no, NEWS FLASH...being probusiness is being PRO PROFIT at the expense of and on the backs of said workers.
why is it called pro business and not pro worker when a corporation moves operations and maunfacturing overseas when it cuts american jobs?? they do that to avoid paying american workers what the workers command and for the tax breaks.
pro business? yes.
pro worker? fuck no.
does dr. greenspan have a response for this?
I assume that's meant me. No offense, but I didn't think a post like this needed a response. It seemed like something you'd hear on South Park.
But, I'll respond. Being pro-business is being pro-profit. I agree. There's absolutely nothing wrong with profits. I hope every company in America has record breaking profits for years to come, because if that happens, and the profits are stable for years to come, it means better jobs, better pay and better quality of life for us in the future.
Corporations move overseas for a variety of reasons. One reasons is corporate taxes. If you had to pay 35% corporate tax at place A and you could easily move to place B where you'd pay 15%, would you move? Yes. You would. Particularly, as the moving becomes easier and easier in this new global/paperless economy. You can just pick up and move. It's that simple.
Another reason business moves abroad is that foreigners may be able to do a similar quality job for less money. Our advantage in the U.S. is that our workers are more productive in most cases. We desire higher wages, but in most cases we're more productive. Nevertheless, our demand for higher wages in some cases is artificially high - sometimes due to unions, sometimes due to Americans thinking they are entitled.
For certain jobs, the productivity difference between a U.S. worker and a foreign worker is smaller, and therefore, wages (and capital investment costs) come into play. Once again, you can get upset... you can scream "their stealin' our jobs!",... you do whatever you want. That won't ever, ever stop this from happening. It will continue forever.
Bottom line: Being pro-business is being pro-jobs. You may not like where the jobs go in every case, but the only way jobs are created is through business. I'd like to hear how you think jobs are going to be created with this slogan: anti-business is pro-jobs.... You can't, because it's an oxymoron.
Never said I was entitled slick. Actually I am one that feels the same way about people and the me, me, me generation. But let's cut the shit. First thing that goes is hours. Always is always will be. So explain this one Corporate Carl. Why have so many companies (Walgreens, Goodyear, GameStop, Del Monte Foods, Apple, Anheuser Busch & every oil company just to name a few cause the list is much larger than this) have banner record breaking 1st quarters but job growth is down? Because they cut hours.
Corporate profits can dip awful fast, as we've seen during the recession. Yet, as you mention, they can also return to a heightened level. There's been a hell of a lot of volatility.
What you don't mention is stability. A company is not going to take on more workers in a climate where there is so much instability. The corporation, like the U.S. saver (personal savings rates have also broken records recently) will continue to hold cash until they feel safe, until they feel it's the right time to take on the investment because it will bring about a rate of return (yes, hiring someone can be considered an investment).
No one,... corporations, small business nor people in general want to make investments in an environment with so much doubt.
This quote is taken from an article written in November of 2010. I believe they have had a great 2011 as well.
"Since the end of 2008, when corporate America began enjoying the resumption of growth, profits have swelled from an annualized pace of $995 billion to the current $1.66 trillion as of the end of September. Over the same period, the number of non-farm jobs counted by the Labor Department has slipped from 13.4 million to 13 million."
That's a really, really ridiculous #.... why would you look at corporate profits at the worst of the recession and then compare it to now?
Regardless, it does nothing to recount my point. Business wants stability. They are acting no different than the typical U.S. citizen who is saving more now, investing less and not spending as much.
I find it strange that anyone could throw support around for two candidates as completely different as Paul and Bachmann.
I can't even imagine how destructive Michelle Bachmann's foreign policy would be as God tells her to destroy all the other religions around the world. :roll: Paul on the other hand has the foreign policy that I believe would ultimately save America.
They aren't that different at all, actually. Sure, there's a few differences. But, take a look at her stance on the issues. She's more in-line with Paul then the majority of Republican candidates.
She's certainly more in-line with Paul then our Keynesian President.
Actually they are vastly different. Michelle is a lunatic who believes that God told her to run for office. They may have a few of the same libertarian views, but they are certainly much different people.
Also I just wanted to point out that in your last sentence you used the word 'then" when it should have been "than". I just figured that since you have a Phd in economics you may want to use proper wording when trying to prove a point.
But the fact is, Bachmann would be as Keynesian as Obama or Bush was. They are all Keynesian. Bush was all for bailouts and stimulus. Bachmann had a hard on for Georgie. They are all part of the same package. Michelle may not spend on the same stimulus as Obama but the amount she would spend on defence would have a stimulating effect on the economy. It would just be far more destructive to the world.
no, NEWS FLASH...being probusiness is being PRO PROFIT at the expense of and on the backs of said workers.
why is it called pro business and not pro worker when a corporation moves operations and maunfacturing overseas when it cuts american jobs?? they do that to avoid paying american workers what the workers command and for the tax breaks.
pro business? yes.
pro worker? fuck no.
does dr. greenspan have a response for this?
