Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Buck up, chaps! You only have to put up with 10 more years of offshoring!
as the dollar tends to drop in this scenario, which will force foreign interests to go back to the US for cheaper goods and services. This is why Washington is mad at the Chinese for artificially propping up the dollar, as this prevents the stabilization of the trade deficit. That is if foreign markets don't collapse, which looks eminent right now. I'm not sure what the result would be then, but it wouldn't be good for the US either, as it is a world economy after all. So far most studies point to a strong enough US economy that it could survive such a blast, and probably even end up needing US workers because only US buyers would have any money to spend. Foreign manufacturers would collapse and end their upward spiral. It is a scarier scene than what comes out in this article.
The fact that GE and Texas Instruments are building huge factories in anticipation of this, already shows that planners realize this. You can't continue to rob Paul and expect anything to be leftover for Peter; folks need jobs to make a strong economy. If congress would drop some of the ridiculous regulation that it takes to start a small business, I think the economy would explode here. I know I've been rejecting ideas about starting my own small business, because of just that factor.
The fact that GE and Texas Instruments are building huge factories in anticipation of this, already shows that planners realize this. You can't continue to rob Paul and expect anything to be leftover for Peter; folks need jobs to make a strong economy. If congress would drop some of the ridiculous regulation that it takes to start a small business, I think the economy would explode here. I know I've been rejecting ideas about starting my own small business, because of just that factor.
...they just need to look in the boardroom and the mirror.
Where outsourcing is driven by actual business need, I get it. Where it is driven by greed and profit margin, in macroeconomic terms they were robbing Peter to pay Paul. The trouble is that eventually Peter, Paul, and Mary come knocking at the same time. Oh look, here we are now.
Where outsourcing is driven by actual business need, I get it. Where it is driven by greed and profit margin, in macroeconomic terms they were robbing Peter to pay Paul. The trouble is that eventually Peter, Paul, and Mary come knocking at the same time. Oh look, here we are now.
Well said, for sure.
American "corporate" greed... looks like it came back to bite us in the A**, just as it should have!
American "corporate" greed... looks like it came back to bite us in the A**, just as it should have!
because, they're the consumers who ALWAYS choose to purchase the cheaper products and services we get from overseas labor. Give people a choice between a $2500 ultrabook (higher cost of labor, and benefits, and other taxes and other costs would make it that high or more) made in the U.S.A. and one made in China for $700, and the great majority of the time, Peter and Paul and Mary, will opt for the cheaper PC made in China. So, by demand, Peter, Paul, and Mary, have made the decision for the executives to send the production of those PCs overseas. If they can't compete with the lower priced products, then the executives are left with no choice, and to get Peter and Paul and Mary to buy their brand, those executives have been "forced" to send their production overseas.
It's okay to bash the executive and the greedy SOBs, but, they're just making sure that, Peter, Paul, and Mary, get what they wanted. Then, there is that other very important person in the equation, that being the owners and investors of a company. If they don't get a return on their investments, then the company and all of the jobs will go bye-bye, and Peter and Paul and Mary will end up purchasing their wants and needs from strictly overseas providers. However, the investors would rather have the company become competitive by having their production done in a less expensive environment, and thus, saving many jobs at home and allowing Peter and Paul and Mary to have their goods and services produced by an "American brand", even if it has foreign labor doing the work.
Peter and Paul and Mary would not even have the option of "knocking at door" if all of the goods and services were to come from overseas, with no American involvement at all. Right now, for many companies to remain competitive, they have to offshore/outsource their production facilities and many of their jobs. Thanks to Peter and Paul and Mary, and many other factors, such as the heavy hand of big government.
The one-sided, simple-minded, argument about the "big, bad, greedy executives" always fails to consider the total environment in which businesses have to compete.
It's okay to bash the executive and the greedy SOBs, but, they're just making sure that, Peter, Paul, and Mary, get what they wanted. Then, there is that other very important person in the equation, that being the owners and investors of a company. If they don't get a return on their investments, then the company and all of the jobs will go bye-bye, and Peter and Paul and Mary will end up purchasing their wants and needs from strictly overseas providers. However, the investors would rather have the company become competitive by having their production done in a less expensive environment, and thus, saving many jobs at home and allowing Peter and Paul and Mary to have their goods and services produced by an "American brand", even if it has foreign labor doing the work.
Peter and Paul and Mary would not even have the option of "knocking at door" if all of the goods and services were to come from overseas, with no American involvement at all. Right now, for many companies to remain competitive, they have to offshore/outsource their production facilities and many of their jobs. Thanks to Peter and Paul and Mary, and many other factors, such as the heavy hand of big government.
The one-sided, simple-minded, argument about the "big, bad, greedy executives" always fails to consider the total environment in which businesses have to compete.
so danged involved in regulating and taxing companies to death, you'd see:
1. cheaper production costs here, leading to:
2. less reliance on funding from stock sales and so
3. Less reliance on insane stockholders who want to double their money every three months, which would lead to
4. Less reliance on bean counters, whose presence has contributed greatly to the destruction of the traditional American corporate culture.
All of which would lead to much more sanity in the economy.
1. cheaper production costs here, leading to:
2. less reliance on funding from stock sales and so
3. Less reliance on insane stockholders who want to double their money every three months, which would lead to
4. Less reliance on bean counters, whose presence has contributed greatly to the destruction of the traditional American corporate culture.
All of which would lead to much more sanity in the economy.
Getting big gov. out of business would help businesses, but it would not be a magic bullet. It would not automatically change everything you state completely, but it would to some extent. Greed, shortsightedness, and costs would still exist.
The other side of that argument is that deregulating everything would also allow greed, corruption, and devastation in the USA.
1. Businesses WILL dump pollutants into the air, water, and ground if allowed. They did it before and will do it again.
2. Businesses will still pay their employees as little as possible, treat them as badly as they can get away with, bully them whenever they want, (some would even use child labor and slavery if they could get away with it. Some people just don't have morals, and they tend to be seen as good managers. So sad...) and make life here as miserable for the average worker as it is in third world countries.
3. and would still outsource as much as possible, just because it is still cheaper, unless #2 actually gets so bad that the cost of insourcing is as low as outsourcing. After all, a penny pinched is a ... well, you get the idea.
Foreign labor is cheaper because the workers are getting paid pennies instead of our dollars, there is no labor dept. to protect them from harm, no safety regulations to prevent them being injured or sickened on the job, and no environmental standards to protect the community and workers from toxic byproducts. Deregulating businesses would allow all these abuses that have been outlawed here to happen again.
!!!The goal should be to get standards up in other countries so we are again a competitive option instead of bringing us down to third world standards.!!!
The other side of that argument is that deregulating everything would also allow greed, corruption, and devastation in the USA.
1. Businesses WILL dump pollutants into the air, water, and ground if allowed. They did it before and will do it again.
2. Businesses will still pay their employees as little as possible, treat them as badly as they can get away with, bully them whenever they want, (some would even use child labor and slavery if they could get away with it. Some people just don't have morals, and they tend to be seen as good managers. So sad...) and make life here as miserable for the average worker as it is in third world countries.
3. and would still outsource as much as possible, just because it is still cheaper, unless #2 actually gets so bad that the cost of insourcing is as low as outsourcing. After all, a penny pinched is a ... well, you get the idea.
Foreign labor is cheaper because the workers are getting paid pennies instead of our dollars, there is no labor dept. to protect them from harm, no safety regulations to prevent them being injured or sickened on the job, and no environmental standards to protect the community and workers from toxic byproducts. Deregulating businesses would allow all these abuses that have been outlawed here to happen again.
!!!The goal should be to get standards up in other countries so we are again a competitive option instead of bringing us down to third world standards.!!!
you sound just like the typical liberal and big government advocate out there.
Look, nobody is claiming that, people in business won't still have greed or profits in mind after government gets out of the way. But, going with what we have now, and that we've had for many decades, is just destroying the whole economy. So, which would you prefer, a heavy government influence with many thousands of expensive regulations that is driving the economy into the toilet, or a free-market system which for certain will lead to a lot more growth and many more millions of jobs right here in America which won't have to be shipped overseas?
The issues are fairly clear, and the current road we're in is leading to destruction of the economy and the country. Either get the government off the backs of the businesses and the people and watch them thrive, or watch the country self-destruct with so much government regulations and taxation.
