Rank the Republican contenders by order of craziness.

[blueblood]

It's pretty easy to grow from nothing. When your economy is a mess, a little application of private enterprise can work wonders, and result in exploding productivity. But there's a law of diminishing returns where the higher you get the harder it is to go higher. The Chinese were so low they have little difficulty in improving. Hell, two thirds of Chinese are still living the same life of primitive poverty the peasants did a century ago.

Its also harder when we have a society full of spoiled children with a big govt selling them snake oil and telling them what they want to hear.

[dre]

Seems to be working for india, china, and brazil. Millions being lifted out of poverty into the middle class. Worked for us back in the day as well.

Thats just a stage countries go through when they see their first large bursts of economic growth and industrialization.

Bottom line is if we were putting down our first railway tracks and building our first farms and factories today, then we would have gilded age level growth as well. It has nothing to with anything else.

[WWWTT]

Thats just a stage countries go through when they see their first large bursts of economic growth and industrialization.

Not entirely true.

China has bein going through this now for like 34 years!

As far as I know thats a record!No other nation on this earth has had continued growth year after year for so long.The closest to a resession they have had in this time frame is like 5 or 6%.All but a few of these years has bein double digit growth!

From what I understand the government there actually wants to keep growth at around or capped at 7 to 8% so it can be maintained for several more decades.

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

I've already provided links that show religion is far more important to Americans than other Westerners. Americans are also the least likely to believe in evolution of the Western countries surveyed (Canada wasn't one of them.

Science minister won't confirm belief in evolution

Canada's science minister [...] won't say if he believes in evolution.

"I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate," Gary Goodyear, the federal Minister of State for Science and Technology, said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.

"I do believe that just because you can't see it under a microscope doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It could mean we don't have a powerful enough microscope yet. So I'm not fussy on this business that we already know everything. ... I think we need to recognize that we don't know."

[cybercoma]

Seems to be working for india, china, and brazil. Millions being lifted out of poverty into the middle class. Worked for us back in the day as well.

And you think the same thing that lifts people out of absolute poverty into the middle class is what will lift the middle class in Canada to the upper class?

[Smallc]

I'm sure that in her own way, AW is attempting to make a point.

[blueblood]

And you think the same thing that lifts people out of absolute poverty into the middle class is what will lift the middle class in Canada to the upper class?

In Canada, you get the shot to go into upper class, whether you want it bad enough is up to you.

[dre]

In Canada, you get the shot to go into upper class, whether you want it bad enough is up to you.

Problem is you have an increasingly narrow window to climb through in order to get there.

[blueblood]

Problem is you have an increasingly narrow window to climb through in order to get there.

Its as narrow as you want it to be.

[cybercoma]

If the gap is growing, mobility is decreasing. That should be obvious.

[cybercoma]

Oh and I think Gingrich and Harper have the same Barber.

[sharkman]

Science minister won't confirm belief in evolution

Canada's science minister [...] won't say if he believes in evolution.

"I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate," Gary Goodyear, the federal Minister of State for Science and Technology, said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.

"I do believe that just because you can't see it under a microscope doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It could mean we don't have a powerful enough microscope yet. So I'm not fussy on this business that we already know everything. ... I think we need to recognize that we don't know."

Yep, religion plays a part in Canadian politics and always has. Liberal minded people seem to be fine with Catholics, but get pretty nervous about most other churches. Odd, that.

I'd say the field of contenders for the Republican nomination is pretty strong this time out, and no wonder what with Obama being so vulnerable. The latest on him is his administration is pondering aloud that unemployment could drop to 8% by next year's election

He seems hopeful that as the unemployed have their benefits ending and they are no longer considered unemployed by the stats, this will be enough to lower the official unemployment rate to 8%. I suppose anything is possible, but we have yet to see the christmas employment bubble burst come January.

[cybercoma]

Santorum seems the most sane out of the bunch, which is probably why he's ignored. He's not divisive enough.

[Guest American Woman]

He seems hopeful that as the unemployed have their benefits ending and they are no longer considered unemployed by the stats ....

That's not true; whether or not one is receiving unemployment benefits isn't a factor in the unemployment statistics.

[Guest Derek L]

Santorum seems the most sane out of the bunch, which is probably why he's ignored. He's not divisive enough.

