Footwedge;1226097 wrote:SMH. At all this. I answered everyone of your questions. Wish I could say the same for you. Why should I waste my time debating you? And really, you should stop it with the race issue. It cheapens anything that you claim.

Obama holds the exact same position as Alan West when it comes to Blacks and the need to work hard. If you want me to youtube his speeches, I will.

As for your chart and it's 10 points.....reread my post up above and you might understand the reasons for all of that. 2008....39% loss of American equity. When that happens, you will see really bad economic times. Neither Bush nor Obama caused the recession/depression....the housing collapse did.

Why is it when someone else brings up the race issue, it is irrelevant to the situation but when his campaign brings it up, it is warranted?

I personally could care less if a black person ever gets a job, but why would 90%+ vote for Obama when they have a 14% unemployment rate, why do you think that is?

Maybe you should send a letter to the Obama administration and let them know that Bush did not cause the recession, because that is their favorite excuse about the economy.
You can look back at the 2008 election and see how the Obama campaign constantly told the American people that Bush and the Republicans were the reason for our economy slipping away, that if the voted for McCain the country would suffer an even worse economy. WOW, good thing people didn't elect McCain, we would be in big trouble with our economy and the country would have been on the verge of collapse.

password;1226116 wrote:Why is it when someone else brings up the race issue, it is irrelevant to the situation but when his campaign brings it up, it is warranted?

I personally could care less if a black person ever gets a job, but why would 90%+ vote for Obama when they have a 14% unemployment rate, why do you think that is?

Maybe you should send a letter to the Obama administration and let them know that Bush did not cause the recession, because that is their favorite excuse about the economy.
You can look back at the 2008 election and see how the Obama campaign constantly told the American people that Bush and the Republicans were the reason for our economy slipping away, that if the voted for McCain the country would suffer an even worse economy. WOW, good thing people didn't elect McCain, we would be in big trouble with our economy and the country would have been on the verge of collapse.

In my opinion, it would have been worse...as hard as that is to fathom. We would have bombed Iran and probably started a few other wars as well. . McCain would have spent MORE, not LESS. That's what politicians do when the unemployment numbers are bad. Do you think tax dollars go for wars? Or do the bombs, tanks, and bullets fall out of trees?

I do hope Romney wins. As a former staunch conservative Republican, I enjoy watching my former party members swing from a tree.

You called Barry a racist. How so? Now Holder you might have a point. Holder should be in prison as well.

I Wear Pants;1226101 wrote:I agree with this, it's simply a common argument I hear so I thought that was an interesting graph.

But I definitely agree that there isn't some true need for us to be more based on manufacturing than any other type of business despite people saying that all the time.

Then what jobs are going to fill the void? We have high unemployment because our population is too big for the labor force...without manufacturing. Even the white collar stuff is being outsourced.

We either find a way to increase jobs, continue to increase the welfare state (at the expense of the producers), or let the people starve...like they do in Swaziland and Ethiopia.

Footwedge;1226132 wrote:Then what jobs are going to fill the void? We have high unemployment because our population is too big for the labor force...without manufacturing. Even the white collar stuff is being outsourced.

We either find a way to increase jobs, continue to increase the welfare state (at the expense of the producers), or let the people starve...like they do in Swaziland and Ethiopia.

So your argument is that manufacturing jobs are more important than other jobs? Because all I was saying is that a service or other "white collar" job is just as valuable to the economy as a manufacturing job, but most conservatives I talk to seem to disagree.

Isn't the main goal of a company / business / corporation to maximize profits for its owners and investors? You can't maximize profits paying big money to Union employees.

jordo212000;1226200 wrote:Isn't the main goal of a company / business / corporation to maximize profits for its owners and investors? You can't maximize profits paying big money to Union employees.

I'm not talking about unions here. There is a huge difference. And secondly, most successful local companies are interested in their own home town...not just the largest bottom line obtainable.

Footwedge;1226246 wrote:I'm not talking about unions here. There is a huge difference. And secondly, most successful local companies are interested in their own home town...not just the largest bottom line obtainable.

How many 'local' companies are there now? Lol. Most big time companies are owned by investors / shareholders. CEOs have a responsibility to make them as much money as possible.

being interested in your hometown when you are a local company can create the largest long-term bottom line. That's why you do it. If you are a local company and are not interested in you hometown you will be swallowed up by big box or large service providers who can do so more cheaply.

