Obama Calls on Companies to "Bring Jobs Back to the US"

How many times have we heard this bs.

He is unstable, and frankly a liar who will say anything to anyone anywhere to get elected.

Obama said his fiscal 2013 budget will include a request for $12 million in new resources to increase a federal program that promotes business investment in the US.

$12 million, huh?

The federal government probably spends more than that on paperclips on an average day.

Mike, why don't you just type "I hate Obama" over and over again, it would provide the same value of what you put in 2.2.

US corporations are making more money than ever, are playing lower effective taxes than they ever have and receive MASSIVE financial support from tax payers. To rasie taxes on those outsourcing jobs and providing beaks for those that keep jobs here makes perfect sense.

well at least he has a plan

But he doesn't always stick to his plan. Take a look at his campaign platform and compare it to what he has done -- it doesn't fully match up.

Like get Al Quaida and Osama? Like try to get a healthcare reform done after 100 years of effort?

What are you talking about boom?

Like getting out of Iraq?

What dude what?

Can you name a president who got everything he campaigned on boom?

Can you?

boom! reason Did you vote for bush twice??

Republican failure in 2008.AT LEAST A 50 TRILLION DOLLAR LOSS IN 2008.Global Financial Assets Lost $50 Trillion Last Year, ADB Sayshttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aZ1kcJ7y3LDMMost notably, MGI finds that:Falling equities accounted for virtually all of the drop in global financial assets. The world's equities lost almost half their value in 2008, declining by
$28 trillion. Markets have regained some ground in recent months, replacing $4.6 trillion in value between December 2008 and the end of July 2009. Global
residential real estate values fell by $3.4 trillion in 2008 and nearly $2 trillion more in the first quarter of 2009. Combining these figures, we see that
declines in equity and real estate wiped out $28.8 trillion of global wealth in 2008 and the first half of 2009.http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/MGI/Research/Financial_Markets/Global_capital_markets_entering_a_new_era

Like getting out of Iraq?

Yes, like getting out of Iraq. He campaigned to end the war and bring our troops home earlier than Bush intended. Guess what? Our troops came home according to Bush's withdrawal timetable.

He also campaigned to repeal the Patriot Act, but has since signed its extension several times.

Can you name a president who got everything he campaigned on boom?

Funny I state the obvious that a president does not stick to their plans in response to someone who essentially implied "he said he will do it so he will" and you say that to me and not him?

boom! reason Did you vote for bush twice??

Actually, I voted against him twice, and for Obama once.

It's quite amusing that you think I voted for Bush just because I'm not kissing Obama's ass and instead looking at the reality of the situations. I dislike Obama now because of his similarities to Bush.

Obama - "Please come back we haven't finished raping and pillaging your coffers yet."

Boom
My plan reduces the national debt,and fast- so fast ,in fact, that economists worry we are going to run out of debt to retire
---George bush radio address feb 24 2001

@Randy McMurphy read my post.

I dislike Obama now because of his similarities to Bush.

Aside from being bipedal and an American Citizen, Obama is nothing like Bush.

As far as policy successes, just read my post above, which I will give you a link to the source of here: http :// www .truth-out .org/three-charts-email-your-right-wing-brother-law/1314626142

Aside from being bipedal and an American Citizen, Obama is nothing like Bush.

Take a look at their foreign policy/war/spying and you'll retract that comment.

Hmmm. Hope and change.

Isn't working for me. I have no job. I have no house. I can't pay for car insurance.

Can anyone tell me what has changed that has benefited me?

Can anyone tell me what has changed that has benefited me?

You're not alone?

You have access to health insurance. You can go to school, depending on how long you have been out of work you should have access to UI. If you are in sales my company is hiring across the country.

The big difference between the two parties for you would be that the Dems would say you need a hand to get back on your feet and offer some social safety net options to get you there and the GOP would say you are lazy and should have gone to church more.

You have access to health insurance.

No more so than 3 years ago.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=republicans+unemployment+insurance&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

countrygirl78 Where would you be if this trend had continued?

Republican failure in 2008....AT LEAST A 50 TRILLION DOLLAR LOSS IN 2008.Global Financial Assets Lost $50 Trillion Last Year, ADB Sayshttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aZ1kcJ7y3LDMMost notably, MGI finds that:Falling equities accounted for virtually all of the drop in global financial assets. The world's equities lost almost half their value in 2008, declining by
$28 trillion. Markets have regained some ground in recent months, replacing $4.6 trillion in value between December 2008 and the end of July 2009. Global
residential real estate values fell by $3.4 trillion in 2008 and nearly $2 trillion more in the first quarter of 2009. Combining these figures, we see that
declines in equity and real estate wiped out $28.8 trillion of global wealth in 2008 and the first half of 2009.http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/MGI/Research/Financial_Markets/Global_capital_markets_entering_a_new_era

Take a look at their foreign policy/war/spying and you'll retract that comment

No, I won't. Unlike Bush, Obama's foreign policy has been effective.

Pfft business has been outsourcing since way before that. Tax the living dog@!$%# out of U.S. companies that offshore and punish them with heavy tariffs on their products if they decide to move out of the U.S. Millions for execs and a pittance for the folks that actually do the real work. If the board wants to save a little jingle chop a zero or two off these execs.

Kragg,

Folks who think like you, but unfortunately, make it to positions of political power, are why this country is hemorrhaging jobs. I have given you the solution to keep more jobs here, but you and the Socialists can't seem to understand it.

Regards,

Mike

Yeah that's why we have one of the lowest effective tax rates for corporations in the civilized world. Our tax code is so riddled with loopholes you could almost make an aerogel out of it.

Yeah that's why we have one of the lowest effective tax rates for corporations in the civilized world.

When you account for the deductions and loopholes, the US still has an above-average corporate tax rate. How that compares to what you call the "civilized world" I do not know.

When you account for the deductions and loopholes, the US still has an above-average corporate tax rate. How that compares to what you call the "civilized world" I do not know.

No, it doesn't. It is the 4th lowest in the world

The unemployment rate has been going down.

I have given you the solution to keep more jobs here.....

Wait, wait.....don't go Mike. I missed it. What was it again?

We must try to get Mike to give us the solution again.....otherwise....we're doomed.

Randy McMurphy said:

No, it doesn't. It is the 4th lowest in the world

I re-checked my information, and noticed that while my information is a little out of date, yours is way off.

So tell me, what went through your mind that made you decide to fabricate such an inaccurate number? No amount of creative argument can make those numbers even believable.

In fact, while U.S. corporations (and many supporting politicians) argue that American tax rates are too high, the average U.S. corporate income tax is just one percentage point below the median effective rate of their peers in the Organization For Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD.

Forbes

Wrong. Mine is dead on. While our MARGINAL rate is among the highest, that number is superfluous and virtually meaningless, because it is the EFFECTIVE tax rat, the rate that corporations pay is among the very lowest, as I have said.

One would not know from the Republican document that corporate taxes are expected to raise just 1.3 percent of G.D.P. in revenue this year, about a third of what it was in the 1950s.

