I heard on the radio that the government is trying to eliminate the middle class, is that why the economy is not moving forward like they say
do the government really know how to grow the economy?
news about the economy
I mean, what's going on? does anyone know why is not growing? what is the reason, are we still allowed to question the government?
Yes that's a stupid question, but @!#$ it sure feels like I can't question anything anymore because If I'm not with them I'm against them.
don't get me wrong, Obama is doing a great job, it is not easy to be president so back off CNN!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Obama is doing a great job" >:o TF? PLEASE ELABOATE!!!!!! THIS SHOULD BE GOOD!
The only thing Obama will show after his term is that a black man can fuk sh it up just as much if not more than a white man. Obama is an IDIOT. saying that he is doing a great job make YOU an idiot.
spoiler wrote:I heard on the radio that the government is trying to eliminate the middle class, is that why the economy is not moving forward like they say
do the government really know how to grow the economy?
news about the economy
I mean, what's going on? does anyone know why is not growing? what is the reason, are we still allowed to question the government?
Yes that's a stupid question, but @!#$ it sure feels like I can't question anything anymore because If I'm not with them I'm against them.
don't get me wrong, Obama is doing a great job, it is not easy to be president so back off CNN!!!
How about companies sitting on hoards of cash refusing to commit to construction, R&D or any sort of expansion because they don't have any idea what Obama is going to do next. Why would you build a factory if you're going to be taxed to death by the Cap and Trade legislation? Why expand if you can't afford to provide the same amount of insurance coverage to your employees with the "new improved" mandated health insurance?
How about all that stimulus that was handed out to sectors that don't need to hire anyone. The majority should have gone to the industrial sectors in the way of public works/infrastructure projects. That way companies would have to ramp up production thus forcing them to hire more people who would then be contributors to the economy again. Instead it was wasted on bailouts that did nothing to stimulate growth.
The entire country is just waiting until Obama gets his ass kicked out of office and to a lesser extent when the democrats lose control in the coming months. Hopefully we'll see some improvement next year, then it's just a matter of not letting Obama take the credit.
We're in for a double dip and bet we don't see good days for another 5 - 10 years.
i agree with allot of what labotomi said. allot of companies are just holding onto their cash and waiting to see what happens. i also agree with silver that its not going to be a speedy recover. the fall down is always allot longer then the climb back up. people dont seem to realise that. they want everthing now now now, and when they dont get it they freak out.
as far as where the money is going. it seems so far allot of it doled out has been to construction of public works and schools and infrastructure. but most of those don't really generate money either. they are just used.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Wiezer Walley wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Obama is doing a great job" >:o TF? PLEASE ELABOATE!!!!!! THIS SHOULD BE GOOD!
Yes he is, he's even on vacation, remember, he said we will not rest until the job is done... @!#$ let me look it up on youtube.com
and he is on vacation in HI so that means he's resting...OK
but when he said every american goes back to work does he really mean every american working for the government?
sndsgood wrote:so would you give him hell if you found out hes actually sleeping at night? its an expression. i dont care for the guy either, but when your president your pretty much working from the time you get up till the time you go to bed. playing some golf and getting out of town for a few days is needed.
I would not giving hell if he is actually sleeping at night in bed LOL wow....
try to tell that to the media on sean hannity
Your text to link here...
We live in a era for the past 30 years where companies and individual will retaliate if a iota % of a rate is raised. That's how spoiled we are now. Companies are relying on low taxes to sustain their business afloat... or so they say. Think about it, the country that started the industrial revolution is not existent today as the industries are not here. So since the jobs are scarce, or even generally low waged, how else do think X company will turn a + on their profit margins?
Personally companies are working in union and are playing politics. Plain put, you raise taxes, we keep unemployment high, you don't get re-elected. Obama's stimulus has worked as GDP has been slowly been going up, unemployment ever so slightly has been going down.
But I go to a Walmart store, there are 30 registers, and only 6-7 are open and the line would have an average of 10-15 customers on a weekday. This tells me there is demand, there is business, so where are the workers? Just because of this, I shop at Target, where the 8 out of the 10 registers are open with an average of 3-4 customers per line. The same with Subways restaurant on weekend the line was so freaking long, that there were up to 3 working there, this year... same long ass line, but only difference one person catering to the customers. I asked the lady where's your help... she said had Subways had to "cut costs."
