Can Any Politician of Any Stripe Really 'Create' ANY New Private Sector Jobs For Us?
Submitted by headhill on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 7:19am
I posted this on several other publications and was just curious as to what James' readers would have to say about this.
I think we should replace Columbus Day with...anything to be honest about it. The darned Vikings were probably pillaging Nova Scotia hundreds of years before Columbus was even conceived truth be told.
- headhill's blog
- 1372 reads
Of course they can
The health reform act has created tens of thousands of jobs ... especially in consulting, where well-paid professionals are now trying to help companies make sense of the legislative soup.
Anyone who's been in lobbying for years should know that. Businesses create jobs every day as part of their strategy to exploit public policy.
Just kidding, sort of.
actually, you made a nice
actually, you made a nice point there.
'Lobbyists', lawyers and PR machines that are totally dependent upon the government are in big trouble when government tax revenues collapse.
ask any one who has been in that arena for the last 3 years and see if their revenues or complete businesses have not been dinged or destroyed.
Anything related to government spending and therefore dependent on tax revenues paid in by a healthy, growing private sector economy can disappear completely from the face of the earth at the wave of a hand or stroke of the pen.
Private sector jobs are the engine for anything we want. We should salute and praise anyone who starts a business and tries to make a go of it, not demean them or assume they are all 'greedy Wall Street schmucks' as seems to be the norm nowadays.
Follow my logic
And your proposal is what?
You want to throw in the towel on public policy and embrace a decade or more of another Great Depression? When someone gets sick and collapses on the street in front of your house, do you want to let them die where they lay? What about when there are a thousand of those someones?
Exactly what's your plan? Free market utopia? Mad Max meets the Road? Class warfare?
The US is in a structurally uncompetitive position vis-a-vis the rest of the world. We are neither smarter, more ingenious, more moral than citizens of any other country. The only thing we are "more" of is violent.
Do you want to let things degenerate all the way down to the seventh level of hell, and then cross your fingers and hope that Adam Smith's magic hand will intervene and make everything work again?
For all the free market talk about competition, I'm struck by the blinding ignorance about the nature of that competition. This is a competition among countries, Frank. Among governments. We're not talking about a bunch of US entrepreneurs against a bunch of Chinese entrepreneurs. It's a bunch of US entrepreneurs against the entire world of strategic government policy from governments in China, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Russia, etc., etc.
Big US business wanted free trade and a global economy, and they got it. They don't give a shit about the US or its citizens except as a market for goods and services.
So I ask again, what's your plan? Unleash the entrepreneurial spirit? Check. Nobody's standing in the way of entrepreneurs. Nobody.
Now what? Wait? Hope? Pray?
not sure it is as
not sure it is as 'apocalyptical' as you make it seem to be, Mr. Protzman.
at least I hope it is not.
My main point is this: we can never have a healthy vibrant economy without the risk-takers, investors and entrepreneurs who do their thing, against all odds in many cases, and produce companies that in turn create wealth and jobs for others.
be it in IT, commercial real estate, medical devices, cellular phones or even just plain old mundane manure processing....someone has got to start the company first...and it ain't government and it ain't unions.
Name one company that has ever been started by a union and has lasted very long...in the United States, not the USSR or China.
(people say there is more 'free enterprise' going on in China today than in the US...and why not? Companies have moved there by the thousands and it is not 100% applicable to wage concerns although that is a prominent component in the decision-making)
and, I hate to point this out but we have spent untold trillions upon trillions upon trillions to 'eradicate poverty' since LBJ's Great Society started in 1965...and you are telling me that 'it has not worked' yet? That is astounding.....we now have 40 million poor people even after 4 decades of government programs and spending and we still have not unlocked the key to helping people live productive and useful lives?
are you in fact proposing that we 'step that up a couple of notches' and double the amount we spend on such programs? Triple it? Heck, why not just run this debt to $100 trillion overnight and see if that works?
is that what your plan is?
Yes
That is my plan. Now what's yours?
$100 trillion in debt is ok
$100 trillion in debt is ok with you?
I just want to be sure that I can believe what my eyes are seeing....
It is no secret that I would rather seen a corporate tax repeal instead of this enormous $787 billion + everything else pass and fall like a lead balloon to earth in terms of job creation.
Over a 10-year period, the budget impact would have been near about the same.
