Obama's Second Term Win: Full acceptance of sweeping liberal policys?

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by charles1952

 

It may be a little early, but do you have any examples of "real solid ideas?"

Yes in fact I do, I think that this country should start manufacturing quality goods at affordable competitive prices. I also think that all existing businesses should hire 2 people immediately. This will spurn economic growth far better than tax cuts.

None of those ideas are viable, you can't have competitive prices if you're manufacturing in the USA, the fact that it used to be like that and evolved to its current form is the reason why it's not possible anymore : that's how the market is.
Same goes for the second idea, when starting a company you're most certainly have very little room for expense in your budget, forcing those companies to hire 2 employees will drown them under added cost.

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

You want to know how the next generation of republicans win again?

They lose the social conservatives, and reach out to the women, gays and minorities.

This is there mistake to being with. Politics is not supposed to be about managing society and culture. It is 100% about managing fiscal matters. I don't know why anyone ever decided that anything other than "fiscal conservative" was a winning proposition. No one wins in a nation that is a melting pot, but is socially conservative. No wonder we have had so much turmoil over civil rights for just about everyone other than white men.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Let's make one thing clear:

In America, we haven't voted FOR a candidate in a long time. We are left with our best option to be to vote AGAINST a candidate.

This election, therefore, isn't about accepting anything Obama. Rather, it is about rejecting Romney and all that he represents. The image of the "stuffy, rich, white guy" is just not popular.

And it doesn't help that he is a total tool. I mean, c'mon Republicans....if you can't do any better than that of entering a horse in the race, let us libertarians have a shot. You might find people voting FOR a President once again!

Slightly disagree about one point here.
in 08, people certainly voted for Obama as much as they voted against Bush's 3rd term.
But this go around, I think they voted for Obama's temperment over Romney..arguably you could say they voted against Romney based on that..but it was more for what he stood for as you said...so hair splitting here.

Ron Paul could have come close to winning if he was nominated I believe. Most of my liberal friends liked his social policys..and given fiscally there is little difference between the parties..it comes down to social issues really.

Originally posted by Wolf321
It is clear the people don't fully accept it, but in winning the election, it is winner take all. He gets to continue his policies and politics, but the worst thing of all, is how much impact he will have on the supreme court in his last term.

I personally don't think the nation will make it past 4 more years anyway, but if it did, the impacts of his newly liberalized court will screw what is left of the nation for as long as it struggles to stay alive.

Mark my words, the Country will be nothing like it is now in 4 years...

These people voted for Obama, for all the wrong reasons...

Just look at the unemployment rate that is high and about as unrealistic as the stock market....

The leader for the past 4 years who promised to fix the unemployment rate with stimulus and whatever other bits of money we borrowed from China, did not fix it, unemployment went up actually, and now we owe money with interest to China..

Their clueless... The Majority of the American population it appears are morons..

I think Obama, was re-elected due to fear...

We lose more rights in 4 years and will be closer to our Government, Governing our bodies literely telling us what to eat drink etc. etc. when to die...

Either that or 4 years of nothing getting done in Washington, with a republican house democratic senate, etc. etc. Or Obama, abusing executive orders unchecked...

Its going to be a mess... It will be a miracle if America, survives and stays healthy for another 4 years...

reply to post by MaurinQuina


I quite literally don't think America will exist as a nation 4 years from now. I don't like the two party system we have, but between the two, I think the republican party is the better choice. Having said that, the bright side of Obama winning again, is that when it finally falls apart completely, it will all be on his party and their policies. If there is any chance of starting over after that, the one comfort will be that the democratic party policies will have no voice in it.

reply to post by SaturnFX



It comes down to marketing.

There is just about zilch difference in the parties. Even Obamacare....just a rehash of a GOP plan from the 90's.

It is all about marketing and power structure.

Just like the ancient Mysteries....there is info for the profane, and the info for the initiate. All this social conservatism and fiscal liberalism talk....that is just babble meant to be batted around by the masses. In secular America, politics replaces God as the purveyor of hope.

reply to post by SaturnFX and HauntWok

Gentlemen,

Way to go! The excitement of the election hasn't even begun to wear off and we're already coming up with ideas to help strengthen the country. There may be hope yet. Mind if I take a look at them?

