Author Topic: Arnold's speech.. (Read 2438 times)

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #60 on:** September 02, 2004, 12:03:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Since when does that stop anyone?

Thusforth you are dubbed UNAMERICAN.

Yeah ... no doubt ... a sad statement indeed.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #61 on:** September 02, 2004, 01:40:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by gunnss
that was Reagn I was stationed in Germany when it happend, and all the other jelly donuts knew what he ment to say.....

Gunns

Uh, I've seen the film of John F. Kennedy delivering that speech in Berlin. I don't remember seeing or hearing Reagan say it.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #62 on:** September 02, 2004, 03:03:57 AM »

Kennedy said: "Ich bin ein Berliner"

Due to a paticular construct in the german language "ein Berliner" is the name for a type of jelly donut.

The proper words for "I am a Berliner" (as in citizen of Berlin) are:

Ich bin Berliner (no ein)

lazs2 · « **Reply #63 on:** September 02, 2004, 09:43:02 AM »

No flame doc but... you claim that the American dream is not "realistic" for most people..

What , in your opinion, is "realistic" for most people?

lazs

Eagler · « **Reply #64 on:** September 02, 2004, 10:01:39 AM »

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #65 on:** September 02, 2004, 10:53:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
No flame doc but... you claim that the American dream is not "realistic" for most people..

What , in your opinion, is "realistic" for most people?

I said Arnold's optimism and outlook is unrealistic for many people.

Case in point, he said that "if you work hard and play by the rules, this country is truly open to you." I know he believes that, and that's the way it should be.

But I saw too many people who reached for that dream at the end of the 1990's in the tech sector and are now working the check-out at Home Depot - if they can even get that. Lost their houses, many had divorces, their lives are now crap through no fault of their own. And a few I know were seriously contemplating suicide - and that is not a fun conversation to have with someone - you don't forget those.

What do you tell someone who went $100K in debt to get an education, to get that great job, to get the American Dream - what do you tell him when he can't get any job in his field anywhere? And what do you tell him when he sees the very jobs he could do sent offshore, while the executives who shipped those jobs out continue to be the highest rising salary grades in the country?

He played fair, he worked hard - it didn't matter. The game looks rigged. If some of the upper management of these companies had Arnold's outlook on America, maybe they'd act differently - but for now, and for a while, Greed Roolz. And not even corporate greed; selfish personal greed.

I have seen this crap happening personally - it's not from a M. Moore movie. So don't even try to tell me it's not for real.

And that's what I mean about an unrealistic outlook. The evidence that many, many people see every damn day does not support the "play fair and you will win" ethic, or that "everything will be OK."

Otto · « **Reply #66 on:** September 02, 2004, 11:00:01 AM »

But I saw too many people who reached for that dream at the end of the 1990's in the tech sector and are now working the check-out at Home Depot

And this is the fault of the United States Government...!?!?

These people had choices to make and sadly they made bad ones. I feel sorry for them. I lost a lot money in that 'bubble' as well but it was no ones fault but mine.

Eagler · « **Reply #67 on:** September 02, 2004, 11:01:17 AM »

when you get knocked down you get back up .. or you can lay there and cry

ur buds think their $100k+ telecommunications jobs were secure? didn't figure at some point, with the ole world wide web and all. they could be replaced for about 1/10 the cost?

think maybe they priced themselves out of a job? I know many who did..

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #68 on:** September 02, 2004, 11:24:25 AM »

Did I say it was the govts fault? No.

Did I even mention the govt at all? No.

So it's the workers fault he chose a given career path, instead of the executive who would rather sacrifice a few hundred US jobs than lose his $1M annual bonus? Hmmmm ... is the executive buying a new boat more important than keeping 100 Americans (citizens even!) gainfully employed. What would Arnold say is more important?

Toad · « **Reply #69 on:** September 02, 2004, 11:33:03 AM »

What would happen to the CEO of a company that makes televisions that kept his production in the US when his competitor CEO's moved their production offshore?

In short, what happens to CEO's that keep their companies competitive in the marketplace?

Free trade. We wanted it, now we've got it.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #70 on:** September 02, 2004, 12:00:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
What would happen to the CEO of a company that makes televisions that kept his production in the US when his competitor CEO's moved their production offshore?

In short, what happens to CEO's that keep their companies competitive in the marketplace?

Free trade. We wanted it, now we've got it.

More or less ... yes.

But if there's $1M's to pay executive bonuses and salaries, why isn't it in the company's interest to retain the US jobs instead? If the executives and officers were taking pay cuts I could buy this argument much easier. But they ain't.

Gyro/T69 · « **Reply #71 on:** September 02, 2004, 12:05:37 PM »

Dok, give this a read.

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2067952

The problem as I see it.

Wotan · « **Reply #72 on:** September 02, 2004, 12:26:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Did I say it was the govts fault? No.

Did I even mention the govt at all? No.

So it's the workers fault he chose a given career path, instead of the executive who would rather sacrifice a few hundred US jobs than lose his $1M annual bonus? Hmmmm ... is the executive buying a new boat more important than keeping 100 Americans (citizens even!) gainfully employed. What would Arnold say is more important?

That CEO earns his bonus by ensuring the share holders make a decent profit. Those share holders are folks like me and many millions of other average Americans.

Neither the share holders nor the CEO's will make any money on a company that isn’t profitable. A company can’t be profitable selling a pair of socks at 4 dollars a pair if another company sells 3 pair for .99 cents. That is the same for all businesses in every industry. In fact despite “outsourcing” and the loss of manufacturing jobs the American economy hasn’t declined it has grown.

It’s not the CEO's fault if a worker chooses a career path and then prices himself out of a job. It's not the CEO responsibility to simply maintain "jobs". He is responsible to the share holders who expect to make a profit on their investment. The more money they make, the more he makes.

It’s rather silly to expect a company / government to "take care of us". Why should I be forced to subsidize a telecom worker’s career through higher pricing? For one I wont, I will simple go with a cheaper service. I certainly would not invest in a company that doesn’t seek to maximize profit.

Those executives get paid to make money even if it pisses you off. All the recent “unethical” and “criminal behavior” aside, this is how it works.

Westy · « **Reply #73 on:** September 02, 2004, 12:34:14 PM »

"why isn't it in the company's interest to retain the US jobs instead? "

There's no incentive to keep them here. Quite the opposite

http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/jobs/ns03312004a.cfm

Westy · « **Reply #74 on:** September 02, 2004, 12:37:41 PM »

"Neither the share holders nor the CEO's will make any money on a company that isn’t profitable."

The shareholders perhaps but there are a lot of stinking rich Enron and Worlcom executives laughing from the comfort of thier large estates and opulant vacation homes. And that's just two of the more infamous companies that went recently went down the tubes while thier execs got paid handsomely.