Bush/Cheney Reign of Terror almost over!!

DOSW

4Powers20 wrote:

but in this instance we were talking about oil companies.

and if you are talking about taking business elsewhere, that is exactly what will happen when Obama's new anti rich tax plan go into effect.

Just like in the Clinton years? Oh wait.

Obama's plan will bring back Clinton's tax rates for the wealthy. They did just fine then, and nobody was whining about how Clinton is a socialist commie.

unsung

So if Obama takes office, will we be out of Iraq and will Halliburton cease to exist?

I'm guessing not. While I did not agree with going to Iraq in the first place, progress is being made and to pull the plug in one swoop will be disastrous. I think a measured draw down in is order and I would like to see our troops home in less than five years.

Regardless we will always have a presence there. Our largest embassy in the world is in Baghdad. We are still in Germany, we are still in Japan, we are going to be in Iraq probably longer than any of us will live.

If you really wanted all of the troops home you should have voted for Ron Paul.

Kann

DOSW wrote:

McCain touts that he's all for complete free trade, but then he tries to claim how he'll do everything he can to keep jobs here. The two aren't compatible.

I disagree. Complete free trade and keeping jobs in the US (or Europe for that matter) is very much possible :

Completely deregulate all markets
get rid of this useless notion of 'minimum wage'
stop forcing environmental requirements on corporations and businesses
get rid of some human rights laws (the no underage work and school for everyone part - a loss of time for kids who could be making shoes instead)

and you can bet that jobs will be quickly coming back in the US. Of course as populations have a tendency to grow, there will be more and more people on the market lowering slowly but steadily average wages and working conditions for the majority leaving simple life privileges for a small majority. (But that's just a theory of course since such working conditions have never been tried before).

4Powers20 wrote:

or we could stop giving money to Africa for aids relief and other causes like that and stop forgiving foreign debt. We should also make all fines (parking-jay walking and every other fine you could think of) a pecentage of the persons salary. So if you make 40,000 a year and you get a speeding ticket the fine is 50 bucks, if you make 200,000 it is 200 bucks...and so on.

Also if we legalize weed and tax that like we do cigarettes we could all have our free health care, but that will never happen.

1 - To stop giving money to Africa to cure a debt on a nation scale, would be like trying to cure a man dying of a gun shot with cough syrup. The FAO tried to raise 10 billion $ worldwide for food relief in 2006 or so and failed. 10 billion is what the US spends per month for the war effort (and I won't even talk about the bailout).

2 - Your fining system is a good idea but how do you enforce it? Don't you think following fines to see people pay the right amount would cost as much (or more) than what you would earn?

3 - I agree, let's legalize weed for many good reasons. But to fund health care is kind of illogical. Weed (like tobacco for some reason) can lead to pretty long and expensive diseases, so by legalizing and taxing it you'd actually start funding future health care expenses caused by the legalizing.

NeilJam

Kann wrote:

I disagree. Complete free trade and keeping jobs in the US (or Europe for that matter) is very much possible :

Completely deregulate all markets
get rid of this useless notion of 'minimum wage'
stop forcing environmental requirements on corporations and businesses
get rid of some human rights laws (the no underage work and school for everyone part - a loss of time for kids who could be making shoes instead)

and you can bet that jobs will be quickly coming back in the US. Of course as populations have a tendency to grow, there will be more and more people on the market lowering slowly but steadily average wages and working conditions for the majority leaving simple life privileges for a small majority. (But that's just a theory of course since such working conditions have never been tried before).

Get rid of minimum wage and human rights laws? Are you fucking serious?!? How is it useless to demand companies pay people at a rate that's hardly even an amount they could live on, let alone support a family? More jobs might come to the US then, but they'd be slave labor jobs that wouldn't pay shit.

I think those working conditions have been tried before. It's called China. Do you actually think people (or kids) working 80 hours a week for a few measly dollars would benefit society? We'd also have factories spewing pollution like they have in China. Did you not see or read anything about the horrendous air quality in Beijing during the Olympics?

Who would benefit from getting rid of these regulations beside big companies/corporations and the people that run them? It would be a major step back for this country to get rid of any of those laws & regulations you mentioned. If we let corporate America choose whether to do the right thing for their employees and the environment or whats best for their profits, the choice for them would be obvious: reduce their profits in any way possible. This has been proven by the way they operate already.

jeffbr

NeilJam wrote:

Get rid of minimum wage and human rights laws? Are you fucking serious?!? How is it useless to demand companies pay people at a rate that's hardly even an amount they could live on, let alone support a family? More jobs might come to the US then, but they'd be slave labor jobs that wouldn't pay shit.

I don't think Kann is arguing that it would be the right approach, merely making the point that free trade, free markets, and US jobs could all happen, but through various regulations, there are things that cause jobs to be priced out of the market and sourced somewhere else.

If you are comfortable with government demanding that companies pay employees certain rates, why not raise those rates until everyone is out of poverty? Shouldn't government demand that companies pay everyone $100,000/yr and be done with it? Why settle on $9/hr, when we could demand $50/hr?

ajedigecko

DischordVision wrote:

The time is near...bring on Obama, for the love of all that is good & just...vote!!...I beg + plead w/ any fans out there who are undecided..watch history being made before us all...

as an independent......there will be many mistakes made by the obama administration, just as there would be by any administration. i will be casting my vote for obama....but to think all will be "peachy" is not a good idea.
it will be fun to watch unfold.

