Who will take on Obama in 2012?

The point is Romney said, and now, so far, hiding behind an official statement that actually falls far short of a straight denial, that he would defund FEMA. He said it increases the debt on our children. He ignored reporters' questions when this broke. He is obviously hoping this storm passes him before election day.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

Sorry, but this right here is the typical Capitalist attitude. "well, I own nice things, so my standard of living must be a baseline for all." Capitalism offers no solutions for homelessness, cures for diseases, and certainly not peace (lest we forget war profiiteering). Oh well, at least ya'll got a plasma screen.

__________________


...uh the post is up there...

Less than what? Not less than they had, or they wouldn't take them. Which means you're trying to tell me, with a straight face, that we're hurting people by giving them better opportunities than they would otherwise have. Which is obviously an absurd conclusion.

There might be an interesting, thoughtful discussion to be had about the economies of developing nations. But you won't be able to have that discussion as long as you completely disregard actual improvements because they don't meet some utopian standard.

Here's the bottom line: manufacturing things in these nations make the lives of very poor people better. Period. Exclamation point. You don't speak for them, and it's amazing to me that people have the gall to attack the very system that's, right now, actively making their lives better than they were.

I didn't say my standard of living was a baseline for all; you were vague and dismissive, so I responded in kind. When you decided to talk about overseas labor, I started talking about that instead. Simple.

Your allusion to homelessness and disease suggests you have a pretty weird definition of capitalism, too. It's not a universal system, and it's not supposed to cure everything which ails us, either. It seems like most of your arguments would be devastating against, I dunno, Ayn Rand. But I haven't seen her around here in awhile.

You're ignoring the fact that they can barely sustain themselves on these wages. Keep pretending, that threat of hunger doesn't make you a lot more compliant to bad conditions. Not to mention, children forced to work instead of getting education. I think it's sad, you have the gall to assume this is the best they should have. If not for Capitalism, maybe the concern would be more focused on better infrastructure and education, instead of preying on desperate people.

Of course the threat of hunger makes you more compliant to bad conditions. That means the opportunities are going to people who are really hungry. You know, the ones who need it most. The more amenable they are to these conditions, the more desperately they need the opportunity.

I don't think this is the best they should have. There's a whole next level to this argument that I'll gladly have with you. But that can't even take place until you recognize the simple fact that what you call "exploitation" is making their lives better.

The whole point is that they cannot demand more in wages, because the entire scenario is predicated on cheap labor. If they were to do that, these companies would just move their facilities. In other words, keeping wages and standard of living down as low as possible is in the interest of the Capitalist class. Capitalism is all about keeping the laboring class down, to maximize overall profits and the wealth of the property owners. The fact that you don't have a problem with this, shows how utterly brainwashed the U.S. is into worshiping a system based on inequality.

Of course they can't demand more in wages. You know how they can? If we manufacture there more. If we just stop hiring them, they go back to being even poorer. This is the reality against which you need to apply your rhetoric if it's going to have any weight.

I'll say it again: manufacturing things in these nations make the lives of very poor people better. Do you admit this, or not? Because if you do, we can (potentially) go on to have a real conversation about this. And if you don't, then you're not acknowledging basic facts and I'd just as soon pass on the whole discussion. Up to you.

I'm ready to call the election.

I was waiting to see if there was a clear trend toward Romney in the last week.

I don't see it.

What's more, we once again see the Romney fumble with his unwillingness to clarify his position on FEMA and hiding behind an ambiguous press release prepared by others. Maybe he could have gotten away with that if he was ahead, but he's not.

Obama gets another four years.

Yoda, just because the lives of the people are being improved by doing slave labor, that doesn't mean that offering that labor is not exploitative. Of course working is better than not working at all, which is why people take these jobs, but that doesn't mean that offering them is not wrong. What matters is what people are worth, not necessarily what they are paid. Do you honestly believe that paying someone in China or India a fraction of what we do here for exactly the same work is fair, right, just, or moral? People take these jobs because they have nothing else. The working conditions are appalling. They don't have the same labor laws, child welfare protections, and other safety guarantees in other countries, but that doesn't make the lack of any of these right. If you pay someone a dollar an hour, and they accept it, does that automatically mean in your mind that this is not exploitation? Because they are marginally better off for doing this work, does that make what they are doing okay? Under your logic, it appears that the answer would be yes, but I think any moral person would have to say no. Even under your logic, it isn't as if these jobs are allowing people to thrive in their countries. They are still barely able to get by, and they work very hard. How is that fair? The worth of a person is not necessarily measured by how much they are paid, and the existence of these jobs does not make the wages they pay fair, just, or moral.

