Obama wants to raise the minimum wage when we're on the verge of a second recession?

[ScreamingEagle]

Sure. Lets raise the MW. I'm sure more small business owners will hire like crazy.

Or not.

The deal is this. No small business operator is even gonna stay in business if they have no help. No small business operator even gives a fuck who starves as long as it's not them. Anybody who thinks folks should work for less than $9.00 per hour should have to do it themselves. That would throw shit in the game.

For the last twenty years every time the minimum wage has been suggested to be increased or actually increased I hear the same gloom and doom bullshit from Republicans. If you think it's ever slowed anybody down you need to seriously look at what has happened in America. In the late 1940's a corporate executive earned about 3-5 times what a plumber or carpenter made. In 2010 it was about 550 times that. Who the hell do you goddamned Republicans think you're shittin? Not me!!!!! Look at facts......I realize you people only pay attnetion to Fox News but goddam!!! This is rediculous!!

Bust another union in your spare time!!

well your charts APPEAR to prove something but they really don't......

the fact is.....alot of that increased income for the top percent is derived from OVERSEAS business growth....top money is always going to go where the pickings are good....

IN OTHER WORDS.....the fucking Dimwits keep raising TAXES and creating more REGULATIONS which simply encourages firms to go produce things overseas.....the USA has the HIGHEST corporate rate in the WORLD....

if we ENCOURAGED manufacturing etc. we would have ALOT more 'living wage' jobs.....but your prez BO wants to raise TAXES even MORE.....in fact raising the min wage is just like getting another fucking TAX.....but that is BO's plan.....he wants to bring down America.....and i must say he's been doing a mighty fine job of it....

 

[Cammmpbell]

Have you considered just because they aren't where you'd like them to be doesn't mean they're artifically low. They can't really be artificially low, (or high for that matter). The labor market in this country is mostly a free market, (though tilted slightly in the workers favor), meaning a market sets a rate it is by definition, fair.

So you believe that the problem in this country is that workers have too much advantage?

So things would be better if workers had even fewer rights, protections, and powers under the law?

lol

Once again the core principle of conservative economic policy appears:

the working class must be made poorer and weaker.

It isn't my problem that you have a problem being honest. Stating that labor has slight advantage over business in negotiating compensation does not equate to some fictitious desire to keep the working class down. In a negotiation over wages labor is always going think their worth more and business is always going to pay less and the market determines something in the middle that isn't exactly what either parties want. The question is why is labor's position that they should be paid more, more valid than business position to pay as little as possible? How can you be so obtuse as not to not see that a laborer is never going to, nor should they get paid exactly what they want anymore than a business is going to get to pay labor exactly what they want. The fact that you want more doesn't mean you're entitled to more.

Rank Coincidence:

 

[Bern80]

Conservatives want a country where one group of Americans - group A - is well off, including the wealthy,

and the rest - group B - are low income, or poor, and working their asses off for the benefit of group A,

and where no one in group A has to sacrifice anything for the benefit of group B.

You world view is so ass backwards it's mind boggling. Typically it is group A that has done the sacrificing to get their compensation. They don't work on 40 hour a week, 8 hour a day schedules. The don't punch clocks. They work until the job is done. I know first hand. My dad was a small business owner. He worked more hours than anyone there. He sacrificed his weekends being on call where his employees simply didn't have to work weekends.

Get it through your fucking skull. Your pay is based on what you do, what contribute, not what you need. if you whiny libs spent half as much time doing the things that generate more income as you do pissing and moaning you would be on your way to more money. But no, you entitlement fucks think you're owed something for nothing.

 

[Bern80]

So you believe that the problem in this country is that workers have too much advantage?

So things would be better if workers had even fewer rights, protections, and powers under the law?

lol

Once again the core principle of conservative economic policy appears:

the working class must be made poorer and weaker.

