No thread on Obama's speech

[PLAYER57832]

I live in one of the most liberal counties in Florida. Almost every election goes at least 75% democrat. And a few weeks ago we had our open house for Health Insurance carriers for our job. The lady speaking to a mostly democratic audience stated that the biggest reason our health insurance was going up so much this year was because of the some of the policies of this president. This is a democrat speaking mostly to democrats. His policies are definitely putting much burden on America and we need a full repeal of Obamacare. In about 14 months we need to say NObama. Notyou2 as you stated earlier I disagree with the statement that I make racist comments because I vehemently disagree with the President. Nothing in my commentary has been racist and you're more narrow-minded than I thought to make such an ignorant statement.

lol... as if telling insurance companies they actually have to provide insurance, instead of just collecting payments and excluding anyone who gets sick is any surprise.

What we REALLY need is universal healthcare, but your "friendly Repubs and Tea Partiers" won't do anything THAT intelligent. According to them, anyone who gets sick just deserves to lose everything for which they have worked or to just rot, unless they happen to be a millionaire.

I'm sure it has more to do with liberty than intelligence. However, your friendly republicans and tea parties are all for states doing healthcare how the state wants to, as well as peoples freedom to live in whatever state you choose for whatever reason that is best for you.

I'm not even touching your "according to them" because that's just drivel and I just took a shower. You know that isn't true anyways, but you need people to believe that don't ya.

Yes, just like the southern states were all for letting the states decide if blacks could live in peace or not.

When people start crying "state's rights", it is NOT about freedom or power for people, it is about divide and conquer, allowing the powerful in those states dictate what everyone else gets to do.

AND... if you ever bothered to TRULY look at universal care, you would not make half the statements you make. You plain cannot be bothered to learn the truth.

[PLAYER57832]

I
The only way the government can create jobs is by hiring people. Tax breaks, tax credits, etc. only offer an incentive for companies to hire people. The companies don't have to hire anyone, so that's not necessarily something that will work (as we saw in the original stimulus). I'm not sure that President Obama's bill incentivized job creation, but I don't think that's the point of the bill in any event.

I think what the government should focus on are three things: (1) why are jobs leaving the United States; (2) how do we get those jobs back in the United States; and (3) if we can't get a lot of those jobs back in the United States, what else can we get people to do (i.e. alternative employment). I'm not sure the president's jobs bill focuses on those things.

These are good points.

However, why jobs are leaving is no big secret. Its greed. Corporate executives and stockholders can temporarily make a few more bucks by using Chinese and other outland suppliers, by not paying attention to environmental pollution, etc.

And they seem to think that China and the rest are just going to sit back and let this continue, continue siphoning their profits over to our executives. They will.. ONLY so long as they don't have their own leadership, their own companies. China is allowing US companies in, but only heavily partnered with Chinese experts who are absolutely watching everything these US companies do and learning.

We will soon be nothing but a coloney of the former third world.. only worse, because we won't have even the basis of freedom and belief in human rights that has been a foundation (not a perfect foundation and certainly not always respected, but there in law and principle).

[thegreekdog]

I
The only way the government can create jobs is by hiring people. Tax breaks, tax credits, etc. only offer an incentive for companies to hire people. The companies don't have to hire anyone, so that's not necessarily something that will work (as we saw in the original stimulus). I'm not sure that President Obama's bill incentivized job creation, but I don't think that's the point of the bill in any event.

I think what the government should focus on are three things: (1) why are jobs leaving the United States; (2) how do we get those jobs back in the United States; and (3) if we can't get a lot of those jobs back in the United States, what else can we get people to do (i.e. alternative employment). I'm not sure the president's jobs bill focuses on those things.

These are good points.

However, why jobs are leaving is no big secret. Its greed. Corporate executives and stockholders can temporarily make a few more bucks by using Chinese and other outland suppliers, by not paying attention to environmental pollution, etc.

And they seem to think that China and the rest are just going to sit back and let this continue, continue siphoning their profits over to our executives. They will.. ONLY so long as they don't have their own leadership, their own companies. China is allowing US companies in, but only heavily partnered with Chinese experts who are absolutely watching everything these US companies do and learning.

We will soon be nothing but a coloney of the former third world.. only worse, because we won't have even the basis of freedom and belief in human rights that has been a foundation (not a perfect foundation and certainly not always respected, but there in law and principle).