I assume that's meant me. No offense, but I didn't think a post like this needed a response. It seemed like something you'd hear on South Park.
But, I'll respond. Being pro-business is being pro-profit. I agree. There's absolutely nothing wrong with profits. I hope every company in America has record breaking profits for years to come, because if that happens, and the profits are stable for years to come, it means better jobs, better pay and better quality of life for us in the future.
Corporations move overseas for a variety of reasons. One reasons is corporate taxes. If you had to pay 35% corporate tax at place A and you could easily move to place B where you'd pay 15%, would you move? Yes. You would. Particularly, as the moving becomes easier and easier in this new global/paperless economy. You can just pick up and move. It's that simple.
Another reason business moves abroad is that foreigners may be able to do a similar quality job for less money. Our advantage in the U.S. is that our workers are more productive in most cases. We desire higher wages, but in most cases we're more productive. Nevertheless, our demand for higher wages in some cases is artificially high - sometimes due to unions, sometimes due to Americans thinking they are entitled.
For certain jobs, the productivity difference between a U.S. worker and a foreign worker is smaller, and therefore, wages (and capital investment costs) come into play. Once again, you can get upset... you can scream "their stealin' our jobs!",... you do whatever you want. That won't ever, ever stop this from happening. It will continue forever.
Bottom line: Being pro-business is being pro-jobs. You may not like where the jobs go in every case, but the only way jobs are created is through business. I'd like to hear how you think jobs are going to be created with this slogan: anti-business is pro-jobs.... You can't, because it's an oxymoron.
The bolded is just plain wrong. CEOs are keeping their profits to themselves while exporting jobs and treating their employees that are still in the States to smaller and smaller pieces of the pie. That statement is pure ignorance, because bigger profits in NO WAY result in more jobs or better jobs. Better jobs / pay maybe for CEOs and COOs and CFOs, sure, but not the general consensus.
Business moves broad for one reason: Tax Breaks. Yep, it's not only cheaper, but every business getting out of the US earns tax breaks. They are deliberaltely causing economic collapse to the US because of nothing more than their own GREED. Not to mention that yeah, sweat shops are the norm over there, so why not join in on the exploitation and unethical treatment of foreign workers?
Continue forever? 'Fraid not. First you will witness the downfall of the US economy, and that just leads to world collapse. So there you go.
no, NEWS FLASH...being probusiness is being PRO PROFIT at the expense of and on the backs of said workers.
why is it called pro business and not pro worker when a corporation moves operations and maunfacturing overseas when it cuts american jobs?? they do that to avoid paying american workers what the workers command and for the tax breaks.
pro business? yes.
pro worker? fuck no.
does dr. greenspan have a response for this?
I assume that's meant me. No offense, but I didn't think a post like this needed a response. It seemed like something you'd hear on South Park.
But, I'll respond. Being pro-business is being pro-profit. I agree. There's absolutely nothing wrong with profits. I hope every company in America has record breaking profits for years to come, because if that happens, and the profits are stable for years to come, it means better jobs, better pay and better quality of life for us in the future.
Corporations move overseas for a variety of reasons. One reasons is corporate taxes. If you had to pay 35% corporate tax at place A and you could easily move to place B where you'd pay 15%, would you move? Yes. You would. Particularly, as the moving becomes easier and easier in this new global/paperless economy. You can just pick up and move. It's that simple.
Another reason business moves abroad is that foreigners may be able to do a similar quality job for less money. Our advantage in the U.S. is that our workers are more productive in most cases. We desire higher wages, but in most cases we're more productive. Nevertheless, our demand for higher wages in some cases is artificially high - sometimes due to unions, sometimes due to Americans thinking they are entitled.
For certain jobs, the productivity difference between a U.S. worker and a foreign worker is smaller, and therefore, wages (and capital investment costs) come into play. Once again, you can get upset... you can scream "their stealin' our jobs!",... you do whatever you want. That won't ever, ever stop this from happening. It will continue forever.
Bottom line: Being pro-business is being pro-jobs. You may not like where the jobs go in every case, but the only way jobs are created is through business. I'd like to hear how you think jobs are going to be created with this slogan: anti-business is pro-jobs.... You can't, because it's an oxymoron.
let's cut the crap please.
what you are describing is pro profit and nothing else. it is not pro worker and it is definitely not pro american worker. it is "let's make as much money as possible by moving offshore where we are taxed less and get to pay the workers peanuts so it is more money for us!!"
and no, i absolutely would not move jobs overseas. i believe in stimulating the american economy and keeping jobs in america. i do not have to be filthy fucking rich. i am fine with making enough money to get by and helping my employess make a decent life for themselves here in this country. the difference between the business model you describe and what i would do it that i have principles where money does not trump everything else.
if you think it is ok to move jobs overseas to pay cheap labor and evade and duck away from corporate taxes, and contribute to the bleeding of jobs here then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
In regards to the pro-business / pro-jobs discussion, I find it funny that the hotbed of liberalism (Hollywood) is moving a majority of their sets and filming to New Mexico, Vancouver, Toronto, New Zealand and other areas that are willing to welcome them and allow them to film cheaper. They can't do it in L.A. anymore because taxes, permits, etc are too expensive ... it's actually cheaper to pack all their crap up along with the actors and relocate them halfway around the world.
