Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Trump saves 1,000 Indianapolis jobs that Carrier was going to move to Mexico!!!
#41
(02-29-2016, 06:44 PM)BenSkywalker Wrote:
Quote:You guys will all be living in straw huts soon because you won't be able to import anything.

What do you think we need to import? That's a serious question. Anything that would be too catastrophic(some precious metals coming out of other nations that have halted mining in the US that would have years lead time to get producing at proper levels) we could still pay the tax on.

It is rather telling that we are discussing a *MASSIVE* tax increase to stop corporations from moving so many jobs overseas, and you seem to be opposed while Rollo isn't.

Use tariff money to publicly fund accelerated buildup of domesticated production.

One of the reasons the US tends to be so arrogant is we do not need any other country. From arctic to tropical, desert mountains to everglades, we have it covered.

Quote:He is going to cripple the global economy.


Everyone else can still play the way they have been, we'll just let you all do it without us. That's in the $45 Billion a month we can start putting back into our own economy. People love to point out the differences between the US and the other major economies, let us take our half a trillion trade deficit off the table, wipe out a huge chunk of the EU's quarter trillion trade surplus and a big old bit out of China's three quarter of a trillion surplus and see how the various markets look.

Yes, that would be us taking our ball and going home. We have a really nice court and a big family to play with Smile

The rest of the world would likely declare war on us because we stopped floating their economies with our cash.

I agree with Trump (apparently). The experiment of "people will have more money because things will be cheaper!" failed most of America and only paid off for guys like you and me. (and it only paid off for me because my wife and I put 80 hours/week of skilled labor into the system, we'd be decidedly middle class and living a whole lot different if one of us retired)

None of us win if the biggest group of Americans isn't working at living wage jobs, we're basically reverting to feudal times.
Reply
#42
If you want to see the result of an isolationist economy, just have a look at North Korea or Cuba to see what happens when a country chooses to (or is forced to) do everything on their own with no trading partners. Free trade agreements are good for the economy, that is a fact. Here in Canada we're not exactly thrilled about NAFTA either. NAFTA stipulates that we have to provide the USA with our oil even before we use it for our own needs. Does that sound fair to you? Now, the USA seems to have recently discovered its own oil source with fracking and stuff, so I can see you guys balking at NAFTA now. But really IMO our two countries need to cooperate and continue trading for our mutual benefit. Otherwise we are just going to ship all our goods to Europe and Asia.

I can totally understand your guys frustration with the jobs going overseas. I just don't think tariffs are the answer. There has to be a better solution. This is going to require some creative thinking because it is a big problem. We are having similar issues here in Canada. It's cheaper to make things in Mexico and other countries so that's where all the jobs are going. Perhaps instead of tariffs the government can stipulate that in order for a company to sell its products in the USA, a certain percentage of the workforce has to work in the US. Something like that. Not a tariff. That's just going to create chaos.
Reply
#43
(02-29-2016, 06:44 PM)BenSkywalker Wrote:
Quote:You guys will all be living in straw huts soon because you won't be able to import anything.

What do you think we need to import? That's a serious question. Anything that would be too catastrophic(some precious metals coming out of other nations that have halted mining in the US that would have years lead time to get producing at proper levels) we could still pay the tax on.

It is rather telling that we are discussing a *MASSIVE* tax increase to stop corporations from moving so many jobs overseas, and you seem to be opposed while Rollo isn't.

Use tariff money to publicly fund accelerated buildup of domesticated production.

One of the reasons the US tends to be so arrogant is we do not need any other country. From arctic to tropical, desert mountains to everglades, we have it covered.

Quote:He is going to cripple the global economy.


Everyone else can still play the way they have been, we'll just let you all do it without us. That's in the $45 Billion a month we can start putting back into our own economy. People love to point out the differences between the US and the other major economies, let us take our half a trillion trade deficit off the table, wipe out a huge chunk of the EU's quarter trillion trade surplus and a big old bit out of China's three quarter of a trillion surplus and see how the various markets look.