Assuming that you are correct; that, boiling this down, it's all about greed (I tend to agree, although I don't find it as nefarious as you do), what does the government do exactly? Raise taxes on the rich or lower taxes on the rich? Raise corporate tax rates and close corporate tax loopholes or lower corporate tax rates? None of the above?

It's fine and dandy to identify the problem; it's another thing entirely to propose and/or implement solutions to the problem.

[PLAYER57832]

[
Assuming that you are correct; that, boiling this down, it's all about greed (I tend to agree, although I don't find it as nefarious as you do), what does the government do exactly? Raise taxes on the rich or lower taxes on the rich? Raise corporate tax rates and close corporate tax loopholes or lower corporate tax rates? None of the above?

It's fine and dandy to identify the problem; it's another thing entirely to propose and/or implement solutions to the problem.

The first thing is that we have to get away from this idea that all planning from above is stupid. The fact is, there ALWAYS is planning from above, it just takes different forms.


Begin by getting serious about land allocation. Millions of acres of farmland and forest land are being paved over for housing developments and shopping malls we really do not need. Tax structures in many areas actually encourage this. In some cases, land has been ceased by emminent domain! (that's another travesty all together...b ut a case of what I mean when I say there IS planning.. just not positive planning).

To begin, we have to have to, have to, get away from this idea that perpetual growth and expansion is possible. AND, we HAVE to stop pretending that we can just "decide" not to protect parts of the environment.

I started to get into specifics, but realized it would either be too superficial to really explain what I meant or would wind up being a 10 page treatise.

I can highlight a few items:
1. Tax unit output of pollution.
2. Designate farmland, rangeland,forestland nationally. Make it MUCH harder to sell these lands off to non-agricultural uses. In exchange, these lands will be taxed much lower.
3. Invest FAR more heavily in education. This is, literally, our future. Do continue to allow foreign citizens to attend our colleges, but ensure that it is US nationals that dominate, particularly in the technical fields. Diversity and education are fine, but we don't need to build the empires of other countries and corporations.
4. Increase educational standards heavily, in particular get away from this stupid emphasis on rote learning.
5. Stop this witch hunt for people who just want to come here to work. Allow companies to hire foreign workers, BUT, require extra taxes to be deducted from these worker's wages, with the money going directly to localities and states, (schools and medical establishements in particular). also require anyone coming here to work have medical insurance and a "ticket home". The money for this will be deducted from the pay. Put VERY heavy penalties on any company that fails to deduct these extra taxes and insurance payments from their worker wages. Special rules for certain migratory workers, workers housed "on site", etc. However, the bottom line is to allow companies to hire outlanders, but make it cheaper to hire US workers when the workers are roughly equal. The outlanders will be paying for the services they use and more.

6. STOP almost all tax deductions, to begin. Instead offer a uniform corporate and income tax. It WILL have to be graduated. There is just no way around that.

7.A very few, very carefully constructed and limited tax credits and deductions can be put back -- for example, to allow farmers to try older drought-resistant strains of grain, work on marketing them, OR to allow companies to ,more readily convert to truly renewable and sustainable clean power sources. In other words, tax breaks can be used to encourage "good behavior", BUT only to get folks over the "initial hump" of change. A grain may be drought resistant, but if people just don't want it... growing more won't do any good (though effort should be expended to make it salable). Great care will have to be taken so we don't get more cycles of dependence or other unintended consequences. I dismiss the idea that just becuase a CEO heads a corporation he can do this far more intelligently than a group of trained individuals in the field.
ETC.

[thegreekdog]

Player, correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you are saying the answer to stop companies from moving jobs overseas is more of the same (i.e. more taxation, more regulation). Do you really think that will work? Can you explain how jobs are going to come back here with your more taxation, more regulation ideas?

[Night Strike]

When people start crying "state's rights", it is NOT about freedom or power for people, it is about divide and conquer, allowing the powerful in those states dictate what everyone else gets to do.

Just proves that you don't understand the Constitution or reality.

[spurgistan]

Player, correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you are saying the answer to stop companies from moving jobs overseas is more of the same (i.e. more taxation, more regulation). Do you really think that will work? Can you explain how jobs are going to come back here with your more taxation, more regulation ideas?

I think that outsourcing is chiefly motivated by high relative labor costs, not "regulation and taxes." India is nothing if not an odd mix of regulatory regimes, but people really want to put factories there and hire five workers there for what it costs to pay one here. Therefore, somebody who agrees with me would see tighter regulation of what goes on American shelves as the best way to keep jobs here.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you are saying the answer to stop companies from moving jobs overseas is more of the same (i.e. more taxation, more regulation). Do you really think that will work? Can you explain how jobs are going to come back here with your more taxation, more regulation ideas?

