http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/05/romney_mexican/
I have to warn you the link is much more hateful towards Mitt Romney than I am...but the info is there and his own mother is on video stating the word "welfare" in describing how his own family benefited from the US.
It is telling of a man's character when he says things along the lines of "We do not want people dependent on government handouts or to be entitled to receive help from BIG GOVERNMENT." You have heard the words said by countless Republicans and Romney. But in reality those "handouts" helped his family. His grandparents and parents worked hard for his family and his father and he profited from his struggle. This is why I support welfare programs...giving people the chance to come to America and thereby live their own American dream. Romney how dare you deny and essentially bite the hand that fed you...the government programs that allowed your family to prosper. One can only imagine where the Romney family would have been had it not been for compassion and humanity.
Has anyone from the GOP said get rid of the entitlements? I don't know of one. We, as a platform, support it in a fiscally responsible manner that focuses on temporary aid. Republicans have a long record of voting for unemployment benefits, education grants, etc. So I see no problem that his family has benefited from government assistance. Looks like they did it the right way - used it as a band-aid and moved on.
ReplyDeleteIs funding SS, Medicare, and Affordable Care Act without changes responsible when our country must borrow excessively to continue - not just borrower to fill a "slow year" of revenue - the way it is set up, we will have to borrower to fund those commitments for countless years to come.
The Earned Income Tax Credit is set up as a never ending supply of government cash to be used as the taxpayer wishes - its the focus on being self reliant that is the center of the platform - not abolishing all forms of help.
Come on, you are smarter then to think we want to end entitlements entirely? Aren't you?
Seems how you do understand that, then certainly you can appreciate that Romney's family receiving assistance while they regained their footing as not a contradiction to his welfare policies. He's never said "we must stop it all, right now." Listen more closely to the platform - its how do we make any assistance from the government "temporary" while people get back on their feet in a manner that is in line with our fiscal stability with government revenues. As for the "permanent" forms of entitlement - we are all saying "keep it, just needs to change because we can't afford it as it is and raising taxes on the wealthy, while a fun idea, isn't an "all in solution."
Taxing the wealthy is giving a man with a severed leg a band-aid in the ER and asking, "that fixes it, doesn't it? Okay, well, I know it doesn't FIX IT, but isn't at least a little help for you? After all a band-aid is better then no band-aid" - kind of like your $5,000 is better then $0. I would say, "I suppose $5,000 is better than $0 - but can't we fix the REAL problem while we are apply that band-aid to our severed leg?"
And the Dem's say, "No, we will address the severed leg when times are better - we will get a budget surplus eventually, like we had under Clinton, and we will apply that surplus to the deficits historically created by us promising entitlements and not having the cash to pay it." Of course, we know how that goes. We will find something else to spend it on when the time comes or if we do keep the surplus, it will be like applying your loose change you save up over a year to your mortgage balance and saying "there - that feels good, we will have this wrapped up in no time!"
So, I am glad we had this conversation because now you understand where your misconception about our party platform was centered in - the false assumption that Mitt's comments of "dependence" to be misinterpreted as "stop all welfare and entitlements."
That feels better, doesn't it?
So did you get that Democrats do not stand on a value system of wanting people to become dependent like Mitt Romney has said they the Democrats are found guilty? My understanding of Rommney's stance on the "fiscal responsibility" is how I stated it earlier. In addition, it suggests that they NEED to find ways to cut the deficit in MANY MANY areas and programs...this suggests that they will be FORCED to cut funding for education, for welfare programs and the like---ESPECIALLY with the 2 trillion they want to go towards defense...even though Pentagon does not need that much more. I still can't believe you are not willing to say that the wealthy should be taxed AND government programs should be cut! Why not pay off more of the deficit? I 100% "believe" but better yet "KNOW" that under the last republican Pell Grant funding was tightened and there was less funding for education. I bet you weren't told that tightening/eliminating was being done by the Republican party back then...and you sure as HECK won't hear it from them now! They are not transparent. They keep these actions quiet...bc of course it is not something to brag about! Cutting funding for education! But the facts are that it happens under Republicans! I cannot support that. Education cuts were made in Mitt Romney's reign in Mass. I am sure he will be ready to cut that funding again.
ReplyDeleteDemocrats do not want DEPENDENCE and why do Republicans insist this is true? To get sound bites during a campaign...to make viewers watching think, "I don't want my taxes going to lazy people not willing to get a job!"
