If corporate taxes are at their lowest rate, and productivity and profits are at...

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi is a joke, so I will treat him as such.

So you are "disagreeing" with "facts"? Hmm.

You are really overreaching with this cap and trade thing. The threat of legislation? Come on. That is ridiculous. What imminent threat are corporations facing exactly?

And show me proof that ObamaCare has caused significant uncertainty.

You can't just state that your opinion is "fact", Billy and expect that to be the end of the discussion. Sorry but that's not the way it works here. I disagree with you on what is a fact and what isn't. I've asked you to explain what YOU think has prompted the lack of hiring and instead of doing so you make a vague statement that I've overreached on "this cap and trade thing". In what way have I overreached? Would Cap & Trade legislation NOT have added billions to the energy costs of companies across the US? Would that NOT have affected the bottom line of all those companies? Do you really not understand that something as crucial as the cost of energy could determine whether a company decides to build a plant here as opposed to some other country that won't have those high energy costs?

But it isn't my opinion. It is based upon data, which is the closest to facts. Your opinion is null if you cannot support it with data of your own.

What do I think is keeping corporations from hiring? I think it's because it is cheaper to create jobs overseas.

I will concede on the cap and trade discussion if you can show me proof that it is currently imminent legislation.

Do you have proof that it is cheaper to create jobs overseas?
If that was the case, why was the UE rate through most of Bush's term at or below 5%? Did companies discover off shoring in the last year of Bush's administration?

Do you ever think about this before you write it or is it just automatic with you?

 

[Billy000]

You can't just state that your opinion is "fact", Billy and expect that to be the end of the discussion. Sorry but that's not the way it works here. I disagree with you on what is a fact and what isn't. I've asked you to explain what YOU think has prompted the lack of hiring and instead of doing so you make a vague statement that I've overreached on "this cap and trade thing". In what way have I overreached? Would Cap & Trade legislation NOT have added billions to the energy costs of companies across the US? Would that NOT have affected the bottom line of all those companies? Do you really not understand that something as crucial as the cost of energy could determine whether a company decides to build a plant here as opposed to some other country that won't have those high energy costs?

But it isn't my opinion. It is based upon data, which is the closest to facts. Your opinion is null if you cannot support it with data of your own.

What do I think is keeping corporations from hiring? I think it's because it is cheaper to create jobs overseas.

I will concede on the cap and trade discussion if you can show me proof that it is currently imminent legislation.

Do you have proof that it is cheaper to create jobs overseas?
If that was the case, why was the UE rate through most of Bush's term at or below 5%? Did companies discover off shoring in the last year of Bush's administration?

Do you ever think about this before you write it or is it just automatic with you?

It's cheaper because they do not have the same taxes they pay to do it here.

 

[The Rabbi]

But it isn't my opinion. It is based upon data, which is the closest to facts. Your opinion is null if you cannot support it with data of your own.

What do I think is keeping corporations from hiring? I think it's because it is cheaper to create jobs overseas.

I will concede on the cap and trade discussion if you can show me proof that it is currently imminent legislation.

Do you have proof that it is cheaper to create jobs overseas?
If that was the case, why was the UE rate through most of Bush's term at or below 5%? Did companies discover off shoring in the last year of Bush's administration?

Do you ever think about this before you write it or is it just automatic with you?

It's cheaper because they do not have the same taxes they pay to do it here.

You're kidding, right? That's your answer?
WHat percentage of a product's cost is due to local taxes?

 

[Flopper]

I think too many people here trust their political party too much, especially the Right, who buys into the bumper sticker logic that lower taxes and fewer regulations will increase solid jobs, with livable wages.

The good jobs that this country saw during the postwar years were a historical anomaly based on the destruction which befell our competitors during WWII.

Globalization and automatization have displaced the old American Middle Class, which class, because of Unions and the New Deal, was the highest paid in history. In fact, American Labor was so well compensated that the father could support the entire family on just his wage. The wage structure of the postwar American middle class was destroyed so big business could make higher profits through cheap 3rd world labor. Any jobs which return to the USA will NOT be the old livable middle class wage - they will be 3rd world wages.

People keep saying "where are the jobs" as if they think we can go back to the wage structure of the 1950's when most Americans made enough money to thrive and send their children to school. That wage structure was based on a historical anomaly: 1) our competitors were destroyed by the war so we were manufacturer to the world, and 2) government tax policy made sure that hard working Americans participated fully in economic growth, that is, the Government didn't allow a small group of wealthy individuals and corporations pocket all the gains of economic growth - money was funneled down to things like education, health care, and affordable cost of living for the masses. This is why America had the most well educated citizenry in the 50s; this is before the wealthy, using the Republican party, convinced America that educating our children was socialism.