It isn't my problem that you have a problem being honest. Stating that labor has slight advantage over business in negotiating compensation does not equate to some fictitious desire to keep the working class down. In a negotiation over wages labor is always going think their worth more and business is always going to pay less and the market determines something in the middle that isn't exactly what either parties want. The question is why is labor's position that they should be paid more, more valid than business position to pay as little as possible? How can you be so obtuse as not to not see that a laborer is never going to, nor should they get paid exactly what they want anymore than a business is going to get to pay labor exactly what they want. The fact that you want more doesn't mean you're entitled to more.

Rank Coincidence:

What's your point? What your saying here without saying it is that compensation levels at the time union memvership was highest is where compensation is supposed to be. Based on what? Again I ask, why is labor's position to be paid more, more valid than business' position to pay less?

 

[Bern80]

Have you considered the possiblity that the cost of labor is artificially low with wages being stagnant while corps are posting records profits and sitting on trillions?

Well, that's the presumption of a fair number of the programs that seek to achieve 'social justice', and it's where the problem lies. You, or rather the people advocating these kinds of price and wage controls, start with the assumption that the market "got it wrong". That those low-paying jobs are really worth more than we've settled on. Society needs to be 'corrected'.

The problem is, once you start pulling at that thread, the whole sweater comes undone. If you artificially boost wages on the low end, it will have a ripple effect and cause inflation. If you only do it a little, it will only cause a little inflation, but doing it a little, does a little good.

All of this, of course, is backed with Keynesian hand waving about "stimulating" the economy - which is often at the core of bad economic policy.

I'm not big on pumping up the minimum wage like crazy.

My issue is with corps squeezing their employees, getting them to dramatically increase their production while not paying them any more for it, and instead letting their top brass reap all the financial benefits and/or sitting on mountains of cash.

^That is why the income gap has become a canyon.

Not that I think there is anything I can do about it........you can't force Corps to be more judicious with their payroll but that's what is happening and it certainly isn't right.

Trickle down is a massive failure.

Then the employees should do something about that. Quit. Go on strike. If enough people do it and no one else is willing do the job for that pay and those conditions you'll get more and you were right in that the business was under compensating. If, on the other hand, enough workers decide to do the work anyway, or they're able to hire replacements willing to do the work, then you were wrong. You were not being underpaid as proof by the fact that conciously or otherwise they CHOSE to do more for the same amount of money.

 

[Duped]

A minimum wage job is an entry level position; a starting point. It is for the young to get experience, learn skills, and to earn an appreciation for money! Obama just wants to redistribue the money from the productive to the degenerates, because that is how the asshole rolls. He knows nothing about the economy or job creation - he is a typical big government ideologue. If we had to live within our means, his record would be even more abysmal than it is!

 

[Dubya]

A minimum wage job is an entry level position; a starting point. It is for the young to get experience, learn skills, and to earn an appreciation for money! Obama just wants to redistribue the money from the productive to the degenerates, because that is how the asshole rolls. He knows nothing about the economy or job creation - he is a typical big government ideologue. If we had to live within our means, his record would be even more abysmal than it is!

Your description fits about one quarter of the minimum wage jobs in America. I've looked at the demographics of minimum wage and sub-minimum wage workers and about three quarters are adults, most with at least a high school education and many with a college education, including PhDs.

Tables 1 - 10; Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2009

 

[Dubya]

Sure. Lets raise the MW. I'm sure more small business owners will hire like crazy.

Or not.

The deal is this. No small business operator is even gonna stay in business if they have no help. No small business operator even gives a fuck who starves as long as it's not them. Anybody who thinks folks should work for less than $9.00 per hour should have to do it themselves. That would throw shit in the game.

For the last twenty years every time the minimum wage has been suggested to be increased or actually increased I hear the same gloom and doom bullshit from Republicans. If you think it's ever slowed anybody down you need to seriously look at what has happened in America. In the late 1940's a corporate executive earned about 3-5 times what a plumber or carpenter made. In 2010 it was about 550 times that. Who the hell do you goddamned Republicans think you're shittin? Not me!!!!! Look at facts......I realize you people only pay attnetion to Fox News but goddam!!! This is rediculous!!

