Well done Mitt, you took it to him last night...

beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
The problem CK, is not that a president should be able to predict the future out of thin air, but that they should have the skill to be able to pick up on what is known and be able to predict that a bad outcome is likely. In all of the examples you give, there were predictable outcomes for each. In this case, the Obama Admin received a request for more security, which was denied. In Lybia of all places! Where we just dropped bombs! We denied our embassy more security.
The administration tried to pin the blame on a ridiculous film that no one watched, then got Hillary to fall on the sword. Is Obama clueless to think that we are all dumb enough to think that its ok for him to wash his hands of this? Now Dems who were going to vote for Obama anyway will eat it, but swing voters on the whole may not. Americans generally can forgive errors if one owns up. Owning up is a indicator of one's character. Passing the buck of responsibility is an indicator of cowardice.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/60#post_3496967
Neither candidate has a viable plan for the economy. Based on what each want's to spend, neither has enough cuts to keep the deficit from rising. The issue will come down to who will make the most dramatic and realistic tax increases in order to somewhat reduce the deficit, or keep it balanced at a minimum.
Benghazi is a futile attempt at the Republicans trying to deflate Obama's foreign policiy experience. Romney has zero, zilch, nada experience. Hillary came out yesterday and stated neither Obama nor Biden had any knowledge about security issues in Libya. She took full blame for the incident because international security falls underneath her jurisdiction.
Romney has the same amount of foreign policy experience 0bama did when he was elected LOL! The Benghazi deal comes down to credibility. It was two weeks before 0bama said this was an act of terrorism but now he's trying to claim a vague remark during the Rose Garden speech before he flew to Nevada for a fundraiser was him calling it terrorism. OK, lets say that isn't total BS. Why if he, and Deputy Secretary of State Lamb both knew it was terrorism the next day why did they send the UN ambassador out 5 days later to positively assert the evidence showed this to be a spontaneous act of violence that grew out of a protest they knew didn't happen?
As far as taxes you don't seem to understand, we cannot tax our way out of this mess. We have to grow the economy and cut spending. What we have to decide is what tax structure is best for economic growth.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/60#post_3496989
Here's the thing... Anytime anything "unexpected" happens, you can't say "Well he/she should have known it was coming and done something more to stop it!" If that's the case, then obviously GW Bush should have known 9/11 was coming, FDR should have known what those pesky Japs were up to, Nixon should have known about Vietnam, JFK's secret service should have had a better grasp on Dallas security, etc, etc.
No one wants American lives lost. Period. I am so, so, so sick of people trying to politicize things like this. I can guarantee you Obama didn't want Chris Stevens dying, just like W didn't want 9/11 to happen. Sometimes things happen.
Unless there was GLARING intelligence that said this was going to happen, which as far as anyone can tell, there WASN'T. Then let it go...
The fact the people on the ground were asking for more security raises some questions. It seems to me the fact there had been multiple attacks there previously and there had been an assassination attempt on another diplomat recently there should have been more hands on at the administration level, Libya is pretty important. Even so I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that. It's lying about what really happened that I take issue with.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/80#post_3497003
Romney has the same amount of foreign policy experience 0bama did when he was elected LOL! The Benghazi deal comes down to credibility. It was two weeks before 0bama said this was an act of terrorism but now he's trying to claim a vague remark during the Rose Garden speech before he flew to Nevada for a fundraiser was him calling it terrorism. OK, lets say that isn't total BS. Why if he, and Deputy Secretary of State Lamb both knew it was terrorism the next day why did they send the UN ambassador out 5 days later to positively assert the evidence showed this to be a spontaneous act of violence that grew out of a protest they knew didn't happen?
As far as taxes you don't seem to understand, we cannot tax our way out of this mess. We have to grow the economy and cut spending. What we have to decide is what tax structure is best for economic growth.
We can't cut every program that the Republicans deem "unnecessary" in their minds to get us out from under the deficit either. Yea, let's go after PBS and Big Bird, even though it represents .000014% of the annual deficit. Throw grandma out on the curb because we can no longer afford SS and Medicare. How about we quit spending billions on Subs and some new Airplane that the military has no viable use for? There's no doubt the tax code needs to be re-structured where it takes a piece of the pie form ALL taxpayers. The problem with that scenario is the one's at the bottom of the food chain can't afford what little taxes they pay now besides income tax (property tax, sales tax, state income tax). Add even another tax burden on that elusive "47%", and you'll turn the US into an India or China where you have millions of people living in slum projects getting the water out of the river filled with sewage (think Slumdog Millionaire).
