States that have lost the most jobs to China

[MattB]

States that have lost the most jobs to China

http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/16/13782682-states-that-have-lost-the-most-jobs-to-china?lite

Debate over how many jobs the United States loses to China has gone on
for years. Today, China is one of the two largest manufacturing
economies in the world. The other is the United States. Many labor
groups and politicians are trying to tip factory activity back to the
U.S. � a difficult task to accomplish when companies send work to
China to bring labor costs down. So, in many cases, China cannot be
blamed for the shift in workers.

In a recent study, the Economic Policy Institute analyzed American
jobs lost to China between 2001 and 2011. During that time, �the trade
deficit with China eliminated or displaced more than 2.7 million U.S.
jobs, over 2.1 million of which were in manufacturing,� according to
the report. Based on the study, 24/7 Wall St. identified the 10 states
that experienced the most job loss as a result of the deficit between
2001 and 2011.

Some industries were affected more than others. Between 2001 and 2011,
the U.S. trade deficit with China grew $217.5 billion, with U.S.
imports of computer and electronic parts, including computer,
semiconductors and audio-video equipment, making up 55 percent of the
total. Of the 2.1 million manufacturing jobs lost, more than 1 million
were in the computer and electronic products category.

As a result, many of the states that lost the most jobs have
congressional districts with high concentrations of technology jobs.
According to the report, states like California and Texas have
congressional districts with heavy focus on tech. Four of the five
congressional districts with the highest proportional decline �
California�s 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th � are in the tech-heavy San
Francisco Bay Area. The other is Texas� 31st district, which forms
part of Austin, also home to many of the nation�s largest technology
companies.

Districts in some states, including Georgia and Alabama, �were
especially hard-hit by job displacement in a variety of manufacturing
industries, including computers and electronic products, textiles and
apparel, and furniture,� according to the institute. Out of the
country�s 435 congressional districts, Georgia�s 9th District is among
the top 25 for job loss. The district includes the city of Dalton,
which is home to manufacturers, including many prominent upholstery
corporations.

Despite the talk of a manufacturing resurgence, Robert Scott, the
author of the institute's study, calls this �hot air.� He notes that
50,000 manufacturing facilities have been closed since 2001 with very
few coming back anytime soon. He suggests the only way to get a
manufacturing resurgence off the ground is for the federal government
to crack down on China�s currency manipulation and to get American
companies to truly invest in manufacturing. �There is a lack of
willingness to put that in place,� Scott said. �Standing by and hoping
manufacturing is going to get better isn�t going to work.�

24/7 Wall St. identified the states losing the most jobs to China
based on the Economic Policy Institute report, �The China Toll.� To
reflect how much the trade deficit has affected state and local
economies, we considered states that lost the most jobs relative to
the population. On this basis, small states like New Hampshire and
Vermont have been just as hurt when worker migration is compared to
total jobs in each state. 24/7 Wall St. also reviewed the level of
export activity and job losses in the 50 states and 435 congressional
districts relative to the number of people employed by state. The
relative growth rate of gross domestic product for each state for 2011
and between 2008 and 2011 is based on data from the institute's
report. The July 2012 unemployment rate by state is from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics.

What emerges from these figures is that the shift of jobs to China
does not spare any state based on its unemployment rate or GDP growth.
Nor does it spare any single industry or sector, from technology to
shoe making. China�s ability to take jobs from the U.S. stretches
across nearly every aspect of the American economy.

These are the 10 states losing the most jobs to China.
Read More
http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/16/13782682-states-that-have-lost-the-most-jobs-to-china?lite

******************

Hard to compete with $2.50 a hour average wage.

[wy]

On Sep 16, 5:42 pm, MattB <trdell1234N...@gmail.com> wrote:
> States that have lost the most jobs to China
>

> http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/16/13782682-states-that-h...

> Read Morehttp://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/16/13782682-states-that-h...

>
> ******************
>
> Hard to compete with $2.50 a hour average wage.

Maybe the government should be penalize companies $7.50 an hour for
every outsourced job created and maintained. That way they'd see no
difference between hiring somebody in the US for $10/hr and somebody
in China for $10/hr (penalty included) and so wouldn't bother
outsourcing work anymore.

[MattB]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 17:50:23 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 14:47:30 -0700, MattB <trdell1...@gmail.com>
>wrote:

>
>>Debate over how many jobs the United States loses to China has gone on
>>for years.
>

>So---are you saying you don't know that the Raygun, Gingrich, Ryan,
>Bush voodoo crap, deregulation, losses of revenue, failure of
>oversight, allowing misuse of public funds hasn't been made clear to
>you that IT has been why 9,000,000 jobs were lost and we owe massive
>debt because of them?
>
>Are you that ill-informed?



Malum Niger you are truly a Evil Black Yoorghis AKA Gary Roselles .
Both sides caused this mess and it will take both to fix it.
Democrats can't do it alone and neither can Republicans. FACT.

[wy]

On Sep 16, 7:55 pm, MattB <trdell1234N...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 17:50:23 -0600, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> >On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 14:47:30 -0700, MattB <trdell1234N...@gmail.com>

> >wrote:
>
> >>Debate over how many jobs the United States loses to China has gone on
> >>for years.
>
> >So---are you saying you don't know that the Raygun, Gingrich, Ryan,
> >Bush voodoo crap, deregulation, losses of revenue, failure of
> >oversight, allowing misuse of public funds hasn't been made clear to
> >you that IT has been why 9,000,000 jobs were lost and we owe massive
> >debt because of them?
>
> >Are you that ill-informed?
>
> Malum Niger you are truly a Evil Black Yoorghis AKA Gary Roselles .
> Both sides caused this mess and it will take both to fix it.
> Democrats can't do it alone and neither can Republicans.  FACT.

Well, it certainly won't be this Congress, as has been proven the last
two years, and it likely won't be the next one either. The US
seriously needs a third and even fourth party to break the log jam by
forming alliances between parties in order to get anything done.

[MattB]

This I totally agree with. They fear a third party.