Yes, that would be us taking our ball and going home. We have a really nice court and a big family to play with Smile
Good luck with that, please let me know how that goes. When your straw hut starts to disintegrate please give me a call so I can try to send you some of my lumber. Smile
Reply
#44
Here is some more information for you guys:

Quote:Some estimate that since 1992, nearly 20 million new jobs have been created in the U.S., in part due to the 1994 NAFTA agreement. Total trade between the NAFTA partners -- the U.S., Canada and Mexico -- rose from $293 billion in 1993 to more than $475 billion in 1997, and has increased since. That spells sales and profits for U.S. companies and high paying jobs for American workers.

http://www.ttgconsultants.com/articles/freetrade.html
Reply
#45
Quote:If you want to see the result of an isolationist economy, just have a look at North Korea or Cuba to see what happens when a country chooses to (or is forced to) do everything on their own with no trading partners.

Vermont's GDP is ~35% larger then North Korea's, they are the 50th state by GDP. Cuba does much better at $80Bln GDP- they would rank 38th. We have plenty of trade partners in the US, ourselves. For the record, those two combined are roughly 10% of California's GDP.

Quote:Free trade agreements are good for the economy, that is a fact.


Globally yes, want to have a lengthy conversation about Detroit? Locally free trade can be absolutely catastrophic.

Quote:But really IMO our two countries need to cooperate and continue trading for our mutual benefit.


To be quite honest Sick, I don't think anyone has an issue maintaining trade relations with Canada, Mexico is a *very* different story. That said, if it is all or nothing....

Quote:When your straw hut starts to disintegrate please give me a call so I can try to send you some of my lumber.


We already produce quite a bit more lumber than you and to be honest, those are some good paying jobs the US could use more of. You will run out of lumberjacks *WAY* before we run out of trees.

http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790

Quote:Much of this growth has been due to increased trade between the United States and Mexico, where the trade balance—the difference between exports and imports—swung from a $1.7 billion U.S. surplus in 1993 to a $61.4 billion deficit in 2012.

The quote on new job creation is, to be as kind as possible, highly suspect. If a new facility is created to build dash board assemblies that are shipped to Mexico they count that as new jobs- even though the entire car used to be built here.
Reply
#46
If Trump wins it will be interesting, I will say that much. But for me I get to sit back and eat popcorn. I can only imagine how that's going to feel as an American citizen. It's going to get really ugly down there if he wins.
Reply
#47
Hmmmm those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

http://americastradepolicy.com/did-the-s...tTosi_SkY0

Quote:In early May 1930 1,028 leading American economists presented President Hoover, Senator Smoot and Congressman Hawley with a letter urging Hoover to veto the bill if it passed Congress. (The organizer of the letter was Dr. Claire Wilcox, my economics professor in college.) The economists argued that the tariff increases would raise the cost of living, limit our exports as other countries retaliated, injure U.S. investors since the high tariffs would make it harder for foreign debtors to repay their loans, and damage our foreign relations. Unfortunately, this is what happened.

Back to not voting.
Reply
#48
The two party system seems to leave a lot of you guys disillusioned.
Reply
#49
(03-01-2016, 07:27 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: Hmmmm those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

http://americastradepolicy.com/did-the-s...tTosi_SkY0

Quote:In early May 1930 1,028 leading American economists presented President Hoover, Senator Smoot and Congressman Hawley with a letter urging Hoover to veto the bill if it passed Congress. (The organizer of the letter was Dr. Claire Wilcox, my economics professor in college.) The economists argued that the tariff increases would raise the cost of living, limit our exports as other countries retaliated, injure U.S. investors since the high tariffs would make it harder for foreign debtors to repay their loans, and damage our foreign relations. Unfortunately, this is what happened.

Back to not voting.
Bullshit. Last time I checked, the Great Depression started in 1929, not 1930. Those people probably believe tariffs caused the American Civil War too. In the real world, tariffs saved the USA from 19th century British dumping, and New York alone collected around 2/3 of the entire nation's tariffs in the years before the American Civil War. Oh, since this will possibly show up in the moderation logs, I accidentally clicked on the Edit button for your post when I should have clicked on the Reply button. Sorry.
Hit_head
Reply
#50
(03-01-2016, 08:52 AM)SteelCrysis Wrote:
(03-01-2016, 07:27 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: Hmmmm those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

http://americastradepolicy.com/did-the-s...tTosi_SkY0

Quote:In early May 1930 1,028 leading American economists presented President Hoover, Senator Smoot and Congressman Hawley with a letter urging Hoover to veto the bill if it passed Congress. (The organizer of the letter was Dr. Claire Wilcox, my economics professor in college.) The economists argued that the tariff increases would raise the cost of living, limit our exports as other countries retaliated, injure U.S. investors since the high tariffs would make it harder for foreign debtors to repay their loans, and damage our foreign relations. Unfortunately, this is what happened.

