Sure sure, because, you know, everything about this administration is horrible! Unemployment is a blazing 6.7% and predicted to go down to 5.5% - that's disgusting being as we just came out of the worst recession in our lifetimes.

My original statement, that forcing a competitive import tax on goods to level the playing field still trumps any theory about where imports come from. Vietnam, India, where ever.

Tax the products at port of entry. If China can get by on paying their people $no money per hour, good for them. Make it economically impossible for Fortune companys to send work offshore. Then the jobs will come back.

And I believe that will happen sooner rather than later. It has to happen.

Thank You for agreeing with me

Wait, I posted text directly from the CBO and you say it's a lie, are you this much of an idiot in real life?

You are the first person I have asked that can say anything positive that she has done, what does that tell use?

Sorry, but what the fuck are you trying to say?

6.7% unemployment is now considered a good rate? I see still blaming Bush while we entered Obama's 6th year of office. Please remember most of the going done is due to a shrinkage of the workforce?

Median wage is down
Poverty is worse
Record number of people on food stamps
Size of work force is down and according to the CBO is getting worse
And the fed is still pumping 85 billion a month into the economy.

Sorry, I don't see the sunshine

whoops was on my phone.

Just cause you CAN quote something doesn't mean you know what it means vendzilla. Sorry

So just cause you can read the report doesn't mean you know what the report actually means. That is why there is confusion here, because you simply didn't understand it.

What exactly do you think I don't understand? I look at what I posted from the CBO report and I see that the work force percentage is decreasing and the economy is not going to improve any time soon. They have a graph on the first page about the economy, it's a flat line almost!

As a band-aid for a few years, a tax on items produced outside the US makes sense, so does requiring 'repatriation of assets' to prevent companies from keeping billions overseas and borrowing at home to avoid taxation as Apple and others have done. However all of that does nothing to manage the fact that assembling iPhones is something bots will soon do, along with just about every other assembly line job, shipping job and most other manufacturing work.

Let's assume your plan works as a given. The cost of goods will rise, wages will still remain essentially flat, executive pay increases, less people can buy the goods they make... and even the low amount these jobs will pay is still cost prohibitive in a few years when compared to buying a bot to do it instead. Your idea is better than the status quo. That isn't good enough.

Neil Degrasse Tyson was speaking on a show I watched recently and he made the point that when he was growing up, the country was focused on building a better tomorrow. The world's fair, the space race, the entire culture of American ingenuity was aimed at making the world and the country a better place for a better future to exist. I agree with him that the mindset of that era was the primary reason we actually did build a better future. Now we are locked into a 'what will work OK for now' mindset and it won't lead to a better a future... it may not even lead to a better next year or two.

It's time to move some of the BIG ideas forward. :2 cents:

I am not a Democrat. I can't stand Hillary; She's a ticket puncher who hit just the right jobs for a run to the White House. We don't need people like that in politics.

All of these issues you bring up weren't caused by Obama or the current administration, but before hand. You need to understand where we were before you can discuss where we are now.

Is 6.7% unemployment good? Considering we had topped out at well above 10%, yes, 6.7% is good. In fact, it's great. And according to the report you shared with us, it will be dropping down to 5.5%. This is great.

Median wage is down, poverty is worse, record number of people on food stamps.... Did you not see what just happened? You've been to my house; Half of the people on my street alone lost their house. People aren't worse off because of Obama; People are worse off because of the recession that happen before Obama came into office.

The work force is going down? Well, that's what started this thread.... The Republicans saw this, twisted this, and spit out false information. This was on the front page of the news this morning. Republicans are reading "two million people will loose their jobs". That's not true. Two million people who are currently in the work force ONLY because they need medical benefits will now no longer need to work because the healthcare act gives them better healthcare options. My wife is the perfect example - she works only because she needs healthcare. Now because of this healthcare law, she'll be able to get better healthcare without working and no longer will need to work. She's not loosing her job; She's choosing not to work because she won't have to. Others will be able to retire earlier.

At the same time, these two million people who no longer need to work for healthcare.... Will mean two million more jobs will open up, only benefiting the economy. What you think is bad for the economy is really a good thing.

I don't think the prices will necessarily rise, if they do, they will probably drop back down. What I think will happen is if we play by the same rules that foreign countries use, like we match all tariffs imposed on our goods, then things will change. The price of the goods we get from overseas will go up and manufacturers will look more to doing more domestic manufacturing. If tax breaks are given to domestic and taken away from foreign, things will change, it's about the all mighty dollar and nothing else.
Make it so that the more domestic a company is, the better tax rates it gets. I see nothing wrong with that...

Those people that will leaving the work force because of health insurance needs will now get government help, ok, so they will not being taxes and will cost the government more, how is this good for the economy?

