political climate must change ( ie congress need to stop being obstructionist ) so that the business climate can change so the economy can improve.

Basically one and two can help us until three happens, but if three never happens it won't matter what else we do since America will diminish into a third world nation.


----------



## Mozzy49 (Feb 21, 2013)

eejack said:


> Honest assessment of the market.
> 
> Okay...three things - the IBEW can do better about promoting itself and until it does it will miss out on work opportunities. There are many things we can do on this front that we are starting to do, but we should do more.
> 
> ...


So do you think the current job climate is the "New Normal"? That is the most important question I believe everyone on here faces for the future. 

As for political change in terms of business the best fiscal philosophy has traditionally been out of the GOP yet the people that have traditionally looked out for the Union's have always been democrat. Unless a bunch of fiscally conservative democrats is what you mean? Granted they are out there but they are not the norm - especially in today's political age of no compromise and usually either far left or far right. The last of the Compromise era in politics seemed to of ended with Bill Clinton. 

As far as diminishing into a 3rd world nation - when the last 2 Presidents borrow more money than all other Presidents combined (in 12 years) it is not good. But the US is no where near being a 3rd world country as the US Dollar will continue to be the currency standard - as long as that exists we can basically continue to print money. But if China or the EU ever become the standard then the Presses stop , debts are called in, and then you may have a point. Thankfully China and their currency manipulation and the instability of the Euro makes the US dollar set in stone for quite a while longer at least. 

1 Idea I have is basically any Job that takes more than 3 weeks to complete with more than 2-3 people must be Union if in a Unionized location -- ie. Chicago, New York, etc.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Mozzy49 said:


> So do you think the current job climate is the "New Normal"? That is the most important question I believe everyone on here faces for the future.


No, I believe at some point the obstructionist elements will leave congress and adults will get back in. It has started already, but it will take time and unfortunately their childish tantrums will have lasting impact ( shipping all of our intellectual property overseas, burdening our young with massive debt, the destruction of journalism for some examples ).

It comes down to faith at this point...do you believe that at some point we can act in our collective best interests? I believe we can.


----------



## ampman (Apr 2, 2009)

eejack said:


> No, I believe at some point the obstructionist elements will leave congress and adults will get back in. It has started already, but it will take time and unfortunately their childish tantrums will have lasting impact ( shipping all of our intellectual property overseas, burdening our young with massive debt, the destruction of journalism for some examples ).
> 
> It comes down to faith at this point...do you believe that at some point we can act in our collective best interests? I believe we can.


Who is obstructing progress remember dems control the senate and the presidency


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

ampman said:


> Who is obstructing progress remember dems control the senate and the presidency


The tea party republicans. They have passed zero job bills yet tried to repeal the ACA 38 times. They have insisted on 'filibustering' every vote in the senate and have refused to compromise on any item in the congress. They are so hell bent on destroying American their own party cannot get them to compromise.

But you already knew that, you just wanted to try to put the blame elsewhere.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> The tea party republicans. They have passed zero job bills yet tried to repeal the ACA 38 times. They have insisted on 'filibustering' every vote in the senate and have refused to compromise on any item in the congress. They are so hell bent on destroying American their own party cannot get them to compromise.
> 
> But you already knew that, you just wanted to try to put the blame elsewhere.


They're doing what the people want them to do otherwise the people would have voted them out in November 2012.

Compromise means doing what the democrats want ONLY, and not what the people who voted for the current house of representatives want and that is to keep the democrats under control .

THE people have the power to throw out the house every two years,,,To bad they don't have that power over the Senate.


----------



## Mozzy49 (Feb 21, 2013)

eejack said:


> The tea party republicans. They have passed zero job bills yet tried to repeal the ACA 38 times. They have insisted on 'filibustering' every vote in the senate and have refused to compromise on any item in the congress. They are so hell bent on destroying American their own party cannot get them to compromise.
> 
> But you already knew that, you just wanted to try to put the blame elsewhere.


 So Obama's view of do it my way exactly or GFY is a model of compromise? The only ones that have put together anything has been the house republicans. Granted the Tea Party people are by and large a bunch of right wing wacko's but I think you like to ignore the fact there are a considerable amount of left wing nut jobs as well as that doesn't seem to fit your apparent ideology. 

Granted I don't pretend to know what is really going on in washington but it does on the surface seem like the GOP is a lot more willing to compromise than the Democrats are.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

:laughing:


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

These threads are adult versions of Sandlot.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

The only way the government can create jobs is at an excessive cost to the real economy. While a stimulus will work in a short time frame to do this over and over is pointless at a great expense.

If you want a CLUSTER F*CK involve the government in business.
You have welfare for corporations large and small, regulations by multiple agencies, taxes on taxes and a general mess.

Will this last no.

Can the IBEW regain a better market share read EE's post above.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

:laughing:


You ain't good enough to lick the dirt off our cleats.

- Watch it, jerk. - Shut up, idiot!

- Moron! - Scab eater!

- Butt sniffer! - Pus licker!

- Fart smeller! - [ Sniffing ] Ah!

You eat dog crap for breakfast, geek.

You mix your Wheaties with your mama's toe jam!

[ All ] Yeah!

You bob for apples in the toilet and you like it.

- Ooh. - You play ball like a girl!


----------



## ampman (Apr 2, 2009)

eejack said:


> The tea party republicans. They have passed zero job bills yet tried to repeal the ACA 38 times. They have insisted on 'filibustering' every vote in the senate and have refused to compromise on any item in the congress. They are so hell bent on destroying American their own party cannot get them to compromise.
> 
> But you already knew that, you just wanted to try to put the blame elsewhere.


wow you have been drinking the union koolaid


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

:laughing:[/QUOTE]



BBQ said:


> :laughing:
> l!


You don't have to read the thread ,but you must defend your liberal friends,your last two posts show how well informed they are...:laughing:


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

Mozzy49 said:


> So do you think the current job climate is the "New Normal"? That is the most important question I believe everyone on here faces for the future.


Personally, I do think this is the new normal for a while. Technological advances are reducing the number of workers needed to produce all the goods and services the world needs, and combine that with globalization and labor is going to be under the thumb of business for a while.


> As for political change in terms of business the best fiscal philosophy has traditionally been out of the GOP


CHALLENGE!!

At least I'm challenging what I believe you are saying. From what I've seen when researching this subject, I've never found an article that could show the R's are better for the economy. Maybe someone will post a link?

Here is an interesting excerpt from a near 5 year old article.


> But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=3&


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

eejack said:


> It comes down to faith at this point...do you believe that at some point we can act in our collective best interests? I believe we can.


I'm losing my faith. I want to believe, but ...... it doesn't look good.


----------



## Mozzy49 (Feb 21, 2013)

BBQ said:


> :laughing:
> 
> 
> You ain't good enough to lick the dirt off our cleats.
> ...


 You're killing me Smalls


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

HARRY304E said:


> You don't have to read the thread ,but you must defend your liberal friends,your last two posts show how well informed they are...:laughing:



You throw like a girl.


----------



## FlyingSparks (Dec 10, 2012)

Mozzy49 said:


> So do you think the current job climate is the "New Normal"? That is the most important question I believe everyone on here faces for the future.
> 
> As for political change in terms of business the best fiscal philosophy has traditionally been out of the GOP yet the people that have traditionally looked out for the Union's have always been democrat. Unless a bunch of fiscally conservative democrats is what you mean? Granted they are out there but they are not the norm - especially in today's political age of no compromise and usually either far left or far right. The last of the Compromise era in politics seemed to of ended with Bill Clinton.
> 
> ...


The presidents did not borrow any money. Facepalm.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Personally, I do think this is the new normal for a while. Technological advances are reducing the number of workers needed to produce all the goods and services the world needs, and combine that with globalization and labor is going to be under the thumb of business for a while. CHALLENGE!!
> 
> At least I'm challenging what I believe you are saying. From what I've seen when researching this subject, I've never found an article that could show the R's are better for the economy. Maybe someone will post a link?
> 
> ...


That's pretty funny ,,,,when Carter was president no one could get a job,when Reagan was president employers could not find enough help.:laughing:

As usual history does not support what the New York Times posts.:laughing:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

HARRY304E said:


> That's pretty funny ,,,,when Carter was president no one could get a job,when Reagan was president employers could not find enough help.:laughing:
> 
> As usual history does not support what the New York Times posts.:laughing:


You mix your Wheaties with your mama's toe jam!


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> Compromise means doing what the democrats want ONLY, and not what the people who voted for the current house of representatives want and that is to keep the democrats under control.


You really wrote that?

Okay ... 90% of America wanted something and they didn't get it because who didn't compromise?

Who has passed no job bills?

Who refuses to sit down and talk about a budget with the senate?

Who refuses to allow voting on any bills in the house that are not from their own party?

Who lost the popular vote overwhelmingly in the last election yet still held onto the house due to gerrymandered districts?

C'mon - at least own up to what those kids are doing, you embarrass yourself pretending the dems are not compromising.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Mozzy49 said:


> So Obama's view of do it my way exactly or GFY is a model of compromise? The only ones that have put together anything has been the house republicans. Granted the Tea Party people are by and large a bunch of right wing wacko's but I think you like to ignore the fact there are a considerable amount of left wing nut jobs as well as that doesn't seem to fit your apparent ideology.
> 
> Granted I don't pretend to know what is really going on in washington but it does on the surface seem like the GOP is a lot more willing to compromise than the Democrats are.


Apparently you don't know what is going in on in washington. How about a couple of examples of republican compromise shot down by Obama....

( we really need a crickets smiley )

The tea baggers are holding the country hostage - they are holding their own party hostage - there is an active republican civil war going on right now. Boehner cannot get a caucus on anything - no bills are getting out except repeal the ACA bills.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> Okay ... 90% of America wanted something and they didn't get it because who didn't compromise?


Where does this percentage come from?
An unbiased poll?

:laughing:

The only way to know what percentage of anything is to poll every single person in the country. 

I'm quite sure 90% of inner city folks wanted it. 
I'm quite sure 90% of welfare hospital patients wanted it. 
I'm quite sure 90% of democrats wanted it. 
I'm quite sure 90% of union members wanted it. 
I'm quite sure 90% of unwed mothers wanted it. 

Is that a fair cross section of America?


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

brian john said:


> The only way the government can create jobs is at an excessive cost to the real economy. While a stimulus will work in a short time frame to do this over and over is pointless at a great expense.
> 
> If you want a CLUSTER F*CK involve the government in business.
> You have welfare for corporations large and small, regulations by multiple agencies, taxes on taxes and a general mess.
> ...


Conversely - choking the crap out of the economy in bad times does not work either...

There is supposed to be an ebb and flow to things - spend in bad times, tax in good times. Currently we are doing neither, so this economy will continue to be stifled.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

I consider myself conservative. 

But I am a huge proponent for legal weed. I think you should be able to buy it like fruit on the side of the road. 
I don't care what fruitcakes do to each others corn holes. 

I think people should be responsible for themselves and their families. If these recipients would stop multiplying like sewer rats, they wouldn't need so much help. 

Read Dan Brown's new book Inferno. 
The plague created in it is one I think could really help the world.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

walkerj said:


> Where does this percentage come from?
> An unbiased poll?
> 
> :laughing:
> ...


Actually since the number is really like 92% - those numbers seem right.
Additionally...

89% of Republicans wanted it.
93% percent of Democrats and independents wanted it.

*Quinnipiac University National Poll*
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institute...titute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1847

*CBS News/New York Times poll *
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_1...gun-background-checks/?tag=nl.e879&s_cid=e879

*PEW poll *
http://www.people-press.org/2013/01...bate-several-options-draw-majority-support/1/


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> Actually since the number is really like 92% - those numbers seem right.
> Additionally...
> 
> 89% of Republicans wanted it.
> ...


These are unbiased polls?


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

HARRY304E said:


> That's pretty funny ,,,,when Carter was president no one could get a job,when Reagan was president employers could not find enough help.:laughing:
> 
> As usual history does not support what the New York Times posts.:laughing:


Quote:
But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980.

Harry, the quote didn't say anything about creation of jobs. It talks about income inequality. It makes perfect sense that when you have a president with the "take from the rich and give to the poor" mentality, the income inequality is going to change. Not hard to figure that out. There's a lot of folks out there that are living better than I am and they're getting free medical care, food stamps etc. etc. AND at the end of the year they're getting a nice fat refund after paying in very little tax. I miss Reagan!!


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

walkerj said:


> These are unbiased polls?


Yes.

And it is not just one small poll, it is three fairly large polls. I didn't post the NRA poll ( the one showing 90% of NRA members supporting it, because even though I think it is valid...there are legitimate questions about how it was put together ).


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

walkerj said:


> These are unbiased polls?


It would really help if you would post a poll or something to support your position. Then we could compare both biased polls and maybe understand things a little more. Problem is, I don't think there is a poll available from any source that is not showing a majority of people wanted something to be done on the gun issue.


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

eejack said:


> Conversely - choking the crap out of the economy in bad times does not work either...
> 
> There is supposed to be an ebb and flow to things - spend in bad times, tax in good times. Currently we are doing neither, so this economy will continue to be stifled.


I'd have to disagree with you there. We (the government) are spending money like there's no tomorrow. It's spending in bad times and, I can tell you from personal experience, we're taxing in bad times.


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

eejack said:


> Apparently you don't know what is going in on in washington. How about a couple of examples of republican compromise shot down by Obama....
> 
> ( we really need a crickets smiley )
> 
> The tea baggers are holding the country hostage - they are holding their own party hostage - there is an active republican civil war going on right now. Boehner cannot get a caucus on anything - no bills are getting out except repeal the ACA bills.


