Lets try not to get out of hand. Keep nasty remarks to yourself(hopefully I can practice what I preach!). Lets all try so we can keep coming on here and having fun.

I concur.

Close the loopholes, punish them if they send jobs overseas, rewards them for keeping them here, and impose stiff tariffs if they want to enter our lucrative market to sell their stuff, which they need. What's to prevent them from just doing that now? Moving to another country?

Surely the benefit of doing business in a country with low taxes and cheap labor would more than offset their tax loopholes.

I've said before that I agree there should be incentive for doing more business here. I don't disagree with you on this point. However, if you penalize these companies, they will leave. Why haven't they done it yet? Because it's not worth it yet. The penalties aren't stiff enough for them. But if the only option is penalty or do it, if there is no incentive, why would they stay? It's not cheap to uproot a company, and it hasn't come to that YET. It very well might, and might happen soon. But how do you impose those tariffs your proposing? We are an import country, we produce very little here anymore, so will these tariff's be on everyone? If so, hold onto your wallet because the cost of living here will skyrocket. Can you just impose them on the companies that leave? Sure you can try but they can just change names, or many other easy ways of getting around that. It's not a simple fix.

I've said before that I agree there should be incentive for doing more business here. I don't disagree with you on this point. However, if you penalize these companies, they will leave. Why haven't they done it yet? Because it's not worth it yet. The penalties aren't stiff enough for them. But if the only option is penalty or do it, if there is no incentive, why would they stay? It's not cheap to uproot a company, and it hasn't come to that YET. It very well might, and might happen soon. But how do you impose those tariffs your proposing? We are an import country, we produce very little here anymore, so will these tariff's be on everyone? If so, hold onto your wallet because the cost of living here will skyrocket. Can you just impose them on the companies that leave? Sure you can try but they can just change names, or many other easy ways of getting around that. It's not a simple fix.

If we start making things in this country and stop importing them, yes they will cost more but people will be working and able to afford them for the most part. Henry Ford knew this idea. He payed his workers more than what would have been the prevailing wage at the time. Why? Because he was smart and he wanted his employees to be able to buy his product.

We could make clothes in this country and horror - even by union workers. If we put people to work making clothes that promotes all the associated industries. This puts people to work and then they have money to spend. This spending stimulates the economy. Putting people to work, who pay taxes, and stimulating the economy will go a long way to reducing the deficit.

As for tariffs. Yes, raise tariffs on everything. And start making things other countries want. Like computers and cell phones and all that technology stuff. Export more. And if countries like India and China won't buy our stuff or play hardball then maybe we could stop letting their people come here to go to medical school. Just a thought. I don't know the logistics behind how it would work. That's what we pay our elected officials to do. Advocate for us and our country.

Corporate America is always looking for the best game in town no matter where it is - they have no loyaty to our country.

250,000 people removed themselves from the job pool. This number is only representative of people who are actively filing for unemployment, it does not take into account people who no longer have unemployment benefits or those who simply aren't looking and collecting. Most analysts have the REAL unemployment number closer to 20%. I was just watching some MSNBC(gasp he watches something other than fox news) and they were showing obama's press conference talking about how great these new unemployment numbers are. After the press conference, the MSNBC crew just started tearing obama apart, saying these numbers are fluff, because of the 1/4 million Americans who are no longer looking for jobs. And another statistic they put up on the screen was about obama bragging that 1.3 million jobs were created in 2010, and that he failed to mention that over 8 million were lost, so that puts us at a net loss of over 6 million jobs last year.

The method for determining the unemployment figure is the method. Period. You can always do extensive analysis of all the economic implications of this figure. But you damn well know that if it went up .4% the republicans wouldn't be looking deeply as to why. They'd blame Obama.

As far as I'm concerned, they realized, early on, Obama was going to move the country in a bad direction, and decided to stop that movement however possible. It definitely means they want Obama to fail, IF his goal is to move more towards socialism, and in which case I too want him to fail if that's his end goal, which I'm fairly confident reading and watching many things he's said in the past.

Don't backpedal now. When I made the original assertion that the republicans wanted to block Obama's agenda before he was even sworn in, you said something to the effect that if I could show that any of them said that that you would vote for Obama or some such thing.

These repubicans wouldn't have cared if he had claimed that America was in the north America - they would have disagreed. Like I said, they voted against bills that they proposed after Obama supported them. Now tell me - how is socialism? I exposed all this on other forums here in great detail.