The G.O.P. says global competitiveness requires the United States to reduce its corporate tax rate. But the United States actually has the lowest corporate tax burden of any of the member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The economic importance of statutory tax rates is blown far out of proportion by Republicans looking for ways to make taxes look high when they are quite low. And they almost never note that the statutory tax rate applies only to the last dollar earned or that the effective tax rate is substantially lower even for the richest taxpayers and largest corporations because of tax exclusions, deductions, credits and the 15 percent top rate on dividends and capital gains.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

This is from Reagan economic advisor, Republican Bruce Bartlett . I'd also add that we don't have a VAT while most of our competitors do, usually 15% or higher. If corporations thought taxes are so evil, why are they flocking to high tax China, with an absolute 25% tax PLUS a 17.5 VAT? Because they have a cheap exploitable labor force that they would love our workers to compete against.

The United States has the second highest corporate tax rate of the 30 countries in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). But because the United States has so many generous special tax preferences for businesses, it collects the fourth lowest corporate tax revenues as a share of GDP among all OECD countrie

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/1027_corporate_taxes_furman.aspx

Wrong. Mine is dead on.

Your sources do not support your assertion that the US has the 4th lowest effective tax rate in the world (see below), and you have conveniently ignored the Forbes source that I have provided. Your comment is dead off.

because it is the EFFECTIVE tax rat

This time read what I offer you rather than blindly repeating yourself:

"the average U.S. corporate income tax is just one percentage point below the median effective rate of their peers in the Organization For Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD."

Your source does not state what you believe it does. Read it carefully. It states that the tax burden is the lowest as a share of GDP. In case you haven't noticed: the US has a huge GDP. This is like saying that a $100,000 car is not expensive, since Bill Gates (metaphorically the United States' GDP) can easily buy one -- it's a false comparison.

Your sources never said that the US has a low effective tax rate. When citing an opinion piece, you need to be extra careful about potentially misleading wording. You read into the pieces what you either thought you saw, or what you wanted to see.

You'll never learn a thing if you continue to read as you have been. Critical reading is an important skill.

After all, your sources compared corporate taxes with GDP, and you never even noticed. Or perhaps you just figured it's all the same, because you don't really understand it all that business-y stuff anyway.

If corporations thought taxes are so evil, why are they flocking to high tax China, with an absolute 25% tax PLUS a 17.5 VAT? Because they have a cheap exploitable labor force that they would love our workers to compete against.

You appear to be assuming something about my political leanings, unsupported by my comment.

I am merely stating the objective facts in the matter. Show me exactly where you see any value judgement about taxes and economic policies in my comment?

Any President or party who, in this time of economic crisis who would continue to keep, nay make our country more hostile to business, should be considered a threat to national security. This isn't all Obama's fault...it's ours...We elected a non entity who had never held a real job, with real responsibilities in his whole life.. I cannot think of any President who had such a weak resume. He has absolutely no clue how jobs are created and sustained.

Regards,

Mike

George Bush

Krag,

Sorry. Factually incorrect. George Bush ran several businesses and was a qualified fighter pilot and successful governor of a huge state. Also, he went to the same school your hero went to....Haaaavaaaahd.

If you need more help with facts, please let me know.

Regards,

Mike

again mike, seriously, just type "I hate Obama" we get it.

How is this president, who has presided over an era where businesses have been making record profits year after year since he has been in office, to be considered 'hostile'? What policies are you claiming have harmed business in this country? hell the individual mandate alone is a huge boom to the insurance industry, he kept Chrysler and GM open. He has put foward tax cuts for capital expenditures. Yeah he has just been a big burden to business. /sarc

Mike-1499840 said:

We elected a non entity who had never held a real job, with real responsibilities in his whole life

He was only a community organizer from 1985-1988. Since that time he has held what even you can consider to be "real jobs," and then has been a senator since 1997.

I cannot think of any President who had such a weak resume.

You never looked at his resume, so maybe if we edit that line down a bit it would make more sense:

I cannot think

Yes. Much better.

Oh, and if you need more help with facts, please let me know.

George Bush ran several businesses and was a qualified fighter pilot and successful governor of a huge state.

Let me fix that for you. George Bush ran several businesses into the ground, was a qualified fighter pilot until he disappeared and governor of a huge state that has some of the worst education and poverty levels in the US.

Sebby,

I don't hate anybody. But, let me address some of your comments.

Record Profits. Yep...And they will continue to do whatever they need to to do so. That's is the only purpose of a business, to make as much profit as possible. That is an Axiom. You have to take that into consideration of you want to return jobs to the US. Every additional regulation, new program (OBAMACARE), coats money and Impacts profit. If you want to return jobs, you have to at least help business make it profit neutral or better. You certainly don't want it to cost money.

His deal with the Auto industry cost us money...taxpayer money. Je should have let them go bankrupt. They would have restructured, been leaner and oh yeah, he wouldn't have had to commit a felony in the process...moving the union ahead of the stockholders. Taxpayers are STILL losing money on this deal...stock is way below what we paid for it. Also, please tell me what enumerated power in the constitution gave him the authority to do this? Jes axin.

His NLRB took Boeing to court to keep them from opening their assembly plant in South Carolina. That is Huge.

He has put foward tax cuts for capital expenditures.

I don't know what you mean by that. Obama didn't do anything, Capital is part of "cost" in business. Revenue minus cost = profit. All je did was "allow" businesses to expense it all in one year. Personally, I dispute the governments alleged power to allow or disallow this. It should be up to the business as to when it desires to count that expense and how they want to do it, not some bureaucrat.

Don't forget how well he scored in Harvard. I'll tell you now, it wasn't As and Bs.

Boom,

What jobs? Did he hire & fire? I have. Did he have to meet a payroll? I have. Did he ever lead men in battle? I have. Please tell me what thing of substance he accomplished prior to being elected POTUS.

Still awaiting facts from you. None provided yet. Y'all ain't gonna be able to carry him forever.

Regards,

Mike

The money used to bail out the auto industry has been paid back with interest, so how much did it cost?

NLRB took Boeing to court because there was a question as to why the plant was being moved.

By all means please feel free to comment more when you have something better than "I hate Obama" to say.

Sebby,

No it hasn't; taxpayers still own stock in GM...last I looked it was still below what we paid for it. It's the evil BANKS who have paid back all the loans with interest.

There was no question, as no plant was being moved. This was completely new operation. In any case, a company has the right to wake up on any given day and move their operations for no reason at all and it's none of the government's business.

And you wonder why companies keep offshoring jobs.

And I will type this next part slowly... I Don't Hate Anybody.

Regards,

Mike

GM, was split into two parts the ''old gm'' which took all the debt and that hasn't been paid back and the ''new gm''..

"there was a question as to why the plant was being moved''..Is that the governments roll?? No it isn't, a company can move anywhere it wants for any reason.

Holy Cow, talk about a day late and a dollar short. He has been in office now over 3 years and is just now addressing this? His greatest supporters, financially, are those that the government, using taxpayer dollars, bailed out and even encouraged sending manufacturing overseas in response to the "Global Market"! I have always been impressed with his ability to lay out a plan but very disappointed in the simple fact that he had no details for those grandiose schemes and many of them never came to pass even in spite of the Republican obstructionism. This will be another political ploy in his efforts top gather votes. Unless I see something positive concerning the actual returning and opening up of some of our shuttered factories that is just what this is--a pig in a poke.