The kind of solid jobs that support a vibrant middle class are not coming back. As long as our global competitors will work for pennies, there is no incentive to bring back livable wages to America. We can only bring back jobs for labor markets willing to work for dog food.

Obama can't bring good jobs back. Nor can Romney.

The only people who believe that the jobs will come back are those who listen to Talk Radio. They're called Republicans and they believe that their guy can bring back the glory days. Those people are casualties of government propaganda. They believe too deeply in the power of Washington.

The game is over. Americans will have to learn to live with less - a lot less.

(Attention morons: for the last 30 years jobs have come from credit cards. We replaced our manufacturing plants with shopping malls, then we handed out Master Cards and Visas so people could go on a 30 year debt orgy. When our credit cards got too full, we actually turned our homes into ATMs. Morning in America was actually a slight of hand. It created economic growth purely from credit based consumption)

While I don't disagree with your premise that the time of one blue collar worker making enough to support an entire family on just one wage is long gone and hard to find I wonder what your solution to the problem is. You say that Republicans believe too deeply in the power of Washington? I think you're confused about your political parties here, Londoner. It's the GOP that believes deeply in the power of the American economy to prosper if it's unfettered "by" Washington. I still believe that American workers can compete with anyone for build quality and production...it's simply a question of making that economically viable. You're right about things not being as they were. We live in a global community now. We have to compete against cheaper labor elsewhere. My question to you is this...does continually increasing our dependence on entitlements and Federal Government regulation make us better or worse when it comes to competing globally? Before you accuse me of wanting to do away with protections like OSHA or the EPA, let me state that I understand the need for government agencies that look out for our well being. My problem is that those agencies never know when to stop and the layer upon layer of regulations that we now have to deal with in this country is absolutely stifling the one thing that we've always had going for us...entrepreneurialism and innovation...the small businesses like Apple and Microsoft that grew out of someone's garage to become mammoth businesses that hire hundreds of thousands of people.

The conservatives believe that if we can just get the right people in Washington, we can fix all of America's problems. The fact is we can't. The America that was number one in education, research, manufacturing, healthcare, transportation, an dozen other areas is gone and is not likely to return. Hopefully, being number two will cause us to work harder.

Slow growth in American wages coupled with higher growth in wages in less developed countries such as China, India, and South Korea will eventually put American labor in a more competitive position but that will take years. Conservatives desire to abolish minimum wage would speed the process up, increase employment, but would result in a much lager number of working poor.

 

[The Rabbi]

You dont know many conservatives, do you?

 

[Oldstyle]

Rabbi is a joke, so I will treat him as such.

So you are "disagreeing" with "facts"? Hmm.

You are really overreaching with this cap and trade thing. The threat of legislation? Come on. That is ridiculous. What imminent threat are corporations facing exactly?

And show me proof that ObamaCare has caused significant uncertainty.

You can't just state that your opinion is "fact", Billy and expect that to be the end of the discussion. Sorry but that's not the way it works here. I disagree with you on what is a fact and what isn't. I've asked you to explain what YOU think has prompted the lack of hiring and instead of doing so you make a vague statement that I've overreached on "this cap and trade thing". In what way have I overreached? Would Cap & Trade legislation NOT have added billions to the energy costs of companies across the US? Would that NOT have affected the bottom line of all those companies? Do you really not understand that something as crucial as the cost of energy could determine whether a company decides to build a plant here as opposed to some other country that won't have those high energy costs?

But it isn't my opinion. It is based upon data, which is the closest to facts. Your opinion is null if you cannot support it with data of your own.

What do I think is keeping corporations from hiring? I think it's because it is cheaper to create jobs overseas.

I will concede on the cap and trade discussion if you can show me proof that it is currently imminent legislation.

Come on Billy..."data" is just statistics and you know the old saying about statistics...you'll trot out yours...I'll trot out mine and neither will be "unfactual" but they'll totally contradict each other.

