Real Estate Investor · Portland, OR · Member since 2009 · 660 posts · 244 votes
Article points to most likely scenario where Republicans win the House, Democrats keep the Senate .... should Republicans take both will this finally stimulate job creation as companies welcome a more pro-business environment? What's your prediction and how will it affect things?
The Republicans should take the House without much trouble. The Senate is much more difficult because only 1/3 of them are up for re-election in this cycle. The Dems are not going easily though. Here in Nevada Senator Harry Reid has a huge war chest and has been using it to pummel his opponent since the primary results were announce. His opponent, Sharon Angle has been screwing up royally with ill-advised comments and instead of leading by a wide margin the race is a statistical dead heat at the moment.
All I care about is getting the 'super majority' away from the Dumbocrats and Looney Lefty Liberals. It would be nice to see 50 Dems and 50 Reps in the Senate, that way, they can fight each other and stop crushing our economy.
JScott- Anyway to get actual #'s? I'd be willing to see totals raised by all the SUPER 5-10 on each side.
Take Murdock etal on one side and Soros, unions etal on the other. I keep hearing how many more millions the dems have. Certainly not the 53-47 % from the election, and obama ( or dems)popularity certainly doesn't seem to be worthy of receiving more funds, imo.
J- would you be in favor of a publicly funded elections with ZERO outside contributions, including candidates' contributions? Fair fight, no unlevel playing fields, etc. Rich
Take Murdock etal on one side and Soros, unions etal on the other. I keep hearing how many more millions the dems have.
I think the big disparity in what you hear is due to the fact that Soros is a big media hound, so you're always hearing about him and what he's doing.
The Koch brothers keep things pretty low-key (though they have billions). They are the key financiers of the tea party (along with Murdoch) and have spent tens or perhaps hundreds of millions so far, so they're definitely spending as well.
Don't know which side is spending more, but clearly both sides are throwing down serious cash (my guess is that Soros is spending more to back specific candidates and the Koch brothers are spending more on general party strategies like the tea party)...
David Koch ran as VP candidate for the Libertarian party against Reagan a long time ago. The guy is a little bit fringe (he thinks we should do away with all public organizations, including the FBI, CIA, Social Security, Welfare, Public Schools, etc), but about as fiscally conservative as they come.
And, of course, the funders on the Dem side are equally as fringe, just in the other direction...
J- would you be in favor of a publicly funded elections with ZERO outside contributions, including candidates' contributions? Fair fight, no unlevel playing fields, etc. Rich
My big issue is corporate funding...I think there is way too much lobby influence in D.C., and would be in favor of banning or heavily restricting corporate donations. The problem obviously, is that the heads of the big corporations have billions, so they can make private donations that serve the same purpose.
So, I really don't know how to solve the problem without banning all donations and outside funding. Of course, then the issue is that the candidates who started off independently wealthy will have a huge advantage over the "little guy."
All-in-all, I think it's a difficult problem to solve and I'm not sure how to solve it. But, limiting corporate donations I think would be a good start...
I love idea of banning donations & lobbyists to rid ourselves of bought-and-sold politicians ... what about allotting each candidate set amount so everyone is on equal footing? Say, here's your $1m and that's it. This might even help with elected officials campaigning (building their war chest) while still in office .... not sure if it'd be possible to police especially with outside forces finding multiples loopholes. Right now the amount of money needed to run for a Senate or House seat pretty ridiculous.
what difference does it make? I think they're all the same-politicians- always pandering to their respective bases at the expense of moving the country forward.
The Economy is in real bad shape right now, but HONESTLY, will it ever recover without returning Manufacturing jobs to the U.S ?
Republicans will call for Tax Cuts, Democrats will enhance taxation, But who's gonna revive Manufacturing in America ?
The government should discourage shipping of jobs abroad by inducing severe tax penalties for companies that do that.The government cannot expect CEO's of major companies to think "patriotically" by keeping jobs in the U.S. if it will have a negative effect on their bottom line.
Ted- this is the same thing I said 2 posts before. Brilliant minds must think alike!
DN-Reps have become closer to dems in recent years, agreed. I don't think you'll ever be able to get manufacturing jobs back. Too diffficult now
There are too many places they can go. I do a lot of travelling and it is amazing to me how our name brands show up everywhere. Not just the obvious Mexico and central American countries. I've seen them in So America, Indonesia, Thailand , Viet Nam and many others. We can't compete in salaries and costs.
We have placed so many requirements and added costs on companies here in the U.S. that it is hard to compete with companies from countries that don't have these added complications.
I tend to lean the Reps direction on jobs and business. Remove a lot of the stifling requirements, taxes, and liabilities and let true capitalism take over.
You know, I just visited Quito , Ecuador on way to Galapagos Islands. Our Marriott Hotel had displays of roses like you've NEVER seen in your life, guaranteed. I was told they're dirt cheap. You can buy a dozen roses for ONE DOLLAR! I even thought about starting an import business of roses!
If I can buy them for a buck, what does it cost them? How do I compete with that here at our U.S. costs?
I'm sure there are literally millions of items like this. Rich
Our Marriott Hotel had displays of roses like you've NEVER seen in your life, guaranteed. I was told they're dirt cheap. You can buy a dozen roses for ONE DOLLAR! I even thought about starting an import business of roses!
