Ding ding, we have a winner! :thumbsup

The early "Tea Party" was a libertarian movement... they got hijacked, and when they started moving in the religious fanatics, it became just a way for Republicans to re-brand themselves after historically low approval ratings. If they had stayed focused on Wall Street, I would have been right there with them.

Oh, are the poor victim huge corporations threatening to take their ball and go home? Good... they can get the fuck out then. Hopefully the door hits them on their ass on the way out. Look, if G.E. doesn't want to pay American taxes and wants to go overseas that's fine. There would still be a demand for the kinds of services they supply, so the solution seems simple ... let another company take their place, and slap some import penalties on G.E.'s ass to make sure they can't use slave labor in under-developed countries to keep living conditions down for the industrialized world.

You might enjoy this:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb...ik24-2010feb24

Look, either we get forced to compete with guys in small Asian countries for jobs ... which means moving down to their standard of living ... are you OK with that? ... or we solve the problem of large corporations using these guys to gain leverage over labor and governments.

I agree that the Tea Party was manipulated by the GOP, based on pure hate for what the government was doing, the democrats made that easy for them to do that.

But I also think that putting all Tea Party people in that catagory is a fallacy, just like the left doing all they could to discredit them, labeling them all racist, attacks like that sicken me, when they can't argue the facts, they start name calling.

You mean like they did for Harley Davidson?

China shouldn't be a trusted trade partner under the NAFTA, thats got to change

I cant even explain how to turn a computer on... :(

Let alone pollyticx

gee, if thats how the bottom rung sees it, its no wonder they're on the bottom rung.

Well, I REALLY hope they succeed. The Federal Government exceed the limit's imposed by the 10th amendment decades ago, and they need to be brought back under control. At the same time over the last 50 years, along with their gross overreaching into powers that they were never supposed to have, they have become less and less representative of the people, and more representative of themselves, (which is what the 10th amendment was written for in the first place, keeping power local).



.

thats pretty much been the left's position for the last 15 years and guess what, they've left and the only people hurt by it are the american workers.

simple minds run with simple slogans when their party spoon feeds it to them.

As one of the least friendly tax structures in the industrialized world, we've reaped what we've sown.

Other than no actual left people have been in real power over the last 15 yeas.

Dang, we agree on something... you summed the tea party up in one line.

Too bad our companies "actually" pay some of the lowest taxes out of developed countries, the rate on paper might be higher, but in reality we're one of the lowest. At that, if ours was so bad, and others so good, you would see companies moving to industrialized nations for those benefits. But in reality, most move to 3rd world countries so they can have slave labor and fuck the environment up without any regs or costs. That's a much larger profit than any tax code could ever take.

leftist fantasy has no place here.

Is that really much of a surprise to you? The GOP of today is like a two bit drug whore, they will fling them selves at whom ever to get the next high. They did it with the religious right with Bush's presidency & now they do it with the tea party.

The guys in power don't care about either the RR or TP's agendas, they just want their votes to continue on doing the same ole, same ole. This is why I laugh my ass off @ the tea party as well as the religious right, because both are too stupid to realize they are getting used for the next fix so the big boys in Washington can play big boy games with their big business buddys.

The democrats are much the same, but at the very least the average Joe gets a bit more out of them.

dayumn ............. have to back to training ;)

Right wing extremists have no place in the world... so it equals out.

The democrats have NOT put forth a bill.
The republicans are set to pass their third bill from the house today, which the democrats who control the senate say they will kill in the senate.
That's part of the problem, that democrats won't even put a bill up for vote, and Obama, who is supposed to be the leader, hasn't put out a specific plan. All they have done is said "no" to everything the republicans propose.

Of course we're in this mess because the dems didn't take care of it before the election like they were supposed to. They controlled the house, senate, and white house and still couldn't do their job.

If the democrats in senate would follow the standard procedure and change the house bill to their liking, it could then go to conference committee for the final compromise version to be worked out.
So far the dems have refused to introduce any bill, to amend the republican bills, or to pass anything.

The dems do have a plan on paper, proof of that was the review of it showing they didn't cut as much as thought, much like the reps plans.

Why put a bill up if it's going to get shot down? Why put it up when the other party already told you they would shoot it down? Why would the Reps put one up, even though the Dems said they would shoot it down and Obama said he would veto it? Do you think it's good for our country to waste time voting on bills everyone knows wont pass when they should be working on bills that should pass, thus giving people a reason to rail if it doesn't?

Why in hell would you want what they did plan to pass? Do you like being fucked in the ass?

How about this... one party, I don't care which, actually put something together that makes real cuts in areas that really need it, doesn't strip away what is ours, and doesn't play politics with the future.

