Switch Theme:

What Can America Do to Create Jobs?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in ca
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God





Inactive

o_o Rented Tritium, i don't think anyone is confused about capitalism here.
But as you can see, if Americans don't have work, they wont be able to afford anything even if the product is made cheaper by hiring none US workers.

Paused
◙▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
           ◂◂  ►  ▐ ▌  ◼  ▸▸
          ʳʷ   ᵖˡᵃʸ  ᵖᵃᵘˢᵉ  ˢᵗᵒᵖ   ᶠᶠ 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Rented Tritium wrote:I don't get how you can be super free market and want to restrict these guys as little as possible, but then at the same time tell them what country to do business in. Why SHOULDN'T a company use the cheapest labor available. Cheap labor means cheap products means more money in my pocket means buying more products. Oh, we can make those products cheaper with outsourcing as well? Awesome!

It's called capitalism guys. I'm really surprised an invisible hand guy like you isn't better at understanding it. Forget about those "jobs" that are invisibly flying over the ocean or whatever you think is happening. A company is maximizing the bottom line and creating more value for less input. This is how economies function. You want the government to tell someone where they're allowed to manufacture their products, what are you, a socialist?


Capitalism works best in a closed system. Open systems which we are in currently, where countries can manipulate their currency, less so. After all, not every country, region, or industry has a comparable advantage.

Ask Spain.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






San Jose, CA

<broadcast mode active: stay cool, folks, and argue positions, not personalities>

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? 
   
Made in gb
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps





South Wales

Probably completely unrelated but this discussion sorta reminded me of it.

Was a short documentary a bit ago, about jobs and immigrants here in the UK. Basically, the main thrust was that there were many, minimum wage jobs available, but with long hours requiring hard work. When offered said jobs, the people at job seekers immdiately went "feth that, we're worth more", whilst immigrants were quite happy to take them.

Which amused me slightly, as the inflated opinion of the job "seekers" meant they expected easy, well paying jobs and so they refused to try low paying harder jobs. Naturally, this hardly applies to everyone ever who is unemployed.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/10/04 21:50:31


Prestor Jon wrote:
Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
 
   
Made in ca
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God





Inactive

MrDwhitey wrote:Probably completely unrelated but this discussion sorta reminded me of it.

Was a short documentary a bit ago, about jobs and immigrants here in the UK. Basically, the main thrust was that there were many, minimum wage jobs available, but with long hours requiring hard work. When offered said jobs, the people at job seekers immdiately went "feth that, we're worth more", whilst immigrants were quite happy to take them.

Which amused me slightly, as the inflated opinion of the job "seekers" meant they expected easy, well paying jobs and so they refused to try low paying harder jobs. Naturally, this hardly applies to everyone ever who is unemployed.

John Stewart had a skit on this just last night regarding Mexican workers for USA/ let me see if i can find it

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/10/04 21:51:36


Paused
◙▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
           ◂◂  ►  ▐ ▌  ◼  ▸▸
          ʳʷ   ᵖˡᵃʸ  ᵖᵃᵘˢᵉ  ˢᵗᵒᵖ   ᶠᶠ 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





LunaHound wrote:o_o Rented Tritium, i don't think anyone is confused about capitalism here.
But as you can see, if Americans don't have work, they wont be able to afford anything even if the product is made cheaper by hiring none US workers.


Someone is selling those things, someone is sorting the warehouse full of those things. Someone is managing the purchasing and distribution of those things. Someone is designing those things.

Which brings me to another economics myth: The economy is powered by physically making objects and selling them

Apply your logic to a state and you'll see how silly it is. Why should new york buy food from nebraska? That's just shipping new york jobs to nebraska.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:I don't get how you can be super free market and want to restrict these guys as little as possible, but then at the same time tell them what country to do business in. Why SHOULDN'T a company use the cheapest labor available. Cheap labor means cheap products means more money in my pocket means buying more products. Oh, we can make those products cheaper with outsourcing as well? Awesome!

