|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: A couple of weeks/months hunting around for a good one is the price a contractor pays
Yeah, but when it gets longer than two months I start worrying...  (It's longer than 2 months now.)
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
You can only be "untouchable" if you work for yourself - no company can be immune from lean times, and even goverment programs may get cuts.
So if the poll is about jobs (that is, being paid for doing work for someone else), I do not quite understand those (now 20%) people who select this choice
|
|
|
|
|
I selected it, our software always does well in bad economic times because it helps businesses be more efficient and profitable and this time around is no different, we're doing better than we ever have. That being said I do work for myself though technically I work for the corporation that I am president of.
I would definitely not have answered this way if I was not the boss, I assumed everyone else who did was self employed as well, you'd be crazy to pick this choice if you weren't.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
|
John C wrote: I assumed everyone else who did was self employed as well
Seems a little high, if you consider the proactive developers here will be the more advanced then 20% self employed may be valid.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
dmitri_sps wrote: You can only be "untouchable" if you work for yourself
Not even then as I've seen freelancers take a dip whenever the recessions make their clients cut back. Far beyond the well drying up for a freelancer, the impact of a recession could be lessened out if the scope of his/her operation would be broader.
I selected that option. Ever since I joined the workforce a few years ago while still in college I concentrated on preventing myself becoming shoehorned in a single industry or even two for that matter. Anything happens to my main gig there is a backup, anything happens to that there is a third level fallback... anything beyond would mean someone pressed the button and all is FUBAR.
In that sense, I am untouchable. Recession? this one? 
-=[ R ]=-
|
|
|
|
|
Rogelio Perea wrote: Not even then as I've seen freelancers take a dip whenever the recessions make their clients cut back
Freelancers are an entirely different group of self employed and I agree entirely they should not feel at all confident. I was thinking of ISV's like ourselves.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, untouchable.
When it comes to opportunity, prosperity, and determination, we live in the greatest country in the world. The American dream is still very much alive if you make sure that you can provide something that someone else is willing and able to pay for.
Of course, this is threatened by us electing a Socialist into the office of the presidency and electing other socialists into our legislative branch. I get really nervous when the proposed leadership wants to "spread the wealth." That's right, the Obama/Marx ticket in 2008 is not getting my vote and should not get yours either. They can keep the "change" they want to bring about. I do not believe in the slogan, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
So, if you would like to protect your job and keep the American Dream alive, do not vote for the Socialist ticket. If you want to however, just remember that you should vote on Wednesday, November 5th.
Cheers,
Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
 The facts say otherwise. I can't vote in your election but like much of the world I'm profoundly affected by it and I don't think it would be an exxageration to say that many outside the U.S. probably keep more up to date with the news and the policies of the candidates than a pretty high percentage inside the U.S. so I think an informed rebuttal might not be out of line here.
I am fervently anti socialist but I think you're way off base here. The republicans have treated the cream of corporate america like a socialist state for 8 years and done little for the small business owner and average person that the vast majority of U.S. people here would fall into. I think the U.S. would benefit greatly under a democratic regime for a couple of terms and the republicans (at least the current ones) have shown no fiscal responsibility whatsoever and taxed and spent far more freely than most left leaning politicians would even think is wise.
I can't vote in your election but if I could I'd be looking for a candidate who was fiscally conservative and socially liberal and honestly I think the democrats and Obama fit the bill.
Consider the state of the economy in general under the last Democrat and Republican regimes and it's pretty clear which one is better for business and the average person and the rest of us around the world who, after all, have provided the customers that drive the wealth of the U.S.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
|
John C wrote: Consider the state of the economy in general under the last Democrat and Republican regimes and it's pretty clear which one is better for business and the average person and the rest of us around the world who, after all, have provided the customers that drive the wealth of the U.S.
You are missing the role congress plays in this as they have at least as much power as the president as far as economic policy is concerned. Under Clinton the Republicans controlled the congress and Senate for 6 years. Under Bush the Democrats were and are in control for 6 years.
John
|
|
|
|
|
Good point. The congress is who spends money, the president does not. I think most people should know that the government has no money, and it makes no money. It only takes money from its citizens and uses that money on its programs. If more people understood that, we would not stand for the huge budgets the people we elected are calling for.
-Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
Get your facts straight:
W and the GOPigs ran the US for the Shrub's first six years.
The problems? Pure Republicans Stupidity. Period.
The result:
Weakend our military by sheer exhaustion.
Cut benifits to veterans and closed Veterans hospitals
Crushed our status throughout the world.
Ignored and trampled upon the US Constitution at will.
An every shrinking middle class - and it isn't because they're getting rich.
Fiscal policy of a madman: cut taxes and increase spending.
They've raped us financially. Allowed big corporations to get bigger, eliminating competition.
Complaints about socialist leaning politicians? And how is this corporate welfare an improvement on that?
The Borrow-And-Spend Republicans have taxed us into national poverty
And - it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone: the other moron (a.k.a. Ronald Reagan) did the same crap, which brought us the Savings & Loan disaster. $500 Million in taxes to fix that up. Same deal, too: deregualtion and stopping the regulators from enforicing what few laws were left. That, too, was orchestrated by the Republicans (remember Newt Gaingrige and the 100 days? I do).
In his wildest wet dreams, Osama bin-Laden couldn't have hoped to do more harm to the US than was done by the Republicans.
"When we're ready to hang the last capitalist, he'll sell us the rope" - V. Lenin
|
|
|
|
|
Balboos wrote: The Borrow-And-Spend Republicans have taxed us into national poverty
That's like saying all programmers like .NET. You can't lump sum as such if you ever want to be taken seriously by anyone with a brain. Blame Bush for Bush's mistakes, not a group people that have similar ideals.
Surely, you could spot the illogical thought there right? If not, I wouldn't hire you to work on my software. 
|
|
|
|
|
Until relatively recently, he and his administration were worshipped by the Republican Loyal.
In a constant state of denial about the economy, the war, the destruction of our nations priceless gift to the world (i.e., the Bill of Rights).
Now, it's fashionable to not support him. Even so, with a ca. 25% approval rating, he still has the worship of about half the Party Loyal. Go figure.
There were (and are) some real true conservatives who've dispised disgraceful behavior this all along. No one seemed to care.
So you know a few exceptions? Well - unlike Abraham pleading for Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of a few rightious that might be amongst them, I blame all who held there piece.
Some time ago, I realized I'd not be able to convert someones politics. The handwriting about this was on the wall prior to the 2004 election. No one cared - not while their bellies were still full. Perhaps I'm sweeping up a bit of wheat whilst I toss out the chaff. All the evidence seems to prove otherwises.
As for "any one with brains" - superb argument - how can anyone disagree? If they do disagree, no need to list: they're brainless. (I recall very well that if you disagreed with Bush's war, you were called a Traitor).
Time to turn off Fox News mentality.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to stop bothering them and just go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
"It's a sad state of affairs, indeed, when you start reading my tag lines for some sort of enlightenment?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
Balboos wrote: So you know a few exceptions? Well - unlike Abraham pleading for Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of a few rightious that might be amongst them, I blame all who held there piece.
Well, I'm glad to see the point did not fly over your head; however, you choosing not to listen to it doesn't really speak in your favor IMO. Can't say I'm glad to know that you think people like Abraham Lincoln must be idiots too, because of his party affiliation.
|
|
|
|
|
He's not talking about Abraham Lincoln, he's talking about the Abraham in the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Barry wrote: He's not talking about Abraham Lincoln, he's talking about the Abraham in the Bible.
No duh.
|
|
|
|
|
It sure didn't sound like you were being sarcastic.
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Barry wrote: It sure didn't sound like you were being sarcastic.
Sarcasm had nothing to do with it, and you being defensive rather than just saying oops is a bit childish. Sorry, but it is.
I was always talking about Lincoln, and I'm fully aware of the differences of bible characters and presidents despite them having the same name. Why you assume I got the two confused with zero reasoning on your part outside of that one little tidbit - that anyone who can read noticed I'm sure - is just beyond me.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not being defensive. Why should I say oops? I think you're the one being childish.
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Barry wrote: I'm not being defensive. Why should I say oops? I think you're the one being childish.