Under Bush things got bad, under Obama with a 800 billion stimulus and 85 billion being pumped into the economy every month, things are not getting better.

did you high five your mom after this post?

I'd talk to you about the millions of people who are no longer counted as unemployed but whom still don't have a job but you're clearly not bright enough for the conversation.

If Chinese workers at Foxxconn make iPhones for $2 an hour, and American workers make the same iPhones for $10 an hour... that 8 dollars an hour isn't going to come out of the executive bonuses or the NCAA office basketball pool money. It will be tacked onto the cost of each iPhone and paid by consumers... making the phone prices rise. If you give 'tax breaks' to a company for hiring American workers you are paying them with money taken in part from those workers and effectively are reducing the wages of the workers being hired. You are shoving money from one side of the table to the other side of the table and then to the middle of the table and then to the corner of the table... but you aren't putting any extra new money onto the table and you aren't making a better table.

If you want a better table or more money on the table you need to move toward some of the BIG ideas that are always set aside. Crazy stuff like:

- Letting very old people actually die without millions of dollars of care to keep their blood circulating for an extra few months at the end of their lives

- Legalizing pot, ending the war on drugs and removing the profit motive from imprisoning people.

- Shrinking the COST of our military significantly (not the readiness)

- Improving our education system and fostering a culture that celebrates science more than touchdowns or psalms

- Greatly reducing the cost of higher education and of continuing education while tying it to expense of students rather than commemorative libraries.

- Add a ten cent fee for every share of stock traded to end high frequency trading and rampant market speculation crashes

- Lower all income tax rates and add a national sales tax

- Set aside Citizens United, publicly fund elections, decentralize mass media and put term limits in place

- Put single payer basic healthcare in place with supplemental private insurance or cash doctors layered over it.

- Quintuple funding of NASA and DARPA immediately.


These BIG ideas will actually lead to a better future. Protectionist tariffs on Chinese imports and tax breaks for companies willing to hire Americans are at best a tiny band-aid that will be very short lived and are likely to actually not help much at all overall.

Call me crazy... but lowering tax rates isn't paying anybody anything. The corporate tax should be zero.
I'm talking about simply lowering corporate tax rates...NOT govt subsidies.

When my tax rate is lowered it is ME keeping more of the money that I earned.
Amazing how the govt has so many people brainwashed into thinking otherwise.

Seriously, dude what drugs are you on.. What ever it is you need more..

So you are ok with bringing up my daughter? In any conversation you have no right to bring her up in any conversation . You're on my ignore list, you will have no say as you do in life living in your van in front of your moms house.

Fucking low life is no better than a pedo for bringing up my daughter, Go Fuck Yourself Ass Hat!

did you high five yourself after this post?

People need to realize the "Fox News" is just entertainment for conservatives in the bubble. If something is black they will say its white and truly believe it....

OP tends to post all the FN talking points.

No, they aren't getting government help. They are getting healthcare. Which is what this law is all about.

My wife has a medical condition and must be covered by healthcare. Because it's a prior condition, the cost of healthcare is insane. She has to work to get healthcare. Now because of this law, she can get decent healthcare at a decent cost, and won't have to work. She isn't going to go on unemployment or food stamps, she just won't need to work.

Things didn't get bad under Bush. Things got horrible. Half the people on my street lost their houses. It doesn't get much worse than that.

Ten years and 85 billion is only the beginning of the solution. There is no simple fix for this. If McCain won years ago some of us would be bitching at McCain saying "Why isn't this fixed yet?".

Whatever.

We've counted unemployment the same exact way since long before I was born. Why should we suddenly change the way we've been tracking unemployment?

No problem, this is a simple solution. Let's go back and recalculate unemployment for the past twenty years, then we will have a level playing field so we know where we really stand.

I was quoting the CBO guy on the news

We will never know how McCain had handled it, so why bring it up, Obama is the one that won the presidency to fix the problem and is still spending 85 billion a month. People are still losing their homes

Better look into this Richard, the way unemployment had been changed so many times as of late it's hard to keep score. I think it was Clinton that added the military to give himself a boost when he needed it.

Here, read this and you might see what I'm talking about

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3619152.html

I'd personally focus on the labor-force participation rate, which includes people working and looking for work. This has been at about 63 percent in recent years, well below the 66 percent that prevailed before the recession. That may not sound like a big difference, but that extra 3 percent would take the number of officially unemployed people up to about 18 million from 12 million.

And that would jack the unemployment rate up to about 11 percent

She is a Female. We have a Black President, and now the cool thing to do is a Female one.
She supports everything Obama does, and thus Lots of votes there.

Remember when she had to run for cover when visiting our troops? See, she even puts her life on the line.

Republicans are stupid to preach the religion crap, Don't say ONE word about it, and the Vote will go up.