It's called capitalism guys. I'm really surprised an invisible hand guy like you isn't better at understanding it. Forget about those "jobs" that are invisibly flying over the ocean or whatever you think is happening. A company is maximizing the bottom line and creating more value for less input. This is how economies function. You want the government to tell someone where they're allowed to manufacture their products, what are you, a socialist?


Capitalism works best in a closed system. Open systems which we are in currently, where countries can manipulate their currency, less so. After all, not every country, region, or industry has a comparable advantage.

Ask Spain.


Then you should definitely be lobbying to stop texas from shipping jobs to california and florida. Capitalism works best in a closed system after all.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/10/04 22:11:16


 
   
Made in us
40kenthus






Yoor Speeshawl too Gawd!

Melissia wrote: Yeah, I'm not convinced that's a statement that's actually based on reality. The assumption that companies would lower prices because of a switch from payroll to consumption tax rings false to me.


Companies would have to lower prices to stay competitive, you see this everyday in micro economics. Watch one gas station have gas 5 cents cheaper and tell me what happens. Which one gets more business and what does the other business need to do in order to compete?


Melissia wrote:Certainly, big business isn't hiring despite all of the politicians practically lining up to spit-shine the arses of their pants.


Big business made deep deep cuts and is still living off of reduced labor cost and overhead. All you have to do is go to the grocery store to see this in practice, have you not noticed the aisles are wider and there is less products on the shelves


Melissia wrote: At least my statements have mathematical reasons behind them.


Yours are theoretical and not based on any real number crunching. The fair tax is around 27% that replaces the 15% income tax, the 7.65% payroll tax and the 5.65% combined SSI and Medicare/caid tax. So you would get an automatic 28% increase in pay plus if you fall within the income guidelines you would get a prebate to cover essentials like food, water toilet paper. People considered poor would be affected 0% with the exception of having more income due to the lack of any federal taxes and their monthly prebate So far as businesses they would not have to pay taxes but also would be able save on tax compliance which is a huge cost in any business for example



As you can see all those cost go back into the the company to invest in itself, give raises or hire more people.

Consumption is also a much more stable source of income than taxing wages because consumption does not swing as wildly. The only people who would not be happy are ones who enjoy using taxes as a bludgeon on political or ideological opponents, people who profit from the current system (sorry H & R Block), and the lobbying firms who buy votes for tax exceptions.

A consumption tax means everyone has a stake in the tax and it is as transparent as you can make a tax. When they made the proposal they interviewed several fortune 500 companies 60 percent said they would expand operations in the US the other 40 said they would relocate their headquarters in the US. That is a fairly good indicator of were investment would go in the world.




Only now do I realize how much I prefer Pete Haines' "misprints" to Gav Thorpe's "brainfarts." :Abadabadoobaddon 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

Dice Monkey wrote:Companies would have to lower prices to stay competitive, you see this everyday in micro economics.
In some parts, yes, but not everywhere. Not all companies followthe same economic ideas, and decreased price is not always the best way to increased profits.

Dice Monkey wrote:Big business made deep deep cuts and is still living off of reduced labor cost and overhead.
Big business is doing pretty well for itself, what with their records profits, and sitting on billions of dollars which goes unspent.

Big business is not the answer to the problem; in many ways, they ARE the problem, or more accurately a sizable part of it.
Dice Monkey wrote:Yours are theoretical and not based on any real number crunching. The fair tax is
Not at all fair.

Dice Monkey wrote:People considered poor would be affected 0% with the exception of having more income due to the lack of any federal taxes and their monthly prebate
If the method described was used, then frankly that wouldn't change anything for them except which government system they use to get out of paying taxes. But in the end, the more I think about it, the more the so-called "fair tax" really just comes across as most beneficial to those whom are already rich, and I'm not yet convinced it is a good idea for anyone else. Anyone who is rich enough that they can save and start to make money off of money-- IE, definitely NOT most Americans-- can game the system all the same unless you tax more than merely consumption.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/10/04 23:10:29


The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Savage Minotaur




Chicago

Speaking of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert also ran a bit where a big farm in New York (the state) was hiring and giving jobs out to anyone who wanted them, no interview or anything, to just do farm work and pick vegetables, etc etc. It only paid a dollar or two above minimum wage, but it was a job.