Right now they've got their hands full with trying to put out all the fires (small and large) that keep jumping up all over the place. Now the EPA is under scrutiny for being biased. Interesting you won't read about it in the left wing news. IF they report on it at all, it's a small little story that downplays the whole thing as a big misunderstanding!!!:whistling2::whistling2:


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

I think all of it is caused by our lack of growth. Our economy depends on never ending growth. In the long run, that is unrealistic because we live in a finite world with finite resources. 

Add that stuff in with automation and we really have some social issues coming up in the not too distant future.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> Yes.
> 
> And it is not just one small poll, it is three fairly large polls. I didn't post the NRA poll ( the one showing 90% of NRA members supporting it, because even though I think it is valid...there are legitimate questions about how it was put together ).


My bad bro, I thought we were on ACA. 

Back ground checks for firearms is a must. 

I have no problem with that. 

Last thing we need is criminals buying guns legally. 
They already can get them for cheap illegally.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

hardworkingstiff said:


> It would really help if you would post a poll or something to support your position. Then we could compare both biased polls and maybe understand things a little more. Problem is, I don't think there is a poll available from any source that is not showing a majority of people wanted something to be done on the gun issue.


All polls are useless unless everyone is polled. 

That's like saying '90% of Mexicans prefer Corona over Budweiser'
Well no ****


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

walkerj said:


> All polls are useless unless everyone is polled.
> 
> That's like saying '90% of Mexicans prefer Corona over Budweiser'
> Well no ****


If you read the link to the CBS poll and scroll down to see the comments, shouldn't 9 out of 10 comments be favorable???? What is wrong with this picture???


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

walkerj said:


> All polls are useless unless everyone is polled.


I'm pretty sure that statistically that statement has been proven to be inaccurate.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

hardworkingstiff said:


> I'm pretty sure that statistically that statement has been proven to be inaccurate.


This poll was conducted by telephone from January 11-15, 2013 among 1,110 adults nationwide.

From the CBS poll. 

How many adults are therein this country?

I hope you're being facetious.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

walkerj said:


> This poll was conducted by telephone from January 11-15, 2013 among 1,110 adults nationwide.
> 
> From the CBS poll.
> 
> ...


To be entirely fair, the skewed polls of Rasmussen did terrible harm to the GOP during the last election so I understand all the doubt about polling.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> To be entirely fair, the skewed polls of Rasmussen did terrible harm to the GOP during the last election so I understand all the doubt about polling.


I just don't think a poll of 1110 people can really shed any light on what people want or believe. 

When I get a call like that I tell them to go f themselves. 

I took a poll at the gun show so do the results of that count?


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

HARRY304E said:


> They're doing what the people want them to do otherwise the people would have voted them out in November 2012.
> 
> Compromise means doing what the democrats want ONLY, and not what the people who voted for the current house of representatives want and that is to keep the democrats under control .
> 
> THE people have the power to throw out the house every two years,,,To bad they don't have that power over the Senate.





eejack said:


> You really wrote that?


Yes , Very informative Eh!...:laughing:




eejack said:


> Okay ... 90% of America wanted something and they didn't get it because who didn't compromise?


 The president and the senate,and the people still want the Keystone pipe line but the president wants to keep energy costs high to help the poor,,,get poorer



eejack said:


> Who has passed no job bills?


The senate and the president.

House Republicans have passed 40 jobs bills that are currently stuck in the Democrat controlled Senate.



eejack said:


> Who refuses to sit down and talk about a budget with the senate?


 Harry Reid Senate Majority leader (D) Nevada, 



eejack said:


> Who refuses to allow voting on any bills in the house that are not from their own party?


Nancy pelosi House Minority leader



eejack said:


> Who lost the popular vote overwhelmingly in the last election yet still held onto the house due to gerrymandered districts?


We lost a few of our reps through gerrymandered districts,But we still have the house.



eejack said:


> C'mon - at least own up to what those kids are doing, you embarrass yourself pretending the dems are not compromising.


In-fact the dems will not compromise at all on their agenda.

I noted that you used the term "Tea Baggars" very disrespectful to your fellow countrymen.

Here is a woman that was unjustifiably Punished by the IRS,,Here is what she had to say today at the house IRS hearings.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> To be entirely fair, the skewed polls of Rasmussen did terrible harm to the GOP during the last election so I understand all the doubt about polling.


He was right on the money.


----------



## svh19044 (Jul 1, 2008)

eejack said:


> The tea party republicans. They have passed zero job bills yet tried to repeal the ACA 38 times. They have insisted on 'filibustering' every vote in the senate and have refused to compromise on any item in the congress. They are so hell bent on destroying American their own party cannot get them to compromise.
> 
> But you already knew that, you just wanted to try to put the blame elsewhere.


Lol. I can't imagine that you are being serious about the tea party and or republicans being the reason that the free market isn't operating as a free market.

Is this opposite day? :laughing::laughing:

Look, you either want the government in your business or you don't. You don't want them in your business if you want the free market to proceed. One party continuously pushes for bigger government in the free market. Which party again, would that be?


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Was trying to find the stats but could not locate, just read this.

Under the current administration the rich have gotten richer and the poor poorer??????WTF

Oh and Guantanamo Bay is closed, both wars ended and transparency and honesty is rampant, there have been no terrorist attacks, the cost of health care is down, the press is free to operate without government interference. And as Bill Clinton told Monica I promise not to C*M in your mouth


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

svh19044 said:


> Lol. I can't imagine that you are being serious about the tea party and or republicans being the reason that the free market isn't operating as a free market.
> 
> Is this opposite day? :laughing::laughing:
> 
> Look, you either want the government in your business or you don't. You don't want them in your business if you want the free market to proceed. One party continuously pushes for bigger government in the free market. Which party again, would that be?


And the Dems had two years to pass anything they wished and all they did was play switch with their thumbs first in their tushie then to their mouth and back again.

But all this has little to nothing to do with the strenght of the IBEW in todays market.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> He was right on the money.


Hopefully you meant me and not Rasmussen - cause Rasmussen really screwed the pooch.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

brian john said:


> But all this has little to nothing to do with the strenght of the IBEW in todays market.


Unfortunately it has everything to do with the economy. Until the government starts working again ( and it never will until the teabaggers stop acting like petulant children ) the economy will not start working again - and union or non union, we all need the economy to start working again.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

brian john said:


> Was trying to find the stats but could not locate, just read this.
> 
> Under the current administration the rich have gotten richer and the poor poorer??????WTF
> 
> Oh and Guantanamo Bay is closed, both wars ended and transparency and honesty is rampant, there have been no terrorist attacks, the cost of health care is down, the press is free to operate without government interference. And as Bill Clinton told Monica I promise not to C*M in your mouth


ten seconds of google...
http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-getting-richer-2013-4
...waiting to see how this gets spun to blame Obama.

House GOP defense bill blocks Guantanamo closing
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/03/house-gop-defense-bill-blocks-guantanamo-closing/

We have left Iraq, are leaving Afghanistan.

Blah blah blah.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

eejack said:


> Unfortunately it has everything to do with the economy. Until the government starts working again ( and it never will until the teabaggers stop acting like petulant children ) the economy will not start working again - and union or non union, we all need the economy to start working again.


Or the other side of the coin until the dems stop trying to run a facist state (such as all the crap we have see, since September), stop crying and whining, IT IS OT OUR FAULT, wasting money and let the fiscal conservatives have their way we will sufer high unemployment, higher taxes and higher health care cost. 

Two sides to every coin I am blind to your obviously WRONG side and you just aren't logical enough to see my side. :no::blink:


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> Unfortunately it has everything to do with the economy. Until the government starts working again ( and it never will until the teabaggers stop acting like petulant children ) the economy will not start working again - and union or non union, we all need the economy to start working again.


Economy is great down here. 
Maybe it's just in most areas of the country and not all?


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

I'm stuck on level 70 of candy crush.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

svh19044 said:


> Lol. I can't imagine that you are being serious about the tea party and or republicans being the reason that the free market isn't operating as a free market.
> 
> Is this opposite day? :laughing::laughing:
> 
> Look, you either want the government in your business or you don't. You don't want them in your business if you want the free market to proceed. One party continuously pushes for bigger government in the free market. Which party again, would that be?


I want government in business - because business has proven time and time again that they are willing to destroy the country to make a dollar.

And we have not had a free market economy in over a hundred years. But the economy we do have is stifled due to the obstructionist agenda of the tea party. No one trusts them to not do something stupid, so businesses are just not spending any money in this country.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> ...waiting to see how this gets spun to blame Obama.


Like how you spin everything to blame tea baggers?

Funny how that works


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Harry please DO NOT disparage Nancy Pelosi.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12598


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> I want government in business - because business has proven time and time again that they are willing to destroy the country to make a dollar.
> 
> And we have not had a free market economy in over a hundred years. But the economy we do have is stifled due to the obstructionist agenda of the tea party. No one trusts them to not do something stupid, so businesses are just not spending any money in this country.


They spend money here. 

Maybe they don't spend money wherever you are because people like you think they are sooooo evil giving people jobs.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

walkerj said:


> Like how you spin everything to blame tea baggers?
> 
> Funny how that works


Yeah they want fiscal responsibility, and defend the constitution every thing his favorites hate.


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

electricmanscott said:


> I'm stuck on level 70 of candy crush.


 
:laughing:


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

brian john said:


> Or the other side of the coin until the dems stop trying to run a facist state (such as all the crap we have see, since September), stop crying and whining, IT IS OT OUR FAULT, wasting money and let the fiscal conservatives have their way we will sufer high unemployment, higher taxes and higher health care cost.
> 
> Two sides to every coin I am blind to your obviously WRONG side and you just aren't logical enough to see my side. :no::blink:


Dems are either fascists or communists or socialists. Make up you mind.

Tax cuts don't work. Austerity doesn't work. Grinding government to a halt isn't working. 

This discussion is pointless.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> Dems are either fascists or communists or socialists. Make up you mind.
> 
> Tax cuts don't work. Austerity doesn't work. Grinding government to a halt isn't working.
> 
> This discussion is pointless.


Aww you can't win so it is pointless.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> Hopefully you meant me and not Rasmussen - cause Rasmussen really screwed the pooch.


The day before and the day of the election Rasmussen made it clear that he could not call the election either way
These are the numbers he had *Romney: 49% Obama: 48% --Rasmussen November 5th,*


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

brian john said:


> Harry please DO NOT disparage Nancy Pelosi.
> 
> http://newsbusters.org/node/12598


:laughing:


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

What I've found when discussing politics with people is that we often agree to a surprising amount about issues and ideas, right up until specific political parties are mentioned, and then everyone immediately jumps into their camps where their side will Fix Everything and the other side is Hitler. It's asinine.

If either party was independently capable of solving these problems, they would never, ever get voted out of office. The fact that they are voted out, proves that neither side has all the answers. You are kidding yourselves if you think that all this country needs is a Congress or Administration that matches your political affiliation. We've had it in the past and if they hadn't screwed up, they'd still be there.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

Big John said:


> What I've found when discussing politics with people is that we often agree to a surprising amount about issues and ideas, right up until specific political parties are mentioned, and then everyone immediately jumps into their camps where their side will Fix Everything and the other side is Hitler. It's asinine.
> 
> If either party was independently capable of solving these problems, they would never, ever get voted out of office. The fact that they are voted out, proves that neither side has all the answers. You are kidding yourselves if you think that all this country needs is a Congress or Administration that matches your political affiliation. We've had it in the past and if they hadn't screwed up, they'd still be there.


Exactly why I get driven when people say its the tea baggers fault everything in the country is wrong. 

How long has that 'group' been around?

They are just a new scapegoat.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

walkerj said:


> Aww you can't win so it is pointless.


Discussions cannot be won. It is pointless because both sides are entrenched. There is nothing that anyone can say that will convince anyone else of anything here.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

eejack said:


> Dems are either fascists or communists or socialists. Make up you mind.
> 
> Tax cuts don't work. Austerity doesn't work. Grinding government to a halt isn't working.
> 
> This discussion is pointless.


As I said you will never see the logic and I can't agree to a frontal lobotomy.:laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## Julius793 (Nov 29, 2011)

Business for us non-union in my area has picked up quite a bit recently, but the union shops are still hurting cuz they price them selves out of the market.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

eejack said:


> Discussions cannot be won. It is pointless because both sides are entrenched. There is nothing that anyone can say that will convince anyone else of anything here.


Though I will tell you I have tempered my views on a few topics.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> Discussions cannot be won. It is pointless because both sides are entrenched. There is nothing that anyone can say that will convince anyone else of anything here.


See big johns post and the one immediately after. 
That is the problem. 
Not the results of polls or the OPINION of some 'journalist'.


----------



## svh19044 (Jul 1, 2008)

Big John said:


> What I've found when discussing politics with people is that we often agree to a surprising amount about issues and ideas, right up until specific political parties are mentioned, and then everyone immediately jumps into their camps where their side will Fix Everything and the other side is Hitler. It's asinine.
> 
> If either party was independently capable of solving these problems, they would never, ever get voted out of office. The fact that they are voted out, proves that neither side has all the answers. You are kidding yourselves if you think that all this country needs is a Congress or Administration that matches your political affiliation. We've had it in the past and if they hadn't screwed up, they'd still be there.


I thought that eejack had made good points, including how the government needs to stay out. Then he started talking about how the tea party was getting too involved with private business and how it's all the tea parties fault that the economy isn't doing good. At that point, my brain turned to mush. :laughing:

It's easy; the more government control, the better off unions are as they are now a successful branch of democratic government corruption. I understand that in order for the ibew to remain in power, democrats need to keep office. I really do understand that. Often, to spite their face and keep a paycheck, a union member will hang his head and pull the D lever. Their family being fed is number one despite whatever bravado they enjoy throwing around. But don't try to spin it any other way, or it turns out looking like an eejack post in this thread. It's full of " what the **** did I just read!!!!"

