For Those Who Want to REDUCE Unemployment, not win arguments

[MaggieMae]

"The first step to winning the future is encouraging American innovation." That was Barack Obama in his State of the Union address last January, when he hit the theme repeatedly, using the word innovation or innovate 11 times. And on this issue, at least, Republicans seem in sync with Obama. Listen to Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich or Mitch Daniels and the word innovation pops up again and again. Everyone wants innovation and agrees that it is the key to America's future.

Innovation is as American as apple pie. It seems to accord with so many elements of our national character — ingenuity, freedom, flexibility, the willingness to question conventional wisdom and defy authority. But politicians are pinning their hopes on innovation for more urgent reasons. America's future growth will have to come from new industries that create new products and processes. Older industries are under tremendous pressure. Technological change is making factories and offices far more efficient. The rise of low-wage manufacturing in China and low-wage services in India is moving jobs overseas. The only durable strength we have — the only one that can withstand these gale winds — is innovation.

The Future of U.S. Innovation: Can Americans Keep Pace? - TIME

obama uses a lot of words, bu he never delivers on them.

Because it takes two to tango: The Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch. Actually, make that three. The corporate lobbyists who like things just the way they are.

 

[MaggieMae]

There is only one choice and that’s to massively shrink Government or I guess end the country

correct and profane you are. What you failed to do was point out that Republicans have introduced 40 Balanced Budget amendments to the Constitution since Jefferson. Liberals have killed them all and are working hard to kill the current one.

100% of the small government wisdom resides in the Republican Party and has since Jefferson founded the Party in 1792 and, in effect, the country in 1800. When they have drifted to the center it is only because thats where the people are. If they insisted 100% on philosophy, in a country where elections are decided by retarded independents, they would merely be impotent Libertarians.

I hope you're catching on now??

Maybe the pubs have introduced balanced budget amendments, but they sure do have short memories depending on the reelection cycle. Earmark spending was the highest in history during the span of 2000-2006. A balanced budget amendment was introduced in 2005, but got nowhere. Which party was in the majority?

Balanced Budget Amendment Redux « Commentary Magazine

So a balanced budget amendment is unlikely to make it to ratification and wouldn’t work if it did. So why does it pop up every few years? Because it makes the sponsors look serious about federal fiscal discipline without actually doing anything to provide it. For politicians, tomorrow’s headline (“Senator Snoot Moves on Debt Crisis”) is often all they are really interested in.

A constitutional amendment that 1) established an independent, politically-insulated accounting board that would decide how the government’s books must be kept and how bills should be scored, 2) gave the president a line-item veto, which would make the president a powerful player in the budget battles, which he is not now, and 3) limited real spending increases per capita absent a congressional super-majority to waive the limit would provide that real fiscal discipline.

 

[MaggieMae]

if true then everyone would now be paying the minimum wage, but on average they are paying 3 times the minimum wage. The perfect beauty of capitalism is that you must pay the highest wage possible or lose your best workers to those who pay more. Its a concept almost impossible for the liberal mind to comprehend.

No, You're not going to pay the highest wage possible to keep your best workers. Your're going to pay the lowest wages possible, if you hope to keep your're job as CEO. That's how you maximize profits.

why act stupid??? you have to have the higest wage possible or lose your best workers to those who pay more; then you go bankrupt. American workers are the richest in human history because capitalism causes huge upward pressure on wages. Did you think our high wages were caused by the Girl Scouts???

What's your point? Wages are higher here than in China and India because we have a much higher standard of living. A no-brainer. The PROBLEM is that companies are moving to those countries to avoid paying people enough so that they can afford to buy their products. Another no-brainer.

 

[MaggieMae]

The problem is it DOES have flaws, and unless corrected, all hell can break loose.

1) conservatives believe it has far fewer flaws than liberalism

2) conservative intellectuals believe that guessing at what they are and trying to correct them will make them worse, not better.


if you know the main flaw and how to correct it why be so perfectly afriad to share it with us. You seem like a child wishing for magical government

Markets can be irrational, misunderstand risk, and misallocate resources which is EXACTLY what happened when investment banks overreached. Without government oversight and the capacity for pragmatic intervention, which is what was required as a result, the financial crisis created by ZERO oversight was a recipe for disaster.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The problem is it DOES have flaws, and unless corrected, all hell can break loose.