Things could be better off, but companies will not let that happen. Which is why we need more entrepreneurship and the middle class should open up more "mom and pop" stores. Send a clear F-U to these corporations playing politics. Here is where competition will drive a dagger to their hearts as now consumers would have "options." But unfortunatly many are in this relax mode where we must wait and fight for low taxes for the 1% in "hopes and prayers" that wanted ads will appear. Right.
Take a look here too.
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
It's not the corporations playing politics. It's the administration @!#$ with the corporations. With the threat of increased taxes or penalties/restrictions there is no way companies will expand operations especially when the economy won't support an increase in supply without a corresponding increase in demand.
Non residential construction is virtually non existent (residential should be, but isn't). Until business feel comfortable they won't commit to expansion and until they commit, the non residential market will not recover and this a sector that see's many "trickle down" effects. From the beginning of a construction project to the end you'll usually see about 4x as many workers hired in the construction as wil finally work at the facilities. Supplies have to be procured from service centers who have to purchase them from manufacturers who have to purchase raw materials and labor from various locations. Lots of extra "supporting" businesses spring up around the manufacturing facilities to either supply it with materials, engineering support or spare parts/services along with users of the products that are manufactured there including "value added" processing facilities.
My company for example wants to expand into a few other areas, but with the spectre of "Cap and Trade" they know they wouldn't be able to compete in those markets with countries not shackled by the extra restrictions. We have a $2B project just outside of New Orleans that was set to go be placed on hold until these things are sorted out. Southern Louisiana could really use the money especially since an additional 1B would be invested later to expand capacity, but if this cap and trade stuff doesn't go away soon, I'm afraid Brazil may be the benefactor of our money (even though we've already purchased $60M in land to build the facilities).
Like I said before. Look at the situation after the Democrats lose control of congress and then again after Obama leaves office. Both of these events should be somewhat of a kick in expansion of the Producers in America.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Take a look here too.
Some of your statements in the other thread don't make any sense at all. If the companies could make more money by expanding and hiring more people then they would. Most CEOs aren't stupid. They understand when to use capital and when to sit on it. It's not as if they are holding back to make Obama look bad. They don't care how he looks, the care about making profits. I for one don't blame them for holding back right now.
I have my investments in relatively safe areas right now so why should I expect corporations to do anything different? When there's more clarity they will begin to expand and around that same time I'll start moving investments into areas that have opportunity to take advantage of a growing economy.
GT,
Stop sucking osoma cock.
really, the BS is coming out the nose now dude...
Here is somting that osoma and his legisative branch are not helping with (dont care what party, there all bad)
Quote:
In less than six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011:
First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief
In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families.
These will all expire on January 1, 2011:
Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:
The 10% bracket rises to 15%
The 25% bracket rises to 28%
The 28% bracket rises to 31%
The 33% bracket rises to 36%
The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%
Higher taxes on marriage and family. The "marriage penalty" (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.
The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.
Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.
Second Wave: Obamacare
There are over 20 new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:
The "Medicine Cabinet Tax" Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).
The "Special Needs Kids Tax" This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.
There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States , and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington , D.C. ( National Child Research Center ) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.
The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes
When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they'll be in for a nasty surprise-the AMT won't be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. The major items include:
The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center , Congress' failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families-rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.
Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear.
Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or "depreciate") equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be "depreciated."
Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses.
There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the "research and experimentation tax credit," but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.
Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Covered Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.
Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual "required minimum distribution." This ability will no longer be there.
We need less goverment.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Labotomi wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Take a look here too.
Some of your statements in the other thread don't make any sense at all.
On what?
Quote:
If the companies could make more money by expanding and hiring more people then they would. Most CEOs aren't stupid.
So do you think the vision of putting your workforce everywhere but in the US is actually a good move? Do these "non-stupid" CEOs think the public will be $hiting money in order to stimulate the economy?
Quote:
They understand when to use capital and when to sit on it. It's not as if they are holding back to make Obama look bad. They don't care how he looks, the care about making profits. I for one don't blame them for holding back right now.