It's about increasing shareholder equity. When it's not, you will lose...no matter the altruistic ideals you may have.

password;1226116 wrote:Why is it when someone else brings up the race issue, it is irrelevant to the situation but when his campaign brings it up, it is warranted?

Got an example of Obama playing the race card? Didn't think so. Holder is not Obama.

I personally could care less if a black person ever gets a job,

Wow.

You can look back at the 2008 election and see how the Obama campaign constantly told the American people that Bush and the Republicans were the reason for our economy slipping away,

Well of course they did. That's what campaigns do.

that if the voted for McCain the country would suffer an even worse economy. WOW, good thing people didn't elect McCain, we would be in big trouble with our economy and the country would have been on the verge of collapse.

And if they said this, and I am sure they did, I would definitely agree with them. McCain would have been a lot worse than Obama...on numerous fronts.

jordo212000;1226253 wrote:How many 'local' companies are there now? Lol. Most big time companies are owned by investors / shareholders. CEOs have a responsibility to make them as much money as possible.

There are plenty of local companies. I ork for one of them. they give plenty of their retained earnings back to the community. Ever hear of Habitat for Humanity? The local Humane Society? The local Red Cross? The list is endless.

As for the corporate oligarchs, that's an entirely different animal...and the crux of my debate. Most Corporations see the bottom line as the only indicator of success. That is why they are so prone to pillage the third world countries today and circumvent human worker rights. The permeated stench that reeks from their behavior irks many Americans....such as yours truly. I'm talking the really big boys now...not the 200 million a year annual revenue peons that haven't been swallowed up in corporate purchases or takeovers.. I'm talking those that are eligible for the corporate welfare when things don't go their way. The ones that lobby and by default own the government policy making in this country. Those folks.

Footwedge;1226278 wrote:There are plenty of local companies. I ork for one of them. they give plenty of their retained earnings back to the community. Ever hear of Habitat for Humanity? The local chapter of vetinarians? The local red Cross? the list is endless.

As for the corporate oligarchs, that's an entirely different animal...and the crux of my debate. Most Corporations see the bottom line as the only indicator of success. That is why they are so prone to pillage the third world countries today and circumvent human worker rights. The permeated stench that reeks from their behavior irks many Americans....such as yours truly. I'm talking the really big boys now...not the 200 million a year annual revenue peons that haven't been swallowed up in corporate purchases or takeovers.. I'm talking those that are eligible for the corporate welfare when things don't go their way. The ones that lobby and by default own the government policy making in this country. Those folks.

I am a partner of a local business. Of course there are companies that have social and charitable activities. We will not maintain being global force from local businesses. Local businesses are what employ most Americans and they are also not what powers our international presence. It's international activity that will keep us viable.

focusing on the costs of labor will enable that competitive presence.

Footwedge;1226278 wrote:Ever hear of Habitat for Humanity? The local Humane Society? The local Red Cross? The list is endless.

Huh? Are you serious? These 'local' businesses aren't businesses at all. They are all non-profit organizations???

Con_Alma;1226252 wrote:being interested in your hometown when you are a local company can create the largest long-term bottom line. That's why you do it. If you are a local company and are not interested in you hometown you will be swallowed up by big box or large service providers who can do so more cheaply.

To a degree that is true. It adds to the goodwill of a company which gets planted on the asset side of a balance sheet. But not all local companies see the merit in doing so. Many do.

It's about increasing shareholder equity. When it's not, you will lose...no matter the altruistic ideals you may have.

Well I completely and totally disagree...and so does Bill Gates who seemed to do OK with having altruistic motives. He didn't lose...at all.

Footwedge;1226284 wrote:To a degree that is true. It adds to the goodwill of a company which gets planted on the asset side of a balance sheet. But not all local companies see the merit in doing so. Many do.



Well I completely and totally disagree...and so does Bill Gates who seemed to do OK with having altruistic motives. He didn't lose...at all.

Bill gates was not generous with revenue until he no longer thought he needed it. It was his personal income that he became charitable with...not the companies. They have an obligation to carry out their stated mission of increasing shareholder equity. It's why the exist and why peopel provide them with capital to do so.

