So no matter what happens in Massachusetts tomorrow..

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

I do also (cap and trade that is).

Being in the housing and commercial construction industry for almost 25 years now, I am very attuned to "green" efforts how many have jumped on board for profit and to conform to regulation. If you could see some of the inner workings of it, I believe you might see a lot of it as a bit of a joke. Be that as it may, jobs are jobs as long as they aren't all just built on the notion of green.

We really need to start to produce a viable product in this country soon or it's going to be government and service related jobs for all of us. If you subscribe any to the notion that government does produce a product as such, we had better start investing in the private sector.

For those of you who say, well, don't just bitch, provide some solutions I give you this...

Maybe a good place to start would be to tax the hell out of corporate entities that wish to produce products overseas and at the same time, wish to bring them back for sale here. At the same time, provide incentives to manufactures that produce a product here for sale here. This would stimulate job growth here by allowing companies who wish to play by the rules the additional capitol to grow and hire.

Maybe thats just a naive approach to things from a guy who likes to cut to the chase I'm just a guy who would like to get to the heart of the problem (some of it anyway) and deal with it accordingly.

Sorry about the somewhat off topic rant. I just can't help myself

RC

Interesting stuff. I want to discuss it more, when I can.

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

I understand about green jobs, but I too work around the new green projects (indirectly in the supply chain) and if someone can tell me how increasing costs is going to lead to a net INCREASE in jobs I'd sure like to know how.

Pete

[Grumpy]

Originally Posted by Boreas

The wars and the tax cuts which combined to wreck our economy and our image around the world happened in Bush's first term.

John

Ok, so say a dem was in office then. Do you really think it would be much different ?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Grumpy

Ok, so say a dem was in office then. Do you really think it would be much different ?

It's doubtful that a Dem would have passed Bush's tax cuts or gone to Iraq (I believe a Dem would have gone to Afghanistan after 9/11).

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Grumpy

Ok, so say a dem was in office then. Do you really think it would be much different ?

I have to agree. I think we would be significantly healthier fiscally if the supremes did not appoint Bush king.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Grumpy

Ok, so say a dem was in office then. Do you really think it would be much different ?

YES!

I think the financial industry would have been regulated more effectively, we probably wouldn't have Bush's tax cuts, we probably wouldn't be in two wars right now. Who knows what other trials we would have faced in their stead, but on the whole, looking at the circumstances of the last decade, I'd say we'd be a world better off had we actually given the election to Gore as the voters wanted.

[Grumpy]

Your joking right ?

Even Gore would have been forced by the masses to declare war after 911.

[Writewing]

The view is nice from the cheapseats and hindsight is 20/20, but the office of President isnt anyones to "give" it is earned by the Electoral College.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Grumpy

Your joking right ?

Even Gore would have been forced by the masses to declare war after 911.

There's no way to know, of course, but I suspect there would have been some action in Afghanistan. Not sure what it would have looked like. Perhaps we'd have gone in and gotten Bin Laden and called it a day. I am virtually certain that we would *not* have gotten into the mess in Iraq. Clinton was big on cruise missles and limited engagement. No way to know what Gore would have done, but I suspect it would have been more limited in scope.

So, who knows? Monday morning quarterbacking and all. But we may have been in and out with Afghanistan and not gone to Iraq at all. How many trillions would that have saved?

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Writewing

The view is nice from the cheapseats and hindsight is 20/20, but the office of President isnt anyones to "give" it is earned by the Electoral College.

You know they did go back and count the ballots in Florida, don't you? You do know that more people voted for Gore than Bush, right? Electoral votes aside, and that's an issue we could talk about too, Gore won the election.

And thanks for the Civics lesson. Do you really think anyone here doesn't understand the Electoral College or are you just being condesending?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_2000

"Ultimately, the Media Consortium hired the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago[47] to examine 175,010 ballots that were discounted; these ballots contained under-votes (votes with no choice made for president) and over-votes (votes made with more than one choice marked). Their goal was not to deduce who actually won the election, but to determine the reliability and accuracy of the systems used for the voting process. Nonetheless, NORC concluded that if the disputes over the validity of the ballots in question had been consistently resolved and any uniform standard applied, the electoral result would have been reversed and Gore would have won by 107-115 votes.[48]"