Back to not voting.
Bullshit. Last time I checked, the Great Depression started in 1929, not 1930. Those people probably believe tariffs caused the American Civil War too. In the real world, tariffs saved the USA from 19th century British dumping, and New York alone collected around 2/3 of the entire nation's tariffs in the years before the American Civil War. Oh, since this will possibly show up in the moderation logs, I accidentally clicked on the Edit button for your post when I should have clicked on the Reply button. Sorry.
Hit_head

I click on the edit button all the time by accident, because I didn't have mod powers until a few days ago and edit is where the reply was. (far left)

NP, and I don't even know how to look at the mod logs.
Reply
#51
Quote:The two party system seems to leave a lot of you guys disillusioned.

Corporate puppet governments do at least. You seem to be OK with it for the time being, but it will continue to eat away at your society just as it has done to ours.

Quote:It's going to get really ugly down there if he wins.



Not really. President Obama hammered over and over how he was going to shut down Guantanamo Bay- on the home stretch to the eight year mark and it still hasn't happened. That is a, relatively speaking, minuscule factor compared to changing international trade governance. The only way Trump would be able to get it done, even if he won 100% of the vote, is if he had the house and Senate votes to back him. Personally I see it as more of a test of how aware people are to their government being in the service of corporate overlords. Bernie and Donald are both heavy with anti corporate rhetoric, so to me their popularity is encouraging. 

For the record, I'm not even anti corporation per se, I simply see what the combination of globalization and mega mergers have resulted in for the global populace. 
Reply
#52
(03-01-2016, 07:53 AM)SickBeast Wrote: The two party system seems to leave a lot of you guys disillusioned.

I don't mind the two party system, I do mind the absence of fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republican candidates.

A person can be pro business, anti socialism and still believe:

1. Immigration is not a crisis. We have serviceable immigration laws already and just need to enforce them if being violated.

2. The Supreme Court declared Roe v Wade Constitutionally sound, and the job of government is not to make it difficult for the poor to make reproductive choices.

3. The government should be separate from the church in policy and the educational system, religion should not be impeded in any way as a private sector entity.

4. Any consenting adult should have the right to civil ceremony marriage, or religious if their church supports it.

It's not that tough. If I wanted to live in a theocracy I'd move to the Middle East, and if I wanted to live in a socialist state I'd move 300 miles North.
Reply
#53
(03-01-2016, 06:31 PM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:
(03-01-2016, 07:53 AM)SickBeast Wrote: The two party system seems to leave a lot of you guys disillusioned.

I don't mind the two party system, I do mind the absence of fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republican candidates.

A person can be pro business, anti socialism and still believe:

1. Immigration is not a crisis. We have serviceable immigration laws already and just need to enforce them if being violated.

2. The Supreme Court declared Roe v Wade Constitutionally sound, and the job of government is not to make it difficult for the poor to make reproductive choices.

3. The government should be separate from the church in policy and the educational system, religion should not be impeded in any way as a private sector entity.

4. Any consenting adult should have the right to civil ceremony marriage, or religious if their church supports it.

It's not that tough. If I wanted to live in a theocracy I'd move to the Middle East, and if I wanted to live in a socialist state I'd move 300 miles North.

That all sounds very reasonable to me. To be honest with you, I think the Democrats will fulfill your views much better than the Republicans. Coming from a Canadian, let me tell you, the Democrats are definitely Conservative based on our political spectrum here. The Republicans are considered radicals and basically nuts up here. What do the Democrats want to do that's so "socialist"? All I have heard about is health care. Like I keep telling you, if public health care is implemented properly it will actually cost less per capita.
Reply
#54
(02-29-2016, 09:51 PM)dmcowen674 Wrote:
(02-29-2016, 06:17 PM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:
(02-18-2016, 05:37 AM)BoFox Wrote: See, Rollo, lots of poor people have worked real hard for most of their lives, and they still get their own asses handed over to them on a platter.  No universal HMO, more taxes for the poor, etc..   what gives?!?  Let's make it harder for them, huh?