Con_Alma;1226282 wrote:
focusing on the costs of labor will enable that competitive presence.

Unions are killing us. They used to have a place, but not anymore IMO. They protect the average

jordo212000;1226283 wrote:Huh? Are you serious? These 'local' businesses aren't businesses at all. They are all non-profit organizations???

SMH. Maybe I should have typed a little slower so that you get my point. Local companies donate money to these local organizations. That was what I meant. If you don't understand the value of a local company in giving back to the community, then I don't know what else to tell you.

jordo212000;1226289 wrote:Unions are killing us. They used to have a place, but not anymore IMO. They protect the average

Soon it won't be a problem. World labor prices will dictate the demise of union operated companies.

Footwedge;1226284 wrote: Well I completely and totally disagree...and so does Bill Gates who seemed to do OK with having altruistic motives. He didn't lose...at all.

That was mostly Bill Gates. Which is great. Individuals should be charitable whenever they can. It is also a nice tax write off..

Footwedge;1226290 wrote:SMH. Maybe I should have typed a little slower so that you get my point. Local companies donate money to these local organuzations. That was what I meant. If you don't understand the valie of a local company in giving back to the community, then I don't know what else to tell you.

Very good. There's value in doing do. Without that value to the company it would be foolish to do so.

Footwedge;1226290 wrote:SMH. Maybe I should have typed a little slower so that you get my point. Local companies donate money to these local organizations. That was what I meant. If you don't understand the value of a local company in giving back to the community, then I don't know what else to tell you.

Giving back to the community is great. Charities, donations, and working in the community should be expected of a company.

Not sure how this = sinking a ton of money into workers who do tasks that most anybody can do, yet command $20 / hour though. Especially when you can get somebody in another country to do the same thing for much less

Footwedge;1226127 wrote:In my opinion, it would have been worse...as hard as that is to fathom. We would have bombed Iran and probably started a few other wars as well. . McCain would have spent MORE, not LESS. That's what politicians do when the unemployment numbers are bad. Do you think tax dollars go for wars? Or do the bombs, tanks, and bullets fall out of trees?

I do hope Romney wins. As a former staunch conservative Republican, I enjoy watching my former party members swing from a tree.

You called Barry a racist. How so? Now Holder you might have a point. Holder should be in prison as well.

Bombing Iran would have been a very big mistake in my opinion. The way our military arsenal is being dismantled by the current administration, we will not be able to defend ourselves against any of our enemies. I am well aware of the cost of going to war and how it is paid for, never said all of the deficit is just about wasted money. Obama being a racist is not that difficult to figure out, most of his right hand men are racist and they don't hide it and he lets them stir the racial pot as long as he benefits from it. Non racist people don't surround themselves with racist people if they are not one, you can't be that naive about the subject. Romney may not be the savior that we need, but I do know that Obama is the downfall of this country as we used to know it. My vote will likely go for Romney and if he doesn't get the job done then he will not be re-elected for a second term, just like every other president who can't get it done.

Con_Alma;1226287 wrote:Bill gates was not generous with revenue until he no longer thought he needed it. It was his personal income that he became charitable with...not the companies. They have an obligation to carry out their stated mission of increasing shareholder equity. It's why the exist and why peopel provide them with capital to do so.

Completely false. You were wrong in Henry Ford...and you are dead wrong on Bill Gates as well. Look him up. His liberal working schematics were almost as dramatic as Henry Ford. Sure the bottom line was important, but his style was revolutionary in the early eighties.

Have you ever studied business management? Economics?

Bill Gates was giving his own money durrrr

Bill Gates does not = Microsoft

??? What's completely false.?

The fact that Bill gates was charitable with his income? The fact that he had an obligation to increase shareholder equity? The fact that Henry Ford increased pay from profits?

The fact that the world labor supply price will continue to reduce US labor costs?

jordo212000;1226297 wrote:Giving back to the community is great. Charities, donations, and working in the community should be expected of a company.

Not sure how this = sinking a ton of money into workers who do tasks that most anybody can do, yet command $20 / hour though. Especially when you can get somebody in another country to do the same thing for much less

Your hyperbole in citing such a ludicrous example is telling. And....you have very little understanding that labor rates are just the tip of the iceburg on what is done here...and how things are done in third world countries...or China for that matter.