Now what would entice Hollywood to actually film in Hollywood? I'll leave that as a question to ponder.
The bolded is just plain wrong. CEOs are keeping their profits to themselves while exporting jobs and treating their employees that are still in the States to smaller and smaller pieces of the pie. That statement is pure ignorance, because bigger profits in NO WAY result in more jobs or better jobs. Better jobs / pay maybe for CEOs and COOs and CFOs, sure, but not the general consensus.
Business moves broad for one reason: Tax Breaks. Yep, it's not only cheaper, but every business getting out of the US earns tax breaks. They are deliberaltely causing economic collapse to the US because of nothing more than their own GREED. Not to mention that yeah, sweat shops are the norm over there, so why not join in on the exploitation and unethical treatment of foreign workers?
Continue forever? 'Fraid not. First you will witness the downfall of the US economy, and that just leads to world collapse. So there you go.
But, I'll respond. Being pro-business is being pro-profit. I agree. There's absolutely nothing wrong with profits. I hope every company in America has record breaking profits for years to come, because if that happens, and the profits are stable for years to come, it means better jobs, better pay and better quality of life for us in the future.
Corporations move overseas for a variety of reasons. One reasons is corporate taxes. If you had to pay 35% corporate tax at place A and you could easily move to place B where you'd pay 15%, would you move? Yes. You would. Particularly, as the moving becomes easier and easier in this new global/paperless economy. You can just pick up and move. It's that simple.
Another reason business moves abroad is that foreigners may be able to do a similar quality job for less money. Our advantage in the U.S. is that our workers are more productive in most cases. We desire higher wages, but in most cases we're more productive. Nevertheless, our demand for higher wages in some cases is artificially high - sometimes due to unions, sometimes due to Americans thinking they are entitled.
For certain jobs, the productivity difference between a U.S. worker and a foreign worker is smaller, and therefore, wages (and capital investment costs) come into play. Once again, you can get upset... you can scream "their stealin' our jobs!",... you do whatever you want. That won't ever, ever stop this from happening. It will continue forever.
Bottom line: Being pro-business is being pro-jobs. You may not like where the jobs go in every case, but the only way jobs are created is through business. I'd like to hear how you think jobs are going to be created with this slogan: anti-business is pro-jobs.... You can't, because it's an oxymoron.
let's cut the crap please.
what you are describing is pro profit and nothing else. it is not pro worker and it is definitely not pro american worker. it is "let's make as much money as possible by moving offshore where we are taxed less and get to pay the workers peanuts so it is more money for us!!"
and no, i absolutely would not move jobs overseas. i believe in stimulating the american economy and keeping jobs in america. i do not have to be filthy fucking rich. i am fine with making enough money to get by and helping my employess make a decent life for themselves here in this country. the difference between the business model you describe and what i would do it that i have principles where money does not trump everything else.
if you think it is ok to move jobs overseas to pay cheap labor and evade and duck away from corporate taxes, and contribute to the bleeding of jobs here then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Our problem is our corporate taxes are the highest in the world. That's dumb policy if you want to keep business here.
Anyways, you think you're entitled to things other people in other countries are not entitled to, don't you? You're no more entitled to the bread you buy with your pay check than an African boy who earns his piece of bread.
Believe it or not, on net, those people getting a former American job overseas tend to live in much, much worse conditions than the American who loses their job. They are poor. Yet, they aren't crying about wages. They want work and are happy to work for money.
Our governments job is to provide incentives for businesses to stay here, to employ workers here. Not to force them to. It's really sad that people can't get that.
Business is pro-jobs. You just don't always like where the jobs go. That's tough, but you're going to have to live with it.
And in the end, the one person who benefits, is that guy who goes into the shop and buys the product.... because guess what, it's probably cheaper.
And guess what, if we do a better job of enforcing the 35% rate, as 60 minutes mentions.... the companies will REALLY move overseas and we will get ZERO tax dollars. The 35% tax rate is a real, serious problem, as that video shows.
No, I get that... but.. even in that video... it's only the highest rate on paper. Kinda like how Donald Trump paid Ivana $1 to redecorate but count her as an employee (or something).
And guess what, if we do a better job of enforcing the 35% rate, as 60 minutes mentions.... the companies will REALLY move overseas and we will get ZERO tax dollars. The 35% tax rate is a real, serious problem, as that video shows.