His deal with the Auto industry cost us money...taxpayer money. Je should have let them go bankrupt.

You haven't heard about Bush's role in the auto bailout? Obama isn't the only one.

What jobs? Did he hire & fire? I have. Did he have to meet a payroll? I have. Did he ever lead men in battle? I have. Please tell me what thing of substance he accomplished prior to being elected POTUS.

Very few people have done those things, however you seem to think that it's perfectly reasonable to speak on subjects without any understanding of them. Take a look at his resume before you claim that it's bare.

But to specifically address your questions, he has, among other things, been a law professor, an attorney, served on boards of directors, and has been a senator since 1997 (state senator from 1997-2004, and US senator from 2005-2008). These are "real jobs" of substance, and if you are going to criticize someone on their work history it is poor form to have no clue what they have done.

I don't support Obama, but I don't go around spreading misinformation about him. You see, in my line of work a person needs to be able to know what the heck they are talking about before they talk about something -- it's a matter of integrity. Maybe it's different for yours?

If you need more help with facts, please let me know.

Boom,

You are giving him far too much credit.

1) He wasn't a law professor. He was an adjunct instructor.

2) He was a state senator, you have heard about the (non) voting record...again..Can't see where that is anything to write home about, especially his performance or lack thereof.

3) US Senator...in the position how long before he started running for POTUS?...and what significant legislation did he author and get passed?

4) Attorney? You mean the position that he considered "behind enemy lines?" His words, not mine

Yes...I've perused his resume...and if I was screening it 24 hours before election day in 2008, his wouldn't have even made the "call for an interview" pile when I was hiring and firing. He certainly has held no position that would indicate he had what it takes to be the Chief Executive Officer of the most powerful country in the world. His performance in office has done little to indicate otherwise, both philosophically and competence-wise.

As far as I can see, the only misinformation I may have spread, is that I may have giving him far too much credit. Again, this is all prior to election day 2008. As we all know, being elected POTUS trumps any other resume entry...as it should.

Regards,

Mike

Mike-1499840 If you are so smart, run for president and beat President Obama. Good luck!!! McCain , your best man , could not beat him.

Mike-1499840
Boom,

You are giving him far too much credit.

1) He wasn't a law professor. He was an adjunct instructor.

Wrong.and right. He was a lecturer, because he other jobs, including state senator, so he could not be tenured. But a lecturer IS a professor, if you truly perused hus resume you would have know this

Statement Regarding Barack Obama
The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

2) He was a state senator, you have heard about the (non) voting record...again..Can't see where that is anything to write home about, especially his performance or lack thereof.

The specious "non voting " claims of the right are meaningless, as ,from time to time, minority repubs would send ridiculous legislation they knew would never pass solely to attempt to pidgeonhole democrats for the benefit of the republix. Essentially meaningless, except for ammo for snarky comments by righties.

Co sponsored bills of State Senator Barack Obama

Bills presented by Senator Obama

3) US Senator...in the position how long before he started running for POTUS?...and what significant legislation did he author and get passed?

The Lugar-Obama Non-Proliferation Act
This law, authored by Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama was passed in 2006 and signed in 2007. In the words of its authors, this is what it does:
These vast numbers of unused conventional weapons, particularly shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles that can hit civilian airliners, pose a major security risk to America and democracies everywhere. That's why we have introduced legislation to seek out and destroy surplus and unguarded stocks of conventional arms in Asia, Europe, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East.
Our bill would launch a major nonproliferation initiative by addressing the growing threat from unsecured conventional weapons and by bolstering a key line of defense against weapons of mass destruction. Modeled after the successful Nunn-Lugar program to dismantle former Soviet nuclear weapons, the Lugar-Obama bill would seek to build cooperative relationships with willing countries.
By all accounts, it's been pretty successful so far.

The Coburn-Obama Transparency Act
This law (which John McCain co-sponsored) was the work of Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Barack Obama. It provides that all federal contracts be made transparent and available online to the public. A nice bit of sunshine into a shadowy world. You can see the results here at http://www.usaspending.gov/.

Relief for the Democratic Republic of Congo
Authored, sponsored and introduced by Barack Obama, this legislation provided increased foreign aid and relief to the country, and directed the U.N. Ambassador to press the U.N. Security Council for stronger peacekeeping forces in the region.

Given His tenure was relatively short, this is pretty good , as it exceeds the bills created by bob dole and John McCain Combined

4) Attorney? You mean the position that he considered "behind enemy lines?" His words, not mine

Yes. and Whatever!

NB-1977
Don't forget how well he scored in Harvard. I'll tell you now, it wasn't As and Bs.

They don't give JD Magna Cum Laude to "C" students

Mike-1499840 said:

1) He wasn't a law professor. He was an adjunct instructor.

And you again speak without understanding -- you really couldn't be bothered to learn what that means?

An adjunct professor is a part-time professor who is hired on a contractual basis rather than being given tenure and a permanent position.

Source

Q: Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor?

A: His formal title was "senior lecturer," but the University of Chicago Law School says he "served as a professor" and was "regarded as" a professor.

Furthermore, Obama was not merely an "instructor" as Phil Singer stated. As a "senior lecturer," Obama was in good company: The six other faculty members with the title include the associate dean of the law school and Judge Richard Posner, who is widely considered to be one of the nation's top legal theorists.

Fact Check

--

2) He was a state senator, you have heard about the (non) voting record...again..Can't see where that is anything to write home about, especially his performance or lack thereof.

And again:

Q: How many times did Obama vote 'present' as a state senator?

A: He did so 129 times, which represents a little more than 3 percent of his total votes.

Fact Check

--

US Senator...in the position how long before he started running for POTUS?...and what significant legislation did he author and get passed?

There was plenty of them, and no I will not read through them all for you. Do your own homework here where you can search by his name for what he has done, just be sure to select the appropriate sessions:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/multicongress/multicongress.html

Attorney? You mean the position that he considered "behind enemy lines?" His words, not mine

He never stated nor implied that working as an attorney was like working "behind enemy lines."

Check your facts.

Yes...I've perused his resume...and if I was screening it 24 hours before election day in 2008, his wouldn't have even made the "call for an interview" pile when I was hiring and firing

Look, both you and I know that you have never been in a position where you could hire or fire people -- that position requires a far greater attention to detail and fact-checking than you appear to possess. I know this because I have been in that position, although I no longer do the hiring (I still can fire people, including the interviewer if need be). You rely far too heavily on "hearsay" than actually checking facts. All of your points are easily debunked on something called a "Google."

You say that you have perused his resume, and if you see "law professor at the Chicago Law School" and "state and US senator" as trivial titles it is clear that you are unable to recognize good positions, which casts an ominous shadow over your ability to judge and a greater shadow upon your supposed ability to manage.

You clearly want someone to do your "homework" for you. Then you ignore it. Perhaps that's why you talk about hiring and firing in the past tense.

Randy McMurphy said:

Yes. and Whatever!

Still no.

law professor at the Chicago Law School" and "state and US senator" as trivial titles i

Yeah, I do see them as trivial titles when it comes to experience relevant to being the CEO of the most powerful country in the world. If you disagree with that, then you shouldn't gripe when a rookie like Bachman gets in the race. You certainly shouldn't gripe when an experienced State Governor, Businesswoman with a Top Secret Security Clearance gets in the race. You don't get it both ways.