1) conservatives believe it has far fewer flaws than liberalism

2) conservative intellectuals believe that guessing at what they are and trying to correct them will make them worse, not better.


if you know the main flaw and how to correct it why be so perfectly afriad to share it with us. You seem like a child wishing for magical government

Markets can be irrational, misunderstand risk, and misallocate resources which is EXACTLY what happened when investment banks overreached. Without government oversight and the capacity for pragmatic intervention, which is what was required as a result, the financial crisis created by ZERO oversight was a recipe for disaster.

Total bullshit, as usual.

 

[MaggieMae]

What did GDP do the quarters before and after his 2003 tax cuts?
You might be surprised.

actually nothing can be said about the 2003 tax cuts because we now
know that was a period hugely distorted by an about to burst housing bubble that would sink much of the worlds economy

The housing bubble was building before as well as after the tax cuts.
GDP spiked when the tax cuts passed.
If Obama passed a real, supply-side tax cut, he might get enough of a boost to win.
He won't and so he won't.

So what's your definition of "real" supply-side tax cuts? More corporate welfare? That's what Reagan did; that's what Bush did. And here we are.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yeah, as a CEO, you go to shareholders and tell them you're cutting into profits to pay the highest wages possible to your people, not the wages needed to keep them, and see how long you last.

capitialism forces you to pay the wages necessary to keep the people your business depends on. If you pay a penny less than your competition you stand to go bankrupt. Now you know why Derek Jeter makes so much. He gets the highest and lowest wage possible becuase capitalism is nearly perfect

Since when do baseball teams go bankrupt because they don't hire the most talented and most expensive players? By your logic, only one corporation/business ever comes out on top. That defeats the primary premise of capitalism, and that's competition.

 

[MaggieMae]

Your're going to pay the lowest wages possible, if you hope to keep your're job as CEO. That's how you maximize profits.

of course there are no profits unless you pay enough to get the best employees. Now you know why the average wage in America is 3 times the minimum wage

You are so off base it's unbelievable. Corporate profits after tax (unadjusted) reached a new record high in the first quarter of 2011 of almost $1.5 trillion. U.S. companies have made record profits, while unemployment has stayed high and wages have barely risen.

 

[MaggieMae]

No, the Soviets didn't try to regulating their economy. They were the economy. They owned the means of production, collective farms, and manufacturing. Nearly everyone worked for the government in one or another. Comparing federation regulation to the Soviet totalitarianism is ridiculous.

don't be absurd. BO is a communist. He had 2 communist parents, he voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, the CPUSA loves BO, the liberals spied for Stalin, BO is openly for single payer!! THere is never an end in sight for how big is big for a liberal!! Got it now??

Our health care system was a regulatory mess, so BO is fixing it with BO care which will make it a bigger mess, and then we'll need single payer to fix it. IF he gets his way it will be just like Stalins increasing 5 years plans. Got it now??


Norman Thomas quotes:
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.


This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
"Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy’s camp."[4]

Well now you just proved you're not even worthy of having a discussion with. Clueless doesn't even begin to describe your irrational thought process.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yeah, I got it. You're nuts.

I'm nuts because BO had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of the open socialist Bernie sanders, and becuase he supports single payer????????

No, because you appear to be terribly confused as to what Communism/Socialism is.

Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know.

The funny thing is, of course, that socialists know that Barack Obama is not one of us. Not only is he not a socialist, he may in fact not even be a liberal. Socialists understand him more as a hedge-fund Democrat -- one of a generation of neoliberal politicians firmly committed to free-market policies.

The first clear indication that Obama is not, in fact, a socialist, is the way his administration is avoiding structural changes to the financial system. Nationalization is simply not in the playbook of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and his team. They favor costly, temporary measures that can easily be dismantled should the economy stabilize. Socialists support nationalization and see it as a means of creating a banking system that acts like a highly regulated public utility. The banks would then cease to be sinkholes for public funds or financial versions of casinos and would become essential to reenergizing productive sectors of the economy.