As for Cap & Trade? I never said it was "currently imminent". Obama would love to have passed it a year and a half ago but it was a jobs killer and the Blue Dog Democrats balked. Same thing with Card Check. ObamaCare was also a jobs killer but the progressives managed to hide the true costs of that so well with slick accounting gimmicks that the average American didn't understand what they were getting. That isn't the case with your average CEO. What you have to understand is that it's the sum total of everything that Obama got passed...layered with what he was trying to get passed...combined with the policies of the people he put into positions of power like Eric Holder, Ken Salazar, Lisa Jackson, Hilda Solis Steven Chu, Craig Becker, Van Jones, Errol Southers, Kathleen Merrigan. Cass Sunstein, Cathy Zoi, and John Holdren that kept private sector investment money on the sidelines. The "fact" is that this Administration had an anti-business agenda right from the get go.

It's almost amusing that people like yourself seem "mystified" by the private sector's reluctance to invest in the hiring of new employees. You simply won't admit that the policies of this President have had consequences and very few of them have been good for either job creation or growth of the economy.

 

[Billy000]

You can't just state that your opinion is "fact", Billy and expect that to be the end of the discussion. Sorry but that's not the way it works here. I disagree with you on what is a fact and what isn't. I've asked you to explain what YOU think has prompted the lack of hiring and instead of doing so you make a vague statement that I've overreached on "this cap and trade thing". In what way have I overreached? Would Cap & Trade legislation NOT have added billions to the energy costs of companies across the US? Would that NOT have affected the bottom line of all those companies? Do you really not understand that something as crucial as the cost of energy could determine whether a company decides to build a plant here as opposed to some other country that won't have those high energy costs?

But it isn't my opinion. It is based upon data, which is the closest to facts. Your opinion is null if you cannot support it with data of your own.

What do I think is keeping corporations from hiring? I think it's because it is cheaper to create jobs overseas.

I will concede on the cap and trade discussion if you can show me proof that it is currently imminent legislation.

Come on Billy..."data" is just statistics and you know the old saying about statistics...you'll trot out yours...I'll trot out mine and neither will be "unfactual" but they'll totally contradict each other.

As for Cap & Trade? I never said it was "currently imminent". Obama would love to have passed it a year and a half ago but it was a jobs killer and the Blue Dog Democrats balked. Same thing with Card Check. ObamaCare was also a jobs killer but the progressives managed to hide the true costs of that so well with slick accounting gimmicks that the average American didn't understand what they were getting. That isn't the case with your average CEO. What you have to understand is that it's the sum total of everything that Obama got passed...layered with what he was trying to get passed...combined with the policies of the people he put into positions of power like Eric Holder, Ken Salazar, Lisa Jackson, Hilda Solis Steven Chu, Craig Becker, Van Jones, Errol Southers, Kathleen Merrigan. Cass Sunstein, Cathy Zoi, and John Holdren that kept private sector investment money on the sidelines. The "fact" is that this Administration had an anti-business agenda right from the get go.

It's almost amusing that people like yourself seem "mystified" by the private sector's reluctance to invest in the hiring of new employees. You simply won't admit that the policies of this President have had consequences and very few of them have been good for either job creation or growth of the economy.

Some data is stronger than others. Perhaps you'd have a point if you presented opposing data of equal value.

Okay, so I will say again: the issue of cap and trade is no longer relevant for this current economy. Think about it.

The average American didn't understand what they were getting with ObamaCare? By 2016, 30 million new people will have had health care because of "ObamaCare". That alone is not the only benefit, either. Is it perfect? No, but it's accomplished a lot. And even if ObamaCare had slowed growth, it wouldn't change the fact that Obama has created close to 3 million jobs. Could the stimulus have done more? Yes, but to say Obama's policies are actually weakening economic growth is completely unfounded. When I say unfounded, I mean there is no economic research to confirm it. What Sean Hannity says doesn't count.

See, the big difference between you and me is that I present evidence. I don't list off a bunch of appointees and call them the devil with no apparent evidence for it.

 

[Chris]

America will need to adapt or
the only jobs available will be government jobs.

How will companies be able to make a product and
make profit where America's work force want to make
a salary with benefits that just make it impossible for a
company to survive.

The President needs to fix the issues we have with China.
They "own our Ass now"....

China has a lot of its own problems, not the least of which is that it's economic growth has topped out. So you have a lot of people who've just hit glass ceilings looking up at people who have more.

Much like the Manchus of a Century ago, the Communists have no idea how to handle all the change coming down the pipe.

That is so true.

One day the people will wake up, and Communism in China will be no more.