Nothing else matters. The regulations and the heavy taxation is precisely the reasons for so many jobs and production facilities being shipped overseas. Regulations are important, but, the vast majority of them aren't needed. We might need regulations for clean air and water and for employee protections, but, those aren't the majority of regulations which are stifling growth, and sending jobs and shops to foreign lands. Make the cost of doing business here at home very expensive, and what our jobs and shops leave in droves, which many have already left with no hope of coming back. But, the trend can be reversed, and your "solutions" would just make things worse.
Look, nobody is claiming that, people in business won't still have greed or profits in mind after government gets out of the way. But, going with what we have now, and that we've had for many decades, is just destroying the whole economy. So, which would you prefer, a heavy government influence with many thousands of expensive regulations that is driving the economy into the toilet, or a free-market system which for certain will lead to a lot more growth and many more millions of jobs right here in America which won't have to be shipped overseas?
The issues are fairly clear, and the current road we're in is leading to destruction of the economy and the country. Either get the government off the backs of the businesses and the people and watch them thrive, or watch the country self-destruct with so much government regulations and taxation.
Nothing else matters. The regulations and the heavy taxation is precisely the reasons for so many jobs and production facilities being shipped overseas. Regulations are important, but, the vast majority of them aren't needed. We might need regulations for clean air and water and for employee protections, but, those aren't the majority of regulations which are stifling growth, and sending jobs and shops to foreign lands. Make the cost of doing business here at home very expensive, and what our jobs and shops leave in droves, which many have already left with no hope of coming back. But, the trend can be reversed, and your "solutions" would just make things worse.
...and thank you for acknowledging them. I agree that if we could cut the waste and pork, we could lower taxes across the board. But I have to go with the evidence I have seen. What I have seen is that conservatives don't conserve anything, except for conserving the wealthy few's ability to make a fast buck at the expense of everyone else. Then they blame the waste on the liberals.
Even Reagan, the conservative poster child, admitted that his business minded "Trickle Down Economics" didn't work as it was intended and was a mistake. (You don't hear the conservatives talk about that much, do you?) Things turned around for the better under liberal Clinton, (although he did push the foreign trade agreement, {NAFTA? I hate anachronisms.}, which I think opened the floodgates to our trade deficit and outsourcing.) Still, things were good here at the end of his 2 terms.
Then ol' Dubbya and Cheney came in pretending to be conservatives, saying all the things conservatives wanted to hear, and did the exact opposite of conserving anything! The conservative tax cuts didn't provide any new jobs, in fact, big businesses pocketed the tax cuts and continued to outsource and lay off workers. The conservatives in the White House spent and borrowed while the conservatives on Capitol Hill cheered them on. A few defense contractors profited like mad while the rest of the country is dying. That is not conservative!
Also, you mention liberals and big government. It was Bush and Cheney, conservatives, that created the TSA monster we have now, the Patriot Act, the DHS, and FEMA. ("You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie!") How was that making Gov't smaller? Oh yeah, it wasn't. It made big government bigger, MUCH BIGGER! Very conservative! By the way, as a liberal, I approve the idea of FEMA, but Bush used it as a sweetheart deal to set up some of his cronies for life instead of using it as a way to help US citizens in an emergency. They couldn't tell their @$$ from a hole in the levee. Good use of taxpayer money! Very conservative!
The bills have been rung up and there is no other way out but to pay them off, and the Gov't cannot pay anything off without tax money. I expect the wealthy to pay their share, and I expect large businesses to pay their share. (I would like to see small businesses get a break, but the conservatives have everything stacked against small business in favor of the large businesses that can make large campaign contributions.)
My point here is that I have seen liberals push their liberal agendas and things got better, and i have seen conservatives push their conservative agendas and things got worse. I am going by what I have seen with my own eyes.
Thanks for replying.
Michael
Even Reagan, the conservative poster child, admitted that his business minded "Trickle Down Economics" didn't work as it was intended and was a mistake. (You don't hear the conservatives talk about that much, do you?) Things turned around for the better under liberal Clinton, (although he did push the foreign trade agreement, {NAFTA? I hate anachronisms.}, which I think opened the floodgates to our trade deficit and outsourcing.) Still, things were good here at the end of his 2 terms.
Then ol' Dubbya and Cheney came in pretending to be conservatives, saying all the things conservatives wanted to hear, and did the exact opposite of conserving anything! The conservative tax cuts didn't provide any new jobs, in fact, big businesses pocketed the tax cuts and continued to outsource and lay off workers. The conservatives in the White House spent and borrowed while the conservatives on Capitol Hill cheered them on. A few defense contractors profited like mad while the rest of the country is dying. That is not conservative!
Also, you mention liberals and big government. It was Bush and Cheney, conservatives, that created the TSA monster we have now, the Patriot Act, the DHS, and FEMA. ("You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie!") How was that making Gov't smaller? Oh yeah, it wasn't. It made big government bigger, MUCH BIGGER! Very conservative! By the way, as a liberal, I approve the idea of FEMA, but Bush used it as a sweetheart deal to set up some of his cronies for life instead of using it as a way to help US citizens in an emergency. They couldn't tell their @$$ from a hole in the levee. Good use of taxpayer money! Very conservative!
The bills have been rung up and there is no other way out but to pay them off, and the Gov't cannot pay anything off without tax money. I expect the wealthy to pay their share, and I expect large businesses to pay their share. (I would like to see small businesses get a break, but the conservatives have everything stacked against small business in favor of the large businesses that can make large campaign contributions.)
My point here is that I have seen liberals push their liberal agendas and things got better, and i have seen conservatives push their conservative agendas and things got worse. I am going by what I have seen with my own eyes.
Thanks for replying.
Michael
if you actually believe any of that nonsense.
Look, the fact is that, trickle down economics does work, and it's worked as long as the country has existed, and as long as the free-market has been allowed to function without government intrusion.
If you would bother to look around you and think for a minute, what we have now is a trickle down economy, with the affluent and the businesspeople, running the economy, and the working class reaping the benefits of those jobs creators. Furthermore, the more spending and growth that those corporations and affluent people do, the more the whole economy will benefit, including the working class. On the other side, the more government spending that there is, the more harm that comes to the economy, and the fewer jobs there will be, because, government spending requires the removal of funds from corporations, and the less money that corporations have to conduct business or to grow or to simply remain in business, the more they'll have to let people go, or the less hiring that they'll do. Government does not create wealth nor jobs, and the bigger government gets, the smaller the economy will get. It happens every time.
Nowhere will you see a poor person creating a job for anybody, and nowhere will you see a working person creating a second job for another person. Investing and risking of wealth, is what brings prosperity, and while growth depends upon the citizenry partaking to continue that growth, the fact remains that, no economy will ever be fruitful without the wealth earners and wealth creators being involved.
Clinton was the beneficiary of a strong economy which started under Reagan and continued, partly, under the first Bush. The first Bush was more of a liberal in republican pinstripes, but, the economy grew despite his negative influence. In fact, Clinton inherited an economy which was growing at about 4.2% before the election brought him to office. So, Clinton inherited a growing economy, but, in the end, he finished by destroying that growth, and left with the economy in recession, and that Clinton recession is what the second Bush had to battle against, and he did bring the country out of recession and into the longest period of growth in American economic history, with something like 52 straight months of a growing economy. The only thing that put a stop to that growth, was the bursting of the housing bubble, which was, another dastardly creation of the liberals in congress and in the executive branch, starting with Carter and made worse by Clinton with the CRA act, which forced banks to lend to unqualified people. So, your whole telling of events is a complete lie.
Nowhere in history and nowhere in the world, have liberal and socialist policies ever worked, and we are witnessing that first hand, all over the world, and especially in Europe and in the U.S., where the economy is actually in recession, but, government spending has distorted the numbers that would show the truth of how badly we're doing. $16 trillion dollars of debt is a very good indication that, big government doesn't work and that it destroys economies and lives. The real unemployment rate is closer to 20% than the official lying number of 8.3%, which doesn't count the number of people who had to give up looking for jobs because they became so discouraged.
The fact is that, the lesser that government is involved in our lives and in our economy, the better the country does as a whole. That's been proven before, and that's the only rescue package that the country needs, for government to get the "f" out of our lives and out of the economy.