Great, let's do it. Let's say that the actual unemployment rate is really 11%. But when you apply this formula across the board to all months, it STILL looks better than the 16% it was when Bush left office, or the 21% it was at our high point.

All you are doing is changing the formula and making all of the numbers higher.

And it still wouldn't be any more factual. My wife is about to quit her job, being as she no longer has to work to have health benefits. She won't be unemployed, she just won't be working. You can't count her in your stats because she doesn't have a job.

I think Hillary will be horrible. I also think she will be unstoppable.

I am all for having a woman in office. Not caring about that. But I think Hillary is scary.

I've always enjoyed Rolling Stone magazine. Especially in the early 1970's when their political reporting really was impressive.
That's when they questioned authority.

The writers of 2014? Just a bunch of Democrat Party loyalists who don't question ANYTHING that the Democrats do.

The press's job IS to question authority at every turn.
Not just to pick "sides".

Still enjoy Rolling Stone magazine. But there isn't any Hunter S. Thompson there now for damn sure.

Robbie,

The rest of rolling stone is hot garbage.
Matt Taibbi is the most insightful financial reporter actively covering the subject presently.
Why he writes for them I have no idea... But read his article and past posts.
He definitely 'gets it'

As usual, he is spot on with this one. The GOP could have made a valid point about creating more takers, and instead chose to make an easily disproven point about the CBO saying it caused less need for employment. Chasing false headlines instead of real solutions. Meanwhile the Democrats are so happy they can argue the GOP is wrong instead of dealing with the actual problem that they also aren't even trying to find a solution.

I'm sorry I didn't realize that was your daughter in the video..

Again what drugs are you on?

You are seriously insane dude.. I quoted a very well known sketch called Tokyo Breakfast and somehow in the space between your ears which appears to be hollow you conclude that I'm talking about your daughter..



http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MgjwjaB...DMgj wjaBJ5Do

I'm well aware of him. I've seen him many times on Bill Maher's show.

He's a total and complete idealogue who does nothing but go after Republicans.
He isn't questioning the Obama Administration on ANYTHING.

The only reason you and many perceive his as "getting it", is because he echoes your own view.

My question would be...why isn't he going after the PRESIDENT? Or any Democrats?
Lord knows there is plenty of stupidity and corruption...but watching him on Bill Maher, he had only ONE target: Republicans.

He is supposed to be a journalist.
The whole reason for having a "free press" is to question authority and hold them up for public scrutiny.

He did a great job of that when Bush was President.

Not so much for the last 5 years. :(

That you don't see that should lead you to some introspection.

We have Fox News on one side attacking everything Democrat.
And the rest of the media on the other side attacking everything Republican.

It's a fucking disgrace and the antithesis of what the press is supposed to be doing.

As for Matt Taibbi himself...he's not fit to carry Bob Woodward's jock strap.

really ?
http://crooksandliars.com/heather/ma...ut-wall-street
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2092218.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...ponse-20121026

Robbie,

You are wrong on this. He rarely goes after politicians and when does, he attacks both sides.
He goes after regulators and bankers often.
He often helps the GOP by pointing out the argument they should make (like he did in this example).

Read his articles. They are worth reading.

so the same guys who bang the income inequity drum are in day 3 of cheering the loss of full time work. amazing.

no we haven't, dipshit. please stop typing. you have no idea what you're talking about.

"""In 1994, under the Clinton Administration, the Bureau Of Labor Statistics (BLS) changed the methods in which it calculated the levels of unemployment in the U.S. While the changes appeared to be minor on the surface at the time - the impact today is likely far greater than originally imagined. (for more detail on the changes read here)"""
http://stawealth.com/daily-x-change/...er-method.html

and please save the idiot speak you want to spew about unemployment under bush as a rising unemployment rate is far more accurate than the current lowering rate because the newly unemployed are all being counted.

2.5 million people that no longer need to work just to get healthcare sounds like more people at home in front of computers looking at porn.

Looking at free porn maybe, looking for paid porn probably not.

is that REALLY what it sounds like from the bottom?

Robbie you do the same thing. You do nothing but go at Obama all the time and you never question anything congress does. You act as if somehow Obama is always at fault you think somehow that no matter what congress does or acts like that if Obama can't work a deal with them it's his fault.

Meanwhile you ignore how extreme the Tea Party is and how they openly state they won't work with him, yet somehow Obama is supposed to fart rainbows and make them work with him.

I'm sorry but it takes BOTH sides to work together and you always blame one side when they can't work a deal. Just because the guy is the President doesn't mean he can force his will on others. You cant lead them if they are unwilling to be led and not open to comprise. Which the Tea Party is both..

So what is new lol

I'm sorry you are pro slavery