If you buy roses in the U.S., there's a very good chance they came from Ecuador. It may be true that companies in Ecuador have lower overhead than those in the U.S., but in this case, the reason they have so many roses (and other flowers) for so cheap is that they have absolutely perfect year-round climate for growing and lots of unused land to devote (which I guess is why their drug trade is also much larger than that which originates in the U.S.).
If I can buy them for a buck, what does it cost them? How do I compete with that here at our U.S. costs?
It's costs them very little. But again, that's because they're so cheap to produce over there. To produce the same product here would cost so much more because the grower would have to pay more for the land, pay for artificial climate to get year-round growth and pay at least minimum wage for the employees. In the end, it's still cheaper to pay to have them shipped from Ecuador, which is why we do.
Btw, the largest expense (by percentage) for most manufacturers in the U.S. is people; if you want to reduce the cost of goods manufactured or created in the U.S., get rid of the minimum wage.
Not saying I advocate that (it causes a LOT more problems), but that's essentially what would be necessary to bring manufacturing costs down in the U.S.
e largest expense (by percentage) for most manufacturers in the U.S. is people; if you want to reduce the cost of goods manufactured or created in the U.S., get rid of the minimum wage.
This is simple economics and needs to be an issue whenever people talk about jobs. A minimum wage is an artificially inflated wage, designed to keep Americans dependent on the government for income. Think about it. The minimum wage in PA is currently $7.15. While many people think this is a great thing, designed to keep people from setting up sweat shops and to keep up with "the cost of living", all it really does is eliminate people from jobs that are worth less than $7.15. What if a person does not have the skills to earn $7.15 on an open market? Before long, this will be discovered, he will be let go and become dependent on the government to survive. But what if he has skills to work at $3 / hour, or $5 /hour? His job has been eliminated when he is perfectly capable of providing for himself.
The biggest question regarding minimum wage jobs is say there is a job that needs to be done, but it does not provide $7.15 in value, it only provides $5.15. That is a $2 loss every hour that person is working. Every day that company will lose $16 for every person that is employed in a position similar to this. How long can a company survive this? It varies of course, but probably before long the company will have to pass this loss on to the customer by increasing prices. Next, people will complain they are not making enough money to sustain their cost of living and will demand a minimum wage increase..it's a vicious cycle that will and can not be stopped until the market is able to determine the appropriate wage for the job.
JScott- is it the perfect climate because of being on the Equator? If so, why don't we fund other So American and African countries that are also on the Equator.
Help their economy by "teaching them to fish, rather than just giving them a fish".
Minimum wage has always been a ping pong ball for the politicos to use for instant votes, imo. Rich
Rich- a dozen roses for a buck ? I'd be thinking the same thing as you.
I honestly wonder what the right remedy is to get the American economy moving forward again.I hear Economists on TV saying that the consumer has to start spending for the economy to revive.That America is a consumer basd economy-which is all true,BUT, Isn't that what got us where we are today ?
People using their homes as ATM's to buy big toys at Best Buy,People spending way more than they can afford?
I think the consumers need to be encouraged to SAVE instead of spending.
Rich If you were elected President Today, what would you do to get the ball rolling again in regards to the Economy ?
JScott- is it the perfect climate because of being on the Equator? If so, why don't we fund other So American and African countries that are also on the Equator.
Help their economy by "teaching them to fish, rather than just giving them a fish".
I can't find any hard data, but given that a very large percentage of the roses sold in the U.S. (and worldwide, actually) come from Ecuador, I'm guessing that a lot of money is flowing into that country.
Now, that said, the American importers (and potentially Ecuadorian-based American exporters) are probably taking a large chunk of that money, as opposed to letting it flow into the Ecuadorian economy.
In other words, I'm not sure how we could benefit their economy any more than we currently do without impacting the ability for Americans to be capitalistic or impacted free trade...
Aren't we all sick of the blame game? it doesn't really matter what party is in power since both sides are financed by The Powers That Be.
Name the greatest president during your lifetime. Uh, were there any great presidents? Someone that didn't get us into a war? Take us off the gold standard? Nixon (Vietnam), Reagan (no trickling there), Carter (recessionary), Bush Sr. (Desert Storm), Bush Jr, (more warmongering). Too young to remember much of JFK, LBJ, or that other guy. Lots of money made in stocks during the Clinton years but still not a fan. So far, Obama's claim to fame is being the first African American to be president and hey, what about those bailouts! Those poor CEOs with their golden parachutes while their workforce gets laid off. The poor dems inherited a pile of debt so the solution is just to keep piling it on. Ridiculous!
Gimme a Ron Paul with the youth and charisma of JFK that can beat the opponents.
You got it Diane. Although from what I have read, JFK was trying to make some serious moves. Apparently he was considering some other monetary system that was not based on debt.
Andrew Jackson was awesome. He said: “You are a den of thieves-vipers,†Jackson told them. “I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out!â€
Lincoln printed Greenbacks and had the same outcome as JFK.
And of course, Woodrow Wilson in 1913 passed the Federal Reserve Act. Since then JFK was the only president I have heard of that even considered changing our monetary system.
Automobile manufacturer Henry Ford said:
“If the people of the nation understood our banking and monetary system, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.â€