Never was about about making Obama look good or bad, it is what the companies want the politicians to do for them. It is clear set, with higher than normal unemployment will cost him the presidency. Yes, you're indeed right, it is about profits, some companies are not satisfied with X figure, they want more, sure... but at what cost? What's funny if XYZ corporation earned $50 million in profits in 2008 and in 2009 they made $49 million in profits to them it is a loosing year and hence it falls as a "-" year, so in some form a recuperation of that money is in order. Tax cuts looks mighty good about now.
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:
We need less goverment.
BTW I can agree on less government... we should start dismantling the defense dept by about 70%. Cut any benefits that the military provides the soldiers... just leave only the "pay as you go" system. You know... no social system, like health services, housing assistance, education assistance, no veterans anything. Go work for the military, get paid for the job you do and be done. We could save a few billions per year and cut annual deficits, Chris are you in? This would be one form of cutting down on the government that you preach so loudly. Or is it that you want less government in areas where you don't benefit from?
Two way street here.
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
Missed this one.
Labotomi wrote:It's not the corporations playing politics. It's the administration @!#$ with the corporations. With the threat of increased taxes or penalties/restrictions there is no way companies will expand operations especially when the economy won't support an increase in supply without a corresponding increase in demand.
Companies in the passed had way higher tax rates and survived and did quite well for America. Again, this was pre 1980s. At the rate we are going, we can give corporations no taxes and they will still find an excuse for some sort of corporate welfare. Besides, what guarantee does the population have that they will hire more? If we are in this so called recession, and the nation is not creating demand & business, what smart CEO will send the memo to the chains to add the workforce 10%, 25%, 50% upon receiving the tax breaks? If the nation's economy is slow now in "low tax era" today, where is the certainty that continuation of low taxes will create jobs... there is none.
Quote:
Non residential construction is virtually non existent (residential should be, but isn't). Until business feel comfortable they won't commit to expansion and until they commit, the non residential market will not recover and this a sector that see's many "trickle down" effects. From the beginning of a construction project to the end you'll usually see about 4x as many workers hired in the construction as wil finally work at the facilities. Supplies have to be procured from service centers who have to purchase them from manufacturers who have to purchase raw materials and labor from various locations. Lots of extra "supporting" businesses spring up around the manufacturing facilities to either supply it with materials, engineering support or spare parts/services along with users of the products that are manufactured there including "value added" processing facilities.
I can tell you in my area, infrastructure is being modernized. Highways, bridges, piping, road expansion, sidewalks, road signs, timed stop lights, road repaving, all getting up to date. Maybe in your area you're not so fortunate. Here, companies that do this is not the Army Corp, but local private entities contracted by the government.
Quote:
My company for example wants to expand into a few other areas, but with the spectre of "Cap and Trade" they know they wouldn't be able to compete in those markets with countries not shackled by the extra restrictions. We have a $2B project just outside of New Orleans that was set to go be placed on hold until these things are sorted out. Southern Louisiana could really use the money especially since an additional 1B would be invested later to expand capacity, but if this cap and trade stuff doesn't go away soon, I'm afraid Brazil may be the benefactor of our money (even though we've already purchased $60M in land to build the facilities).
Do you even know cap and trade entails?
Quote:
Like I said before. Look at the situation after the Democrats lose control of congress and then again after Obama leaves office. Both of these events should be somewhat of a kick in expansion of the Producers in America.
What ever you say.
I will say an economy will always have a "Boom and Bust" period, the question is at what timing will it all happen? And the one that will decide is the public, not political parties.
I will agree on one thing, democrats in congress were utter garbage from the moment they let Bush do what ever he wanted. Absolute no back bone. And well, we are paying for the price now. Gee... where was Glenn Beck and the Tea Partiers with their teabags on their faces when you needed them? Oh well, no surprise there.
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
progressives thats what happened
goodwrench, youre right natural trends but they still sold the fed as a way to control. just admit nothing the left has ever done has helped america in the long term.
low taxes for the small business man is a really great factor in starting up all these mom and pop startup companies you think we need goodwrench? don't you think? making it easy for people to start up comapnies makes sence to me. doesnt make sence to jam up taxes and make it harder for the unemployed worker to start up his own company.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Missed this one.
Labotomi wrote:It's not the corporations playing politics. It's the administration @!#$ with the corporations. With the threat of increased taxes or penalties/restrictions there is no way companies will expand operations especially when the economy won't support an increase in supply without a corresponding increase in demand.
