The pungeant stench or corporate welfare in our country..

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989508,00.html

Footwedge;853479 wrote:Clinton was always moderate right. Look up Southern Democrat...or better yet, look up his policies as governor of Arkansas.

Look what he tried to get passed in his first couple years as president and I am sorry but that wasn't exactly moderate right.

Footwedge;853306 wrote:Apparently you did not read what I said. I said that corporations should be rewarded through tax cuts if they stay here in this country to manufacture tradable goods. Reread it.

Good luck with that. You already have the masses slamming corporate welfare and all these tax "loopholes"(I call them incentives, a dirty word) that allegedly need closed, and you're proposing more loopholes for companies to exploit.

With that said, I like your idea, I'm just skeptical about a couple things. How will bringing expensive labor back home make us more competitive in a global economy? Also, I think in order for this to work, you're going to have to make the tax incentive permanent so that business can effectively build this incentive into their long term forecasts without the worry they will lose it 5-10 years from now.

sleeper;853502 wrote:Good luck with that. You already have the masses slamming corporate welfare and all these tax "loopholes"(I call them incentives, a dirty word) that allegedly need closed, and you're proposing more loopholes for companies to exploit.

With that said, I like your idea, I'm just skeptical about a couple things. How will bringing expensive labor back home make us more competitive in a global economy? Also, I think in order for this to work, you're going to have to make the tax incentive permanent so that business can effectively build this incentive into their long term forecasts without the worry they will lose it 5-10 years from now.

You become more competitive by implememting boycotts...or what I call an economic war on countries that have absolutely no labor laws...like the US did in the 19th Century. Combine that with corporate welfare laws to bring back the tradeable goods markets. The result? Full time employment, low tax rates, a balanced budget....and most importantly, a country full of people that can see a bright future...as opposed to this crap....of expanding government, expanding wars, and an inevitable collapse...into 3rd world status.

And yes, the provisions must be long term....much longer than 5 to 10 years. Fug China.

If you get into an all out trade war, the people who will get hurt the most are the people who can least afford it.

The price of products and services will soar, inflationary pressures will be hell, and those who barely squeak by now because they can buy cheaper products because of global competition will end up going without -- unless you're looking to create another layer of entitlements to help out in the interim.

I get the anger over how unfair the playing field is...but getting into tariffs and trade boycotts will not bring jobs back to the US like you think it will, and we'll all end up paying much more for everything in the process.

jmog;853495 wrote:Look what he tried to get passed in his first couple years as president and I am sorry but that wasn't exactly moderate right.

Promoting and signing NAFTA, was his financial claim to fame....Unbridled globalization is as right winged as it gets. We continue to pay for that crap piece of legislation. Whereby he reduced the military budget, albeit slightly, he had no qualms in intervening into the Balkans. He wasn't a radical neoconservative, but he wasn't exactly a NOBEL Peace prize winner either.

Writerbuckeye;853522 wrote:If you get into an all out trade war, the people who will get hurt the most are the people who can least afford it.

The price of products and services will soar, inflationary pressures will be hell, and those who barely squeak by now because they can buy cheaper products because of global competition will end up going without -- unless you're looking to create another layer of entitlements to help out in the interim.

I get the anger over how unfair the playing field is...but getting into tariffs and trade boycotts will not bring jobs back to the US like you think it will, and we'll all end up paying much more for everything in the process.

I never mentioned tariffs, but there is nothing wrong with moderate tariffs. We've charged tarriffs for 240 years now. Tariffs are stupid whenever your balance of trade is hugely in your favor. That is not the case now...and hasn't been since the 1980's. I don't have a problem with corporate welfare in order to bring back the markets of tradeable goods in this country. That's a far better strategy than expanding the government in order to keep the masses employed.

As for paying a higher price, who cares? I would happily pay a premium to keep America prosperous.

If you are happy with the status quo, and the unbelievably negative, helpless and destitute feeling of the American people, then fine...let the American Corporatacracy make their nut overseas....and be content with your kids and grandkids living in a banana Republic.

Footwedge;853485 wrote:Oh...it's corporate welfare...for sure. Since when is the government (or the tax payers more precisely) liable or responsible for making loans?

Doesn't matter, it's not welfare it's a loan. Whether the govt should be doing that is a debae for capitalism and free markets, but it doesn't magically transform a loan into welfare. Corporate "welfare" is a deliberate mischaracterization as part of the class warfare debate to stigmatize it with everything bad about real welfare and none of the good, when in reality it's the complete opposite (the long-run incentive and efficiency implications being where free market disdain lay, but in the short-run it's far from the money-flushing ROI of actual welfare programs).

Footwedge;853523 wrote:Promoting and signing NAFTA, was his financial claim to fame....Unbridled globalization is as right winged as it gets. We continue to pay for that crap piece of legislation. Whereby he reduced the military budget, albeit slightly, he had no qualms in intervening into the Balkans. He wasn't a radical neoconservative, but he wasn't exactly a NOBEL Peace prize winner either.