About 8 other people besides himself showed up to do the work, even though it was widely known in the surrounding area.

So yeah, Dwighty, not just the UK.

   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

Man, I would have taken that job. Certainly I've done more or at least similarly demanding work (groundskeeping, including quite a bit of digging because the college was replacing a lot of shrubberies).

The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Consumption taxes are suuuuper unfair to the poor. I consume with 100% of my income. I would be taxed at the highest rate under any consumption based tax scheme. People who promote those are generally the ones who live off dividends.
   
Made in us
Sybarite Swinging an Agonizer




U.S.A.

Why the world (including the US) is a mess:
1. Overreaching govt. For instance, the US is no longer governed by the constitution, but by bureaucrats and the courts;
2. Unions. These had a place in the early 1900s, but now they are interested in getting paid as much as possible for as little work as possible;
3. Colleges have been taken over by socialists/marxists, whose principles they teach to kids who are impressionable.

The idea that you can achieve prosperity by taxing the rich is a pipe dream of the ignorant and those that want to punish success. There is no economic benefit from removing money from the private sector, run it through the government waste filter, and then put what is left back in the private sector. No country in history ever taxed itself to prosperity.

Under any tax system, someone that makes more money will pay more in taxes, unless it's the most FAIR system where each person pays the same amount. The next most fair system is a flat rate.

A progressive or punitive tax system might satisfy liberal notions of utopian shared equal misery, but it goes against history, logic, and human nature. A liberal cannot point to a shining example of where it has worked, nor can they declare what exactly is a "fair" amount.

The constitution only guarantees the right to pursue happiness, it does not guarantee happiness. Only liberals promise "fairness"with other people's money.

"Stop worrying about it and just get naked." - Mrs. Phanatik

"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." -Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Frazzled - "When the Great Wienie comes, you will have a favored place among his Chosen. "

MachineSpirit - "Quick Reply has been temporarily disabled due to a recent warning you received." 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Chicago, Illinois

You know what we need to do. We need to stop having the chinese do the jobs for us. It may be cheaper but overtime it devalues the dollar. Give americans back their jobs by becoming its own self supporting nation, that is just my opinion of course I am 17. So It really doesn't matter what i say does it?

From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. 
   
Made in us
Savage Minotaur




Chicago

Phanatik wrote:Why the world (including the US) is a mess:
1. Overreaching govt. For instance, the US is no longer governed by the constitution, but by bureaucrats and the courts;
2. Unions. These had a place in the early 1900s, but now they are interested in getting paid as much as possible for as little work as possible;
3. Colleges have been taken over by socialists/marxists, whose principles they teach to kids who are impressionable.

The idea that you can achieve prosperity by taxing the rich is a pipe dream of the ignorant and those that want to punish success. There is no economic benefit from removing money from the private sector, run it through the government waste filter, and then put what is left back in the private sector. No country in history ever taxed itself to prosperity.

Under any tax system, someone that makes more money will pay more in taxes, unless it's the most FAIR system where each person pays the same amount. The next most fair system is a flat rate.

A progressive or punitive tax system might satisfy liberal notions of utopian shared equal misery, but it goes against history, logic, and human nature. A liberal cannot point to a shining example of where it has worked, nor can they declare what exactly is a "fair" amount.

The constitution only guarantees the right to pursue happiness, it does not guarantee happiness. Only liberals promise "fairness"with other people's money.


Conservative, liberal hating flagbearer right here.

Its certainly fair that Jimmy Buffet the rockstar pays less taxes than a common secretary, amirite?

Are you implying Socialism is a bad thing? England and Sweden disagree.
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

Phanatik wrote:Why the world (including the US) is a mess:
1. Overreaching govt. For instance, the US is no longer governed by the constitution, but by bureaucrats and the courts;


The constitution is the highest law of the land, but even it envisioned that a government, not a document, would actually govern. In doing so, it actually explicitly empowered both bureaucrats and courts.