Higher sales tax actually hurt the poor way more than the rich.  The things that they have to pay for, like food, clothing, etc..  are barely affordable in the first place, and that is the cheapest quality food, clothing, etc. that they can find.  The rich don't have to worry about that at all.  

It's strange how Obama wanted Obamacare (which is actually rather fishy-smelling but that's for another discussion), but then wants a federal tax of $10 per barrel of gasoline.  This just hurts the poor as they can barely afford the gas to drive to work.

My guess is Dave's wife is eligible for disability income and Medicaid, she's one of the people the safety nets are in place for. No one objects to safety nets for the very old, very young, and disabled.

What we object to is guys like Apoppin that could work at normal jobs to get health insurance but choose to make the rest of society fund their self employment benefit package.

Obamacare is no different than me taking a job for half what I make now and expecting society to make up the difference. People need money to live on- why shouldn't I be able to pick what I do and make the same money!??

You would think that but that is not the case.

She can't stand very long or walk a long distance is the least of the issues related to her bladder prolapse.

Not only was she rejected for disability but the State fined our Doctor $10,000 for filing a false report.

The State Director went against our Doctor saying it was impossible for a bladder to fall out like what happened to debi.


We were also rejected for a Disabled sticker for the car.

Boy does this story annoy me. When I think of all the able bodied people skimming benefits, and they do this to your wife?! With a Drs excuse?!?!

That's pretty FUBAR.
Reply
#55
(03-02-2016, 03:51 AM)SickBeast Wrote:
(03-01-2016, 06:31 PM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:
(03-01-2016, 07:53 AM)SickBeast Wrote: The two party system seems to leave a lot of you guys disillusioned.

I don't mind the two party system, I do mind the absence of fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republican candidates.

A person can be pro business, anti socialism and still believe:

1. Immigration is not a crisis. We have serviceable immigration laws already and just need to enforce them if being violated.

2. The Supreme Court declared Roe v Wade Constitutionally sound, and the job of government is not to make it difficult for the poor to make reproductive choices.

3. The government should be separate from the church in policy and the educational system, religion should not be impeded in any way as a private sector entity.

4. Any consenting adult should have the right to civil ceremony marriage, or religious if their church supports it.

It's not that tough. If I wanted to live in a theocracy I'd move to the Middle East, and if I wanted to live in a socialist state I'd move 300 miles North.

That all sounds very reasonable to me.  To be honest with you, I think the Democrats will fulfill your views much better than the Republicans.  Coming from a Canadian, let me tell you, the Democrats are definitely Conservative based on our political spectrum here.  The Republicans are considered radicals and basically nuts up here.  What do the Democrats want to do that's so "socialist"?  All I have heard about is health care.  Like I keep telling you, if public health care is implemented properly it will actually cost less per capita.

It sounds reasonable because it's all common sense, and politics has nothing to do with common sense. Politics is about scapegoating.

You guys don't have any jobs? "It's those darn Mexicans coming across the boarder, not the fact all the jobs got shipped to....wait for it....Mexico. Look at the Mexicans! They're the problem, not our anti business laws, taxes, and super high cost of living."

Not like thee good ol' days? Wait until we stop those darn gay people from getting married and put some religion back in school! The "happy days" will return! Aaaasyyy!"

Climate is changing? "God is angered we're aborting babies! We'll fix that and ramp up the level of unwanted, addicted babies who can grow up to angry, disenfranchised adults with no job skills or education!"

All scapegoating, all BS.
Reply
#56
(03-01-2016, 01:13 PM)BenSkywalker Wrote:
Quote:The two party system seems to leave a lot of you guys disillusioned.

Corporate puppet governments do at least. You seem to be OK with it for the time being, but it will continue to eat away at your society just as it has done to ours.