I am not anti union, I am just anti anti-non union if that makes sense. I think the IBEW has a great program down, and certain unions are ran very well. Hopefully my posts aren't taken as anti-union.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> The day before and the day of the election Rasmussen made it clear that he could not call the election either way
> These are the numbers he had *Romney: 49% Obama: 48% --Rasmussen November 5th,*


Latest Rasmussen Polls Project Romney To Win 279+ Electoral Votes

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/29/Romney-Rasmussen-win-election


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> Unfortunately it has everything to do with the economy. Until the government starts working again ( and it never will until the teabaggers stop acting like petulant children ) the economy will not start working again - and union or non union, we all need the economy to start working again.


Again Watch the video from earlier today .

Here...Is a Tea party Patriot (teabaggers)that term is disrespectful of you speaking of your fellow countrymen who have been unfairly punished by the IRS.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> Latest Rasmussen Polls Project Romney To Win 279+ Electoral Votes
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/29/Romney-Rasmussen-win-election


That's right and he was wrong and came right out and said so November 7 2012.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

svh19044 said:


> I thought eejack had made good points, including how the government needs to stay out. Then he started talking about how the tea party was getting too involved with private business and how it's all the tea parties fault that the economy isn't doing good. At that point, my brain turned to mush. :laughing:
> 
> It's easy; the more government control, the better off unions are as they are now a successful branch of democratic government corruption. I understand that in order for the ibew to remain in power, democrats need to keep office. I really do understand that. But don't try to spin it any other way, or it turns out lookinglikee an eejack post in this thread. It's full of " what the **** did I just read!!!!"


Let me explain it another way.

You go to your favorite supply house to buy material. When you walk in the owners are screaming at each other, the counter guys are standing around and the shipping clerks are playing cards.

You go to buy something and the counter guys says he can't help you because the controller of the company refuses to sign any checks because it might mean that the company might owe some money. 

So you don't shop there anymore.

Basically, that is our government right now.

I'm not saying the tea party is involved in private business, I am saying private business won't play here because they don't trust the government. Why take a chance...just hold onto your money until the situation stabilizes. 

Follow the money behind the tea party and see who is benefiting from all this. It is not you and me.

That said, I prefer things like the Glass-Steagall act to protect us from the bankers that caused the 2007 collapse, the FDA to protect us from bad food, etc. etc. 

Do these benefit unions, and therefore me? I don't know - in some cases sure, but in most probably not. Do the republicans hate unions...not really. Does the tea party hate unions - OMG yes.

I blame them because they just happen to be to blame for a lot of the crap going on right now.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Big John said:


> What I've found when discussing politics with people is that we often agree to a surprising amount about issues and ideas, right up until specific political parties are mentioned, and then everyone immediately jumps into their camps where their side will Fix Everything and the other side is Hitler. It's asinine.
> 
> If either party was independently capable of solving these problems, they would never, ever get voted out of office. The fact that they are voted out, proves that neither side has all the answers. You are kidding yourselves if you think that all this country needs is a Congress or Administration that matches your political affiliation. We've had it in the past and if they hadn't screwed up, they'd still be there.


BJ;

As I have said before I cannot walk lock step with either party 100% a fiscal conservative there are many issues I lean towards the Democrats. And when someone IMO does vote 100% for either party they have lost their ability to think independently. Though if their was a strong Libertarian party I might be swayed to support them 100%?


----------



## svh19044 (Jul 1, 2008)

Eejack

And yet you are still blaming a practically non existent party for union and overall economic problems!!! 

You can't be reasoned with. I really am laughing at your post and lack of understanding economics and common sense. Please just do me a favor and try thinking for yourself; blaming the tea party for the unions shortcomings is irrational and illogical.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> Again Watch the video from earlier today .
> 
> Here...Is a Tea party Patriot (teabaggers)that term is disrespectful of you speaking of your fellow countrymen who have been unfairly punished by the IRS.


unfairly punishing a teabagger? not possible - but that is besides the point. this poor patriot had to fill out more forms.

that is is.

had to fill out more forms.

OMG WORSE THAN WATERGATE!

fill
out 
more
forms.

tragedy.
:laughing:


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

walkerj said:


> Aww you can't win so it is pointless.


What was the argument (uh I mean discussion) again?


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

eejack said:


> L
> Basically, that is our government right now.
> 
> I'm not saying the tea party is involved in private business, I am saying private business won't play here because they don't trust the government. Why take a chance...just hold onto your money until the situation stabilizes.
> ...



Follow Al Gore, George Soros, Pelosi. For every corrupt conservative you think of I can name the same number of corrupt skunks, Socialist, commie, facist.

How did the Clintions become Millioniares having never worked a day in their lives?


----------



## svh19044 (Jul 1, 2008)

brian john said:


> Follow Al Gore, George Soros, Pelosi. For every corrupt conservative you think of I can name the same number of corrupt skunks, Socialist, commie, facist.
> 
> How did the Clintions become Millioniares having never worked a day in their lives?


Follow the money. Not only are they all hand models, but they are also tea baggers! Am I right eejack? 1 plus 1 equals 2 so therefor I MUST be right!


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

hardworkingstiff said:


> What was the argument (uh I mean discussion) again?


We Were discussing Jungle Pams' smoking hot body.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> Let me explain it another way.
> 
> You go to your favorite supply house to buy material. When you walk in the owners are screaming at each other, the counter guys are standing around and the shipping clerks are playing cards.
> 
> ...



eejack,,,,,Do you know how the Tea Party came to be?


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> Let me explain it another way.
> 
> You go to your favorite supply house to buy material. When you walk in the owners are screaming at each other, the counter guys are standing around and the shipping clerks are playing cards.
> 
> ...


But god forbid someone blames the other sides since it is the tea baggers fault the other sides had to do something. 

I took 3 years of logic in high school. 

You should ask the hall if they offer logic classes.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

svh19044 said:


> Eejack
> 
> And yet you are still blaming a practically non existent party for union and overall economic problems!!!
> 
> You can't be reasoned with. I really am laughing at your post and lack of understanding economics and common sense. Please just do me a factor and try thinking for yourself; blaming the tea party for the unions shortcomings is irrational and illogical.


non existent party?

how about 49 seats in congress...more than ten percent - enough to sink any vote. if you don't include the teabaggers the republicans don't have a majority - so they have to either do what the teabaggers want or nothing gets passed.

I'm not blaming the tea party for any union shortcoming, I am blaming them for keeping the economy depressed. I'm glad at least you find humor in it :thumbsup:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> non existent party?
> 
> how about 49 seats in congress...more than ten percent - enough to sink any vote. if you don't include the teabaggers the republicans don't have a majority - so they have to either do what the teabaggers want or nothing gets passed.
> 
> I'm not blaming the tea party for any union shortcoming, I am blaming them for keeping the economy depressed. I'm glad at least you find humor in it :thumbsup:


Yes in fact I really do think it's funny that you think that the republican house is holding down the economy...:laughing:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Phuck all that stupid bickering, it will not help.

Let me change the subject


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> eejack,,,,,Do you know how the Tea Party came to be?


Actually, I do. Do you?


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

BBQ said:


> Phuck all that stupid bickering, it will not help.
> 
> Let me change the subject


This reminds me of another forum I frequent where all arguments end with boobs



eejack said:


> Actually, I do. Do you?


Take a pneumatic framing gun. Load it with 20d galvanized ringshanks. Press against forehead. Pull trigger repeatedly. Twinkie!


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

eejack said:


> Actually, I do. Do you?


On December 16, 1773, a group of Bostonians dressed as Indians.............


And the rest is history.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

brian john said:


> Follow Al Gore, George Soros, Pelosi. For every corrupt conservative you think of I can name the same number of corrupt skunks, Socialist, commie, facist.
> 
> How did the Clintions become Millioniares having never worked a day in their lives?


So instead of following the money behind the tea party you claim both sides are bad so it is okay?

( I think that being president for 8 years qualifies as working btw - and the Bushes and Clintons do rather well on the meet and greet circuit - try to put a bit of effort in at least )


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> unfairly punishing a teabagger? not possible - but that is besides the point. this poor patriot had to fill out more forms.
> 
> that is is.
> 
> ...


It cost her a lot of money to fight them off with Attorney fees and they've put many people right out of business and bankrupted them because they are not in lockstep with the liberal democrats.

If the IRS story does not scare the hell out of you then you are missing the point.

Again watch the video in full and read about the story.

This is what fascist-communists-socialists-Marxist Do.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

eejack said:


> So instead of following the money behind the tea party you claim both sides are bad so it is okay?
> 
> ( I think that being president for 8 years qualifies as working btw - and the Bushes and Clintons do rather well on the meet and greet circuit - try to put a bit of effort in at least )


Not at all I have no problem with the Tea Party money, I gave close to 1/4 mil last year.:no::no::no::no:

Am just saying your folks claim to be HONEST for the woorking man as they screw you and the unions every chance they get.

When they think unions they say we have them and their money. SCREW ANYTHING that will help them, they are our fools, lock step. And foer all the union support what do you get? Immigration reform to flood the labor pool.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

brian john said:


> Not at all I have no problem with the Tea Party money, I gave close to 1/4 mil last year.:no::no::no::no:
> 
> Am just saying your folks claim to be HONEST for the woorking man as they screw you and the unions every chance they get.
> 
> When they think unions they say we have them and their money. SCREW ANYTHING that will help them, they are our fools, lock step. And foer all the union support what do you get? Immigration reform to flood the labor pool.


What a waste...you could have done something useful with that money.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

eejack said:


> What a waste...you could have done something useful with that money.


It was either them or NORML


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

brian john said:


> It was either them or NORML


Any money going to lobbyists or politics is wasted money.


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

Ah Queen Nancy!!!!
Eejack lets have a :notworthy:


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

wendon said:


> Ah Queen Nancy!!!!
> Eejack lets have a :notworthy:


Sorry, not from CA - so really don't care much about her.

I'm stuck with Scott Garrett, who I think is an idiot, but he makes it to almost every vote so I give him credit for putting in the effort. His office is fairly responsive, but I am not putting in the effort to photoshop him on a regal frame.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> Actually, I do. Do you?


Yes I helped them get rolling..


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

100 posts and only 4 addressed the OP. Good job guys.:thumbsup:


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> Yes I helped them get rolling..


Part of the Trevor Leach group?


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

eejack said:


> 100 posts and only 4 addressed the OP. Good job guys.:thumbsup:


Where did Mozzy Mozzarella go anyway??:blink:


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Yeah the entire thread was destroyed somewhere round post 4 6 or 8 when some **** made it political.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Goldagain said:


> Yeah the entire thread was destroyed somewhere round post 4 6 or 8 when some **** made it political.


?

I didn't see you post until much later in the thread.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

eejack said:


> ?
> 
> I didn't see you post until much later in the thread.


I only made 2 post, I managed to avoid this hole ****storm. I'm getting better at avoiding you trolls.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Goldagain said:


> I only made 2 post, I managed to avoid this hole ****storm. I'm getting better at avoiding you trolls.


I feel special then, you dropped in to call me a **** and to threaten me with a nail gun. Glad you came around to visit. :thumbsup:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> 100 posts and only 4 addressed the OP. Good job guys.:thumbsup:


Well,,,,,,,,,,,,,Someone should get around to it soon....Has anyone thanked him for starting this thread?:laughing::laughing:


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

eejack said:


> ?
> 
> I didn't see you post until much later in the thread.





eejack said:


> I feel special then, you dropped in to call me a **** and to threaten me with a nail gun. Glad you came around to visit. :thumbsup:


I wasn't threatening I was giving you instructions and calling you a ****.

Were allowed to say that stuff its all over this place now.

The second part of the instructions is something about reloading and doing it again.

Glad I could help.:thumbsup:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> Part of the Trevor Leach group?


Never heard of them..:laughing:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> ?
> 
> I didn't see you post until much later in the thread.


:laughing:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

eejack said:


> 100 posts and only 4 addressed the OP. Good job guys.:thumbsup:


Some of us just won't bite baited questions eejack......

~CS~


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

I THINK? The question was answered with opposing opinions, same old same old then the topic veered off course also same old same old. Why this should bother anybody at this point seems strange. A Leopard ain't going to change it spots. 

From Jeff Foxworthy (MAYBE?)

*Which side of the fence?*
If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!
If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. 
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone. 
If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. 
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect. 
If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. 
If a Democrat is down-and-out he wonders who is going to take care of him. 
If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. 
A Democrat demands that those they don't like be shut down. 
If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. 
A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. 
If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. 
If a Democrat decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his. 
If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh. 
A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

brian john said:


> I THINK? The question was answered with opposing opinions, same old same old then the topic veered off course also same old same old. Why this should bother anybody at this point seems strange. A Leopard ain't going to change it spots.
> 
> From Jeff Foxworthy (MAYBE?)
> 
> ...


Based on that criteria, I'm a republican.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

*Bump*



hardworkingstiff said:


> From what I've seen when researching this subject, I've never found an article that could show the R's are better for the economy. Maybe someone will post a link?


Still looking for someone to post a link that shows the data that R's are better for the economy. Not your opinion, but an authored opinion supported by data (of course anyone that does not agree with the opinion will challenge the data, but what the heck, that never stopped us before :laughing: ).


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Still looking for someone to post a link that shows the data that R's are better for the economy. Not your opinion, but an authored opinion supported by data (of course anyone that does not agree with the opinion will challenge the data, but what the heck, that never stopped us before :laughing: ).