Companies in the passed had way higher tax rates and survived and did quite well for America. Again, this was pre 1980s. At the rate we are going, we can give corporations no taxes and they will still find an excuse for some sort of corporate welfare. Besides, what guarantee does the population have that they will hire more? If we are in this so called recession, and the nation is not creating demand & business, what smart CEO will send the memo to the chains to add the workforce 10%, 25%, 50% upon receiving the tax breaks? If the nation's economy is slow now in "low tax era" today, where is the certainty that continuation of low taxes will create jobs... there is none.
Corporate taxes are lower due to the increase of personal taxes. With a raise on corporate taxes without a corresponding lowering of personal taxes the net effect will be less purchasing of goods and services. Cutting corporate taxes will allow companies to compete with foreign companies to provide goods and services at competitive prices. With easing of personal taxes the people will purchase from the lowest cost providers or basically those overseas companies that aren't subject to the strict EPA requirements and the pending Cap and Trade. My company is acutely aware of cap and trade because of it's very nature. If there isn't a level playing field domestic companies affected will have to raise prices to the extent of becoming non competitive thus going out of business and furthering our dependency on imports. It's not until we become a manufacturing society instead of a consumer society that we'll ever emerge from our current economic dependency.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
Quote:
Non residential construction is virtually non existent (residential should be, but isn't). Until business feel comfortable they won't commit to expansion and until they commit, the non residential market will not recover and this a sector that see's many "trickle down" effects. From the beginning of a construction project to the end you'll usually see about 4x as many workers hired in the construction as wil finally work at the facilities. Supplies have to be procured from service centers who have to purchase them from manufacturers who have to purchase raw materials and labor from various locations. Lots of extra "supporting" businesses spring up around the manufacturing facilities to either supply it with materials, engineering support or spare parts/services along with users of the products that are manufactured there including "value added" processing facilities.
I can tell you in my area, infrastructure is being modernized. Highways, bridges, piping, road expansion, sidewalks, road signs, timed stop lights, road repaving, all getting up to date. Maybe in your area you're not so fortunate. Here, companies that do this is not the Army Corp, but local private entities contracted by the government.
Public projects are just a part of non residential construction. Other parts consist of greenfield projects where companies build new manufacturing facilities to meet increased demand for their products. Again, until we're competitive with the rest of the world this won't change and the building won't happen. Companies won't expand and require the construction industry's support and development of supporting industries for any new facilities.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
Quote:
My company for example wants to expand into a few other areas, but with the spectre of "Cap and Trade" they know they wouldn't be able to compete in those markets with countries not shackled by the extra restrictions. We have a $2B project just outside of New Orleans that was set to go be placed on hold until these things are sorted out. Southern Louisiana could really use the money especially since an additional 1B would be invested later to expand capacity, but if this cap and trade stuff doesn't go away soon, I'm afraid Brazil may be the benefactor of our money (even though we've already purchased $60M in land to build the facilities).
Do you even know cap and trade entails?
Intimately
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
Quote:
Like I said before. Look at the situation after the Democrats lose control of congress and then again after Obama leaves office. Both of these events should be somewhat of a kick in expansion of the Producers in America.
What ever you say.
I will say an economy will always have a "Boom and Bust" period, the question is at what timing will it all happen? And the one that will decide is the public, not political parties.
I will agree on one thing, democrats in congress were utter garbage from the moment they let Bush do what ever he wanted. Absolute no back bone. And well, we are paying for the price now. Gee... where was Glenn Beck and the Tea Partiers with their teabags on their faces when you needed them? Oh well, no surprise there.
And Obama has been much better. LOL
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Labotomi wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Take a look here too.
Some of your statements in the other thread don't make any sense at all.
On what?
The replies in the thread to your comments say enough. I shouldn't have to rehash what has already been said.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
Quote:
If the companies could make more money by expanding and hiring more people then they would. Most CEOs aren't stupid.
So do you think the vision of putting your workforce everywhere but in the US is actually a good move? Do these "non-stupid" CEOs think the public will be $hiting money in order to stimulate the economy?
I'm not even sure where your comment comes from or what it's intended to refute. I could rewrite my statement, but I'll just let you reread it yourself. It means exactly what it says
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
Quote:
They understand when to use capital and when to sit on it. It's not as if they are holding back to make Obama look bad. They don't care how he looks, the care about making profits. I for one don't blame them for holding back right now.
Never was about about making Obama look good or bad, it is what the companies want the politicians to do for them. It is clear set, with higher than normal unemployment will cost him the presidency. Yes, you're indeed right, it is about profits, some companies are not satisfied with X figure, they want more, sure... but at what cost? What's funny if XYZ corporation earned $50 million in profits in 2008 and in 2009 they made $49 million in profits to them it is a loosing year and hence it falls as a "-" year, so in some form a recuperation of that money is in order. Tax cuts looks mighty good about now.
You're the one who said companies and unions are playing politics.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
Personally companies are working in union and are playing politics. Plain put, you raise taxes, we keep unemployment high, you don't get re-elected.
My company lost money as in negative profit. That's not in comparison to the previous year, but the first year ever of having more expenses than income. Many other companies lost money as well. Those who only lost relative to previous years were lucky to be in markets that aren't as affected by discretionary spending.
My company would like to build in the St James Parish in Louisiana, but if it is predicted to be non profitable due to cap and trade or excessive regulations then they will look at building elsewhere. It's would still be bringing in money to a US company therefore helping our economy, just not as much as it would have if they had the ability to build domestically.
Look at some of the articles and interviews by Dan Dimmico. It's apparent where he stands with regard to putting Americans back to work. He's gone on record with his displeasure with how the government is handling the recovery. We've handed out billions to companies who have no intention on putting people to work. It's corporate welfare with no real return on that investment.
My company has around 22k people employed and never in it's history has laid off a single person. Even when facility utilization reached 40% we still had people coming in working on the equipment and even doing chores such as mowing the grass and cleaning the bathrooms. The company kept it's people employed even though layoffs would have allowed the company to remain profitable. There's a loyalty that should be an example to other companies in that you have an obligation to the people you hire.
Quote:
Most of our teammates are on short work weeks as a result of the continuing economic crisis in the United States. [ ...] Our culture -- which is Nucor's real competitive advantage -- has been built (and continues to grow each year) by the strong loyalty shown both ways between Nucor and its employees.
We can do this because we have a long term view of doing business and once you adopt that view all your practices and policies stem from that. We are who we are because of our Culture and our People and you don't build ownership by disowning people when times get tough! You must have strong profitability, a strong balance sheet, and long term commitment to team building to make it possible!
Quote:
Christopher Barker: Back in June, you shared your projection for the "granddaddy of all jobless recoveries," and earned this Fool's deep respect as a "champion for truth in a world full of parroting cheerleaders." Has your outlook changed substantially since that time?
Dan DiMicco: No, unfortunately not. We are extremely disappointed that our nation's leaders -- both Democrats and Republicans -- continue to fail to recognize and address the real problems facing our economy: the need to create real jobs by rebuilding our nation's crumbling infrastructure, restore our nation's energy independence, and improve our trade balance (and thus restore our manufacturing-driven economy versus a phony services / financial services-driven economy).
Barker: Third-quarter metrics for the domestic steel industry showed substantial sequential improvement, with capacity utilization rebounding from 45% to 55%. With some portion of that boost generated by inventory restocking, can you characterize where the underlying real demand will guide sustainable capacity utilization rates as we head in to 2010? Does a long-awaited boost from the $787 billion stimulus package figure prominently into such projections?
DiMicco: Real or end-use demand has not improved to any significant extent over this period, and we do not expect any improvement anytime soon. The "stimulus" package has not worked. It was a welfare package that did nothing to create jobs.
It's your turn, Fools. Mr. DiMicco and I agree that the $787 billion stimulus package has proven entirely ineffective, and we view the restoration of America's manufacturing-driven economy as the only sustainable path to economic recovery. Take our Motley Poll, and post your comments below to share your thoughts on the matter.
sndsgood wrote:low taxes for the small business man is a really great factor in starting up all these mom and pop startup companies you think we need goodwrench? don't you think? making it easy for people to start up comapnies makes sence to me. doesnt make sence to jam up taxes and make it harder for the unemployed worker to start up his own company.
Bingo, for the middle class to get tax breaks/incentives to start a small business up.