Look, the fact is that, trickle down economics does work, and it's worked as long as the country has existed, and as long as the free-market has been allowed to function without government intrusion.
If you would bother to look around you and think for a minute, what we have now is a trickle down economy, with the affluent and the businesspeople, running the economy, and the working class reaping the benefits of those jobs creators. Furthermore, the more spending and growth that those corporations and affluent people do, the more the whole economy will benefit, including the working class. On the other side, the more government spending that there is, the more harm that comes to the economy, and the fewer jobs there will be, because, government spending requires the removal of funds from corporations, and the less money that corporations have to conduct business or to grow or to simply remain in business, the more they'll have to let people go, or the less hiring that they'll do. Government does not create wealth nor jobs, and the bigger government gets, the smaller the economy will get. It happens every time.
Nowhere will you see a poor person creating a job for anybody, and nowhere will you see a working person creating a second job for another person. Investing and risking of wealth, is what brings prosperity, and while growth depends upon the citizenry partaking to continue that growth, the fact remains that, no economy will ever be fruitful without the wealth earners and wealth creators being involved.
Clinton was the beneficiary of a strong economy which started under Reagan and continued, partly, under the first Bush. The first Bush was more of a liberal in republican pinstripes, but, the economy grew despite his negative influence. In fact, Clinton inherited an economy which was growing at about 4.2% before the election brought him to office. So, Clinton inherited a growing economy, but, in the end, he finished by destroying that growth, and left with the economy in recession, and that Clinton recession is what the second Bush had to battle against, and he did bring the country out of recession and into the longest period of growth in American economic history, with something like 52 straight months of a growing economy. The only thing that put a stop to that growth, was the bursting of the housing bubble, which was, another dastardly creation of the liberals in congress and in the executive branch, starting with Carter and made worse by Clinton with the CRA act, which forced banks to lend to unqualified people. So, your whole telling of events is a complete lie.
Nowhere in history and nowhere in the world, have liberal and socialist policies ever worked, and we are witnessing that first hand, all over the world, and especially in Europe and in the U.S., where the economy is actually in recession, but, government spending has distorted the numbers that would show the truth of how badly we're doing. $16 trillion dollars of debt is a very good indication that, big government doesn't work and that it destroys economies and lives. The real unemployment rate is closer to 20% than the official lying number of 8.3%, which doesn't count the number of people who had to give up looking for jobs because they became so discouraged.
The fact is that, the lesser that government is involved in our lives and in our economy, the better the country does as a whole. That's been proven before, and that's the only rescue package that the country needs, for government to get the "f" out of our lives and out of the economy.
FEMA was created by Carter in 1979.
Other than that, you've pretty much got the history correct.
Other than that, you've pretty much got the history correct.
WRONG.
I've already rebutted @Michael's points, and his interpretations, and you are just as wrong as he is if you believe as he does.
Other than that, you are correct about Carter. But, you didn't even mention Carter's socialism via the CRA act, and the continuation of that madness by Clinton, both of which created the housing bubble which destroyed the economy.
I've already rebutted @Michael's points, and his interpretations, and you are just as wrong as he is if you believe as he does.
Other than that, you are correct about Carter. But, you didn't even mention Carter's socialism via the CRA act, and the continuation of that madness by Clinton, both of which created the housing bubble which destroyed the economy.
Here are the facts, from the Library of Congress, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Treasury Department.
Fact - The Patriot Act was signed into law by GWB in October 2001.
Fact - The TSA was established in November 2001.
Fact - The Department of Homeland Security was created in November 2002.
Fact - DHS is the third-largest cabinet-level department, behind Defense and VA.
====
Fact - The average annual increase in jobs during Clinton's first term was 2.52%. During his second term it was 2.24%. (BLS)
Fact - The average annual unemployment rate in 1992 was 7.5%; in 1993, it was 6.9%. For 2000, it was 4.0%.
Fact - The average annual increase in jobs during GW Bush's first term was 0.00%; during his second term, 0.21%
Fact - The average annual unemployment rate in 2001 was 4.7%; in 2008, it was 5.8%.
Logical conclusion, based on the facts: Clinton policies created jobs and reduced unemployment. GW Bush policies hindered job creation and increased unemployment.
====
Fact - The only time gross national debt as a percentage of GDP has decreased since 1980 is in the Clinton administration. (Treasury)
Fact - The dollar value of the national debt shrank in fiscal year 2000, the only time it has done so since the Carter administration.
Fact - The gross national debt at the end of FY 2001 (last Clinton budget) was $5.807 trillion.
Fact - The gross national debt at the end of FY 2009 (last GWB budget) was $11.909 trillion.
====
Rebut away...
Fact - The Patriot Act was signed into law by GWB in October 2001.
Fact - The TSA was established in November 2001.
Fact - The Department of Homeland Security was created in November 2002.
Fact - DHS is the third-largest cabinet-level department, behind Defense and VA.
====
Fact - The average annual increase in jobs during Clinton's first term was 2.52%. During his second term it was 2.24%. (BLS)
Fact - The average annual unemployment rate in 1992 was 7.5%; in 1993, it was 6.9%. For 2000, it was 4.0%.
Fact - The average annual increase in jobs during GW Bush's first term was 0.00%; during his second term, 0.21%
Fact - The average annual unemployment rate in 2001 was 4.7%; in 2008, it was 5.8%.
Logical conclusion, based on the facts: Clinton policies created jobs and reduced unemployment. GW Bush policies hindered job creation and increased unemployment.
====
Fact - The only time gross national debt as a percentage of GDP has decreased since 1980 is in the Clinton administration. (Treasury)
Fact - The dollar value of the national debt shrank in fiscal year 2000, the only time it has done so since the Carter administration.
Fact - The gross national debt at the end of FY 2001 (last Clinton budget) was $5.807 trillion.
Fact - The gross national debt at the end of FY 2009 (last GWB budget) was $11.909 trillion.
====
Rebut away...
Did you ever hear of context? Points without context are meaningless, and just end up being a bunch of words with nothing useful.
Or, do you just like posting facts without context?
What's to interpret?
Nothing should ever be taken/accepted without a grain of salt. No facts come without context and background. And, facts dont always explain circumstances or the reasoning behind decisions.
Here are the facts, from the Library of Congress, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Treasury Department.
It seems to me that, you desperately went around the internet looking for material to try to counter my last few posts, which destroyed all of your arguments. So, the best you could do is to try to post a set of facts without context or explaining the relevance of them? Loser!!!
???Fact - The Patriot Act was signed into law by GWB in October 2001.???
Context: That act was passed with bi-partisan support from both parties of congress, and Bush only signed it. If your suggestion is that, the act was purely a Bush evil, then you???d be completely wrong. Also, the senate was controlled by democrats in 2001, and the act was unanimously voted on by the whole senate, except for one ???no vote??? and one abstention. IOW, 98 senators voted ???FOR??? the act, and the senate was controlled by democrats. So, who is the villain? Is that what you were trying to get at???
???Fact - The TSA was established in November 2001.???
Again, a congressional act, and with bi-partisan support, and with a senate controlled by democrats. Was there evil involved in creating the TSA? Sometimes, ideas can be used for wrong-headed actions, and the TSA???s undesirable actions, as of late, are being committed under democrat control. It???s like anything else. A good idea can be used equally for bad, depending upon the people in control. Splitting the atom didn???t have to be used to create WMDs, but it was.
???Fact - The Department of Homeland Security was created in November 2002.???
Again, under a democrat controlled senate. So, what has that ???fact??? got to do with anything. Did you know that, the sky isn???t really blue? That???s a fact, but, it???s not really relevant to anything here.
BTW, did you know that, a president doesn???t get to sign any bill if it hasn???t been passed by congress first? That???s a fact, and one that too many people conveniently forget when trying to place blame.
Or, do you just like posting facts without context?
What's to interpret?
Nothing should ever be taken/accepted without a grain of salt. No facts come without context and background. And, facts dont always explain circumstances or the reasoning behind decisions.
Here are the facts, from the Library of Congress, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Treasury Department.
It seems to me that, you desperately went around the internet looking for material to try to counter my last few posts, which destroyed all of your arguments. So, the best you could do is to try to post a set of facts without context or explaining the relevance of them? Loser!!!