[Vandar]

We'd be better served by eliminating parties altogether.

[wy]

Do you mean you actually agree with Canadian-style politics? We've
got 5 parties on the federal level. No wonder we're so much ahead of
you guys on practically every issue.

[wy]

No such thing anywhere and actually impossible. Nice hallucination,
though.

[Vandar]

It's not impossible, just very unlikely, which makes it no different
than your proposal.

[wy]

If it's not impossible, then how would such a system be set up in
practical working terms? Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.

[Vandar]

If you're eligible, accumulate the signatures, and pay the fees, you're
on the ballot.

[wy]

Where's the financing going to come from?

[Vandar]

Prospective candidates need to fundraise.

[jane]

Ask Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman.

[wy]

You do realize that they never get all the money they need on their
own, they have to rely on either public or party funding to close any
gap, otherwise they're left at a disadvantage. And with no party
identification to support them, it would become even that much more
difficult to sell their personal platforms and raise funding,
especially if there are 10 or 20 others that would feel like running
as well simply because it would become more "possible" for them to do
so without a party-structured system. What you would then have is not
only ideological chaos for the voter trying to make sense out of 10 or
20 different platforms, and for prospective financial supporters too,
but a voting outcome that would inevitably see the winner be voted as
a minority, which is very Parliamentarian and not in line with a
Republic form of government, which is what the Constitution was
founded on and expects American government to be. So, in essence,
you're being very anti-Constitutional by proposing a free-for-all kind
of system. In other, other words, your proposal suggests that with
the way you think you don't even belong in the U.S. because its
political system is alien to the way you think.

[Vandar]

A disadvantage to what?

> And with no party
> identification to support them, it would become even that much more
> difficult to sell their personal platforms and raise funding,

Awwww... it might be hard.
Too bad.

> especially if there are 10 or 20 others that would feel like running
> as well simply because it would become more "possible" for them to do
> so without a party-structured system. What you would then have is not
> only ideological chaos for the voter trying to make sense out of 10 or
> 20 different platforms, and for prospective financial supporters too,
> but a voting outcome that would inevitably see the winner be voted as
> a minority,

He would be the person who garnered the most votes. Where it is in
relation to "50%" is irrelevant.

> which is very Parliamentarian and not in line with a
> Republic form of government, which is what the Constitution was
> founded on and expects American government to be. So, in essence,
> you're being very anti-Constitutional by proposing a free-for-all kind
> of system.

Wrong. Signatures & fees, remember? That's for each state.

> In other, other words, your proposal suggests that with
> the way you think you don't even belong in the U.S. because its
> political system is alien to the way you think.

Absurd.

[wy]

To winning. Wake up. Yeah, I see you really know what you're
hallucinating about.

>
> > And with no party
> > identification to support them, it would become even that much more
> > difficult to sell their personal platforms and raise funding,
>
> Awwww... it might be hard.
> Too bad.

Just keep in mind that Americans are platform-challenged with just two
parties, never mind having to keep up with 10 or 20 candidates in
their district.

>
> > especially if there are 10 or 20 others that would feel like running
> > as well simply because it would become more "possible" for them to do
> > so without a party-structured system.  What you would then have is not
> > only ideological chaos for the voter trying to make sense out of 10 or
> > 20 different platforms, and for prospective financial supporters too,
> > but a voting outcome that would inevitably see the winner be voted as
> > a minority,
>
> He would be the person who garnered the most votes. Where it is in
> relation to "50%" is irrelevant.

So how valid is the victor if he only gets 20% of the vote and the
remaining 80% voted against him and for any of the other 10 or 20
candidates instead? Doesn't sound like he'd be very representative of
his district's views.

>
> > which is very Parliamentarian and not in line with a
> > Republic form of government, which is what the Constitution was
> > founded on and expects American government to be.  So, in essence,
> > you're being very anti-Constitutional by proposing a free-for-all kind
> > of system.
>
> Wrong. Signatures & fees, remember? That's for each state.

Each state has its own rules of how candidates qualify. Remember? Or
do you want the same across-the-board rules which, I believe, would go
against the Constitution?

>
> > In other, other words, your proposal suggests that with
> > the way you think you don't even belong in the U.S. because its
> > political system is alien to the way you think.
>
> Absurd.

You're the one proposing a Parliamentary system of government and your
Constitution goes against that. The absurdity is all yours.

[wy]

Within a two-party system it's easy enough, I know. Stay awake, we're
talking about a no-party system, the idiotic and anarchistic one
Vandar is proposing.

[Vandar]

Anarchy is a system without government or law. I proposed nothing close.

[Vandar]

It's not a disadvantage if everyone else is on the same level.

>>>And with no party
>>>identification to support them, it would become even that much more
>>>difficult to sell their personal platforms and raise funding,
>>
>>Awwww... it might be hard.
>>Too bad.
>
>
> Just keep in mind that Americans are platform-challenged with just two
> parties, never mind having to keep up with 10 or 20 candidates in
> their district.

It's the decision of the individual to inform themselves or not.
Nothing changes on that front.

>>>especially if there are 10 or 20 others that would feel like running
>>>as well simply because it would become more "possible" for them to do
>>>so without a party-structured system. What you would then have is not
>>>only ideological chaos for the voter trying to make sense out of 10 or
>>>20 different platforms, and for prospective financial supporters too,
>>>but a voting outcome that would inevitably see the winner be voted as
>>>a minority,
>>
>>He would be the person who garnered the most votes. Where it is in
>>relation to "50%" is irrelevant.
>
>
> So how valid is the victor if he only gets 20% of the vote and the
> remaining 80% voted against him and for any of the other 10 or 20
> candidates instead? Doesn't sound like he'd be very representative of
> his district's views.

Doesn't matter. Being elected with a plurality, rather than a majority,
is nothing new.

>>>which is very Parliamentarian and not in line with a
>>>Republic form of government, which is what the Constitution was
>>>founded on and expects American government to be. So, in essence,
>>>you're being very anti-Constitutional by proposing a free-for-all kind
>>>of system.
>>
>>Wrong. Signatures & fees, remember? That's for each state.
>
>
> Each state has its own rules of how candidates qualify. Remember? Or
> do you want the same across-the-board rules which, I believe, would go
> against the Constitution?