Speaking of which, the courts are really the only place where governmental overreaching is stopped. So, I'm lead to believe that your problem isn't so much that the courts (which are a full branch of the government in their own right) have power as you disagree with their decisions.

2. Unions. These had a place in the early 1900s, but now they are interested in getting paid as much as possible for as little work as possible;


Yes, because wanting to maximize output and minimize input is downright un-American!

I'll never understand why unions need to play by different ethics than every other entity. When a CEO makes as much money as possible for as little effort, he gets a bonus!

3. Colleges have been taken over by socialists/marxists, whose principles they teach to kids who are impressionable.


Is this a leftover rant from 1980?

I dunno, I went to an elite private school for undergrad, where I think I heard a professor speak on politics maybe once or twice (and I was a philosophy major). I then went to a third tier law school at a state university, where my professors ranged from ACLU litigators to an Originalist scholar. My experience does not mesh with yours.

Although I'm interested to see how your views on the impressionable nature of children applies to, say, the liberal movement to minimize violence on television...

The idea that you can achieve prosperity by taxing the rich is a pipe dream of the ignorant and those that want to punish success. There is no economic benefit from removing money from the private sector, run it through the government waste filter, and then put what is left back in the private sector. No country in history ever taxed itself to prosperity.


Except Scandinavian ones.

Under any tax system, someone that makes more money will pay more in taxes, unless it's the most FAIR system where each person pays the same amount. The next most fair system is a flat rate.


Why are those fair? The moral and legal arguments for progressive taxation are, at best, murky. But not more so than the arguments against. And, as always, tie goes to what will work.

Spoiler:
It's not a flat tax


progressive or punitive tax system might satisfy liberal notions of utopian shared equal misery, but it goes against history, logic, and human nature. A liberal cannot point to a shining example of where it has worked, nor can they declare what exactly is a "fair" amount.


Well, post-war America seemed to do all right, and had tax rates in the low 90's.

The constitution only guarantees the right to pursue happiness, it does not guarantee happiness. Only liberals promise "fairness"with other people's money.


Well... liberals are broadly represented on all points of the socioeconomic spectrum. So it's not all other people's money.

But, well, I'm glad you hate liberals!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/10/05 03:25:48


 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

Phanatik wrote:Why the world (including the US) is a mess:
3. Colleges have been taken over by socialists/marxists, whose principles they teach to kids who are impressionable.


Like Polonius, I did my undergrad at an elite private school. Like Polonius, my teachers rarely spoke about politics, and when they did it wasn't in any normative sense; even the political science professors. I'm now a PhD candidate in a political science department at a major state school, and its basically the same way. Hell, I would probably characterize nearly half of the department as libertarian.

Phanatik wrote:
No country in history ever taxed itself to prosperity.


And very few countries have managed to sustain any significant growth without tax funded social programs. Just ask Pinochet and the Chicago Boys.

Phanatik wrote:
Under any tax system, someone that makes more money will pay more in taxes, unless it's the most FAIR system where each person pays the same amount. The next most fair system is a flat rate.


Oh, this game again.

Alright, round 1: How do we decide how we're going to determine what is fair?

Phanatik wrote:
A progressive or punitive tax system might satisfy liberal notions of utopian shared equal misery, but it goes against history, logic, and human nature.


If it goes against human nature, then why do humans advocate it?

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Spitsbergen

biccat wrote:Repealing minimum wage laws would lead to more jobs created.

They would be low-paying jobs, but IMO it's better to have productive citizens at low-paying jobs than non-productive citizens with no jobs.

The difference may be taken up by welfare and/or private charity.



As someone who works two minimum wage jobs, I would have to respectfully disagree with repealing minimum wage laws.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:

Under any tax system, someone that makes more money will pay more in taxes, unless it's the most FAIR system where each person pays the same amount. The next most fair system is a flat rate.


So in a tax system where everyone pays the exact same. . .

If I had to pay the same amount of taxes as mega-millionaires, I would have to go into debt to pay them, and I would never be able to get out. I wouldn't have money for anything BUT taxes.