Until that happens, both sides are playing us all for fools.

I was never a fan of NAFTA, myself.

Trying to argue w/ 12licks is like trying to explain to a religious fanatic there's no magical man in the sky. Why waste your breath? lol

I think you're dead on right with the above statement... but I think the person who said the Dems didn't do shit when they were "in power" is also right. Which means, which you kind of hinted at, the Dems controlling things (like Obama and Reid) aren't that much different than the other side... at least where business and financial issues are concerned. Which is what pisses me off. The only difference there is which side gets to funnel money to their friends.

The Democrats want to Regulate us, the gop wants to censor us. My only real concern is I don't agree with whats been going on in this country for the last ten years. The president and the other parties are going around the intention of what the constitution says, States should be have more power to regulate themselves

Same here, I can see this with Canada, but Mexico and China?

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong there. There is no difference at all. BOTH sides pay off the people that get them elected. In the case of the Republicans, it's corporations of all sizes. In the case of Democrats, it's large corporations and the unions.

And don't think that this makes no sense, since the Democrats seem to do things against business. The fact is that when Democrats do things that are going to make things harder on businesses in the US, like more regulations and taxes, they are STILL doing it as a favor to their large corporate buddies. The fact is, that the largest corporations can MUCH more easily cope with higher taxes and more regulations than the middle, small and start ups can. Those large corporations have the infrastructure, and international resources to deal with any of those issues. What they pay their Democrat buddies to do is to kill off any possible competition by raising taxes and regulations that those small companies can't cope with nearly as well.



.:2 cents:

Here is your explanation:

Obama was groomed and funded by people who hate the idea of strong nation states. Oh by the way they also have the Republicans bought off or blackmailed as well. Regardless of what party is in the majority or in the white house the results will be the same: our culture is destroyed, kids are dumbed down, our economy is fleeced, and 3rd world immigrants pour in by the hundreds of thousands every year. Everytime a Congressman or Senator decides to make a stand and fight for their country they are set up in a scandal or put out of office in the next election because their opponent mysteriously gets a mountain of extra funding.

Now you know so you don't need to ever ask again or complain about the farce of Republican vs Democrat politics. YOU ARE WELCOME:thumbsup

It never ceases to amaze me how uninformed the average business person is about politics. Sure I can understand how the average consumer is a complete idiot but I expect more from people who are entrepreneurs. Turn off Fox News, CNN, ABC, etc and WAKE THE FUCK UP!

I think you may have confused what you read. China has an FTA with the NAFTA members (as do many countries). China is the largest trade partner with NAFTA, they aren't part of or under NAFTA, only 3 member countries are.


What issues do you have with nafta?

While I didn't deal with this part of the business directly, our Canadian company had/has to use nafta rules, I assume for the tax benefit. We purchased distro/manufacturing parts, ship them into Canada, add our flavor to them, and ship them back. I really can't find the raw deal in not getting double taxed. :thumbsup

Because sometimes we all..... have to try an educate the undereducated, stupid, and deprived. If for nothing else, the small hope that one day they will be able to out debate my children.

Proof of that is the fact that Congress is exempt from insider trading laws, allowing them to report rather large gains, during the massive economic down turn and robbery of Americans investments in 08.

I truly feel that if they cared, at all, about the people or this Country, we wouldn't be having this debate, at any level.

Well in the general sense sure... but what I meant was, for example, when G.W. was in, Halliburton got a lot of government contracts. I'm sure the current administration has friends who are doing better now than they were a few years ago. Most political factions have certain "special friends" that they favor above all others.

Under Clinton, Halliburton got a lot of government contracts also. There a TONS of corporations and unions getting HUGE amounts of government help/money in return for their support during elections under this regime. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE in the favors that are done from and for each side. Try scratching even a tiny bit past your own personal preferences for party and you will find the truth of what I'm saying.




.

The economic conditions in different countries aren't always the same, to state the obvious... so with Canada, it works pretty well because living conditions in Canada and the U.S. aren't too far apart. But when you consider countries without these living conditions ... like Mexico ... free trade allows large American corporations to effectively set up shop in these countries and leech off of the cheap labor there. This costs jobs in places where the labor force can't accept such low wages because of the cost of living. It seems to me that the end result from all this "free trade" is a reversal of all the standard of living increases that were hard won on the backs of early labor unions. Whether you feel labor unions went too far or not ... I don't think many people here want to go back to the labor conditions chronicled in, for example, The Grapes of Wrath.