Why post a link? How about business people tell experiences about running a business then and now? Remember, "You didn't build that!!"


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

wendon said:


> Why post a link? How about business people tell experiences about running a business then and now? Remember, "You didn't build that!!"


Before the last 2 elections I was looking for that link and did not find it. I was hoping someone could post one they found so I can read it and look at the data that was used to support it. I've found the data to support the D's are better for the economy but now I'm looking for the other side so I can read that.

As far as "you didn't build that", the point was much different than what was heard (and verbalized, very poorly worded). Most business owners will admit that they did not do it by themselves, they had good employees that helped them build it.

I'm just trying to wade through the rhetoric from both sides and see if the truth can be found. I admit my bias against rich and powerful people that manipulate the game against everyone else. I tend to be liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal issues (which of course can lead to internal conflicts).

Edit: I challenged Harry months before the last election to post a link (since he is so far to the right I figured if anyone had found one it would be Harry) and I never did see it. I really want to read an article that shows economic data that supports the idea the R's are better for the economy. You know, data that shows economic growth, job creation, general health of the economy, that sort of stuff.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

I will tell you in my opinion none of the men in office help the economy, policies will affect what is going on as is proof businesses have no faith in our leadership at present.

If the economy tanks they get the blame in lieu of congress that foistered this current mess on us. If the economy does decent they get all the accolades. But no president that is half honest to the American public can get elected in a crap economy.

Look at it this way 5 years of the present administration has gotten us NOTHING, nothing as in NOTHING not a durn thing, oh wait debt on top of debt, attacks on our rights, attacks on the press and lots of vacation trips for his wife and kids and all their friends.

I need to stop before I get a permanent ban.

But tell me the positives of this administration.


----------



## ampman (Apr 2, 2009)

---------------


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

.............


----------



## ampman (Apr 2, 2009)

eejack said:


> You really need to stay on the meds.


my copy cut and paste skills are lacking


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

brian john said:


> But tell me the positives of this administration.


Something tells me you would not concede any accomplishments. You have shown yourself to be an O hater, so no list will satisfy you.


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Before the last 2 elections I was looking for that link and did not find it. I was hoping someone could post one they found so I can read it and look at the data that was used to support it. I've found the data to support the D's are better for the economy but now I'm looking for the other side so I can read that.
> 
> As far as "you didn't build that", the point was much different than what was heard (and verbalized, very poorly worded). Most business owners will admit that they did not do it by themselves, they had good employees that helped them build it.
> 
> ...


Where's your link that proves your point. Are you saying that we as a nation are better off than we were 5 years ago!!! We are deeper in debt and on a downhill slide. Billions of dollars have been wasted on payments to supporting companies that have went bankrupt anyway. I don't need to list them because you are well aware of them. We have a health care plan coming up that is going to cost a lost of people their jobs and cause a lot of businesses to either downsize or shut down all together. We have scandal after scandal coming out of DC on both sides. We have extremely high gas prices (even when the oilman isn't president) We have high food prices, high unemployment, a lot worse than what is reported because it doesn't include those unemployed and not drawing unemployment benefits. The list could go on and on. If you were only 15 years old I could understand but sorry, I remember when it was better and people felt a lot better about our nation.


----------



## ampman (Apr 2, 2009)

wendon said:


> Where's your link that proves your point. Are you saying that we as a nation are better off than we were 5 years ago!!! We are deeper in debt and on a downhill slide. Billions of dollars have been wasted on payments to supporting companies that have went bankrupt anyway. I don't need to list them because you are well aware of them. We have a health care plan coming up that is going to cost a lost of people their jobs and cause a lot of businesses to either downsize or shut down all together. We have scandal after scandal coming out of DC on both sides. We have extremely high gas prices (even when the oilman isn't president) We have high food prices, high unemployment, a lot worse than what is reported because it doesn't include those unemployed and not drawing unemployment benefits. The list could go on and on. If you were only 15 years old I could understand but sorry, I remember when it was better and people felt a lot better about our nation.


i have one but only the text comes thru when i copy and paste ,it does'nt make any sense without the graphics


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

ampman said:


> i have one but only the text comes thru when i copy and paste ,it does'nt make any sense without the graphics


Maybe the justice department is interfering with it!!:laughing::laughing:


----------



## Mozzy49 (Feb 21, 2013)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Based on that criteria, I'm a republican.


It wasn't Foxworthy and there is another version that put out at the same time with the Parties reversed and the verses changed a little. 

A Democrat - GOP pissing contest(s) get the country nowhere but stuck in the same ole sh!t we have been stuck in. 

No one in Washington cares and if you really think they do you a naive and should go look for ocean-front property in Arizona. Congress cares about re-election and a 2nd term President cares about defining his legacy. Obama's legacy is mired in Obamacare which at least 55% of the public is opposed to. But Obamacare is only a small reason for the economy being like it is -- WHEN IT SHOULD BE BOOMING. 

We need to ask our leaders important questions and not back down until we get answers 

Question 1 -- If the Market is at a all time record high how is Unemployment and the GDP improving at a snails pace? I mean because the economy hasn't really improved I have reason to think that other than the fact Obama turned the Printing presses and let em run (and continue to run) wild. If there is another reason fine but explain it. 

Question 2 -- Is this economy the new Normal in the trades? If so fine but at least let us all know that the whole 12 month bench period is likely whenever you get laid off. So people can make a choice whether to be Union or Non based on that. 

The morale on the job sites is terrible right now. A worker that I know of actually took a damn saw-zall to his leg (thigh) to get disability after rumor's of impending lay-offs so he could take care of his family. I have heard of people intentionally getting zapped as well. 

The economy just won't truly get better until there is a POTUS with Balls to do what has to get done. The last few Pres. have put band aids after band aids over the economic problems. The last good economic POTUS was Clinton and he was more fiscally conservative than any prez since Reagan. We need a plan like the one Paul Ryan put out there (though modified) and it is going to hurt for several years -- but thats what IMO it will take to right the ship for the future and for the future of our children.


----------



## Mozzy49 (Feb 21, 2013)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Something tells me you would not concede any accomplishments. You have shown yourself to be an O hater, so no list will satisfy you.


While I am no Obama fan I would definitely give credit when it is deserved. So please give me a list of good things he has done - as for the life of me he is comparable to W. as I just can't seem to find even 1 thing he has done?


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Before the last 2 elections I was looking for that link and did not find it. I was hoping someone could post one they found so I can read it and look at the data that was used to support it. I've found the data to support the D's are better for the economy but now I'm looking for the other side so I can read that.
> 
> As far as "you didn't build that", the point was much different than what was heard (and verbalized, very poorly worded). Most business owners will admit that they did not do it by themselves, they had good employees that helped them build it.
> 
> ...


Sorry I did not get back to you on your question,Here is your answer ,Before the 1990's there were no conservative news media outlets so it is imposable to give and article that give an accurate picture of how history really unfolded.

From 1977 to 1981 Jimmy Carter was the president,Back then The economy was horrible in fact it was horrible all the way back to 1973 thanks to president Nixon and Ford you know the story so I don't need to type it. President Carter said America's best days were behind us and he had the house and senate9"Google his ("Malaise Speech")July 15,1979.






When president Reagan took over things changed and soon the economy was rocking until 41 "Mr New World Order" took over then president Clinton took over.In 1995 The republicans took the house and senate and the economy took off again and the president gets the credit after all the Republicans would not have won the house and senate if Clinton had worked on the economey instead of passing the free trade agreement and trying to ram "Hillery care" down our throat's,Then the poop hit the fan in 2008.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

wendon said:


> Where's your link that proves your point.


http://survivalandprosperity.com/2011/04/13/democrats-or-republicans-better-for-economy/

http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/RepublicansBetterForEconomy.htm

http://seekingalpha.com/article/92929-republicans-better-for-the-economy-pure-fiction

http://www.forbes.com/sites/investopedia/2012/08/31/gop-vs-democrats-whos-best-for-americas-economy/

Now, I will ask again for the links to arguments that come to a different conclusion.



> Are you saying that we as a nation are better off than we were 5 years ago!!! We are deeper in debt and on a downhill slide.
> Billions of dollars have been wasted on payments to supporting companies that have went bankrupt anyway. I don't need to list them because you are well aware of them.


 The way you wrote that tells me there is no way to have an objective conversation with you. You left out that the money that went to AIG pretty much saved the world economy and has all been paid off and given the government a profit, plus the government has warrants which will increase the profit. GM was saved (and we will lose money on that deal) and a lot of jobs (not just with GM) were saved. Have you studied the great depression at all? We were on the path for the great depression 2 and if not for the FED and government intervention we would be a lot worse off now than we are. If you are that concerned about debt, we can go back to Reagan for the last time the debt had a severe increase. That increase in debt helped to spur the economy. You sound partisan in that it's OK for R's to do it but not D's? Really?


> We have a health care plan coming up that is going to cost a lost of people their jobs and cause a lot of businesses to either downsize or shut down all together.


Pure speculation. We can not know this. We do know that we spend a higher percentage of our GDP on healthcare than just about every other nation out there.


> We have scandal after scandal coming out of DC on both sides.


 Yes we do, and and I sure wish I knew what to do about it.


> We have extremely high gas prices (even when the oilman isn't president) We have high food prices, high unemployment, a lot worse than what is reported because it doesn't include those unemployed and not drawing unemployment benefits.


Who are you blaming? A lot of this is due to factors out of the control of the DC crowd.


> The list could go on and on. If you were only 15 years old I could understand but sorry, I remember when it was better and people felt a lot better about our nation.


 I remember better, but I also remember the early to mid 70's and that was a rather difficult time. At least this time we are not prohibited on buying gas on certain days, nor has it be rationed. Oh yea, Nixon was president then. I don't blame him nor the R's for that.

My original point is that I'm tired of so many people saying that Republicans are better for the economy than Democrats when the exact opposite is true.

I ask again for someone to post links that show the data that what I'm saying is inaccurate.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> Sorry I did not get back to you on your question,Here is your answer ,Before the 1990's there were no conservative news media outlets so it is imposable to give and article that give an accurate picture of how history really unfolded.


 BS Harry! I'm calling it, BS.


> From 1977 to 1981 Jimmy Carter was the president,Back then The economy was horrible in fact it was horrible all the way back to 1973 thanks to president Nixon and Ford you know the story so I don't need to type it. President Carter said America's best days were behind us and he had the house and senate9"Google his ("Malaise Speech")July 15,1979.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I guess I don't communicate well. Where's the link with the data?


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

Mozzy49 said:


> While I am no Obama fan I would definitely give credit when it is deserved. So please give me a list of good things he has done - as for the life of me he is comparable to W. as I just can't seem to find even 1 thing he has done?


Funny, I did a search and a lot of things game up. I guess the real question is what did he not do that you expected him to do, because if you wanted a list of things, it's easily available from any internet search engine.


Edit: Just for giggles (I loved the IP name, :laughing

Well, the filters won't let it work. If you want to see it, change the ** to "uc" http://whatthef**khasobamadonesofar.com/


----------



## Mozzy49 (Feb 21, 2013)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Funny, I did a search and a lot of things game up. I guess the real question is what did he not do that you expected him to do, because if you wanted a list of things, it's easily available from any internet search engine.
> 
> 
> Edit: Just for giggles (I loved the IP name, :laughing
> ...


I was looking for what you thought - not a search and getting someone's spin one way or the other. 

If I had to come up with a list the only things I could legitimately add are 

Repealed don't ask don't tell -- which is important to you if your a hog-throater

Ended War in Iraq - all be it a little later than he said but it did end

OBL - being killed on his watch 

and to a point Wall ST regulation -- which have helped or hurt depending who you ask. IMO I think they have obviously helped at least in some way. 

Those are the only 4 good things I can think of - well really 3 ... 4 you putt from the rough.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> http://survivalandprosperity.com/2011/04/13/democrats-or-republicans-better-for-economy/
> 
> http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/RepublicansBetterForEconomy.htm
> 
> ...


You only believe that because the media said so.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> BS Harry! I'm calling it, BS.
> I guess I don't communicate well. Where's the link with the data?


Sorry my brain isn't connected to the Internet ..:laughing:


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> You only believe that because the media said so.


That is comical. You often post links to right winged media sites to make your points. I'm only asking for someone to post a right winged media site that will show the data to support the position that R's are better for the economy. That's all.

I guess since no one will post a link and I can't find one, then the right winged media gurus can't come up with the data to support that position.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> Sorry my brain isn't connected to the Internet ..:laughing:


Your past posts say otherwise. You've just been caught in the right wing lie that cannot be defended with data.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Your past posts say otherwise. You've just been caught in the right wing lie that cannot be defended with data.


There is no data available ,,it's all been scrubbed.

Was it better when Carter was president or When Reagan was president?

Is the economy better now for the middle class or was it better during the first six years of 43's presidency?


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

This thread has me thinking my decision to finally pick a side and stick with it.

There is no in between. There is no middle ground. There is no proverbial fence.

Pick the party that works for you.

My very good friend is a Republican. We grew up together. He is a business owner in Buffalo NY.
We can discuss politics and we both have our reasons for why we feel as we do.
But because we are friends, we try not to discuss sensitive issues.
Our friendship is much more important than any political belief.
One time we had a little disagreement and I had to ask him.

If you were me, in my position, who would you vote for?
Knowing full well my position, he immediately knew and understood why I vote the way I do.
I vote for the guy that's on MY side. Everyone has a side whether they admit it or not.
It would be stupid to vote for someone who is not on my side.

Pick a ****ing side and stand up for it.