The same holds true for health care. A national health insurance system as embodied in the single-payer health plan reintroduced in legislation this year by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), makes perfect sense to us. That bill would provide comprehensive coverage, offer a full range of choice of doctors and services and eliminate the primary cause of personal bankruptcy -- health-care bills. Obama's plan would do the opposite. By mandating that every person be insured, ObamaCare would give private health insurance companies license to systematically underinsure policyholders while cashing in on the moral currency of universal coverage. If Obama is a socialist, then on health care, he's doing a fairly good job of concealing it.

Issues of war and peace further weaken the commander in chief's socialist credentials. Obama announced that all U.S. combat brigades will be removed from Iraq by August 2010, but he still intends to leave as many as 50,000 troops in Iraq and wishes to expand the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A socialist foreign policy would call for the immediate removal of all troops. It would seek to follow the proposal made recently by an Afghan parliamentarian, which called for the United States to send 30,000 scholars or engineers instead of more fighting forces.

Yet the president remains "the world's best salesman of socialism," according to Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina. DeMint encouraged supporters "to take to the streets to stop America's slide into socialism." Despite the fact that billions of dollars of public wealth are being transferred to private corporations, Huckabee still felt confident in proposing that "Lenin and Stalin would love" Obama's bank bailout plan.

Specifically regarding universal health care, a LOT of people, including Republicans would love to see a way that could happen, but not because of any "Socialist" (or in your fragmented mentality, "Communist") agenda but because of the staggering costs of private health care costs, which affects everyone, not just a particular political genre.

 

[MaggieMae]

1) conservatives believe it has far fewer flaws than liberalism

2) conservative intellectuals believe that guessing at what they are and trying to correct them will make them worse, not better.


if you know the main flaw and how to correct it why be so perfectly afriad to share it with us. You seem like a child wishing for magical government

Markets can be irrational, misunderstand risk, and misallocate resources which is EXACTLY what happened when investment banks overreached. Without government oversight and the capacity for pragmatic intervention, which is what was required as a result, the financial crisis created by ZERO oversight was a recipe for disaster.

Total bullshit, as usual.

Such profundity. As usual.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

actually nothing can be said about the 2003 tax cuts because we now
know that was a period hugely distorted by an about to burst housing bubble that would sink much of the worlds economy

The housing bubble was building before as well as after the tax cuts.
GDP spiked when the tax cuts passed.
If Obama passed a real, supply-side tax cut, he might get enough of a boost to win.
He won't and so he won't.

So what's your definition of "real" supply-side tax cuts? More corporate welfare? That's what Reagan did; that's what Bush did. And here we are.

A supply side tax cut would reduce the top marginal rates.
Not corporate welfare, no temporary cuts, no mailing checks to taxpayers.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

The supply side has money coming out of its ears, Fox/Rushbot. What we need is confidence and DEMAND. Jobs bills and the bloated rich paying their fair share- and Pubs not fear mongering and holding the country hostage for moot, stupid ideology- tax cut cult MORONS......

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The supply side has money coming out of its ears, Fox/Rushbot. What we need is confidence and DEMAND. Jobs bills and the bloated rich paying their fair share- and Pubs not fear mongering and holding the country hostage for moot, stupid ideology- tax cut cult MORONS......

As soon as Obama leaves, confidence will return.

 

[Brutus]

calling people communists and playing the ain't Obama and the government awful card

actually it is a fact that BO had 2 communist parents, the CPUSA loves him, he voted to left of Bernie Sanders, is openly for single payer and that Red China instantly saved perhaps 10 million from slow liberal starvation when it switched to capitalism. Sorry about the facts.

isn't going to convince anyone he has an idea. Unregulated capitalism isn't the answer.

who wants that?? even Milton Friedman wanted some regulation!

He's little different than LBT who actually believes insipid postulates such as she wrote above. Lassiez faire capitalism is all the rage of the New Right, and will lead to our republic devolving into a plutocracy - if we've not already done so.

Lassiez fare has been all the rage among Republicans since Jefferson founded the party in 1792. It produced the richest country in human history by far. Sorry

 

[MaggieMae]

The supply side has money coming out of its ears, Fox/Rushbot. What we need is confidence and DEMAND. Jobs bills and the bloated rich paying their fair share- and Pubs not fear mongering and holding the country hostage for moot, stupid ideology- tax cut cult MORONS......