 

[editec]

If corporate taxes are at their lowest rate, and productivity and profits are at... ...record high levels, where are the jobs?

You don't get it do you?

If all those things are true, why bother hiring at all?

The rich are getting richer than ever, what the fuck do they care if the people are going down?

 

[Billy000]

If corporate taxes are at their lowest rate, and productivity and profits are at... ...record high levels, where are the jobs?

You don't get it do you?

If all those things are true, why bother hiring at all?

The rich are getting richer than ever, what the fuck do they care if the people are going down?

That is the point I am trying to make.

 

[The Rabbi]

If corporate taxes are at their lowest rate, and productivity and profits are at... ...record high levels, where are the jobs?

You don't get it do you?

If all those things are true, why bother hiring at all?

The rich are getting richer than ever, what the fuck do they care if the people are going down?

That is the point I am trying to make.

That's of course wrong on many counts.
FIrst, the rich are not getting richer. The group hardest hit by the recession were high income earners.
Second, people don't hire employees as an act of charity. They do it because they need the labor to make money. Employees get hired to make a company money.

 

[Billy000]

You don't get it do you?

If all those things are true, why bother hiring at all?

The rich are getting richer than ever, what the fuck do they care if the people are going down?

That is the point I am trying to make.

That's of course wrong on many counts.
FIrst, the rich are not getting richer. The group hardest hit by the recession were high income earners.
Second, people don't hire employees as an act of charity. They do it because they need the labor to make money. Employees get hired to make a company money.

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Now, shut the fuck up.

 

[The Rabbi]

That is the point I am trying to make.

That's of course wrong on many counts.
FIrst, the rich are not getting richer. The group hardest hit by the recession were high income earners.
Second, people don't hire employees as an act of charity. They do it because they need the labor to make money. Employees get hired to make a company money.

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Now, shut the fuck up.

You shut the fuck up, you ignorant asshole. Your chart shows no refutation of whatever I wrote. Because you're too stupid to read them and understand what I write.

 

[Billy000]

That's of course wrong on many counts.
FIrst, the rich are not getting richer. The group hardest hit by the recession were high income earners.
Second, people don't hire employees as an act of charity. They do it because they need the labor to make money. Employees get hired to make a company money.

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Now, shut the fuck up.

You shut the fuck up, you ignorant asshole. Your chart shows no refutation of whatever I wrote. Because you're too stupid to read them and understand what I write.

Why do you even bother?

 

[The Rabbi]

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Now, shut the fuck up.

You shut the fuck up, you ignorant asshole. Your chart shows no refutation of whatever I wrote. Because you're too stupid to read them and understand what I write.

Why do you even bother?

Maybe someone will get the idea that merely posting a link that contains the words you want equals providing proof. In fact there is critical thinking involved.
I dont expect you to get that. Nothing will penetrate that black hole that passes for brain matter.

 

[Oldstyle]

But it isn't my opinion. It is based upon data, which is the closest to facts. Your opinion is null if you cannot support it with data of your own.

What do I think is keeping corporations from hiring? I think it's because it is cheaper to create jobs overseas.

I will concede on the cap and trade discussion if you can show me proof that it is currently imminent legislation.

Come on Billy..."data" is just statistics and you know the old saying about statistics...you'll trot out yours...I'll trot out mine and neither will be "unfactual" but they'll totally contradict each other.

As for Cap & Trade? I never said it was "currently imminent". Obama would love to have passed it a year and a half ago but it was a jobs killer and the Blue Dog Democrats balked. Same thing with Card Check. ObamaCare was also a jobs killer but the progressives managed to hide the true costs of that so well with slick accounting gimmicks that the average American didn't understand what they were getting. That isn't the case with your average CEO. What you have to understand is that it's the sum total of everything that Obama got passed...layered with what he was trying to get passed...combined with the policies of the people he put into positions of power like Eric Holder, Ken Salazar, Lisa Jackson, Hilda Solis Steven Chu, Craig Becker, Van Jones, Errol Southers, Kathleen Merrigan. Cass Sunstein, Cathy Zoi, and John Holdren that kept private sector investment money on the sidelines. The "fact" is that this Administration had an anti-business agenda right from the get go.

It's almost amusing that people like yourself seem "mystified" by the private sector's reluctance to invest in the hiring of new employees. You simply won't admit that the policies of this President have had consequences and very few of them have been good for either job creation or growth of the economy.

Some data is stronger than others. Perhaps you'd have a point if you presented opposing data of equal value.