But the job creation and the return and repatriation of jobs and profits from overseas would have been enormous.
'America-The Free Trade and Free Tax Zone Capital of the World' would have been far better for job creation than 'America-Let's Keep Dishing Out More Money for Not Shovel Ready Projects' apparently in retrospect, don't you think?
$100 trillion national debt...wow....let's see the annual rate of interest on that white elephant would be only about $5 trillion per annum at even low normal government rates of 5%.
Our entire budget is now 'only' $3.5 trillion there, Mr. Protzman
see you in the historical bankruptcy line along with every other empire and nation that overspent its treasury going back to the ancient days of Greece and Rome....
I still don't get your plan
Forget about my plan for a minute, what's yours? Eliminate corporate taxes and hope that the theory of trickle down economics will finally work for the first time in history?
Corporate profits are not a problem, Frank. Neither are salaries for CEO and senior executives.
Making the US a tax-free zone wouldn't make a shred of difference in a world where any other country would match us in a heartbeat and many are already there. The problems aren't taxes, the problems are the cost of labor, and the level of education and training. Our workforce has fallen badly behind China, India, Brazil, etc., in the skills needed to compete. And those countries are delivering talent that costs a tenth of what we pay here.
So with your free-trade zone, you'd also need to roll back wages and workplace conditions. You'll also want to permit child labor and forced overtime. In other words, you'd accelerate our decline into becoming a third-world country. I see that as inevitable.
The U.S. is going down, and it's not because of debt. That may accelerate the decline as Republicans use it as an excuse to cut education more, roll back environmental protections, ignore basic maintenance on infrastructure, and push more people in to poverty. But debt is not the root cause. The root cause is is greed.
Your "plan" doesn't address any of those issues. Your "plan" assumes that a rising tide lifts all boats. The Bush years show that's a lie, pure and simple. The rising tide drowns people without boats.
Budget woes
Of course, there's always the option of putting more poor people in jail. That'll save a bunch of money ... especially if we re-imagine prisons more along the lines of what you see in Russia or Mexico.
I have absolutely no idea of
I have absolutely no idea of where that even came from or even of how to respond to it....who ever said anything about ever doing anything like that?
That is totally irrelevant to the issue of how best to create new jobs in America, with all due respect.
and 'your plan' of
and 'your plan' of bankrupting America with a $100 trillion debt spending it all on programs that don't create any long-term permanent jobs works 'better'?
'Your plan' implies we should give everyone spoons and take them all out to the next interstate road construction project and tell them to dig out the earth and we'll pay them competitive wages to do so, at least comparable to current work crews, perhaps on union scale.
That would get us nowhere.
there are millions of things we can do to enhance the competitive work environment of America...I just didn't think there was enough space or computer memory on Blue NC to post them all.
But you asked what was 'my plan' in contradistinction to 'your $100 trillion national debt' plan and I told you....repeal the corporate income tax and unleash the competitive intellect and drive of both entrepreneurs and workers.
Oddest thing about that competitive drive and spirit you seem to pooh-pooh for some reason...sometimes an enterprising wage worker gets the bright idea he can do it better than his stupid boss and goes out and starts his own company and makes millions.
good for him...what is wrong with that?
Eliminating the corporate income tax just might incent 10 more or maybe 10,000 more like him to do the same.
Throwing money at public works projects in a frenzied drive to $100 trillion in debt and adding on massive mandates and taxes as embodied in Obamacare are not the ways to incentivize anyone to start a new business...in fact, people who start businesses today are viewed as 'crazy' in some quarters.
and all they are trying to do is to support their families and perhaps hire a few workers.....what is so wrong with that?
oh brother
yeah, nothing like the absence of child labor laws, pollution protections, inspection standards and basic safety regulations in the workplace to spur growth in manufacturing.
Syd
by the way...
...did you notice that even hong kong is now adopting a minimum wage?
"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965
I don't think it's the norm to consider most
businessmen, especially small business owners, and privately owned businesses, as greedy schmucks. There are exceptions, of course, and usually well documented showing these people to indeed be greedy pricks who can and will do anything for more money, power and fame.
Best I can tell anyone who works in Wall Street is nothing but a parasite living off bets as to whether or not the men and women actually in the arena will win or lose...and who often manipulate situations to ensure their bet is a winner.