If mega-millionaires paid the same amount as I do, the country would be more broke than it already is.

How is either of those situations fair?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/10/05 04:26:27


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Eternal Plague

An short read about Guest Visas and Unemployment:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/us/farmers-strain-to-hire-american-workers-in-place-of-migrant-labor.html


   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Rented Tritium wrote:
LunaHound wrote:o_o Rented Tritium, i don't think anyone is confused about capitalism here.
But as you can see, if Americans don't have work, they wont be able to afford anything even if the product is made cheaper by hiring none US workers.


Someone is selling those things, someone is sorting the warehouse full of those things. Someone is managing the purchasing and distribution of those things. Someone is designing those things.

Which brings me to another economics myth: The economy is powered by physically making objects and selling them

Apply your logic to a state and you'll see how silly it is. Why should new york buy food from nebraska? That's just shipping new york jobs to nebraska.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:I don't get how you can be super free market and want to restrict these guys as little as possible, but then at the same time tell them what country to do business in. Why SHOULDN'T a company use the cheapest labor available. Cheap labor means cheap products means more money in my pocket means buying more products. Oh, we can make those products cheaper with outsourcing as well? Awesome!

It's called capitalism guys. I'm really surprised an invisible hand guy like you isn't better at understanding it. Forget about those "jobs" that are invisibly flying over the ocean or whatever you think is happening. A company is maximizing the bottom line and creating more value for less input. This is how economies function. You want the government to tell someone where they're allowed to manufacture their products, what are you, a socialist?


Capitalism works best in a closed system. Open systems which we are in currently, where countries can manipulate their currency, less so. After all, not every country, region, or industry has a comparable advantage.

Ask Spain.


Then you should definitely be lobbying to stop texas from shipping jobs to california and florida. Capitalism works best in a closed system after all.



Texas is stomping. Michigan is getting hammered. Is capitalism working best for all? right back atcha.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

Phanatik wrote:2. Unions. These had a place in the early 1900s, but now they are interested in getting paid as much as possible for as little work as possible;
Funny, our productivity per capita is higher than almost every other nation of note-- only three nations have a higher gdp per hour worked than we do-- norway, Luxembourg, and Netherlands. So this isn't true. At all. Congratulations on being wrong.

I'll do you a favor and ignore the idiocty that was your point 3... no. No, they aren't.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/10/05 12:44:48


The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Sybarite Swinging an Agonizer




U.S.A.

Melissia wrote:
Phanatik wrote:2. Unions. These had a place in the early 1900s, but now they are interested in getting paid as much as possible for as little work as possible;
Funny, our productivity per capita is higher than almost every other nation of note-- only three nations have a higher gdp per hour worked than we do-- norway, Luxembourg, and Netherlands. So this isn't true. At all. Congratulations on being wrong.

I'll do you a favor and ignore the idiocty that was your point 3... no. No, they aren't.


Funny, that there are some companies, like GM, that went (or needed to go) into bankruptcy because they had to pay thousands of union employees large salaries to sit around watching t.v. because their jobs had been eliminated, but they couldn't fire them. The efficiency in the system comes from non-union companies.

Funny, your favor might have had better effect had it been spelled correctly, coupled with a few facts.
"College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says. "
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html[url/]

As for the courts, the problem is that liberals know they can't get much of their agenda past the American people via the legislative process (or through elections), so liberal activist judges legislate from the bench. That's how we ended up with R v. W and a lot of other crap. Surely, this isn't news?

If liberalism/socialism were a good thing or actually worked, Obama would be far higher in the polls because the economy would be thriving and un-employment would be much lower. But it's not, is it? Every (liberal/socialist) thing he's tried has failed. Normally, it would only take about 18 months for the U.S. to come out of a recession. What's the clock say?

RE: Fairest tax - everyone would pay the same amount, say $5000. The government would have to fund it's constitutional duties from that and tariffs, or starve. If liberals want to fund liberal boondoggles like the welfare state from their own money, then do so. Leave my money alone!