Not precisely.

The goal here is not to "stop companies from moving overseas" per se, though we DO need to ensure we have a base of the industries we need to "survive" and thrive. Steel is already essentially gone, but plastics and ceramics are not quite yet up to replacing it. We need to have enough base of food to support ourselves (and not just nationally, but within each region), etc. That gets to be a very dangerous security risk. Granted, it looks like the days of old fashioned ground warfare are gone, but its stupid that we depend so heavily on things not even made any longer in the US. That's security, not economics and needs to be dealt with in that manner.

Beyond that, we need to make sure of 2 things. First, that industries we have here are truly beneficial. Second, that companies are not simply draining us of resources, education and money. FAR, FAR too often companies get a base they need and then simply migrate to where they can hire workers cheaply or avoid environmental rules. THAT is what is wrong. Competition is fine, but we have to be realistic about it.

Take the "beneficial to us" bit. Coal is debateable on that front, even today. I fully believe it CAN be withdrawn without serious harm to the environment, but because there is so little pressure (note-- there IS pressure, a lot more than in past years, but its still not enough to ensure the goal is achieved). That's just one example. Oil is absolutely in that category as well. Our need for oil is not equal to our need for a clean sustainable ocean. It just isn't. But, people are not forced to think that way, often plain lack the understanding to see why that might be the case. In truth, many of those voicing those thoughts today are in what is labled the "lunatic fringe" and their voices heavily overwhelmed by those who want to "debate" issues like global warming and whether oil really and truly comes from creatures millions of years old. Now, understand, no one sane is going to suggest that we stop using oil tommorrow. It won't work. BUT... it is downright frightening that our society is paying so little attention to alternative energy sources. I don't care how much you "drill baby drill", we are not creating more oil. We are simply using it up faster and faster. We need sources that do not require using up limited resources. AND, when you stop and consider how far we have come in just 100 years, from a society that basically did notk now of cars or mass electric power, etc, etc etc -- shoot, 100 years ago kids were DYING from measles and wooping cough, not cancer and heart disease! Even 50 years ago, kids were dying or suffering extreme consequences from Polio! AND.. in just that time we now face what might well be the end in, if not our lifetimes, our children's lifetimes becuase the US cannot be bothered to truly and seriously invest in alternative energy sources or even put much money into real conservation efforts. We sent a man to the moon, have year round stations on both poles and underwater, but we cannot find anything other than fossil fuels to burn?

We cannot even bother to think seriously about our water use (again, perspective here.. sure, conservation is a big issue in some areas, but its still not the kind of attention we need if we are to avert disaster in the future).

Per the "mining US resources", we have had one of the best educational systems in the world. No one could really top our best universities AND they were open to almost anyone who could qualify. I am not saying that everyone could get into Harvard or even Berkeley (actually harder to get into in some ways than Harvard). Not even everyone could really get into any college of worth, but we educated a high percentage of our population. Access to that education was far, far more readily available than in most of the world.. but not now. Now, many middle class families are having to look at their promising children and say "sorry, but we just cannot afford college" OR are going into extremely heavy debt in order to ensure that their kids DO go... debt that adds to the overall burden in our society.

On the other hand, I am not saying that companies should have a "free for all" to just go take whatever they want from South America or Africa. We cannot necessarily dictate that in those countries, but we CAN take more steps to ensure just that products sold here in this country are produced in reasonable ways. (yep, reasonable is a loaded word, but trying to not be too, too long here).

ALL of those things matter.

The thing is, none of this is really and truly a "choice" or, they should not be. However, because all of those things are external to the profit line, there HAVE to be external mandates to dictate that these things happen. That is the purpose of government regulation -- to provide for the health and well being of the population. In our country, to protect the little guys against the big guys.

Power ALWAYS moves up. It is the way of things. I suppose we can be glad that we had 200 years of exceptional progress. However, right now, we are headed the way of monarchies and dictators. It always is part economic, part political and part religious.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you are saying the answer to stop companies from moving jobs overseas is more of the same (i.e. more taxation, more regulation). Do you really think that will work? Can you explain how jobs are going to come back here with your more taxation, more regulation ideas?

