 |
I don't know of any candidates numbers that add up ever, but I can promise you raising taxes, creating more regulations, giving states waivers so people can skip work requirements and investing in more Solyndra's is not going to put people to work. If people aren't working, you aren't going to get revenue. Pretty simple really.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Speech you are trying to close the stable door after the horse is bolted, you can't export jobs in exchange for cheap goods and then lament the lack of employment. People aren't working because there are no jobs, you have an over-population problem, you down sized your industries but not your population. This is what capitalism has done for you, put you on the poverty line so they could pay you minimum wage, but even minimum wage is too high.
Industries like Solandra are the new employers but they have to have support and there is no support for these new industries, so they fail. Have you tried subsistence farming, with the price of food rising you might employ many this way
You sound like Red Julia .Quote:
Industries like Solandra are the new employers
Never Tom, I don't tell lies. However I am realistic about the future. I have had an interest in renewable energy for twenty years, The progress has been much slower than anticipated, in my own nation I have seen two false starts but never the less a great deal of renewable generation capacity has been added with attendant increase in power charges.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
We have yet to make the great breakthroughs, but they will not be made unless there is initial government support for the research, a pure profit motive will not drive innovation quickly enough or cause the markets to develop quickly enough. In the currently depressed climate a little push is needed, ie; auto makers won't convert to electric vehicles unless they are pushed one way or another
One thing for sure the traditional industries are not going to pull any of us out of the recession because the demand just isn't there
That's a promise you have no hope of keeping since you can't do the math, or name a regulation that's stop companies from hiring, or making money. Further if you can't read what the waiver is about and understand it then Mitt can spin you a bogus argument and you believe it. Hell Mitt asked for the same waiver when he was Govenor of Mass. But had no plan to implement it, which is a requirement to get the waiver.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Of course how can we expect you to know that since you rather believe someone that counts on you believing his BS since he thinks you are a dumb country boy and he is a CEO. You probably don't know how he started his company, or how he made his loot, or how he is going to create all those jobs to help the economy while he shift money through tax cuts to his own pockets.
Dude it's the business cycle on steroids because when business takes the place of government, they put profits before people, and that means you and yours, OURS, works until we drop to be poor a church mice.
Okay explain how 5 trillion in new debt to pay for more tax cuts helps this country?
Evidently not quick enough for your investment. I'm beginning to get it... invest in a concept and let the government do the heavy lifting if there is no market to drive your investment to fruition. That is also the Al Gore carbon trade scheme. Invest at the ground level... do a chicken little dance and demand government action to kick start the investment . That my friend is bad public policy and cronyism at it's worse. But command and control economies usually act that way.Quote:
a pure profit motive will not drive innovation quickly enough or cause the markets to develop quickly enough
He can't explain that it's against his religion. What you have just said is blasphemy to the Republican lunatic fringe. They just don't want to pay not tax, they want the poor people to pay the tax. Why? Because they are sheep to be shorn. You don't understand sheep in that country because you are neck deep in B/SQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I heard Romney say he would make the US so militarily strong no nation would challenge you. Who is going to pay for that? He is a meglomaniac, the US is already so powerful only a lunatic would challenge you, you already account for 50% of military expenditure and 95% of arms sales. $66 Billion last year. He is going to start an arms race, this will be the arms led recovery, the only industries you can't export
Don't know what y'all worried about.. I listened to the speeches of all the major players and if tax cuts and tax reforms were mentioned at all... it was in passing . I think Mittens mentioned it once in a throw away line. I of course was looking for that to be a central part of their economic policy because I think it is important for growth
.
I'm not going to read and dissect a policy paper . Mitt laid out a 5 point plan in his address :
(1) Aggressively promote domestic energy development, especially fossil fuels.
(2) Expand the market for U.S. goods overseas by negotiating new trade agreements and standing up to China on intellectual-property and currency issues.
(3) Improve workforce skills by transferring job-training programs to the states and going after teachers' unions, which, he says, stand in the way of school choice and better instruction.
(4) Attack the deficit through budget cuts, not tax increases.
