Brief synopsis of last night's debate

[Indeependent]

At least they are younger and willing to take on the problems of big government spending.

Did you ever wonder that we DID try "trickle down economics" under Reagan.....and got NOTHING; and we also tried tax-cuts for the rich under Bush......and got NOTHING......finally we tried a GOP-led congress who promised, " jobs. jobs. jobs"........and.....................????

Trickle down economics worked very well for President Kennedy. Under Kennedy job growth was 2.64%
Job growth happened when the R's took over the House & Senate.
From 2009- 2013 .25%
From 2013 - 2015 2.00%

You did not address the actual problem of big gov. spending which I was talking about.

Such as Republican wars, Corporate Subsidies and Tax Write Offs when companies leave the US?
Both parties are guilty.

Except the only write-offs a company gets to use are those that involve moving expenses.

For moving they get cheap labor, they don't have to provide health benefits or pensions, they receive, for free, the protection of the US military and patent protection.

 

[Rozman]

O'Malley looked good last night. Definitely wasnt a loss for that guy

They all looked good for Democrat constituents. Nearly every one of them explained how they will expand the welfare state. Music to a Democrat voters ears.

I didn't watch....
I followed some tweets ....
I did hear a few promises of free stuff,free stuff,free stuff.....
So I guess the Dems consider it a success....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

At least they are younger and willing to take on the problems of big government spending.

Did you ever wonder that we DID try "trickle down economics" under Reagan.....and got NOTHING; and we also tried tax-cuts for the rich under Bush......and got NOTHING......finally we tried a GOP-led congress who promised, " jobs. jobs. jobs"........and.....................????

Trickle down economics worked very well for President Kennedy. Under Kennedy job growth was 2.64%
Job growth happened when the R's took over the House & Senate.
From 2009- 2013 .25%
From 2013 - 2015 2.00%

You did not address the actual problem of big gov. spending which I was talking about.

Such as Republican wars, Corporate Subsidies and Tax Write Offs when companies leave the US?
Both parties are guilty.

Except the only write-offs a company gets to use are those that involve moving expenses.

For moving they get cheap labor, they don't have to provide health benefits or pensions, they receive, for free, the protection of the US military and patent protection.

How are the US military protecting these companies in Vietnam, India and China?

Yes, companies move to get away from all the expenses associated with using US workers. They don't have to pay: vacations, holidays, sick days, union wages, matching SS contributions, matching Medicare contributions, healthcare benefits, workman's compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, OSHA regulation and fines, environmental regulations.

See how much money they can save by moving out of the US? Who can blame them?

 

[Indeependent]

Did you ever wonder that we DID try "trickle down economics" under Reagan.....and got NOTHING; and we also tried tax-cuts for the rich under Bush......and got NOTHING......finally we tried a GOP-led congress who promised, " jobs. jobs. jobs"........and.....................????

Trickle down economics worked very well for President Kennedy. Under Kennedy job growth was 2.64%
Job growth happened when the R's took over the House & Senate.
From 2009- 2013 .25%
From 2013 - 2015 2.00%

You did not address the actual problem of big gov. spending which I was talking about.

Such as Republican wars, Corporate Subsidies and Tax Write Offs when companies leave the US?
Both parties are guilty.

Except the only write-offs a company gets to use are those that involve moving expenses.

For moving they get cheap labor, they don't have to provide health benefits or pensions, they receive, for free, the protection of the US military and patent protection.

How are the US military protecting these companies in Vietnam, India and China?

Yes, companies move to get away from all the expenses associated with using US workers. They don't have to pay: vacations, holidays, sick days, union wages, matching SS contributions, matching Medicare contributions, healthcare benefits, workman's compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, OSHA regulation and fines, environmental regulations.

See how much money they can save by moving out of the US? Who can blame them?

The US Military protects shipments from modern day pirates and International Airport Security.
Using Portfolio Conservative logic, the inevitable result will that 90% of the world's population will eventually become FoxxConn prisoners.

 

[SwimExpert]

O'Malley stands somewhere between 0 and 1% in the polls.

Yeah, kinda like when he first was elected Mayor of Baltimore. As I said before, O'Malley is a career underdog who wins time and time again when he isn't "supposed" to win.

Sander's is certainly not going to support O'Malley over Clinton.

I never said anything about Sanders. I said that his supporters would flow to O'Malley moreso than Clinton.

As in most primaries when the leading candidate ranks higher in the polls than all the other candidates combined, the primary becomes about selecting a VP running mate.