Quote:It's going to get really ugly down there if he wins.



Not really. President Obama hammered over and over how he was going to shut down Guantanamo Bay- on the home stretch to the eight year mark and it still hasn't happened. That is a, relatively speaking, minuscule factor compared to changing international trade governance. The only way Trump would be able to get it done, even if he won 100% of the vote, is if he had the house and Senate votes to back him. Personally I see it as more of a test of how aware people are to their government being in the service of corporate overlords. Bernie and Donald are both heavy with anti corporate rhetoric, so to me their popularity is encouraging. 

For the record, I'm not even anti corporation per se, I simply see what the combination of globalization and mega mergers have resulted in for the global populace. 

You know what though? The USA has one of the world's strongest economies even with all those corporations, free trade, and globalization. Your salaries are great as well and for a lot of people they have gone way up. So think about it, do you really want a guy like Trump coming in and shaking everything up? You really think things will get better? Because I can guarantee you that things will get way worse and your economy will completely tank if he gets what he wants. He may be a good businessman but he clearly does not understand the global economy or even the US economy. He seems like he knows a lot about real estate. Perhaps he should stick to that.
Reply
#57
3-1-2016

Indiana House approves amendment to penalize corporations for moving


Indiana House members approved an amendment Tuesday that would allow local government to take back incentives if corporations move operations to a foreign country.

State Rep. Karlee Macer is trying to do something after Carrier announced its moving to Mexico, impacting 1,400 central Indiana jobs.

Macer wants to send a strong message to corporations that you can’t just pick up and leave when you want. She represents district 92.

Macer wrote an amendment that would penalize corporations for their actions, like taking back property tax incentives and preventing corporate tax breaks.

House members approved the amendment. It’s attached to Senate Bill 308.

The house approved the amendment by a 60-34 margin.

24-Hour News 8 reached out to some of those representatives who voted “no” for a comment, but we have not heard back.
Reply
#58
3-1-2016

Trump: If I'm president, Carrier won't move to Mexico

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump says if he's elected president, Indianapolis will keep the 1,400 jobs being lost by Carrier's move.

The presidential candidate told supporters at a rally in Louisville Tuesday that the company's bosses won't move to Mexico if he's elected.

Trump says the other option Carrier will face is a 35 percent tax on products it plans to produce in Monterrey, Mexico.

Trump's statements come on the same day he won the majority of GOP Super Tuesday primaries.
Reply
#59
Then use the proceeds from that 35% tax to subsidize would-be laid-offs, so that corporations keep on employing them for dirt cheap.

It's the only way to keep these baby-boomers alive and kicking, else, they become a huge massive drain on the society's economy.
Reply
#60
Keeping society's members alive and kicking is the most important task of any society bar none.

Civilization and society happened because they improve the lives of everyone in the society/civilization. There is literally no other reason for them to exist.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#61
Quote:The USA has one of the world's strongest economies even with all those corporations, free trade, and globalization.

One thing I want to point out, the use of the term 'free trade' shouldn't really exist when so much of the labor pool involved in the global market can be beheaded for failure to do their job properly(here's looking to you China). Let's be real here, the global market is benefiting from the slave labor pool in south east Asia- calling it free trade is a gross stretch when the people involved aren't free- only their corporate lords.

Quote:So think about it, do you really want a guy like Trump coming in and shaking everything up?


The status quo is increasing the rich and the poor and killing off the middle- it is not sustainable. Do I really want Trump as president? Fuck no. Nor Hillary. Nor Bernie. They are all still *FAR* too complacent in order to rectify that which is ailing us. Step back and go over the macro economic data- we can't keep this up, it isn't possible. Our national debt in relation to our GDP as a percentage is increasing at almost a percentage point a year- by the time my grandchildren are my age the *interest* on the debt would eclipse our GDP. That isn't some paranoid delusion- it is simple math. So now you have a situation where you have no middle class at all, you have those in abject poverty and the incredibly rich- only those rich need to be taxed at close to 100% simply to pay the interest on the debt at which point the government has no money for social programs for the poor and there is *NO* middle class to keep things running.