(5), reshape the regulatory climate to "encourage and promote small business" rather than swamp it.
I like it ;but he should've added a tax reform position also .
Here we go again huh?
(1) Aggressively promote domestic energy development, especially fossil fuels.
Thats already being done, and the US already has a surplus of oilas it develops alternatives. Further Tom the energy companies are still subsidezed by US the taxpayer, while their profits are soaring, and a commodity on the world market.
(2) Expand the market for U.S. goods overseas by negotiating new trade agreements and standing up to China on intellectual-property and currency issues.
Thats gonna take a few years and standing up to China takes finese, not a bat. So the how becomes the important part since they have a bat too!
(3) Improve workforce skills by transferring job-training programs to the states and going after teachers' unions, which, he says, stand in the way of school choice and better instruction.
Despite the lie that you guys keeps repeating about dropping the work requirement for welfare, thats exactly what the waiver is about, recognizing you just can't require someone to work without preparation to work.
(4) Attack the deficit through budget cuts, not tax increases.
And how do futher cut taxes and attack the deficit? What do you cut? Why hasn't Mittens said what he would cut? Why haven't you? Oh thats right, they pay for themselves! yeah right!
(5), reshape the regulatory climate to "encourage and promote small business" rather than swamp it.
Site the regulations has been my question forever, and technology for smallbusiness owners to navigate the system is out their and its cheapif you cannot afford a team of lawyers and have tax havenns thruout the world.
Most of this ground we have been over many times, and while your concerns and ideas have much merit Tom I still have to point out the implementation sucks, and is a return to Bush era thinking and Reagan economics that allow the few to extract from the overall economy,at no riskor burden. I can get with capitalism when its not making the rules and calling the shots.
I dug this up just for you Tom
The World?s Most Corrupt(ed) Republic | NationofChange
Quote:
In fact, most countries in today's world call themselves “republics” but only a few dozen meet the most basic criterion, the acid test.
What's the acid test? Free and fair elections.
Quote:
So on the eve of another presidential election let's be crystal clear about what's happened to the republic it took us so long to build. It is being utterly corrupted and debilitated by massive injections of big-money “heroine” directly into the veins of the body politic. So long as millionaire politicians can turn to billionaire bankers and oil barons for carloads of cash they need to stay in office, so long as the dirty dance of collusion, bribery, and legalized corruption continues to decide the fate of the nation, elections will be meaningless. And this republic cannot stand against the most basic test of legitimacy.
Tal, it doesn't what we cite, you disregard it all and repeat the same, obviously well rehearsed clichés.
1. Let's start with the canard about "oil" companies being subsidized . First .I oppose all subsidies . Next ,oil is but a part of the energy companies interests and yes they do take advantage of exploration subsidies that are available to the alternate renewable industry because they are leaders in that effort. But the biggest canard is that the subsidies that big oil takes is exclusive to them.. Not so . The "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general , and available to all US businesses (particularly, the foreign tax credit) .
Now the Obots continue to claim that they have expanded the supply . Nonsense. The current energy boom is happening on private lands where the government has no say ;or on leases approved before they took over . The Obots have blocked any efforts to both expand the oil supply and to bring it to market. (except the promotion of Brazil's reserves ) .
2. The Chinese "bat " is their holdings on US debt . What do you think they can do with it ? Also their Potamkin economy is on the ropes a lot more than is being reported . The sooner someone holds them accountable for trade violations the sooner the playing field will level. We know Romney got under their skin because they condemned his candidacy. To me that is the eqivalent of an endorsement of the Obama candidacy by the PRC... well done Obama!!
3. confirmed my opinion that the left hates the work requirement but doesn't have the guts to say so because it is a hugely popular provision. Also confirms that the only choice you really like is the choice to kill babies in the womb.
4. Don't know what Mittens would cut but I'd cut across the board to 2008 spending levels in the 1st year . You guys tout the Clintoon era being the good old days... So why not reduce spending to 2000 levels ? Truth be told is that your side bristles when the rate of government spending increase is reduced or that we dare suggest it shouldn't exceed the rate of inflation . You call both of those situations budget cuts . The left has never demonstrated that they can control run away spending .