???Fact - The Patriot Act was signed into law by GWB in October 2001.???
Context: That act was passed with bi-partisan support from both parties of congress, and Bush only signed it. If your suggestion is that, the act was purely a Bush evil, then you???d be completely wrong. Also, the senate was controlled by democrats in 2001, and the act was unanimously voted on by the whole senate, except for one ???no vote??? and one abstention. IOW, 98 senators voted ???FOR??? the act, and the senate was controlled by democrats. So, who is the villain? Is that what you were trying to get at???
???Fact - The TSA was established in November 2001.???
Again, a congressional act, and with bi-partisan support, and with a senate controlled by democrats. Was there evil involved in creating the TSA? Sometimes, ideas can be used for wrong-headed actions, and the TSA???s undesirable actions, as of late, are being committed under democrat control. It???s like anything else. A good idea can be used equally for bad, depending upon the people in control. Splitting the atom didn???t have to be used to create WMDs, but it was.
???Fact - The Department of Homeland Security was created in November 2002.???
Again, under a democrat controlled senate. So, what has that ???fact??? got to do with anything. Did you know that, the sky isn???t really blue? That???s a fact, but, it???s not really relevant to anything here.
BTW, did you know that, a president doesn???t get to sign any bill if it hasn???t been passed by congress first? That???s a fact, and one that too many people conveniently forget when trying to place blame.
"Fact - DHS is the third-largest cabinet-level department, behind Defense and VA."
Did you know that, the Airbus A380 is the largest passenger airplane flying right now? Irrelevant? Well, that what your facts are so far.
(Something wrong where I can't add material for longer posts; I'll try again tomorrow).
Did you know that, the Airbus A380 is the largest passenger airplane flying right now? Irrelevant? Well, that what your facts are so far.
(Something wrong where I can't add material for longer posts; I'll try again tomorrow).
Fact - The average annual increase in jobs during Clinton's first term was 2.52%. During his second term it was 2.24%. (BLS)
Context: Clintons first term was highlighted with an economy which was already growing at a 4.2% rate before he even took office. So, should Clinton be given credit for an economy which was growing before he took office? That fact I just mentioned is pertinent to your fact, because, your fact would not have occurred unless the economy was growing, which growth occurred despite Clintons damage to the economy with the largest tax increase in American history.
(Apparently, the system is not allowing me to post the other parts of my comments, and they're being deleted or disallowed immediately. I'll keep trying.)
Context: Clintons first term was highlighted with an economy which was already growing at a 4.2% rate before he even took office. So, should Clinton be given credit for an economy which was growing before he took office? That fact I just mentioned is pertinent to your fact, because, your fact would not have occurred unless the economy was growing, which growth occurred despite Clintons damage to the economy with the largest tax increase in American history.
(Apparently, the system is not allowing me to post the other parts of my comments, and they're being deleted or disallowed immediately. I'll keep trying.)
First, the only place your posts have destroyed my arguments is in your mind.
Second, reply != rebut.
You made assertions, I provided facts that contradicted those assertions. Now, you're claiming "context". Lame.
And as for your question—"...should Clinton be given credit for an economy which was growing before he took office?"—why not? After all, you're blaming Obama for an economy which was collapsing before HE took office. If you're going to deny the credit to the one, you can't assign the blame to the other.
Second, reply != rebut.
You made assertions, I provided facts that contradicted those assertions. Now, you're claiming "context". Lame.
And as for your question—"...should Clinton be given credit for an economy which was growing before he took office?"—why not? After all, you're blaming Obama for an economy which was collapsing before HE took office. If you're going to deny the credit to the one, you can't assign the blame to the other.
I could call a rose a dandelion, but, it's still going to be a rose.
Trickle down economics. Bush gave out the tax cuts, and the economy tanked. We got to see your plan in action, and we saw the results. I don't understand how you can continue to say giving the rich tax breaks helps the economy.
Here is a scenario for you to chew on. (I work for this company, and I am not knocking it, or the owners, or their policies. It is a decent place to work and I like it here.)
A company makes stuff and has employees working 3 shifts. Over the last few years, the management has trimmed the workforce by not replacing people who retired or moved to other jobs. The company is running lean! The work is getting done, but there is no slack anywhere.
Now the government gives the company, (I will make up a number here for easy math,) $150,000 back on its taxes. (That is equal to 3 employees with benefits.) !!!Why would the management go and hire 3 people it does not need?!!! (And in fact, they didn't. We are still running as lean as ever, in spite of the tax breaks the company got under Bush and Cheney.) That money didn't stimulate the economy or create any jobs. It went right into the 'ol retirement fund, (and not any of the employees' retirement funds!)
Now, if that $150,000 was given to 150 middle class working people, well we have bills to pay, families to feed and cloth and put through college, our car needs fixing, our house needs new gutters, etc... That money is immediately spent and returned into circulation at stores in the community, paid to local mechanics and craftspersons, and used to get our kids a college education, making a better educated nation.
That, my friend, is how money really works, (that is, when it isn't being hoarded by a rich 1%!) Trickle Sideways Economics! That is how it is supposed to work.
Oh, and Reganomics? My ex was in college at the time. She had financial aid for the first 3 years, then my old buddy RR cut financial aid, so she had to borrow more money to complete college with her teaching degree. But RR also cut funds going to schools, so public schools had to stop hiring and even lay off some workers. She graduated with a degree in education, but there were no jobs in education for new graduates and she had to start paying off her student loans, even though she couldn't get a job at a school. The existing classrooms got bigger, and the decline in education accelerated! That is some good policies for the future of the country!
The health of the country lies in how well the people are, not how well the corporations are!
Nice chatting with you.
Michael L.
Here is a scenario for you to chew on. (I work for this company, and I am not knocking it, or the owners, or their policies. It is a decent place to work and I like it here.)
A company makes stuff and has employees working 3 shifts. Over the last few years, the management has trimmed the workforce by not replacing people who retired or moved to other jobs. The company is running lean! The work is getting done, but there is no slack anywhere.
Now the government gives the company, (I will make up a number here for easy math,) $150,000 back on its taxes. (That is equal to 3 employees with benefits.) !!!Why would the management go and hire 3 people it does not need?!!! (And in fact, they didn't. We are still running as lean as ever, in spite of the tax breaks the company got under Bush and Cheney.) That money didn't stimulate the economy or create any jobs. It went right into the 'ol retirement fund, (and not any of the employees' retirement funds!)
Now, if that $150,000 was given to 150 middle class working people, well we have bills to pay, families to feed and cloth and put through college, our car needs fixing, our house needs new gutters, etc... That money is immediately spent and returned into circulation at stores in the community, paid to local mechanics and craftspersons, and used to get our kids a college education, making a better educated nation.
That, my friend, is how money really works, (that is, when it isn't being hoarded by a rich 1%!) Trickle Sideways Economics! That is how it is supposed to work.
Oh, and Reganomics? My ex was in college at the time. She had financial aid for the first 3 years, then my old buddy RR cut financial aid, so she had to borrow more money to complete college with her teaching degree. But RR also cut funds going to schools, so public schools had to stop hiring and even lay off some workers. She graduated with a degree in education, but there were no jobs in education for new graduates and she had to start paying off her student loans, even though she couldn't get a job at a school. The existing classrooms got bigger, and the decline in education accelerated! That is some good policies for the future of the country!
The health of the country lies in how well the people are, not how well the corporations are!
Nice chatting with you.
Michael L.
???Trickle down economics.???
Yep, the dirty phrase to liberals, ???trickle down???, which is the opposite of ???wealth distribution???, which is the preferred economic principle of the socialists and communists.
???Bush gave out the tax cuts,???
Check your facts. Congress gave us tax cuts, and Bush signed the bill to enact them.
???and the economy tanked.???
Nope!! Wrong again!!!
The economy under Bush, after ???his??? tax cuts, boomed, and brought the country back from the economic recession that Clinton left. Let???s face it. Every time taxes are cut, the economy sees a recovery or an upswing. Never fails. On the opposite side, every time taxes are raised, like happens with liberals, the economy takes a downturn, and often goes into recession.
??? We got to see your plan in action, and we saw the results. I don't understand how you can continue to say giving the rich tax breaks helps the economy.???