Kann

jeffbr wrote:

I don't think Kann is arguing that it would be the right approach, merely making the point that free trade, free markets, and US jobs could all happen, but through various regulations, there are things that cause jobs to be priced out of the market and sourced somewhere else.

I was merely attempting sarcasm, it seems I have work to do. And NeilJam while China is a good example it's a little too easy, I was actually aiming for european middle ages (what with aristocracy and all)

If you are comfortable with government demanding that companies pay employees certain rates, why not raise those rates until everyone is out of poverty? Shouldn't government demand that companies pay everyone $100,000/yr and be done with it? Why settle on $9/hr, when we could demand $50/hr?

Why does it have to be either no minimum wage or unrealistic minimum wage?
Why can't the minimum wage be adapted to inflation? Measured by the average cost of life in a country/state? Imo minimum wage is a great step forward in human rights : the possibility to focus on something else than basic survival gives people the opportunity to have more choices and more freedom.

jeffbr

Kann wrote:

Why does it have to be either no minimum wage or unrealistic minimum wage?
Why can't the minimum wage be adapted to inflation? Measured by the average cost of life in a country/state? Imo minimum wage is a great step forward in human rights : the possibility to focus on something else than basic survival gives people the opportunity to have more choices and more freedom.

I'm not saying it does. I was simply trying, through exaggeration, to illustrate why jobs do disappear, or get sent overseas. Through union efforts, government regulation, etc... there are many cases where labor costs become too high and companies look elsewhere.

We do disagree about minimum wage, though. You seem to be happy to assign minimum wage as a human right for the laborer and talk about their increased freedom, while at the same time proposing government coercion against the business owner (who probably also deserves human rights) and decreasing their freedom. It is the inconsistency that bothers me.

NeilJam

Kann wrote:

I was merely attempting sarcasm, it seems I have work to do. And NeilJam while China is a good example it's a little too easy, I was actually aiming for european middle ages (what with aristocracy and all)

OK, sometimes sarcasm is hard to detect on message boards. Thanks for clearing that up. China was an easy example to use there, but it's also one many would understand.

NeilJam

jeffbr wrote:

I'm not saying it does. I was simply trying, through exaggeration, to illustrate why jobs do disappear, or get sent overseas. Through union efforts, government regulation, etc... there are many cases where labor costs become too high and companies look elsewhere.

We do disagree about minimum wage, though. You seem to be happy to assign minimum wage as a human right for the laborer and talk about their increased freedom, while at the same time proposing government coercion against the business owner (who probably also deserves human rights) and decreasing their freedom. It is the inconsistency that bothers me.

That's why companies that do send those jobs overseas need to be taxed in a way to discourage the practice. They should be able to realize that when they keep outsourcing all the jobs to other countries there are less people to buy the services or products they are trying to sell. But again, it's all about a shortsighted look at their own bottom line instead of thinking about the long term effects.

As I said previously, if you get rid of minimum wage (which does vary state by state in the US) employers would take immediate advantage of that and try to reduce pay for workers in low level jobs to a point that the employees wouldn't make much more than what they'd need to put gas in their car to get to work, if they could even afford that.

jeffbr

NeilJam wrote:

That's why companies that do send those jobs overseas need to be taxed in a way to discourage the practice. They should be able to realize that when they keep outsourcing all the jobs to other countries there are less people to buy the services or products they are trying to sell. But again, it's all about a shortsighted look at their own bottom line instead of thinking about the long term effects.

So you've never run a business, I take it? You would penalize businesses on one end by forcing them to pay people a wage potentially unrelated to the value of their labor, and then penalize a company on the other side if it tries to compensate for loss of margin and cost of goods. And it isn't shortsighted to look at one's bottom line. A business owner better be doing that every day. Every decision they make should be weighed against the bottom line. I can't believe that one would suggest that a buttom line is so inconsequential.

NeilJam wrote:

As I said previously, if you get rid of minimum wage (which does vary state by state in the US) employers would take immediate advantage of that and try to reduce pay for workers in low level jobs to a point that the employees wouldn't make much more than what they'd need to put gas in their car to get to work, if they could even afford that.

It depends on the business, and the value the employer sees in the labor being performed. My practices wouldn't change one bit since we pay a rate significantly above mininum wage. It is a rate that needs to be paid to attract high caliber people. If we paid mininum wage we'd end up with all sorts of unqualified people because the good people would look elsewhere where they were more valued.

brandon10

4Powers20 wrote:

are you serious or kidding? Because I think the are pretty good.

I was serious. I like the idea of fixing my own house before I fix others. We are one of the richest nations in the world, there is no reason for everyone not having adequate health care, or for the poverty levels we see. So lets stop giving our money away until we have things straightened out at home. Sorry Bono. But we should also stop spending our money militarily around the world where it's not needed. And I would guess that that amount is much higher than the aid we give away. And a lot of the aid we give away is because of what we do militarily. (see Iraq)

I also like your ideas about tickets and fines being based on income. I have some friends that drive like maniacs because they can afford tickets. A 150.00 dollar ticket means nothing to someone making 2 million a year. But I believe those would all be decided on a local level. Fines and tickets are not federally mandated.

The weed thing is a no brainer.