I think that outsourcing is chiefly motivated by high relative labor costs, not "regulation and taxes." India is nothing if not an odd mix of regulatory regimes, but people really want to put factories there and hire five workers there for what it costs to pay one here. Therefore, somebody who agrees with me would see tighter regulation of what goes on American shelves as the best way to keep jobs here.

True, and to a point, that is perfectly OK. It is a problem when 2 things happen.
1. we no longer produce necessary products. This is a safety issue.

2. When those companies are allowed to hire educated people in this country who benefit from our system, but not pay into it. (along with other benefits).

3. When there is serious damage done overseas. Monsanto has probably done this in India. In Africa, we think more of mining and scrap metal operations. These things are just harmful to humanity and it doesn't really matter if its across the world or not. Again, our ability to dictate those things is limited, but at least we CAN ensure that US people do not contribute.

[PLAYER57832]

When people start crying "state's rights", it is NOT about freedom or power for people, it is about divide and conquer, allowing the powerful in those states dictate what everyone else gets to do.

Just proves that you don't understand the Constitution or reality.

Hmm... like the "of the people, for the people and by the people".

No, I don't "understand" that corporations are "people".. not at all!

[HaireWolf1]

Player do you use oil or gasoline in any form? I'm sure you drive a fully-electric car or ride a bicycle everywhere you go based on your statement about oil. I live in Florida and I say drill baby drill. Stop depending on foreign supplies of oil.

[PLAYER57832]

Player do you use oil or gasoline in any form? I'm sure you drive a fully-electric car or ride a bicycle everywhere you go based on your statement about oil. I live in Florida and I say drill baby drill. Stop depending on foreign supplies of oil.

Ignore my point, why don't you..

How CAN I when they are just not available for the average consumer, not really? They SHOULD be available, could have been had we been investing in these technologies decades ago, but some oil was found in Alaska, the dot com boom made people wealthier and POOF all thoughts of conservation and cutting back went out the window!

And.. that you instantly leap to "electric cars" and "drill more off Floriday" -- well, shows you are pretty poorly informed on BOTH subjects. Electric cars are not the answer, not now and perhaps never. And... if you think the benefits we get from oil, which are ENORMOUS, yes, outweigh the harm from damaging the Gulf and Altantic coasts, then it is evidence of the complete failure to educate citizens on the importance of those things...and I mean importance to PEOPLE, not aquarium fish!

Fisheries are forever if properly maintained. Oil NEVER is.

[thegreekdog]

The goal here is not to "stop companies from moving overseas" per se

That is absolutely the goal! If we are concerned with jobs and economics, which presumably this thread is about, then we are most concerned with jobs getting shipped overseas. I understand your concerns with the environment and taxation in the United States, but most certainly imposing more environmental regulations and higher taxes are not going to bring jobs back to the United States (unless you can somehow demonstrate they can).

Player, correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you are saying the answer to stop companies from moving jobs overseas is more of the same (i.e. more taxation, more regulation). Do you really think that will work? Can you explain how jobs are going to come back here with your more taxation, more regulation ideas?

I think that outsourcing is chiefly motivated by high relative labor costs, not "regulation and taxes." India is nothing if not an odd mix of regulatory regimes, but people really want to put factories there and hire five workers there for what it costs to pay one here. Therefore, somebody who agrees with me would see tighter regulation of what goes on American shelves as the best way to keep jobs here.

Okay - THAT is a useful idea I think. If we impose regulations on what is consumed or purchased in the United States based on where it's made (without saying where it was made), we could bring jobs back here. So, I'm envisioning something like "You can only buy Product X if the manufacturer did a, b, and c" where a, b, and c aren't done in Indian manufacturing. You can't say something like "You cannot buy Indian products" or "You can only buy American products." Interesting.

[Phatscotty]

I live in one of the most liberal counties in Florida. Almost every election goes at least 75% democrat. And a few weeks ago we had our open house for Health Insurance carriers for our job. The lady speaking to a mostly democratic audience stated that the biggest reason our health insurance was going up so much this year was because of the some of the policies of this president. This is a democrat speaking mostly to democrats. His policies are definitely putting much burden on America and we need a full repeal of Obamacare. In about 14 months we need to say NObama. Notyou2 as you stated earlier I disagree with the statement that I make racist comments because I vehemently disagree with the President. Nothing in my commentary has been racist and you're more narrow-minded than I thought to make such an ignorant statement.

lol... as if telling insurance companies they actually have to provide insurance, instead of just collecting payments and excluding anyone who gets sick is any surprise.