It would be up to the states to establish their own methods. I proposed
no parties, nothing more.

>>>In other, other words, your proposal suggests that with
>>>the way you think you don't even belong in the U.S. because its
>>>political system is alien to the way you think.
>>
>>Absurd.
>
>
> You're the one proposing a Parliamentary system of government and your
> Constitution goes against that. The absurdity is all yours.

You obviously don't know what Parliamentary system is.

[wy]

I think your hallucination is a permanent state of mind. They're not
on the same level, they're not even on the same level within a two-
party system.

>
> >>>And with no party
> >>>identification to support them, it would become even that much more
> >>>difficult to sell their personal platforms and raise funding,
>
> >>Awwww... it might be hard.
> >>Too bad.
>
> > Just keep in mind that Americans are platform-challenged with just two
> > parties, never mind having to keep up with 10 or 20 candidates in
> > their district.
>
> It's the decision of the individual to inform themselves or not.
> Nothing changes on that front.

They'll end up much less informed, if not totally uninformed, with 10
to 20 candidates and just vote on the basis of which way the coin
flips - but it had better flip up to 20 different sides. Just with a
two-party system alone, they're already pretty uninformed, like you
are.

>
>
>
> >>>especially if there are 10 or 20 others that would feel like running
> >>>as well simply because it would become more "possible" for them to do
> >>>so without a party-structured system.  What you would then have is not
> >>>only ideological chaos for the voter trying to make sense out of 10 or
> >>>20 different platforms, and for prospective financial supporters too,
> >>>but a voting outcome that would inevitably see the winner be voted as
> >>>a minority,
>
> >>He would be the person who garnered the most votes. Where it is in
> >>relation to "50%" is irrelevant.
>
> > So how valid is the victor if he only gets 20% of the vote and the
> > remaining 80% voted against him and for any of the other 10 or 20
> > candidates instead?  Doesn't sound like he'd be very representative of
> > his district's views.
>
> Doesn't matter. Being elected with a plurality, rather than a majority,
> is nothing new.

Then you're all for a Parliamentary system. Because that's what it
is.

>
> >>>which is very Parliamentarian and not in line with a
> >>>Republic form of government, which is what the Constitution was
> >>>founded on and expects American government to be.  So, in essence,
> >>>you're being very anti-Constitutional by proposing a free-for-all kind
> >>>of system.
>
> >>Wrong. Signatures & fees, remember? That's for each state.
>
> > Each state has its own rules of how candidates qualify.  Remember?  Or
> > do you want the same across-the-board rules which, I believe, would go
> > against the Constitution?
>
> It would be up to the states to establish their own methods. I proposed
> no parties, nothing more.

You proposed nothing alright. Nothing of any worth that makes any
sense.

>
> >>>In other, other words, your proposal suggests that with
> >>>the way you think you don't even belong in the U.S. because its
> >>>political system is alien to the way you think.
>
> >>Absurd.
>
> > You're the one proposing a Parliamentary system of government and your
> > Constitution goes against that.  The absurdity is all yours.
>
> You obviously don't know what Parliamentary system is.

I've lived under one all my life. You obviously know nothing about
Canada because you obviously never lived in it all your life.
Otherwise you wouldn't have said something so stupid. Boy, you're
stupid.

[MattB]

I agree the USA needs at least a third major party. Don't know enough
about Canadian government to answer your other question.

[wy]

Anarchy - noun

5. confusion and disorder

It's a synonym for confusion and disorder, which doesn't have to exist
within a framework of an absence of authority. You propose an
anarchist form of government whereby 535 members, most of whom would
be elected by a small minority of votes that would reflect a failure
to represent the true wishes of their constituents, would hold no
allegiance to any single platform, have no single vision to follow
through on, and that everything that would be voted on would be on the
basis of no rhyme nor reason and, hence, without any sense of any
ideological direction. While within a multiple party (3 or 4) system,
a more constructive government could be possible, that possibility is
effectively eradicated when you'd have 535 independent voices
representing no one. This, of course, doesn't take into account how
the president would be elected and what and/or who he would actually
represent and how much conflict there may be between him and those 535
independent voices that barely represent anyone.

[Vandar]

Yes, they are.

>>>>>And with no party
>>>>>identification to support them, it would become even that much more
>>>>>difficult to sell their personal platforms and raise funding,
>>
>>>>Awwww... it might be hard.
>>>>Too bad.
>>
>>>Just keep in mind that Americans are platform-challenged with just two
>>>parties, never mind having to keep up with 10 or 20 candidates in
>>>their district.
>>
>>It's the decision of the individual to inform themselves or not.
>>Nothing changes on that front.
>
>
> They'll end up much less informed, if not totally uninformed, with 10
> to 20 candidates and just vote on the basis of which way the coin
> flips - but it had better flip up to 20 different sides. Just with a
> two-party system alone, they're already pretty uninformed, like you
> are.

What makes you think there would be 10-20 candidates?

>>>>>especially if there are 10 or 20 others that would feel like running
>>>>>as well simply because it would become more "possible" for them to do
>>>>>so without a party-structured system. What you would then have is not
>>>>>only ideological chaos for the voter trying to make sense out of 10 or
>>>>>20 different platforms, and for prospective financial supporters too,
>>>>>but a voting outcome that would inevitably see the winner be voted as
>>>>>a minority,
>>
>>>>He would be the person who garnered the most votes. Where it is in
>>>>relation to "50%" is irrelevant.
>>
>>>So how valid is the victor if he only gets 20% of the vote and the
>>>remaining 80% voted against him and for any of the other 10 or 20
>>>candidates instead? Doesn't sound like he'd be very representative of
>>>his district's views.
>>
>>Doesn't matter. Being elected with a plurality, rather than a majority,
>>is nothing new.
>
>
> Then you're all for a Parliamentary system. Because that's what it
> is.