Labotomi wrote: Corporate taxes are lower due to the increase of personal taxes. With a raise on corporate taxes without a corresponding lowering of personal taxes the net effect will be less purchasing of goods and services. Cutting corporate taxes will allow companies to compete with foreign companies to provide goods and services at competitive prices. With easing of personal taxes the people will purchase from the lowest cost providers or basically those overseas companies that aren't subject to the strict EPA requirements and the pending Cap and Trade. My company is acutely aware of cap and trade because of it's very nature. If there isn't a level playing field domestic companies affected will have to raise prices to the extent of becoming non competitive thus going out of business and furthering our dependency on imports. It's not until we become a manufacturing society instead of a consumer society that we'll ever emerge from our current economic dependency.
That's the thing, Corporate taxes were higher in the past 30+years ago then what it is today or projected. I was hoping you were to bring on: "to compete with foreign companies." This reasoning is mute, when we have foreign corporation coming to this land and build here. If "we are taxing to the roofs" as so many love to yell, we would not have foreign corporation building here. And don't give me the currency ratio either, because many of these companies have been here long before the dollar got a hint of weakness. And some of these foreign companies that build here and some of their products is not even made for this market. I will agree that the country needs to be manufacturing here, that's how this country was made, and now China. But putting excuses on the Cap and Trade is ridiculous... unless Cap and Trade is not actually enforced and do what it is intended purpose. We all love to preach; our children will have to pay X what we do today, but nobody focuses on the globe where humans can only live. That's a different subject.
Quote:
Public projects are just a part of non residential construction. Other parts consist of greenfield projects where companies build new manufacturing facilities to meet increased demand for their products. Again, until we're competitive with the rest of the world this won't change and the building won't happen. Companies won't expand and require the construction industry's support and development of supporting industries for any new facilities.
You want to be competitive, instead of spending on corporate jets, lavish retirement pensions, invest in minds... US minds, not someone from India who can do math correct. Today, ingenuity is going along with the workforce, overseas. Back then the wealthy would pay heavy in taxes and it would pay in the education, we were ranked in the top 5 in the world, today we are in the mid 30s World Ranking. Competitive happens when innovation is there and breaking new grounds. When you have that, consumers will flock for that. Build the same, and expect the demand to be ho-hum.
Quote:
And Obama has been much better. LOL
I will wait when his term is over, some of his agenda "are hot off DC." But I can say, in a year and half, there are points that are better... better then what we had before.
Labotomi wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Labotomi wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Take a look here too.
Some of your statements in the other thread don't make any sense at all.
On what?
The replies in the thread to your comments say enough. I shouldn't have to rehash what has already been said.
If you have nothing to say in the other or this thread, then stay mute. You saying: "don't make sense" and not explain what you mean, is utter useless.
Quote:
I'm not even sure where your comment comes from or what it's intended to refute. I could rewrite my statement, but I'll just let you reread it yourself. It means exactly what it says
It comes from the part where you say:
"Most CEOs aren't stupid." Did you forget what you wrote already?
Quote:
You're the one who said companies and unions are playing politics.
No. I said:
"companies are working in union and are playing politics" There is a difference to what you think I said, to what I actually said.
Quote:
My company lost money as in negative profit. That's not in comparison to the previous year, but the first year ever of having more expenses than income. Many other companies lost money as well. Those who only lost relative to previous years were lucky to be in markets that aren't as affected by discretionary spending.
What you mean, your company made
no profit as opposed to "negative profit."
Negative profit is like the example I illustrated with XYZ company; less profit then last measured time frame, but still a "profit."
Quote:
Look at some of the articles and interviews by Dan Dimmico. It's apparent where he stands with regard to putting Americans back to work. He's gone on record with his displeasure with how the government is handling the recovery. We've handed out billions to companies who have no intention on putting people to work. It's corporate welfare with no real return on that investment.
I can definitely agree to a degree there. Part of the reason are the folks in Congress and Senate in either party, where lobbyist for certain companies lobbied to get some of that money for a contract. There was an issue where certain American companies (HQ only) were to receive money and it turned out the manufacturing was done over in China. When news about that was out... no more money was to be handed to that company. I believe it was in the Green Energy sector.
Quote:
My company has around 22k people employed and never in it's history has laid off a single person. Even when facility utilization reached 40% we still had people coming in working on the equipment and even doing chores such as mowing the grass and cleaning the bathrooms. The company kept it's people employed even though layoffs would have allowed the company to remain profitable. There's a loyalty that should be an example to other companies in that you have an obligation to the people you hire.