One more thing regarding the tea bagger party.

Every single tea party member riding around on medicare paid for scooters should have them pulled from beneath them.
The scooters should be resold for cash and the money used to help pay off the debt!
They should also send their SS checks back to the government.
They should pay for all their own medical care out of pocket. They should turn in their medicare cards too.
After all, that is what they were voting for even though they might not have known.


----------



## Mozzy49 (Feb 21, 2013)

John Valdes said:


> This thread has me thinking my decision to finally pick a side and stick with it.
> 
> There is no in between. There is no middle ground. There is no proverbial fence.
> 
> ...


I was actually agreeing with everything you said and thought you were a realistic and reasonable Dem up until that rant that showed your true wacko leftist colors.


----------



## Mozzy49 (Feb 21, 2013)

HARRY304E said:


> There is no data available ,,it's all been scrubbed.
> 
> Was it better when Carter was president or When Reagan was president?
> 
> Is the economy better now for the middle class or was it better during the first six years of 43's presidency?


The Market is better now but the economy (GDP growth and Employment) were MUCH better then. I guess the far left enjoys working a few months an being on unemployment for a year


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

John Valdes said:


> One more thing regarding the tea bagger party.
> 
> Every single tea party member riding around on medicare paid for scooters should have them pulled from beneath them.
> The scooters should be resold for cash and the money used to help pay off the debt!
> ...


No,No,No,No,No!!!!!....:laughing:

They paid into the system and they earned the benefits.

You cannot not name one Republican that wants to take away Medicare and Social security. 



John Valdes said:


> ..They should pay for all their own medical care out of pocket..



Now there is an excellent IDEA,,,Let the free market determine what medical care should cost,With no Government interference and when I say that the hospitals and nursing homes cannot hide behind the government when a patent cannot pay,They should get no help at all collecting payments just like us who are contractor get none right now when someone does not pay the bill,Amazingly and ambulance ride of 0.2 miles will no longer cost $800.03,,,,All the costs will drop to what is a reasonable price.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

John Valdes said:


> This thread has me thinking my decision to finally pick a side and stick with it.
> 
> There is no in between. There is no middle ground. There is no proverbial fence.
> 
> Pick the party that works for you.


Amen brother! I pick the side of the hard working American you side with the welfare queen lowlifes! :thumbup:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Mozzy49 said:


> The Market is better now but the economy (GDP growth and Employment) were MUCH better then. I guess the far left enjoys working a few months an being on unemployment for a year


As long as they can collect and walk around in their pampers and flip flops they're happy..:laughing:


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Regardless of political views, there's no denying that the current administration is ass deep in scandal, and ineptitude.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Mozzy49 said:


> The Market is better now but the economy (GDP growth and Employment) were MUCH better then. I guess the far left enjoys working a few months an being on unemployment for a year


Also I think that the market Bubble is about to pop.


----------



## svh19044 (Jul 1, 2008)

John Valdes said:


> This thread has me thinking my decision to finally pick a side and stick with it.
> 
> There is no in between. There is no middle ground. There is no proverbial fence.
> 
> ...


I can only assume that by side, you mean pro union. 

How is your side helping you when they want to add 10,000,000 fresh citizens to the work force whom will take your and your brothers jobs? You all want to vote for the party that wants amnesty most. What about when you lose your excellent health plans because of the Obamacare that you voted for? That hardly sounds like they are on your side. Sooner than later, you will unfortunately reap what you sow.

And I really don't expect a logical response to that, as there is none. Democrats use you union members as puppets and it's almost as though you actually enjoy being sheep. Your usefulness will run out, and I fear that time is coming soon. I fear it because Democratic goals are no good for the economy, and they are no good for the working man.

Soak up the sunshine while you can though, who cares about where the future is headed.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

electricmanscott said:


> Amen brother! I pick the side of the hard working American you side with the welfare queen lowlifes! :thumbup:


I never figured you for pro-union scott, but welcome. :thumbsup:


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> There is no data available ,,it's all been scrubbed.


Seriously? Do you really believe that? Really? 

So, none of the right winged media outlets can find enough data to support the common belief that R's are better for the economy and the reason is that the data has been scrubbed. Unbelievable, lame.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

electricmanscott said:


> Regardless of political views, there's no denying that the current administration is ass deep in scandal, and ineptitude.


When was the last time that wasn't going on? :laughing:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Seriously? Do you really believe that? Really?
> 
> So, none of the right winged media outlets can find enough data to support the common belief that R's are better for the economy and the reason is that the data has been scrubbed. Unbelievable, lame.


Yes it is lame but I really do not want to read through all that crap all over again.

I asked you a question and you ignored it,,,,No links are required to answer either.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> I asked you a question and you ignored it,,,,No links are required to answer either.


I'm not going to let you ignore my question, or dismiss it with a bullchit comment and then let you draw me into your subjective unsupportive arguments.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

HARRY304E said:


> Yes it is lame but I really do not want to read through all that crap all over again.
> 
> I asked you a question and you ignored it,,,,No links are required to answer either.


Harry you are the king of Google, you help people find things all the time you are good at it, but suddenly when asked a direct question you can't find the info because you claim it has been 'scrubbed'.

That is beyond lame, that is downright impossible. For that to happen both sides would have had to work together to make all that public info disappear. And even if they did work together it could not happen. The info is in books, on the net, in newspaper archives. 

You are really becoming less credible with each post.


----------



## Mozzy49 (Feb 21, 2013)

There's no way this is every getting back on topic is there?


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

Mozzy49 said:


> There's no way this is every getting back on topic is there?


Sorry, I'll stop (since no one seems to be able to post a link). But may I remind you of something you wrote in post #5


> As for political change in terms of business the best fiscal philosophy has traditionally been out of the GOP


 I challenged that comment, posted links to data that supports my challenge, and have not had anyone post a link to data that supports that comment. 

I thought I was on topic since you, the OP, posted the comment that I think is inaccurate.

But, since you, the OP, seems to be taken back, I'll quit.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

BBQ said:


> Harry you are the king of Google, you help people find things all the time you are good at it, but suddenly when asked a direct question you can't find the info because you claim it has been 'scrubbed'.
> 
> That is beyond lame, that is downright impossible. For that to happen both sides would have had to work together to make all that public info disappear. And even if they did work together it could not happen. The info is in books, on the net, in newspaper archives.
> 
> You are really becoming less credible with each post.


OKAY let me make it clear,I've been told not to post that stuff here so you can stick your head right up your $$%%&&*^$$ss


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Sorry, I'll stop (since no one seems to be able to post a link). But may I remind you of something you wrote in post #5 I challenged that comment, posted links to data that supports my challenge, and have not had anyone post a link to data that supports that comment.
> 
> I thought I was on topic since you, the OP, posted the comment that I think is inaccurate.
> 
> But, since you, the OP, seems to be taken back, I'll quit.


The problem with the links is non of it is fact, and you and i both lived through it sorry that is a fact.


----------



## Mozzy49 (Feb 21, 2013)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Sorry, I'll stop (since no one seems to be able to post a link). But may I remind you of something you wrote in post #5 I challenged that comment, posted links to data that supports my challenge, and have not had anyone post a link to data that supports that comment.
> 
> I thought I was on topic since you, the OP, posted the comment that I think is inaccurate.
> 
> But, since you, the OP, seems to be taken back, I'll quit.


If I try I am sure I can find multiple links for and against that statement - I fail to see how 1 link for proves anything just as how a link against it proves anything. If you choose to not find that statement valid thats your right to do so. Taken back? you want to debate me on Politics I am more than happy to oblige - but I really on here just wanted to know if people really think it is going to get better for the Unions in regards to bench time being less than 6 months or is this just the new normal and its just going to get worse. 

As a worker The union is GREAT if there is work -- as the pay is nice, the benefits are good, and the retirement is solid -- It is infinitely better in the Union than Non union IF THERE IS WORK. 

When there isn't work The union is not so great and IMO it is better to go non union to find work as it opens up your options and being IBEW trained makes it easier to get a job.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Mozzy49 said:


> When there isn't work The union is not so great and IMO it is better to go non union to find work as it opens up your options and being IBEW trained makes it easier to get a job.


The point is - if you have been paying attention - there is no work for anyone until the government ( regardless of the reason ) starts acting like a government.

It is always better to be union than non union for the average worker. For the specialist, the person who wants to run his own shop and some others, perhaps not. But if you think it is better to go non union, do it now before Chicago wastes the time and effort on you.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

eejack said:


> The point is - if you have been paying attention - there is no work for anyone


I've been pretty busy the last few years.


----------



## Mozzy49 (Feb 21, 2013)

eejack said:


> The point is - if you have been paying attention - there is no work for anyone until the government ( regardless of the reason ) starts acting like a government.
> .


Right lets sit an hope the Government takes care of us - that's the spirit and the typical response from the wacko leftist Entitlement crowd. I bet you would be cheering on a Truly socialist government and labor structure as well.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Goldagain said:


> I've been pretty busy the last few years.


Last year was my best year since I started in 1994.

Suck it IBEW! :laughing:


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

electricmanscott said:


> Last year was my best year since I started in 1994.
> 
> Suck it IBEW! :laughing:


Thats impossible no one is working because of those tea baggers!


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

electricmanscott said:


> Last year was my best year since I started in 1994.
> 
> Suck it IBEW! :laughing:


How's this year going?


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> http://survivalandprosperity.com/2011/04/13/democrats-or-republicans-better-for-economy/
> 
> http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/RepublicansBetterForEconomy.htm
> 
> ...


*Why don't you read one of Hannity or Limbaugh's books?? That's how far left in the opposite direction most of your links are.*


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

electricmanscott said:


> Last year was my best year since I started in 1994.
> 
> Suck it IBEW! :laughing:


It was my best year yet too but I got painfully nailed with taxes. Kinda takes the enjoyment out of it.


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

Goldagain said:


> Thats impossible no one is working because of those tea baggers!


The funny thing about all the rants about the TEA party is that the TEA stands for *T*axed *E*nough *A*lready. If these folks are paying taxes, chances are they either own a business or are gainfully employed. We're blaming them on our supposed bad economy??!!! What are they doing to cause the "bad" economy? Paying taxes?? Then there's the subject of the "Evil Large Corporations" (I used to work with a rabid leftist so I've had a lot of experience trying to reason with someone like that)If those corporations are so evil, why are we complaining when they just up and clear out?????? Shouldn't we be rejoicing??? The evil scourge is GONE !!! But guess what, those 1000 workers that lost their jobs were paying taxes and the evil corporation was paying payroll taxes.
For myself, I'm not sure how I'd handle it if the economy would improve!!:laughing::laughing:


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

Goldagain said:


> Thats impossible no one is working because of those tea baggers!


Wait, I thought it was O that was keeping people out of work? :blink:


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Mozzy49 said:


> Right lets sit an hope the Government takes care of us - that's the spirit and the typical response from the wacko leftist Entitlement crowd. I bet you would be cheering on a Truly socialist government and labor structure as well.


Let me ask you something - why did you ask if you had already decided on what the answer was.

Your viewpoint ( one shop whole career non union - got in because you think you will gain some respect ) is very very limited, yet you ask a question you don't want anyone to respond to?

Seriously - turn in your card and walk away - there are folks willing to put in the effort and take it seriously - you obviously are not one of those folks.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

wendon said:


> It was my best year yet too but I got painfully nailed with taxes. Kinda takes the enjoyment out of it.


Want to get really sick?

Sit back and add up all the taxes you pay, payroll, SS, sales, utility, gas, toll roads, real estate and then calculate any money you have left after paying all these taxes. Now if you spend all that is left over you are taxed on that money, if you save that money you are taxed on the interest and when you die they tax it again.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Goldagain said:


> I've been pretty busy the last few years.


And so have I and so have a handful of other folks. So what?

Oh, it is okay if the economy is in the crapper as long as you are getting yours?

Got it. :thumbsup:


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

wendon said:


> *Why don't you read one of Hannity or Limbaugh's books?? That's how far left in the opposite direction most of your links are.*


Now Forbes is lefty?

Holy bat guano - the s have really gone all the way in.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

eejack said:


> And so have I and so have a handful of other folks. So what?
> 
> Oh, it is okay if the economy is in the crapper as long as you are getting yours?
> 
> Got it. :thumbsup:


Recession - When your neighbor is laid off

Depression - When you are laid off.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

brian john said:


> Want to get really sick?
> 
> Sit back and add up all the taxes you pay, payroll, SS, sales, utility, gas, toll roads, real estate and then calculate any money you have left after paying all these taxes. Now if you spend all that is left over you are taxed on that money, if you save that money you are taxed on the interest and when you die they tax it again.


Well hell yea, they're printing all the money, and they want it back. :jester:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Something tells me you would not concede any accomplishments. You have shown yourself to be an O hater, so no list will satisfy you.


So you have nothing in your bag?

Post something he has done.

I can post lie after lie of his administration and then there are the scandals. 

NAME ONE THING YOU SEE AS A POSITIVE. Oh and for the record it ain't the health care debacle.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

http://freebeacon.com/poll-gop-better-on-economy/

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues

http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/charts.htm
This is a good one and anything you can argue can go either way

http://www.electriciantalk.com/f26/what-honest-assessment-todays-ibew-job-market-55135/index7/
Found this in my search:laughing:


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

walkerj said:


> http://freebeacon.com/poll-gop-better-on-economy/
> 
> http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues
> 
> ...


One thing I found in my searches today is there are no republican news outlets. 

Another is that there is this big deal about republicans sending jobs overseas but for some reason amnesty is ok and winning over Hispanic voters is a huge deal. Hmmm.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

brian john said:


> So you have nothing in your bag?
> 
> Post something he has done.
> 
> ...