Bill Clinton was elected with less than 50% of the votes, twice.
Kennedy & Nixon also won with less than a majority.
In local elections, it's not uncommon for a multitude of people to be
seeking the same office.

>>>>>which is very Parliamentarian and not in line with a
>>>>>Republic form of government, which is what the Constitution was
>>>>>founded on and expects American government to be. So, in essence,
>>>>>you're being very anti-Constitutional by proposing a free-for-all kind
>>>>>of system.
>>
>>>>Wrong. Signatures & fees, remember? That's for each state.
>>
>>>Each state has its own rules of how candidates qualify. Remember? Or
>>>do you want the same across-the-board rules which, I believe, would go
>>>against the Constitution?
>>
>>It would be up to the states to establish their own methods. I proposed
>>no parties, nothing more.
>
>
> You proposed nothing alright. Nothing of any worth that makes any
> sense.

Yet here you are.

>>>>>In other, other words, your proposal suggests that with
>>>>>the way you think you don't even belong in the U.S. because its
>>>>>political system is alien to the way you think.
>>
>>>>Absurd.
>>
>>>You're the one proposing a Parliamentary system of government and your
>>>Constitution goes against that. The absurdity is all yours.
>>
>>You obviously don't know what Parliamentary system is.
>
>
> I've lived under one all my life. You obviously know nothing about
> Canada because you obviously never lived in it all your life.
> Otherwise you wouldn't have said something so stupid. Boy, you're
> stupid.

Following your ridiculous application of "logic": You obviously know
nothing about the United States because you obviously never lived in it
all your life.

"Never lived in it all your life". Is that the superior Canadian
education system shining through or are you just an idiot?

[wy]

Well, as an example, we just had an election here in Quebec. The
victorious party won a minority government, meaning it came in with 54
seats, 9 fewer than it needed to have for majority rule. The runner-
up party had 50 seats, and two other parties came through with 19 and
2 seats, respectively. So while the victor has control of the
government, its power is effectively curtailed by the collective total
of the opposition, meaning the winning party will have to engage in
much more debates over their proposed legislation and try to win over
members from the other parties to pass through their proposed bills
rather than easily shove them down everybody's throats. This'll be
difficult for them to do with their more ideologically slanted bills
since the runner-up and 3rd party are more aligned with each other
than the 3rd party is with the winning party. What this reflects is
the will of the people at work, whereby most people voted against the
victor to ensure that the winning party didn't steamroll their agenda
through because they weren't that convinced with the winning party's
agenda in the first place. It also means that a minority government
is actually on a kind of probation, that if it makes too many wrong
moves that rubs badly against the more numerous opposition members,
then an election can be called again at any point rather than
everybody having to interminably stick it out with the same government
for 4 or 5 years. Invariably, minority governments don't last long so
it's to be expected that another election in Quebec will take place
within the next 18 months or so.

The Canadian system is a more flexible and fairer process, but it does
have one setback. In the case of the federal government,
Conservatives won with 40% of the votes cast but gained enough seats
to be a majority. However, their win is somewhat invalid in that only
20% of the entire electorate actually voted for the Conservatives, so
on that basis they're really a minority party, and yet they've been
acting like a bully majority party because they assume their win of
40% and the majority of seats in the House as a license to kill
anything rational. Despite that, I'd still take the Canadian system
over the US any day because, as I mentioned earlier, it's one that has
had us be so much further ahead than the US on so many issues.

[Vandar]

Definition 5, eh?

> It's a synonym for confusion and disorder, which doesn't have to exist
> within a framework of an absence of authority. You propose an
> anarchist form of government whereby 535 members, most of whom would
> be elected by a small minority of votes that would reflect a failure
> to represent the true wishes of their constituents, would hold no
> allegiance to any single platform, have no single vision to follow
> through on, and that everything that would be voted on would be on the
> basis of no rhyme nor reason and, hence, without any sense of any
> ideological direction.

That's a quite a few assumptions you made there. A lot of those 535 were
elected with less than 50% of the vote.

> While within a multiple party (3 or 4) system,
> a more constructive government could be possible, that possibility is
> effectively eradicated when you'd have 535 independent voices
> representing no one. This, of course, doesn't take into account how
> the president would be elected and what and/or who he would actually
> represent and how much conflict there may be between him and those 535
> independent voices that barely represent anyone.

You like arguing against your own absurdities, don't you.

[wy]

10 or 20 candidates cannot be on the same level, ideologically or in
financial support. Smarten up, you're slipping into too stupid gear.

>
> >>>>>And with no party
> >>>>>identification to support them, it would become even that much more
> >>>>>difficult to sell their personal platforms and raise funding,
>
> >>>>Awwww... it might be hard.
> >>>>Too bad.
>
> >>>Just keep in mind that Americans are platform-challenged with just two
> >>>parties, never mind having to keep up with 10 or 20 candidates in
> >>>their district.
>
> >>It's the decision of the individual to inform themselves or not.
> >>Nothing changes on that front.
>
> > They'll end up much less informed, if not totally uninformed, with 10
> > to 20 candidates and just vote on the basis of which way the coin
> > flips - but it had better flip up to 20 different sides.  Just with a
> > two-party system alone, they're already pretty uninformed, like you
> > are.
>
> What makes you think there would be 10-20 candidates?

What makes you think there wouldn't? It's the two-party system and
all its regulations that prevents more than 2 candidates to compete,
one within each party. Under your system, unless you plan to impose a
limit as to how many candidates can compete against each other, it's
anarchy - it can even be 50 or 100 candidates if there are no rules in
place other than flimsy ones you came up with.

>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>especially if there are 10 or 20 others that would feel like running
> >>>>>as well simply because it would become more "possible" for them to do
> >>>>>so without a party-structured system.  What you would then have is not
> >>>>>only ideological chaos for the voter trying to make sense out of 10 or
> >>>>>20 different platforms, and for prospective financial supporters too,
> >>>>>but a voting outcome that would inevitably see the winner be voted as
> >>>>>a minority,
>
> >>>>He would be the person who garnered the most votes. Where it is in
> >>>>relation to "50%" is irrelevant.
>
> >>>So how valid is the victor if he only gets 20% of the vote and the
> >>>remaining 80% voted against him and for any of the other 10 or 20
> >>>candidates instead?  Doesn't sound like he'd be very representative of
> >>>his district's views.
>
> >>Doesn't matter. Being elected with a plurality, rather than a majority,
> >>is nothing new.
>
> > Then you're all for a Parliamentary system.  Because that's what it
> > is.
>
> Bill Clinton was elected with less than 50% of the votes, twice.
> Kennedy & Nixon also won with less than a majority.
> In local elections, it's not uncommon for a multitude of people to be
> seeking the same office.

Your system doesn't propose a 3- or 4-party one, it proposes an
anything goes, anybody can run system without any parties, which can
only reduce a plurality win to a ridiculously low level, depending how
many candidates actually run. And I hope you're not forgetting what
you seem to be forgetting by diverting the discussion to presidents
that most of the effect of your system would be directed at the
choosing of Congressional representatives. You still haven't answered
the question of how a president himself would be elected.

>
>
>
> >>>>>which is very Parliamentarian and not in line with a
> >>>>>Republic form of government, which is what the Constitution was
> >>>>>founded on and expects American government to be.  So, in essence,
> >>>>>you're being very anti-Constitutional by proposing a free-for-all kind
> >>>>>of system.
>
> >>>>Wrong. Signatures & fees, remember? That's for each state.
>
> >>>Each state has its own rules of how candidates qualify.  Remember?  Or
> >>>do you want the same across-the-board rules which, I believe, would go
> >>>against the Constitution?
>
> >>It would be up to the states to establish their own methods. I proposed
> >>no parties, nothing more.
>
> > You proposed nothing alright.  Nothing of any worth that makes any
> > sense.
>
> Yet here you are.

Yeah, but you're the one spewing nothing, I'm just recognizing it.

> >>>>>In other, other words, your proposal suggests that with
> >>>>>the way you think you don't even belong in the U.S. because its
> >>>>>political system is alien to the way you think.
>
> >>>>Absurd.
>
> >>>You're the one proposing a Parliamentary system of government and your
> >>>Constitution goes against that.  The absurdity is all yours.
>
> >>You obviously don't know what Parliamentary system is.
>
> > I've lived under one all my life.  You obviously know nothing about
> > Canada because you obviously never lived in it all your life.
> > Otherwise you wouldn't have said something so stupid.  Boy, you're
> > stupid.
>
> Following your ridiculous application of "logic": You obviously know
> nothing about the United States because you obviously never lived in it
> all your life.

I know enough to know that you don't know enough to know about how to
replace the current system in a way that would make practical sense.

>
> "Never lived in it all your life". Is that the superior Canadian
> education system shining through or are you just an idiot?

Well, our educational standards are much higher than yours, so I guess
there's no possibility of any idiocy to be attained, at least nowhere
near as easily as with your educational standards.

[MattB]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 21:15:11 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 16:59:55 -0700, MattB <trdell1...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Niger you are truly a Evil Black Yoorghis .

>
>>Both sides caused this mess and it will take both to fix it.
>

>You keep saying "both caused the economic disaster"
>
>That is not factually correct or credible.

>
>>Democrats can't do it alone and neither can Republicans. FACT.
>

>Democrats cannot do ANYTHING because in order to "fix it"---it
>requires REVENUE.
>
>Republicans state: "NO NEW REVENUE"
>
>Had you watched the 90's Gingrich GOPAC lectures (aired on
>C-SPAN)---you'd know why the republican party wants "no new
>revenue"---
>
>You're too fucking stupid to figure out why.
>
>(and it ain't for the good of America)


Well I'm not going to change.

Changed to subject line and removed your lie.

You are and will remain to me. My Stalker Malum Niger Yoorghis AKA
Gary Roselles of Rapid City, SD

Malum Niger is no more racist than "Loon"






--

Democrat Party's History of Racism

http://youtu.be/jQzBhqxzoZU

Made by a good Black Republican.

[Vandar]

The better candidates would raise more money and have more in common
with the electorate and would eventually emerge as frontrunners. The "D"
or "R" have no role.

>>>>>>>And with no party
>>>>>>>identification to support them, it would become even that much more
>>>>>>>difficult to sell their personal platforms and raise funding,
>>
>>>>>>Awwww... it might be hard.
>>>>>>Too bad.
>>
>>>>>Just keep in mind that Americans are platform-challenged with just two
>>>>>parties, never mind having to keep up with 10 or 20 candidates in
>>>>>their district.
>>
>>>>It's the decision of the individual to inform themselves or not.
>>>>Nothing changes on that front.
>>
>>>They'll end up much less informed, if not totally uninformed, with 10
>>>to 20 candidates and just vote on the basis of which way the coin
>>>flips - but it had better flip up to 20 different sides. Just with a
>>>two-party system alone, they're already pretty uninformed, like you
>>>are.
>>
>>What makes you think there would be 10-20 candidates?
>
>
> What makes you think there wouldn't?

Costs, commitment, and support.

> It's the two-party system and
> all its regulations that prevents more than 2 candidates to compete,
> one within each party.

So Nader, Barr, Baldwin, and McKinney didn't exist to you in 2008?

> Under your system, unless you plan to impose a
> limit as to how many candidates can compete against each other, it's
> anarchy - it can even be 50 or 100 candidates if there are no rules in
> place other than flimsy ones you came up with.

So your latest absurdity is that I'm somehow proposing the complete
rules of a no party system?
I said no parties. I meant no parties.

It's irrelevant. Many representatives are elected with less than 50% of
the vote.

> You still haven't answered
> the question of how a president himself would be elected.

The candidate who receives the most votes wins.

>>>>>>>which is very Parliamentarian and not in line with a
>>>>>>>Republic form of government, which is what the Constitution was
>>>>>>>founded on and expects American government to be. So, in essence,
>>>>>>>you're being very anti-Constitutional by proposing a free-for-all kind
>>>>>>>of system.
>>
>>>>>>Wrong. Signatures & fees, remember? That's for each state.
>>
>>>>>Each state has its own rules of how candidates qualify. Remember? Or
>>>>>do you want the same across-the-board rules which, I believe, would go
>>>>>against the Constitution?
>>
>>>>It would be up to the states to establish their own methods. I proposed
>>>>no parties, nothing more.
>>
>>>You proposed nothing alright. Nothing of any worth that makes any
>>>sense.
>>
>>Yet here you are.
>
>
> Yeah, but you're the one spewing nothing, I'm just recognizing it.

You're arguing with windmills.

>>>>>>>In other, other words, your proposal suggests that with
>>>>>>>the way you think you don't even belong in the U.S. because its
>>>>>>>political system is alien to the way you think.
>>
>>>>>>Absurd.
>>
>>>>>You're the one proposing a Parliamentary system of government and your
>>>>>Constitution goes against that. The absurdity is all yours.
>>
>>>>You obviously don't know what Parliamentary system is.
>>
>>>I've lived under one all my life. You obviously know nothing about
>>>Canada because you obviously never lived in it all your life.
>>>Otherwise you wouldn't have said something so stupid. Boy, you're
>>>stupid.
>>
>>Following your ridiculous application of "logic": You obviously know
>>nothing about the United States because you obviously never lived in it
>>all your life.
>
>
> I know enough to know that you don't know enough to know about how to
> replace the current system in a way that would make practical sense.

To you. Which is no surprise. Nothing rational and practical makes sense
to you.

>>"Never lived in it all your life". Is that the superior Canadian
>>education system shining through or are you just an idiot?
>
>
> Well, our educational standards are much higher than yours, so I guess
> there's no possibility of any idiocy to be attained, at least nowhere
> near as easily as with your educational standards.

Yet there you are.

[MattB]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 21:16:57 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 17:25:56 -0700, MattB <trdell1...@gmail.com>
>wrote:

>
>>>Well, it certainly won't be this Congress, as has been proven the last
>>>two years, and it likely won't be the next one either. The US
>>>seriously needs a third and even fourth party to break the log jam by
>>>forming alliances between parties in order to get anything done.
>>

>>This I totally agree with. They fear a third party.
>

>You'd agree with any idiot who hates blacks.
>
>There has never been, nor will there ever be, a viable "3rd" party in
>the United states.
>
>A "3rd party" only houses extreme partisans on either side of a
>political spectrum.
>
>Period.


Moderates could form a party it is possible. Race has nothing to do
with politics in my eyes as all are equal to me.

I hope you don't think it will become a 1 party system of government
the democrats will never get that. I don't want either party to get
to much power.

I agree with WY on this one.

[wy]

Against 10 to 20 competitors, each with no party affiliation to back
them up because none would exist, thus giving each, including the
front runner, less credibility to be able to achieve what he claims he
wants to achieve as an individual when he'll face the problems of
trying to do so when he finally ends up in Congress faced with 534
other individual non-party-affiliated members that each got a 20% vote
with little credibility for their being able to achieve what they each
claimed they might want to achieve?

The "D"
> or "R" have no role.
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>And with no party
> >>>>>>>identification to support them, it would become even that much more
> >>>>>>>difficult to sell their personal platforms and raise funding,
>
> >>>>>>Awwww... it might be hard.
> >>>>>>Too bad.
>
> >>>>>Just keep in mind that Americans are platform-challenged with just two
> >>>>>parties, never mind having to keep up with 10 or 20 candidates in
> >>>>>their district.
>
> >>>>It's the decision of the individual to inform themselves or not.
> >>>>Nothing changes on that front.
>
> >>>They'll end up much less informed, if not totally uninformed, with 10
> >>>to 20 candidates and just vote on the basis of which way the coin
> >>>flips - but it had better flip up to 20 different sides.  Just with a
> >>>two-party system alone, they're already pretty uninformed, like you
> >>>are.
>
> >>What makes you think there would be 10-20 candidates?
>
> > What makes you think there wouldn't?
>
> Costs, commitment, and support.

No such thing. Remember, there wouldn't be any parties to serve as
stumbling blocks to their wanting to become a Congressional
representative, meaning they'd have more commitment to succeeding on
their own, and with commitment, where there's a will, there's a way to
meet costs and find support. That's what's called the American Way of
the rugged individual. You do believe in rugged individualism and the
American Way, don't you?

>
> > It's the two-party system and
> > all its regulations that prevents more than 2 candidates to compete,
> > one within each party.
>
> So Nader, Barr, Baldwin, and McKinney didn't exist to you in 2008?

Yeah, we all saw how pretty much invisible they ended up becoming
under a two-party system.

>
> > Under your system, unless you plan to impose a
> > limit as to how many candidates can compete against each other, it's
> > anarchy - it can even be 50 or 100 candidates if there are no rules in
> > place other than flimsy ones you came up with.
>
> So your latest absurdity is that I'm somehow proposing the complete
> rules of a no party system?

No, that's your absurdity since I didn't say anything about you
proposing any rules, just mentioned that *unless* you decide to come
up with rules ("impose a limit as to how many candidates can compete
against each other"), then what you are proposing is a form of
anarchy. No rules = anarchy, it's a simple rule of thumb.

> I said no parties. I meant no parties.

Which is essentially meaningless within a no parties context, being
without any definition of how the election process would exactly run
without parties in any sort of practical sense.

But not with less than 20%.

>
> > You still haven't answered
> > the question of how a president himself would be elected.
>
> The candidate who receives the most votes wins.

But he actually loses if the electorate as a whole voted 80% against
him and they'd probably want to recall him within 6 months because
he'd be doing fuck all for them. The same would go for most of the
other members who were voted in with just 20% of the vote, and so not
only have you created anarchy but chaos as well.

>
> >>>>>>>which is very Parliamentarian and not in line with a
> >>>>>>>Republic form of government, which is what the Constitution was
> >>>>>>>founded on and expects American government to be.  So, in essence,
> >>>>>>>you're being very anti-Constitutional by proposing a free-for-all kind
> >>>>>>>of system.
>
> >>>>>>Wrong. Signatures & fees, remember? That's for each state.
>
> >>>>>Each state has its own rules of how candidates qualify.  Remember?  Or
> >>>>>do you want the same across-the-board rules which, I believe, would go
> >>>>>against the Constitution?
>
> >>>>It would be up to the states to establish their own methods. I proposed
> >>>>no parties, nothing more.
>
> >>>You proposed nothing alright.  Nothing of any worth that makes any
> >>>sense.
>
> >>Yet here you are.
>
> > Yeah, but you're the one spewing nothing, I'm just recognizing it.
>
> You're arguing with windmills.

So you're doing nothing but blowing hot air, huh? I knew that all
along.

>
> >>>>>>>In other, other words, your proposal suggests that with
> >>>>>>>the way you think you don't even belong in the U.S. because its
> >>>>>>>political system is alien to the way you think.
>
> >>>>>>Absurd.
>
> >>>>>You're the one proposing a Parliamentary system of government and your
> >>>>>Constitution goes against that.  The absurdity is all yours.
>
> >>>>You obviously don't know what Parliamentary system is.
>
> >>>I've lived under one all my life.  You obviously know nothing about
> >>>Canada because you obviously never lived in it all your life.
> >>>Otherwise you wouldn't have said something so stupid.  Boy, you're
> >>>stupid.
>
> >>Following your ridiculous application of "logic": You obviously know
> >>nothing about the United States because you obviously never lived in it
> >>all your life.
>
> > I know enough to know that you don't know enough to know about how to
> > replace the current system in a way that would make practical sense.
>
> To you. Which is no surprise. Nothing rational and practical makes sense
> to you.

Not if it derives from you, of course.

>
> >>"Never lived in it all your life". Is that the superior Canadian
> >>education system shining through or are you just an idiot?
>
> > Well, our educational standards are much higher than yours, so I guess
> > there's no possibility of any idiocy to be attained, at least nowhere
> > near as easily as with your educational standards.
>
> Yet there you are.

And there you go.

[wy]

In case you hadn't noticed, the definition of any word is not solely
restricted to its first definition.

>
> > It's a synonym for confusion and disorder, which doesn't have to exist
> > within a framework of an absence of authority.  You propose an
> > anarchist form of government whereby 535 members, most of whom would
> > be elected by a small minority of votes that would reflect a failure
> > to represent the true wishes of their constituents, would hold no
> > allegiance to any single platform, have no single vision to follow
> > through on, and that everything that would be voted on would be on the
> > basis of no rhyme nor reason and, hence, without any sense of any
> > ideological direction.
>
> That's a quite a few assumptions you made there. A lot of those 535 were
> elected with less than 50% of the vote.

Less than 20%. It can only be less than 50% within a two-party
system. The more players in a Congressional district, the more
reduced is the percentage for a win. You're not very good at math,
are you? Clinton was right about Repugnants - "It's arithmetic!".

>
> > While within a multiple party (3 or 4) system,
> > a more constructive government could be possible, that possibility is
> > effectively eradicated when you'd have 535 independent voices
> > representing no one.  This, of course, doesn't take into account how
> > the president would be elected and what and/or who he would actually
> > represent and how much conflict there may be between him and those 535
> > independent voices that barely represent anyone.
>
> You like arguing against your own absurdities, don't you.

I have no absurdities. Besides which, you haven't pointed to or
disputed any as being absurdities with any contrary argument that
would prove them to be absurdities.

[jane]

Wy doesn't want to discuss or debate, he simply likes to argue. He
is a waste of time.

This is a prime example; the topic is jobs lost to China, and he is
arguing about definitions of anarchy.

Even when he is definitively proven wrong, he will continue to argue,
looking for the next chink in your armor. Once he finds a chink, he
will divert the argument and poke away at the new chink, hoping to
lure you away from the original topic where he has been proven wrong.

Wy would be best served at:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/be76d3ca8d/argument-clinic-from-monty-python-from-greatest-comedy-sketches

[jane]

Your own ignorance of math has been illustrated many times.

Remember when you said that a spending of 18% of GDP to 25% was
basically flat?

Remember when you said that a spending increase from 18% of GDP to 25%
was a spending increase of 7%?

[wy]

What do you think discussing or debating is? It's arguing - arguing
one's point of view against another's. Let's face it, you're the one
that can't handle any discussion or debate because you know you always
come up on the losing end of the argument.

>
> This is a prime example; the topic is jobs lost to China, and he is
> arguing about definitions of anarchy.

Vandar and I aren't even discussing jobs lost to China, so your
inclusion into this discussion shows once again how you want to turn
it, thanks to your control freakness, into something that neither
Vandar nor I are talking about. Stay out of it if you can't follow
it.

>
> Even when he is definitively proven wrong, he will continue to argue,

Because neither you or anyone else has been able to prove me wrong.
Try doing that and I won't continue to argue - ever think of that?
No, of course not.

> looking for the next chink in your armor.  Once he finds a chink, he
> will divert the argument and poke away at the new chink, hoping to
> lure you away from the original topic where he has been proven wrong.

I don't have to look for any chinks. They're always thrown at me by
people with chinks on their shoulder.

[wy]

Wasn't me that said it, had no such discussion. But then you wouldn't
be able to keep track of who said it anyway because to you everyone is
a math failure, while failing to realize that in your pointing to
everyone as being a math failure you're actually pointing to yourself
as being the common problem - hence, you're the math failure.

>
> Remember when you said that a spending increase from 18% of GDP to 25%
> was a  spending increase of 7%?

Nope, not me. Do your little Google search and find out who actually
said it.

[RichTravsky]

MattB wrote:
>
> States that have lost the most jobs to China
>
> http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/16/13782682-states-that-have-lost-the-most-jobs-to-china?lite
>
> These are the 10 states losing the most jobs to China.
> Read More
> http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/16/13782682-states-that-have-lost-the-most-jobs-to-china?lite
>
> ******************
>
> Hard to compete with $2.50 a hour average wage.