I wonder why the uber conservatives who don't believe in taxes don't just draft Grover Norquist for president, since he seems to be the one calling the shots.

 

[MaggieMae]

The supply side has money coming out of its ears, Fox/Rushbot. What we need is confidence and DEMAND. Jobs bills and the bloated rich paying their fair share- and Pubs not fear mongering and holding the country hostage for moot, stupid ideology- tax cut cult MORONS......

As soon as Obama leaves, confidence will return.

I see any confidence lasting a year, at most. The Republicans are even more infamous for making big promises that turn out to be all talk and no action.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The supply side has money coming out of its ears, Fox/Rushbot. What we need is confidence and DEMAND. Jobs bills and the bloated rich paying their fair share- and Pubs not fear mongering and holding the country hostage for moot, stupid ideology- tax cut cult MORONS......

As soon as Obama leaves, confidence will return.

I see any confidence lasting a year, at most. The Republicans are even more infamous for making big promises that turn out to be all talk and no action.

Since most government action turns out to be counter-productive, are you sure that's a problem?
Repeal Obamacare and cut the Federal Register in half and we'll have 5% growth as far as the eye can see.

 

[Brutus]

. Jobs bills

a jobs bill produces temporary make work welfare bubble jobs. THe liberal housing bubble produced many jobs, but look what it got us? Got it??

.
and the bloated rich paying their fair share-

actually the top 1% pay 40% of all federal taxes and only have 18% of the income. BOttom 50% pay nothing. Got it??????/

 

[MaggieMae]

calling people communists and playing the ain't Obama and the government awful card

actually it is a fact that BO had 2 communist parents, the CPUSA loves him, he voted to left of Bernie Sanders, is openly for single payer and that Red China instantly saved perhaps 10 million from slow liberal starvation when it switched to capitalism. Sorry about the facts.

isn't going to convince anyone he has an idea. Unregulated capitalism isn't the answer.

who wants that?? even Milton Friedman wanted some regulation!

He's little different than LBT who actually believes insipid postulates such as she wrote above. Lassiez faire capitalism is all the rage of the New Right, and will lead to our republic devolving into a plutocracy - if we've not already done so.

Lassiez fare has been all the rage among Republicans since Jefferson founded the party in 1792. It produced the richest country in human history by far. Sorry

Riiiight...that's how the Constitution designed leadership for an entire nation?

Laissez-Faire Leadership Style

The laissez-faire leadership style is also known as the "hands-off¨ style. It is one in which the manager provides little or no direction and gives employees as much freedom as possible. All authority or power is given to the employees and they must determine goals, make decisions, and resolve problems on their own.

This is an effective style to use when:

--Employees are highly skilled, experienced, and educated.

--Employees have pride in their work and the drive to do it successfully on their own.

--Outside experts, such as staff specialists or consultants are being used

--Employees are trustworthy and experienced.

This style should not be used when:

--It makes employees feel insecure at the unavailability of a manager.

--The manager cannot provide regular feedback to let employees know how well they are doing.

--Managers are unable to thank employees for their good work.

--The manager doesn't understand his or her responsibilities and is hoping the employees can cover for him or her.

Laissez-Faire Leadership Style

The laissez-faire leadership style is also known as the "hands-off¨ style. It is one in which the manager provides little or no direction and gives employees as much freedom as possible. All authority or power is given to the employees and they must determine goals, make decisions, and resolve problems on their own.

This is an effective style to use when:

--Employees are highly skilled, experienced, and educated.

--Employees have pride in their work and the drive to do it successfully on their own.

--Outside experts, such as staff specialists or consultants are being used

--Employees are trustworthy and experienced.

This style should not be used when:

--It makes employees feel insecure at the unavailability of a manager.

--The manager cannot provide regular feedback to let employees know how well they are doing.

--Managers are unable to thank employees for their good work.

--The manager doesn't understand his or her responsibilities and is hoping the employees can cover for him or her.
///

There would be complete chaos, 308 million people running amok.