What we REALLY need is universal healthcare, but your "friendly Repubs and Tea Partiers" won't do anything THAT intelligent. According to them, anyone who gets sick just deserves to lose everything for which they have worked or to just rot, unless they happen to be a millionaire.

I'm sure it has more to do with liberty than intelligence. However, your friendly republicans and tea parties are all for states doing healthcare how the state wants to, as well as peoples freedom to live in whatever state you choose for whatever reason that is best for you.

I'm not even touching your "according to them" because that's just drivel and I just took a shower. You know that isn't true anyways, but you need people to believe that don't ya.

Yes, just like the southern states were all for letting the states decide if blacks could live in peace or not.

When people start crying "state's rights", it is NOT about freedom or power for people, it is about divide and conquer, allowing the powerful in those states dictate what everyone else gets to do.

Is it 2011? or 1811? Seriously, nice point.

States rights is about freedom and I have experienced it first hand so don't waste anymore time trying to convince me slavery is coming back. You can have your opinion, but you cannot constantly project worst case ancient scenarios as the norm for today.

[BigBallinStalin]

Job-Creation:

Labor Union Membership and Competition
In order to reduce wages to increase employment, why not enable more competition to enter into the labor unions? From what I've read, labor unions are notorious for restricting competition by preventing non-union members from attaining employment in the spheres of influence dominated by labor unions. Usually, this is done by either forcing non-union members to become members, or by preventing the business from hiring non-union members via contract.

Why not let enable those, who have the demand to work for less, to actually work for less?

Fixed Wages
Another issue is that labor unions tend to fix their wages, so that all employees--regardless of their performance--are paid roughly the same. Why not enable the prices to be set by individuals operating within the market? This would enable both employers and future employees to more accurately assess the value of a potential employee's labor via mutually agreeable contracts.

[PLAYER57832]

The goal here is not to "stop companies from moving overseas" per se

That is absolutely the goal! If we are concerned with jobs and economics, which presumably this thread is about, then we are most concerned with jobs getting shipped overseas. I understand your concerns with the environment and taxation in the United States, but most certainly imposing more environmental regulations and higher taxes are not going to bring jobs back to the United States (unless you can somehow demonstrate they can).

You are making the same mistakes that got us into this mess. The real solution is not to worry about a few jobs today, it is to worry about the future existance of our country, our world. We are in for some tough times. There is no way around that now, but it can be bad or it can be really, REALLY bad for all but a few wealthy folks ( and mind you, though you make a fair amount, you are pretty far from the type of wealth to which I refer here! ).

See, ANYTHING other than paying attention to the base, our environment, our agriculture, our base resources is basically "fluff".

Player, correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you are saying the answer to stop companies from moving jobs overseas is more of the same (i.e. more taxation, more regulation). Do you really think that will work? Can you explain how jobs are going to come back here with your more taxation, more regulation ideas?

I think that outsourcing is chiefly motivated by high relative labor costs, not "regulation and taxes." India is nothing if not an odd mix of regulatory regimes, but people really want to put factories there and hire five workers there for what it costs to pay one here. Therefore, somebody who agrees with me would see tighter regulation of what goes on American shelves as the best way to keep jobs here.

Okay - THAT is a useful idea I think. If we impose regulations on what is consumed or purchased in the United States based on where it's made (without saying where it was made), we could bring jobs back here. So, I'm envisioning something like "You can only buy Product X if the manufacturer did a, b, and c" where a, b, and c aren't done in Indian manufacturing. You can't say something like "You cannot buy Indian products" or "You can only buy American products." Interesting.

Yes, this is part of what I am saying. Companies that use slave labor, pollute the oceans, etc should not be allowed to sell in the US. Except, we need to go well beyond that, if we are to have an economy that is sustainable for the long term.

Economists are sort of like Psycologists to medicine. Psycologists have their place, certainly study a lot (the good ones, anyway). They can help people who are depressed, who have difficulties learning, and deal with grief, tragedy and wrong choicees( to name just a few). However, in the end, they cannot cure cancer or heart disease. They cannot bring back a dead child or undo some great harm you caused in the past.