Yes, that's why President Clinton choose Vice President Obama back in 2008.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Trickle down economics worked very well for President Kennedy. Under Kennedy job growth was 2.64%
Job growth happened when the R's took over the House & Senate.
From 2009- 2013 .25%
From 2013 - 2015 2.00%

You did not address the actual problem of big gov. spending which I was talking about.

Such as Republican wars, Corporate Subsidies and Tax Write Offs when companies leave the US?
Both parties are guilty.

Except the only write-offs a company gets to use are those that involve moving expenses.

For moving they get cheap labor, they don't have to provide health benefits or pensions, they receive, for free, the protection of the US military and patent protection.

How are the US military protecting these companies in Vietnam, India and China?

Yes, companies move to get away from all the expenses associated with using US workers. They don't have to pay: vacations, holidays, sick days, union wages, matching SS contributions, matching Medicare contributions, healthcare benefits, workman's compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, OSHA regulation and fines, environmental regulations.

See how much money they can save by moving out of the US? Who can blame them?

The US Military protects shipments from modern day pirates and International Airport Security.
Using Portfolio Conservative logic, the inevitable result will that 90% of the world's population will eventually become FoxxConn prisoners.

How do you solve a problem if you're not willing to admit the truth? And companies don't need our military to protect their shipments. That's what they have insurance for.

 

[Indeependent]

Such as Republican wars, Corporate Subsidies and Tax Write Offs when companies leave the US?
Both parties are guilty.

Except the only write-offs a company gets to use are those that involve moving expenses.

For moving they get cheap labor, they don't have to provide health benefits or pensions, they receive, for free, the protection of the US military and patent protection.

How are the US military protecting these companies in Vietnam, India and China?

Yes, companies move to get away from all the expenses associated with using US workers. They don't have to pay: vacations, holidays, sick days, union wages, matching SS contributions, matching Medicare contributions, healthcare benefits, workman's compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, OSHA regulation and fines, environmental regulations.

See how much money they can save by moving out of the US? Who can blame them?

The US Military protects shipments from modern day pirates and International Airport Security.
Using Portfolio Conservative logic, the inevitable result will that 90% of the world's population will eventually become FoxxConn prisoners.

How do you solve a problem if you're not willing to admit the truth? And companies don't need our military to protect their shipments. That's what they have insurance for.

Why do you think our Navy is all over the globe?
One of it's primary purposes is to promote safe global commerce.

 

[francoHFW]

Such as Republican wars, Corporate Subsidies and Tax Write Offs when companies leave the US?
Both parties are guilty.

Except the only write-offs a company gets to use are those that involve moving expenses.

For moving they get cheap labor, they don't have to provide health benefits or pensions, they receive, for free, the protection of the US military and patent protection.

How are the US military protecting these companies in Vietnam, India and China?

Yes, companies move to get away from all the expenses associated with using US workers. They don't have to pay: vacations, holidays, sick days, union wages, matching SS contributions, matching Medicare contributions, healthcare benefits, workman's compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, OSHA regulation and fines, environmental regulations.

See how much money they can save by moving out of the US? Who can blame them?

The US Military protects shipments from modern day pirates and International Airport Security.
Using Portfolio Conservative logic, the inevitable result will that 90% of the world's population will eventually become FoxxConn prisoners.

How do you solve a problem if you're not willing to admit the truth? And companies don't need our military to protect their shipments. That's what they have insurance for.

ACTUALLY, they do. See Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, Indonesia, god knows where without them.

 

[francoHFW]

Did you ever wonder that we DID try "trickle down economics" under Reagan.....and got NOTHING; and we also tried tax-cuts for the rich under Bush......and got NOTHING......finally we tried a GOP-led congress who promised, " jobs. jobs. jobs"........and.....................????

Trickle down economics worked very well for President Kennedy. Under Kennedy job growth was 2.64%
Job growth happened when the R's took over the House & Senate.
From 2009- 2013 .25%
From 2013 - 2015 2.00%

You did not address the actual problem of big gov. spending which I was talking about.

Such as Republican wars, Corporate Subsidies and Tax Write Offs when companies leave the US?
Both parties are guilty.

Except the only write-offs a company gets to use are those that involve moving expenses.

For moving they get cheap labor, they don't have to provide health benefits or pensions, they receive, for free, the protection of the US military and patent protection.

How are the US military protecting these companies in Vietnam, India and China?

Yes, companies move to get away from all the expenses associated with using US workers. They don't have to pay: vacations, holidays, sick days, union wages, matching SS contributions, matching Medicare contributions, healthcare benefits, workman's compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, OSHA regulation and fines, environmental regulations.

See how much money they can save by moving out of the US? Who can blame them?