If our feckless government put real teeth/effort into creating a favorable environment for "green energy" tens of thousands of new private sector jobs would likely be created. They won't do this because that would mean their big oil donors would slap them silly.
Stan Bozarth
Just curious....
looking at your short bio... Have you ever held a job unrelated to government? And...you were Liddy Doles Chief of Staff?
Stan Bozarth
I don't know
Ask Bovis Lend-Lease, ask every road contractor in America, ask the construction workers building the County courthouse across the street from me....
"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire
can government create private sector jobs?
let's see...
--the port in my city (seattle) seems to support thousands of jobs, from truckers to longshore workers to cruise ship service jobs to the people shipping and receiving--and it's there because government is there running it.
same with the airport.
--boeing seems to have themselves a number of private-sector workers who do government work.
i'm told lockheed martin does, too, and pascagoula shipyards, and electric boat, and ge, and on and on and on...
--the postal service drives those funny jeeps...and i'm guessing someone builds those. speaking of vehicles...the gsa buys how many a year? how about the military? how about the police and fire departments in your own home town?
--i used to be a government contractor, installing navy computers...so you can count me, personally, as one of those private-sector jobs government apparently can create.
--the bonneville power administration, here in the northwest, has provided low-cost electric power for decades--and that has created hundreds of thousands of private-sector jobs in this region, from aluminum smelting back in the '40s all the way to server farms today. same with the tva.
--who builds the buildings? who sells the books to the schools? where does the food that government workers and students eat at lunch come from?
those are almost always private sector jobs--and they're pretty much permanent jobs, unlike, say, census workers.
"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965
Gee...I guess all of these
Gee...I guess all of these public sector jobs just spontaneously erupt out there in Seattle!
Good for you guys...you have found the Fountain of Wealth!
My point, which you have conveniently chosen to ignore and not address is that without an entrepreneur and risk-taker like Mr. Boeing, Mr. McDonnell or Mr. Douglas, your vaunted public sector would be bupkis.
Private enterprising inventors, investors and business decision-makers drive the wealth and job creation in any area and the public sector jobs are entirely dependent (and would not exist for long without them) on the taxes generated by those private enterprises.
Look no further than some of the very sad conditions in what was formerly known as the 'Textile Belt' in Piedmont and eastern North Carolina. Where 200-5000 people used to be employed by the small town's main place of employment, Burlington Mills, let's use for one example, now there is nothing but shuttered buildings and perhaps 10% of the former public service jobs like policemen or meter readers.
Why? Because there are maybe 10% as many people living there after the main place of employment vanished.
It is a fair thing to say that private sector businesses and jobs support the public sector and not the other way around.
Or perhaps it is different in Seattle? If so, we salute you.
somehow i think...
...you missed the basic question of your own story:
"can government really create any private sector jobs?"
when the air force asks mr. boeing to build some airborne refueling tankers...is that because the private sector created those jobs? do you figure military aircraft production jobs are driven by private sector demand?
does the private sector hire the firefighters who respond when you call 911?
do you think the fire truck business is driven by private sector demand?
when i go to the airport, a skycap takes the bags, i usually buy a coffee, and maybe some food...obviously an airline is involved...and on the way out, a parking concessionaire takes more of my money--and i don't see a lot of that taking place at america's fine private sector airports.
when a driver for sysco delivers another truck full of food to the school in your neighborhood...how did the "private sector" create that job, exactly? do you figure enrollment in teacher's colleges is driven by the demand for teaching jobs in the private sector?
now all that that has nothing to do with textiles, or the magic of job creation in the pacific northwest...but it has everything to do with your question: "can government really create private sector jobs?"
"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965
take away the job creating
take away the job creating power of a genius like Mr. Boeing or Bill Gates or anyone who created an economic engine out of thin air and basically with nothing but intellect and will power, and even great cities like Seattle don't rise up and grow.
Take away all of those industries and Seattle collapses like a bad souffle.
You seem to be under the delusion that government and the public sector can support itself in some sort of circular economy where teachers teach the children of policemen and policemen protect the lives of judges who protect the rights of teachers.
None of that can or will continue to very long without the tax base of a vibrant private sector.
that is all I am saying....that is the whole gist of the original article.
Sure, government can 'create' jobs out of thin air by passing stimulus bills ad infinitum and some of those might actually be contracted work in the defense industry for example.