Regards,

Mike

Yeah, I do see them as trivial titles when it comes to experience relevant to being the CEO of the most powerful country in the world.

Grasping for straws. The University of Chicago Law school is one of the best law schools in the country, so it's not trivial position in itself, and neither is Senator.

Rather than listening to Rush Radio and Fox News opinion shows (which I do, so I know that your comments are exactly what they repeat) for your main source of information on the man, do your own research. You don't have to agree with his positions to not misrepresent him.

If you disagree with that, then you shouldn't gripe when a rookie like Bachman gets in the race. You certainly shouldn't gripe when an experienced State Governor, Businesswoman with a Top Secret Security Clearance gets in the race. You don't get it both ways.

I don't gripe about their experience. Don't assume things about people to try to make your point.

I disagree with their policies, just as I disagree with a great deal of Obama's policies.

Palin, on the other hand, is open to griping about resigning early from being Governor. That was a bad move.

Palin, on the other hand, is open to griping about resigning early from being Governor. That was a bad move.

Agreed. Very bad move.

The University of Chicago Law school is one of the best law schools in the country, so it's not trivial position in itself, and neither is Senator.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the above. My position is, that for someone running for POTUS the above are trivial positions as neither is a "buck stops here," job. Maybe a long time Senator who is chair of a significant committee or majority leader, OK. But one of 99 other folks....sorry. That's also my beef with Bachman & Santorum...legislators, not executives. I have the same beef with Paul... Again...I can agree to disagree on this.

Regards,

Mike

Mike-1499840 If you are so smart, run for president and beat President Obama. Good luck!!! McCain , your best man , could not beat him.

The Ones Whom are trying to Beat ' Obummer '???
Not one of 'em is worth voting for.
Who is The Better One to Lead Our Country is what The Peoples Need...Not so much beat " Obummer " One that can Lead This Country.

Mike-1499840 said:

My position is, that for someone running for POTUS the above are trivial positions as neither is a "buck stops here," job.

There have been Presidents in the past who have been less qualified and have done well, just as there have been Presidents that even you would view as impressively qualified who have done miserably.

You implied that you like Presidents to have military and executive experience, or similar. Jimmy Carter had just that -- a military man and Governor. Abraham Lincoln, on the other hand had quite a mediocre resume, potentially similar to Obama (no comparison further than that implied). Lincoln ran a failed business during a boom time, was a postmaster, and was a Senator for a few years -- that's most of his resume, with no executive experience.

Alex. CA said:

Blah blah blah...

You said that already. Reported for spamming.

LittleFawn said:

Who is The Better One to Lead Our Country is what The Peoples Need...Not so much beat " Obummer " One that can Lead This Country.

Sigh, No Child Left Behind claims another victim...

sebby - since the 2010 election the dems have been asking "where are the jobs you promised repubs".

The answer is that the job market got better in 2011 after the repubs were elected.

Now for the 3rd or 4th time since being elected, Obama again putting job creation as his mantra.

actually the job market got better in 2009 after the stimulus was passed and implemented. How could the dopes elected in 2010 have had any effect on the job growth experienced in 2009-10? What legislation have they led that has had any positive effect on Jobs? It is because of their obstructionism the credit rating was down graded. That tax cuts for the 1% were required to tax cuts for everyone else. What have they done but slow down the recovery?

What has he done since the 3rd month of his term but address jobs and for the last 23 months add them?

I Hate Obama and his BS policies. There are you happy. You little people are so un business no wonder you haven't a decent job.

So you are saying you don't have any policies that are anti- business and this is all about your personal dislike of the President. Good to know. I actually have a pretty good job, one that I came to from an other really good job. In my current position as a recruiter we are hiring across the country, and guess what - the decision to hire was not based on our tax rate and the direct result of the results of the Durbin amendment on transaction fees.

You little people are so un business no wonder you haven't a decent job.

Wow. What a comeback - lame and old.

Do you honestly think the "little people" here don't have decent jobs?

You've said nothing indicating that you work, know business or are even a "big" person.

I am a "little people". I bust backside trying to keep job, home, and children together while those "job creators" are creating those jobs off shore with high tech equipment. Greed pure and simple. I am with Dale #5. If you are and American company, get your tush back here or take your citizenship elsewhere.

Yes, angry.

I am a "little people".

You might think you are a "little people" Rose. You are really a "big soul".

There are plenty of us "little people" out there - Enough to overcome a big bully.

sebby 6.2 - Now you say the repubs had nothing to do with job creation in 2011 and before you were asking the repubs "where are the jobs you promised when elected in 2010.

Facts are facts and the repubs did what they said they would.

It was done by saying NO to the Obama policies.

The economy is not growing any faster now than what it was growing in 2010. Economic growth slowed down last year after the repubs won the elections in 2010.

nospin so the big teapublican Jobs plan was to do nothing and thievery was going to get better on its own and the things that Obama actually did had no effect? is this really your position?

The economy is not growing any faster now than what it was growing in 2010.

I would say it is growing in spite of the Teapublicans interference.

Obama has really run these guys around. What I at first thought would be very aggravating has turned out to be a piffle in the wind. A fake populist movement which has now been hollowed out and exposed as the sham it always was.

It has been very enjoyable watching our President hoist these children on their own petards, over and over again.

No brainer alright....do that and what's left of those companies will relocate lock, stock and barrel overseas along with their remaining jobs, headquarters and bank accounts....and oh yeah....tax revenue.

Regards,

Mike

("those companies will relocate lock, stock and barrel overseas along with their remaining jobs, headquarters and bank accounts....and oh yeah....tax revenue.")

Sound like an act of war... against the U.S.A. and its people. We could confiscate all their assets and put the officers in prison.

Or, we could shudder in fear… and pray for salvation from Big Pharma---to make us happy! :-)

Cool then some young enterprising american can fill the void left by these unpatriotic greedsters.

Do you really think those companies are going to move to China, or Mexico? Who the heck are they going to sell to?

Mike, do you mean all the taxes these company's don't pay?Or the tax write offs they get for relocating?

I am inclined to agree to a certain point, but the costs associated with moving operations back to the US may outweigh the penalty. $12 million will not go very far ....

He didn't come up with any plan. And my comments were spot on. We don't need to spend 12million to encourage investment. If you want jobs to come back home to America, you gotta quit beating the snot out of business. Do completely away with business income tax. Make all business taxes "pass through." tax the profit when it is actually realized by individuals. Revenues would go up! Prices to consumers would come down. Cost of enforcement and compliance with the tax code would diminish by Billions.

The FACT is Democrats/RINOs/Liberals/Socialists are hostile to business...they always have been. They are more interested in using the tax code to foster a social agenda than properly create revenue for lawful purposes of the federal government.

Obama and his ilk, are Socialists. They are BAD for America and Americans. All of us REAL Americans are tired of the Socialists and moochers ruining this country.

Regards,

Mike

American - That's their 'MO'. Constant deceptive-deflection and blind opposition to anything and everything… The Party of NO... They win when you get frustrated and leave.

and the "I hate Obama" rant continues.