Ah... the "we're going to fuck you over anyway, so just roll over and take it... there's a good slave..." explanation.
no, NEWS FLASH...being probusiness is being PRO PROFIT at the expense of and on the backs of said workers.
why is it called pro business and not pro worker when a corporation moves operations and maunfacturing overseas when it cuts american jobs?? they do that to avoid paying american workers what the workers command and for the tax breaks.
pro business? yes.
pro worker? fuck no.
does dr. greenspan have a response for this?
I assume that's meant me. No offense, but I didn't think a post like this needed a response. It seemed like something you'd hear on South Park.
But, I'll respond. Being pro-business is being pro-profit. I agree. There's absolutely nothing wrong with profits. I hope every company in America has record breaking profits for years to come, because if that happens, and the profits are stable for years to come, it means better jobs, better pay and better quality of life for us in the future.
Corporations move overseas for a variety of reasons. One reasons is corporate taxes. If you had to pay 35% corporate tax at place A and you could easily move to place B where you'd pay 15%, would you move? Yes. You would. Particularly, as the moving becomes easier and easier in this new global/paperless economy. You can just pick up and move. It's that simple.
Another reason business moves abroad is that foreigners may be able to do a similar quality job for less money. Our advantage in the U.S. is that our workers are more productive in most cases. We desire higher wages, but in most cases we're more productive. Nevertheless, our demand for higher wages in some cases is artificially high - sometimes due to unions, sometimes due to Americans thinking they are entitled.
For certain jobs, the productivity difference between a U.S. worker and a foreign worker is smaller, and therefore, wages (and capital investment costs) come into play. Once again, you can get upset... you can scream "their stealin' our jobs!",... you do whatever you want. That won't ever, ever stop this from happening. It will continue forever.
Bottom line: Being pro-business is being pro-jobs. You may not like where the jobs go in every case, but the only way jobs are created is through business. I'd like to hear how you think jobs are going to be created with this slogan: anti-business is pro-jobs.... You can't, because it's an oxymoron.
Unless these record breaking profits are because of reduced costs, of course, such as reducing compensation, benefits, etc.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
Personally, I think that a born again fruitcake with absurd views on pretty much everything, is much worse than Obama.
Yeah, I agree. Things are so much better under Obama. Our dollar can soon be used to line bird cages, millions of people have no jobs, the housing market is the worst it's been since the Great Depression, we illegally intervened in Libya (media outrage?), gas prices and food prices are sky high, the Middle East is going to fall into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood....
I love this great progressive leadership. Four more years!
I don't know too much about Bachman, except that liberals really hate her. The fact that she has won six congressional races in a state known to lean left speaks for something on her ability to get votes.
Um... She's won twice. Not six times.
And at what point did Minnesota lean left?
When they voted in Al Franken...if he won legally, that is.
Yeah, I agree. Things are so much better under Obama. Our dollar can soon be used to line bird cages, millions of people have no jobs, the housing market is the worst it's been since the Great Depression, we illegally intervened in Libya (media outrage?), gas prices and food prices are sky high, the Middle East is going to fall into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood....
I love this great progressive leadership. Four more years!
The economy went to shit under Bush, not Obama.
As for the Middle East falling into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood, can you please elaborate?
[.[/quote]
This quote is taken from an article written in November of 2010. I believe they have had a great 2011 as well.
"Since the end of 2008, when corporate America began enjoying the resumption of growth, profits have swelled from an annualized pace of $995 billion to the current $1.66 trillion as of the end of September. Over the same period, the number of non-farm jobs counted by the Labor Department has slipped from 13.4 million to 13 million."
I guess it depends on your definition of stable.[/quote]
That's a really, really ridiculous #.... why would you look at corporate profits at the worst of the recession and then compare it to now?
Regardless, it does nothing to recount my point. Business wants stability. They are acting no different than the typical U.S. citizen who is saving more now, investing less and not spending as much.[/quote]
Why? I work for a corporation and year over year growth is what you look at. They have been growing since 2008!!!Dude, your blind. Numbers are numbers. The corporations have been growing while the middle class is shrinking and the rich is growing. I
Yeah, I agree. Things are so much better under Obama. Our dollar can soon be used to line bird cages, millions of people have no jobs, the housing market is the worst it's been since the Great Depression, we illegally intervened in Libya (media outrage?), gas prices and food prices are sky high, the Middle East is going to fall into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood....
I love this great progressive leadership. Four more years!
The economy went to shit under Bush, not Obama.
As for the Middle East falling into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood, can you please elaborate?
I'd say if the economy went to shit under Bush, it got shittier under Obama.
Just looking at jobs...
The average unemployment rate under Bush was 5.1%, under Obama it's 9.4%. The unemployment rate was 6.8% when Obama was elected, when he was inaugurated it did rise to 7.8%. Obama campaigned two months prior to his inauguration saying it would never rise above 8.5%. Within two months of his Presidency, it was above 8.5% and has remained there his entire Presidency.