But they won't last for long without the true creation of new permanent jobs in the private sector by risk-takers and entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, et.al.
The real world won't work the way you indicate it should....more public sector jobs piled on more public sector jobs on top of more of them.
Eventually, even the Roman Empire couldn't keep building public sector projects cause they ran out of funds and more lands to conquer and plunder.
Arrrh
It's kind of fun watching you have your own straw-man argument, but mostly it's boring.
Mr Boeing did not create an economic engine out of thin air. In 1916 he and US Navy Lieutenant Conrad Westervelt built their first plane together called the "B&W" and started the company that became "Boeing Airplane Company". It got its first production order for 50 sea planes from the US Navy . After WWI the company grew by selling aircraft to the Postal Service and the Army Air Service. As passenger air travel became popular Boeing developed a monopoly called United Aircraft and Transportation Corp. The monopoly was broken up by the government in the mid 30s. Boeing sold his interests and walked away. The company we now know as Boeing was positioned for expansion during WWII funded by the British and US governments. After WWII information on Germany's secret advances in aircraft, jet and rocket technologies recovered by US Air Force intelligence was shared with Boeing. The Cold War and the space race precipitated an explosion in Boeing's business until the 70s when recession hit and Boeing survived by diversifying.
It is unlikely that the Boeing Company as we know it would exist without government. As with Boeing, Gates' monopolistic tendencies were tempered by government intervention which fostered competition. The internet was developed by government for military survivability and facilitated growth in technology companies including Mr Gates'. The internet is such a success that business wants to control it.
In our market economy there is a symbiotic relationship between government and business. It's not one or the other but in times of need government takes up the slack left by business. If you want to see private industry flourish largely free of government intervention you may find it off the coast of Somalia.
I am glad you finally pointed
I am glad you finally pointed out that the government is responsible for little Billy Gates somehow dropping out of Harvard and going back home to Seattle where apparently the 'guvmint' got him to spend thousands of hours coming up with some new type of computer code that I suppose, according to your view and theory, came out of a US Post Office box that was magically sent to him by a federal guvmint bureaucratic official who 'told' little Billy Gates how to start a tiny little company and call it something clever like 'Microsoft'
I honestly did not know that is how Microsoft got started.
It is sort of amazing, under your set of guidelines and deference to the federal guvmint that America even survived as a republic from 1789-1930 because 'there just weren't enough government bureaucrats around to run the nation and invent everything from the horseless carriage to Tom Edison's electric light bulb.
I am sure you thought that Edison didn't try 10,000 different filaments first before he succeeded...I know, I know...that was all done by some faceless bureaucrat, not Thomas Edison....
if you really want to talk about bill gates...
...you have to talk about the us census, because if it wasn't for the census, there might have never been a microsoft.
microsoft exists because ibm needed an operating system for the ibm personal computer, which was developed by microsoft in collaboration with seattle computer...and the reason there was an ibm at all is because of all that 1890 and 1900 census work that provided the know-how to get them started and to develop...punch card tabulation...which is what, eventually, led to all that other growth that brings us back to the effort to develop the ibm pc...and the story of mssrs. gates, allen, and ballmer.
and speaking of microsoft, you do realize that just the federal government alone is probably buying 12 - 15,000,000 "seat licenses" annually for microsoft products, right? that's not a bad piece of change, and i can absolutely assure you that there are people working at microsoft who would not be there if it wasn't for this volume of business, ed tobin being just one example.
so to return to the question "Can Any Politician of Any Stripe Really 'Create' ANY New Private Sector Jobs For Us?"...the answer is yes...and we can start with ed tobin's.
"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965
wow...the US Census is now
wow...the US Census is now the reason why Bill Gates used his innate genius to write some new revolutionary computer code.
That is a stretch of the imagination that almost strains credulity, I gotta be honest about it.
America is a great place because smart, energetic people with great ideas invent things and provide wonderful services like the most advanced health care technologies in the world.
Not because of the 'guvmint' inventing things...which it can not do very well unless it is for military purposes to kill our adversaries or to put guys on the moon.
You're dodging reality, Frank
A number of well informed commenters have made compelling cases that many innovations in the private sector have been driven, funded and inspired by public policy. Maybe those innovations would have eventually happened without government involvement, but the hard fact is ... .they DIDN'T happen without government involvement. And no amount of snark or sarcasm on your part changes the reality of what DID happen.