Bust another union in your spare time!!

well your charts APPEAR to prove something but they really don't......

the fact is.....alot of that increased income for the top percent is derived from OVERSEAS business growth....top money is always going to go where the pickings are good....

IN OTHER WORDS.....the fucking Dimwits keep raising TAXES and creating more REGULATIONS which simply encourages firms to go produce things overseas.....the USA has the HIGHEST corporate rate in the WORLD....

if we ENCOURAGED manufacturing etc. we would have ALOT more 'living wage' jobs.....but your prez BO wants to raise TAXES even MORE.....in fact raising the min wage is just like getting another fucking TAX.....but that is BO's plan.....he wants to bring down America.....and i must say he's been doing a mighty fine job of it....

Do you realize our government has sovereignty over our market and they don't have to allow a corporation to make a product overseas and sell it in America? In other words, our government can tell a corporation that they have to make their product in America or their product will have such a large tariff put on it that no one will buy their product.

 

[Dubya]

Have you considered that it's THEIR MONEY?

It won't be THEIR MONEY, if they have to pay more in wages, will it?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

A troll is a foot

You're the damned troll who starts a thread and then goes ad hom because someone doesn't agree with you and points out the lies you have posted. You claim you haven't hired minimum wage workers and then say you will not hire if they raise the minimum wage. You claim to pay your unskilled workers at least $10 per hour and say you get your unskilled workers from a temp agency. When someone points out the inconsistencies that you posted and posts them as proof, you call them a troll. You made yourself an example to prove your case and your example was inconsistent based on what you posted.

You were asked: are you making money off of the people you hire and are they necessary for the job to be completed and for you to make your money? How can you make money and not hire these people? If the minimum wage goes to $9 per hour and you have to pay your $10 per hour help another buck or so, are you going to stop doing the work and if you stop, why wouldn't someone else do it and just pay their people more?

The world doesn't revolve around you and if some job is necessary, it will get done with or without you. Demand has created the job and you aren't Da Man. You're just some clown who has gotten too big for his breeches.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The deal is this. No small business operator is even gonna stay in business if they have no help. No small business operator even gives a fuck who starves as long as it's not them. Anybody who thinks folks should work for less than $9.00 per hour should have to do it themselves. That would throw shit in the game.

For the last twenty years every time the minimum wage has been suggested to be increased or actually increased I hear the same gloom and doom bullshit from Republicans. If you think it's ever slowed anybody down you need to seriously look at what has happened in America. In the late 1940's a corporate executive earned about 3-5 times what a plumber or carpenter made. In 2010 it was about 550 times that. Who the hell do you goddamned Republicans think you're shittin? Not me!!!!! Look at facts......I realize you people only pay attnetion to Fox News but goddam!!! This is rediculous!!

Bust another union in your spare time!!

well your charts APPEAR to prove something but they really don't......

the fact is.....alot of that increased income for the top percent is derived from OVERSEAS business growth....top money is always going to go where the pickings are good....

IN OTHER WORDS.....the fucking Dimwits keep raising TAXES and creating more REGULATIONS which simply encourages firms to go produce things overseas.....the USA has the HIGHEST corporate rate in the WORLD....

if we ENCOURAGED manufacturing etc. we would have ALOT more 'living wage' jobs.....but your prez BO wants to raise TAXES even MORE.....in fact raising the min wage is just like getting another fucking TAX.....but that is BO's plan.....he wants to bring down America.....and i must say he's been doing a mighty fine job of it....

Do you realize our government has sovereignty over our market and they don't have to allow a corporation to make a product overseas and sell it in America? In other words, our government can tell a corporation that they have to make their product in America or their product will have such a large tariff put on it that no one will buy their product.

tariffs would only hurt the economy even more....

at first they would help local producers because there is less foreign competition and they can raise their prices and produce more and hire more people and the government gets more in taxes...sounds good right....?

however the higher price to consumers then causes less purchasing of the product and eventually a decline in the economy....which will undermine all of the aforementioned transient positives....

for example Bush imposed tariffs on the steel industry....but it only resulted in higher costs and lost jobs....
New Steel Tariffs Will Kill Jobs [Mackinac Center]

and what if the foreign country imposed tariffs in retaliation....?