Businesses should not be regulated or taxed at all, yeah that makes sense. Of course they would lower prices, I mean business has always been good about determining at what point they have made enough profit. Just because all of those eliminations would increase their profits, they would certainly reduce that new boon and lower prices. It is the same logic that says they off shore jobs to cheaper labor markets to drive down prices, oh wait, they don't do that, they do it to INCREASE PROFITS. What exactly would be the incentive for them to reduce prices in this scenario Mike?

Sebbydad, I'll say it for Mike "I hate Obama."

Sorry, I don't really feel that way myself but I just new you weren't going to get it from Mike.

Have a nice day.

It's the slave market all over again, right here in our own plantation USA. "The Massa's got's to have his profits... so he can give me all these 80 hours of work a week for my hungry children.

Sebby- stop putting words in someone else's mouth.

Mike has not said "I hate Obama". His complaint is that Obama's policies are bad.

Sebby,

What exactly would be the incentive for them to reduce prices in this scenario Mike?

Competition. It's a lagging incentive, but it's there. It's why gas prices go up rapidly on the spot market and at the pump, but come down slowly and lag behind falling crude prices. I know you know this, but others may not....there are a host of factors that affect business costs and location decisions. The biggest reason all things being equal, that business prefers to locate in the US, is the rule of law. Businesses are willing to pay a significant "labor and regulatory premium," to stay in the US. It takes a HUGE regulatory impact or labor impact for a company to put most of it's operations overseas.

In short, to keep job in the US or bring them back here, doesn't require we match other countries horrible labor conditions or environmental standards. What it does require, is we use some common sense in how we consider cost benefit when we consider regulations and labor standards. Fixing our out of control tax system would help also.

Regards,

Mike

("What it does require, is we use some common sense in how we consider cost benefit")

And so... just where in the hell is the common sense with all those CEO's running off with their multi-million dollar bonuses ----- for FAILING.

It's called Capitalistic Profit Logic. Yay for me, and screw you!!!

since when does the price of gas at the pump actually reflect the price of crude? Companies certainly use the fluctuations of crude to justify increases in pricing but in this magical scenario you weave where is the competition that reduces prices.

You have yet to answer the question, if we remove all this supposed burdensome regulation on business, they pay no taxes, have no imposed wage or safety requirements, no EPA rules to follow, no unions allowed, insurance requirements etc. Their profits will skyrocket without those added costs, why would they reduce prices? Competition? Why would their competition reduce prices more than a few cents here or there, not unlike the gas industry? Do you recall in 2008 when they talked about a gas tax holiday? That the oil companies, being under no obligation to reduce prices whether the taxes were there or not, had no reason to pass on the savings? They knew consumers were willing to pay for the product at that price so why bring it down?

Sebby,

I answered all of this already. Are you being wilfully obtuse? Gas prices reflect the price of crude when the spot market is on the way up. When the price of crude falls, then gas prices lag behind it until pressured lower by competition. This is pretty simple stuff...basic economics. I'm surprised you seem to be having such difficulty with it.

Regards,

Mike

You have yet to answer the question, if we remove all this supposed burdensome regulation on business, they pay no taxes, have no imposed wage or safety requirements, no EPA rules to follow, no unions allowed, insurance requirements etc.

Also... Except for getting rid of business taxes, I never advocated for any of the above. I also said business profits should be taxed as regular incom when individuals realize them, either via a pass through or dividends. I also advocated taxing capital gains as regular income.

As far as regulation and the rest, what I advocatednwas common sense.

Regards,

Mike

Wisconsin Mike,

Yeah...I know...

Regards,

(The other) Mike

Actually I have a degree in business and one in education so I am accustomed to dealing with people who don't really understand what they are talking about but are very very certain they are right, even though they have nothing to support it.
While gas prices are influenced by the price of crude it is not the controlling factor on pricing and nor is it competition beyond a local level.

Sebby,

Again, it appears you are deliberately "misunderstanding." I will say is again, slowly and simply...When the spot market is on the way up, then gas prices follow it closely. The price of crude is the controlling factor when the spot market is on the way up. When it is on the way down, especially when it is diving rapidly, then competition at the refinery and at the pump levels are the controlling factors. Which is why gas prices go up like a rocket and come down ever so slowly.

Regards,

Mike

Ok, Lets draw a few pictures:

http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

You can use this chart to directly compare gas and crude oil prices.

As I said there is influence but gas prices are not as volitile as crude oil, and other than dramatic drops such as the '08 crash, the price of crude clearly shows as only an influence on the price at the pump. The price at the pump is set at what the market will bear, the price will be as high it can be until it affects sales and cuts profits. That does not include the other distillates they profit from on every barrel of crude.

I refuse to weep for an industry that receives massive tax credits and subsidies while posting ever increasing tens of billions in profits each quarter.

Sebby,

I just looked your chart over. It doesn't totally reflect what I'm seeing trend-wise in the three places I buy gas...Metro Atlanta, West of Atlanta in a suburb and along I75 between Atlanta and Tampa. In all of those places, gas closely follows oil on the way up and lags way behind on the way down...I have been watching especially closely the past few weeks. I watched gas go up by 18 cents/gallon on overnight two weeks ago and then 20 cents just a few days ago. In between it ratcheted down a penny or so at a time every few days or so.

The price at the pump is set at what the market will bear, the price will be as high it can be until it affects sales and cuts profits. That does not include the other distillates they profit from on every barrel of crude.

I never disagreed with the above.

I refuse to weep for an industry that receives massive tax credits and subsidies while posting ever increasing tens of billions in profits each quarter.

Taxing profits when they are realized as dividends and eliminating any and all subsidies will solve that problem and save money in enforcement too.

Thanx for the link to the chart.

Regards,

Mike

Well of course since the actual prices for crude oil and gasoline don't match your local three pumps the full numbers must be completely wrong. of course all national policies should be built around the situations in Milke's specific neighborhood. That makes sense.

The gas prices in your neighborhood are more closely affected by the scarcity of local product than crude oil prices. Keep track of what your local suppliers are doing and you'll see a more accurate trend of pricing.

Sebby,

I never said 3 local pumps. I said 3areas, one local, one in Atlanta area and pumps along the I75 corridor to Tampa.

Regards,

Mike

well then, that makes all the difference, that should be the area upon which all national policy should be based. My statement about local suppliers stands.

We need to look at the regulations for everything.

Get rid of what doesn't work and keep what does and strengthen it if needed. NO regulation is insane, for starters.

Which is something this administration has been doing, Despite the GOP clamor there have been significant reductions in regulations in some quarters.

Trade wars are bad for everyone.

Get out of NAFTA.

The quickest way to bring jobs back to the U.S. would be for us to leave the WTO, and then impose massive tariffs on imports from countries with records of serious human rights violations, environmental abuses, or unfair trade practices.

This would also be the quickest way to massive civil unrest, as inflation soars to 20% on the backs of tens of millions of unemployed workers.

How about, instead, if we simply mandate that every product purchased by the US Department of Defense be "Made in USA" certified. The end product and all components must be manufactured in the US by Americans, with exceptions granted only for things we can't produce here because the natural resources are only available in other places.

That's $700 billion a year that we're already spending headed back into the US economy. No tax increase needed, no deficit increase needed.

The US has been exporting a lot of products to Mexico. China has a 1.3 billion people market, the US has a 300 million people market, the Chinese have a big bargaining chip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_MexicoMexico international trade.ExternalExports $298.5 billion (2010 est.)[4]Export goods automobiles, electronics, televisions, computers, mobile phones, LCD displays oil and oil products, silver, fruits, vegetables, coffee,
cottonMain export partners US 73.5%, Canada 7.5% (2010)Imports $301.5 billion (2010 est.)[4]Import goods metalworking machines, steel mill products, agricultural machinery, metals, repair parts for motor vehicles, aircraft, and aircraft parts,
oil production equipmentMain import partners US 60.6%, China 6.6%, South Korea 5.2% (2010)
International trade
Exports US $248.8 billion f.o.b. (2006)Imports US $253.1 billion f.o.b. (2006)Current account US $400.1 million (2006)Export partners US 90.9%, Canada 2.2%, Spain 1.4%, Germany 1.3%, Colombia 0.9% (2006)Import partners US 53.4%, China 8%, Japan 5.9% (2005)Mexico is an export oriented economy. It is an important trade power as measured by the value of merchandise traded, and the country with the greatest number
of free trade agreements.[161] In 2005, Mexico was the world's fifteenth largest merchandise exporter and twelfth largest merchandise importer with a 12%
annual percentage increase in overall trade.[162] In fact, from 1991 to 2005 Mexican trade increased fivefold.[163] Mexico is the biggest exporter and
importer in Latin America; in 2005, Mexico alone exported US $213.7 billion, roughly equivalent to the sum of the exports of Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela,
Uruguay, and Paraguay.[162] By 2009 Mexico ranked once again number 15 on World's leading exporters with US $230 billion (And amongst the top ten excluding
Intra-EU countries).[164] However, Mexican trade is fully integrated with that of its North American partners: close to 90% of Mexican exports and 50% of its
imports are traded with the United States and Canada. Nonetheless, NAFTA has not produced trade diversion.[29] While trade with the United States increased
183% from 1993–2002, and that with Canada 165%, other trade agreements have shown even more impressive results: trade with Chile increased 285%, with Costa
Rica 528% and Honduras 420%.[30] Trade with the European Union increased 105% over the same time period.[30]

We need to give 9 thousand dollars tax credits to companies hiring new employees. International trade related companies will hit home runs with these tax credits and create a huge trade surplus.

We need to give 9 thousand dollars tax credits to companies hiring new employees.

That is as good excuse as any to create high turnover. Why keep employees when new ones come with a free $9,000?

Rinse and repeat.

I am sure the congress members are smart enough to fix that.

I am sure the congress members are smart enough to fix that.

You don't read legislation much, do you?

The repubs will have to explain that decision to the voters in an election year.

I'd like to see those policies as well, especially in the light of the record profits US businesses are posting.

American,

NLRB suit against Boeing for trying to open their assembly plant in South Carolina. Documented fact.

If I can be of further assistance, please holler.

Regards,

Mike

that case is a policy? You mean the case that was dropped last month? The NLRB was doing what it is supposed to do, being a check against business punishing workers against organizing. All Boeing had to do to show that the move was not a retaliatory act.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203413304577088374112815392.html

Feel free to try again though. I'd like to see an actual policy.

Yeah...the case that was dropped...after costing Boeing a chunk of change to deal with it...a case that should have never been brought. Bottom line, it is none of the government's business WHY a company chooses to put a new facility somewhere. Again...you wonder what causes businesses to offshore...it's attitudes like yours.

Regards,

Mike

Still not a policy, Mike. Are you going to continue to just blow gas and evade the question?

Who appointed the board members? Obama? It's Obama's policy then. OBAMACARE is definitely hostile to business, especially doctors and taxpayers...moochers, not so much. Obama appointee stopping the oil pipeline. Obama directing a lengthly shutdown of gulf drilling.

Side note...What's interesting is he thinks the government is qualified to determine the safety of an oil rig. The government guys are second and third raters...The first thing the oil companies do when they run into a decent government guy that knows what the hell he's doing, they hire him away. But I digress.

Regards,

Mike

Still no policies eh? How exactly is the health care act hostile to business? So you'd prefer that there be no safety regulations on the oil industry?

Just let them do what ever they want and trust them not to cut corners or trust them not to use inferior products in construction?

I think that's a pretty naive world view at best.

Education,

I just lined out 4 for you...

The health care law increases costs, because it focuses on the lesser of the two problems...health insurance. The number one problem, is the fundamental cost of the care itself. When people can understand that health care is a business, can accept that and treat it as such, then the cost will come down and the quality will go up, this allowing access to more people. Falsely insisting that health care is "different," is the single biggest driver of health care costs...which in turn drives up the cost of insurance. Government meddling in this, just makes it worse.

I never said or implied that there shouldn't be safety regulations. I just question the Federal government's ability, expertise-wise to properly develop, implement and enforce them. Stopping an entire industry in the Gulf while the government climbs a steep learning curve...especially when other countries are drilling out there is just plain nuts. Again, the real expertise resides in the industry.

Regards,

Mike

What drives the cost of care? Non-payment of services. Those cost must be recouped so we all pay more. The choices were increasing coverage ( it could have been done cheaper with a public option) or eliminating the requirement to provide services to those who cannot pay. Which way would you like to go?

the entire industry was not stopped in the gulf, do let us know when you leave your fantasy world and return to earth. A moratorium on deep water drilling after over a dozen deaths and the most massive spill in history - maybe a good time to look over how things are run and the industry had hundreds of leases they were not using, oil production actually increased during the period, again I will not weep for the poor, poor oil companies. It was the industry experts that set things up for safety. That was the main problem. The revolving door from the industry to the inspectors and back again. It was the same with the financial sector. The pipeline was rightly stopped because it wasn't safe to build. What do have against clean water?

What causes deaths due to companies cutting corners in the name of profit without any consequences- attitudes like yours. Insurance companies, energy companies, manufacturing companies, if the cost of dealing with on the job deaths is less than implementing the safety measures to prevent them, you don't pay for the safety measures. That makes good business sense, however, the government is obligated to protect the interests of the people.

eliminating the requirement to provide services to those who cannot pay. Which way would you like to go?

Drop the requirement to provide services.

There was a moratorium on drilling...that pretty much stopped the industry...Looking over the cost benefit and the history of safety....no it wasn't a good time to do that...it was a singularly bad idea. When you add up the man hours spent in the gulf, the number of platforms, the amount of oil produced and the revenue...positive effect on the US economy over the course of decades, then this accident was relatively minor.

Making BP pay for cleanup and reimburse for financial impact, great idea. Moratorium, felony stupid. Also felony stupid was federal recalcitrance when Bobby Jindal wanted to put some barriers up to preclude the oil from getting into the wetlands. FYI, if the oil can be held out in the ocean, the ocean and it's bacteria will break it down and essentially "eat" it. When it gets into the coastal wetlands, is when it causes long term harm.

I don't have anything against clean water...I'm a big fan. No evidence has been presented that this pipeline will cause any more problems than the existing pipelines...problems that can be dealt with. Of you've seen my previous comments about the EPA, I said it's not an either or proposition. We are talented enough to drill for oil and keep the aquifer safe.

As to your "revolving door." I call BS. My friends in the industry tell me the industry gets rid of the slugs...who In turn, go get jobs in government. Any of the talented government guys, get snapped up by industry. Talent goes where the money is.

Regards,

Mike

The moratorium on one type of drilling did not stop the industry. What was the net result of the moratorium another year of RECORD profits for the industry.

Good to know where you stand on your fellow citizens. No money-no medical treatment. Sell that one to the voters. Letting people die will certainly make things cheaper.

Wow you are one those people that would probably argue that the oil was good for the overall environment aren't you? Just let the oil flow the ocean will take care of it.... You absolutely have something against clean water with this attitude.

Jindal actually ordered the state's national guard to build the sand barriers which were then eaten away by tidal forces and had a negligible impact on the spill itself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/16/bobby-jindals-louisiana-s_n_797931.html

all due respect to 'the guy you know in the industry' - http://blog.al.com/wire/2011/07/ties_among_gulf_oil_industry_f.html

You clearly understand how things work, base all oil and gas prices on your local experience and all policy decisions on what your friends or other voices are clearly telling you.

So Mike's answer for health care boils down to, "if the @!$%#ers can't pay then let the bastards die."?

That answer seems a little less than compassionate to those less fortunate than Mike.

It approximates the GOP stance on the issue. If you are poor and unemployed it is because you are lazy, if you cannot afford health care, it is your own darn fault you got sick. If you aren't rich it is because you are envious and so on.

The repubs are cheering DEATH again. They want all the sick poor people to DIE QUICKLY!!!!! The GOP is the party of DEATH!!!

They are where they are because of cheap labor, and the ability to pollute with impunity.

Deal with it.

and GE is building a new plant in China to support it's global business.

Any time American companies want to move to another country to save money, we have a problem and just don't see it.

you misstate, they don't move to another country to save money, they move to increase profits. There is a significant difference. Pepsi is looking at dropping 4000 jobs this year, not because they are over staffed, not because they are having trouble being profitable, it is because the shareholders want to see an increase in the stock price. That is it, it is not an operational decision but a purely profiteering one. Drop 4000 jobs to get an uptick on the stock price.

You cannot blame individual market participants for doing what they have to do to survive, you have to blame the government for setting up policies and laws that allow those market participants to do the things that you do not want them doing.

Outsourcing has nothing to do with tax rates and everything to do with bottom line.

And your point? Outsourcing and tax rates both impact the bottom line. Once you understand and accept this, then you can contribute to the conversation. If you cannot do both of those, then you contribution is worthless, maybe even harmful, like the POTUS.

Regards,

Mike

So we all must agree with Mike or we are worthless, such is the position of the fascist. Dissent is tantamount to treason.

Which hits the bottom line more Mike, wages or taxes? Raw material costs also hit the bottom line as do bonuses and CEO pensions, yet it is the low end wage jobs that seem to get moved off.

Roll around in the tax argument if you must, but I urge you to take off the blinders every time they have been given a break on taxes these companies have simply outsourced more.

So let's take your argument for a moment and eliminate their taxes, why should they move jobs back here? If you tax their profits why wouldn't they go someplace where that won't happen or keep the profits themselves off shore to keep their tax liability at 0?

So let's take your argument for a moment and eliminate their taxes, why should they move jobs back here? If you tax their profits why wouldn't they go someplace where that won't happen or keep the profits themselves off shore to keep their tax liability at 0?

Thank you for making my point. And if the profits are offshore, then they don't get spent here and don't stimulate the economy.

I'll walk you through this again. If you eliminate all corporate income taxes and tax profits either by "pass through" or dividends to individuals, then consumer prices will come down due to the downward pressure of competition, just like gasoline prices do...

Taxes the businesses aren't paying, can be used to expand the business or improve capital. Because tax code is simpler, there is less money spent on compliance and enforcement. That is money that also stays in the private sector. Money in the private sector generates demand and stimulates the economy. Nobody hoards money under the mattress anymore. It has to be put someplace. "someplace," means invested. Invested, means spent.

I never claimed that taxes are the only reason businesses go overseas. They go overseas because the combination of factors, taxes, wages, regulation all add up to a business climate that is perceived as unduly hostile. If you read my previous posts, all things being equal, businesses would much rather operate in the US, because we have something better than anyone else...the rule of law. Business are even willing to pay a wage, tax and regulatory "premium" to operate here. The problem is, for some businesses, the "premium" has gotten too high. Again, this is not an either-or construct. It's a sliding, relative scale judgement.

Hope I cleared that up.

Regards,

Mike

We just don't want them to be evil.

We want corporations to put the good of society on the same level as profit motive.

Is this too hard for you to understand?

Clarke,

That won't happen. Corporations only priority is profit...period. Once you understand and accept that, then you can contribute to a solution. If you fail to do so, then you become part of the problem.

good of society

clarke ong, that's the phrase that trips them up every time.

I understand it perfectly well Mike.

And its WRONG and needs to and WILL change.

Mike

The whole problem IS putting profits before EVERYTHING else.

How smart do you have to be to see that seriously?

It makes about as much sense as having all the nutrition from whatever you are eating just go to your foot.

"We want corporations to put the good of society on the same level as profit motive"

It is not the responsibility of the corporation to worry about the good of society that is the government's job. The job of a corporation is to ensure the welfare of the corporation and its' shareholders.

Thats a problem buckeye.

Plainly and conspicuously.

Its a flawed philosophy at the core.

Incidently, I take it you are for government involment in healthcare and social services then?

OOOOOPS!!!!!!! Maybe you need to rethink your paradigm

clark Good luck with your gimme gimme attitude. Thats whats @!$%#ed up about this country not how business operates.

Can anybody out there see that both parties are totally @!$%#ed up with self-interest and narcissistic greed. People are about the most vicious, selfish, lazy, and arrogant creatures on this earth.

Keep slinging the @!$%# and you’ll all surely come to agreement about something… about the smell, if nothing else.

clarke,

" I take it you are for government involment in healthcare and social services then?"

Yes I am for government involvement in healthcare since the job of government is to promote the general welfare. Because I'm for involvement doesn't mean I'm for government health care. I believe "social services" indicates a form of government involvement based solely on the name.

OOPS I guess I don't need to do as much rethinking as you thought huh?

clarke,

What happened to you? mom tell you it's time for bed?

Well Mike, the economic collapse we are in the middle of should clue you into the fact that the way business operates in this country is EXACTLY the problem.

We need to give 9 thousand dollar tax credits to companies hiring new employees. International trade related companies will hit home runs with these tax credits and create a huge trade surplus.

Yes I am sure about that. I'm also sure you know that the House is only one of 3parts that has to approve a law before it goes into effect.

Yep. We don't see the windfall from that.

If Obama gets elected again, they most likely will...followed by the rest of our remaining manufacturing capability.

Regards,

Mike

Mike 1499840 you must be about worn out. I read all of this and you are to be complimented for "swimming upstream" and keeping cool under fire.

Pragmatic thinking runs an obstacle course in the face of politically polarized positions. It is not that difficult to understand that the desire to be successful in business is to make as much money as possible. Those who work in these businesses also want to make as much as they possible can with no financial risk of ownership, with little to worry about except putting in their hours and going home.

The owner/worker relationship is easy to understand. One of the parties goes to work to and is paid for doing a given task. The other does the paying and has his or her eye on the relationship between liabilities and assets. Since payroll costs compromise the largest single financial outlay, an owner must restrain any negative effect of increases in this critical area.

High marks for your comments. Thanks.

Confer,

Thanx mucho. I try not to badmouth fellow viners...I don't always succeed...but I do try....I really don't like name calling. I really appreciate when someone can show me something that causes me to take a different position...or at least question some of my own data....like Sebby just did...it got me thinking...especially because differed from what I have been seeing "out in the field." That got me wondering why. It's all good.

Regards,

Mike

Workers are not a 'necessary evil' of business they are necessary for business to exist. There was also a time when the goal of business was not to make as much money as possible but to put out a quality product and building the market for its sale. The 'middle class' these days has an income of about $50k they tend to need to borrow to buy anything larger than a refrigerator. With the glut of available workers wages are expected to be stagnant or drop. If a good third of American workers cannot afford to buy products because they do not earn enough to do so, exactly how long will that business exist? Have you seen how many out of work real-estate agents and construction workers there are? The pursuit of profit does not guarantee the best results for a society and will likely lead to its downfall.

You cannot blame individual market participants for doing what they have to do to survive, you have to blame the government for setting up policies and laws that allow those market participants to do the things that you do not want them doing.

100% correct.

The Chinese have a 1.3 billion people market. The US has a 310 million people market. The Chinese have a big bargaining chip.

Trade in Goods with Mexico http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2010.html

I would expect that the ratio of poverty which governs purchasing ability on a personal scale will make a considerable difference here in that the US market and purchasing ability of citizens comparisons dwarfs China for the foreseeable future.

http://laowaiblog.com/banking-for-the-poor-2/

Poverty in China is often overshadowed by average annual GDP growth rates of 9% or more. According to the World Bank and UN statistics, approximately 200 million Chinese people live on less than US$1.25/day; Furthermore, 482 million people live on less than US$2/day – a figure that is greater than the populations of the US, Germany and the UK combined. Although many are quick to point out to the number of people lifted from poverty in China over the past few decades, poverty reduction is slowing down and a gap between the rich and the poor is opening up: The rural-urban divide in China is the new Great Wall and has the potential to risk the incredible progress that China has made in recent decades. The average income of one of the 750 million who lives in rural China is less than 1/3 of that of a person living in an urban area. This rural-urban divide manifests itself not only in wealth distribution and income but also in human development indicators, in education, in health, and in gender inequality.

Alex. CA said:

The Chinese have a 1.3 billion people market. The US has a 310 million people market. The Chinese have a big bargaining chip.

Free trade agreements will not open poorer countries to trade with us, since they can't afford our products. However, it will open them to "take" our manufacturing jobs, and export those products to us.

This is not my opinion, it is what happens. I would suggest that you do some research on the subject.

Is the US incapable of competing in the world export markets?? I see that other developed countries are selling billions of dollars worth of products to China.

The Europeans also have a big market bargaining chip. How many jobs would $30 billion worth of export sales generate??

China's economy is number two.

China Imports

China imports were worth 158.1 Billion USD in December of 2011. China imports mainly commodities: iron and steel, oil and mineral fuels as well as machinery and equipment, plastics, optical and medical equipment and organic chemicals. China’s main imports partners are: Japan, European Union, South Korea, Taiwan and ASEAN countries. This page includes: China Imports chart, historical data and news.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/imports

I am suspecting that you are trolling, since you continuously miss the mark in your responses to me.

It is not so much that the US is "incapable" of competing in the world market (it dominates in agriculture due to the major subsidies), but rather manufacturing (manufacturing is traditionally the core of the middle class, which unsurprisingly is disappearing) is significantly cheaper elsewhere. The US sheds manufacturing jobs and increases the trade deficit with each free trade agreement. Exporting raw materials is what third world countries do.

There is data, should you choose to view it, that shows the imbalance. In fact, you can view it by continuing to read my post:

In 2011, the US exported $94,172,000,000 ($94 trillion) worth of goods to China, and imported $366,493,300,000 ($366 trillion) worth of goods; a trade deficit of more than $272 trillion dollars last year [from the US Census Bureau]. By contrast, the trade deficit with China when George W Bush took office (2001) was more than $83 trillion dollars, and when Clinton first took office was more than $27 trillion dollars.

The US exports raw materials to China, and imports finished goods.

My edit ran out of time, but I was adding that at the start of Bush's second term the trade deficit $202 trillion dollars.

When Obama took office it was already at $226 trillion dollars.

Notice how large the trade deficit with China jumped during Bush's administration.

I agree with you, someone needs to work a lot harder on turning those trade deficits into trade surpluses, that was my point. That would generate a lot of new jobs.

I have the feeling that all the other developed countries that have been exporting to China have been exporting high technology finished goods.

Correction for all of my above figures: Change "trillion" to "billion" (keep in mind this is year after year after year -- just 3 years is a $800 billion deficit).

someone needs to work a lot harder on turning those trade deficits into trade surpluses, that was my point. That would generate a lot of new jobs.

Not going to happen until a few things change. First, China's currency needs to increase in value (their devalued currency makes their labor very cheap), and second, trade policy needs to be reevaluated. There are, of course, other issues but these two are key.

Of the top US trading partners in 2010 (latest data I have available), only the bottom 3 have (minor) trade surpluses. The rest are trade deficits, with the deficit with China alone accounting for more than the rest of the deficits combined. The 2010 deficit with China was $273 billion, and the total of all the other deficits in the top 10 was 199.8. It is not until one totals the deficits of the rest of the top 15 US trading partners does it equal the deficit with China.

I have the feeling that all the other developed countries that have been exporting to China have been exporting high technology finished goods.

Yes, chiefly machinery for factories which produce the vast majority of our consumer goods (high-tech goods like top of the line HD TVs and all).

Also keep in mind that in 2010 the US exported $249 billion worth of goods to Canada, and only $92 billion worth to China -- the US exports nearly twice as much goods to Mexico than to China!

And while electronic components as well as oilseeds and grain continue to rank among the top three categories of exported goods, the fastest growing and now No. 1 export category is--"Scrap and Trash."

According to data provided by the U.S. International Trade Commission, Chinese imports of U.S. cast-offs (scrap metal, waste paper, and the like) surged by an eye-popping 916 percent over the 2000-2008 period, with most of that expansion occurring after 2004.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/jodie-allen/2010/03/03/americas-biggest-trade-export-to-china-trash

If you want to know what's wrong with America and why record numbers of Americans are telling the pollsters that they're fed up, just take a look at how we trade with China. Our major import is nearly $50 billion of computer equipment while our major export is about $8 billion of waste paper and scrap metal. Yes, that's right. We're swapping garbage for computers with China -- and lots of other countries as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clyde-prestowitz/america-needs-a-new-globa_b_557131.html

Note: The US does not have a free trade agreement with China. The deficits would be larger with such an agreement.