HauntWok, SaturnFX is right, those are corporate solutions not governmental ones. But no sense throwing out an idea that might help.

I think that this country should start manufacturing quality goods at affordable competitive prices.

I thought that's what our companies were trying to do now. The better and cheaper the product, the greater their market share. Do you think they're intentionally making expensive and shoddy products?

I also think that all existing businesses should hire 2 people immediately. This will spurn economic growth far better than tax cuts.

That's fine for big companies, but most of America's businesses are small. Hiring people is expensive, what with benefits, payroll taxes and the like. A lot of companies can't afford that right now. How would we make them?

SaturnFX, you can always be counted on to be thought-provoking, thanks for the ideas.

A solid idea is: a stronger trade law requirement passed between any nation that doesn't have worker standards (aka, hammer slave labor societys like china) and put the screws in the thumbs of corporations that rely heavily on outsourcing to make it more economical to hire local.

Say China isn't ready to uproot it's entire labor policy and political system. They will say thanks, but no thanks. We then refuse to trade with China (or severely limit trade) We are then unable to buy inexpensive goods from China and they won't buy any of our finished products. The cost of goods go up and manufacturing loses jobs. There may be a way around it, but I don't see it. If we only buy from countries that have higher labor costs, then anything we buy will be more expensive and we'll have fewer countries to sell to. (Besides that, they'll get irritated that we're telling them how to run their country.)

Prohibiting outsourcing? That raises the price of our goods, because we'd have higher labor costs. If we can afford the higher costs, we'll have more American jobs, but a higher cost of living, or so it seems to me.

The marriage thing? Fine, I don't care. I don't think it will significantly help or hurt the country.

The tax idea? After reading it a couple of times I got the impression that you wanted to raise taxes on the rich. I don't understand "the fiscal status of the past and the state of the economy at the time." Does that mean that the tax rates change every year based on a formula? Will there be a feedback effect? I'm afraid I just don't understand this part completely.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Actually I am far more interested in technical jobs verses manufacturing overall. If we lose the basic manufacturing, so be it, but our high end jobs, the programming, tech support, network administration, etc..that hurts our longer term ventures.

Give it 20 or so years and machines will be manufacuring things, then slave labor will be too expensive, but technical skills, coding, stuff like that is where our economy needs to trend, and there is massive outsourcing going on in the technical field to places like india, pakistan, etc.

It would be nice to also get at least some of our manufacturing jobs back mind you, but over the long term, those jobs will fade away from existance anyhow.

There's absolutely nothing good that will come to have voted in Obama for a second term. We've seen what he's done the first time around, and people claimed it was Bush's fault. Well, say goodbye to your liberties and say hello to a much increased debt. So does this mean I have to pay $700 coming tax season for health care? I sorta can't afford that.

reply to post by SaturnFX


No. the race was so close that even Obama will watch his rhetoric on this.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by SaturnFX and HauntWok

 

Gentlemen,

Way to go!

The excitement of the election hasn't even begun to wear off and we're already coming up with ideas to help strengthen the country. There may be hope yet. Mind if I take a look at them?

HauntWok, SaturnFX is right, those are corporate solutions not governmental ones. But no sense throwing out an idea that might help.

I think that this country should start manufacturing quality goods at affordable competitive prices.

I thought that's what our companies were trying to do now. The better and cheaper the product, the greater their market share. Do you think they're intentionally making expensive and shoddy products?

I also think that all existing businesses should hire 2 people immediately. This will spurn economic growth far better than tax cuts.

That's fine for big companies, but most of America's businesses are small. Hiring people is expensive, what with benefits, payroll taxes and the like. A lot of companies can't afford that right now. How would we make them?

SaturnFX, you can always be counted on to be thought-provoking, thanks for the ideas.

A solid idea is: a stronger trade law requirement passed between any nation that doesn't have worker standards (aka, hammer slave labor societys like china) and put the screws in the thumbs of corporations that rely heavily on outsourcing to make it more economical to hire local.