 

[Dubya]

well your charts APPEAR to prove something but they really don't......

the fact is.....alot of that increased income for the top percent is derived from OVERSEAS business growth....top money is always going to go where the pickings are good....

IN OTHER WORDS.....the fucking Dimwits keep raising TAXES and creating more REGULATIONS which simply encourages firms to go produce things overseas.....the USA has the HIGHEST corporate rate in the WORLD....

if we ENCOURAGED manufacturing etc. we would have ALOT more 'living wage' jobs.....but your prez BO wants to raise TAXES even MORE.....in fact raising the min wage is just like getting another fucking TAX.....but that is BO's plan.....he wants to bring down America.....and i must say he's been doing a mighty fine job of it....

Do you realize our government has sovereignty over our market and they don't have to allow a corporation to make a product overseas and sell it in America? In other words, our government can tell a corporation that they have to make their product in America or their product will have such a large tariff put on it that no one will buy their product.

tariffs would only hurt the economy even more....

at first they would help local producers because there is less foreign competition and they can raise their prices and produce more and hire more people and the government gets more in taxes...sounds good right....?

however the higher price to consumers then causes less purchasing of the product and eventually a decline in the economy....which will undermine all of the aforementioned transient positives....

for example Bush imposed tariffs on the steel industry....but it only resulted in lost jobs and higher costs to consumers....
New Steel Tariffs Will Kill Jobs [Mackinac Center]

and what if the foreign country imposed tariffs in retaliation....?

Are you aware a tariff can apply to a certain corporation and doesn't have to be general. A corporation has no right to move it's operations overseas and sell their product on our market. When a government allows that they are allowing a corporation to cheat the system.

As far as trade with nations goes, we shouldn't engage in unbalanced trade and should limit imports to what we export to that country.

 

[Sallow]

Well first off, no..I do believe that people can be responsible for their own outcomes. That's what Democracy is all about. People electing other people to run government in a way that suits their views, aspirations and desires.

Good lord.....do you even read the things you type? Getting someone else to put in place policies that benefit you is NOT being responsible for your outcomes. That is getting someone else to ensure an outcome for you with not effort on your part other than voting them into office. That's kind of the liberal way. I have to give dems at least some credit there. They've figured out how to get elected. Just promise to do for people what they should do for themselves and you'll vote for them every time.

People also get educated and work hard. That's actually what's been going on in this country. People HAVE been working very hard. Americans are the most productive people on the planet. But because of conservative policies..they haven't been sharing in the profits. You guys have crushed every means to remedy that too. Unions? They are almost a thing of the past. And they were almost completely responsible for social mobility in this country. You guys fight labor laws. You hate OSHA. Curtail education. But on the plus side..you folks happily shovel tax payer money at rich guys..while they pay themselves 400 or more times what average folks make. Additionally they have lobbyists who basically have the ear of the people running government. Who make the laws that "ta-da" keep these guys swimming in tax payer funding.

And you guys are "funny" about "demand". You are shipping jobs overseas and helping the folks that do that with all sorts of legal protections and tax breaks. The Right to Work thing is fun too.

The type of "adaptation" you folks are looking for is a race to the bottom for the average joe and setting up the new aristocracy.

No thanks.

Some of those things are valid. I would prefer a significantly simplified tax code for example. No deductions, no loop holes across the board. A flat rate on income whether it be a businesses income or persons. Whether it be from salary or investments. As for sharing profits I think you would find that most good companies do that. Mine does anyway. I also don't have a problem with unions.....in theory. If you can get a bunch of people together freely to put yourself in better bargaining position for compensation, go for it. The problem is you probably don't want to afford the business similar freedoms. If you want the right to collectively bargain your employer should also have the right to seek alternatives to your union.

What are you kidding? What do you think the whole revolution in this country was about? Taxation without representation? Ring a bell? Gosh.