There's approximately 2000 Ambassadors and other US representatives stationed around the world at any given time. When it comes to the security and safety of these individuals, it falls under the command of the Secretary Of State. To say that either the President or Vice President would have knowledge of the the activities and safety concerns of every one of these people at any given time is unlikely. I highly doubt that an of the previous Presidents in the last two decades would've had specific details or knowledge of the dangers these people face any more than what Obam or Biden knew. If Obama spent his day staying on top of every single department that falls under his control, he wouldn't have enough time in the day to do so. It's called delegation. He just has to be assured those that do delegate and make these decisions that affect the lives of indivduals like Stevens, know what they're doing.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/80#post_3497011
We can't cut every program that the Republicans deem "unnecessary" in their minds to get us out from under the deficit either. Yea, let's go after PBS and Big Bird, even though it represents .000014% of the annual deficit. Throw grandma out on the curb because we can no longer afford SS and Medicare. How about we quit spending billions on Subs and some new Airplane that the military has no viable use for? There's no doubt the tax code needs to be re-structured where it takes a piece of the pie form ALL taxpayers. The problem with that scenario is the one's at the bottom of the food chain can't afford what little taxes they pay now besides income tax (property tax, sales tax, state income tax). Add even another tax burden on that elusive "47%", and you'll turn the US into an India or China where you have millions of people living in slum projects getting the water out of the river filled with sewage (think Slumdog Millionaire).
There's approximately 2000 Ambassadors and other US representatives stationed around the world at any given time. When it comes to the security and safety of these individuals, it falls under the command of the Secretary Of State. To say that either the President or Vice President would have knowledge of the the activities and safety concerns of every one of these people at any given time is unlikely. I highly doubt that an of the previous Presidents in the last two decades would've had specific details or knowledge of the dangers these people face any more than what Obam or Biden knew. If Obama spent his day staying on top of every single department that falls under his control, he wouldn't have enough time in the day to do so. It's called delegation. He just has to be assured those that do delegate and make these decisions that affect the lives of indivduals like Stevens, know what they're doing.
First point. There is only on Ambassador to Libya. If not for the change of government I would agree with you. 0bama nor Biden have any knowledge on security issues so they shouldn't be involved in routine decisions but Libya isn't routine. Steven's knew what he was doing and had asked for additional security. He really should have gone over whoever's head to get R done. But like I said, I am still inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on that. It's lying about what happened I have an issue with.
On the debt we are going to have to cut. You gotta start somewhere. Not only would I toss big bird under the bus, I'd fry him up and toss him in some school lunches. Look, we are eventually going to have to means test social security and medicare. Before doing that we need to cut every cent we can from non vital programs before going there.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/80#post_3497022
First point. There is only on Ambassador to Libya. If not for the change of government I would agree with you. 0bama nor Biden have any knowledge on security issues so they shouldn't be involved in routine decisions but Libya isn't routine. Steven's knew what he was doing and had asked for additional security. He really should have gone over whoever's head to get R done. But like I said, I am still inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on that. It's lying about what happened I have an issue with.
On the debt we are going to have to cut. You gotta start somewhere. Not only would I toss big bird under the bus, I'd fry him up and toss him in some school lunches. I guess that explains why the Republican-dominated congress cut the Dept. of State security budget. Look, we are eventually going to have to means test social security and medicare. Before doing that we need to cut every cent we can from non vital programs before going there. Why does everyone assume that PBS is not a vital program. The children of the poor cannot afford expensive per-school programs, so for many PBS and Sesame Street are the ony way to obtain preparation for beginning their educations.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/80#post_3497022
First point. There is only on Ambassador to Libya. If not for the change of government I would agree with you. 0bama nor Biden have any knowledge on security issues so they shouldn't be involved in routine decisions but Libya isn't routine. Steven's knew what he was doing and had asked for additional security. He really should have gone over whoever's head to get R done. But like I said, I am still inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on that. It's lying about what happened I have an issue with.