You can post lie after lie, scandal after scandal and it means nothing - because the majority of America does not believe you.

Seriously.

Poll after poll and the national vote both show that your viewpoint is unpopular.

Scream your alleged lies and contrived scandals to the rooftops...no one really cares.

Enjoy the echo chamber. :thumbsup:


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> You can post lie after lie, scandal after scandal and it means nothing - because the majority of America does not believe you.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> ...


I will reiterate, polls are useless unless everyone is polled.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

eejack said:


> You can post lie after lie, scandal after scandal and it means nothing - because the majority of America does not believe you.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> ...



Come on now. How are we supposed to take anything you say seriously when you say stuff like that. There are MAJOR REAL scandals happening right now with the current administration. If people really don't care that's a serious problem.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

eejack said:


> You can post lie after lie, scandal after scandal and it means nothing - because the majority of America does not believe you.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> ...


I got my lies about scandal from the AP, CNN and NBC real conservative organizations.

That we disagree is OK but that you see nothing wrong with what is going on says you either live with blinders on or are ignoring any of news coming out of Washington.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

While a bias conservative organization take the time to read

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...deplete-public-trust-in-obama-administration/

And my apologies to the mods.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

brian john said:


> I got my lies about scandal from the AP, CNN and NBC real conservative organizations.
> 
> That we disagree is OK but that you see nothing wrong with what is going on says you either live with blinders on or are ignoring any of news coming out of Washington.



Or a complete moron, Or just trolling for the sake of trolling. 

Even that beast Maddow has been critical of the administration. You KNOW it's bad when that happens.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

electricmanscott said:


> that beast Maddow


:laughing:


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

brian john said:


> While a bias conservative organization take the time to read
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...deplete-public-trust-in-obama-administration/
> 
> And my apologies to the mods.


from your article ( and to my point )



> Despite the abundant evidence of public skepticism, the trio of controversies appears to be exerting only a small impact on the president's standing among the American people.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

electricmanscott said:


> Even that beast Maddow .


They try to fem her up but she still comes across looking like D i c k Butkus and then their is her attempt at trying to be a news reporter.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

I think the problem is that some people just believe whatever George Stephanopoulos tells them on Sunday morning or what the monthly newsletter or the BA tells them and some actually interpret what the news says and look at what is going on in the world around them. They believe all the adjectives and think that they are true.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

brian john said:


> I got my lies about scandal from the AP, CNN and NBC real conservative organizations.
> 
> That we disagree is OK but that you see nothing wrong with what is going on says you either live with blinders on or are ignoring any of news coming out of Washington.


I'm not saying nothing is wrong. What I am saying is instead of working together to try to solve problems one party is in full obstructionist mode, grinding things to a halt.

Bengazi is not a scandal - yet we are wasting massive amounts of effort on it. The IRS is not a scandal - yet - again...massive wasted effort. 

Warrantless searches of the press - that is a scandal worth some time and effort yet it is not 'personal' or Fox is scared of something so no buzz.

Or perhaps Fox cried wolf so many times that America is weary of their 'Red Alert' status updates and constant hate mongering.

Any day now we are going through another debt ceiling standoff - maybe the tea party can get our credit down to junk status this time. That is when we will see the new Fox news come out...should be fun.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

walkerj said:


> I think the problem is that some people just believe whatever George Stephanopoulos tells them on Sunday morning or what the monthly newsletter or the BA tells them and some actually interpret what the news says and look at what is going on in the world around them. They believe all the adjectives and think that they are true.


So if I disagree with you my choices are those three and you actually look around.

Interesting viewpoint from someone who does not believe polls, nor believes anyone outside an area can 'know' anything about it. Direct involvement or keep useless opinions to yourself, I believe is how I read it.

I don't watch George Stephanopoulos, nor do my BA and I talk and I am not sure what monthly newsletter I am supposed to be reading - so what...

Fascinating.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

eejack said:


> I'm not saying nothing is wrong. What I am saying is instead of working together to try to solve problems one party is in full obstructionist mode, grinding things to a halt.


And until the Dems decide to sit down and work with the Rebs we are screwed.



> Bengazi is not a scandal - yet we are wasting massive amounts of effort on it. The IRS is not a scandal - yet - again...massive wasted effort.



Major scandals and Hillary should be in jail (a bit of an over statement)with the POS's at the IRS not an over statement here and if this leads to the WH.......


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> I'm not saying nothing is wrong. What I am saying is instead of working together to try to solve problems one party is in full obstructionist mode, grinding things to a halt.
> 
> Bengazi is not a scandal - yet we are wasting massive amounts of effort on it. The IRS is not a scandal - yet - again...massive wasted effort.
> 
> ...


18% tea party in congress
4% tea party in senate

Yea what a huge blockage that is.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

eejack said:


> IThe IRS is not a scandal - yet - again...massive wasted effort.
> 
> .



This is what Nixon backers said time again until it was proven where the SH*T started. And no one in the government is smart enough to risk their careers over this screw up. Now if they did this out of gross stupidity I might by it.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> So if I disagree with you my choices are those three and you actually look around.
> 
> Interesting viewpoint from someone who does not believe polls, nor believes anyone outside an area can 'know' anything about it. Direct involvement or keep useless opinions to yourself, I believe is how I read it.
> 
> ...


Exactly. I don't watch Fox News

You have beliefs. 
Others have theirs. 
I don't sit here posting 'facts' I post beliefs of mine and other sick America hating individuals. 

I want to destroy this country is what you see but I see it the other way. 

I think we should have a big alleyway brawl like on anchorman:shifty:
Don't forget public access...


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

What I really think is that the nation should be split in to 2 states. The Central South and The Rest. 
50 States are useless because no one can agree to anything in such small cross sections. 
No need for war or any of that nonsense. 

We will take the guns and freedom. 
The others can have all the welfare and abortions.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

walkerj said:


> 18% tea party in congress
> 4% tea party in senate
> 
> Yea what a huge blockage that is.


Yes it is.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

brian john said:


> This is what Nixon backers said time again until it was proven where the SH*T started. And no one in the government is smart enough to risk their careers over this screw up. Now if they did this out of gross stupidity I might by it.


The IRS targeted groups that were specifically ANTI IRS.

Sorry, but color me shocked.

Doesn't even seem like they had to try very hard either.

Did the president or anyone of consequence know about it - no.
But we can waste all sorts of time and effort ( that we could be spending getting real work done ) on tracking down exactly when Obama said terrorist. Or was that some other scandal that was worse than watergate. Or was that iran-contra...I forget.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

eejack said:


> Bengazi is not a scandal


Dude **** you and your opinion.

2 navy seals were told to stand down, Africorps Order their air support to stand down. 4 people fought for there ****ing lives for 7 hours while the potus and the secretary of state watched and the secretary of state said "what difference does it make" 

You sir, can respectfully eat a ****.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

brian john said:


> This is what Nixon backers said time again until it was proven where the SH*T started. And no one in the government is smart enough to risk their careers over this screw up. Now if they did this out of gross stupidity I might by it.


But they're still sayin' it, despite the fact that they've literally legalized the wrongs tricky ****y pulled off

~CS~


----------



## drumnut08 (Sep 23, 2012)

ampman said:


> wow you have been drinking the union koolaid


Unfortunately , it's all part of the brain washing that takes place after being in for years . Deductive reasoning and doing what's best for yourself don't come in to play for a lot of these guys . Personally , I think it's a sinking ship as are all unions . They're imploding from the inside out too . We just had a local election and about a 1/4 of the local showed up to vote ! That's sad , but very telling ! Guys are tired of hearing " hang in there " , " a lot of big jobs should be starting soon " ! It's all lip service and sounds good until you're out of work for close to a year or longer ? The worst part is , we have a democrat in office as president , yet the unemployment rates ( union and non ) still soar ? I thought the Democratic Party were the ones who could keep you in the lifestyle you're accustomed to , lol ?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Goldagain said:


> Dude **** you and your opinion.
> 
> 2 navy seals were told to stand down, Africorps Order their air support to stand down. 4 people fought for there ****ing lives for 7 hours while the potus and the secretary of state watched and the secretary of state said "what difference does it make"
> 
> You sir, can respectfully eat a ****.


So just what about the WH not giving a sh*t about the troops is scandanlous GoldOne?

~CS~


----------



## drumnut08 (Sep 23, 2012)

chicken steve said:


> So just what about the WH not giving a sh*t about the troops is scandanlous GoldOne?
> 
> ~CS~


What ? The government started caring about the troops ? When did this start ? Sad , but true CS !


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> Did the president or anyone of consequence know about it - no.


And you KNOW this how?

Or is it your opinion?


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

Goldagain said:


> Dude **** you and your opinion.
> 
> 2 navy seals were told to stand down, Africorps Order their air support to stand down. 4 people fought for there ****ing lives for 7 hours while the potus and the secretary of state watched and the secretary of state said "what difference does it make"
> 
> You sir, can respectfully eat a ****.


That never happened. 
Eejack said so. 
It was probably g-dub that told them to stand down and double-r was the one that said what difference. 
Cry me a fn tear Hillary. 

Why did mean ole Ms. Hilly go off the deep end I wonder?
Could it be that Arkansas conscience kicking in?
Instead her anti BJ beliefs ruled and she just played the scared woman role. 

Only thing Billy did right was make the BJ from a younger girl not cheating on your wife. 
I applaud him for that.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> Yes it is.


What percentage does it take to pass a bill?


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> The IRS targeted groups that were specifically ANTI IRS.
> 
> Sorry, but color me shocked.


And Where In the Constitution does it say that our SERVANTS in the IRS has the power to target citizens who are not Hard core left-wing Democrats? 



eejack said:


> Doesn't even seem like they had to try very hard either.
> 
> Did the president or anyone of consequence know about it - no.
> But we can waste all sorts of time and effort ( that we could be spending getting real work done ) on tracking down exactly when Obama said terrorist. Or was that some other scandal that was worse than watergate. Or was that iran-contra...I forget.


Wrong,,,,The president knows what is going on because he is giving the orders.


> The White House lists the IRS union leader’s visit this way:
> *3/31/2010 1230*​In White House language, “POTUS” stands for “President of the United States.”
> The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General’s Report, IRS employees — the same employees who belong to the NTEU — set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America. The IG report wrote it up this way:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> Bengazi is not a scandal - yet we are wasting massive amounts of effort on it.


Really????



I know you won't read it..:laughing:


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Goldagain said:


> Dude **** you and your opinion.
> 
> 2 navy seals were told to stand down, Africorps Order their air support to stand down. 4 people fought for there ****ing lives for 7 hours while the potus and the secretary of state watched and the secretary of state said "what difference does it make"
> 
> You sir, can respectfully eat a ****.


Right - not a scandal. A tragedy that four people were murdered.

But not a scandal. The special panel witnesses debunked all the malarky.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/08/1982151/witnesses-debunk-benghazi/

The fact that folks are trying to move their political agendas on the dead bodies of American soldiers and diplomats is the real scandal.








​


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> Really????
> 
> 
> 
> I know you won't read it..:laughing:


Read it. Can I have my five minutes back.:thumbsup:


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> Right - not a scandal. A tragedy that four people were murdered.
> 
> But not a scandal. The special panel witnesses debunked all the malarky.
> http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/08/1982151/witnesses-debunk-benghazi/
> ...


And what does this prove?
A leftist source sides with the left. 

No ****.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> Read it. Can I have my five minutes back.:thumbsup:


The 30 seconds it took to read your nonsense was just as bad.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> Read it. Can I have my five minutes back.:thumbsup:


:laughing:


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> And Where In the Constitution does it say that our SERVANTS in the IRS has the power to target citizens who are not Hard core left-wing Democrats?


So, you realize the obviousness of it all and deflect by calling them servants and demand something constitutional.

Occasionally you need to stick along with the bob and weave.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> Right - not a scandal. A tragedy that four people were murdered.
> 
> But not a scandal. The special panel witnesses debunked all the malarky.
> http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/08/1982151/witnesses-debunk-benghazi/
> ...


If Ronald Reagan himself were to cure cancer, the website you posted from would say that he was trying to destroy the country. 
It holds no water to anyone with sense.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

walkerj said:


> And what does this prove?
> A leftist source sides with the left.
> 
> No ****.


So go read the transcripts - sheesh. Or watch the whole thing yourself.
http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/benghazi-exposing-failure-and-recognizing-courage/

Ignore the article and go find what other people wrote about the hearings.

The article just sums up what the people said - the very whistleblowers called in to expose the whole scandal. You know why you didn't hear anything about it ... because what they had to say was not very scandalous.

A tragedy, yes. Scandal. No.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

walkerj said:


> If Ronald Reagan himself were to cure cancer, the website you posted from would say that he was trying to destroy the country.
> It holds no water to anyone with sense.


I liked Reagan. He was a real republican, and a good leader. He also understood compromise and working with people. The current GOP would be very unkind to him now if he were in politics.

Heck - they are calling Bob Dole a RINO now.

Sheesh.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> So go read the transcripts - sheesh. Or watch the whole thing yourself.
> http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/benghazi-exposing-failure-and-recognizing-courage/
> 
> Ignore the article and go find what other people wrote about the hearings.
> ...


The Article sums up what they want us to believe , and not what happened during the hearings.

Ever wonder why Hillery resigned her post before she had to testifie?


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

walkerj said:


> What percentage does it take to pass a bill?


In the house, 51%, in the senate, 60% ( due to constant filibusting ).

The house republicans and the tea party hold a margin of 234 to 201 - 218 votes will pass a bill.