You saw something completely different from the facts, which are that, the country saw the longest economic recovery in American history under Bush, with periods of up to 8% growth, and the longest economic expansion in history of up to 52 weeks of growth. And, under Bush, the economy created up to 10 million jobs, and he unemployment rate even went down to 4.5%, which is something that, we???ll never see again under any democrat.
???Here is a scenario for you to chew on. (I work for this company, and I am not knocking it, or the owners, or their policies. It is a decent place to work and I like it here.)???
Nice to hear you have a job. But, there are approximately 20 million people out here who don???t have a job or full-time employment, simply because there is a Marxist in the White House.
And, there is congress, which is being prevented from doing what???s necessary to grow the economy, and the part of the congress blocking the needed bills and actions, is the senate, which is controlled by democrats.
???A company makes stuff and has employees working 3 shifts. Over the last few years, the management has trimmed the workforce by not replacing people who retired or moved to other jobs. The company is running lean! The work is getting done, but there is no slack anywhere.???
So, to you that???s a good thing? Your company downsizing by not replacing people who leave or retire? They???re doing what they have to do to survive in a rotten economy. Why can???t you see the downside of what you describe? So, is the glass half-full because, they???re not laying-off people? What about the people who felt pressured to leave, or the people who left because they saw no future in a company such as you describe? Which is better?: A company that sees a good future ahead, or one that???s doing whatever it can just to be able to survive? A company that loses hope, is one that reacts the way yours is doing. Get a hint.
???Now the government gives the company, (I will make up a number here for easy math,) $150,000 back on its taxes. (That is equal to 3 employees with benefits.) !!!Why would the management go and hire 3 people it does not need?!!! (And in fact, they didn't. We are still running as lean as ever, in spite of the tax breaks the company got under Bush and Cheney.) That money didn't stimulate the economy or create any jobs. It went right into the 'ol retirement fund, (and not any of the employees' retirement funds!)???
When people are used to living in liberal bubbles, or are uneducated on economics, they???ll think like you just did.
People who run businesses don???t just stash whatever earnings they have, and they also don???t bank whatever they can get in tax savings. Earnings and savings are used to grow a business, and to hire people when the need arises, like, when the business is growing. And, that is precisely what happened under the Bush economy, where companies that received the tax breaks, used that money for expansion and for hiring. The economy would have continued into a longer recession if the ???Bush tax cuts??? hadn???t been implemented. All economists agree on that, except, of course, the economists from the socialist side of the economic and political spectrum, those being the liberals.
???Now, if that $150,000 was given to 150 middle class working people, well we have bills to pay, families to feed and cloth and put through college, our car needs fixing, our house needs new gutters, etc... That money is immediately spent and returned into circulation at stores in the community, paid to local mechanics and craftspersons, and used to get our kids a college education, making a better educated nation.???
Actually, that???s been tried, and with very miserable results. It happens every time government doles out money, like in the mindlessly crafted porkulus of Obama and the democrats. They gave away money to their preferred projects and preferred friends, and there is nothing to show that was good with the whole debacle, anywhere. In fact, the country ended up far worse, with the spending just simply getting added to the national debt. So, what the heck is a measly billion dollars? It???s just taxpayer money, or Chinese money being lent to us that we???ll never be able to pay back.
When government makes economic decisions, it normally ends badly, and the greater free-market suffers because of it. If money is to be ???given back???, it would be preferable to just leave it where it was to begin with.
Government just tries to decide between winners and losers, and the general loser is always the economy and the country, and the people. That???s crony capitalism that government practices, and it???s never a winner. The people know best how to spend their own money, and so do businesses. That stuff about ???redistribution??? of the wealth, that you seem to be advocating, is for economies and countries that wish to commit suicide, like in the old USSR and in Venezuela and in Cuba and many others.
So, instead of the government taking people???s money, and then redistributing it as the politicians see fit, why not just let the people keep that money in the form of tax cuts? That always ends up stimulating the economy to much greater prosperity.
When government is the one handing out money, it???s not distributed the way that the free-market would, and the free-market ???knows??? best how and where that money should be spent. That free market is the people, and not the dependent class of people. People who depend on government will, in fact, go and spend whatever they get, and that is stimulative in a way, but, it???s a disincentive at the same time, and what suffers most is the productivity that those people won???t be putting forth to make the economy grow. Spending is not a stimulant by itself if that spending is not accompanied with an equal amount of productivity to replace that wealth that was spent. People who just spend and not produce, are always a negative to any economy, and that???s why the economy is in free-fall, with a huge percentage of people just consuming and not paying taxes or being productive. About half the people in the country pay no taxes, and about 1/3 of the people are also completely dependent upon government for all their needs. That???s unsustainable in any economy, and that???s why the country is failing.
???That, my friend, is how money really works, (that is, when it isn't being hoarded by a rich 1%!) Trickle Sideways Economics! That is how it is supposed to work.???
Your recipe is a recipe for disaster. You have absolutely no idea how economics works or how the free-market works. Your recipe is one that???s being tried in Venezuela right now, and they???re utter failures. Go there. They need your silly and na??ve ideas. We don???t need your kind of destructive ideas in this country. We already have a president who is doing what you and liberals want, and with very destructive results.
???Oh, and Reganomics? My ex was in college at the time. She had financial aid for the first 3 years, then my old buddy RR cut financial aid, so she had to borrow more money to complete college with her teaching degree.???
So, you, like all liberals, want to blame government or government officials for personal problems that people meet in their daily lives? You and your ex, like the dependent society, have become accustomed to the government giving you anything that you need. I never depended upon government to give me anything, and I survived quite nicely. I???m not rich, and I???m not anybody of importance in the general scheme of things, but, I don???t go around complaining or blaming others for what occurs in my life.
??? But RR also cut funds going to schools, so public schools had to stop hiring and even lay off some workers.???
When the schools are being used to simply hire teachers that become union members and very reliable democratic party voters, and they don???t give a damn about the student???s education, then by all means, Reagan did the right thing.
As it stands now, our education system is failing very badly, even with the huger amounts of money being spent and wasted on the system.
??? She graduated with a degree in education, but there were no jobs in education for new graduates and she had to start paying off her student loans, even though she couldn't get a job at a school. The existing classrooms got bigger, and the decline in education accelerated! That is some good policies for the future of the country!???
So, is she unique and the problem didn???t occur with other graduates in her field? Look, a degree is just a permission slip to get into a career, and getting a job or a career is something that should not just be handed to people because they???ve earned a piece of paper that says they spent four years in college learning a profession. If she was proficient at anything, she could have landed a good job or career anywhere without you or her whining about it.
???The health of the country lies in how well the people are, not how well the corporations are!???
That is such an ignorant and na??ve statement.
Without corporations to provide the work that people need to live on, there would be no country and no ???health??? or life worth living.
People don???t just create jobs. Corporations create jobs. But, those corporations are created by people with initiative and skills and desires to succeed, and they invest a lot of time and money to create businesses and jobs. Without the wealth creators, all that would exist in the world would be just a bunch of Somalias.
You need to rethink your ideas, because, you???re starting off very badly misinformed and very na??ve.
???Nice chatting with you.???
Yeah, nice chatting with you. Now, go get an education on economics and the free market system. Mostly, get one on common sense, because, common sense is most of what the free-market system is about. Socialism is not a system for wealth creation, nor for jobs creation, nor for sustaining a country. It ALWAYS fails.
Yep, the dirty phrase to liberals, ???trickle down???, which is the opposite of ???wealth distribution???, which is the preferred economic principle of the socialists and communists.
???Bush gave out the tax cuts,???
Check your facts. Congress gave us tax cuts, and Bush signed the bill to enact them.
???and the economy tanked.???
Nope!! Wrong again!!!
The economy under Bush, after ???his??? tax cuts, boomed, and brought the country back from the economic recession that Clinton left. Let???s face it. Every time taxes are cut, the economy sees a recovery or an upswing. Never fails. On the opposite side, every time taxes are raised, like happens with liberals, the economy takes a downturn, and often goes into recession.
??? We got to see your plan in action, and we saw the results. I don't understand how you can continue to say giving the rich tax breaks helps the economy.???