And the tax code should be used as both a way to garner revenue for the government and a means to spur economic growth. The economy isn't stagnant. It's dynamic and it's fluid. With that, people don't have the same way of drawing an income. A "flat tax" makes no sense under those conditions. Neither does "no loopholes". I'd rather have a system that reacts smarter to economic conditions on the ground. For example, startups should get some pretty big breaks, considering the investment, for several years. Businesses that hire economically disadvantaged people with fewer skills should also see breaks. Stuff like that is smart.

 

[Sallow]

Do you realize our government has sovereignty over our market and they don't have to allow a corporation to make a product overseas and sell it in America? In other words, our government can tell a corporation that they have to make their product in America or their product will have such a large tariff put on it that no one will buy their product.

tariffs would only hurt the economy even more....

at first they would help local producers because there is less foreign competition and they can raise their prices and produce more and hire more people and the government gets more in taxes...sounds good right....?

however the higher price to consumers then causes less purchasing of the product and eventually a decline in the economy....which will undermine all of the aforementioned transient positives....

for example Bush imposed tariffs on the steel industry....but it only resulted in lost jobs and higher costs to consumers....
New Steel Tariffs Will Kill Jobs [Mackinac Center]

and what if the foreign country imposed tariffs in retaliation....?

Are you aware a tariff can apply to a certain corporation and doesn't have to be general. A corporation has no right to move it's operations overseas and sell their product on our market. When a government allows that they are allowing a corporation to cheat the system.

As far as trade with nations goes, we shouldn't engage in unbalanced trade and should limit imports to what we export to that country.

Absolutely.

When it company does that..they hurt our economy in a myriad of ways.

Giving them tax breaks was ludicrous. We should make it very tough for these economic traitors. Tariffs, denial of access to the legal system American companies enjoy and taxes would be a good way to let them know that this sort of behavior is not welcome.

 

[Sallow]

Sure. Lets raise the MW. I'm sure more small business owners will hire like crazy.

Or not.

The deal is this. No small business operator is even gonna stay in business if they have no help. No small business operator even gives a fuck who starves as long as it's not them. Anybody who thinks folks should work for less than $9.00 per hour should have to do it themselves. That would throw shit in the game.

For the last twenty years every time the minimum wage has been suggested to be increased or actually increased I hear the same gloom and doom bullshit from Republicans. If you think it's ever slowed anybody down you need to seriously look at what has happened in America. In the late 1940's a corporate executive earned about 3-5 times what a plumber or carpenter made. In 2010 it was about 550 times that. Who the hell do you goddamned Republicans think you're shittin? Not me!!!!! Look at facts......I realize you people only pay attnetion to Fox News but goddam!!! This is rediculous!!

Bust another union in your spare time!!

well your charts APPEAR to prove something but they really don't......

the fact is.....alot of that increased income for the top percent is derived from OVERSEAS business growth....top money is always going to go where the pickings are good....

IN OTHER WORDS.....the fucking Dimwits keep raising TAXES and creating more REGULATIONS which simply encourages firms to go produce things overseas.....the USA has the HIGHEST corporate rate in the WORLD....

if we ENCOURAGED manufacturing etc. we would have ALOT more 'living wage' jobs.....but your prez BO wants to raise TAXES even MORE.....in fact raising the min wage is just like getting another fucking TAX.....but that is BO's plan.....he wants to bring down America.....and i must say he's been doing a mighty fine job of it....

What the heck are you talking about.

The Top Earners have VERY LITTLE TO DO with productivity..and profit overall.

Many get their position by way of being in the "billionaire boys club" and did not participate in starting these companies up. Neither do they participate in production, shipping, and for the most part, research and development. What they do participate in is lavish trips, entertainment and accomodations which are written off come tax time.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Do you realize our government has sovereignty over our market and they don't have to allow a corporation to make a product overseas and sell it in America? In other words, our government can tell a corporation that they have to make their product in America or their product will have such a large tariff put on it that no one will buy their product.

tariffs would only hurt the economy even more....

at first they would help local producers because there is less foreign competition and they can raise their prices and produce more and hire more people and the government gets more in taxes...sounds good right....?

however the higher price to consumers then causes less purchasing of the product and eventually a decline in the economy....which will undermine all of the aforementioned transient positives....

for example Bush imposed tariffs on the steel industry....but it only resulted in lost jobs and higher costs to consumers....
New Steel Tariffs Will Kill Jobs [Mackinac Center]

and what if the foreign country imposed tariffs in retaliation....?