The average unemployment rate under Bush was 5.1%, under Obama it's 9.4%..
to be fair, it was pretty low when Bush took office and the changes made by his administration will be kicking us in the face for decades.
It's kinda like ramming an iceberg and then blaming the guy you give the keys to afterward.
The President said it would not go above 8.5% during his campaign for President, which took place two months before he took office. He had a plan to tame it.
Four months later it was above 8.5% and has remained there, and in my opinion, may remain above that threshold until the 2012 election (that will be 4 years).
These are his words. This is his economy. And this economy is horrid. The Bush blaming doesn't work anymore. He has a much, much worse economic record than Bush and history texts will reflect that.
The average unemployment rate under Bush was 5.1%, under Obama it's 9.4%..
to be fair, it was pretty low when Bush took office and the changes made by his administration will be kicking us in the face for decades.
It's kinda like ramming an iceberg and then blaming the guy you give the keys to afterward.
The President said it would not go above 8.5% during his campaign for President, which took place two months before he took office. He had a plan to tame it.
Four months later it was above 8.5% and has remained there, and in my opinion, may remain above that threshold until the 2012 election (that will be 4 years).
These are his words. This is his economy. And this economy is horrid. The Bush blaming doesn't work anymore. He has a much, much worse economic record than Bush and history texts will reflect that.
ok, 8 years of bush fucking it up and pissing away a surplus and hemmoraging jobs, and 2 years of obama trying to fix it. somethng doesn't add up....
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
ok, 8 years of bush fucking it up and pissing away a surplus and hemmoraging jobs, and 2 years of obama trying to fix it. somethng doesn't add up....
Would really help to read a bit before you state nonsense.
I think by hemorrhaging jobs, you mean Bush lost jobs. Which is not true. Bush gained jobs during his Presidency, particularly in his second term. The same can't be said about Obama. He's lost over 3 million jobs during his Presidency.
The average unemployment rate under Bush was 5.1%, under Obama it's 9.4%..
to be fair, it was pretty low when Bush took office and the changes made by his administration will be kicking us in the face for decades.
It's kinda like ramming an iceberg and then blaming the guy you give the keys to afterward.
The President said it would not go above 8.5% during his campaign for President, which took place two months before he took office. He had a plan to tame it.
Four months later it was above 8.5% and has remained there, and in my opinion, may remain above that threshold until the 2012 election (that will be 4 years).
These are his words. This is his economy. And this economy is horrid. The Bush blaming doesn't work anymore. He has a much, much worse economic record than Bush and history texts will reflect that.
A nice chart from last year, which does absolutely nothing to recount what I said. The unemployment rate has risen from less than 7%, to 10%, then slid back to 9% during Obama's Presidency.
Bush gained jobs during his Presidency. Obama has LOST OVER 3 MILLION JOBS since his Presidency began.
Do you ever disagree with the President on any economic issue? Do you really think he's done a GOOD job? Seriously? I mean, at least I can say Bush wasn't a good President in regards to the economy. I don't drink a party's Kool-Aid. My caveat is only that Bush was better than Obama in regards to the economy. And yes, Clinton was better than Bush. Economic statistics prove this.
Even measures you may care more about like the gap between the rich and the poor, or poverty levels have worsened under Obama. You can't say it's Bush's fault anymore. This guy in office is a enormous failure, probably even worse than Carter.
This isn't a game of defending your sports team, or your favorite grape soda brand... I'm trying to be objective and you are simply siding with your leader like a sheep.
ok, 8 years of bush fucking it up and pissing away a surplus and hemmoraging jobs, and 2 years of obama trying to fix it. somethng doesn't add up....
What has he done again to fix it? Where again did the stimulus money go?
it saved the economy from total collapse, but yeah it did nothing :roll: i am not repeating myself in yet another thread about the benefits/detriments of the stimulus....look it up yourself.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
A nice chart from last year, which does absolutely nothing to recount what I said. The unemployment rate has risen from less than 7%, to 10%, then slid back to 9% during Obama's Presidency.
Bush gained jobs during his Presidency. Obama has LOST OVER 3 MILLION JOBS since his Presidency began.
Do you ever disagree with the President on any economic issue? Do you really think he's done a GOOD job? Seriously? I mean, at least I can say Bush wasn't a good President in regards to the economy. I don't drink a party's Kool-Aid. My caveat is only that Bush was better than Obama in regards to the economy. And yes, Clinton was better than Bush. Economic statistics prove this.
Even measures you may care more about like the gap between the rich and the poor, or poverty levels have worsened under Obama. You can't say it's Bush's fault anymore. This guy in office is a enormous failure, probably even worse than Carter.
This isn't a game of defending your sports team, or your favorite grape soda brand... I'm trying to be objective and you are simply siding with your leader like a sheep.