Again, this isn't paranoia, look up the numbers. That is simply keeping things going *EXACTLY* how they are right now- staying with the flow. If we don't fix it, game over for our empire(by our I mean the western world, not the US in specific).

Quote:You really think things will get better?


I want people to simply look at the data and pull their heads out of their rectums. Now out of those involved, the popularity of Trump is the best indicator towards the society as a whole that people are starting to at least notice something is wrong. The macro data is hard for people to see when the micro tends to fail to show long term stress fractures- only those sucked in to a gaping whole feel the pinch. While Bernie is also anti corporation he also wants to explode the federal governments percentage of revenue pulled from private markets.

To that point- again, keeping it on a macro level- the *ONLY* way to increase the standard of living for a body of people is to increase their productivity. The federal government is *SIGNIFICANTLY* less productive with dollars then the private sector- that isn't an opinion- and the disparity is growing at an alarming rate due to their entrenched mentality of operational protocols and their failure to leverage new technologies to increase productivity. The larger the amount of money the federal government takes out of the US economy, the lower our standard of living. That isn't an opinion, that is an economic fact. The difference with what we are currently discussing, they are taking the money from those people who choose to move jobs overseas- that is money that isn't in our economy anyway. While I am strongly opposed to the US government taking money out of *OUR* economy as that reduces our standard of living- if they want to take it out of someone elses economy- as inefficient as the government is, that is still *MORE* productive for US citizens than some Chinese executive getting a bigger bonus.

Quote:He may be a good businessman but he clearly does not understand the global economy or even the US economy.


Or, he does far, far better than you while understanding politics significantly better than people gave him credit for. He is phrasing things in a way that is energizing a rather large slice of the voter base. Campaigning rhetoric almost never results in policy remotely close to what they pledge. That is simple reality.

Quote:What do the Democrats want to do that's so "socialist"?


Bernie Sanders was a registered socialist up until he decided he wanted to run for the presidency so he swapped to the Democratic party. That isn't my trying to bash him, he has openly and loudly touted the fact that he is a socialist. He wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, which will utterly destroy the working poor and the lower third of the middle class in this nation, he wants to make all college education free(yeah- the country is in debt *FAR* beyond any the world has ever seen and the way to help is by paying for someone to get a four year degree in modern art before they collect unemployment.......). Our biggest problem right now is good paying jobs moving overseas, with margins in the retail channels of the US being in the single digits for net, even a 10% bump in pay would have a large inflationary impact- Bernie is talking 50%-100% at many levels- that will result in *MASSIVE* layoffs and explosive inflation. That isn't speculation, that is coming from someone whose job it is to keep track of how products move to people and what pricing pressures have what sort of impact. 

First round of Bernie's wet dream would have millions laid off- that is conservative(could easily clear ten million based on a few variables)- and that would be before corporations could shut down plants en masse- even those where people make $25 hr- overwhelmingly their suppliers don't make anywhere near that much- so then we start taking big chunks out of the middle class directly. Now we get the fabulous benefit of the rich having their disposable income reduced by ~75% based on what Bernie is proposing for a tax rate on the rich(80%). So now we have the poor out of work altogether, a big chunk of the working middle class gone, and the biggest spenders in the economy with crippled buying power. But wait, we haven't even gotten to inflationary pressures yet. So that cashier at Wal Mart now has to be paid $15/hr instead of $9/hr- increasing the net cost of labor by 66%. Wal Mart makes a tiny net margin- even if they dedicated themselves to never turning a profit- their prices would have to *sharply* increase in order to pay for this, 15%-20% would be conservative. We aren't done yet though- we had a whole bunch of lay offs and closures, expenses such as building upkeep, electricity etc don't scale much with increased customer traffic(they do, but not nearly as much as square footage) so the overhead cost per dollar of business done is going to increase, likely in the 20% range- again, slap that on to your costs.

Now back to that middle class- their cost of living is going through the roof while their wages aren't, in terms of buying power those solidly in the middle class right now will be quickly falling into the lower class simply as a function of increased costs resulting in their net disposable income quickly becoming an increasing debt ratio. 

Where does that leave us? An elite class that funds the government with all sorts of special privileges and the lower middle class and down representing the rest of the population. End result, very much like a communist nation(although I take the more modern interpretation of socialism which revolves around the portion of the economy controlled by the government). 