Are you aware a tariff can apply to a certain corporation and doesn't have to be general. A corporation has no right to move it's operations overseas and sell their product on our market. When a government allows that they are allowing a corporation to cheat the system.

As far as trade with nations goes, we shouldn't engage in unbalanced trade and should limit imports to what we export to that country.

and how do you plan to do that exactly.....?

i suggest for starters that you tell your prez BO to STOP subsidizing GE to the tune of millions of OUR TAX DOLLARS and which is now producing in China and other foreign places instead of the USA and who is allowing the Chinese to grab all of our state-of-the-art industrial know-how....

another idea might be to STOP BO from allowing the Chinese to buy up huge chunks of our public land oil and gas industry...

 

[Bern80]

Well first off, no..I do believe that people can be responsible for their own outcomes. That's what Democracy is all about. People electing other people to run government in a way that suits their views, aspirations and desires.

Good lord.....do you even read the things you type? Getting someone else to put in place policies that benefit you is NOT being responsible for your outcomes. That is getting someone else to ensure an outcome for you with not effort on your part other than voting them into office. That's kind of the liberal way. I have to give dems at least some credit there. They've figured out how to get elected. Just promise to do for people what they should do for themselves and you'll vote for them every time.

People also get educated and work hard. That's actually what's been going on in this country. People HAVE been working very hard. Americans are the most productive people on the planet. But because of conservative policies..they haven't been sharing in the profits. You guys have crushed every means to remedy that too. Unions? They are almost a thing of the past. And they were almost completely responsible for social mobility in this country. You guys fight labor laws. You hate OSHA. Curtail education. But on the plus side..you folks happily shovel tax payer money at rich guys..while they pay themselves 400 or more times what average folks make. Additionally they have lobbyists who basically have the ear of the people running government. Who make the laws that "ta-da" keep these guys swimming in tax payer funding.

And you guys are "funny" about "demand". You are shipping jobs overseas and helping the folks that do that with all sorts of legal protections and tax breaks. The Right to Work thing is fun too.

The type of "adaptation" you folks are looking for is a race to the bottom for the average joe and setting up the new aristocracy.

No thanks.

Some of those things are valid. I would prefer a significantly simplified tax code for example. No deductions, no loop holes across the board. A flat rate on income whether it be a businesses income or persons. Whether it be from salary or investments. As for sharing profits I think you would find that most good companies do that. Mine does anyway. I also don't have a problem with unions.....in theory. If you can get a bunch of people together freely to put yourself in better bargaining position for compensation, go for it. The problem is you probably don't want to afford the business similar freedoms. If you want the right to collectively bargain your employer should also have the right to seek alternatives to your union.

What are you kidding? What do you think the whole revolution in this country was about? Taxation without representation? Ring a bell? Gosh.

And the tax code should be used as both a way to garner revenue for the government and a means to spur economic growth. The economy isn't stagnant. It's dynamic and it's fluid. With that, people don't have the same way of drawing an income. A "flat tax" makes no sense under those conditions. Neither does "no loopholes". I'd rather have a system that reacts smarter to economic conditions on the ground. For example, startups should get some pretty big breaks, considering the investment, for several years. Businesses that hire economically disadvantaged people with fewer skills should also see breaks. Stuff like that is smart.

You would rather have a system where politicians can use the tax code to get elected is what you mean. Promise this group this break. This one this credit. etc. The idea is to take taxes out of the equation, there a pain for businesses to deal with and well as well as workers. Government can't spur economic growth. Growth comes from demand for goods and services and the means to purchase them. Government can't make people want things. All they can do is allow them to keep as much as possible while they spend as little as necessary. If they think they need to spur economic growth than simply cut the flat tax rate.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You think the people with the money are likely to fix the problem?