Say China isn't ready to uproot it's entire labor policy and political system. They will say thanks, but no thanks. We then refuse to trade with China (or severely limit trade) We are then unable to buy inexpensive goods from China and they won't buy any of our finished products. The cost of goods go up and manufacturing loses jobs. There may be a way around it, but I don't see it. If we only buy from countries that have higher labor costs, then anything we buy will be more expensive and we'll have fewer countries to sell to. (Besides that, they'll get irritated that we're telling them how to run their country.)

Prohibiting outsourcing? That raises the price of our goods, because we'd have higher labor costs. If we can afford the higher costs, we'll have more American jobs, but a higher cost of living, or so it seems to me.

The marriage thing? Fine, I don't care. I don't think it will significantly help or hurt the country.

The tax idea? After reading it a couple of times I got the impression that you wanted to raise taxes on the rich. I don't understand "the fiscal status of the past and the state of the economy at the time." Does that mean that the tax rates change every year based on a formula? Will there be a feedback effect? I'm afraid I just don't understand this part completely.

With respect,
Charles1952

There are those jobs sitting empty because a certain skill is required. Why don't these companies, instead of hiring only those that have that specific skill, put in a training program to get these positions filled. I know training costs money but you can hire based on past performance, dependability and good references from other companies. These are the people who would work hard and perform well so that would offset the training costs.

Just my idea, anyway.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Dear SaturnFX,

Technical jobs? Nice approach, I can see that, but might there be a problem with finding employees? A lot of technical jobs can be done from anywhere in the world. I understand that with interconnectivity, people can work from home or anywhere, really.

Doesn't this mean that companies will have the world's talent to draw from? Forgive me for being pessimistic, but for all the money we've put into it, our students are less and less educated. There may be entire groups of people who are not interested in technical careers, or who are not able to do them. If we get rid of manufacturing, where do they work? Perhaps natural reources like farming, lumbering, mining, and drilling, but I'd be reluctant to close down any sector of our job market (or even reducing it).

If outsourcing was outlawed, or made prohibitively expensive, how would America compete with countries that can outsource to wherever the talent is?

Anyway, maybe we can tweak that a little and make it work.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by texasgirl

Dear texasgirl,

I think your idea about industry training will work very well in some situations. I know that it is being utilized in some places.

I suspect after a certain limit companies will not provide the training. Consider an extreme example. An oil company hires someone and trains them to be a petrochemist with a Doctorate from a good school. The worker is set to go to work, then receives a call from a competing company with a better offer. He signs with the other company. The first company has put, maybe $200,000 to train the guy and a competitor gets the benefit. They will never train another petrochemist.

Somewhere the line is drawn, and I can assure you that, unless it's the government, the training limit will be much, much less than $200,000.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by SaturnFX


A full blown liberal mandate? No this election was not about acquiring one. It seems very clear the American people want serious fiscal solutions and serious compromise on getting them. It is clear they want our budget issues addressed in a balanced way and that the President has the right idea. It is also clear they want healthcare reform to stand. The President has already said immigration reform is a top project in the coming year. Hate to break it to people but it will include some form of amnesty no matter how much people don't like it. Women's issues are off the table, Obama will possibly be able to nominate up to 5 justices this term.

People are fed up with this partisan nonsense. They want to see reasonable Democrats and Republicans to reach practical and principled compromise.


Rassmussan has destroyed what little credibility they had left. Fox and conservative pundits will continue to use them as a source but everyone else will look at them with extreme skepticism and suspicion.

reply to post by HauntWok


Thank you. I do not like Obama primarily because he came out of Chicago politics but he is not why I am upset he won. It is his supporters like you. Old=agism, white=racist, men=sexism. You do not even get it. lol. Those old angry white men are the main reason minorities have civil rights today. They were young angry white men who pushed civil rights. Remember back then. If you didn't like a black you could hang him, burn his house down with him and his family inside, or just put a bullet in his head and the police would cover it up. The same with Hispanics. Gays were good for rolling for money and the police covered it up. A woman opened her mouth and you hit her until she shut up and the police would not even take a report. Just out of curiosity just who do you think stopped all that? The people on the bottom couldn't. Us old angry white men are angry because we fought for civil rights for ALL. Not just for everyone except us. Your statement shows who is considered the new low minority by those we fought for. If you are smart I suggest you wait another decade or two before you come for us or you might found how you really got your civil rights.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

A full blown liberal mandate? No this election was not about acquiring one.

