sleeper;1249980 wrote:This. A mentality lost on Footwedge because he thinks Americans can be competitive with $25/hr salaries to screw in a screw.

I said that where again? You want to quote me, then quote me. If you want to misquote me, then find another forum.

Wait, footwedge is a libertarian? I haven't paid attention to every post he has made but I don't think I remember too many times where he has bashed anything the Democrats have done. I thought he was a Democrat.

Footwedge;1250140 wrote:I said that where again? You want to quote me, then quote me. If you want to misquote me, then find another forum.

Company A builds cars using $25/hr labor. Company B builds cars using $5/hr labor. Logic dictates, all else equal, that Company A cannot compete with Company B in a global marketplace. I don't know what else you could get out of this thread, but your logic is broken and Econ 101 + Math 101 might help you out.

Terry_Tate;1249974 wrote:I just read the article and just took it as "shame on them for wanting to make more money." I'm all for keeping jobs in the US, but if my company would say they are shipping my job elsewhere I wouldn't QQ about them wanting to make more money, I'd say ok and try to find somewhere else to work. Nobody owes me a job, its on me.

Good luck in finding somewhere else to work. Millions of college educated and grad school educated people can't find work. That's the point. You have 14.5 percent overall unemployment here....and rising. This article points to the main reason why.

If you are OK with the outsourcing of American wealth, to countries that enforce 19th Century thinking on their labor, safety and health, then fine. You reap what you sew.

Let me guess, you would like to see the private sector grow in this country. Correct? Isn't that the bitch with Obama? You want the poor and those that are unemployed to pull their own weight, correct? You want the $7.75 an hour workers to pay a flat tax, correct? You want the national debt reduced, correct? You want the government to quit printing money fo feed the masses, correct? You want gramps to pay for his own health care, correct?

Then you had better change your mindset as to how things are done from a macroeconomics standpoint. Because nothing has changed in the mindset nor the thinking since under Reagan's watch, our country turned from the biggest net exporter, to the biggest net importer. The full circle to third world status is coming. And it's not because of the "socialists in the White House" over the past 30 years, but the international power elites that want it that way.

The number one reason why you have this clusterfuck...which is getting radically worse year by year..has nothing to do with presidents. It has to do with the globalists, most of whom found/earned their wealth here in the US, and now circumvent any United States collective societal interest. They love the separation of classes and salivate in seeing down the road a 2 class global, feudalist system.

That swirling sound is our aggregate wealth built by the previous American generations sucking down into an endless black hole.

sleeper;1250149 wrote:Company A builds cars using $25/hr labor. Company B builds cars using $5/hr labor. Logic dictates, all else equal, that Company A cannot compete with Company B in a global marketplace. I don't know what else you could get out of this thread, but your logic is broken and Econ 101 + Math 101 might help you out.

Only a fool would use such an exxagerated, and ridiculously extrapolated example. And....you think the whole argument is only about wages. It isn't. Like I said many times above, I cannot believe that you were actually a business major, given today's reality and climate, whenever the issue is far more complex than just wages.

You bitch about the Boomers and how they robbed from your generation. Your generation will be held personally responsible whenever the true unemployment here in the US hits 30% and beyond. Enjoy!

bigdaddy2003;1250142 wrote:Wait, footwedge is a libertarian? I haven't paid attention to every post he has made but I don't think I remember too many times where he has bashed anything the Democrats have done. I thought he was a Democrat.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I was a registered Republican until 2003. I voted for Ford, Reagan twice, Bush the 41st, Perot, Dole, abstained in 2000 due to illness and then....finally crossed over and voted for Kerry, because I got sick and tired of my party slugging me in the mouth.

I am not a libertarian either, even though I agree with much of what they believe in...in particular, the fiscal hawk nature of sound money and low debt. I strongly allign myself with them in honoring our forefathers wishes in being non interventionalists or as TJ put it "we do not seek out monsters to destroy". Where I break ranks with the libertarians is their 2 faced approach regarding free markets at all costs, yet on the other side of their mouths they bash the international bankers for their incredible thievery. Hey libertarians, what exactly do you think allowed the banking cartel the ability to steal 39% of America's wealth since 2008? It's called deregulation of the banking cartel. Hellooooo?

Footwedge;1249951 wrote:I never mentioned the name Bain in my editorial. I don't care who the company is. There is nothing partisan in what I wrote. I didn't try to tie anything to anything. It's you and your wild imagination that connected some dots. You should apologize.