Yes, I'm happily a conservative. I believe people should get to keep what they earn, and exhibit personal responsibility for themselves and their family.
Liberals, who don't seem to actually be happy in their liberalism, think everyone should be equally miserable and are not responsible for their actions, and should be controlled by the Elite Intelligentsia. (count me out)

Regards,
Phanatik

"Stop worrying about it and just get naked." - Mrs. Phanatik

"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." -Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Frazzled - "When the Great Wienie comes, you will have a favored place among his Chosen. "

MachineSpirit - "Quick Reply has been temporarily disabled due to a recent warning you received." 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I just won talking points bingo

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/10/05 14:29:58


 
   
Made in us
Sybarite Swinging an Agonizer




U.S.A.

I win on style:
"And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return! "
[url]http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm[url/]

Best,

"Stop worrying about it and just get naked." - Mrs. Phanatik

"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." -Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Frazzled - "When the Great Wienie comes, you will have a favored place among his Chosen. "

MachineSpirit - "Quick Reply has been temporarily disabled due to a recent warning you received." 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

Legalize Pot and Prostitution. The two P's will bring us out of this slump.


Edit: Or at least make us feel better about being in it...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/10/05 14:45:39


DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in us
Napoleonics Obsesser






I've heard Green Energy could provide jobs, but I truly don't believe that it would produce enough openings to make any difference. How many engineers and structural mechanics are out of a job?

I love when people scream "DEPORTATION". That definitely isn't the solution. If you take out a large chunk of the labor force (like construction, repair, service, food service, etc), you're encouraging the businesses that abused them to go under, which, hurrdurr, is removing jobs.

I think our problem stems from much deeper than a lack of jobs. The whole american mindset of "Go to college or live a life of mediocrity and failure" is quite discouraging.


If only ZUN!bar were here... 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I love how they want green energy AND a shutdown of all nuclear plants.

Yeah guys, that is the opposite of how you get green energy hth.
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

Phanatik wrote:
"College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html


First off, I had to fix your link. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to jump on other's typos if you intend to make your own.

Second, identification as politically liberal, or as being affiliated with a particular political party, does not indicate an intention, or tendency, to indoctrinate students. Its also important to note that surveys of this type rarely capture the meaning of "liberal" being utilized, especially when administered to people who basically get paid to think about things in extreme detail.

However, it is interesting that the partisan identification presented aligns roughly with my experience regarding college professors. About half Democrats, few Republicans, and lots of other/apathetic (many college professors don't vote at all).

Phanatik wrote:
As for the courts, the problem is that liberals know they can't get much of their agenda past the American people via the legislative process (or through elections), so liberal activist judges legislate from the bench. That's how we ended up with R v. W and a lot of other crap. Surely, this isn't news?


Its also how we ended up without limits on corporate campaign contributions, and the current Court is not a liberal one. Arguably, Bush v. Gore fits here as well. Judicial activism is not confined to one side of the aisle, and that's before we get into a conversation about whether or not it means anything beyond "decision I don't like."

Phanatik wrote:
If liberalism/socialism were a good thing or actually worked, Obama would be far higher in the polls because the economy would be thriving and un-employment would be much lower.


You're assuming all the current policies of government are liberal/socialist, which is a poor assumption. The President does not decide everything related to governance, and certainly does not decide everything related to the economy; though he will generally take the blame/credit for both.

Phanatik wrote:
Normally, it would only take about 18 months for the U.S. to come out of a recession.


Actually, its generally less than that, about 8-12 months. The present recession has actually lasted less than 8 months, unless you're connecting it to the previous recession, which lasted 16.

Phanatik wrote:
RE: Fairest tax - everyone would pay the same amount, say $5000.


Why is everyone paying the same gross amount the most fair option? Specifically, why is that metric for determining fairness superior to any other, like, say, everyone paying an equal percentage of their income or everyone paying a percentage of their income that is commensurate with their income?

I mean, this isn't a difficult question to answer, unless your only answer is "Because that's what I want!"