You may be "trying" to be objective, but you're not doing a good job at it. Your disdain for Obama is clouding your judgement, and I'm saying this because you have a background in economics. With this background I'm assuming you're aware that there are many variables at play with regard to the economy; things occur from decisions made by politicians in the past, market forces past and present, global economics, things the prez has no control over, etc. You're putting the entire crappy economy on Obama''s shoulders. As much as I'd like to blame the current recession on Bush Jr. 100%, I know that wouldn't be valid because of these other factors at play. I also know that I can't say Bush's policies aren't still effecting the economy. The economy doesn't get reset every presidential election.
When you say economic statistics "prove" anything, you're again not being objective. There can be a correlation that suggests cause and effect, but at that point people start to apply theory, and theory is always debatable.
Check out the fucked-up make-up job. Looks like she applied it with a paintbrush.
I can't get over how fucked up this woman is. She keeps repeating in her speech that "the american people want her to support Israel". It's like if she says that enough then she will actually believe it to be true.
A nice chart from last year, which does absolutely nothing to recount what I said. The unemployment rate has risen from less than 7%, to 10%, then slid back to 9% during Obama's Presidency.
Bush gained jobs during his Presidency. Obama has LOST OVER 3 MILLION JOBS since his Presidency began.
Do you ever disagree with the President on any economic issue? Do you really think he's done a GOOD job? Seriously? I mean, at least I can say Bush wasn't a good President in regards to the economy. I don't drink a party's Kool-Aid. My caveat is only that Bush was better than Obama in regards to the economy. And yes, Clinton was better than Bush. Economic statistics prove this.
Even measures you may care more about like the gap between the rich and the poor, or poverty levels have worsened under Obama. You can't say it's Bush's fault anymore. This guy in office is a enormous failure, probably even worse than Carter.
This isn't a game of defending your sports team, or your favorite grape soda brand... I'm trying to be objective and you are simply siding with your leader like a sheep.
You may be "trying" to be objective, but you're not doing a good job at it. Your disdain for Obama is clouding your judgement, and I'm saying this because you have a background in economics. With this background I'm assuming you're aware that there are many variables at play with regard to the economy; things occur from decisions made by politicians in the past, market forces past and present, global economics, things the prez has no control over, etc. You're putting the entire crappy economy on Obama''s shoulders. As much as I'd like to blame the current recession on Bush Jr. 100%, I know that wouldn't be valid because of these other factors at play. I also know that I can't say Bush's policies aren't still effecting the economy. The economy doesn't get reset every presidential election.
When you say economic statistics "prove" anything, you're again not being objective. There can be a correlation that suggests cause and effect, but at that point people start to apply theory, and theory is always debatable.
I actually somewhat agree to this: I don't necessarily think a President is to solely to blame for an economy's performance. The Fed, for instance, is also to blame, which gets at why Keynesian economics (practiced now by the FED and our administration) is so bad. But, the reality is Presidents do get blamed. It's a harsh reality, but it's real. Bush got blamed, as will Obama.
What I don't agree with is that you can not gauge an economy under one President and compare it to another. The economy right now is miserable, and yes, I can say that the economy is worse now than it was at anytime under George Bush. And the term recession doesn't really show how bad it is. If you use the textbook definition of recession to look at our economy, we're no longer in recession. Yet, we still haven't gained back what we've lost since Obama took office. Not in jobs, not in housing, production and not even in the stock market. We haven't even gotten back to where we were during the Bush Presidency. That's just facts. Hard to live with if Obama's your boy, but unfortunately for your side, it's a real data.
Comments
I assume that's meant me. No offense, but I didn't think a post like this needed a response. It seemed like something you'd hear on South Park.
But, I'll respond. Being pro-business is being pro-profit. I agree. There's absolutely nothing wrong with profits. I hope every company in America has record breaking profits for years to come, because if that happens, and the profits are stable for years to come, it means better jobs, better pay and better quality of life for us in the future.
Corporations move overseas for a variety of reasons. One reasons is corporate taxes. If you had to pay 35% corporate tax at place A and you could easily move to place B where you'd pay 15%, would you move? Yes. You would. Particularly, as the moving becomes easier and easier in this new global/paperless economy. You can just pick up and move. It's that simple.
Another reason business moves abroad is that foreigners may be able to do a similar quality job for less money. Our advantage in the U.S. is that our workers are more productive in most cases. We desire higher wages, but in most cases we're more productive. Nevertheless, our demand for higher wages in some cases is artificially high - sometimes due to unions, sometimes due to Americans thinking they are entitled.
For certain jobs, the productivity difference between a U.S. worker and a foreign worker is smaller, and therefore, wages (and capital investment costs) come into play. Once again, you can get upset... you can scream "their stealin' our jobs!",... you do whatever you want. That won't ever, ever stop this from happening. It will continue forever.
Bottom line: Being pro-business is being pro-jobs. You may not like where the jobs go in every case, but the only way jobs are created is through business. I'd like to hear how you think jobs are going to be created with this slogan: anti-business is pro-jobs.... You can't, because it's an oxymoron.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
That's a really, really ridiculous #.... why would you look at corporate profits at the worst of the recession and then compare it to now?