Isn't it interesting that 50+ years ago a middle class family with a single income in America (and I'm assuming Canada too) could meet the basic necessities of life, and even grow a savings account and enjoy the occasional vacation. Now, you can accomplish the same with two incomes. That's not a horrible fate, especially given houses are better now and we have more comforts, but it's still a step back -- and it requires people in that position to depend on someone other than themselves. But unchecked free trade, I believe, threatens to put even that situation in jeopardy.

If I am competing with someone in another under-developed country for the same job, and that person shares a house with 8 other people in his family -- who can afford to accept the lowest wage, him or me? So my only response then is to downgrade my quality of life, unless I'm one of the fortunate who get to live an elite life of power afforded by the corporations who are pursuing all this shit.

Well I'm a lot closer to that position now than I was three years ago, I can definitely tell you that.

I think that's kind of misdirected. Harry Reid is ultimately to blame for taking that off the table.

Completely agree on the dems in congress.

The GOP has been doing shit since day 1 when they took the house that was the 'same ole shit.' From day 1 it was all abortion, planned parenthood, abortion, and did i mention abortion?

it's the loopholes that NAFTA leaves wide open, like China shipping thru Mexico's ports

Or the US made trucks that are assembled in Mexico? Why do we give them the jobs when they are giving us the workers?

Even Hilary when running for president said it needs to be rewritten

China makes money doing business with us directly, so if they are using a loophole, they're saving me and you money. But they aren't, it's American corps that would move it through Mexico, so "they" can use the free trade agreement with Mexico.

so you agree it should be changed

The parts are made all over the world and shipped to Mexico because of labor & shipping costs. First, that means free trade coming in, from Mexico, thus money is saved. Second, parts aren't always covered under free trade, but manufacturing is, thus they put them together for us so we can do the trade.

And if we didn't have a trade agreement with them, the labor costs are so vastly different that it would still be beneficial to setup labor shops in Mexico, even more so when they have all the parts coming to them.

Logistically, Mexico is much more central, thus much cheaper shipping costs per unit. Now you can ship each part directly, costing you more per part + tax, or send it to a much more central place that is cheaper, put it together cheaper, ship in larger containers cheaper, and save yourself a f'in ton of money.

No, I don't think NAFTA needs to be changed, at least not related to trade. Nothing I said should have given you that idea, as nothing I said was bad.

Overall I think we need some labor rules, but I'm not sure if I'm up for more regulations.

That isn't to say some other trade agreements don't need to be changed or simply just burned.

all over the place how? You blamed BOTH for the budget problems but then placed the ULTIMATE blame on Obama, along with some bullshit about how the republicans are "doing what they're supposed to do"....

I don't give two fucks if Obama gets re-elected or not....But don't be the moronic ostrich who puts his head in the sand...

I would fully agree with you, if manufacturing was still our primary industry when nafta was setup, heck, corps were already doing business in mexico because of labor. While some jobs may have been lost, the gains on far cheaper shipping and free trade, created trillions in revenue for American corps.

That's still very possible today, on one income, you just have to give up all the crazy shit that people like me and you can't live without :)

To me, life is simply too different today to compare to back then.

That's the thing though, you're not competing with them.... that job isn't here and they can't do your job with the technology they have. And if the job was here, nobody would buy the product, as it would be 10x the cost than the one made in Japan by a competing international corp, that hires cheap labor.

That's why I feel the green technology field, whatever directly it may go, is the best bet for our Country. New tech has always created jobs, improved the eco, etc... to me it's the only real solution to jobs.

Ouch.:1orglaugh

I am, and have been for many years, a registered Libertarian; I vote in every election; I have no potential solutions to offer, but I hope somehow a magic wand appears and make my next paragraph happen.

I wish politicians would stop being political and making everything they do be intended to help their Re-election. Instead, they should work hard for the best thing for America, not a political party or their re-election:-(. I wish we had 2-5 year term limits for ALL offices at ALL levels, thus letting us get real "work" out of those elected, instead of subjective politics. Heck, with the aforementioned, we might even entice more qualified candidates to run for office, work hard for the good of America, and chuck politics/lobbying/re-election subjectivity/etc aside!?

Agreed!

I can't remember which Country it is... but one of them do one term on and one off. The off term you campaign in, based on how well you did on your on term.

I did not think you of all people would get this wrong.

Obamas 2012 Budget

From Wikipedia:

The President, according to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, must submit a budget to Congress each year. In its current form, federal budget legislation law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) specifies that the President submit a budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February. In recent times, the President's budget submission, entitled Budget of the U.S. Government, has been issued in the first week of February. Thus, President George W. Bush submitted the FY2007 budget in February 2006. The President's budget submission, along with supporting documents and historical budget data, can be found at the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) website. The President's budget contains detailed information on spending and revenue proposals, along with policy proposals and initiatives with significant budgetary implications.