2016 POTUS Election Thread

[Clay_Allison]

Remember the last time The Republicans held the congress and the presidency? They sure gave us a booming economy.

 

[townsend]

You are right it is. It is still my position.

sorry, I can be a pedantic asshole sometimes.

 

[L.T. Fan]

but the employee service is contingent on the government assistance. Which is to say they are getting that service THANKS to government assistance.

It's peculiar to look at in medias res, but imagine you were being recruited to a company in a different city. You want the job but the salary isn't enough to make up for the difference in cost of living. Now at that the city, wanting to promote its economy decides to award a stipend anyone who earns less than 40,000 dollars, you're offered 38,000 and make a 2,000 dollar stipend. Now let's say that company could have easily afforded 40K, and intentionally lowered their offer because they knew the stipend would pay the difference, they literally just pocketed 2,000 dollars of government money that only served to benefit them.


You're right, Wal-mart isn't the only corporation that does that, I was using them as an example of all the mega corps that depend on underpaid service.

Why is the employees services contingent to getting government subsidies? I am sure there are thousands working without it. Further if a person didn't feel like they could not work without it there would be others waiting to take that position. Your conclusion just doesnt hold up.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Remember the last time The Republicans held the congress and the presidency? They sure gave us a booming economy.

It's really not the politicians that create the economy. It's their position on certain things that make business react to protect their interests. Business leaders decided whether they want to expand or contract their business plans.

 

[townsend]

Why is the employees services contingent to getting government subsidies? I am sure there are thousands working without it. Further if a person didn't feel like they could not work without it there would be others waiting to take that position. Your conclusion just doesnt hold up.

buy every employee would have one thing in common, they wouldn't be making enough to survive. They may be getting help from friends, or parents, spouses, or a bizarre caveat to a will, Brewster's Millions style, but their income, which is likely to be their only income (unless they have kinder employers than most I've ever heard of.)

Human resources should be bought at fair value, regardless of whether someone even needs government assistance. Otherwise the company is still exploiting that person's family, friends, etc for personal gain. We shouldn't have human effort undercut like any other commodity, due to desperation of the seller.

 

[Clay_Allison]

It's really not the politicians that create the economy. It's their position on certain things that make business react to protect their interests. Business leaders decided whether they want to expand or contract their business plans.

Wouldn't it kind of be their responsibility to try to pass laws that businessmen would respond to by creating more jobs instead of being crooked bastards and wrecking the economy to help a few assholes with strong lobby support strike it rich?

 

[DLK150]

95% of politicians have their hands in someone's back pocket, both democrat and republicans. Both parties had a hand in creating the conditions for job outsourcing. Both had a hand in bailing out the banks in '08. The economy "boomed" under Reagan because of deficit spending and the expansion of the service economy. The economy boomed in the 90s because of the dot com boom and the onset of the housing bubble.

There was no recovery under little Bush, that was the economy riding the housing bubble and deficit spending. There has been no recovery in the past seven years, it was a bubble driven by Fed fueled equities and the fracking boom.

What has changed in this country's economic landscape in the last forty years was the gradual decline then collapse of the manufacturing sector and the final decoupling of the USD to gold, which made it a currency backed by nothing but IOUs in the form of treasury bonds. In the last 35 years, the economy went from one that was well supported by manufacturing which produced solid middle class income jobs. Once those jobs started leaving back in the 90s thanks to crap like NAFTA and beoming buddy-buddy with China, the game changed.

You can't point at one party and say it's their fault because they both have spent plenty of time Fing things up. People bitched about Reagan's deficit spending but democrats had control of both houses of Congress most of the time that he was in office. Any spending he proposed had to be passed with democrat support.

NAFTA was conceived of under Mr. "Read my lips, no new taxes" but it was passed by a democrat controlled congress and signed into law by a democrat president in between blowjobs.

Graham-Leach-Bliley was legislation that basically repealed Glass-Steagall which was enacted during the great depression to create a distinction between commercial and investment banks. Passed by a republican controlled Congress, signed into law by a democrat president.

Both parties voted to bail out the banks in 2008, democrats more overwhelmingly than republicans.

Bush's deficit spending was decried by Obama as indicating a lack of leadership but he put deficit spending/debt accumulation into overdrive.

Too late to ramble on right now but to summarize, both parties have had an equal hand in Fing up this country.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Wouldn't it kind of be their responsibility to try to pass laws that businessmen would respond to by creating more jobs instead of being crooked bastards and wrecking the economy to help a few assholes with strong lobby support strike it rich?

Business will create more jobs if they are allowed to do so without being hampered or imposed on by government intervention or unreasonable taxation. The more the government intervenes the more it interferes with the market place as well as causing business to curtail expansion because it may be too costly to expand because of the effort to conform to bureaucratic rules. The more business is burdened the less likely they are to expand thus jobs go away rather than becoming additions.

 

[L.T. Fan]

buy every employee would have one thing in common, they wouldn't be making enough to survive. They may be getting help from friends, or parents, spouses, or a bizarre caveat to a will, Brewster's Millions style, but their income, which is likely to be their only income (unless they have kinder employers than most I've ever heard of.)