I don't even know how you guys got on this topic.
What are we doing here? Comparing systems? What's right, what's wrong?People talk about morality and equality as if they were preordained.
Throughout recorded civilizaion, there's always been inequality and it will continue to be so. Now, someone can hope for utopia but that's just a dream.
We are not all the same, to begin with. Start with your own unique fingerprint and then look at your genetic code.
By their very nature, all governments are opressive and exploitative and I'll accept the one ( if I want to live in and be a part of society ) that is the least individualy oppresive. I'm comfortable with the USA.
Some people here definitely take it for granted but you should count your blessings. Love it or leave it and go somewhere where you think you will have a better life.
The irony is that it's this society that's enabled you to dream and be comfortable enough individualy so that you can focus on other societies and wish that they were the same. If they were, you wouldn't have what you have now. That's just life and human nature.

What about Australia, we're pretty free and we can speak our mind.

Yes, Australia is very cool and only 30 million people.

Actually it's 21 -22 Million but you were close...lol!

Well, I was in Austarlia in 2004 and then it had 20,000, 000 people, so I guessed.
According to the last sensus posted in June of 2012, there were about 21, 700,000 Australians.
How do you guys do it? I guess immigration restriction is pretty tight: only people with trades usefull to the country or people with plenty of money should qualify.
I wish it was the same in the US, but here we are supporting 20,000,000 unqualified illegals, while the truly qualified individuals take years to process and some people still wonder how we slipped from 1st economic power in the world to the number 8 spot, we currently hold.
Under Obama we increased or debt by 6 trillion dollars and got our international credit rating lowered.
Our hospitols are closing down, our public schools are overcrowded, the general learning curve significantly lowered.
This country is becoming cheaper by the minute.
Yeah, let's give Obama 4 more years to see if we can hit the number 20 spot.

Immigration a big topic here in Oz, so much so, a lot of boat people come here. The crazy thing is, more 1 or 2 year Visa people are overcrowding our Building Industry even though their Visa has run out 3 years ago. Builders get them cheap and they don't have qualifications at all. Boat people aren't the problem at all....Though it sells newspapers and Government policy.

On Obama, well, he inherited a bad financial symptom to begin with. So much so, The U.S. were going to collapse. A 12 year war doesn't help at all. The housing market collapsed because the Bush Government were to concern about the War than people livelihood. So, that is my 2 cents worth anyway.

Come on, can't still blame Bush for everything. Obama had 4 years to turn things around. Not only did he not deliver on lofty promises but he took the US further down in the wrong direction.
Someone would have to be in complete denial to vote for him.
Well, maybe not, if Obama was in Kenya.

Look at the U.K. they have had 2 recession, Spain has 25% unemployment, Greece is just about gone, China is alright but not what it was beforehand, Japan isn't like the old Japan at all.

Some Americans don't understand that now it's a world economy. We have 5.2% unemployment rate, though if mining goes down the drink...well, we're F! Put it that way.

Well, of course the US is dependant on the world economy, so it makes sense to be friends with China, rather than to antagonize her, as Obama has done.
As far as the US system and prevailing economy is concerned, Obama is clueless.
He has some muted social vision that is totaly inappropriate for USA.

Okay China, I really don't know if you realise? China is going Hi Tech with surveillance everywhere, Australia, U.S, U.K and much more.

Put it this way: Everything is on computers now, EVERYTHING!

Obama is no economist, is Romney? Well, maybe but who will he hurt? Certainly not the rich, though the rich has to have incentives to employ more people. Taxing them it hurts everyone, including Obamas voting strength in the Polls.