Quite frankly I honor companies that do the right thing like this. It is sad, that companies like this are a minority. But in the end, those local business will still have economy moving as the paycheck (albeit not the best) still comes rolling in from the company. This philosophy still keeps the momentum rolling (albeit slow) and it does not come to a stop, which when it stops... it take a whole lot to make it move again.
DiMicco, has some points I will vouch. I will also say; yes, infrastructure is indeed dated. Case in point, the levy over in N-O. Structures that the Army Corp deemed in desperate repair, never got the attention it needed. Also we had about one or two busy bridges collapse not to long ago. I know some of my roads would flood with a 10 min strong downpour, not to mention roads equivalent to a 3rd world nation.
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:sndsgood wrote:low taxes for the small business man is a really great factor in starting up all these mom and pop startup companies you think we need goodwrench? don't you think? making it easy for people to start up comapnies makes sence to me. doesnt make sence to jam up taxes and make it harder for the unemployed worker to start up his own company.
Bingo, for the middle class to get tax breaks/incentives to start a small business up.
Labotomi wrote: Corporate taxes are lower due to the increase of personal taxes. With a raise on corporate taxes without a corresponding lowering of personal taxes the net effect will be less purchasing of goods and services. Cutting corporate taxes will allow companies to compete with foreign companies to provide goods and services at competitive prices. With easing of personal taxes the people will purchase from the lowest cost providers or basically those overseas companies that aren't subject to the strict EPA requirements and the pending Cap and Trade. My company is acutely aware of cap and trade because of it's very nature. If there isn't a level playing field domestic companies affected will have to raise prices to the extent of becoming non competitive thus going out of business and furthering our dependency on imports. It's not until we become a manufacturing society instead of a consumer society that we'll ever emerge from our current economic dependency.
That's the thing, Corporate taxes were higher in the past 30+years ago then what it is today or projected. I was hoping you were to bring on: "to compete with foreign companies." This reasoning is mute, when we have foreign corporation coming to this land and build here. If "we are taxing to the roofs" as so many love to yell, we would not have foreign corporation building here. And don't give me the currency ratio either, because many of these companies have been here long before the dollar got a hint of weakness. And some of these foreign companies that build here and some of their products is not even made for this market. I will agree that the country needs to be manufacturing here, that's how this country was made, and now China. But putting excuses on the Cap and Trade is ridiculous... unless Cap and Trade is not actually enforced and do what it is intended purpose. We all love to preach; our children will have to pay X what we do today, but nobody focuses on the globe where humans can only live. That's a different subject.
Quote:
Public projects are just a part of non residential construction. Other parts consist of greenfield projects where companies build new manufacturing facilities to meet increased demand for their products. Again, until we're competitive with the rest of the world this won't change and the building won't happen. Companies won't expand and require the construction industry's support and development of supporting industries for any new facilities.
You want to be competitive, instead of spending on corporate jets, lavish retirement pensions, invest in minds... US minds, not someone from India who can do math correct. Today, ingenuity is going along with the workforce, overseas. Back then the wealthy would pay heavy in taxes and it would pay in the education, we were ranked in the top 5 in the world, today we are in the mid 30s World Ranking. Competitive happens when innovation is there and breaking new grounds. When you have that, consumers will flock for that. Build the same, and expect the demand to be ho-hum.
Quote:
And Obama has been much better. LOL
I will wait when his term is over, some of his agenda "are hot off DC." But I can say, in a year and half, there are points that are better... better then what we had before.
Labotomi wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Labotomi wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Take a look here too.
Some of your statements in the other thread don't make any sense at all.
On what?
The replies in the thread to your comments say enough. I shouldn't have to rehash what has already been said.
If you have nothing to say in the other or this thread, then stay mute. You saying: "don't make sense" and not explain what you mean, is utter useless.
Quote:
I'm not even sure where your comment comes from or what it's intended to refute. I could rewrite my statement, but I'll just let you reread it yourself. It means exactly what it says
It comes from the part where you say: "Most CEOs aren't stupid." Did you forget what you wrote already?
Quote:
You're the one who said companies and unions are playing politics.
No. I said: "companies are working in union and are playing politics" There is a difference to what you think I said, to what I actually said.