Socialism - another buzz word from the neocons. They like to say it as they pick up their SS checks on the way to their doctor paid by medicare. Anyway, everything Pres. Obama has done has helped this economy. Not as fast as impatient Americans would like - but 18 months of positive job growth is impressive. The stock market going from 6000 to 11000 points and helping those retirement and investment funds (that tanked under bush) to grow is also impressive. But people are still hurting and he has done what he can to help the unemployed with benefit extentions.

Our unemployment would be 15% without the stimulus and other things Pres. Obama has done. He doesn't get credit for what didn't happen. If getting this economy moving in the right direction is socialism, I'll take it over whatever we had under the disastrous years of bush - a/k/a the decade of loss.

There is no backpedaling, the challenge was clear, show when and where the republican leaders said they want America to fail. You failed to do so.

As for job growth, thats a joke, we had a net loss of OVER 6 million jobs last year, thats not growth, when we stop losing, then start growing we will then have growth. And of course you don't want to nit pick numbers when it comes to unemployment, because you know, as do most informed Americans, the number is much lower then the "real" unemployment number. Yes it's done how it's done, that doesn't make it right, isn't that what you just said a few post's back, just because something has always been done one way doesn't mean it's right and doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed?

Socialism is hardly a buzz word, it's the end goal of many democrats and liberals alike, do a quick you tube search there are hundreds of them saying that. Roseanne Barr is an example. Now that the dems aren't the majority, we can work our way out of the recent spending mess they've put on us. Some neat democrat hypocrisy, yep, it's out there too. From the posted article,

Pelosi and Reid called Bush's budgets "dangerous" and "unpatriotic," but with Obama, they've changed their tune.

Cenk Uygur

Host of The Young Turks

Posted: July 23, 2008 12:20 PM

If We Drill in the US, We Don't Get the Oil

One thing has been driving me crazy about this drilling debate -- everyone seems to assume that if we drill for oil in the US, that we will get the oil. And hence, we won't be dependent on foreign oil anymore. But we won't get anything, Exxon-Mobil will.

The oil that comes from that drilling will not be United States property (Republicans aren't suggesting we nationalize the oil companies, are they?). It will be the property of whichever oil company got the rights to that contract. They can then sell it to whoever they like -- and they will. They will sell it on the world market, so the Chinese will have just as much access to the oil that comes out of the coast of Florida as we will.

The Democrats have done a decent job of beating back the argument that this will effect prices in the short run, or even in the long run. But no one has addressed the point above. The Republicans make it seem like we won't be dependent on foreign oil -- and that prices will go down in the US -- if we have our own oil. But it won't be ours. And it will be sold on the world market, so its effect on global oil prices will be even smaller.

When we ask the question of whether there should be drilling off the coast of Florida or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we should ask the question this way -- would you be comfortable with the Chinese or the Germans or Russians or the Saudis drilling on American land? Because for all intents and purposes, they will be.

Large multi-national firms like Exxon-Mobil are not US property. They sell to the world and their allegiance is to corporate profits. So, when they drill, they drill for the whole world, not just us. Some might find that heart-warming, but it certainly has nothing to do with the US having more oil or lower prices.

This post is for those who think that the oil drilled in and offshore in the U.S. belongs to us. A common misconception.

There is no backpedaling, the challenge was clear, show when and where the republican leaders said they want America to fail. You failed to do so.

As for job growth, thats a joke, we had a net loss of OVER 6 million jobs last year, thats not growth, when we stop losing, then start growing we will then have growth. And of course you don't want to nit pick numbers when it comes to unemployment, because you know, as do most informed Americans, the number is much lower then the "real" unemployment number. Yes it's done how it's done, that doesn't make it right, isn't that what you just said a few post's back, just because something has always been done one way doesn't mean it's right and doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed?

Socialism is hardly a buzz word, it's the end goal of many democrats and liberals alike, do a quick you tube search there are hundreds of them saying that. Roseanne Barr is an example. Now that the dems aren't the majority, we can work our way out of the recent spending mess they've put on us. Some neat democrat hypocrisy, yep, it's out there too. From the posted article,

If you look at what I said -I said they wanted Obama to fail and thus America. He is the president. If he fails, then so does the country. Nothing gets done. I stand by what I said, I proved it and you are backpedaling.

As I said I would welcome socialism over whatever disastrous economic policies the decade of decline/loss under bush was. We had a great 8 years under Clinton and then when the republicans controlled everything - disaster struck. If their goal is to get the White House and Senate, too, it won't be any different.

And as for unemployment figures. Of course you are going to go into complex analysis to paint it in the bleakest picture but it swings both ways. If it rises, then I will just say that's not an accurate figure, it's just that more people are looking for work who previously hadn't, yadda, yadda, yadda.

As for job growth, thats a joke, we had a net loss of OVER 6 million jobs last year, thats not growth, when we stop losing, then start growing we will then have growth. And of course you don't want to nit pick numbers when it comes to unemployment, because you know, as do most informed Americans, the number is much lower then the "real" unemployment number. Yes it's done how it's done, that doesn't make it right, isn't that what you just said a few post's back, just because something has always been done one way doesn't mean it's right and doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed?

showed him the “bikini graph,” based on Bureau of Labor Statistics figures:

We lost 8 million jobs as a result of the recession of 2008, but in the last 12 months we have had monthly positive job growth meaning that more jobs were added than lost. There were 1.3 million jobs created in that time. That hasn't happened since 2006. And each quarter did better than the previous quarter. We still have a long way to go but look at the blue bars that represents Obama and how that is a big improvement over the red bars under bush.

You just won't give Obama an ounce of credit and that reduces your credibility.

I ask that you watch the video about half way down - from Austen Goolsby, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. If you can find any factual info to refute what he says or find anyone else who wants to go back to the policies that created the red bar - please post them:

http://blog.markcz.com/obama-racine-midterm-election-warmup/

As for job growth, thats a joke, we had a net loss of OVER 6 million jobs last year, thats not growth, when we stop losing, then start growing we will then have growth. And of course you don't want to nit pick numbers when it comes to unemployment, because you know, as do most informed Americans, the number is much lower then the "real" unemployment number. Yes it's done how it's done, that doesn't make it right, isn't that what you just said a few post's back, just because something has always been done one way doesn't mean it's right and doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed?

TERRIBLE INTERNET MYTH MUST DIE - Every time the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a declining unemployment rate, crazed Internet People say the rate only went down because people stopped receiving unemployment insurance. The thinking is that the government's plan to reduce unemployment is to crush the unemployed and recycle them into Four Loko ethanol. To wit, HuffPost received the following in an email today: "So why did the unemployment rate tick down to 9.4%? Because 400,000 people with unemployment insurance lost their unemployment insurance benefits in November 2010." No. NO. Gary Steinberg of BLS told HuffPost this is "the most persistent inaccuracy about the monthly unemployment rate." In fact, the unemployment rate is calculated based on a survey of actual households, and they don't just call up and ask "y'all unemployed?" either. Check it out. [BLS]

showed him the "bikini graph," based on Bureau of Labor Statistics figures:

We lost 8 million jobs as a result of the recession of 2008, but in the last 12 months we have had monthly positive job growth meaning that more jobs were added than lost. There were 1.3 million jobs created in that time. That hasn't happened since 2006. And each quarter did better than the previous quarter. We still have a long way to go but look at the blue bars that represents Obama and how that is a big improvement over the red bars under bush.

You just won't give Obama an ounce of credit and that reduces your credibility.

So your trying to say that because of something 2 years ago, we lost 8 million jobs this year(2010)? Thats a weak argument, and just another attempt to blame everything going on right now on a guy from 2 years ago. Everything bad = Bush, anything good = obama. And you want to talk about a lack of credibility? I'll give obama credit where credit is due. For example he got don't ask don't tell pushed through, while based on the arguments of people I know in the military is not what they wanted, it's a promise he made that he kept too, and it doesn't look like there will be much backlash from it.

Please provide proof from BLS that 6 million jobs were lost in 2010. What I found is this:

Employed

Dec. 2009 - 137,960,000

Dec. 2010 - 139,206,000

Doesn't add up to 6 million jobs lost. Must be that tea party math.

So your trying to say that because of something 2 years ago, we lost 8 million jobs this year(2010)? Thats a weak argument, and just another attempt to blame everything going on right now on a guy from 2 years ago. Everything bad = Bush, anything good = obama. And you want to talk about a lack of credibility? I'll give obama credit where credit is due. For example he got don't ask don't tell pushed through, while based on the arguments of people I know in the military is not what they wanted, it's a promise he made that he kept too, and it doesn't look like there will be much backlash from it.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. The recession (job loss) actually started in 2007. Under and because of bush. By the time Obama took office about 700,000 jobs a month were being lost. He slowed that loss down and then turned it positive. By the time the job losses ended about 8 million jobs were lost. During the last 12 months, due to Obama's economic policies, we have had positive job growth. Positive job growth means more jobs created than lost each month. It doesn't mean we have made up the 8 million jobs that were lost. That's going to take time. If you can prove that 6 million jobs were lost in 2010 please do so.