Are you kidding? I’m partisan, and felt he seemed out to lunch during one of the debates, on answering a question on “Don’t ask, don’t tell”…..Perhaps you’re thinking of Huntsman

[cybercoma]

Are you kidding? I’m partisan, and felt he seemed out to lunch during one of the debates, on answering a question on “Don’t ask, don’t tell”…..Perhaps you’re thinking of Huntsman

I must have missed that one, but being out to lunch on a single question is much saner than the others that are out to lunch on every question. Except Ron Paul, who speaks his mind, openly and honestly. Ron Paul doesn't give a crap what anyone thinks it means to be a conservative. He just is a conservative. Many of his positions are insane, but I find I agree with him on about half of what he stands for, which is a lot more than I can say for the rest of them or Obama.

[Guest Derek L]

I must have missed that one, but being out to lunch on a single question is much saner than the others that are out to lunch on every question. Except Ron Paul, who speaks his mind, openly and honestly. Ron Paul doesn't give a crap what anyone thinks it means to be a conservative. He just is a conservative. Many of his positions are insane, but I find I agree with him on about half of what he stands for, which is a lot more than I can say for the rest of them or Obama.

Have you read his position on homosexuality and abortion?……I swear, you must have Huntsman and him mixed-up....In my view, Santorum is as nutty as a fruitcake....He makes Bachman and Perry seem mainstream.

[Guest Derek L]

Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich evoke Honest Abe with unique debate format

Newsweek columnist John Avlon wrote an op-ed piece Monday for urging the Republican Party to "give Huntsman another look."

"Jon Huntsman is putting all his chips on New Hampshire, where he's been inching forward in the polls. Unlike the Iowa caucus, it's a state with an open primary where independents can vote and a principled center-right perspective might be rewarded. Tonight he will get a chance to shine in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate with Gingrich in New Hampshire. It might prove to be a highlight of the 2012 campaign — a substantive and civil debate about ideas, providing more light than heat."

I’m sure you’re thinking Huntsman…….As I said in one of the earlier threads, I like the guy, I just don’t think he has quite what it takes to get over the top…..Who ever wins, he’d make a good Secretary of State…..His father is also a likeable person, head of the Huntsman Corporation….Big time philanthropist, and I was taken aback when Trump didn’t invite Huntsman to his debate….The world needs more Jon Huntsmans, both Sr. & Jr.

[sharkman]

That's not true; whether or not one is receiving unemployment benefits isn't a factor in the unemployment statistics.

Here is a link that shows 2 things. 1) Some states calculate the rate according to the number of those receiving unemployment benefits. 2) When a person stops looking for work because they've given up, the government no longer counts them as unemployed.

Neither of these examples is a fair way to calculate the numbers.

[cybercoma]

Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich evoke Honest Abe with unique debate format

I’m sure you’re thinking Huntsman…….As I said in one of the earlier threads, I like the guy, I just don’t think he has quite what it takes to get over the top…..Who ever wins, he’d make a good Secretary of State…..His father is also a likeable person, head of the Huntsman Corporation….Big time philanthropist, and I was taken aback when Trump didn’t invite Huntsman to his debate….The world needs more Jon Huntsmans, both Sr. & Jr.

You, sir, might very well be right.

[Guest American Woman]

Here is a link that shows 2 things. 1) Some states calculate the rate according to the number of those receiving unemployment benefits. 2) When a person stops looking for work because they've given up, the government no longer counts them as unemployed.

Neither of these examples is a fair way to calculate the numbers.

The federal statistics are not based on whether or not one is collecting unemployment, and those are the figures that represent the nation's unemployment statistics.

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

Bureau of Labor Statistics

If one is not looking for work, why should they be included in the statistics? Why would anyone who wants a job, needs a job, "give up?" If the government counted everyone who isn't working, that would include people who choose not to work, homemakers, spouses/partners who choose not to work - and that certainly wouldn't produce accurate "unemployment" statistics.

[GostHacked]

If one is not looking for work, why should they be included in the statistics? Why would anyone who wants a job, needs a job, "give up?" If the government counted everyone who isn't working, that would include people who choose not to work, homemakers, spouses/partners who choose not to work - and that certainly wouldn't produce accurate "unemployment" statistics.