Furthermore, Republicans do not want to fix Medicare they want to make it more complicated...and not only that, it will go under before they can even initiate the ridiculously conceived voucher idea. Then what? We have no plan from them after that...scary for many people!
I agree that there should be more regulation on welfare and a better way to "wheen people off of it"--but just like Romney's family...it provided food and clothing for years! It was a stable support for them. I don't know that answer. I don't know how to sift out the people who will honestly use these programs to climb the ladder or to temporarily get by...but I would like government to work on it. And I know Obama is and has been working on this and many more issues. In addition, I do not trust a party unwilling to work with ANY PRESIDENT! Democrats worked with Bush on many things during his presidency...his POLITICAL PARTY did not take away their patriotism and willing to better the whole country and not their own frivolous election based career--some sure, but the whole of the Democrats pushed forward.
SO SORRY! THis is way too long! I got carried away!
ReplyDeleteI can see Romney with good intentions in weeding out the programs that aren't working and figuring out a way to make the welfare and other programs work more efficiently. Not more so than Obama...but equal to...and maybe he has better skill with it. (But on his Obama's behalf, his latest eliminated 1 billion dollars in future spending). My problem is the lessons I learned from the latest Bush administration. He was the one doing the cash throwing...not thinking how we will pay it off---something the Republicans ironically blame on Obama. Basically, I wish I could see Romney as more than a pawn or a puppet for the people. But he surrounds himself with untrustworthy people--people who will become the puppeteer---much like the last Republican President. They themselves have said the only issue the elected Republicans cared about was getting Obama out of office. Romney recently said that the war in Afghanistan was not important enough to discuss in the RNC---but ending war is VITAL for bringing the debt down. And in short we witnessed Bush being the puppet for the string-masters of evil and selfish acts...and I am afraid that Romney will not be able to get anything done---he seems even more fragile than Bush was...he is not the man for the job this election. Any President has to be VERY strong...or else he will be just a pawn for his party. Come back in 4 years, Romney....with a different VP and maybe I can back you up better. :) BC I do believe in a balanced government. I do not like my fellow Democrats believe that every President should be a Democrat...but every President MUST be fit for the role and be a good man. Romney has the later but is not yet "fit" and strong enough for the job.
UGH! I just have to add that taxing the wealthy alone is not adequate! I agree and I hope Obama makes himself clear in the debates and interviews to come on the debt! It is important.
ReplyDeleteHaha...I got on her to comment and saw all these...wow! You guys will never see eye to eye. :)
ReplyDeleteRomney doesn't want welfare programs to end...none of us do. We all want to help the poor and needy.I hate to see people suffer and want to do all I can to help them. I think our government has a place to help those in need too. I don't get why republicans are accused for wanting to get rid of welfare. There are changes that need to be made to the welfare system, but nobody thinks it should just go away. I don't know how you can say that he is ungrateful for the hand up his family got...they used it to get that hand up and started helping themselves. That is how welfare should work. Unfortunately there are too many people that abuse this system...there are many in Oregon who purposely don't make more than a certain amount so that they can live on welfare. Many of my friends there were on welfare because their husbands were in graduate school...I am in no way saying that is bad...but to see how much they got in food stamps every month was astounding. They were able to spend much more on food than I ever did. Richard and I figured out that if we were to apply and qualify for food stamps in OR, we would have been able to get almost $700 a month! That is incredible for a family of 4! There just needs to be some changes made. But it's not fair to say that Romney doesn't appreciate welfare, just because he sees the changes that need to be done.
Oh and I love you. :) Thanks for getting me thinking...it's good for a mom to think outside her little family sometimes. :)
I know, right!? Brian and I don't agree often. :) But it is still fun to challenge each other...good for me anyway. I do not think Romney will "get rid of" welfare programs...at least not big ones like food stamps, etc...but he claims he will find ways to cut the deficit without taxing the wealthy...and since he doesn't give specifics we are left to assume that he will really cut down on welfare programs bc he puts down Democrats for believing in them. The sad thing about our country is that even though Romney and Obama might agree on similar changes that need to be made with programs...to cut out the abuse both you and Brian referred to...we as the voters won't see that (especially during an election) bc our country is so split. In addition, if one man says something the other side tries to twist his words to mean something appalling to the public. But as for Brian, Michelle and myself it sounds like we can agree that welfare systems are important to our country they just need some tweaking and better regulation. As for educational cuts...we differ greatly...bc Romney/Ryan will cut educational spending. But let's leave on a good note with agreeing on something...if only slightly. :)
ReplyDeleteThere have been mention of two topics that I know I have not shared my point of view on yet...so I figured, why not?