We can't compete on manufacturing of many kinds, so we need to invest in Americans to get the good jobs. Which greeedy idiot Pubs refuse to do. AND their silly dupes.See Germany, Holland, and Scandinavia, Japan, OZ etc. Ay caramba, dupes!

 

[nat4900]

Yes, companies move to get away from all the expenses associated with using US workers. They don't have to pay: vacations, holidays, sick days, union wages, matching SS contributions, matching Medicare contributions, healthcare benefits, workman's compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, OSHA regulation and fines, environmental regulations.

See how much money they can save by moving out of the US? Who can blame them?

Pretty much the very SAME argument that was made by most slave owners in early 19th century.......

Any US company that moves overseas for cheap/slave labor, should NO LONGER be considered a U.S. company and have stiff tariffs imposed on imports back to us.

 

[nat4900]

We can't compete on manufacturing of many kinds, so we need to invest in Americans to get the good jobs. Which greeedy idiot Pubs refuse to do. AND their silly dupes.See Germany, Holland, and Scandinavia, Japan, OZ etc. Ay caramba, dupes!

The ONLY sure jobs that cannot be easily exported are intra-border infrastructure jobs......God knows the our infrastructure needs fixing.

 

[Muhammed]

Hitlary in the middle flanked by her wingmen.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Trickle down economics worked very well for President Kennedy. Under Kennedy job growth was 2.64%
Job growth happened when the R's took over the House & Senate.
From 2009- 2013 .25%
From 2013 - 2015 2.00%

You did not address the actual problem of big gov. spending which I was talking about.

Such as Republican wars, Corporate Subsidies and Tax Write Offs when companies leave the US?
Both parties are guilty.

Except the only write-offs a company gets to use are those that involve moving expenses.

For moving they get cheap labor, they don't have to provide health benefits or pensions, they receive, for free, the protection of the US military and patent protection.

How are the US military protecting these companies in Vietnam, India and China?

Yes, companies move to get away from all the expenses associated with using US workers. They don't have to pay: vacations, holidays, sick days, union wages, matching SS contributions, matching Medicare contributions, healthcare benefits, workman's compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, OSHA regulation and fines, environmental regulations.

See how much money they can save by moving out of the US? Who can blame them?

We can't compete on manufacturing of many kinds, so we need to invest in Americans to get the good jobs. Which greeedy idiot Pubs refuse to do. AND their silly dupes.See Germany, Holland, and Scandinavia, Japan, OZ etc. Ay caramba, dupes!

It's not the job of our government to invest in people, it's the peoples job to invest in themselves.

 

[nat4900]

It's not the job of our government to invest in people, it's the peoples job to invest in themselves.

Sounds like something one may read out of a Chinese fortune cookie.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, companies move to get away from all the expenses associated with using US workers. They don't have to pay: vacations, holidays, sick days, union wages, matching SS contributions, matching Medicare contributions, healthcare benefits, workman's compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, OSHA regulation and fines, environmental regulations.

See how much money they can save by moving out of the US? Who can blame them?

Pretty much the very SAME argument that was made by most slave owners in early 19th century.......

Any US company that moves overseas for cheap/slave labor, should NO LONGER be considered a U.S. company and have stiff tariffs imposed on imports back to us.

So who ultimately pays those tariffs, the company?

Then when your big screen goes from $1,200 to $2,500, you'll be the first to complain.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's not the job of our government to invest in people, it's the peoples job to invest in themselves.

Sounds like something one may read out of a Chinese fortune cookie.

Or a US history book.

 

[Kosh]

We can't compete on manufacturing of many kinds, so we need to invest in Americans to get the good jobs. Which greeedy idiot Pubs refuse to do. AND their silly dupes.See Germany, Holland, and Scandinavia, Japan, OZ etc. Ay caramba, dupes!

The ONLY sure jobs that cannot be easily exported are intra-border infrastructure jobs......God knows the our infrastructure needs fixing.

Of course it does but the far left has dismantled the machine that was responsible for building the infrastructure in the first place.

So you supported these policies that continue to stifle any type of infrastructure improvement..

 

[Kosh]

It's not the job of our government to invest in people, it's the peoples job to invest in themselves.

Sounds like something one may read out of a Chinese fortune cookie.

Or a US history book.

To the far left it is the same thing!

 

[nat4900]

So who ultimately pays those tariffs, the company?

Then when your big screen goes from $1,200 to $2,500, you'll be the first to complain.

Perhaps.....but if those tariffs mitigate the "savings" from cheap/slave labor those jobs would come back home......YES, that cheaper big screen TV is cheap because of the slave labor AND without American jobs, even that cheaper amount may not be affordable.