Don't forget his attempt at universal health care, that fact that he expanded Carter's Community Reinvestment Act, Don't Ask Don't Tell, refused cuts on entitlements (early, later when Rs took over Congress he was for it) and instead raised taxes on gas/oil/natural gas (raising taxes on "Big Oil"), income tax raises on small businesses, etc.

He tried all of this until the country revolted and elected a republican controlled House and Senate, at that point Clinton, being the smart man that he was, turned a LOT more moderate and won reelection because of it.

Obama has not seen the same light that Clinton did and will probably lose the next election because of it.

Ty Webb;852379 wrote:Do you have proof of that?

Ty Webb;852589 wrote:He said it WILL happen....he should have to provide proof

Wow, you really aren't this stupid are you? Did you have proof when you PREDICTED the republicans wouldn't win either the house or the senate in the 2010 elections?

jmog;853358 wrote:The Unemployment rate under Bush was under 5% for nearly his whole 8 years, then in 2008 when the markets crashed it went from 5% to 7.4% when Bush left office. Since Obama took over it has gone from 7.4% to as high as 10.1% and now is at 9.2%.

Please don't compare the unemployment rate under Bush to Obama, it makes you look bad, you are smarter than that.

No, he really isn't.

Belly35;852376 wrote:I see this coming in the future.. real soon

Uneployment will be 9.6 by year end, stock and investmnet fucked, gold going higher, lending harder, business closing and intercity racial problems starts.
We are heading into a depression .... If this stupid mofo community organize pushes for tax increase or cutting out the bush tax or continues mention Increase Taxes ... matter will only get worse....

I see that some of the former Obama Supporter are now getting frustrated with their Hope and Change Public Servant...

Only thing missing is the riots ... Oh! wait .... London riots leave city scarred ... and it begins soon to be followed in the US ....Unemploymnet will soon follow also...

Quick selloff at the bell - pared recently, this is going to be a choppy day.

queencitybuckeye;851786 wrote:Analysts blame the seeming "never ending wall of bad news" and "crisis fatigue".

Will these clowns in D.C. ever learn (or admit) that the single best thing they can do for the economy is GTFO to the maximum possible extent?

Did you write this article?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-growth-agenda-and-its-enemies/

Manhattan Buckeye;854929 wrote:Did you write this article?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-growth-agenda-and-its-enemies/

The job effect caused by excess bureaucracy is a very real thing in my small business. It's probably the difference between one, maybe two additional jobs at my little company, but multiplied by all of the small businesses, it would make an substantial dent.

Belly35;854814 wrote:Only thing missing is the riots ... Oh! wait .... London riots leave city scarred ... and it begins soon to be followed in the US ....Unemploymnet will soon follow also...

No question about it. You can count on liberals in Congress and their pals in the MSM to stoke the fires. It sells newspapers and garners votes.

queencitybuckeye;855292 wrote:The job effect caused by excess bureaucracy is a very real thing in my small business. It's probably the difference between one, maybe two additional jobs at my little company, but multiplied by all of the small businesses, it would make an substantial dent.

There is no way this administration EVER gets it. It's not in their DNA to decrease the role of government -- in anything. In fact, their view of the world requires the opposite.

That's why I don't see a happy ending to our current mess until Obama is kicked out of office, and whoever replaces him works hard to dismantle all the damage he's done on an agency level. A lot of purging will be required at places like Justice, Commerce and the EPA, just for starters.

believer;855297 wrote:No question about it. You can count on liberals in Congress and their pals in the MSM to stoke the fires. It sells newspapers and garners votes.

Yes and the glorious right wing news companies and such would never "stoke the fires" to sell a paper.

I Wear Pants;855367 wrote:Yes and the glorious right wing news companies and such would never "stoke the fires" to sell a paper.

They would -- if they existed.

I'm kidding, of course...mostly. Almost all the truly major print companies are decidedly left wing (Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times, Tribune). In this country, anyway. Obviously Murdoch has some holdings (one now closed) in other countries that -- in those countries -- would qualify as conservative, but would probably still rank on the liberal scale here.

Hong Kong down 6% today, fortunately it is a national holiday in Singapore so markets are closed. Asia is losing faith in the west's economic future.

Manhattan Buckeye;855912 wrote:Hong Kong down 6% today, fortunately it is a national holiday in Singapore so markets are closed. Asia is losing faith in the west's economic future.

They should be worried As western economies tank, western consumers will purchase a lot less cheap Asian goods made by subsidized industries and artificially cheap labor.

I have method/theory for dealing with the buying and selling of gold:

In my calculation gold now is at $1760.00 which means per my theory the stock market will not rebound for 2 weeks or gold will have hit $1770/$1790 ( sorry had a caluation error) before the stock market will start to rebound.

Belly35;855969 wrote:I have method/theory for dealing with the buying and selling of gold:

In my calculation gold now is at $1760.00 which means per my theory the stock market will not rebound for 2 weeks or gold will have hit $1770/$1790 ( sorry had a caluation error) before the stock market will start to rebound.

My 401K is already suffering (again). Can you be a little more upbeat about it?

Dow ends up +429 on the day

Ty Webb;856391 wrote:Dow ends up +429 on the day

You forgot the "This guarantees Obama's reelection in 2012" prediction.

does this mean no QE3? God I hope so.