The republicans without the tea party cannot pass a bill on their own.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> The Article sums up what they want us to believe , and not what happened during the hearings.
> 
> Ever wonder why Hillery resigned her post before she had to testifie?


And yet she still testified.
So, your point?


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> I liked Reagan. He was a real republican, and a good leader. He also understood compromise and working with people. The current GOP would be very unkind to him now if he were in politics.
> 
> Heck - they are calling Bob Dole a RINO now.
> 
> Sheesh.


He was and so was POTUS #41...:laughing:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> I liked Reagan. He was a real republican, and a good leader. He also understood compromise and working with people. The current GOP would be very unkind to him now if he were in politics.
> 
> Heck - they are calling Bob Dole a RINO now.
> 
> Sheesh.


The democrats in the house and senate were not so extreme left wing like they are today when Reagan was president.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> The democrats in the house and senate were not so extreme left wing like they are today when Reagan was president.


:laughing:

Obama is closer to Reagan than most if not all the Republican candidates.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> :laughing:
> 
> Obama is closer to Reagan than most if not all the Republican candidates.


:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::no:


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

electricmanscott said:


> Last year was my best year since I started in 1994.
> 
> Suck it IBEW! :laughing:





Goldagain said:


> Thats impossible no one is working because of those tea baggers!





HARRY304E said:


> How's this year going?



I wasn't really paying attention other than thinking it was slower than last year. Turns out I was right. The good news is the quality of jobs is better so I've worked less and am still up 4% gross and about the same net.



wendon said:


> It was my best year yet too but I got painfully nailed with taxes. Kinda takes the enjoyment out of it.



You're telling me!  F'ing teabaggers :laughing:


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

electricmanscott said:


> You're telling me!  F'ing teabaggers :laughing:


Actually...:thumbsup:


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

eejack said:


> Actually...:thumbsup:


:no: :laughing:

Seriously though, I'm assuming you pull the lever for the D candidates?? If so, why?


----------



## J.Dunner (Apr 21, 2013)

I didn't read the thread because I don't care.
The majority of the IBEW is ran by dinosaurs backed by a lethargic membership. Some locals will shrink, disappear, merge, etc. Other locals will change, adapt, fight, and succeed.

The economy is different. The country is different, the business is different.
Right, wrong, or indifferent the job market in the union trades has become ultra competitive. Men are performing at an all time high level and the contractors are reaping the rewards. Shoppies are bending over backwards to keep their jobs and the long time bench riders are killing themselves at their new jobs to prove themselves and get on steady.

It looks ugly right now but maybe the long term effect might just be a positive one.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

electricmanscott said:


> :no: :laughing:
> 
> Seriously though, I'm assuming you pull the lever for the D candidates?? If so, why?


I actually vote on issues and not party line - though honestly I tend toward the Dems nationally. I voted Anderson and almost voted for Perot.

It is hard to vote for republicans when they state that one of their planks is to get rid of unions.


----------



## J.Dunner (Apr 21, 2013)

eejack said:


> I actually vote on issues and not party line - though honestly I tend toward the Dems nationally. I voted Anderson and almost voted for Perot.
> 
> It is hard to vote for republicans when they state that one of their planks is to get rid of unions.


Most of my ideals lean right. But, the right loses me with their staunch resistance to middle class America. If you're not a wealthy business owner, an employer, or a bigot justified by religion, then they hate you. 

Even this retart of a Governor we have constantly puts down the working class. When asked why Pennsylvania is in the lowest rankings of job growth he simply said, "Employers are telling me that no one can pass a drug test"....GTFOH........What bull****.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> I actually vote on issues and not party line - though honestly I tend toward the Dems nationally. I voted Anderson and almost voted for Perot.
> 
> It is hard to vote for republicans when they state that one of their planks is to get rid of unions.


That's only public sector Unions,The private sector is just that private,and private business can can be union if the chose.


----------



## J.Dunner (Apr 21, 2013)

HARRY304E said:


> That's only public sector Unions,The private sector is just that private,and private business can can be union if the chose.


Yes, they can. AND, they can also be union if the employees choose. That's a protected RIGHT here in America Harry.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> That's only public sector Unions,The private sector is just that private,and private business can can be union if the chose.


True, but I support all unions.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

J.Dunner said:


> Yes, they can. AND, they can also be union if the employees choose. That's a protected RIGHT here in America Harry.


Private sector yes , Public sector No.


----------



## J.Dunner (Apr 21, 2013)

HARRY304E said:


> Private sector yes , Public sector No.


You're wrong Harry. We have had this argument before. Actually, you're so wrong, that you have it backwards. There are a few government agencies that are exempt to the NLRA. BUT the vast majority of the private workforce falls under the NLRA. Please, PROVE me wrong.


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

eejack said:


> Seriously.
> 
> Poll after poll and the national vote both show that your viewpoint is unpopular.


Polls are Cletis Eejack and you know it. Has anyone ever called you from one of these polls? They've never called me. Pretty easy to fix a poll to say about whatever you want it to say.


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

eejack said:


> :laughing:
> 
> Obama is closer to Reagan than most if not all the Republican candidates.


:lol::lol::lol::lol: Now that right there is funny. Like Louis L'Amour would say, Obama wouldn't make a pimple on Reagan's neck. I wouldn't use those two in the same sentence. Obama has never had the popular support that Reagan had. Reagan made most people proud to be an American, Obama not so. Reagan didn't apologize like Obama and embarrass us to the world. Most of the time if he said what he would do, he did it even if it made him unpopular. (Even firing the air traffic controllers, and yes, they had it coming) I seriously doubt we will ever have a President the caliber of him and some of his predecessors. If I remember correctly the Gipper said something to the effect, "Government isn't the answer to our problems, government IS the problem!" Obama would NEVER say something like that.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

HARRY304E said:


> OKAY let me make it clear,I've been told not to post that stuff here so you can stick your head right up your $$%%&&*^$$ss


:laughing:


Since when have you listened to what the mods have told you? Very convenient for you to pull that card out when it helps you. 

You are all smoke and mirrors, no substance.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

eejack said:


> The point is - if you have been paying attention - there is no work for anyone until the government ( regardless of the reason ) starts acting like a government.


You are really killing yourself by repeatedly saying that as there is work going on.


I suggest another tactic.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

J.Dunner said:


> Yes, they can. AND, they can also be union if the employees choose. That's a protected RIGHT here in America Harry.


the EFCA made that a whole lot _less_ protected JD

~CS~


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

How in Jesus H Christ, black man in the Whitehouse ruining the country, I'm a diy'er what does the white wire do, ground up ground down, mods are power hungry dweebs, should I get a Ford or Chevy, romex is just a permanent extension cord, what should I charge, can I du dis, bring back Peter D, is this thread still open?


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

BBQ said:


> :laughing:
> 
> 
> Since when have you listened to what the mods have told you? Very convenient for you to pull that card out when it helps you.
> ...


Keep defending your rich friends kid.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)




----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

Mozzy49 said:


> Back to My question is this the "new Normal"? Because if the industry isn't booming in a GREAT market -- will it ever be booming again. Yes I know it's better now than in 2008-2011 but it still isn't hat great compared to the 90's and early / mid 00's.


No one can answer that question without a crystal ball.

I can only tell you LA has lined up almost 100% employment for the next 5 years or so. The OC has the lowest unemployment in the nation now, and home prices are accelerating again.
Generally, after a big dip in construction, Ca. leads off first, and it spreads east. This is a past history cycle. Will it happen again, refer to the first paragraph. Anything else is just a guess.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Everything starts out west and heads east

i'll give you_ that_ BigBird

good & bad......~CS~


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

big2bird said:


> No one can answer that question without a crystal ball.
> 
> I can only tell you LA has lined up almost 100% employment for the next 5 years or so. The OC has the lowest unemployment in the nation now, and home prices are accelerating again.
> Generally, after a big dip in construction, Ca. leads off first, and it spreads east. This is a past history cycle. Will it happen again, refer to the first paragraph. Anything else is just a guess.


 
If we knew the answers to the question I would be on a stock site buying up or selling stock. But alas even the so called experts can only hazard a guess.


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

big2bird said:


> No one can answer that question without a crystal ball.
> 
> I can only tell you LA has lined up almost 100% employment for the next 5 years or so. The OC has the lowest unemployment in the nation now, and home prices are accelerating again.
> Generally, after a big dip in construction, Ca. leads off first, and it spreads east. This is a past history cycle. Will it happen again, refer to the first paragraph. Anything else is just a guess.


Are they going to start building on all those empty development sites? From what I've heard, the banks are slowly releasing the new spec homes on the market. If they'd let them all go at once the market would crash. Hopefully, things will get better on the resi scene but I think, if it ever does, it will never get to the level it was before because banks aren't going to borrow as quick to those who can't afford the payments. They've predicted that some of the other things would head east to but so far so good!!:laughing::laughing:


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

walkerj said:


> One thing I found in my searches today is there are no republican news outlets.


So you couldn't find the info either? The links you posted were mostly how people felt, and like you pointed out, the one that showed data could be used to bolster the D's record.

Thanks for trying. :thumbsup:

I'm serious about someone finding a link, because I was of the same opinion (that R's were better for the economy than D's) until I looked for data to support that opinion. I was surprised by what I found, and it appears that others (who will pull off their partisan blinders, yea you Harry) will be surprised too.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

Mozzy49 said:


> If I try I am sure I can find multiple links for and against that statement -


If you look for links with data to support conclusions, I think you will be surprised. Just because you believe something is so does not make it so (well, I guess it could be in your mind, but hopefully you are not that way).


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> From 1977 to 1981 Jimmy Carter was the president,Back then The economy was horrible in fact it was horrible all the way back to 1973 thanks to president Nixon and Ford you know the story so I don't need to type it.


Here is an interesting fact for you that I bet you don't know.

2.6 million jobs were created per year for the years Carter was POTUS.

2.0 million jobs were created per year for the years Reagan was POTUS.

625,000 jobs were created per year for the years GHW was POTUS.

2.9 million jobs were created per year for the years Clinton was POTUS.

375,000 jobs were created per year for the years GW was POTUS.

Interesting huh.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

hardworkingstiff said:


> So you couldn't find the info either? The links you posted were mostly how people felt, and like you pointed out, the one that showed data could be used to bolster the D's record.
> 
> Thanks for trying. :thumbsup:
> 
> I'm serious about someone finding a link, because I was of the same opinion (that R's were better for the economy than D's) until I looked for data to support that opinion. I was surprised by what I found, and it appears that others (who will pull off their partisan blinders, yea you Harry) will be surprised too.


Notice the ups and downs during each presidency, D or R.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

walkerj said:


> Notice the ups and downs during each presidency, D or R.


I'm not sure I'm getting your point Jason. If you could expand please/thanks.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> So you couldn't find the info either? The links you posted were mostly how people felt, and like you pointed out, the one that showed data could be used to bolster the D's record.
> 
> Thanks for trying. :thumbsup:
> 
> I'm serious about someone finding a link, because I was of the same opinion (that R's were better for the economy than D's) until I looked for data to support that opinion. I was surprised by what I found, and it appears that others (who will pull off their partisan blinders, yea you Harry) will be surprised too.


Lou I've looked multiple times, the news media can spin the facts all they want ,the only democratic president where I made good money was the last 6 years of Clinton's term because the Republicans took the house and senate before that it was bad out there just like it is right now.
Sorry but there is a real world out there and the news media chooses to ignore it and spin the news the way they want it to work.

If a Republican was in charge right now you would hear that this is the biggest depression ever.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> Lou I've looked multiple times, the news media can spin the facts all they want ,the only democratic president where I made good money was the last 6 years of Clinton's term because the Republicans took the house and senate before that it was bad out there just like it is right now.


Your opinion and experience on a micro level does not make it true on a macro level.


> Sorry but there is a real world out there and the news media chooses to ignore it and spin the news the way they want it to work.


So anything reported that you do not agree with is wrong? Dang Harry, it must be hard being you. :laughing:


> If a Republican was in charge right now you would hear that this is the biggest depression ever.


 <yawn>, you are so tiring. Your statement is BS.


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> If you look for links with data to support conclusions, I think you will be surprised. Just because you believe something is so does not make it so (well, I guess it could be in your mind, but hopefully you are not that way).


Why do people need to post links when they can go by personal experience?? Kinda interesting if you ever try to find links to disprove something like some miracle pill someone comes out with, a lot of the links are fixed to lead you to articles supporting their claims, why??? It's not hard to figure out why there's so many links supporting your claims, follow the source!!! Do you actually believe that things were good during Jimmy Carter's presidency?? (read the post on that) what a joke. We had high inflation, high interest rates etc. It was nothing but another bubble and guess what, it crashed! Then all these people that had borrowed money against the inflated value of their property were broke.


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Your opinion and experience on a micro level does not make it true on a macro level.So anything reported that you do not agree with is wrong? Dang Harry, it must be hard being you. :laughing: <yawn>, you are so tiring. Your statement is BS.


Just for kicks and giggles go to Fox News and read the headlines, then go to CNN and read the headlines. Could we say biased??? If these things had been going on during the Reagan or the two Bush's presidencies, they and you would be screaming for their heads. That is if they would have targeted liberal groups.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Your opinion and experience on a micro level does not make it true on a macro level.So anything reported that you do not agree with is wrong? Dang Harry, it must be hard being you. :laughing: <yawn>, you are so tiring. Your statement is BS.





> If a Republican was in charge right now you would hear that this is the biggest depression ever.


It's a fact read all the news papers during 2000 and 2008 We were in a great depression even with the unemployment rate at 4%

President bush gave the people a refund check twice during his 8 years,,How come the BIG O wont do that?