Quote:
My company lost money as in negative profit. That's not in comparison to the previous year, but the first year ever of having more expenses than income. Many other companies lost money as well. Those who only lost relative to previous years were lucky to be in markets that aren't as affected by discretionary spending.
What you mean, your company made no profit as opposed to "negative profit."
Negative profit is like the example I illustrated with XYZ company; less profit then last measured time frame, but still a "profit."
Quote:
Look at some of the articles and interviews by Dan Dimmico. It's apparent where he stands with regard to putting Americans back to work. He's gone on record with his displeasure with how the government is handling the recovery. We've handed out billions to companies who have no intention on putting people to work. It's corporate welfare with no real return on that investment.
I can definitely agree to a degree there. Part of the reason are the folks in Congress and Senate in either party, where lobbyist for certain companies lobbied to get some of that money for a contract. There was an issue where certain American companies (HQ only) were to receive money and it turned out the manufacturing was done over in China. When news about that was out... no more money was to be handed to that company. I believe it was in the Green Energy sector.
Quote:
My company has around 22k people employed and never in it's history has laid off a single person. Even when facility utilization reached 40% we still had people coming in working on the equipment and even doing chores such as mowing the grass and cleaning the bathrooms. The company kept it's people employed even though layoffs would have allowed the company to remain profitable. There's a loyalty that should be an example to other companies in that you have an obligation to the people you hire.
Quite frankly I honor companies that do the right thing like this. It is sad, that companies like this are a minority. But in the end, those local business will still have economy moving as the paycheck (albeit not the best) still comes rolling in from the company. This philosophy still keeps the momentum rolling (albeit slow) and it does not come to a stop, which when it stops... it take a whole lot to make it move again.
DiMicco, has some points I will vouch. I will also say; yes, infrastructure is indeed dated. Case in point, the levy over in N-O. Structures that the Army Corp deemed in desperate repair, never got the attention it needed. Also we had about one or two busy bridges collapse not to long ago. I know some of my roads would flood with a 10 min strong downpour, not to mention roads equivalent to a 3rd world nation.
I'm not going to let you pick and choose comments instead of addressing the entire conversation. If you wish to debate "negative profit" go somewhere else, your definition is based on semantics of relative vs absolute. I believe you know exactly what I mean but choose to harp on bits such as this because you are failing at a complete argument. Thus your attempt to pick apart bits and pieces, even choosing what definitions or terms you choose to use in interpretation of others posts.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Going for that road now? I didn't "pick and choose." Since you want to tout on choosing comments, answer the questioned I asked for example. I do know exactly what you mean on the profit, which is why I labeled it appropriately according to your statement. And if you have nothing to respond and take low road out, just quit while you're ahead; because your last comment was just nullified for any type of advancement.
You aren't addressing the discussion, you're choosing to take individual comments, quote them out of context or completely misunderstand or twist what was said and then go on the offensive about that comment.
I'll do a little picking and choosing to give you an example.
Take this exchange
labotomi wrote:If the companies could make more money by expanding and hiring more people then they would. Most CEOs aren't stupid.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:So do you think the vision of putting your workforce everywhere but in the US is actually a good move? Do these "non-stupid" CEOs think the public will be $hiting money in order to stimulate the economy?
labotomi wrote:I'm not even sure where your comment comes from or what it's intended to refute. I could rewrite my statement, but I'll just let you reread it yourself. It means exactly what it says
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:It comes from the part where you say: "Most CEOs aren't stupid." Did you forget what you wrote already?
Right there you have taken something I said, completely twisted it or misread what I said altogether and then tried to use it against me in some fashion. I never forgot what I wrote, it's just that your reply didn't have anything to do with my comment. It was a pretty simple and straightforward comment and had nothing to do with outsourcing or where any stimulation of the economy would come from, but you reply as if I was a proponent of US companies moving or creating jobs overseas. Nowhere did I say any such thing.
I'm sure you're only this way on the internet because in a real conversation you wouldn't have the luxury of reading a post over and over looking for things to take out of context.
You have an informed although idealistic view of business operations with regard to politics, but you're so full of yourself that you get defensive whenever your views are challenged. I have no problem discussing differences in opinions, but I don't feel any obligation to teach you things you should have learned from your parents.