Uhh, no. I think I was pretty clear in stating it's not a problem that is their responsibility to fix.

And....you're full of shit with the warm fuzzy bullshit.

The evidence is to the contrary, because that seems to be the single positive characteristic of those policies. On paper and without much in the way of extra thought in terms of how they would play out in practices, that they initially sound like nice, compassionate things to do seems to be their only redeeming quality. Liberals are just plain horse shit problem solvers because all of their solutions are based on emotion which is the enemy of objectivity and reason and it is those later two traits that are best at determining whether something actually works.

Like I said....you are full of shit.

 

[Dubya]

tariffs would only hurt the economy even more....

at first they would help local producers because there is less foreign competition and they can raise their prices and produce more and hire more people and the government gets more in taxes...sounds good right....?

however the higher price to consumers then causes less purchasing of the product and eventually a decline in the economy....which will undermine all of the aforementioned transient positives....

for example Bush imposed tariffs on the steel industry....but it only resulted in lost jobs and higher costs to consumers....
New Steel Tariffs Will Kill Jobs [Mackinac Center]

and what if the foreign country imposed tariffs in retaliation....?

Are you aware a tariff can apply to a certain corporation and doesn't have to be general. A corporation has no right to move it's operations overseas and sell their product on our market. When a government allows that they are allowing a corporation to cheat the system.

As far as trade with nations goes, we shouldn't engage in unbalanced trade and should limit imports to what we export to that country.

and how do you plan to do that exactly.....?

i suggest for starters that you tell your prez BO to STOP subsidizing GE to the tune of millions of OUR TAX DOLLARS and which is now producing in China and other foreign places instead of the USA and who is allowing the Chinese to grab all of our state-of-the-art industrial know-how....

another idea might be to STOP BO from allowing the Chinese to buy up huge chunks of our public land oil and gas industry...

When you can't deal with facts, change the subject, right?

Let's try to face reality for a change! Do you have any idea why the right-wing yaps about GE? GE once owned NBC, which owned MSNBC, but that is very old news, because NBC was sold to Comcast years ago. GE is a conglomerate and they just don't donate to the Democrats, they donate like all hugh corporations to both parties. The last time I checked, when fools were yapping about GE, GE donated more to Republicans than Democrats. GE had a large financial division that suffered in the financial crisis, just like all the other corporations, so it received TARP funds and paid it back with interest. How is that a subsidy? The whole thing about GE is just FOX news bullshit. All those corporations that receive TARP funds were too big to fail and the failure was allowing these corporations to get in that mess to begin with. The failure was caused by Republican legislation, like GLBA and CFMA. The failure involved a Republican administration suppressing regulation by agencies like the SEC and allowing bonds to be traded on the bond market with the highest triple A rating that obviously weren't worth that rating. These bonds were backed by worthless credit default swaps (CDSs) and not real money. They should have never had a triple A rating and they wouldn't without the changes made by Republican legislation, namely the CFMA. Before then CDSs were prohibited in states by gambling laws. It's the job of the SEC to regulate these markets, so why was the SEC during the Bush administration sleeping on the job? Did that ideology against government regulation profit this country?

Getting back on subject, all we have to do is change all those stupid free trade agreements back to fair trade agreements and negotiate our way to change our trade policies. We let the corporations know they will have to produce their products in America or they will lose their ability to import to our market. Other countries don't allow American corporations to make their products in America and import them, unless that's the only choice and they make American corporations set up shop in their countries, so they can produce their own goods, with their own labor. We need to do exactly the same thing with corporations supplying us with imports. If a corporation wants to sell their product here, they have to make it here. It's our government's responsibilty to exercise sovereignty over our market and not permit a country or corporation to abuse our market. Originally, that was the only means of funding the federal government and it's written in the Constitution. It's government doing it's job.