5. As has been pointed out to me many times.. I am not a businessman, I work for them and one of my responsibilities is to staff the operation. I have at times recommended taking on new staff and most times in recent years have been told no. I have given testimonial to the increased regulatory envirnoment my company is under. The only hiring that is being done is in the regulatory and quality control areas . My company has spent a fortune on compliance issues.
We have the resources for that of which I am thankful because many of our competitors have shut down due to the cost of compliance. We of course are happy to take on the extra business they abandon.
That is true for the whole industry .What the government is accomplishing is to consolidate the industry into the hands of the few . Soon they will be too big to fail . I thought you guys opposed the creation of businesses too big to fail.
The regulations churned out by our government is massive so it is hard to pin point one specific . It's the hostility to business by the current adm that is souring the business enviromment. Thousands of business owners more qualified than I to discuss it have echoed the frustration. Enough to make me believe that a change of regime will jump start a legitimate recovery.
That's how debates and discussions work my friend, and I would have to dismiss a lot of stuff if a lot of my stuff wasn't dismissed.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You know I love to check facts.
Then let them exploit the oil they have found and lets do away with the subsidies. We can agree on that as we develop natural gas. But that's a few years off and the thing here is not to be the last one to break the oil dependency.Quote:
QUOTE by tomder,
1. let's start with the canard about "oil" companies being subsidized . First .I oppose all subsidies . Next ,oil is but a part of the energy companies interests and yes they do take advantage of exploration subsidies that are available to the alternate renewable industry because they are leaders in that effort. But the biggest canard is that the subsidies that big oil takes is exclusive to them.. Not so . The "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general , and available to all US businesses (particularly, the foreign tax credit) .
Now the Obots continue to claim that they have expanded the supply . Nonsense. The current energy boom is happening on private lands where the government has no say ;or on leases approved before they took over . The Obots have blocked any efforts to both expand the oil supply and to bring it to market. (except the promotion of Brazil's reserves ) .
Now we are in agreement as the artificial propping up of their economy is slowly coming to an end, but lets be clear though, diplomacy gains a lot more than a trade war, and they do have other partners even though some are more willing than others. Behind the scenes this president has made a lot of strides in the world court forcing changes in Chinese business practices, just ask South Carolina that has just become a world tire manufacturer as the Chinese dominance in that industry through dumping comes to an end.Quote:
2. The Chinese "bat " is their holdings on US debt . What do you think they can do with it ? Also their Potamkin economy is on the ropes a lot more than is being reported . The sooner someone holds them accountable for trade violations the sooner the playing field will level. We know Romney got under their skin because they condemned his candidacy. To me that is the equivalent of an endorsement of the Obama candidacy by the PRC... well done Obama!!
Way off on this one Tom, as its republican governors who have asked for flexibility to effectively be allowed to apply special programs to address special needs as we all recognize the need for training to be a key to long term employment. Some need the additional time as studies going back decades have pointed out training is the key to sustained employment, when jobs are available.Quote:
3. confirmed my opinion that the left hates the work requirement but doesn't have the guts to say so because it is a hugely popular provision. Also confirms that the only choice you really like is the choice to kill babies in the womb.
The first thing a single mom has to consider just to work if a job is available is baby sitters, and transportation, as these are hidden costs to employment that have to be taken into account.
But you guys obviously don't care about any of those things as NO ABORTIONS also means NO contraceptives or any other kinds of female health access. As I tell Speech all the time as he believes in no abortions to save the unborn child but has no answers when it comes to raising and providing for that child through its life.
Like the ladies have pointed out,many men just can leave after the child is born, and you guys effectively have proven that to be the case. Woman are on there own after a child is born.
Do the Math! Geez, great reduce spending to 2000 levels, but you also have to return to 2000 debt levels for that to work and that would be hard to balance after two wars and a failed drug policy to pay for, not to mention those pesky tax cuts and the financial collapse. All of those things are in account in Obamas budget. Not off the books any more.Quote:
4. Don't know what Mittens would cut but I'd cut across the board to 2008 spending levels in the 1st year . You guys tout the Clintoon era being the good old days... So why not reduce spending to 2000 levels ? Truth be told is that your side bristles when the rate of government spending increase is reduced or that we dare suggest it shouldn't exceed the rate of inflation . You call both of those situations budget cuts . The left has never demonstrated that they can control run away spending .