And yes - bad economic policies, banks failing, bailout of them and massive job loses = bush

Reduce job loses, create positive job growth, improved stock market = Obama.

Well, it finally happened! Dem congress woman Gabrielle Giffords (shot in head) and at least 11 others shot at a Safeway grocery store in Tuscon Arizona. Could it possibly be because the lunatic believed all the hate and lies spewing from the rep mouths! Well I just heard at least 6 are dead(witness confirmation)! Thanks Boner and co.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There should be SOME regulation in offshore drilling, but not so much as to shut it down or make it not profitable. People seem to think the US is the only country that people do business in, if we keep down this path of over regulation of everything, there will come a time, probably sooner than later, when large companies will just flat refuse to do business with us. Why do they need to? China and India are growing like crazy. Especially in the oil field, China is second only to the US in oil consumption and have stated that their oil consumption will grow by over 80% in the next 15 years. Meaning they will surpass us. They already use much more coal than we do, and India is right on China's tail. So when we've implemented all these regulations on everything that used to be profitable here in the US, the companies will just pull up stakes and move elsewhere. Why not? China and India don't have the ridiculous regulations and taxes, and fee's and oversight that suffocates different industries, why do you think so many have already moved huge portions of their companies overseas. So keep regulating and run this country into the ground. Then what? Companies will leave, they've already started. A good example of this on a smaller scale is California, it's like an exodus of companies trying to get out because of the high corporate taxes in California. I've actually seen a lot of billboards from Nevada telling businesses to come to their state because of lower taxes and that they'll give even larger tax breaks when you first come over. Thats what's going to happen and really already is happening to the US.

I'm all for helping the "lower class" through donations, and volunteering and helping them help themselves. Not by handouts, and encouraging them to stay on welfare, unemployment, medicade what have you forever. Like I said in my previous post, I have a buddy that makes the equivalent of an $18 an hour job 40 hrs a week, while being on unemployment, why would he want to do all that to break even? If he took a job flipping burgers at min wage he'd take a HUGE pay cut. But if that wasn't there, he'd have to and he would. My wife and I donate money every year to several charities. And the last two years we've done our own impromptu adopt-a-family type deal at christmas time for two families each year. At the fire stations in so Cal we do a gift giving thing similar to toys for tots, called spark of love, and we've chose two families that we felt needed it badly, and were really trying to better themselves and took them to the super wal-mart in town and bought them everything for a Christmas dinner, presents for the kids, and for them, as the parents rarely get anything(they were simple gifts, new socks, new underpants, toiletries etc.) extra school supplies. I enjoy helping, I never do garage sales, I always give whatever I have extra to the salvation army, or to people I know who aren't as well off.

As for your other post. I don't make 200k a year, I make well over 100k and with my wife's salary we clear that usually. But if you care to do some research on California fire departments look at the salaries for firemen and then realize you can usually at least double that for all the overtime we work. I have been fortunate, I've made some good choices, and worked hard. And I know cm will say that I couldn't have done it without the government, and I agree, I wouldn't have roads, or schools, I did go to public school, and a state University. But I didn't take loans, I worked, hard. I understand not all people want what I want, or have the motivation I have for certain things. And that is fine, but it shouldn't be expected for the hard workers to take care of the slackers, there are those who need a temporary hand up, I'm all for helping them. One area I believe we absolutely need lots more government regulation is in these hand out programs that are there to stop the fraud, to investigate into why these people can't find jobs, or are they just choosing not to because they're making decent money on unemployment, and don't need to find a job because they can get by just fine on the government hand out?

I've said on multiple occasions we need an overhaul of the medical system, but the plan that the dems came up with just isn't IMO the best one. There are parts that are good, the pre-existing conditions part for example. The mandate, NOT a good part. That is "junk."

And I guess the majority of Americans decided to vote to send their kids off to die instead of research green stuff, like your ultimatum implied. Since this was the biggest win in over 70 years.

Thank you, your right. Obama did beat Mccain by a landslide. Again its nice of you to give to charities(as I will actually be heading to goodwill to drop off items). Alot of what you say I agree with I think we just word it differently. Handouts as you call them I dont agree with because when worded like that it sounds like everyone who accepts unemployment, etc is slacking off. Unfortunately there will always be people who play the system and it would be nice for someone to look over the problem. But it would mean another branch of our "corrupt"(your belief) government interfering. The reason they want to extend unemployment is because there arent any jobs(where have you been for the last 4-5 years), just kidding. I do think alot of whats going on is people who lost good jobs arent willing to work 2 or more jobs if needed to compensate for the money they're used to. But they lost white collar jobs so they're not considered handouts.