 

[Cammmpbell]

It isn't my problem that you have a problem being honest. Stating that labor has slight advantage over business in negotiating compensation does not equate to some fictitious desire to keep the working class down. In a negotiation over wages labor is always going think their worth more and business is always going to pay less and the market determines something in the middle that isn't exactly what either parties want. The question is why is labor's position that they should be paid more, more valid than business position to pay as little as possible? How can you be so obtuse as not to not see that a laborer is never going to, nor should they get paid exactly what they want anymore than a business is going to get to pay labor exactly what they want. The fact that you want more doesn't mean you're entitled to more.

Rank Coincidence:

What's your point? What your saying here without saying it is that compensation levels at the time union memvership was highest is where compensation is supposed to be. Based on what? Again I ask, why is labor's position to be paid more, more valid than business' position to pay less?

Anyone who thinks it's OK for the 1% to end up with all the money can kiss my big orange east Tennessee Volunteer coon dawg ass!!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Are you aware a tariff can apply to a certain corporation and doesn't have to be general. A corporation has no right to move it's operations overseas and sell their product on our market. When a government allows that they are allowing a corporation to cheat the system.

As far as trade with nations goes, we shouldn't engage in unbalanced trade and should limit imports to what we export to that country.

and how do you plan to do that exactly.....?

i suggest for starters that you tell your prez BO to STOP subsidizing GE to the tune of millions of OUR TAX DOLLARS and which is now producing in China and other foreign places instead of the USA and who is allowing the Chinese to grab all of our state-of-the-art industrial know-how....

another idea might be to STOP BO from allowing the Chinese to buy up huge chunks of our public land oil and gas industry...

When you can't deal with facts, change the subject, right?

Let's try to face reality for a change! Do you have any idea why the right-wing yaps about GE? GE once owned NBC, which owned MSNBC, but that is very old news, because NBC was sold to Comcast years ago. GE is a conglomerate and they just don't donate to the Democrats, they donate like all hugh corporations to both parties. The last time I checked, when fools were yapping about GE, GE donated more to Republicans than Democrats. GE had a large financial division that suffered in the financial crisis, just like all the other corporations, so it received TARP funds and paid it back with interest. How is that a subsidy? The whole thing about GE is just FOX news bullshit. All those corporations that receive TARP funds were too big to fail and the failure was allowing these corporations to get in that mess to begin with. The failure was caused by Republican legislation, like GLBA and CFMA. The failure involved a Republican administration suppressing regulation by agencies like the SEC and allowing bonds to be traded on the bond market with the highest triple A rating that obviously weren't worth that rating. These bonds were backed by worthless credit default swaps (CDSs) and not real money. They should have never had a triple A rating and they wouldn't without the changes made by Republican legislation, namely the CFMA. Before then CDSs were prohibited in states by gambling laws. It's the job of the SEC to regulate these markets, so why was the SEC during the Bush administration sleeping on the job? Did that ideology against government regulation profit this country?

Getting back on subject, all we have to do is change all those stupid free trade agreements back to fair trade agreements and negotiate our way to change our trade policies. We let the corporations know they will have to produce their products in America or they will lose their ability to import to our market. Other countries don't allow American corporations to make their products in America and import them, unless that's the only choice and they make American corporations set up shop in their countries, so they can produce their own goods, with their own labor. We need to do exactly the same thing with corporations supplying us with imports. If a corporation wants to sell their product here, they have to make it here. It's our government's responsibilty to exercise sovereignty over our market and not permit a country or corporation to abuse our market. Originally, that was the only means of funding the federal government and it's written in the Constitution. It's government doing it's job.

i wasn't changing the subject.....i was asking you how you would specifically address the problem....finally you answered and it appears you'd rather throw our economy into a recession by blocking free trade....

to help our economy i would rather...

create a competitive corporate tax rate
cut regulation red tape
reduce government borrowing and spending
stop selling out American assets to the the Chinese

regarding Government Motors.....it still owes US money.....so pay up already....the banks already did...or was the Volt fiasco so bad it can't...?