But you can never tell the righties that. You guys have short selective memories when ever you see cash to be had. That's the weakness of capitalism,and the free market,its rigged to the rich,and the rest of us pay for it.
How about some profit sharing for the workers who helped get you fat? Oh that's right, FORD built all those cars himself. Even the ones in Germany before WWII. Ever wonder how Hitler got rich? How Bain was started? Another debate?
I'll make it easy for you Tom, just name one or two regulations you have an issue with. Or tell me what's wrong with clean air and water? Or if you even know why regional and local aquifers are important to humans.Quote:
5. As has been pointed out to me many times.. I am not a businessman, I work for them and one of my responsibilities is to staff the operation. I have at times recommended taking on new staff and most times in recent years have been told no. I have given testimonial to the increased regulatory environment my company is under. The only hiring that is being done is in the regulatory and quality control areas . My company has spent a fortune on compliance issues.
We have the resources for that of which I am thankful because many of our competitors have shut down due to the cost of compliance. We of course are happy to take on the extra business they abandon.
That is true for the whole industry .What the government is accomplishing is to consolidate the industry into the hands of the few. Soon they will be too big to fail . I thought you guys opposed the creation of businesses too big to fail.
The regulations churned out by our government is massive so it is hard to pin point one specific . It's the hostility to business by the current adm that is souring the business environment. Thousands of business owners more qualified than I to discuss it have echoed the frustration. Enough to make me believe that a change of regime will jump start a legitimate recovery.
Can you guys even use the computer?
Yes Tom one way of reigning in the deficit is to cut all subsidies, this means removing support from inefficient agricultural industries and removing support for the ethenol program, removing support for banks and while we are at it removing support for millionairesQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
What's this Tom you don't like foreign investment when it reverses? It is a fact of life that when a country develops economic resources it invests in other economies. This is called Xenophobia, this idea that you can invest in China but they can't invest in the US. Without the investment by the Chinese you would have defaulted and gone the way of history by now, no Tom what is needed is you reign in the bloated US economy through investment in your own production resources, setting proper levels of taxation to reduce the deficit, cutting your bloated military budgetQuote:
2. The Chinese "bat " is their holdings on US debt .
.
Hitting below the belt there TomQuote:
3. confirmed my opinion that the left hates the work requirement but doesn't have the guts to say so because it is a hugely popular provision. Also confirms that the only choice you really like is the choice to kill babies in the womb.
Well there are things we know he is not goint to cut. Military expenditure is one, he signalled an expansion in military expenditure, perhaps this is part of his jobs program increase the size of the military. He will put those dole bludgers back to work on the front lineQuote:
4. Don't know what Mittens would cut but I'd cut across the board to 2008 spending levels in the 1st year .
Yes Tom we know and what is you complaint? Too much regulation of the environment and quality, We need regulation Tom to stop the exploiters because self regulation doesn't workQuote:
5. As has been pointed out to me many times.. I am not a businessman,
Mittens is not proposing a trade war. I do expect that he will hire a Trade representative that actually does something ;and will take advantage of the world commissions that are supposed to monitor trade ;and yes will use our own "bat " if needed.Quote:
diplomacy gains a lot more than a trade war,
What budget ? The one Harry Reid's Senate votes down unanimously in a bi-partisan rejection ? Everyone knows his tax increases would be an economy killer and yet they still run on it .Quote:
All of those things are in account in Obamas budget.
You have never seen me object to reasonable environmental regulations and yet you continuously bring that up . I'll give you one bill that has thousands of regulations and pending regulations that business owner after business owner claims leads to the very uncertainty that delays hiring and business activity... Dodd -Frank . Barney Frank himself admits his law has cost jobs. But he says it's a "reasonable price" to pay to bring "greedy" bankers to heel.Stephen Wilson, former chairman of the American Bankers Association.says that Dodd-rank " could result in 2.9 million fewer jobs being created." But I guess the good news is that the Federal payroll will increase .Quote:
Or tell me what's wrong with clean air and water? Or if you even know why regional and local aquifers are important to humans.