Apparently Slick Willard's kind of place.

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/09/17/secretly-filmed-video-mitt-romney-apparently-fundraiser-reveals-unguarded-views/F1tFkynHSafrct2VcdCElL/story.html

The Globe on Saturday reported on one of the clips, in which Romney talks
about touring a factory in China when he was at Bain Capital, as part of
a story about Romney's investments in China. That 2-minute clip showed
Romney describing some of the spartan working conditions at a company
Bain officials were planning to buy. Romney said the women were packed
into dormitories, 12 per room in bunk beds, and only earned a
"pittance."

[jane]

On Sep 17, 10:17 am, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 6:02 am, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 16, 11:10 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >wywrote:
> > > > On Sep 16, 10:08 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>wywrote:
>
> > > >>>On Sep 16, 9:20 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

You mean like the time you claimed that not-for-profit insurance
companies were 501(c)(3) charities???

[wy]

501(c)(3) aren't the only charities. You know, like not-for-profit
benevolent life insurance companies under 501(c)(12). And a whole
slew of others under a whole slew of other sections.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p557.pdf

[jane]

Excuse me, for not being specific. We were talking about health
insurance companies at the time, and you claimed that the not-for-
profit health care insurance companies were 501(c)(3). [1]

You can not claim that "Because neither you or anyone else has been

able to prove me wrong."

You have been wrong so many time, but you don't have the knowledge to
realize that you are wrong. (Dunning Kruger Effect)

citations:
1. "A non-profit health insurance company falls under 501(c)(3)
status
with the IRS and thus qualifies [for government grants], and you
better bet your nippy bippy
they take full advantage of it." Wy, Dec 21, 2010 1:06pm

[wy]

Will this make you happy?

501(c)(26) — State-Sponsored Organization Providing Health Coverage
for High-Risk Individuals

501(c)(29) — Qualified Nonprofit Health Insurance Issuers (Created in
section 1322(h)(1) of the Affordable Care Act)


It's still 501(c), if not (3).

[jane]

As I said, You were WRONG.

I am glad that you were able to discover that on your own.

[wy]

There was no wrong. It supports what I said, that health insurance
companies can qualify as a charity. The 501(c) part of it was right,
which is the overall section for such qualifications. I was just off
on the (3) part of it. But it still doesn't negate the basic FACT
that health insurance companies can qualify as a charity under
501(c). Period.

[jane]

You were extremely wrong.

The various subsections of 501(c) are vary different from each other.

Here is what you specifically said,

"A non-profit health insurance company falls under 501(c)(3)
status
with the IRS and thus qualifies [for government grants], and you
better bet your nippy bippy
they take full advantage of it." Wy, Dec 21, 2010 1:06pm

Here is a quote from the IRS publication that YOU provided:

An organization described in sections 501(c)(3)
or 501(c)(4) may be exempt from tax only if no
substantial part of its activities consists of pro-
viding commercial-type insurance.

You are WRONG, and lack the knowledge to recognize it.

If you are too ignorant to realize it or if your ego is so fragile,
then
Go ahead and think that you are right; that is what you commonly do.

[wy]

It still doesn't negate the FACT that health insurance companies can
qualify as charities. Period. How long is that tunnelvision of
yours? Do you ever get out and see the light at any point? Maybe
pulling back the shades in your room to let the sun in might begin to
help.

[jane]

How long have you had this serious reading comprehension problem.

From the IRS:

An organization described in sections 501(c)(3)

or 501(c)(4) may be exempt from tax only if NO

substantial part of its activities consists of pro-

viding COMMERCIAL-TYPE INSURANCE.

What part of NO COMMERCIAL-TYPE INSURANCE do you fail to understand.

Congratulations, you have just claimed the title away from yoorg.

[wy]

Were we talking about commercial-type insurance? No. And of course
the stipulation in the above is if "no substantial part of its
activities consists of commercial-type insurance". Define
"substantial" and define "commercial-type". Meaning, if such
substantial activities don't exist, a health insurance company still
qualifies as a deductible charity. Refer once again to 501(c)26 and
29, which incidentally you never disputed. So there, I still win.

[jane]

Yes we are. Back when you made the bogus 501(c)(3) statement, you
were responding my comment that 48% of insured Americans were are in
nonprofit health plans.

The reason we are talking about your bogus 501(c)(3) statement now is
because you said,

"Because neither you or anyone else has been able to prove me wrong. "

You were WRONG when you made your bogus 501(c)(3) statement and you
can no longer claim, "Because neither you or anyone else has been able
to prove me wrong. ".

Now, go away and try and look for a valid citation for the other
thread proving that property tax is an income tax. Searching for a
valid citation should consume all of your time.

[wy]

No, that's just you talking about commercial-type insurance. I never
engaged in that. But it's nice to see you wanting to exercise your
control freakness and drag me into something unrelated to what I was
talking about in a lame attempt on your part to try to win at
something because you know you weren't winning with what I was talking
about.

[jane]

Excuse me, but you did.

Here is what I said,

Why not just buy your insurance from an non-profit insurance company
as I and 48% of the insured people do?

AND here is YOUR response:

You do realize your so-called non-profit insurance company is partly
aided by government funding,

You then went on to describe that my "so-called non-profit insurance
company" was a 503(c))(3) organization.

You have been proven WRONG,

[wy]

First off, I have never bought insurance from a non-profit company,
especially health insurance. I live in Canada, remember?

>
> AND here is YOUR response:
>
> You do realize your so-called non-profit insurance company is partly
> aided by government funding,

That's true - if it's deemed to be a charity, which it can be based on
definition.

>
> You then went on to describe that my "so-called non-profit insurance
> company" was a 503(c))(3) organization.

Your so-called non-profit insurance company? Get your story
straight. Is it mine or is it yours?

>
> You have been proven WRONG,

I'd only be proven wrong if you got your story straight. And even
then...