Michele Bachmann

inlet13 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

libertarian does mean that, and no he isn't against personal freedoms, he just defines the aborted fetus as a person. so if you think it is a human being, it wouldn't be very libertarian of you to allow it to be killed with no legal repercussion. I disagree with him here, but there are so many more important things that I agree with for this to be a big concern.

I also like Ron Paul a lot. I think he's a great candidate. He understands the economy, from what I've seen, better than any other candidate. My only concern is that he can't win the Republican primary. I do think he could beat Obama.

We'll see. I have a lot of respect for him.

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.

shadowcast wrote:

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.

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

libertarian does mean that, and no he isn't against personal freedoms, he just defines the aborted fetus as a person. so if you think it is a human being, it wouldn't be very libertarian of you to allow it to be killed with no legal repercussion. I disagree with him here, but there are so many more important things that I agree with for this to be a big concern.

I also like Ron Paul a lot. I think he's a great candidate. He understands the economy, from what I've seen, better than any other candidate. My only concern is that he can't win the Republican primary. I do think he could beat Obama.

We'll see. I have a lot of respect for him.

There's not a chance that Paul could beat Obama. It does alleviate intellectual stress when someone believes the overly simplistic "government bad, free market good" world-view that Paul pushes. By and large, Americans want government to be at a higher level then what Paul proposes. Many Ron Paul supporters have this cult-like response to him and overestimate his popularity and appeal. I guess it does make life easier when you can blame the government for just about everything.

why do people who support someone other than your guy have to be dimwits? why are they simply looking to alleviate the stress of thinking too hard?
seriously, I would love for Paul to be on a debate stage with Obama. Not because he would wipe the floor with him or anything dumb like that, but more because they differ so much in economic philosophy it would actually be interesting to listen to...I have no grand illusion that Paul will ever be able to win a general election, but the more he is allowed to participate in the actual campaign the more people will start to realize that his ideas aren't crack pot or fringe as he is portrayed...or we can continue doing things exactly the same way with people like Obama or Romney or whoever else the establishment loves and change nothing.
I suggest reading a little more about Paul if you think it is simply a "government bad, free market good" world view. That is like suggesting that Obama has a "government great, people too stupid" world view...obviously that isn't true either.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

she, like anyone else against the minimum wage, is pro-business and anti-worker. just like the governors of wisconsin, ohio, florida, indiana, and many other states. this alone makes her unelectable.

News flash: Being pro-business is being pro-worker.

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?

inlet13 wrote:

shadowcast wrote:

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."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/2 ... 87573.html

I guess it depends on your definition of stable.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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.

inlet13 wrote:

brandon10 wrote:

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.

inlet13 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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.

Jeanwah wrote:

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.

This is silly.