We need the "doctors", who, in this case are the researchers into "alternative" energies, sustainable production of all kinds and restoration (to the extent possible, which is currently very little) of natural systems all over. We need "doctors" who are willing to give hard news, like "if you want to live, we have to cut off your arm". Here, the "hard news" is that there is no more free withdrawel of minerals or gas/oil products (the distinction points to a PA legality), no more just sending stuff out into the atmosphere and our water without very extensive testing, no more just assuming child-like that everything will be OK if we just "wish upon a star"... or believe some nonsense about lowering taxes "creating jobs" when the past 30 years has shown us just the opposite (not to mention the realities that both of you brought up). Here, the hard news is that if you have a business and you need work, then you either pay the workers enough to buy a house, have decent (NOT extravagent) food, etc or you don't hire them. BUT.. the other part of that is that many of us ARE going to have to cut back significantly. Small apartments, not single family homes, perhaps.. Small garden plots instead of large mowed lawns... etc. Or, maybe the changes will be something entirely different. We CAN do things sustainably without giving up everything. However, the longer we wait to move in that direction, the worse off most people will be. AND as things are going, the more likely it is that China will wind up taking over.

Of course, none of this can happen instantly. But, it does have to happen quickly. We would do well to look at what China is doing now. They are not as short-sighted as folks here. They ALWAYS take the long view.

[thegreekdog]

You are making the same mistakes that got us into this mess. The real solution is not to worry about a few jobs today, it is to worry about the future existance of our country, our world. We are in for some tough times. There is no way around that now, but it can be bad or it can be really, REALLY bad for all but a few wealthy folks ( and mind you, though you make a fair amount, you are pretty far from the type of wealth to which I refer here! ).

I don't think worrying about "a few jobs today" necessarily results in the end of our existence. In fact, I bet job creation in the United States and savign the environment are not mutually exclusive!

Plus, you know, people are pretty concerned about the economy and jobs right now. And I would say someone whose job was outsourced to India doesn't give a flying f*ck about sustainability, clean waterways, and family farms (whether that person is liberal or conservative).

Yes, this is part of what I am saying. Companies that use slave labor, pollute the oceans, etc should not be allowed to sell in the US.

Listen... (or read)... why is what spurgistan typed, which I agreed with, different from what I typed originally? If you ever, in the history of this website, remained anywhere consistent with your discussions, it would be so much better... really...

Spurgistan is talking about creating jobs in the United States. I think it's a good idea and I've never heard it before. I'm not keen on restricting our choices here in the United States and I'm sure it will drive up the costs of products (but maybe people don't need that third big screen TV), but it's a really good idea. So, Player, either argue with spurgistan about how we need to protect our fisheries and national parks and how that is really how we're going to create jobs (however that works, which you still haven't explained) or just agree with him (and then agree with me). Alternatively, figure out a way to bring jobs back to the United States that involves actually bringing jobs back to the United States rather than some amorphous, "Player types this all the time whether or not we're talking about the economy, the existence of God, or sex with sheep" nonsense!

[PLAYER57832]

You are making the same mistakes that got us into this mess. The real solution is not to worry about a few jobs today, it is to worry about the future existance of our country, our world. We are in for some tough times. There is no way around that now, but it can be bad or it can be really, REALLY bad for all but a few wealthy folks ( and mind you, though you make a fair amount, you are pretty far from the type of wealth to which I refer here! ).

I don't think worrying about "a few jobs today" necessarily results in the end of our existence. In fact, I bet job creation in the United States and savign the environment are not mutually exclusive!

They don't have to be, no. However, too many people are into not "sharing the wealth" to care. Change that is needed will require regulation and right now, anything that cuts into the big guys pay checks or limits them in anyway is painted as some kind of communistic trap. We are not quite back to painted up Macarthyism, but we are close.

Plus, you know, people are pretty concerned about the economy and jobs right now. And I would say someone whose job was outsourced to India doesn't give a flying f*ck about sustainability, clean waterways, and family farms (whether that person is liberal or conservative).

Which is why you have to educate. There IS NO choice. What we are doing is selling off shingles because its too expensive to fix the roof right now. That's pure stupidity, no matter how you slice it. GOOD leaders inform people and educate, make and implement HARD and unpopular choices because its what's best.

Today, its all about what is best for your friendly CEO. I heard a classic example today, but it belongs in another thread.

Yes, this is part of what I am saying. Companies that use slave labor, pollute the oceans, etc should not be allowed to sell in the US.

Listen... (or read)... why is what spurgistan typed, which I agreed with, different from what I typed originally? If you ever, in the history of this website, remained anywhere consistent with your discussions, it would be so much better... really.[/quote].. I was not arguing with you. I was agreeing.