On the debt we are going to have to cut. You gotta start somewhere. Not only would I toss big bird under the bus, I'd fry him up and toss him in some school lunches. Look, we are eventually going to have to means test social security and medicare. Before doing that we need to cut every cent we can from non vital programs before going there.
Here's two charts depicted "incoming' and "outgoing" for the 2011 Federal Budget:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Receipts_-_FY_2007.png
Based on these charts, you have a $1.2 trillion difference siding with spending. Your proposal is to whack ALL discretionary spending to balance this budget. Sorry to say, you're only half way there. So you either get the other half from raising taxes, or you cut those "other" programs that every Congress since FDR say are "taboo" and can't be touched.
Here's the 2013 Budget for those Discretionary programs Republicans seem to think are so vile and useless:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Discretionary_Spending_by_Dpt_-_2010E.png
The Top Dog is Health and Human Services (i.e Welfare and Food Stamps). That's $81 billion. Whack it all. Who cares if those homeless people and other useless dreggs to society don't eat or have a place to live.
Next we have Education at $68 billion. Come on, who needs intelligent kids. Just let them learn life experiences on Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter. All their other education can come stright off the Internet. My daughter earned 15 hours this year taking online classes. Just lock those little rug rats in their room all day wiith a computer and some food and the problem solves itself.
Veteran Affairs gets $60 billion - I'm assuming these are those lovely perks like pensions and health insurance all our military veteran's receive for their dedicated work. SOOORRY. We have a budget to balance. Most of them are double-dipping anyways, and probably have jobs that can provide healthcare at the same rates the lowly non-serving Americans have to pay for. WHACK IT.
States get $56 billion - Nope. Go with the Conservative philosophies. States can take care off themselves. Medicaid? Who needs it. Let those drooling wheelchair-bound elderly pay for their medicines themselves. Fix you're own roads. Cover your own educational expenses.
Homeland Security at $55 billion - Knee jerk reation to 9/11. I'd whack it just so I don't have to take half my clothes off and get some full-body X-Ray scan when I go through the airport at least twice per month.
Intelligence $53 billion - Now there's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one. Nuff said...
HUD at $41 billion - There's those moocher's again. Section 8 housing is crap anyways and filled with a bunch of drug addicts and prostitutes.
The rest of them? Not worth the trouble. I just cut $414 billion. So actually I only cut a third of that $1.2 trillion. So again, where's the other 2/3rds coming from?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/80#post_3497049
Here's two charts depicted "incoming' and "outgoing" for the 2011 Federal Budget:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Receipts_-_FY_2007.png
Based on these charts, you have a $1.2 trillion difference siding with spending. Your proposal is to whack ALL discretionary spending to balance this budget. Sorry to say, you're only half way there. So you either get the other half from raising taxes, or you cut those "other" programs that every Congress since FDR say are "taboo" and can't be touched.
Here's the 2013 Budget for those Discretionary programs Republicans seem to think are so vile and useless:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Discretionary_Spending_by_Dpt_-_2010E.png
The Top Dog is Health and Human Services (i.e Welfare and Food Stamps). That's $81 billion. Whack it all. Who cares if those homeless people and other useless dreggs to society don't eat or have a place to live.
Next we have Education at $68 billion. Come on, who needs intelligent kids. Just let them learn life experiences on Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter. All their other education can come stright off the Internet. My daughter earned 15 hours this year taking online classes. Just lock those little rug rats in their room all day wiith a computer and some food and the problem solves itself.
Veteran Affairs gets $60 billion - I'm assuming these are those lovely perks like pensions and health insurance all our military veteran's receive for their dedicated work. SOOORRY. We have a budget to balance. Most of them are double-dipping anyways, and probably have jobs that can provide healthcare at the same rates the lowly non-serving Americans have to pay for. WHACK IT.
States get $56 billion - Nope. Go with the Conservative philosophies. States can take care off themselves. Medicaid? Who needs it. Let those drooling wheelchair-bound elderly pay for their medicines themselves. Fix you're own roads. Cover your own educational expenses.
Homeland Security at $55 billion - Knee jerk reation to 9/11. I'd whack it just so I don't have to take half my clothes off and get some full-body X-Ray scan when I go through the airport at least twice per month.
Intelligence $53 billion - Now there's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one. Nuff said...
HUD at $41 billion - There's those moocher's again. Section 8 housing is crap anyways and filled with a bunch of drug addicts and prostitutes.
The rest of them? Not worth the trouble. I just cut $414 billion. So actually I only cut a third of that $1.2 trillion. So again, where's the other 2/3rds coming from?
You utterly missed the point. We can't tax or cut our way out of the hole. We can't tax AND cut our way out of the hole. We have to grow the economy. To do that we have to start living in reality. As we get the fiscal house in order confidence in the US economy will get the growth going again.
 
acrylic51

acrylic51

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/60#post_3496989
Here's the thing... Anytime anything "unexpected" happens, you can't say "Well he/she should have known it was coming and done something more to stop it!" If that's the case, then obviously GW Bush should have known 9/11 was coming, FDR should have known what those pesky Japs were up to, Nixon should have known about Vietnam, JFK's secret service should have had a better grasp on Dallas security, etc, etc.
No one wants American lives lost. Period. I am so, so, so sick of people trying to politicize things like this. I can guarantee you Obama didn't want Chris Stevens dying, just like W didn't want 9/11 to happen. Sometimes things happen.
Unless there was GLARING intelligence that said this was going to happen, which as far as anyone can tell, there WASN'T. Then let it go...
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/80#post_3497073
You utterly missed the point. We can't tax or cut our way out of the hole. We can't tax AND cut our way out of the hole. We have to grow the economy. To do that we have to start living in reality. As we get the fiscal house in order confidence in the US economy will get the growth going again.
Everyone uses that buzz phrase "We have to grow the economy." Problem is, no one has a clue how to do it. You say you want to "get the fiscal house in order". OK, I listed the "useless" parts you claim can go. But that's not enough. What else you gonna whack?
Romney's typical trickle down economic policy isn't going to fly. This isn't the 80's. As technologically advanced we have become, businesses and corporation have a different mentality on how they want to run the organizations. Back in the 80's, a manufacturing business had 10 Design Engineers sitting at drafting tables designing the latest products. You had an IT Dept. of 30 or so people that maintained the large mainframes, databases, and new-found devices called "desktop computers". You had 50 to 100 people running the manufacturing lines building your products. You had 10 or so Customer Service Reps, 15 or so in Accounting, another 5 or 6 in shipping and distrbution, and a whole slew of administrators and managers.
Nowadays, those 10 Engineers are replaced by 2 who sit at Mac Pro's running a CAD/Design app that can do the work of 5 people. The IT staff is now down to 4, with the mainframes moved to a Data Center, where every application is run and managed on a 1" Blade that "sits in The Cloud". Customer Service and Accounting is outsourced to a outside organization that can manage those processes for half of what you'd pay a person to do it. The manufacturing crew has been reduced to 20 due to manufacturing automation and robotics. Shipping and distribution is reduced because UPS and several other trucking agencies can do the work for you. Businesses can run with 30% - 40% fewer employees due to outsourcing, automation, and basically running your entire functions off of a web site. I think I mentioned one time where a buddy of mine was recently laid off from his Oracle DBA position of 7 years. His company came in and whacked the entire IT Staff, CIO included, and has outsourced the entire operation to one of these India Call Center/Systems Support operations. That's the mentality of medium-to-large sized businesses.
 
acrylic51

acrylic51

Active Member
These companies that do "outsource" these jobs overseas, such as customer service, call centers, why not tax these companies harder?? Obviously it's about profit to them not quality!!! I do understand those jobs can be hard to fill, but it seems to me if you really truly want work you'll do what you have to to put food on the table.
I'm also confused about the statement of "47%" are soft???
 
D

dragonzim

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/80#post_3497196
Nowadays, those 10 Engineers are replaced by 2 who sit at Mac Pro's running a CAD/Design app that can do the work of 5 people. The IT staff is now down to 4, with the mainframes moved to a Data Center, where every application is run and managed on a 1" Blade that "sits in The Cloud". Customer Service and Accounting is outsourced to a outside organization that can manage those processes for half of what you'd pay a person to do it.
As an interesting aside to this, I work for a manufacturing company here in NY that is owned by a global holding company. Our parent company recently opened an Engineering office in India and is pushing all the subsidiary companies to outsource some or all of the design work over there. We pay entry level, junior design engineers here in NY about 40K to start and upwards of 90K to 110K for experienced engineers. An entry level, but degreed engineer in India costs 11K per year. Our previous President decided to go ahead and hire a guy over there due to the cost. We had him on board for about 2 months when we realized that we really needed to bring him over here for training. We were also having trouble because he needed to connect to our parts library in my office here so there were connectivityspeed issues due to unreliable internet connections over there. So, we paid for him to come here for 2 weeks, which cost us about 5K and after doing a bunch of research found that it would cost us about another 20K in hardware, software and consulting to do anything about the speed issues that plagued us with the connection between the sites. All of a sudden this 11K a year engineer was going to cost us close to 40K by the time we were done working out all the issues. Also, because of our industry (designing parts for elevators) there is a LOT to know about local building codes, so it generally takes one of our Engineers about 6 months to be fully up to speed and able to design without supervision. The time difference between here and India made that next to impossible since it took 2 days for a question to get answered rather than the minute it would take someone local to ask one of the other guys in the department. After all that, we pulled the plug and will NEVER use outsourced engineering services again..
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/80#post_3497196
Everyone uses that buzz phrase "We have to grow the economy." Problem is, no one has a clue how to do it. You say you want to "get the fiscal house in order". OK, I listed the "useless" parts you claim can go. But that's not enough. What else you gonna whack?
Romney's typical trickle down economic policy isn't going to fly. This isn't the 80's. As technologically advanced we have become, businesses and corporation have a different mentality on how they want to run the organizations. Back in the 80's, a manufacturing business had 10 Design Engineers sitting at drafting tables designing the latest products. You had an IT Dept. of 30 or so people that maintained the large mainframes, databases, and new-found devices called "desktop computers". You had 50 to 100 people running the manufacturing lines building your products. You had 10 or so Customer Service Reps, 15 or so in Accounting, another 5 or 6 in shipping and distrbution, and a whole slew of administrators and managers.
Nowadays, those 10 Engineers are replaced by 2 who sit at Mac Pro's running a CAD/Design app that can do the work of 5 people. The IT staff is now down to 4, with the mainframes moved to a Data Center, where every application is run and managed on a 1" Blade that "sits in The Cloud". Customer Service and Accounting is outsourced to a outside organization that can manage those processes for half of what you'd pay a person to do it. The manufacturing crew has been reduced to 20 due to manufacturing automation and robotics. Shipping and distribution is reduced because UPS and several other trucking agencies can do the work for you. Businesses can run with 30% - 40% fewer employees due to outsourcing, automation, and basically running your entire functions off of a web site. I think I mentioned one time where a buddy of mine was recently laid off from his Oracle DBA position of 7 years. His company came in and whacked the entire IT Staff, CIO included, and has outsourced the entire operation to one of these India Call Center/Systems Support operations. That's the mentality of medium-to-large sized businesses.
Which backs up my point that we have to cut the size of government. 0bama's trickle down government thing isn't going to fly. There isn't a thing we can do about wage disparity with other countries but bullcrap like the war on coal is making our electric rates a lot higher than they need to be. Low energy costs and abundant power is something China and India can't compete with us on, Yet. 0bama says he doesn't want to cede the renewable energy market to China. Got a news flash skippy, they already have it, at least in the case of solar. We need to stop wasting money there.
There are some jobs you can't outsource. Natural resources being one of them. Producing oil and natural gas on public lands is a win win. Not only does it produce good jobs the government make money off lease and royalty fees. Same deal with coal and wood products. I spend 13 years in lumber country. You wouldn't believe the number of jobs lost to environmental extremism. And I ain't talking about clear cutting beautiful forests either. You have lawsuits tying up salvage logging on beetle infestations and burn areas blocked by lawsuits by the extremists. Not only does it cost the government the income they would get from the logging, it costs millions in legals fees. We need to quit shooting ourselves in the foot in this area.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by acrylic51 http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/80#post_3497200
These companies that do "outsource" these jobs overseas, such as customer service, call centers, why not tax these companies harder?? Obviously it's about profit to them not quality!!! I do understand those jobs can be hard to fill, but it seems to me if you really truly want work you'll do what you have to to put food on the table.
I'm also confused about the statement of "47%" are soft???
The trouble is.... is it better to lose some of the jobs a company supplies than all of them? If a company has to outsource to compete what are you going to do? You tax them harder they have even less profit and will either outsource more jobs or shut down all together.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/80#post_3497230
Which backs up my point that we have to cut the size of government. 0bama's trickle down government thing isn't going to fly. There isn't a thing we can do about wage disparity with other countries but bullcrap like the war on coal is making our electric rates a lot higher than they need to be. Low energy costs and abundant power is something China and India can't compete with us on, Yet. 0bama says he doesn't want to cede the renewable energy market to China. Got a news flash skippy, they already have it, at least in the case of solar. We need to stop wasting money there.
There are some jobs you can't outsource. Natural resources being one of them. Producing oil and natural gas on public lands is a win win. Not only does it produce good jobs the government make money off lease and royalty fees. Same deal with coal and wood products. I spend 13 years in lumber country. You wouldn't believe the number of jobs lost to environmental extremism. And I ain't talking about clear cutting beautiful forests either. You have lawsuits tying up salvage logging on beetle infestations and burn areas blocked by lawsuits by the extremists. Not only does it cost the government the income they would get from the logging, it costs millions in legals fees. We need to quit shooting ourselves in the foot in this area.
"War on coal" is another useless buzz word. How many states in this country have viable coal production capabilities? I've seen the type of jobs, and the people who work in that industry. "Coal lifer's" do everything in their power to try and insure their children aren't stuck with having to work in the coal mines. What the current life expectancy of a coal miner?
Same thing with oil and natural gas production. We have one of the largest fracking fields in the country. Small towns that were inidiscriminate dots on a map are now bustling with jobs amd people looking for places to live. However, that's another lifestyle that's demanding where most individuals couldn't handle the rigors or dangers that come with those jobs. My brother has been an oil rigger for over 30 years now. I've been out in the fields with him. Believe me, a college kid couldn't survive a week working in that environment, much less the majority of women looking for work.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/80#post_3497231
The trouble is.... is it better to lose some of the jobs a company supplies than all of them? If a company has to outsource to compete what are you going to do? You tax them harder they have even less profit and will either outsource more jobs or shut down all together.
I don't begrude a corporation that outsources to help improve their bottom line. But it does nothing to improve the high unemployment rates in this country. That's what it boils down to. Unless industries and corporations can provide viable and decent paying jobs to those looking for work, "growing the economy" isn't going to occur.
 
theclemsonkid

theclemsonkid

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/80#post_3497241
I don't begrude a corporation that outsources to help improve their bottom line. But it does nothing to improve the high unemployment rates in this country. That's what it boils down to. Unless industries and corporations can provide viable and decent paying jobs to those looking for work, "growing the economy" isn't going to occur.
And therein lies the fundamental problem with the economy that no one wants to talk about. In order to compete in a global economy, you have to have cheap manufacturing, which means you are basically priced out of the United States. So the question becomes, does someone like Walmart and their CEO, top executives and the like, who make tens of millions of dollars... Do they collectively make enough money, to where if they decided to take a "pay cut", could you use that money to hire more people at home?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top