You saw something completely different from the facts, which are that, the country saw the longest economic recovery in American history under Bush, with periods of up to 8% growth, and the longest economic expansion in history of up to 52 weeks of growth. And, under Bush, the economy created up to 10 million jobs, and he unemployment rate even went down to 4.5%, which is something that, we???ll never see again under any democrat.
???Here is a scenario for you to chew on. (I work for this company, and I am not knocking it, or the owners, or their policies. It is a decent place to work and I like it here.)???
Nice to hear you have a job. But, there are approximately 20 million people out here who don???t have a job or full-time employment, simply because there is a Marxist in the White House.
And, there is congress, which is being prevented from doing what???s necessary to grow the economy, and the part of the congress blocking the needed bills and actions, is the senate, which is controlled by democrats.
???A company makes stuff and has employees working 3 shifts. Over the last few years, the management has trimmed the workforce by not replacing people who retired or moved to other jobs. The company is running lean! The work is getting done, but there is no slack anywhere.???
So, to you that???s a good thing? Your company downsizing by not replacing people who leave or retire? They???re doing what they have to do to survive in a rotten economy. Why can???t you see the downside of what you describe? So, is the glass half-full because, they???re not laying-off people? What about the people who felt pressured to leave, or the people who left because they saw no future in a company such as you describe? Which is better?: A company that sees a good future ahead, or one that???s doing whatever it can just to be able to survive? A company that loses hope, is one that reacts the way yours is doing. Get a hint.
???Now the government gives the company, (I will make up a number here for easy math,) $150,000 back on its taxes. (That is equal to 3 employees with benefits.) !!!Why would the management go and hire 3 people it does not need?!!! (And in fact, they didn't. We are still running as lean as ever, in spite of the tax breaks the company got under Bush and Cheney.) That money didn't stimulate the economy or create any jobs. It went right into the 'ol retirement fund, (and not any of the employees' retirement funds!)???
When people are used to living in liberal bubbles, or are uneducated on economics, they???ll think like you just did.
People who run businesses don???t just stash whatever earnings they have, and they also don???t bank whatever they can get in tax savings. Earnings and savings are used to grow a business, and to hire people when the need arises, like, when the business is growing. And, that is precisely what happened under the Bush economy, where companies that received the tax breaks, used that money for expansion and for hiring. The economy would have continued into a longer recession if the ???Bush tax cuts??? hadn???t been implemented. All economists agree on that, except, of course, the economists from the socialist side of the economic and political spectrum, those being the liberals.
???Now, if that $150,000 was given to 150 middle class working people, well we have bills to pay, families to feed and cloth and put through college, our car needs fixing, our house needs new gutters, etc... That money is immediately spent and returned into circulation at stores in the community, paid to local mechanics and craftspersons, and used to get our kids a college education, making a better educated nation.???
Actually, that???s been tried, and with very miserable results. It happens every time government doles out money, like in the mindlessly crafted porkulus of Obama and the democrats. They gave away money to their preferred projects and preferred friends, and there is nothing to show that was good with the whole debacle, anywhere. In fact, the country ended up far worse, with the spending just simply getting added to the national debt. So, what the heck is a measly billion dollars? It???s just taxpayer money, or Chinese money being lent to us that we???ll never be able to pay back.
When government makes economic decisions, it normally ends badly, and the greater free-market suffers because of it. If money is to be ???given back???, it would be preferable to just leave it where it was to begin with.
Government just tries to decide between winners and losers, and the general loser is always the economy and the country, and the people. That???s crony capitalism that government practices, and it???s never a winner. The people know best how to spend their own money, and so do businesses. That stuff about ???redistribution??? of the wealth, that you seem to be advocating, is for economies and countries that wish to commit suicide, like in the old USSR and in Venezuela and in Cuba and many others.
So, instead of the government taking people???s money, and then redistributing it as the politicians see fit, why not just let the people keep that money in the form of tax cuts? That always ends up stimulating the economy to much greater prosperity.
When government is the one handing out money, it???s not distributed the way that the free-market would, and the free-market ???knows??? best how and where that money should be spent. That free market is the people, and not the dependent class of people. People who depend on government will, in fact, go and spend whatever they get, and that is stimulative in a way, but, it???s a disincentive at the same time, and what suffers most is the productivity that those people won???t be putting forth to make the economy grow. Spending is not a stimulant by itself if that spending is not accompanied with an equal amount of productivity to replace that wealth that was spent. People who just spend and not produce, are always a negative to any economy, and that???s why the economy is in free-fall, with a huge percentage of people just consuming and not paying taxes or being productive. About half the people in the country pay no taxes, and about 1/3 of the people are also completely dependent upon government for all their needs. That???s unsustainable in any economy, and that???s why the country is failing.
???That, my friend, is how money really works, (that is, when it isn't being hoarded by a rich 1%!) Trickle Sideways Economics! That is how it is supposed to work.???
Your recipe is a recipe for disaster. You have absolutely no idea how economics works or how the free-market works. Your recipe is one that???s being tried in Venezuela right now, and they???re utter failures. Go there. They need your silly and na??ve ideas. We don???t need your kind of destructive ideas in this country. We already have a president who is doing what you and liberals want, and with very destructive results.
???Oh, and Reganomics? My ex was in college at the time. She had financial aid for the first 3 years, then my old buddy RR cut financial aid, so she had to borrow more money to complete college with her teaching degree.???
So, you, like all liberals, want to blame government or government officials for personal problems that people meet in their daily lives? You and your ex, like the dependent society, have become accustomed to the government giving you anything that you need. I never depended upon government to give me anything, and I survived quite nicely. I???m not rich, and I???m not anybody of importance in the general scheme of things, but, I don???t go around complaining or blaming others for what occurs in my life.
??? But RR also cut funds going to schools, so public schools had to stop hiring and even lay off some workers.???
When the schools are being used to simply hire teachers that become union members and very reliable democratic party voters, and they don???t give a damn about the student???s education, then by all means, Reagan did the right thing.
As it stands now, our education system is failing very badly, even with the huger amounts of money being spent and wasted on the system.
??? She graduated with a degree in education, but there were no jobs in education for new graduates and she had to start paying off her student loans, even though she couldn't get a job at a school. The existing classrooms got bigger, and the decline in education accelerated! That is some good policies for the future of the country!???
So, is she unique and the problem didn???t occur with other graduates in her field? Look, a degree is just a permission slip to get into a career, and getting a job or a career is something that should not just be handed to people because they???ve earned a piece of paper that says they spent four years in college learning a profession. If she was proficient at anything, she could have landed a good job or career anywhere without you or her whining about it.
???The health of the country lies in how well the people are, not how well the corporations are!???
That is such an ignorant and na??ve statement.
Without corporations to provide the work that people need to live on, there would be no country and no ???health??? or life worth living.
People don???t just create jobs. Corporations create jobs. But, those corporations are created by people with initiative and skills and desires to succeed, and they invest a lot of time and money to create businesses and jobs. Without the wealth creators, all that would exist in the world would be just a bunch of Somalias.
You need to rethink your ideas, because, you???re starting off very badly misinformed and very na??ve.
???Nice chatting with you.???
Yeah, nice chatting with you. Now, go get an education on economics and the free market system. Mostly, get one on common sense, because, common sense is most of what the free-market system is about. Socialism is not a system for wealth creation, nor for jobs creation, nor for sustaining a country. It ALWAYS fails.
From November 2001 through December 2007.
The longest economic expansion in American history took place between March 1991 and March 2001, a full ten years. To point out the obvious, that was the last couple years of the Bush I administration and all of the Clinton administration.
If you discount the mild recession from late 1990-early 1991, the 18-year period between December 1982 and March 2001 takes the bill.
In either case your claim is wrong.
The longest economic expansion in American history took place between March 1991 and March 2001, a full ten years. To point out the obvious, that was the last couple years of the Bush I administration and all of the Clinton administration.
If you discount the mild recession from late 1990-early 1991, the 18-year period between December 1982 and March 2001 takes the bill.
In either case your claim is wrong.
If you google "products made in the USA", you'll see quite a few companies. If you listen to your local radio station, you'll hear consumers complain about not being able to buy or afford quality products made here. If business owners and investors think that they will make profits on cheap products made in China or getting customer service/tech support/product assistance used by Americans, they will be sorely disappointed. I no longer purchase products made anywhere but in the USA nor do I patronize organizations who off-shore any services whatsoever. There is an entire economy here of people just like me who are sick and tired of their good jobs being shipped off-shore or are paid a pittance to only be able to purchase what's available at the local dollar store and discount supermarket where they sell dented canned food products and out-of-date meat, dairy products, and produce.