ReplyDeleteTopic 1: Why I think Outsourcing is Good for Americans...
All Americans, and especially the middle class, benefit from outsourcing. No one can argue outsourcing lowers the cost of goods purchased by Americans by using cheaper labor to handle the unskilled labor needs of producing many products purchased in clothing stores, Wal-Mart and toy stores (just to name a few). This means more $$ in the pockets of middle class Americans that can be used to save for a rainy day, education, or other consumption - the latter is where most savings from middle class Americans is driven to. As more consumption occurs, it drives up the need for more jobs.
America employs just over 122 million Americans. The current trend of American outsourcing is approximately 200,000 jobs annually - or one-tenth of one percent annually. Don't get me wrong - on a personal level, this is a very troubling thing for those 200,000 employees as statistics show over a third of them have not found replacement work in over 3 years. Again while a sad thing for those 1/10th of 1% of Americans annually, nearly two-thirds of them find replacement work within a year. This is not as "big" of a problem as many Democrats would like America to think - by the numbers, it's actually quite small. And the financial benefit to all Americans, especially the middle class, would arguably far outweigh the regretful parts of outsourcing.
I look at this topic this way - anyone who is passionately opposed with outsourcing, despite how small of an issue it is in America, and how few victims don't find work within a year - those passionate supporters of all things being "Made in the USA" and wanting to find ways to financially penalize (tax) companies who outsource jobs should ensure they buy only products made in the USA - realizing they will pay on average 15% more for those products meaning less money saved and less "things" for the kids and family because the resources are more strained. (wow, what a run-on sentence)
Of course, at the heart of the issue is a belief of Democrats that there is a much larger impact to American jobs then there really is and a general hatred for profits and businesses.
So in summary - outsourcing benefits Americans by driving down the costs of goods by an average of 15% resulting in more funds for financial needs. Savings from buying products manufactured by outsourced labor is then spent on more consumption - driving up jobs as evidenced by most outsourced jobs finding replacement work within a year. So - after all, outsourcing isn't so bad.
ReplyDeleteTopic #2:
ReplyDeleteWhy I think Pell Grants Should Go Away...
I believe education should be available to all Americans who desire it - regardless of their financial capacity to pay for it. Period. See, Emily, we agree. I, however, disagree with how we, as a country, are making good on that commitment to education, innovation, and investment in our future business owners.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) has figured it out. There are many business owners who present too high of a financial risk to enable a bank to be comfortable extending credit to them. However, credit is a necessary component of many business owners' strategy to bring their products to market. Without credit, they can't produce their products. So how does the US Government address this problem? The SBA will GUARANTEE loans made between business owners and banks so that if a business stops making the payments, the government will make the bank whole on 75% of the loan amount. The bank still loses 25% of the unpaid amount. Its a shared risk between the US Government and Private Sector (banks). This is a great marriage of powers. Banks bring the money (capital) to ensure jobs are created and products are brought to market. The US Government ensures that banks don't take big losses on their loans for "taking a chance on a small business." What's the result? Approximately 98% of those loans are repaid as agreed by the business owner. Can you imagine how much LESS money the government paid to spur economic growth by partnering with banks in that example vs. just writing checks as an economic stimulus?
So why should Pell Grants go away forever? Pell grants, or free money, has a higher risk of abuse, the recipients are as invested in the wise use of those funds as they would be if they were responsible for it, and quite frankly, the country doesn't have the money to keep doing it. Easy solution - have the Government guarantee loans made by banks to those with poor credit, issues with parents prohibiting the student from qualifying for loans, or any other risk - the government guarantees the loans but the funding for education is still the responsibility of the student to repay when they find work. If those loans default - the Government writes a check for a portion of the losses to the banks. Clearly, the US Government would write much less checks by guaranteeing loans vs giving away free money.
Problem solved. We have cut the deficit a little bit more - education is still available to all who want it without respect of their economic circumstance. Banks receive interest on more loans - creates more taxable profits and more jobs at banks to handle the increased loan demand. Gosh, with an argument that sound, you and I would be hard pressed to find an argument against this plan...well, that is unless the Democrats just don't like the idea of "responsibility" in place of "free money for the constituents that will vote for me!"