Now with all of that said, why aren't I out with a pitchfork and torch rallying against Bernie? Because it is political rhetoric that has no chance of actually passing, just like Trump.  
Reply
#62
ROFLMAO

Ho ho ho, you are CRAZY Ben Skywalker! All your talk of interest and inflation, leave the governing to wise men like Bernie Sanders!

You clearly do not understand how government and the economy works!

Hit_head

Yep, that all sounds spot on to me. No magic tax fix by voting for the right politician in store for America, just the fulfillment of de Toqueville's prophecy carried out by vultures picking the bones of the republic for a good paying job.

I can't believe how incredibly stupid people are. WTF? We all had 12 years of public school math.

If your employees make a wage of $10/hr raising it to $15 costs $200 more in straight wage per employee per week, $10,400/year. If a business has ten full time employees, that is $104,000 added straight wage cost. Crackhead socialists think that small business owners making $100-$200K a year will just drop to -$4K-$96k a year. Dumbasses.
Reply
#63
Bernie Sanders isn't winning..  he's just pointing us to how corporate global capitalism is screwing us over.  Trump is a businessman, unlike Sanders, but he's just a loud-mouthed playboy who cannot truly be relied upon.  That's why Billary is poised to win...
Anything but Billary, please!!!!!   Hit_head
Reply
#64
Legit, shocked about this bit of news-

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016.../94637112/

Huh, well, if nothing else, that's ~1000 jobs saved.....?
Reply
#65
Thanks Ben, it's all over the local news here. The plant is only about 15 minutes from me.

It's 1,400 jobs right here in Indianapolis and 700 in Huntington which is about and hour and a half north of Indianapolis.

He is not even President yet and making deals he promised.

Update: No word on the 700 jobs and it's 1,000 jobs here so they are losing almost half of the workforce but the plant will remain open here.
Reply
#66
I still think Trump is a complete tool, but if he saved a thousand good jobs in my town..... well that would certainly move the needle for me Smile
Reply
#67
Where in the Country are you?
Reply
#68
(11-30-2016, 01:09 PM)BenSkywalker Wrote: Legit, shocked about this bit of news-

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016.../94637112/

Huh, well, if nothing else, that's ~1000 jobs saved.....?

(11-30-2016, 05:37 PM)dmcowen674 Wrote: Thanks Ben, it's all over the local news here. The plant is only about 15 minutes from me.

It's 1,400 jobs right here in Indianapolis and 700 in Huntington which is about and hour and a half north of Indianapolis.

He is not even President yet and making deals he promised.

Update: No word on the 700 jobs and it's 1,000 jobs here so they are losing almost half of the workforce but the plant will remain open here.

Swings and roundabouts. The jobs Trump saves here will be more than offset by losses due to his insane fiddling with things like ObamaCare.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#69
(12-01-2016, 05:49 AM)gstanford Wrote: Swings and roundabouts.  The jobs Trump saves here will be more than offset by losses due to his insane fiddling with things like ObamaCare.

What???

Other than getting rid of the pre-existing condition exclusion how is ObamaCare a boon to keeping jobs in the U.S. and doing away with it to cause jobs to leave?

Splain Lucy.
Reply
#70
Yes, gstan, explain.
Reply
#71
He is going to abolish Obamacare.  All those employed to administer it will no longer have work. And that is just the start of the insanity.

Trumps economic policies and the other policies he took to the election will turn out to be a disaster for the US economy and will lead to job losses.

Just wait until he dismantles trade agreements everywhere and the foreign blowback against american goods that will ensue from that.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#72
Quote:Where in the Country are you?

New Hampshire, lifelong New Englander here.
Reply
#73
(12-01-2016, 07:30 AM)gstanford Wrote: He is going to abolish Obamacare.  All those employed to administer it will no longer have work.  And that is just the start of the insanity.

Trumps economic policies and the other policies he took to the election will turn out to be a disaster for the US economy and will lead to job losses.

Just wait until he dismantles trade agreements everywhere and the foreign blowback against american goods that will ensue from that.