The U.S. remains the number one producer of goods and services in the world. But, we're losing our edge, and there are many foreign markets that are very eager to take our "work" and jobs and facilities. We are being rendered uncompetitive, and, we will stop being the number one producer of goods and services if the current trend continues.
While you might wish to make a stand and a statement about "purchasing American", the fact remains that, the vast majority of those Americans, when given a choice, will almost always, opt to purchase the "cheaper" product or service. You can go and make your stand and your statement, but, you're just swimming against the current.
So now, tell me, if you had a choice between a $2500 American made PC, and a foreign made one, with comparable specs, and that foreign made one only costs $700 or $800, would you really fork over the $2500 instead of just paying the $800? Then, what about all of the other products and services which, if made in the U.S.A. would cost you 3 or 4 times as much. How much purchasing power would you have with those kind of "ridiculous" "American made" products? Most people want to maximize their purchasing power, and, that always leads us to purchasing the less expensive products and services. You may be the exception, but the majority of the people don't give a rats ass about "buying American" if they have to may a lot more.
While you might wish to make a stand and a statement about "purchasing American", the fact remains that, the vast majority of those Americans, when given a choice, will almost always, opt to purchase the "cheaper" product or service. You can go and make your stand and your statement, but, you're just swimming against the current.
So now, tell me, if you had a choice between a $2500 American made PC, and a foreign made one, with comparable specs, and that foreign made one only costs $700 or $800, would you really fork over the $2500 instead of just paying the $800? Then, what about all of the other products and services which, if made in the U.S.A. would cost you 3 or 4 times as much. How much purchasing power would you have with those kind of "ridiculous" "American made" products? Most people want to maximize their purchasing power, and, that always leads us to purchasing the less expensive products and services. You may be the exception, but the majority of the people don't give a rats ass about "buying American" if they have to may a lot more.
Where is this American made PC? I've been looking and never found one. American brands but not American hardware.
Almost anything of quality is at least designed and prototyped in America. Only for mass production are they typically farmed out to China.
they can't be manufactured in the U.S.A, precisely for the reason I mentioned, that reason being that, if it were to be built in the USA, it would cost 3 or 4 times as much as a foreign made PC. And, if it were to be built in the USA, at $2500 to $3000, and a foreign built PC were to cost "just" $800, which one would you buy? Would you spend the $3000 for a product which is exactly equal to the $800 one? I'll bet you wouldn't.
But, did you understand the "hypothetical"? In fact, the hypothetical is not really hypothetical, because, you can find many products that are manufactured in the U.S. which do cost more than a foreign brand. So, it would be the same with the "hypothetical" PC. Understand now???
But, did you understand the "hypothetical"? In fact, the hypothetical is not really hypothetical, because, you can find many products that are manufactured in the U.S. which do cost more than a foreign brand. So, it would be the same with the "hypothetical" PC. Understand now???
with your hypothesis. I just happen to believe the balance is ready to tip. There are still chip manufactures here in the US. There are also custom circuit manufactures here, but they bent over backwards to remain competitive; if the factory process is designed correctly we can easily compete with any country, no matter what the dollar exchange rate is, or labor costs.
My theory, which I have formulated from 30 years on the factory floor, is that if you design the entire process correctly, you will only need highly skilled labor, which you can easily afford, because they will result in nothing but high productivity, which makes it a win win situation for everyone. The manufacturer, the worker on the floor, and the customer at the end of the retail chain.
My theory, which I have formulated from 30 years on the factory floor, is that if you design the entire process correctly, you will only need highly skilled labor, which you can easily afford, because they will result in nothing but high productivity, which makes it a win win situation for everyone. The manufacturer, the worker on the floor, and the customer at the end of the retail chain.
and, any executive will try to get the most out of his company, and oftentimes, the cost of labor makes it an unprofitable proposition.
So, while there may be a few companies and executives which might make your "miracle" come true, the real facts don't support the issues confronting the many companies that would like to remain in business and making profits.
So, while there may be a few companies and executives which might make your "miracle" come true, the real facts don't support the issues confronting the many companies that would like to remain in business and making profits.
If not, I feel you are being naive. I've already seen this evolution happening on the factory floor from many corporations in the REAL world. So I feel my "theories" are rock solid. If we hadn't let the unions retard this progress way back in the late '50s; we wouldn't be so far behind.
At every corporation where I worked, where innovation came to the floor, the skilled workers and technicians, got a raise, and the unskilled workers tried to strike, and had their jobs sent to Arkansas, or Mexico. I've seen it happen over and over again.
Education, and a serious promotion of our technical colleges and institutions is badly needed if we are to save the middle class and keep jobs in the US.
At every corporation where I worked, where innovation came to the floor, the skilled workers and technicians, got a raise, and the unskilled workers tried to strike, and had their jobs sent to Arkansas, or Mexico. I've seen it happen over and over again.
Education, and a serious promotion of our technical colleges and institutions is badly needed if we are to save the middle class and keep jobs in the US.
where there are a myriad of problems hampering big and small corporations alike. The simplicity of the past, be it 30 or 50 or 100 years, is no longer with us, and we have to deal with a lot more government intervention than we've ever had, with a massive number of regulations which are very costly, and with a tax system which renders the U.S. very uncompetitive against every other country out there. And then, there is the unions, which you mentioned in passing, but, which are a very big reason for so many wanting to take their businesses where they retain control and can keep the wages and benefits to a desirable level. All of those problems are things that any executive at any level has to deal with. And yes, I've been involved in many of those decisions in some companies.
Furthermore, I'm one of those who's been very hesitant to start a business in the kind of environment we have now, with so much government intervention and with Obama and democrats threatening to raise taxes at every speech and interview they can be found at. That's not a pro-business agenda, and it's hurting many corporations and we're still losing jobs and not adding any new ones. If I do go ahead and start my business, it would be in a very low tax environment, either a state with no corporate taxes, or a state with big breaks on initial taxation, or a country where taxes would be minimal or non-existent and where government is in dire need of getting the jobs that my business could create. Right now, the U.S. is under a very anti-business and anti-growth administration, even if they have people believing otherwise.
Education and hard work should be rewarded, but, the businesses and the hard-working people, especially the investment class, have to be rewarded first. In summary, your views are a bit outdated and unrealistic, and you're not considering the hostile business environment which the U.S. and many other countries are under.
Furthermore, I'm one of those who's been very hesitant to start a business in the kind of environment we have now, with so much government intervention and with Obama and democrats threatening to raise taxes at every speech and interview they can be found at. That's not a pro-business agenda, and it's hurting many corporations and we're still losing jobs and not adding any new ones. If I do go ahead and start my business, it would be in a very low tax environment, either a state with no corporate taxes, or a state with big breaks on initial taxation, or a country where taxes would be minimal or non-existent and where government is in dire need of getting the jobs that my business could create. Right now, the U.S. is under a very anti-business and anti-growth administration, even if they have people believing otherwise.
Education and hard work should be rewarded, but, the businesses and the hard-working people, especially the investment class, have to be rewarded first. In summary, your views are a bit outdated and unrealistic, and you're not considering the hostile business environment which the U.S. and many other countries are under.
And there's no government to interfere with business.
Your chance to prove your points...
Your chance to prove your points...
I've lived the reality. I don't know how more real you can get. Thanks for your input. This ends the discussion for me.
and you are all doing a nice and effective job towards that end.
Somalia is what results when people give up and become dependent upon whatever government gives them. With more and more people depending upon government goods and services, more and more people are leaving the workforce, and more and more people decide that, it's just not worth it to try, and thus, we end up with a dead or dying country. Somalia is not the only country where the people have given up and live in desperation. We have other countries in our own hemisphere where the people are lost and government has killed the incentive for people to do better with their lives.
Cuba and Venezuela are not exactly Somalia, but, the only reason they continue doing relatively better, is because they still have ties to Europeans and Americans and the other countries around them. But, if Cuba and Venezuela had been geographically located in Africa, with the same type of idiotic governments, then Cuba and Venezuela would be more Somalias. Haiti is very close to being Somalia, and the only thing propping them up is the U.S. But, if we continue in the same path we're in with the liberal policies we've adopted for so long, then it shouldn't be much more than a couple of decades before we're no better off than Russia or some of the lesser European countries, and then, sometime after that, we would get close to being a Somalia.