Spurgistan is talking about creating jobs in the United States. I think it's a good idea and I've never heard it before. I'm not keen on restricting our choices here in the United States and I'm sure it will drive up the costs of products (but maybe people don't need that third big screen TV), but it's a really good idea.

Except, I said EXACTLY the same thing. Its just you are so focused on I just want to destroy jobs, you ignore the "create sustainability" bit.

So, Player, either argue with spurgistan about how we need to protect our fisheries and national parks and how that is really how we're going to create jobs (however that works, which you still haven't explained) or just agree with him (and then agree with me).

WHY do you keep insisting that those are opposing goals. The point is they are NOT opposing goals, CANNOT be. We cannot claim that there is a "choice" to destroy the world or have an economy. That is as stupid as the old arguments that we had to have slavery, had to have child labor, could not have even minor worker protections or pollution controls. Today, the damages are not so immediately evident, not so instantaneous (at least here in the US), but the impact and results are exactly the same.

The ONLY way forward is to penalize companies that hurt us, our country, our world in various ways and to reward those companies that build us up.

Here is an example of something that could use promotion. Its beginning, so its possible issues will arise, but it needs support to test, develop and try
http://wpsu.org/radio/single_entry/LL-3964/stories


here is another example of something GOOD:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2011/0 ... tten-fruit

Alternatively, figure out a way to bring jobs back to the United States that involves actually bringing jobs back to the United States rather than some amorphous, "Player types this all the time whether or not we're talking about the economy, the existence of God, or sex with sheep" nonsense!

IF you set up a PERMANENT system of economic gain, even if its not the fantastic gains we saw of the 80s' (those are gone, anyway), then we will see our country continue to flourish. Its the hard work of farming versus the instant gains of Vegas. Except... as hard and not entirely predictable farming is, Vegas is a losers game unless you know how to cheat. The big guys "know how to cheat". They have been gaming the system for years.

I mean, companies are stockpiling money, raiding their pension funds
(starting a new thread on that), etc.. and yet the "problem" is "too many regulations" and "too high taxes!".

We need to get away from this idiocy of money that is made ONLY on paper, with no tie to a real product or service. When you make money off just trading stocks, you SHOULD pay more for the profits than if you make money from producing goods. Farmers are being squeezed, in part, because of high-priced commodity players and in part because folks see raising real estate taxes and such as nice ways to ensure farmers will sell so the developers can make a killing (many times the farmer comes out well in those deals.. but ONLY by quitting the business!). We can afford to lose some farm land, but not the massive amounts we are losing.

These are not esoteric issues, neither is the loss of bees, neither is the FACT that our water resources are being extremely depleted (ever study the withdrawel rates for the Ogallal aquifer? Understand, at all why that SHOULD matter to you -- I mean REALLY matter?). How about the fact that almost NO fishery in the US is truly in good shape? I am trying not to repeat stuff I have gone over 100 times already, but I can, if you insist.

That is the thing. This idea that there is some "choice" is an illusion, created because so many people live in cities where they barely have to understand the local weather, never mind what is actually happening to the land around them. Only when something like Irene comes about do people care. And then, its "we demand action NOW!". Well... the above are like 100 "irene's" waiting offshore.

[thegreekdog]

I just have one comment Player:

YARGH!

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, this is part of what I am saying. Companies that use slave labor, pollute the oceans, etc should not be allowed to sell in the US.

Listen... (or read)... why is what spurgistan typed, which I agreed with, different from what I typed originally? If you ever, in the history of this website, remained anywhere consistent with your discussions, it would be so much better... really...

It's not that I am inconsistant. Its that you have been taught to disconnect things that are connected, in fact. AND... that is a big part of today's society. There IS NO thinking seperately about jobs, the environment, the future of our kids and sustainability. We either take them ALL into account and deal with them or we will keep fighting windmills instead of real issues.

[thegreekdog]

Yes, this is part of what I am saying. Companies that use slave labor, pollute the oceans, etc should not be allowed to sell in the US.

Listen... (or read)... why is what spurgistan typed, which I agreed with, different from what I typed originally? If you ever, in the history of this website, remained anywhere consistent with your discussions, it would be so much better... really...

It's not that I am inconsistant. Its that you have been taught to disconnect things that are connected, in fact. AND... that is a big part of today's society. There IS NO thinking seperately about jobs, the environment, the future of our kids and sustainability. We either take them ALL into account and deal with them or we will keep fighting windmills instead of real issues.

YARGH!