Not a single commenter has said the government invented anything. Not one. And yet you continue to set up strawmen that you can knock down as though that charade is relevant or honest.
Even in the case of killing, the government has not been the inventor. The government has simply been a customer coming to the table with specifications and needs.
And if you want to talk healthcare, you'll also find yourself on thin ice. Government funding is responsible for much of the basic science that has eventually been commercialized by so-called entrepreneurs. Major research universities and their medical centers have been reliable contributors to the underlying discoveries that have created an army of millionaires. UNC is a great example right here in North Carolina.
One commenter took you to task for your twisting of reality to bolster your arguments. And rightly so. You're operating under the delusion of free market fantasies in a world where those fantasies are not and never have been a fair description of how the world really works. That's true in the US just as it is true in every other country in the world.
It's been my experience that almost every observable phenomenon is bidirectional in nature. Government and private enterprise have a long-standing and symbiotic relationship. No amount of revisionist history on your part will change that reality.
J
PS One great irony in all this, of course, is your ex boss Liddy Dole, who built a career slopping at the public trough. Same for Burr, who is campaigning to spend more than half his adult life raking in a government paycheck. And Fred "Real Lies" Eshelman, whose clinical trials company depends on government contracts for part of its revenue stream. And yourself, of course, working as both a government employee and a lobbyist, making money trying to convince elected officials to help clients get their fair share of the pork. I have no objection to anyone working for or with the government. My objection is to people who do that, all the while complaining about government spending.
You want to cut taxes? Start by cutting any spending that might be associated with companies Republican lobbyists represent.
'Blue NC...where North
'Blue NC...where North Carolina comes to...rant!'
Look, James, I don't mind exchanging ideas with everyone on this blog, including you. You have a completely different world-view of how this nation is run, and how it should be run, than I do. You think I am crazy and I return the favor....I just happen to not believe that the world we live in begins and ends with the federal government, or any other government for that matter, starting businesses and making all the decisions in a $14 trillion enormous economy.
That would be the most ludicrous and preposterous thing I have ever heard anyone even come close to intimating. But that is just my opinion.
here's what I don't get is how could anyone who grew up in the rebellious '60's now be so enamored of the wonderful and saving graces of 'The Establishment'! Honestly, the very same government you probably grew up hating and protesting against is now only about 100 times bigger in terms of agencies and bureaucrats and laws and regulations regulating everything under the sun.
I just happen to believe that the more important and cost-efficient way is to let individuals start businesses and hire those of us who don't want to go through the hassles and anguish of starting a business and worrying about whether you can pay the taxes next quarter on time or make payroll by Friday at 5:00 pm
You enunciate a disdain for hard-working business people who, despite the fact that 4 out of every 5 small businesses crash and burn within the first few years of operations, somehow make it and then continue to employ workers and pay their health and pension benefits, (not the government)
I don't get it at all....the place that you seem to be describing as 'better suited' to live in and run an economy was the Soviet Union...why not let the government run everything if you think they are so good at it?
I was in the 'federal machine' for 12 years and around it for another 10 and my view is that there are thousands of well-meaning public servants and elected officials doing the best they can to provide certain necessary services for us as a citizenry.
but I do not think under any circumstances that the federal government is the best place for all of the new businesses and jobs to be incubated or percolated out of.
You may have a different view and probably do so God bless you.
I just don't agree.
Frank, you rant with the best of them
Your tendency toward absolutes leads you away from constructive discussion and into the realm of conflict. The title of the diary itself is an absolute and, because of that, it's incorrect. If you had asked, "Aren't most good jobs created by the private sector" or something along those lines, you'd probably find little disagreement.
Then again, that wouldn't give you the platform to say we want government to run everything, or that James wants to live in the Soviet Union, or other absolutist claims.
Don't feed the concern troll
n/t
Rant?
You continue to set up silly strawmen - this comment is full of them - suggesting that progressives want the government to be in control of everything. I have never heard anyone say that and can guarantee you that I haven't said it. And just to be clear, I daresay I've started more businesses than you have.
Can you please explain to me how I "enunciate a disdain for hard-working business people"? WTF are you talking about? I AM a hard working business person.
You've consistently misrepresented things that I've written, a pattern that is both unproductive and dishonest. If you can't see that then we probably don't have anything to talk about.