If they were part of the workforce before, got laid off whatever and then give up looking for work, techically that person is still unemployed. And if they are in fact still looking but the EI benefits run out, they should still be counted as unemployed. Housewives (in my view, or opinion, like it matters!!) don't really count in this sense because that person may not have ever entered the workforce. So they can't be counted simply because they've never been there.

And depends on how long you've been looking for work in your feild.

[dre]

The federal statistics are not based on whether or not one is collecting unemployment, and those are the figures that represent the nation's unemployment statistics.

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

Bureau of Labor Statistics

If one is not looking for work, why should they be included in the statistics? Why would anyone who wants a job, needs a job, "give up?" If the government counted everyone who isn't working, that would include people who choose not to work, homemakers, spouses/partners who choose not to work - and that certainly wouldn't produce accurate "unemployment" statistics.

That depends. Youre going to have a lot more people that give up looking for work in a shitty job market. Whether or not anyone thinks they should or not.

I think they should track statistics both ways.

Why would anyone who wants a job, needs a job, "give up?"

Lots of people give up for all kinds of reasons. Single mothers are one example... they cant take a minimum wage job a lot of the time because the wages wont cover the cost of childcare so theyre actually encouraged to stay home and look after their kids. You will see this more and more as the job market is comprised of more and more shitty and part time jobs.

[Guest American Woman]

If they were part of the workforce before, got laid off whatever and then give up looking for work, techically that person is still unemployed.

Sure they are, same as a stay-at-home mom/dad or homemaker is unemployed; none are looking to work, so why would they be in the "unemployment statistics?" Anyone who is not seeking employment cannot say they want a job - they are choosing not to have a job by not looking, as the job fairy is not going to call them up and offer them one. If one chooses not to look for work, one is choosing not to work.

And if they are in fact still looking but the EI benefits run out, they should still be counted as unemployed.

They are. They are counted as unemployed. That's the third time I'm pointing that out, and I cited the Bureau of Labor Statistics proving it.

Housewives (in my view, or opinion, like it matters!!) don't really count in this sense because that person may not have ever entered the workforce. So they can't be counted simply because they've never been there.

Plenty of stay-at-home moms/dads and homemakers have been in the workforce. They didn't all get married and/or have kids without having ever worked a day in their lives. They aren't counted because they aren't seeking work. They are unemployed by choice. Same as anyone who chooses not to look for work.

By the same token, people who have graduated from high school and/or university and have never worked, have never been in the workforce, ARE counted in the unemployment statistics - because they are actively seeking work, because they want a job and are pursuing it.

And depends on how long you've been looking for work in your feild.

???

What depends on that?

Edited December 12, 2011 by American Woman

[dre]

Sure they are, same as a stay-at-home mom/dad or homemaker is unemployed; none are looking to work, so why would they be in the "unemployment statistics?" Anyone who is not seeking employment cannot say they want a job - they are choosing not to have a job by not looking, as the job fairy is not going to call them up and offer them one. If one chooses not to look for work, one is choosing not to work.

They are. They are counted as unemployed. That's the third time I'm pointing that out, and I cited the Bureau of Labor Statistics proving it.

Plenty of stay-at-home moms/dads and homemakers have been in the workforce. They didn't all get married and/or have kids without having ever worked a day in their lives. They aren't counted because they aren't seeking work. They are unemployed by choice. Same as anyone who chooses not to look for work.

By the same token, people who have graduated from high school and/or university and have never worked, have never been in the workforce, ARE counted in the unemployment statistics - because they are actively seeking work, because they want a job and are pursuing it.

???

What depends on that?

Plenty of stay-at-home moms/dads and homemakers have been in the workforce. They didn't all get married and/or have kids without having ever worked a day in their lives. They aren't counted because they aren't seeking work. They are unemployed by choice. Same as anyone who chooses not to look for work.

No only some of them are unemployed by choice. Many of them spent a fair ammount of time in the job market and realized that the jobs available to them do not pay enough to cover their costs, plus the new child care costs they would have if they were working.

Like I said... both those methods of measuring unemployment have value.

By your logic if only one person in the whole country wanted to work, and he had a job that country would have a 100% employment rate. Problem is... thats creative accounting and at the end of the day nobody is working. One guy has to fund the government by himself.