Regardless, it does nothing to recount my point. Business wants stability. They are acting no different than the typical U.S. citizen who is saving more now, investing less and not spending as much.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Actually they are vastly different. Michelle is a lunatic who believes that God told her to run for office. They may have a few of the same libertarian views, but they are certainly much different people.
Also I just wanted to point out that in your last sentence you used the word 'then" when it should have been "than". I just figured that since you have a Phd in economics you may want to use proper wording when trying to prove a point.
But the fact is, Bachmann would be as Keynesian as Obama or Bush was. They are all Keynesian. Bush was all for bailouts and stimulus. Bachmann had a hard on for Georgie. They are all part of the same package. Michelle may not spend on the same stimulus as Obama but the amount she would spend on defence would have a stimulating effect on the economy. It would just be far more destructive to the world.
The bolded is just plain wrong. CEOs are keeping their profits to themselves while exporting jobs and treating their employees that are still in the States to smaller and smaller pieces of the pie. That statement is pure ignorance, because bigger profits in NO WAY result in more jobs or better jobs. Better jobs / pay maybe for CEOs and COOs and CFOs, sure, but not the general consensus.
Business moves broad for one reason: Tax Breaks. Yep, it's not only cheaper, but every business getting out of the US earns tax breaks. They are deliberaltely causing economic collapse to the US because of nothing more than their own GREED. Not to mention that yeah, sweat shops are the norm over there, so why not join in on the exploitation and unethical treatment of foreign workers?
Continue forever? 'Fraid not. First you will witness the downfall of the US economy, and that just leads to world collapse. So there you go.
what you are describing is pro profit and nothing else. it is not pro worker and it is definitely not pro american worker. it is "let's make as much money as possible by moving offshore where we are taxed less and get to pay the workers peanuts so it is more money for us!!"
and no, i absolutely would not move jobs overseas. i believe in stimulating the american economy and keeping jobs in america. i do not have to be filthy fucking rich. i am fine with making enough money to get by and helping my employess make a decent life for themselves here in this country. the difference between the business model you describe and what i would do it that i have principles where money does not trump everything else.
if you think it is ok to move jobs overseas to pay cheap labor and evade and duck away from corporate taxes, and contribute to the bleeding of jobs here then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Now what would entice Hollywood to actually film in Hollywood? I'll leave that as a question to ponder.
This is silly.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Our problem is our corporate taxes are the highest in the world. That's dumb policy if you want to keep business here.
Anyways, you think you're entitled to things other people in other countries are not entitled to, don't you? You're no more entitled to the bread you buy with your pay check than an African boy who earns his piece of bread.
Believe it or not, on net, those people getting a former American job overseas tend to live in much, much worse conditions than the American who loses their job. They are poor. Yet, they aren't crying about wages. They want work and are happy to work for money.
Our governments job is to provide incentives for businesses to stay here, to employ workers here. Not to force them to. It's really sad that people can't get that.
Business is pro-jobs. You just don't always like where the jobs go. That's tough, but you're going to have to live with it.
And in the end, the one person who benefits, is that guy who goes into the shop and buys the product.... because guess what, it's probably cheaper.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Michele Bachmann: :thumbup:
Not sure that's actually... "factual."
http://www.businessinsider.com/16-more- ... xes-2011-3
Maybe you can explain to us how the country with the highest corporate taxes have so many corporations that barely pay them at all or pay zero?
It is factual. It's said even in the article you just quoted. haha...
Anyway, here's how "a few" company's get away with paying less:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7360932n
And guess what, if we do a better job of enforcing the 35% rate, as 60 minutes mentions.... the companies will REALLY move overseas and we will get ZERO tax dollars. The 35% tax rate is a real, serious problem, as that video shows.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0nN_hAiWY
Check out the fucked-up make-up job. Looks like she applied it with a paintbrush.
No, I get that... but.. even in that video... it's only the highest rate on paper. Kinda like how Donald Trump paid Ivana $1 to redecorate but count her as an employee (or something).
Ah... the "we're going to fuck you over anyway, so just roll over and take it... there's a good slave..." explanation.
Unless these record breaking profits are because of reduced costs, of course, such as reducing compensation, benefits, etc.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
Yeah, I agree. Things are so much better under Obama. Our dollar can soon be used to line bird cages, millions of people have no jobs, the housing market is the worst it's been since the Great Depression, we illegally intervened in Libya (media outrage?), gas prices and food prices are sky high, the Middle East is going to fall into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood....
I love this great progressive leadership. Four more years!
When they voted in Al Franken...if he won legally, that is.
The economy went to shit under Bush, not Obama.
As for the Middle East falling into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood, can you please elaborate?
This quote is taken from an article written in November of 2010. I believe they have had a great 2011 as well.