'Straw men' get put up by
'Straw men' get put up by both sides and they tend to be in the eyes of the beholder.
I am sure you have started more companies than most people on the planet, James....and I hope and pray you will continue to do so. In fact, we need you to start starting some more companies right now come to think about it.
My basic point is that when Congress passes legislation, they need to be aware of the positives and negatives of each bill, tax and regulatory, as they affect the economic wealth generators of this nation, the small business owners and risk-takers and entrepreneurs.
Raising taxes on them and hitting them with tons of regulations is not the way to create more jobs spontaneously out of thin air.
Hundreds of business owners, large and small, I have talked with are sitting on the sidelines right now waiting for the political environment from Washington to change which might be in about 48 days from now. we'll see if they are just blowing smoke or if they will start to invest and expand again after that.
Political environment changing?
You need to be giving those "hundreds of business owners" you're talking with some practical advice.
Nothing is going to change in Washington, even if R's take the House and Senate. And neither of those is likely to happen.
Senate Democrats in a minority would turn the filibuster tables on Republicans and nothing, not even Richard Burr's fabulous record of naming post offices, will move through that body. Nothing.
And Obama can be counted on to wield his veto pen without restraint. The government would indeed be shut down, as well it should if Republicans take control.
Letting your "hundreds of business owners" operate under the delusion that something significant will change in November is irresponsible. Smart businesses are already taking action to turn the new regulatory reality into competitive advantage. Only fools are sitting on the sidelines.
we'll see if those 'smart
we'll see if those 'smart businesses' can create 10 million new jobs while all the others sit on their hands and cash for the next 2 years.
The minimum they are hoping for is to see a 'brake' on the proclivities of the Obama Administration and this Congress towards more government and more taxes.
Gridlock is a preferred option to the last 2 years and to the period of 2001-2006 when the GOP held sway in total control of the federal government.
it worked from 1995-2000....last time we ever saw a balanced budget come to think of it.....ummmmm, I wonder....
Nah, President Obama will veto 'anything a GOP Congress will pass' and that would be just plain sad for the nation.
A GOP Congress
won't pass anything, Frank.
well, then as a budgeteer, I
well, then as a budgeteer, I am thrilled!
Passing CRs (continuing resolutions) at the last fiscal year's levels for the next 5 years will at least not increase the federal debt exponentially any more and it will allow the economy to recover and get the revenue/expenditure lines to cross in about 2016.
I'll take it!
and it will put pressure on our elected officials to get locked into the Capitol for 6 months without steaks and sushi and only be fed water, bread and gruel as they squeeze out every wasteful, useless and obsolete program in the federal budget, including and starting with defense.
Here's a prediction: In 10 years, there will be zero defense industry in Alaska. Why? Senator Stevens, God rest his soul, is no longer chair of the senate Defense Approps committee.
Why would any sentient businessman put up a defense company in Alaska anyway? it is too cold.
and the same goes for a myriad of programs put in by long-since retired and now dead Members of Congress in every single budget function item of the budget.
here's a link to the US federal budget and its wonderful Analytical Perspectives:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives
(read it all...and you'll be one of the few, the proud to have ever done so in the history of the Republic. I have done it twice, cover-to-cover and it sorta like the Bible....you don't know what is really in there until you crack it open and start reading)
Take out your highliter pen and mark up all the programs that you think are stupid and I'll do the same and we'll give it to Senator Burr at He's Not Here next week.
Ok? Deal?
Strangely enough
fake is on target....and it's all essentially true.
Stan Bozarth
I am not sure if you tried to
I am not sure if you tried to write my name as 'Frank' and a Freudian slip of the fingers produced 'fake'...but I'll take any show of support where I can...
Sorry to burst your bubble but I am ...
... pretty sure he is refering to poster Fake Consultant who has contributed to this thread.
And while i'm at it - did you hear about the Saudi defense deal just reached? Info here
Please note the paragraph that mentions the 77,000 jobs in 44 states.
Environmental Defense Fund
Cell phones will be to the 21st century what tobacco was to the 20th.
No, I meant FAKE
I worked for IBM for almost 30 years...and the genesis of the then ubiquitous punched card accounting machines (IBM 402, 403 and 407 in the 1950's and 60's) was indeed the census.
Stan Bozarth