Dodd-Frank Could Chill Hiring - Yahoo! FinanceQuote:
A Government Accountability Office study this summer concluded that implementing Dodd-Frank rules would require 2,850 additional federal employees just through fiscal 2012 (which ends Sept. 30) — at a cost to taxpayers of $1.3 billion.
So for both economic recovery and for budget cutting ,I think Dodd-Frank should be repealed immediately .
"I'll give you another one that many say have had a negative impact... Obamacare .I bet that more than one small business employer is keeping their payroll below that 50 employee threshold.
During the 1980s recession , President Reagan slashed red tape. His regulatory reforms,encouraged competition which helped trigger a hiring boom.Economic growth was around 7% during the recoveryand employers hired 350,000 new jobs a month. So there is your template .
of course ! You have never seen me defend them.Quote:
this means removing support from inefficient agricultural industries and removing support for the ethenol program, removing support for banks
No sir ! Not when they are serial trade agreement violators .Quote:
This is called Xenophobia
Perhaps ,but the truth is that besides these boards and other lefty forums ,the Dems tip toe around the fact that they NEVER liked the work requirements . Clintoon was dragged kicking and screaming to the signing table and only reluctantly signed workfare when he was told by his own advisors that he would lose reelection if he didn't .He had coopted the issue in 1992 by promising to 'end welfare as we know it' . If it wasn't for the threat of electoral defeat ,Clintoon would have vetoed it like he had done twice before.Quote:
hitting below the belt there Tom
Yes he has said that ;and it's an issue I disagree with him about. Like every Federal Agency there is easily enough bloat in it to slash it's budget without affecting force levels and equipment, or ability to do it's job. . What it takes is ordering the Pentagon to sharpen it's pencils and make decisions on necessary administrative reforms . Consolidation should be easy .We fought WWII with 2 areas of operation that covered the world . WE don't need Centcom ,PacCom AfricaCom and "coms" spreading all the way to Munich beer halls . There is way too much duplication of responsibilities and functions . So yes ,the Defense Dept should not be immune.Quote:
Well there are things we know he is not goint to cut. Military expenditure is one, he signalled an expansion in military expenditure, perhaps this is part of his jobs program increase the size of the military. He will put those dole bludgers back to work on the front line
See my comments to Tal's strawman argument about environmental regulations .Quote:
Yes Tom we know and what is you complaint? Too much regulation of the environment and quality, We need regulation Tom to stop the exploiters because self regulation doesn't work
I don't look back Tom, fact is after this little expose' it is hard to see you voting Republican, after all you don't agree with the man's policies. It's not good enough Tom to say you don't agree and still vote along party lines. Who is the strawman here Tom, it is you? Way I hear it straw burns well, a bit flashy, but then you can't have everything
You know as well as I do Tom the official budget will never happen with republicans blocking everything. You guys made a big deal of it being unanimous but democrats voted it down with hopes of a grand plan that you guys backed out of.
You seem to forget that the looming fiscal cliff was caused by CONGRESS not reaching a deal of any kind after having our ratings downgraded last summer. How quickly you place blame on the executive office and not the congress for not doing its job. Specifically the republican house leadership. You know Eric and Paul, who refused to negotiate in good faith.
Gridlock. But its quite clear you guys will extract more money to the few, and let the many wallow in their own sweat as they hustle to navigate through the gloom and doom, fire and brimstone you guys have created. Its really simple Tom, as if you didn't like 8 years of Bush, what makes you think Romney will be different? He won't, and the bigger issue here is will the tea party take the senate and keep the house?
It's a lesser of two evils deal. Like Tal said ,I got to hope for a House takeover by the Repubics and as many conservative candidates elected across the country as possible .Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
The Dems never tire of blaming others for their poor job performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
An the Republicans will never tire of blaming someoneelse for their lack of performance
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:04 PM. |