Phanatik wrote:
Yes, I'm happily a conservative. I believe people should get to keep what they earn, and exhibit personal responsibility for themselves and their family.
Liberals, who don't seem to actually be happy in their liberalism, think everyone should be equally miserable and are not responsible for their actions, and should be controlled by the Elite Intelligentsia. (count me out)


So, basically, you're upset that people believe things that are different from the things you believe, and are going to develop caricatures of those beliefs (and probably your own as well, relative to actual practice) to make yourself feel morally superior.

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
[ARTICLE MOD]
Fixture of Dakka






Chicago

I reckon you could create some jobs by having people on wellfare do some menial tasks in exchange for their check.

Our infrastructure is not in good shape. There are bridge that need to be repainted. This isn't rocket science and doesn't require a high degree of skill. Instead of paying a guy unemployment, pay him to paint the bridge and *poof*, now he's employed.

One reason that we have the unemployment that we have is because we're spending the money that we could spend on paying people to do necessary work to pay them because they're not working.

   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

Phanatik wrote:
Funny, that there are some companies, like GM, that went (or needed to go) into bankruptcy because they had to pay thousands of union employees large salaries to sit around watching t.v. because their jobs had been eliminated, but they couldn't fire them. The efficiency in the system comes from non-union companies.


Except... GM signed those contracts. Freely. Without compulsion other than a strike (which only works if the workers are actually difficult to replace).

In other words, a company made a business decision in the free market. I'm not sure how this is the fault of the union, whose sole goal is to get higher wages, less hours, etc.

Do you not see the disconnect between advocacy of profit seeking for companies, and then villifying unions for the exact same thing?

Funny, your favor might have had better effect had it been spelled correctly, coupled with a few facts.
"College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says. "
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html[url/]


Liberal is not socialist/marxist. When all you see is rage, it's easy to make that distinction. About the more lefty thing the piece suggested on an economic scale is increased environmental protection (something that's not socialist) and full employment (which is a pretty weak form of socialism).

As for the courts, the problem is that liberals know they can't get much of their agenda past the American people via the legislative process (or through elections), so liberal activist judges legislate from the bench. That's how we ended up with R v. W and a lot of other crap. Surely, this isn't news?


You realize that Roe v. Wade's majority opinion included one Eisenhower and three Nixon appointees? None of which were considered particulalry liberal? I'm not sure how you want to link lifelong Republicans to some liberal consipracy that controls them. It's also possible that judges, you know, actually make decisions based on the law and the facts.

If liberalism/socialism were a good thing or actually worked, Obama would be far higher in the polls because the economy would be thriving and un-employment would be much lower. But it's not, is it? Every (liberal/socialist) thing he's tried has failed. Normally, it would only take about 18 months for the U.S. to come out of a recession. What's the clock say?


Well, the actual recession lasted 18 months.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/28/us-usa-economy-gallup-idUSTRE73R3WW20110428?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

The recovery is modest, but not unusually slow.

RE: Fairest tax - everyone would pay the same amount, say $5000. The government would have to fund it's constitutional duties from that and tariffs, or starve. If liberals want to fund liberal boondoggles like the welfare state from their own money, then do so. Leave my money alone!


One of Congress's enumerated powers is to "tax and spend for the general welfare." Congress has the power to spend as they will. Unless you disagree with Alexander Hamilton.

Yes, I'm happily a conservative. I believe people should get to keep what they earn, and exhibit personal responsibility for themselves and their family.
Liberals, who don't seem to actually be happy in their liberalism, think everyone should be equally miserable and are not responsible for their actions, and should be controlled by the Elite Intelligentsia. (count me out)


I'm actually pretty happy in my liberalism.

But yes, I hold the shocking belief that smart, educated people do a better job at running things than the ignorant and dumb.
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

Phanatik wrote:Funny, that there are some companies, like GM, that went (or needed to go) into bankruptcy
Oh, there were FAR more important reasons why they're failing than that.

Such as their refusal to innovate, their inability to keep up with demand, their "do the same thing we've been doingand we'll continue to profit" attitude, and so on...

The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: