marks2065 0 #101 September 20, 2008 QuoteQuotemaybe if we send illegal imagrants home we could give those jobs to the needy and wow no more unemployment or welfare. More likely is that many of the companies that hire undocumented workers would follow their cheap labor out of the country, rendering most of the Americans currently employed by those companies unemployed. Capitalism and national borders (and the associated working restrictions), in their current form, are not very compatible. ---------------------------------------------------------- sorry but lanscaping, burger king, and seven elevens won't be going anywhere Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #102 September 20, 2008 QuoteI have given you several examples where McCain has gone directly against Bush. But, how many of those examples occurred before McCain took his hard right ideological turn? McCain used to have a reputation for his strong support of bipartisan efforts. QuoteYes, McCain moved right to get his nomination...Just like Obama swung left and is now trying to swing back to the center. I'm not sure Obama swung further left to et the nomination, especially considering Senator Clinton is much further right than he is. I'm also not sure I agree that Obama is now trying to swing towards the center. I wouldn't necessarily consider it a terrible thing if he did (although that would depend on what actions he took to make the swing). I do wish McCain would swing back to his old ways. QuoteHe learned from his last run and didn't make the same mistake this time. Unfortunately, the qualities that made him electable in 2000 were the same qualities that allowed him to lose the race for his party's nomination. I believe we will see just the opposite this year, due in part to how poorly Bush has performed as president, tarnishing the credibility of his party.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #103 September 20, 2008 Quotei still feel we need to complete what we started and secede at what we are doing there. Which one?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #104 September 20, 2008 Quotesorry but lanscaping, burger king, and seven elevens won't be going anywhere I'm not sure 7-Eleven or Burger King franchises are generally good examples of places that hire undocumented workers. That notwithstanding, you're right that some businesses cannot move jobs out of the US because their location is an inherent part of their business. However, other businesses can, and often do, move jobs and operations out of the country. Manufacturing, phone/computer based services, software development, etc. can all be moved out of the country. Fortunately, Obama wants to give tax incentives to companies that expand or start operations in the US, as well as ending current tax incentives for companies to move jobs overseas.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #105 September 20, 2008 QuoteQuotei still feel we need to complete what we started and secede at what we are doing there. Which one? Both Iraq & afganastan. and if they get the support and tools they need it will get done alot sooner and better Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #106 September 20, 2008 QuoteQuotesorry but lanscaping, burger king, and seven elevens won't be going anywhere I'm not sure 7-Eleven or Burger King franchises are generally good examples of places that hire undocumented workers. That notwithstanding, you're right that some businesses cannot move jobs out of the US because their location is an inherent part of their business. However, other businesses can, and often do, move jobs and operations out of the country. Manufacturing, phone/computer based services, software development, etc. can all be moved out of the country. Fortunately, Obama wants to give tax incentives to companies that expand or start operations in the US, as well as ending current tax incentives for companies to move jobs overseas. Illegals usually work in jobs that are menial and under the radar. any of the jobs you listed usually not based with illegals(although a small perdentage may) tax incentives to the companies that invest in the US is good but not going to offset the labor price difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #107 September 20, 2008 Quote Quote Quote i still feel we need to complete what we started and secede at what we are doing there. Which one? Both Iraq & afganastan. and if they get the support and tools they need it will get done alot sooner and better No, which one, as in completing what we started or seceding at what we are doing there? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #108 September 20, 2008 QuoteIllegals usually work in jobs that are menial and under the radar. Many assembly line (and similar) jobs require only minimal skills, skills that can largely be learned on the job. Manufacturing/processing companies that knowingly hire undocumented workers often hire many such workers. Quotetax incentives to the companies that invest in the US is good but not going to offset the labor price difference. True, but the labor price difference is not the only cost/benefit consideration when making decisions such as moving some/all operations to other countries. If it were, there would be no jobs in the US that did not require physical presence to do the job.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #109 September 20, 2008 QuoteQuote No one said he wanted a 100 year war except Obama. Where did he say it? I am still waiting for a link. From the same video.... First 45 seconds... "... that he is willing to send our toops into another 100 years of war in Iraq..." "Willing" != "wanting". Billvon wins that round. Quote "...we are bogged down in a war that John McCain says may go on for another 100 years..." "may go on for" !="wantingto go on for". Billvon 2, FallingOsh zip. Suggest you invest in a dictionary.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #110 September 20, 2008 Quote no one is starving to death in this country unless they want to starve to death. to many free lunches given out by this country for anyone to die of starvation. hey maybe if we send illegal imagrants home we could give those jobs to the needy and wow no more unemployment or welfare. No kidding. I can't imagine anyone starving to death in the United States unless they have a mental problem, or like you said:"unless they want to starve to death". This is the greatest country on the planet unless you hate it, and want to bring it down with Nancy P.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #111 September 21, 2008 QuoteHe voted with Bush 95% of the time in 2007 And less in other years...Heck the record shows that Obama voted almost 40% with Bush in 07 and almost 50% with Bush in 06. Plus the record shows Obama has voted 97% with the Dems ALL the time. McCain has a much lover average of voting with Republicans. If you are looking for a less partisan President....It is not Obama, and the records prove it."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #112 September 21, 2008 QuoteBut, how many of those examples occurred before McCain took his hard right ideological turn? Lots of them...He STILL says Bush mismanaged the war. He still supports stem cell research. QuoteI'm also not sure I agree that Obama is now trying to swing towards the center Things like his vote on the ease dropping bill says otherwise. He was against it...But he voted for it in the end. QuoteWith cloture approved, the bill itself then proceeded to pass by a vote of 69-28 (roll call vote here), thereby immunizing telecoms and legalizing warrantless eavesdropping. Again, while Obama voted with all Republicans to pass the bill, Sen. Clinton voted against it. Obama's vote in favor of cloture, in particular, cemented the complete betrayal of the commitment he made back in October when seeking the Democratic nomination. Back then, Obama's spokesman -- in response to demands for a clear statement of Obama's views on the spying controversy after he had previously given a vague and noncommittal statement -- issued this emphatic vow: To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. But the bill today does include retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. Nonetheless, Obama voted for cloture on the bill -- the exact opposition of supporting a filibuster -- and then voted for the bill itself. QuoteI do wish McCain would swing back to his old ways. Give him time. He is still the same man he was...Politics is mostly BS...And I think he learned from his last experience. QuoteUnfortunately, the qualities that made him electable in 2000 were the same qualities that allowed him to lose the race for his party's nomination. I believe we will see just the opposite this year, due in part to how poorly Bush has performed as president, tarnishing the credibility of his party. I agree. It will be a shame if McCain loses due to Bush. But it is a real possibility. The election this year (like 04) is the Dems to win or lose."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #113 September 21, 2008 QuoteQuoteI'm also not sure I agree that Obama is now trying to swing towards the center Things like his vote on the ease dropping bill says otherwise. He was against it...But he voted for it in the end. I think that had more to do with the Democrats allowing the telecom bill to pass if the Republicans would help them override Bush's veto on the Medicare bill than it had to do with Obama shifting his ideology.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #114 September 21, 2008 QuoteMore likely is that many of the companies that hire undocumented workers would follow their cheap labor out of the country, rendering most of the Americans currently employed by those companies unemployed. Sort of like what happens when taxes are raised on businesses to levels they can't cope with and they move overseas and/or lay off workers?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #115 September 21, 2008 QuoteSort of like what happens when taxes are raised on businesses to levels they can't cope with and they move overseas and/or lay off workers? Interesting how it's Obama, and not McCain who wants to eliminate the corporate tax incentives that encourage that very behavior.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #116 September 22, 2008 QuoteQuoteSort of like what happens when taxes are raised on businesses to levels they can't cope with and they move overseas and/or lay off workers? Interesting how it's Obama, and not McCain who wants to eliminate the corporate tax incentives that encourage that very behavior. Pardon? From what I'm reading, they're both talking about reductions - so far, McCain is the only one putting numbers on it (reducing corporate tax from 35% to 25%). Obama talks about reducing business tax, but then talks about 'a trillion dollars in loopholes'. So, which is it? Reduce the business taxes, or close the loopholes? Let's see some hard numbers.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #117 September 22, 2008 Obama doesn't want to give specifics "because of how touchy the economy is" or some shit like that. probably doesn't have any good numbers. he won't get elected if he actually puts his ideas on paper for people to see and study. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #118 September 22, 2008 Quote Obama doesn't want to give specifics "because of how touchy the economy is" or some shit like that. probably doesn't have any good numbers. he won't get elected if he actually puts his ideas on paper for people to see and study. Well, maybe he should appoint a commission to tell him what to do... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #119 September 22, 2008 Quote Quote Obama doesn't want to give specifics "because of how touchy the economy is" or some shit like that. probably doesn't have any good numbers. he won't get elected if he actually puts his ideas on paper for people to see and study. Well, maybe he should appoint a commission to tell him what to do Vs. just flapping his jaws over it? Absolutely.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #120 September 22, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Obama doesn't want to give specifics "because of how touchy the economy is" or some shit like that. probably doesn't have any good numbers. he won't get elected if he actually puts his ideas on paper for people to see and study. Well, maybe he should appoint a commission to tell him what to do Vs. just flapping his jaws over it? Absolutely. Perhaps McCain will put GWB on his commission. There's a fellow who knows his economics. And Rick Davis, McC's chief of staff, who took $35,000 a month for several years to lobby for Fannie and Freddie.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #121 September 22, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Obama doesn't want to give specifics "because of how touchy the economy is" or some shit like that. probably doesn't have any good numbers. he won't get elected if he actually puts his ideas on paper for people to see and study. Well, maybe he should appoint a commission to tell him what to do Vs. just flapping his jaws over it? Absolutely. Perhaps McCain will put GWB on his commission. There's a fellow who knows his economics. And Rick Davis, McC's chief of staff, who took $35,000 a month for several years to lobby for Fannie and Freddie. As I recall, Obama already has some of the money men from Lehman on his staff - maybe he should ask them what to do.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #122 September 22, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Obama doesn't want to give specifics "because of how touchy the economy is" or some shit like that. probably doesn't have any good numbers. he won't get elected if he actually puts his ideas on paper for people to see and study. Well, maybe he should appoint a commission to tell him what to do Vs. just flapping his jaws over it? Absolutely. Perhaps McCain will put GWB on his commission. There's a fellow who knows his economics. And Rick Davis, McC's chief of staff, who took $35,000 a month for several years to lobby for Fannie and Freddie. As I recall, Obama already has some of the money men from Lehman on his staff - maybe he should ask them what to do. --------------------------------------------------------- so McCain has a couple lobbiests on his staff and Obama has the people that actually made the bad descissions hhhmmm i'll vote for McCain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #123 September 22, 2008 Quote i'll vote for McCain Flip flopper!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #124 September 22, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteSort of like what happens when taxes are raised on businesses to levels they can't cope with and they move overseas and/or lay off workers? Interesting how it's Obama, and not McCain who wants to eliminate the corporate tax incentives that encourage that very behavior. Pardon? From what I'm reading, they're both talking about reductions - so far, McCain is the only one putting numbers on it (reducing corporate tax from 35% to 25%). Obama talks about reducing business tax, but then talks about 'a trillion dollars in loopholes'. So, which is it? Reduce the business taxes, or close the loopholes? Let's see some hard numbers. From Obama's website • Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation. … • Eliminating Capital Gains Taxes for Entrepreneurs and Investors in Small Business. Barack Obama understands that small businesses are the engines of our economy, and he will eliminate all capital gains taxes on investments in small and start up firms. • Cutting Corporate Tax Rates for Firms that Create Jobs in America. Barack Obama will repeal tax breaks and loopholes that reward corporations that retain their earnings overseas, and will use those savings to lower corporate tax rates for companies that expand or start operations in the United States. • Offering a Small Business Healthcare Tax Credit: To help small businesses compete in the global economy while still providing quality health insurance, Barack Obama will offer a new refundable 50 percent health tax credit on employee premiums paid by employers. His comprehensive healthcare plan will relieve health costs for all firms by bringing down national healthcare costs by $2,500 per family, annually. McCain would tax employer contributions to employee health insurance plans for the first time in history. • Making the R&D Tax Credit Permanent. Barack Obama will make the Research and Development tax credit permanent so that firms can rely on it when making decisions to invest in domestic R&D over multi-year timeframes. • Obama Would Lower Taxes For the Vast Majority of Small Businesses. The Suggestion that Obama Would Raise Taxes on 23 Million Small Businesses is Patently False. Because the Obama plan preserves existing tax rates for families making less than $250,000 a year, nearly 99 % of small business owners won’t see any tax increase under the Obama plan. Instead, these small firms and business owners are likely to get a tax cut under the Obama plan, which eliminates capital gains taxes for small businesses, provides a new 50% tax credit for healthcare, and helps lower health care costs to make small businesses competitive. … The McCain campaign’s tired attack on small business taxes has been thoroughly repudiated: Factcheck.org called it “preposterous”; Politico called it “off-base”; the Atlantic called it a “lie”.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #125 September 22, 2008 >so McCain has a couple lobbiests on his staff In 1929 we had a bit of an economic downturn caused by speculation and greed, fueled by a lack of stock market regulation. (Sound familiar?) The federal government soon passed a long list of banking and investment regulations to prevent a recurrence. In 1999, Phil Gramm, a US GOP senator, spearheaded the effort to roll back many of those regulations. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was enacted to reduced government regulations that separated banking, insurance and brokerage activities and limited what they could do and how much risk they could take. Gramm was rewarded well, and received over a million dollars in contributions from the Securities and Investment industry. Since then he has been saying that all our economic problems are just in our imagination. In July 2008 he said "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession. . . We have sort of become a nation of whiners, you just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness." Looking back, if there's one guy responsible for rolling back the regulations that could have prevented this, and who stuck his head in the sand when the shit hit the fan, it's Phil Gramm. Does that name sound familiar? Gramm was John McCain’s presidential campaign co-chair and senior economic advisor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