Human resources should be bought at fair value, regardless of whether someone even needs government assistance. Otherwise the company is still exploiting that person's family, friends, etc for personal gain. We shouldn't have human effort undercut like any other commodity, due to desperation of the seller.

Eployees having in common a low pay scale still doesn't create a subsidy for any employer.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Business will create more jobs if they are allowed to do so without being hampered or imposed on by government intervention or unreasonable taxation. The more the government intervenes the more it interferes with the market place as well as causing business to curtail expansion because it may be too costly to expand because of the effort to conform to bureaucratic rules. The more business is burdened the less likely they are to expand thus jobs go away rather than becoming additions.

Small business will do that, big business wants more bureaucratic rules to drive smaller competition out of business while they export the jobs overseas.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Small business will do that, big business wants more bureaucratic rules to drive smaller competition out of business while they export the jobs overseas.

Small business employees a very large percentage of the work force. Mega businesses move the work force of cheap labor out of the country sometime but the management and headquarters remain in a domestic mode most of the time. Sometimes the headquarters are moved because of tax ramifications.

 

[Jiggyfly]

Business will create more jobs if they are allowed to do so without being hampered or imposed on by government intervention or unreasonable taxation. The more the government intervenes the more it interferes with the market place as well as causing business to curtail expansion because it may be too costly to expand because of the effort to conform to bureaucratic rules. The more business is burdened the less likely they are to expand thus jobs go away rather than becoming additions.

This is the biggest Republiucan lie of the last 8 years.

Businesses wil create jobs if it adds to there profit margin plain and simple and they will cut jobs if it raises their profits.

It's no longer a question of making money it's maximizing profits at all cost.

That is the question that needs to be asked should we be a country that totally profit driven or should these companies that are making profits share those profits with employees raising the quality of life for people that go to work evry day.

It's no longer a question of companies making enough money to survive or prosper it's all about making as much as you can and paying employees as little as you can.

I beilieve in Capatalism it's the urepentant greed that's gotten out of hand.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Small business employees a very large percentage of the work force. Mega businesses move the work force of cheap labor out of the country sometime but the management and headquarters remain in a domestic mode most of the time. Sometimes the headquarters are moved because of tax ramifications.

Yeah, that's what I said.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

This is the biggest Republiucan lie of the last 8 years.

Businesses wil create jobs if it adds to there profit margin plain and simple and they will cut jobs if it raises their profits.

It's no longer a question of making money it's maximizing profits at all cost.

Sure and if you lower taxes businesses are more likely to expand because they have the ability to make more money. Expansion means more jobs. People who think rich people want to take their money and store it in a vault forever have never been rich.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Sure and if you lower taxes businesses are more likely to expand because they have the ability to make more money. Expansion means more jobs. People who think rich people want to take their money and store it in a vault forever have never been rich.

You're stuck in the 1950s if you think businesses are going to expand local operations. They'll just open another sweat shop in Indonesia.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

You're stuck in the 1950s if you think businesses are going to expand local operations. They'll just open another sweat shop in Indonesia.

Not even sure a post this ridiculous deserves a response.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Not even sure a post this ridiculous deserves a response.

I'm pointing out the problem with subsidizing the kinds of mega-corporations your party loves so much (the Democrats love them too, everyone in Washington likes lobbyists). You think you're helping out a US company and it will create jobs here but you're helping out a multi-national company, and it's cheaper for them to turn right around and create those jobs overseas. So, why would a profit-motivated company help out the US job market?

 

[L.T. Fan]

I'm pointing out the problem with subsidizing the kinds of mega-corporations your party loves so much (the Democrats love them too, everyone in Washington likes lobbyists). You think you're helping out a US company and it will create jobs here but you're helping out a multi-national company, and it's cheaper for them to turn right around and create those jobs overseas. So, why would a profit-motivated company help out the US job market?

Where is the subsidy him this example?

 

[townsend]

Where is the subsidy him this example?

http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/UncleSamsFavoriteCorporations.pdf

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I'm pointing out the problem with subsidizing the kinds of mega-corporations your party loves so much (the Democrats love them too, everyone in Washington likes lobbyists). You think you're helping out a US company and it will create jobs here but you're helping out a multi-national company, and it's cheaper for them to turn right around and create those jobs overseas. So, why would a profit-motivated company help out the US job market?

I didn't know my party, aka Libertarians, were known for giving businesses handouts.

I'm not for subsidies at all. But don't sit here and try to feed me shit that Walmart is receiving a subsidy by the government giving their workers free shit. That's not a subsidy. Don't try and tell me a tax break is a subsidy either.

I'm not for government handouts to businesses just like I'm not for government handouts to lazy individuals. But some Liberals have this nasty problem of calling things a subsidy that aren't actually a subsidy when talking about businesses. I personally don't believe in too big to fail. If a business is going to fail, it needs to just fail. (Realizing there is going to be short term job loss but long term success will result from more efficient businesses that will thrive).