If you disagree with my assessment on outsourtsourcing American wealth, then have at it. That's what my editorial, opening thread opinion was all about.

The title of the thread included Bain, the whole article started with the BS "he killed my wife" ad, and your obvious vitriol for Romney over many threads made it quite easy to "connect the dots".

Con_Alma;1249971 wrote:Hogwash. Continuing to spend on services when less revenue is coming in is not acceptable.

It's not hogwash. If you want the national debt to shrink, if you want less entitlements, if you want to stop the endless printing of money to stop, you want to see the US government to remain solvent, then you better start looking at the general welfare (as worded in the Constitution) of Americans...and ways to put them back to work...in the private sector.

The reason we are involved in 4 wars now, the reason why the government continues to grow, is so that masses can be fed and clothed in this country. The growth of the private sector is now in places that circumvent labor laws, health laws, clean water laws, and dignity laws for people that work. In countries where their governments siphon off about 30% of their earnings to "lend" back to America.

jmog;1250168 wrote:The title of the thread included Bain, the whole article started with the BS "he killed my wife" ad, and your obvious vitriol for Romney over many threads made it quite easy to "connect the dots".

The title of the article was cut and pasted. My editorial said nothing about Bain, nor Romney's connection to Bain. That was your connection, not mine. The only mention of Romney was in mylast line....which had nothing to do with the subject at hand...just that "lowering taxes is not a panacea."...which is all Romney has said regarding his policy during this campaign.
.
Like I told Sleeper, if you want to quote what I say and debate, fine. If you want to put words in my mouth, go elsewhere.

The people who entitled the article have partisan motives. I don't. Because it is not a partisan issue. It's a national issue.

Footwedge;1250164 wrote:Only a fool would use such an exxagerated, and ridiculously extrapolated example. And....you think the whole argument is only about wages. It isn't. Like I said many times above, I cannot believe that you were actually a business major, given today's reality and climate, whenever the issue is far more complex than just wages.

You bitch about the Boomers and how they robbed from your generation. Your generation will be held personally responsible whenever the true unemployment here in the US hits 30% and beyond. Enjoy!

I think you are more upset that my example was all I needed to complete tear down any and all of your arguments.

Footwedge;1250167 wrote:....finally crossed over and voted for Kerry, because I got sick and tired of my party slugging me in the mouth.

Apparently you prefer being kicked in the balls.

I suppose Footwedge's plan to solve this travesty is to tell other countries that they need to institute labor laws so they can be less competitive in a global marketplace. I'm sure other countries will just do that without any military intervention.

:rolleyes:

Footwedge;1250177 wrote:It's not hogwash. If you want the national debt to shrink, if you want less entitlements, if you want to stop the endless printing of money to stop, you want to see the US government to remain solvent, then you better start looking at the general welfare (as worded in the Constitution) of Americans...and ways to put them back to work...in the private sector.

...

I want the government to spend less when their receipts drop. It's that simple. If tha means cutting social services then so be it.

I absolutely can bitch about the national debt even when and if jobs are sent over-seas. They government should only provide for the general welfare of people to the extent of it's own income. Period. It's hogwash that it can't be that way. It can, and I will vote for those who are willing to do so.

Con_Alma;1250212 wrote:I want the government to spend less when their receipts drop. It's that simple. If tha means cutting social services then so be it.

So do I. Felt that way for my entire life. But when the jobs dry up, and the revenues of the people are cut, then the government expands to keep the masses clothed and fed. But I noticed you said nothing about cutting the military? Got to have those 7 wars going on in countries that are no threat to us. Does it bother you that we are funding, aiding, and abetting Al Quada in Syria these days?

=Con_Alma;1250212] They government should only provide for the general welfare of people to the extent of it's own income. Period. It's hogwash that it can't be that way. It can, and I will vote for those who are willing to do so.

Nobody like that is running for office. Ron Paul dropped out a long time ago.

sleeper;1250194 wrote:I suppose Footwedge's plan to solve this travesty is to tell other countries that they need to institute labor laws so they can be less competitive in a global marketplace. I'm sure other countries will just do that without any military intervention.

:rolleyes:

Yes, enforcing fair trade practices will lead to WWIII. SMH.

Footwedge;1250280 wrote:So do I. Felt that way for my entire life. But when the jobs dry up, and the revenues of the people are cut, then the government expands to keep the masses clothed and fed. But I noticed you said nothing about cutting the military? Got to have those 7 wars going on in countries that are no threat to us. Does it bother you that we are funding, aiding, and abetting Al Quada in Syria these days?

I don't have any issues with cutting military expenses. I don't want the government expanding for anything over an extended period of time of reduced income.

It doesn't bother me that we aid and abet anyone so long as there are valid reasons* which benefit the future security and operations of the U.S.. I have a problem aiding and abetting everyone including our own citizens when we don't have enough revenue to do so.

Footwedge;1250283 wrote:Nobody like that is running for office. Ron Paul dropped out a long time ago.

...that doesn't change my statement at all. Simply because someone isn't running for office who are willing to provide for the general welfare of the people to the extent that the revenues permit doesn't mean change that I would vote for such a candidate if they were. There are other factors inclusive of my vote also.

Yet none of our expanded discussion changes the fact that we can limit our spending over an extended period of time to our revenues....not matter the employment or unemployment rate.

Con_Alma;1250293 wrote:I don't have any issues with cutting military expenses. I don't want the government expanding for anything over an extended period of time of reduced income.

It doesn't bother me that we aid and abet anyone so long as there are valid reasons* which benefit the future security and operations of the U.S.. I have a problem aiding and abetting everyone including our own citizens when we don't have enough revenue to do so.

I agree.

Con_Alma;1250296 wrote:...that doesn't change my statement at all. Simply because someone isn't running for office who are willing to provide for the general welfare of the people to the extent that the revenues permit doesn't mean change that I would vote for such a candidate if they were. There are other factors inclusive of my vote also.

Yet none of our expanded discussion changes the fact that we can limit our spending over an extended period of time to our revenues....not matter the employment or unemployment rate.

The only time you will see revenues match or exceed spending would be a result of a booming economy, either naturally or through an artificial bubble. I can't foresee the future, but I don't envision any turn around...especially to that magnitude. When employment hovers at 14.5%, you will never come close to a balanced budget. Not even Ron Paul would allow the masses to starve and go without basic healthcare.

The only logical way to stop the hemorraging, is to enforce fair international trade and labor laws and offer huge tax cuts for the industrialists/corporatists to come back home.

Footwedge;1250286 wrote:Yes, enforcing fair trade practices will lead to WWIII. SMH.

How else do you expect other countries to listen to us? We tell them we won't trade with them, the other side of the coin is they won't trade with us. Then you'll see the outrage as Americans go to the stores and notice their clothing went from $10 a shirt to $80 a shirt or really anything. Great plan, sign me up. :rolleyes:

Footwedge;1250306 wrote:The only time you will see revenues match or exceed spending would be a result of a booming economy, either naturally or through an artificial bubble. I can't foresee the future, but I don't envision any turn around...especially to that magnitude. When employment hovers at 14.5%, you will never come close to a balanced budget. Not even Ron Paul would allow the masses to starve and go without basic healthcare.

The only logical way to stop the hemorraging, is to enforce fair international trade and labor laws and offer huge tax cuts for the industrialists/corporatists to come back home.

I don't need revenue to match spending. I want spending to match or be lower revenue. There's a difference. I don't care if unemployment is at 20%. We shouldn't be spending like we are. We need a balanced budget amendment.

You are not going to force fair international trade. We do not consume more than the rest of the world. They don't need us like they used to. We won't be the dominant economic power we used to be. Supply and demand elsewhere is becoming to great. Our capabilities production wise can be dwarfed by the potential in China alone.

believer;1249890 wrote:So Footie....If Romney wins will your head explode? If Obama gets re-elected will your head implode? One or the other will happen. Then what?

Sounds like a win-win for humanity.

queencitybuckeye;1250862 wrote:Sounds like a win-win for humanity.

Or for OC anyways. I kid, Footie. I kid.

Footwedge;1249772 wrote:I don't have a problem at all with Americans competing globally. What I have a real problem with are these countries, like China, that have absolutely no labor laws in place for true competition.

You do realize that these statements are virtually contradictory.

You have no problem with global competition, but you have a problem with other countries using methods that make them more competitive ...

Nowhere in any piece of global legislation is there some rule where the rest of the world is obligated ... in any way whatsoever ... to adhere to our own self-imposed labor policies.

Think of it this way:
Our labor laws : our competitiveness in the global market :: Ramadan : Muslim athletes' ability to compete

Self-imposed restrictions that have no basis for milieu-wide implementation which inhibit our ability to compete, for better or worse. This isn't to say that it's automatically not a sacrifice worth making. It's just a fact. By forcing such thorough regulations on businesses in the US, it inevitably forces those same businesses to spend more money on the overhead costs of running a business, meaning they have to charge more for the same product or service in order to net the same profit as a business in another country whose government requires less in the way of overhead costs tied to labor laws.

Footwedge;1249772 wrote: Imagine the outrage in this country if the US had 90% of it's citizenry living in bungalos, while the national government was sitting on trillions.

As it is now, sure. Forcing companies to be less profitable in the short order won't prevent that over the long-term.

Footwedge;1249772 wrote: Romney et al spew the same garbage. Cut taxes will solve it all. All cutting taxes will do is hasten the export of America's good standard of living.

Perhaps I'm not understanding you. Granted, cutting taxes isn't the one-stop solution to all the problems. Even before that, the Federal government needs to stop spending so much.

However, how will cutting taxes ... thus increasing the take-home pay ... drive America's standard of living away?

Footwedge;1249772 wrote:http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/17/romney-bain-closes-us-plant-workers-train-chinese-replacements/

No offense, but this article is weak sauce, and I can't stand Romney, nor would I ever vote for the guy.

Footwedge;1249877 wrote:Because the outsourcing of jobs due to unfair global competition is a "cause and effect" in high unemployment, government spending, expansion of government.

There you go again with this idea that the global competition is "unfair." How on earth is it unfair for another country to not assume our self-imposed restrictions as their own?

Hell, even if it WASN'T self-imposed, it STILL wouldn't be unfair, because we are not the plum line for what is fair or right. There is zero substantiation for using us as the metric by which all other nations balance their labor laws and economic competitiveness. None. It's not unfair. It's how they run their country. I don't want to live there, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to run it that way.

Footwedge;1249879 wrote:My point is that Romney hasn't said one thing that he will do differently than Obama. Sans vetoing Romneycare...uh, I mean.... Obamacare. Excuse me.

And I think the guy will be as bad as Obama. Your point?

Footwedge;1249879 wrote:Don't believe me? Well here's Romney's campaign manager admitting as much. Hilarious. But go ahead, root for the home team...like it's gonna matter a hill a beans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17/romney-adviser-campaign-specifics_n_1797570.html

Neither party is going to matter.

sleeper;1249903 wrote:Unfair? Not at all. It takes an understanding of global economics, something you severely lack, in explaining why companies are outsourcing.

Other than one time, when I outsourced Justin's ability, I have outsourced all my web coding and design work overseas. Why? I can't justify paying the amounts asked for here in the States for a negligible difference in quality.

Terry_Tate;1249974 wrote:I just read the article and just took it as "shame on them for wanting to make more money." I'm all for keeping jobs in the US, but if my company would say they are shipping my job elsewhere I wouldn't QQ about them wanting to make more money, I'd say ok and try to find somewhere else to work. Nobody owes me a job, its on me.

It's what you have to do. The beauty of the marketplace is that competition takes place WITHIN this country, among all of its potential employees, just like it does outside it. If two employees are willing to do virtually the same work, and one is willing to do it for $28K per year, while the other can only go as low as $35K per year, guess which one I'm hiring?

It's competition.

HitsRus;1250092 wrote:If it isn't going to make a difference, could you suggest a good place to emigrate?

Costa Rica. If I was single ...

pmoney25;1250134 wrote:Paul or Gary Johnson would have had an easier time beating Obama than winning the Republican primary honestly. At least if Obama wins we get another chance in 4 years of electing a real candidate instead of 8 more years of crap. I won't vote for Paul since he won't be on the ballot but I will be voting Johnson.

Dead on with the Paul/Johnson comment. They would easily garner more votes from the anti-war, pro-gay-marriage Indies and even the more fiscally conservative Democrats than Romney will. They'd get about the same number of Republican votes that Romney will. They'd get ALL the Libertarian and Constitutional Republican votes, which Romney won't.

I'm voting Johnson as well. I don't care who is favored to win. If my options for sandwich fixings were vomit, shit, and cheese, you can guess which one I'd vote for, odds be damned. I'm not going to vote for vomit on my sandwich to try to avoid having shit on the sandwich, PARTICULARLY when my voting for vomit wouldn't even guarantee it winning anyway.