So, the Somalia analogy fits in a lot closer to your ideology than to mine. No doubt that, if Somalia had a conservative government with little government intrusion and a decent constitution, that it would be a lot better off than most other countries in Africa and South America.
So, again, you're not using your head.
Somalia is what results when people give up and become dependent upon whatever government gives them. With more and more people depending upon government goods and services, more and more people are leaving the workforce, and more and more people decide that, it's just not worth it to try, and thus, we end up with a dead or dying country. Somalia is not the only country where the people have given up and live in desperation. We have other countries in our own hemisphere where the people are lost and government has killed the incentive for people to do better with their lives.
Cuba and Venezuela are not exactly Somalia, but, the only reason they continue doing relatively better, is because they still have ties to Europeans and Americans and the other countries around them. But, if Cuba and Venezuela had been geographically located in Africa, with the same type of idiotic governments, then Cuba and Venezuela would be more Somalias. Haiti is very close to being Somalia, and the only thing propping them up is the U.S. But, if we continue in the same path we're in with the liberal policies we've adopted for so long, then it shouldn't be much more than a couple of decades before we're no better off than Russia or some of the lesser European countries, and then, sometime after that, we would get close to being a Somalia.
So, the Somalia analogy fits in a lot closer to your ideology than to mine. No doubt that, if Somalia had a conservative government with little government intrusion and a decent constitution, that it would be a lot better off than most other countries in Africa and South America.
So, again, you're not using your head.
conditions found in the European countries, which are quickly heading to hell, and, they continue to be in denial about what's happening all around them, just like you and so many who believe in liberalism and socialism, the ideologies which have destroyed those economies and countries.
Here's something to ponder, and absorb, and not be dismissive or in denial about:
"27 Statistics About The European Economic Crisis That Are Almost Too Crazy To Believe"
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/27-statistics-about-the-european-economic-crisis-that-are-almost-too-crazy-to-believe
"The economic crisis in Europe continues to get worse and eventually it is going to unravel into a complete economic nightmare. All over Europe, national governments have piled up debts that are completely unsustainable. But whenever they start significantly cutting government spending it results in an economic slowdown. So politicians in Europe are really caught between a rock and a hard place. They can't keep racking up these unsustainable debts, but if they continue to cut government spending it is going to push their economies into deep recession and their populations will riot. Greece is a perfect example of this. Greece has been going down the austerity road for several years now and they are experiencing a full-blown economic depression, riots have become a way of life in that country and their national budget is still not anywhere close to balanced. Americans should pay close attention to what is going on in Europe, because this is what it looks like when a debt party ends."
Here's something to ponder, and absorb, and not be dismissive or in denial about:
"27 Statistics About The European Economic Crisis That Are Almost Too Crazy To Believe"
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/27-statistics-about-the-european-economic-crisis-that-are-almost-too-crazy-to-believe
"The economic crisis in Europe continues to get worse and eventually it is going to unravel into a complete economic nightmare. All over Europe, national governments have piled up debts that are completely unsustainable. But whenever they start significantly cutting government spending it results in an economic slowdown. So politicians in Europe are really caught between a rock and a hard place. They can't keep racking up these unsustainable debts, but if they continue to cut government spending it is going to push their economies into deep recession and their populations will riot. Greece is a perfect example of this. Greece has been going down the austerity road for several years now and they are experiencing a full-blown economic depression, riots have become a way of life in that country and their national budget is still not anywhere close to balanced. Americans should pay close attention to what is going on in Europe, because this is what it looks like when a debt party ends."
Somalia is what results when people give up and become dependent upon whatever government gives them.
OMFG, that's just too funny!
.
.
.
It's responses like these that keep me coming back for more.
OMFG, that's just too funny!
.
.
.
It's responses like these that keep me coming back for more.
The "Real World" that Adornoe refers to is actually the MTV reality show from the nineties.
That's what the golden parachutes are for.
A fair bit of offshoring will end sooner rather than later. Too many of the IT/NOC type ones sent elsewhere are met with false certifications, poor training, and worse English. The so-called 'savings' of offshoring such things only ends up costing more. Of course, if the government weren't quite so in the corps' pockets, it would be an easy way to help the defecit. Tax the he11 out of any offshored jobs. Make them cost as much as hiring people in the US.
completely wrong with your "solutions".
I'll give you one hint: Government is the biggest problem, and not necessarily because they're in the "corps' pockets".
However, the solutions are quite simple, and the biggest part towards a solution is, making it less expensive for our corporations to produce and to grow. It can be done, and it has worked in the past. Right now, we're going in the opposite direction from what we really need to do. As an example, Apple has the vast majority of its cash stored overseas, and they won't bring it back until government does something Apple wants. What do you think that is?
I'll give you one hint: Government is the biggest problem, and not necessarily because they're in the "corps' pockets".
However, the solutions are quite simple, and the biggest part towards a solution is, making it less expensive for our corporations to produce and to grow. It can be done, and it has worked in the past. Right now, we're going in the opposite direction from what we really need to do. As an example, Apple has the vast majority of its cash stored overseas, and they won't bring it back until government does something Apple wants. What do you think that is?
I consider the fact that the government is utterly beholden to the wealthiest individuals and most powerful corporations as pretty much 100% of the problem, because most of the things you're complaining about are the consequences of crony-capitalism, not a result of "over-regulation" or "over-taxation."
of the evil, bad, greedy corporate executives"
It's the argument of the simple minded.
Get out of that brainwashed mentality you got from the liberal education system, and learn to be an educated thinker instead.
The one sure fact remains that, as government became bigger and more intrusive, the economy has become more problematic and sick and sinking.
Crony capitalism is part of the problem, where government is involved and is trying to determine who the winners and losers are going to be. Again, it's big government intrusion which is not allowing the free market system function to maximum effectiveness.
Over-regulation is one factor which most businesses will cite as one of their biggest problems, and those problems get bigger as government issues more and more regulations.
And, who in their right minds would ever deny that, high taxation is a problem? Only a socialist or a communist would believe that high taxes are good for the country and economy and the people.
Grow a brain!
It's the argument of the simple minded.
Get out of that brainwashed mentality you got from the liberal education system, and learn to be an educated thinker instead.
The one sure fact remains that, as government became bigger and more intrusive, the economy has become more problematic and sick and sinking.
Crony capitalism is part of the problem, where government is involved and is trying to determine who the winners and losers are going to be. Again, it's big government intrusion which is not allowing the free market system function to maximum effectiveness.
Over-regulation is one factor which most businesses will cite as one of their biggest problems, and those problems get bigger as government issues more and more regulations.
And, who in their right minds would ever deny that, high taxation is a problem? Only a socialist or a communist would believe that high taxes are good for the country and economy and the people.
Grow a brain!
1. "Grow a brain! " How rude!
2. "The one sure fact remains that, as government became bigger and more intrusive, the economy has become more problematic and sick and sinking."
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Really? After telling people "learn to be an educated thinker."
2. "The one sure fact remains that, as government became bigger and more intrusive, the economy has become more problematic and sick and sinking."
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Really? After telling people "learn to be an educated thinker."
and you might be another one of those.
So, what's wrong with point number one, where I tell unthinking people to think or grow a brain? Perhaps you need to heed that advice?
Also, what's wrong with point number 2, where I attack government intrusion for being the biggest problem with the sinking and sick economy?
You really didn't have a good argument did you. You contributed nothing to the discussion, other than to try to chastise me for "rudeness". Look, it's okay to try to correct me, or to even attack me, but, do try to contribute. Otherwise, your comments and you become irrelevant.
So, what's wrong with point number one, where I tell unthinking people to think or grow a brain? Perhaps you need to heed that advice?
Also, what's wrong with point number 2, where I attack government intrusion for being the biggest problem with the sinking and sick economy?
You really didn't have a good argument did you. You contributed nothing to the discussion, other than to try to chastise me for "rudeness". Look, it's okay to try to correct me, or to even attack me, but, do try to contribute. Otherwise, your comments and you become irrelevant.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