I donno.
From what I seen, this election meant the following:
-Oil is now banned. From now on, all energy comes from friction gained by hugging trees
-We must replace "in god we trust" on the money with "There is no God"
-All teachers are now required to be transvestites
-Spanish is the official language, or urban slang
-Guns will be removed, and replaced with vegetables.
-Shiria law is now the law of the land
-Healthcare consists of better living through fetus consumption.
-Anyone making more than 12k a year will be frozen and tossed into the ocean to combat warming


I get all my info from ATS...you saying something is incorrect? is it the transvestite thing? (I sometimes get transvestite and transexual mixed up...could be).

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by texasgirl

 

Dear texasgirl,

I think your idea about industry training will work very well in some situations. I know that it is being utilized in some places.

I suspect after a certain limit companies will not provide the training. Consider an extreme example. An oil company hires someone and trains them to be a petrochemist with a Doctorate from a good school. The worker is set to go to work, then receives a call from a competing company with a better offer. He signs with the other company. The first company has put, maybe $200,000 to train the guy and a competitor gets the benefit. They will never train another petrochemist.

Somewhere the line is drawn, and I can assure you that, unless it's the government, the training limit will be much, much less than $200,000.

With respect,
Charles1952

That's actually an easy fix and one that is already used now when a company provides training. The potential trainee has to sign a contract agreeing to work for the company for X number of years after completing their training.

From a management standpoint, the problem is the quality of the potential worker.

Because of various worker protections, you are basically adopting a kid to raise when you hire someone. If the worker turns out to be a dud, you can hardly fire him. Even if you fire with good reason, you'll still have to pay him for 6 months after he quits. Or else let your insurance cover it, and watch your rates go up across the board, forever.

THAT'S why there are vacant positions: the risk of owing money to a non-producer for the next 99 months outweighs the potential benefit is he/she actually does the work.

EDIT TO ADD:

Even if you put a $ penalty on over-seas outsourcing, it would still be worth it not to have to pay workers comp insurance and unemployment insurance. The penalty is only paid once, but unemployment is paid over and over, every time you have to let some idiot go. At that point, a mere $50 or 100K penalty, to be free forever from US labor regs.

Or even easier: set up a limited liability company in the Cayman Islands, and pay them to create a company in India or Mexico that does your labor overseas for a fee. Then, you haven't outsourced any actual workers. Plus, your Cayman corp can charge you so much that you have only a marginal US taxable profit, and a bunch of legal profits in a company you own in the caymans...

Why was it that outsourcing was a bad idea agian?

reply to post by Jerk_Idiot


They aren't the same people they were back then. Back then when they were "Generously giving civil rights to people out of the kindness of their hearts" they were younger, thinking more liberally. Over time however, these same people grew older, and more socially conservative (Change scares people)

Besides, unless your name is Rosa Parks, or Martin Luther King Jr. Or your a civil rights worker from back in the day, you probably didn't do a whole lot for civil rights.

But hey, since you know so much about me let me put it to you this way.

Have you ever been divorced as a male in this country with a child? If the answer is no, please don't talk to me about rights, because you at least have yours. It took me over 6 years to get my child back from his mother, all the while "Da gubermint" was taking 60% of my paycheck and handing it over to my drug addict ex wife. All the while ignoring my constant complaints and filings that she wasn't allowing me to see or speak to my child. So please, spare me your inept impotent rag about rights.

Because the thing is, the reason that Romney lost this election is because the Right isn't about personal liberty. Wanting to Amend the US constitution to ban same sex marriage isn't personal liberty, it's constricting liberty.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Why such an exaggeration and not a realistic assessment of the situation? Is it so hard to believe the country is a center left and not a center right nation? Sweeping liberal policies? What are those liberal policies? Science, biology, ecology and math?......