Incorrect, the Australian Labor governments hates universities and education. They effectively destroyed the university sector by reducing the number of international students by 40% nationally over 4 years (a loss of 2 billion dollars). Which will result in a 10-20% decline in domestic student places that were subsidised. Labor also banned full fee paying domestic students which reduced numbers by a further 5%.

Thats a 25% reduction in domestic student places over 4 years...
yay education. Rather than increasing conditions for cadetships in trade occupations, simiply slash the number of university graduates. yay!

5% number does not count hardcore unemployeed who are not looking for work so it is a slight underestimation.

When you bring in Fox News and Obama it is typically political speaking. You mentioned Obama and Clinton and I don't remember you mentioning any republicans so yah..your post seemed a bit biased. Clinton and Carter as I posted were the only ones who had balanced budgets at all during their time.

Locket, i challenge you to find anyone who thought Carter was a great president. Ok, maybe you will find a hippie or someone like Al Gore, but aside from crazy people i doubt you will. Even my political science teacher in high school said he was a great man- but a lousy president.


Sorry if i offended any hippies. Keep hugging the trees- we need you.

I never said he was good. I simply pointed out his impact on the debt.

I think Clinton was pretty good except for some of his tastes in women.

You can blame Obama's policies for not helping the working class man enough however what they prevented was a second great depression. Think more like global 60% unemployment and ten years to recover.

On the otherhand, executive bonuses are totally disconnected from actual company performance, with the arguement 'we have to pay to get the best and to be competitive'. Its rather pathetic, because the stockmarket likes short term profit not long term stability. Goldern parachutes are a joke too. Here's half a billion dollars for running the company into the ground and helping destroy the world economy YAY!!.

I hear that Clinton had a balanced budget, good president, then I see mention of Obama and his poor policies. On the outside looking in (I am Canadian) I think Obama got stuck in a terrible time frame in history. It was historical that he was elected President but alas, he inherited the biggest financial mess ever left a President. No one says anything about the guy in between him and Clinton. That 2nd war over nothing did not cost your country nothing. There wasn't anything political in that war. It was purely personal. The dictator threatened his father by putting out a kill order on him and Junior (cowboy) had to make stuff up to go get him (WMD). Some say it was for oil, but I think not. For Pete sakes Iran is right on the brink of WMD, much more volatile and a bigger threat to the USA and her allies. At least more so than the other guy in Iraq was. Saddam enjoyed killing his own people best. Senior was a lot brighter than Junior. The 1st war, he did what he had to do for his country/allies and went no further because of the cost to his people. Am I out of line in thinking that that 2nd war went a long way to bankrupt the country pretty much? Maybe not the sole reason (bank, auto, real estate meltdown), but trillions of dollars for that war that would be better sitting in the USA coffers right now. I know this melt down is not just an American problem as well, Canada had to put up billions for our own economic recovery plan to work in concert with every Country who did the same. Definitely a Global event. It's just that, that war really hurt you guys financially. I remember watching a news program just before the 2nd Iraq war and American troops ready to deploy were being interviewed. Some of them were referring to 911 to justify going into Iraq again. I was amazed to hear that from those guys. Al Qaeda in Iraq came AFTER the Americans went in, not before. The money wasted there would have been better spent today, right now to put Americans back to work.

Evolution, Clinton was just like those CEOs. He did all kinds of things great for the short term, but they were bad for the long term. Its easy to balance the budget for the short term- take earth- you can set taxes to 70%- but as you start taking turns you pop (business) begin to leave you and pretty quick you have a huge deficit. Clinton made taxes on business 55% and enacted NAFTA. for the short term- we got tonz more tax dollars and cheap goods. For the long term- our business and industry left us and now we have poor tax dollars for income. I hope this helps you see the light.

Clinton only balanced the budget cause of the internet bubble and they counted 600 billion dollar of social security taxes as a 'tax' instead of calling it borrowing which is what it is because they are going to give to those same people when they are too old to have fun, which is stupid.

i need a jobby job

It is very evident that Deerhunter has not read many books on economics or modern history that has led, culminated, or repeated into the interconnected mess that the United States is today. I commend your enthusiasm dude, but get reading. Reading regurgitated quotes of fluffty news sources only serves to demonstrate your limited knowledge on the several topics you covered in this thread.

move to a country that pays welfare regardless of employment history.

yeah lets all move to greece, hell if lived on the beach i would only need a fishing pole to be happy

Zanith, try that in the Gulf region. LOL- you will catch your dinner and then have the oil right there to start your fire. All you need is your pole and a match.

hehheh...he used the word 'pole' in an ambiguous context...

Light my pole on fire! Honey Sweet Cheeks!

you are looking at it wrong. You need employment rate (in hours)/1000 people per week as a stat to compare across 1st world countries. Keep in mind that demographics may skew the numbers slightly. But the % of students and people legitimately unable to work would be relatively constant.

You also should trace that over time as something meaningful..

fyi: just because fox news makes a statement like that doesn't mean it's true. How and what are they measuring exactly and where are they getting that answer from. Any paper can produce any number out of the air.

+1 to Martian

+1000 to Steeps lol

DH: NAFTA benefits BOTH the USA and Canada. Each country is the other's largest trading partner... every day something like $1.5 billion crosses our borders... you actually think the USA would benefit from eliminating that? You DO realize that the USA gets the majority of their freshwater, softwood lumber, and OIL from Canada right? NAFTA provides MILLIONS of jobs on both sides of the border.

I wouldn't come near anything FOX News says with a 10 foot pole... the US is indeed in some tough times but 20% unemployment seems a bit excessive... not to mention FOX generally never has ANYTHING positive to say about OBAMA (Can you at least spell his name right??)

Your first post like pang has already pointed out seems to be focused on Obama more than the economic situation in the US.

http://www.buyusa.gov/...derelationsusacanada.html <<== go read what your government has to say about trade between the US and Canada (specifically the part under Trade and Investment) and then come back and let us know if eliminating NAFTA is a good idea. Granted, many Canadians have been pushing from time to eliminate the huge amount of trade we do with the US since whenever the US's economy does bad it also drag's Canada's economy with it... IF Canada decided to send oil pipelines across the Bering Strait to Russia, Softwood Lumber to China, and Freshwater to India; increased it's trade with the EU and Asia... the US of A would be screwed.

y'all need to quit selling that Arctic Ice before a group of scientists blame it on da CO2.

We kill baby seals for food and profits and we aren't going to stop.

lol

all of locket's base are belong to us