I'm being childish because you didn't admit your mistake and tried to throw it off on me? Thanks, I needed a laugh. 
|
|
|
|
|
And since the obvious needs to be explained here I guess... Lincoln started the current republican party. And that's why I mentioned him. Him sharing the name of a bible character was not the reason. There was no confusion on my part.
|
|
|
|
|
Or maybe it is time to turn off the mainstream media mentality. Even with their significant liberal bias:
"Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter." UCLA Study
The Democrat led Congress has a lower approval rating (8-15%) than Bush.
Last I heard Bush wasn't the only leader that brought troops to Iraq. Others included Australia, England, Poland, totaling about 40 countries. Maybe they thought there was a problem there also. Also, killings in Iraq are down to about what they are in city of Detroit. Is it possible there has been some amount of success?
SS => Qualified in Submarines
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm". Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
The whining about the main-stream media is a crock.
EXAMPLES:
Right after the 2004 election, it came out the US Troops in Iraq had to go to junk-yards to get armor for their un-armored vehicles. Others used there own money to buy metal plates from Germany. This wasn't a secret - but it never appeared in the papers BEFORE the election. How would the (empty) rhetoric of the Shrub and his gang about supporting our troops looked if this came out before the election? How would it have affected votes - Why didn't the media report this if they were so liberal?
And again, until the 1000th coffin came back to the US, and a contract work sent in a secretly taken photo, the fallen US troops were not returned with honor for serving their country, but brought in like theives in the night (literally), and hidden from public knowledge. If the press was so liberal, they would have pounced all over it. Instead (at the cost of her job), it had to be broken first on the internet.
And the roaring silence about how Dubya and his gang had been closing Vet's hospitals while the need has increased.
And, of course - let's not forget Radio Talk Shows - these guys virtually goose-step for the GOP.
The above, by the way, don't require evaluation by 'organizations' for there liberal or conservative leanings; no need to pay someone to find the results you want; they speak for themselves.
The low approval rating you speak of - carefully labeling it a Democratic congress as though thats when the low ratings began. Sorry, spunky - they always rate extremely low. The problem with the surveys and polls? These people don't include there own - who they generally reelect.
In other words - another garbage statistic.
On the other hand, the distaste for W and his gang? How is that different? Because these are the same polls that gave him huge approval ratings in the past - That is until the truth finally started to come out and no longer ignored.
As for the other troops in Iraq (that haven't been brought home yet). You'll find that few are in combat rolls (For all practical purposes, its the US and GB). And, of course,
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">Jim (SS) wrote:</div> Also, killings in Iraq are down to about what they are in city of Detroit.</blockquote>
The absurdity of this statistic borders on obscene - reminds me of McCains talking about how safe it was to walk in a Bagdhad market, also giving an favorable comparison to shopping in the US - carefully leaving out that he was surrounded by troops and helicopter air cover. Maybe that is how he shops.
Jim (SS) wrote: Is it possible there has been some amount of success?
The success, very sadly, is at the whim of the insurgency - if they want to set off bomb, they will - and still do. If they halt or slow down for a while - it may be the troops, but it's far more likely they are doing it to steer political opinions and decisions. IF things are better, we should be able to stop bribing Iraqi insurgents to fight other insurgents - they'll do it because they love their country. Better; consider just how long it will take for a civil war to start if the US/GB pull out. Things there are just great!
Benjamin Disraeli said before the British pariliament: 'Gentlemen, there are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.' Had he met a US Republican, he'd have had to find a fourth level for political deception.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to stop bothering them and just go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
"It's a sad state of affairs, indeed, when you start reading my tag lines for some sort of enlightenment?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
No matter how many quotes and statistics we throw at each other, only history will determine whether socialism has any success at improving peoples plight or dragging a people down. I prefer to throw my vote towards anything that decreases the socialistic tendencies of this government.
Several countries have followed socialism to their detriment or demise, I just hope we become smarter than that. Unfortunately many people are swayed by the promises of their government doing something for them that they are unwilling to do for themselves.
SS => Qualified in Submarines
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm". Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Balboos wrote: Get your facts straight
You are correct, I seriously believed that the Democrats had control of the House for longer than that.
Either way in my opinion both the president and congress have done very bad job at running the nation for the last few years. George Bush will not be in control in a few months however most of the same congress will be in control for the next president which most likely will be Obama.
John
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