Read all the editorials that the liberals wrote when Bush did that they were so upset They said we will be spending our ill-gotten gain..:laughing:

Oh the pain it caused them was wonderful..:laughing:

Time to go practice some capitalism..


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

wendon said:


> Why do people need to post links when they can go by personal experience??


Do you really believe that personal experience trumps data? If you do then I've lost a lot of respect for your opinion (and to date, I do respect your opinion). I think you are amazed that no one has pulled data together to prove that the belief that R's are better for the economy that D's is accurate. You just can't believe that your feelings might be wrong (just like Harry).


> Kinda interesting if you ever try to find links to disprove something like some miracle pill someone comes out with, a lot of the links are fixed to lead you to articles supporting their claims, why??? It's not hard to figure out why there's so many links supporting your claims, follow the source!!!


It is usually pretty easy to find links to arguments that support a position as well as articles that disprove a position (using facts). I agree that a lot of articles are written with a predetermined bias. But do you believe that everyone that ever wrote about which party is better for the economy has a D bias? Don't people with an R bias want to disprove what these articles point out? Aren't you looking for the truth?


> Do you actually believe that things were good during Jimmy Carter's presidency?? (read the post on that) what a joke.


Please show me where I said things were better under Carter. I did not. I only pointed out that under his administration more job were created per year than under any of the R administrations that followed. That's a fact that Harry (and I guess you) seem to ignore and sweep under the rug.


> We had high inflation, high interest rates etc. It was nothing but another bubble and guess what, it crashed! Then all these people that had borrowed money against the inflated value of their property were broke.


 Your point?

IMO, oil prices have more to do with our economy than either party. Here is a graph of oil prices.









Notice the jump in oil prices in the early 70's. It continued up until about the time Reagan became president. Then it started down during Reagan's term and did not really take off until right after GW took office. Reagan and Clinton benefited from stable oil prices and the economy expanded due to stable oil prices which made them look great.

Notice that when the price of oil hit a similar level as it was in the late 70's our economy sputtered which exposed to financial crises that had been created. This was a very serious crisis that could easily have led to a world wide economic melt down of biblical proportions. 

You guys that think putting in a POTUS of one party or another will fix the economy are wearing blinders or are being led by around by the nose.

It just amazes me. It is not as simple as we all think. 

All I have been saying is the data out there says the belief that R's are better for the economy than D's is wrong. I'm not saying the D's are great, I'm just saying this belief has no basis in objective historical fact and is totally subjective.

Once again I challenge anyone to post an article with the data to dispute what I'm saying. (and oh by the way, a survey that says people believe that R's are better is not data, it's opinion. One that I used to share, but now that I've looked for the supporting data I find I was wrong. Are you objective enough to look at the data and maybe think your bias is showing?)


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> Time to go practice some capitalism..


I wish you a great day and hope you make lot's of money (you know we need the tax revenue :laughing: :jester I'm not joking on the wish for a good day. :thumbsup:


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

wendon said:


> Just for kicks and giggles go to Fox News and read the headlines, then go to CNN and read the headlines. Could we say biased??? If these things had been going on during the Reagan or the two Bush's presidencies, they and you would be screaming for their heads. That is if they would have targeted liberal groups.


What does that have to do with the position I've taken on facts not supporting an opinion that a lot of people share (that R's are better for the economy than D's)?

Why don't y'all just admit that your opinion is just that, opinion, and not supported by facts? It's OK to admit you were wrong.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

HARRY304E said:


> Keep defending your rich friends kid.


You are not even making sense any more. :laughing:

I don't support any politions. 

Are the politions you support poor?


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

BBQ said:


> You are not even making sense any more. :laughing:
> 
> I don't support any politions.
> 
> Are the politions you support poor?


Yes in fact conservatives give much more to charity's :laughing:

BTW it's politicians ....:laughing:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

HARRY304E said:


> Yes in fact conservatives give much more to charity's :laughing:
> 
> BTW it's politicians ....:laughing:


That answer has nothing at all to do with my question does it. 



And you are right I suck at spellen':laughing:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

BBQ said:


> That answer has nothing at all to do with my question does it.
> 
> 
> 
> And you are right I suck at spellen':laughing:


And what part of giving to charity's that help the poor are you not getting.:blink:


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

BBQ said:


> That answer has nothing at all to do with my question does it.
> 
> 
> 
> And you are right I suck at spellen':laughing:


But you're good at something, correct?

_I have been closely studying it's (wacky weed) effects for about 34 years!_:laughing::laughing:
*BBQ*


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

wendon said:


> Why do people need to post links when they can go by personal experience?? .


Anecdotal evidence.....:no::whistling2::laughing:

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

hardworkingstiff said:


> IMO, oil prices have more to do with our economy than either party. Here is a graph of oil prices.


*DIND DIND DING!!!!* We have a Winner!

tell him what he's won Ed....









_"well we have an all expense paid getaway weekend @ the illustrious guantanamo hilton, complete with oilocracy microchip implants, open bar, as well as the constant company of curvaceous cia escorts , have a wonderful time Lou!!!"_:thumbup:

~CS~


----------



## RGH (Sep 12, 2011)

to the op question.....the IEBW seems like they always have way more members than they really need...(I am not a member)...unions like businesses have to change with the times....there is tons of work out there...but there is no one spending money to do it...you /they/or anyone cant force companies to spend their money...and the government has no money to fix our crumbling infastucture....


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

RGH said:


> to the op question.....the IEBW seems like they always have way more members than they really need...(I am not a member)...unions like businesses have to change with the times....there is tons of work out there...but there is no one spending money to do it...you /they/or anyone cant force companies to spend their money...and the government has no money to fix our crumbling infastucture....


That is an excellent post.

I would like to add that I think we are in an unprecedented economic condition in that we are still recovering from all the hot money (back in the mid 2000's) that was lost in and after the financial crisis of 2008. It was hot money that kept the economy snappy. It was a false demand based on easy money. Looks like BB is playing chicken with the economy trying to kick start demand with easy money and pull back enough to keep things from running away (inflation or hyper inflation) (and he has other central bankers around the world playing the same game). I think most of us hope it works. 

Gonna be interesting. The strongest will survive. The weakest will need help. We are having a war about how much help will be forced from the have's to the have-not's. Gonna be very interesting.


----------



## mnelectrician (Dec 1, 2008)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Here is an interesting fact for you that I bet you don't know.
> 
> 2.6 million jobs were created per year for the years Carter was POTUS.
> 
> ...


Here's from the Department of Labor. Interesting hugh!


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

mnelectrician said:


> Here's from the Department of Labor. Interesting hugh!
> 
> View attachment 25855


Can you make this bigger or provide the link to where you got it? Thanks.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

wendon said:


> But you're good at something, correct?
> 
> _I have been closely studying it's (wacky weed) effects for about 34 years!_:laughing::laughing:
> *BBQ*


I sucked at spelling before I smoked. :laughing:

Keep trolling. :thumbsup:


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

Goldagain said:


> Dude **** you and your opinion.
> 
> 2 navy seals were told to stand down, Africorps Order their air support to stand down. 4 people fought for there ****ing lives for 7 hours while the potus and the secretary of state watched and the secretary of state said "what difference does it make"
> 
> You sir, can respectfully eat a ****.


I thought this would be a fitting picture to go with your response :laughing:


----------



## electricalwiz (Mar 12, 2011)

Lou, 

This may be something that you are looking for
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/


----------



## electricalwiz (Mar 12, 2011)

Have any of you guys read the differnce from the two main economic theories out there. 
I have spent alot time reading and researching economic theories and have become a firm believer in the Austrian economic theory compared to the Keynes theory which is practiced widely in our country/world
It is irrelevant who is President, the Fed controls the purse strings, and they do not have to answer to anybody
One of the main problems with the Fed is they are always looking for the next bubble to inflate
Both Bush and Obama have had Bernanke as Fed president


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

electricalwiz said:


> > Have any of you guys read the differnce from the two main economic theories out there.
> > I have spent alot time reading and researching economic theories and have become a firm believer in the Austrian economic theory compared to the Keynes theory which is practiced widely in our country/world
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> IMO, oil prices have more to do with our economy than either party. Here is a graph of oil prices.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'd rather see a graph like this of the gas prices. It used to be that the gas price followed the crude oil price but not any more. Why would a refinery shut down for maintenance right close to Memorial Day???? Go figure. They should regulate them like the PSC regulates the POCO's


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

wendon said:


> I'd rather see a graph like this of the gas prices. It used to be that the gas price followed the crude oil price but not any more. Why would a refinery shut down for maintenance right close to Memorial Day???? Go figure. They should regulate them like the PSC regulates the POCO's


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Here is an interesting fact for you that I bet you don't know.
> 
> 2.6 million jobs were created per year for the years Carter was POTUS.
> 
> ...


Yes I've read that several times and with the exception when Clinton was president in fact I'll bet it averages out even better for him if you remove the years 1993 to 1995,,,,GHW 41 is a member of the elite and that is why no jobs were created and he did not care,,,See the phrase "New world Order"That is why he was a one term president.

The numbers for GW 43 are way off because they are counting the years 2007 to 2009 when the democrats took the house and Senate and also the numbers after 9/11/2001 when 100's of thousands of jobs were killed and many company's put out of business just from the attack.

But go right ahead and believe those numbers if you wish.

Two things that WSJ and Democrats have in common and it's this both sides want low wages,The WSJ radio report is on here at 0500 ET everyday on radio 680 .they have at least one report on how there is a shortage of electricians and plumbers,,,,,Really???:blink:

Funny I'm not getting that much work in fact this year so far is as bad as it was in 2009..But according to them there is a shortage of electricians.:blink:

Every day I get calls from Electricians looking for a job these are licensed electricians ,That is no easy task here to become licensed , When they tell me what they are willing to work for,,,,,It scares me,They would do better at Burger King,,,Someone is fudging the numbers here and it ain't me.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

feeling a little _buffaloe'd_ by the gov folks?

THEY have a job, even if YOU don't

THEY vote their own raises, even in OUR worse years

THEY don't need SS, THEY get pensions

THEY get gov HC, and could care less about Obamacare

starting to see a pattern that transcends partisanism? :whistling2: ~CS~


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

chicken steve said:


> starting to see a pattern that transcends partisanism? :whistling2: ~CS~


Exactly! Since they are in control of the voting that would be needed to make a change to this fleecing, the only way I see it getting fixed is an actual armed revolution. It's not bad enough yet for it to get started, but IMO, it's getting close.

If they (rich and powerful) let the wealth gap to continue to widen, IMO, there will be an armed revolution. I think it's still years down the road, but the foundation has been laid.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I'm sure they've thought about it Lou, in fact i'm sure they've contingency plans for killer tomatoes invading.

what's sad is the thought that guys like myself and eejack would be aiming at each other 

imho, that would occur only because someone up the food chain wants the diversion, wants the petty divisions among labor to hide behind....

we're really in the same boat.....


~CS~


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

I agree Steve, they've thought about it.

IMO, the only way it works is if some military leaders are prepared to abandon the current system. I don't care how many weapons are owned by the public, they won't be enough to defeat the US military. 

So, when it gets bad enough, the military will have to lead the coup.

The 2nd hurdle I see is who is going to develop the system that will replace this one? So far, our system (as bad as it is) is still the best one in the world.

My hope would be we can get some moral people in office that aren't afraid to make a change that helps the country even though it hurts the supposedly elite making the laws. (yea, right  )


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Well there's an entire world history to draw on , for anyone who might wonder how some sort of revolution might sugar off here Lou

What to _look_ for? 

Perhaps when people loose hope, see their kids as having zero future, stop believing in their country's leaders

I don't think anyone wants to see it come to that, but it sure is a slippery slope we're teetering on....

And you're right....

Seems we need those 10 good men, like the story of Sodom and Gomorrah

~CS~


----------



## bobelectric (Feb 24, 2007)

[quote

I just expected the Construction market to seriously be up right now as the Market has never in history been as high as it is currently. While I am doing great on my investments I wish it was also reflected in job stability which doesn't seem to prove the case. Here in Chicago I have a friend in the IBEW and another in the Fitters Local - 1 has now been sitting for 8 months and the other just got benched and is looking at at least 6 months. 

Back to My question is this the "new Normal"? Because if the industry isn't booming in a GREAT market -- will it ever be booming again. Yes I know it's better now than in 2008-2011 but it still isn't hat great compared to the 90's and early / mid 00's. 

[/quote] If not for hospital construction and public works jobs,(tunnel,bridges and highways) the local hall couldn't pay the mortgage. Pittsburgh reached its' peak when they funded new stadiums.The gas industry is mostly non-card jobs with the travelers from Ok and Texas.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

bobelectric said:


> [quote
> 
> I just expected the Construction market to seriously be up right now as the Market has never in history been as high as it is currently. While I am doing great on my investments I wish it was also reflected in job stability which doesn't seem to prove the case. Here in Chicago I have a friend in the IBEW and another in the Fitters Local - 1 has now been sitting for 8 months and the other just got benched and is looking at at least 6 months.
> 
> Back to My question is this the "new Normal"? Because if the industry isn't booming in a GREAT market -- will it ever be booming again. Yes I know it's better now than in 2008-2011 but it still isn't hat great compared to the 90's and early / mid 00's.


 If not for hospital construction and public works jobs,(tunnel,bridges and highways) the local hall couldn't pay the mortgage. Pittsburgh reached its' peak when they funded new stadiums.The gas industry is mostly non-card jobs with the travelers from Ok and Texas.[/QUOTE]

From cash from developers breaking loose to breaking ground takes 2-3 years. If it is a project that was cancelled, and they have property/plans, it could shorten to 3-6 months.


----------