Okay, so I will say again: the issue of cap and trade is no longer relevant for this current economy. Think about it.

The average American didn't understand what they were getting with ObamaCare? By 2016, 30 million new people will have had health care because of "ObamaCare". That alone is not the only benefit, either. Is it perfect? No, but it's accomplished a lot. And even if ObamaCare had slowed growth, it wouldn't change the fact that Obama has created close to 3 million jobs. Could the stimulus have done more? Yes, but to say Obama's policies are actually weakening economic growth is completely unfounded. When I say unfounded, I mean there is no economic research to confirm it. What Sean Hannity says doesn't count.

See, the big difference between you and me is that I present evidence. I don't list off a bunch of appointees and call them the devil with no apparent evidence for it.

Some data is "stronger" than others? Let me guess...that would be the data that you thinks proves you are right? So what you want us to do is concentrate on the data that you LIKE and ignore the rest? Gotcha...

Cap & Trade is still relevant for this economy because it shows what this Administration would like to accomplish and what they will try to accomplish through agencies like the EPA if they can't get legislation passed in Congress...which brings us back to the list of Obama appointees that you discount the importance of. President Obama was quite candid about his desire to increase the cost of fossil fuels in this country in order to make alternative energy sources "viable". His appointee at the EPA was well on the way to doing just that when he reined her in because he doesn't want the increased costs to the nation held against him when he runs for re-election in 2012. Now what do you think is going to happen if Obama DOES win re-election this year? Do you think he'll rein in the EPA this time around? I'll bet the farm that the EPA goes ahead with those green house gas regulations that got scrapped recently. So do you think that the average CEO isn't looking at that situation as well? Trying to figure out what the bottom line is going to be for energy costs a year from now?

As for ObamaCare? What has it "accomplished"? Yes, we'll have another 30 million people with healthcare at the cost of trillions of dollars paid by taxpayers whose OWN health insurance costs were increased as a result of ObamaCare. At the same time this Frankenstein's monster of a bill was adding yet another massive entitlement to our already insolvent balance sheet it did nothing to deal with either tort reform or the problem of health care costs associated with illegal aliens. So those very same hospitals and doctors that are getting their Medicare payments cut because of ObamaCare still have to bear the costs of frivilous law suits and an ER full of illegals with no insurance...costs that they then pass along to us. Yeah, ObamaCare is GREAT, Billy....

Oh, and Billy? Don't forget when you talk about Obama job creation you need to add the magic "saved" to your total or your numbers don't add up...you know...that NEW statistic that this Administration came up with to make their stimulus numbers look less pathetic?

 

[Flopper]

That is the point I am trying to make.

That's of course wrong on many counts.
FIrst, the rich are not getting richer. The group hardest hit by the recession were high income earners.
Second, people don't hire employees as an act of charity. They do it because they need the labor to make money. Employees get hired to make a company money.

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Now, shut the fuck up.

Disparity in income and wealth is to be expected, but a growing disparity over 20 years is troubling. I'm sure the right and left will have plenty of theories as to cause. However, it's not something that can be ignored. Other nations have tried to do so with disastrous results.

 

[rdean]

From 2001 to 2008, Republicans, working with China and the Chamber of Commerce moved millions of jobs to China and closed thousands of American factories. We know where the jobs are. We also know where they were.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's of course wrong on many counts.
FIrst, the rich are not getting richer. The group hardest hit by the recession were high income earners.
Second, people don't hire employees as an act of charity. They do it because they need the labor to make money. Employees get hired to make a company money.

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Now, shut the fuck up.

Disparity in income and wealth is to be expected, but a growing disparity over 20 years is troubling. I'm sure the right and left will have plenty of theories as to cause. However, it's not something that can be ignored. Other nations have tried to do so with disastrous results.

Maybe you can tell us what is troubling about it.

 

[Flopper]

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Now, shut the fuck up.

Disparity in income and wealth is to be expected, but a growing disparity over 20 years is troubling. I'm sure the right and left will have plenty of theories as to cause. However, it's not something that can be ignored. Other nations have tried to do so with disastrous results.

Maybe you can tell us what is troubling about it.

Wealth disparity is good economically and necessary but a long term trend of increasing disparity particular where the lower middle class is falling into poverty is not. For a country that maintains social safety nets which most countries do, increasing poverty means increasing the cost of government but a far greater problem is the distrust that arises between classes which can lead to a of lot of things much worse than increased government spending.