No seriously... we're having a discussion about jobs. Can you please discuss jobs? You created this thread for the Allah's sake! I mean, I might agree with what you're saying, but I'm trying to figure out how to get companies to stop sending jobs to India or China (or, by the way, Switzerland and some other European states... how come we don't talk about those places... do they not have high taxes or something?). I'm not trying to figure out what is interrelated or connected.

Oh, and I'm supportive of windmills! I would never fight them!

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, this is part of what I am saying. Companies that use slave labor, pollute the oceans, etc should not be allowed to sell in the US.

Listen... (or read)... why is what spurgistan typed, which I agreed with, different from what I typed originally? If you ever, in the history of this website, remained anywhere consistent with your discussions, it would be so much better... really...

It's not that I am inconsistant. Its that you have been taught to disconnect things that are connected, in fact. AND... that is a big part of today's society. There IS NO thinking seperately about jobs, the environment, the future of our kids and sustainability. We either take them ALL into account and deal with them or we will keep fighting windmills instead of real issues.

YARGH!

No seriously... we're having a discussion about jobs. Can you please discuss jobs? You created this thread for the Allah's sake! I mean, I might agree with what you're saying, but I'm trying to figure out how to get companies to stop sending jobs to India or China (or, by the way, Switzerland and some other European states... how come we don't talk about those places... do they not have high taxes or something?). I'm not trying to figure out what is interrelated or connected.

Oh, and I'm supportive of windmills! I would never fight them!

We ARE. But to claim that you CAN just talk about jobs and ignore externalities is why we have gone from boom to more than bust in just 2 decades... while China and other countries that are willing to take the longer view outstrip us (yes, they make compromises, allow some damage, but they do it knowing it IS damage.. not pretending its irrelevant or something that is "someone else's concern").

We can STILL do much better than China on many fronts, but not for long if we keep on the track we are doing.

[thegreekdog]

I'm hitting the reset button and keeping only spurgistan's post and my response to him.

[thegreekdog hits reset button]

Hey Player - How are things? What would you do to make sure jobs come back to America (in 500 words or less)?

[PLAYER57832]

I'm hitting the reset button and keeping only spurgistan's post and my response to him.

[thegreekdog hits reset button]

Hey Player - How are things? What would you do to make sure jobs come back to America (in 500 words or less)?

Spurgistan's answer was pretty good, but I suspect I would include a lot more things than he. Also, we HAVE to invest better in education.. a new "sputnik", but this one directed at renewable resources, sustainability instead of heading to the moon (or even creating the atom bomb).

Also... the big guys simply HAVE to pay more for infrastructure, education, resource protection and resource restoration. I don't care how many crocodile tears folks want to throw out. The time for greed is long past. Or rather, greed is OK.. but not to the point that a CEO thinks its just fine to take several million in salary and then complain because those making 50K and less want a $5-10K raise OR better healthcare benefits. OR he is asked to pay a tad more in taxes.

AND.. we have to have some type of real universal healthcare.

[thegreekdog]

Dude... awesome. Thanks!

So here's the list:

Idea - Government-imposed regulations on goods consumed in the United States (related to quality, safety, labor rules, and environmental rules related to the manufacturing of goods).

Benefits - Forces U.S. companies to manufacture in the United States to sell products in the United states.

Consequences/Negatives - May just force India and China to impose tougher regulations, keeping jobs in those countries. I suspect US citizens would be theoretically opposed to this (as it appears to limit choices). Increased cost of consumer goods.

Idea - Government paid-for environmentally (or technologically) related big project.

Benefits - Employs a number of people in the US, not just in government work (for the actual project itself) but for any attendant projects. Would benefit the community in which the project is located and may have environmental or technological benefits.

Consequences/Negatives - Will cost a fuckload of money that we don't have. I suspect US citizens would be theoretically opposed to this (as it is government spending and may be seen as wasteful).

Idea - Require US companies to spend money on infrastructure, education, resource protection and resource restoration through taxation and government regulation or through forced "labor" (for lack of a better term - i.e. Company X, you must plant 5000 trees next year).

Benefits - Improves the environment, education, and infrastructure; helps protect resources. Will likely create some temporary and permanent jobs.

Consequences/Negatives - Increased costs for consumer goods (companies will raise prices to pay for this stuff, as they tend to do). I suspect US citizens would be theoretically opposed to this (as they are opposed to forcing companies to do stuff). Companies would be very resistant to this and would support politicians who are also resistant to this.