"Since the end of 2008, when corporate America began enjoying the resumption of growth, profits have swelled from an annualized pace of $995 billion to the current $1.66 trillion as of the end of September. Over the same period, the number of non-farm jobs counted by the Labor Department has slipped from 13.4 million to 13 million."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/2 ... 87573.html
I guess it depends on your definition of stable.[/quote]
That's a really, really ridiculous #.... why would you look at corporate profits at the worst of the recession and then compare it to now?
Regardless, it does nothing to recount my point. Business wants stability. They are acting no different than the typical U.S. citizen who is saving more now, investing less and not spending as much.[/quote]
Why? I work for a corporation and year over year growth is what you look at. They have been growing since 2008!!!Dude, your blind. Numbers are numbers. The corporations have been growing while the middle class is shrinking and the rich is growing. I
I'd say if the economy went to shit under Bush, it got shittier under Obama.
Just looking at jobs...
The average unemployment rate under Bush was 5.1%, under Obama it's 9.4%. The unemployment rate was 6.8% when Obama was elected, when he was inaugurated it did rise to 7.8%. Obama campaigned two months prior to his inauguration saying it would never rise above 8.5%. Within two months of his Presidency, it was above 8.5% and has remained there his entire Presidency.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
to be fair, it was pretty low when Bush took office and the changes made by his administration will be kicking us in the face for decades.
It's kinda like ramming an iceberg and then blaming the guy you give the keys to afterward.
The President said it would not go above 8.5% during his campaign for President, which took place two months before he took office. He had a plan to tame it.
Four months later it was above 8.5% and has remained there, and in my opinion, may remain above that threshold until the 2012 election (that will be 4 years).
These are his words. This is his economy. And this economy is horrid. The Bush blaming doesn't work anymore. He has a much, much worse economic record than Bush and history texts will reflect that.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Would really help to read a bit before you state nonsense.
I think by hemorrhaging jobs, you mean Bush lost jobs. Which is not true. Bush gained jobs during his Presidency, particularly in his second term. The same can't be said about Obama. He's lost over 3 million jobs during his Presidency.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
A nice chart from last year, which does absolutely nothing to recount what I said. The unemployment rate has risen from less than 7%, to 10%, then slid back to 9% during Obama's Presidency.
Bush gained jobs during his Presidency. Obama has LOST OVER 3 MILLION JOBS since his Presidency began.
Do you ever disagree with the President on any economic issue? Do you really think he's done a GOOD job? Seriously? I mean, at least I can say Bush wasn't a good President in regards to the economy. I don't drink a party's Kool-Aid. My caveat is only that Bush was better than Obama in regards to the economy. And yes, Clinton was better than Bush. Economic statistics prove this.
Even measures you may care more about like the gap between the rich and the poor, or poverty levels have worsened under Obama. You can't say it's Bush's fault anymore. This guy in office is a enormous failure, probably even worse than Carter.
This isn't a game of defending your sports team, or your favorite grape soda brand... I'm trying to be objective and you are simply siding with your leader like a sheep.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
What has he done again to fix it? Where again did the stimulus money go?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
You may be "trying" to be objective, but you're not doing a good job at it. Your disdain for Obama is clouding your judgement, and I'm saying this because you have a background in economics. With this background I'm assuming you're aware that there are many variables at play with regard to the economy; things occur from decisions made by politicians in the past, market forces past and present, global economics, things the prez has no control over, etc. You're putting the entire crappy economy on Obama''s shoulders. As much as I'd like to blame the current recession on Bush Jr. 100%, I know that wouldn't be valid because of these other factors at play. I also know that I can't say Bush's policies aren't still effecting the economy. The economy doesn't get reset every presidential election.
When you say economic statistics "prove" anything, you're again not being objective. There can be a correlation that suggests cause and effect, but at that point people start to apply theory, and theory is always debatable.
I can't get over how fucked up this woman is. She keeps repeating in her speech that "the american people want her to support Israel". It's like if she says that enough then she will actually believe it to be true.
I actually somewhat agree to this: I don't necessarily think a President is to solely to blame for an economy's performance. The Fed, for instance, is also to blame, which gets at why Keynesian economics (practiced now by the FED and our administration) is so bad. But, the reality is Presidents do get blamed. It's a harsh reality, but it's real. Bush got blamed, as will Obama.
What I don't agree with is that you can not gauge an economy under one President and compare it to another. The economy right now is miserable, and yes, I can say that the economy is worse now than it was at anytime under George Bush. And the term recession doesn't really show how bad it is. If you use the textbook definition of recession to look at our economy, we're no longer in recession. Yet, we still haven't gained back what we've lost since Obama took office. Not in jobs, not in housing, production and not even in the stock market. We haven't even gotten back to where we were during the Bush Presidency. That's just facts. Hard to live with if Obama's your boy, but unfortunately for your side, it's a real data.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="