Perhaps living in Australia you don't understand the issues in North America. NAFTA has been bad for both the USA and Canada where Mexico is concerned. All of our jobs are being outsourced down to there and our economies are taking a hit. Trump is finally doing something about it. I say let him try and see what happens. So far he is doing well; I have to say that I'm shocked and pleasantly surprised that he was able to save all those Carrier jobs. There is a lot I really can't stand about the guy but I think he deserves a fair chance. He won the election fair and square. Actually he had the media and the odds stacked against him.
Reply
#74
Well, our Australian beef producers will certainly enjoy him removing trade agreements.  Most of the time they are put into place to favor the USA vs the other countries.  We used to sell more beef to japan until the last trade agreement where the USA negotiated things into their favor at our expense.

Also I think Trump will get a rude shock when he does abolish the trade agreements.  He probably thinks doing so will give the USA the upper hand, however, the USA is only 350 million consumers out of a world of billions.  Other countries can pretty much ignore the USA and still trade as much if not more than they already are.

China, India, SE Asia, South America are all bigger, more powerful, more developed economies than they were when Bill Clinton started the big trade agreements in the 90's.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#75
My own feeling is that Trump is only going to alter the trade agreements that have been really bad for the USA up until now.  Basically that means Mexico.  Mexico is screwed IMO.  I think here in Canada we will come out ok and the other deals will probably be re-negotiated and altered, rather than scrapped altogether.
Reply
#76
There's no way other countries can ignore the economic market of the USA, given how massive consumers we are. SickBeast's suspicion sounds plausible to me.
Reply
#77
(12-01-2016, 07:30 AM)gstanford Wrote: He is going to abolish Obamacare.  All those employed to administer it will no longer have work.  And that is just the start of the insanity.

Trumps economic policies and the other policies he took to the election will turn out to be a disaster for the US economy and will lead to job losses.

Just wait until he dismantles trade agreements everywhere and the foreign blowback against american goods that will ensue from that.

You clearly know nothing about the U.S. especially the giant Insurance scamming Industry.

Let me give you a hint:

When there is a Depression or Recession the only unscathed Industry is the Insurance Companies.
Reply
#78
Here it is.

This is the first time I have ever seen Mexico whine.

I don't know what Mexico had on the U.S. that made that NAFTA deal get made but Trump is alreay unraveling it:

12-1-2016

Mexico disappointed at Carrier agreement to keep jobs in US
[url=https://www.yahoo.com/news/mexico-disappointed-carrier-agreement-keep-232858468.html][/url]
Officials in the Mexican state of Nuevo Leon expressed disappointment Wednesday at Carrier Corp.'s announcement it will keep hundreds of jobs in the United States rather than send them south of the border.

Carrier currently operates one plant in Nuevo Leon and has built but not yet occupied another one there as part of a planned $200 million expansion.

"The implications are very serious, not only for Nuevo Leon, but for Carrier," Sen. Marcela Guerra said.

"The one who is going to suffer from this is the company ... because their products are going to be more expensive," she added.

At a news conference, the mayor of Santa Catarina, the Monterrey suburb where the Carrier plant is, said he had not heard from the company.

"We haven't received any formal notification from the company. In fact, we are working normally with them," Mayor Hector Castillo said, adding that Carrier has already constructed the shell of the new factory building.

Monterrey, Santa Catarina and much of Nuevo Leon was gripped four years ago by a wave of drug cartel violence and killings. But the situation has calmed, in part because of greater law enforcement efforts but also because of increased job availabilities at new businesses, such as a new Kia Motors auto plant, that have opened nearby.
Reply
#79
Remember what I said above about Obamacare and abolishing it costing jobs?

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/12/h...5-billion/

Article Wrote:The study’s verdict: 22 million people would lose insurance by 2026, which would cost hospitals $165.8 billion. And, because the legislation wouldn’t undo certain payment cuts created by the ACA, hospitals would lose an additional $102.9 billion.

"AHA Letter to Trump Wrote:“Losses of this magnitude cannot be sustained and will adversely impact patients’ access to care, decimate hospitals’ and health systems’ ability to provide services, weaken local economies that hospitals help sustain and grow, and result in massive job losses.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#80
[Image: giphy.gif]
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)