We find common ground!? Amazing! I do like your idea! I have thought about that similarly as well--but my thought being a no interest rate loan through the government in which the borrower has to prove they cannot repay the loan in a certain number of years after graduation in order to be released from paying it back. The fault with mine is that then the graduate could defer employment in order to get out of paying the loan off for x amount of years...and that doesn't help the economy. Pell Grants have always been something I supported and education is always good--people NEED to broaden their minds and get training to be employed. And right now we need education to help the economy. There already are loans available at low interest rates...but not available to people with poor credit, so just wondering, but I imagine you mean a low interest rate student loan for people who do not qualify for the other student loans. I LOVE education and I do not want Pell Grants to "go away forever" UNLESS there was a great way to replace it! :) The only part of it that makes me hesitant is that it would ruin the credit for that person who took out the loan if they do not repay it and what would the process be if they could not repay? And how is that determined and when would the government have to repay the loans. BC if it is through a bank wouldn't that hurt the bank if the government doesn't want to repay the loan until the due process is fulfilled through the borrower? Am I making sense? I do not have banking terminology.I just don't want to freeze up the banks again!
ReplyDeleteI imagine the same system would be used to determine eligibility for these loans?
And now for "Debbie Downer": My only negative response is that Republicans have been quoted as wanting to get rid of Government regulation in loans (including student loans?). I am not sure how factual that is and I will have to check. But I think it is important to keep interest rates low on student aid. Would Republicans ever agree on this? As you are aware I do not trust Republicans. But since you are one of them, maybe you would know if they would ever see the light with this sort of a system? I think democrats would be nervous about it just bc we would be worried it was a gimmick or a way to get rid of Pell Grants and when this new "Student Aid system" fails..then we are left with nothing. But I honestly like your idea! It is exciting to agree on something! :)
UGH. I found typos in that. I am not worried about the bad credit...I cut out the rest of that...and left the first part in! BC the students applying for these loans your idea is based on already have bad credit...so scratch that. And sorry about the other typos...makes it hard to read. I typed fast and should have edited it.
DeleteBrian I understand your argument. But my stance is that where other countries are better than Americans in the making of certain products, it is necessary to import those products. Also, I don't think that Democrats believe it is a huge problem...but it is a big deal to that person who wants a job in that field but cannot find it. Also it is just another talking point and way to differ from Romney during an election. However, I am very uncomfortable when people talk to me about wanting to make a business and pay very little on labor in other countries of things that can be made here and can provide jobs to Americans and manufacturers here. For instance, tee shirts and things that we have the ability and technology to do here. Cars are something we are getting better at...thanks to Obama...but it is still a competitive market with international companies. Furthermore, I do not believe that Democrats hate capitalism as much as they are labeled....but we just would like, in an economy like we are in, to make adjustments to be more self sufficient and to be able to provide jobs and products that can grow our economy internally. (Same with energy--but different topic). I think "the times are a-changin" and should cause for many adjustments in ways that when we were "prosperous" (to steal from the BOM) we didn't need to worry or debate about. (Like Pell Grants!--there should be some adjustments--not eliminations--but adjustments to programs in order to save money). Obama doesn't say that exportation of labor should be illegal...but it should not receive the same tax credits as the manufactures in the USA (products made in the USA). I hope that made sense...I really should not be replying to comments today! My thoughts are jumbled! I hope it made sense! :)
ReplyDeleteWe are getting so close! Just a few tweaks and I think we are there...
ReplyDeleteFirst, why would you want there to be a potential for these student loans to be forgiven? Do we have to give a student the potential for it to be free money in order to motivate them to go to college. If so, we should consider if that is really a wise investment of our money. I would say it is not. The chief motivation should be the knowledge and potential to better your financial circumstances via more education. Agreed? So....I think it is settled....all future student aid comes via a loan not free money.
As for how it accrues interest and who funds the up-front cost...banks are already in place and are FAR better at running a loan program than the government. After all, it is our business model. So...loans to be administered by banks. As far as interest rates, I like your suggestion that the rate be very low. The government could subsidize the banks on this. For example, a bank needs to make at least 3% on a loan in today's economy to make it worth it to make the loan. Is 3% too high for a student to pay for a lifetime of knowledge and learning? ;) But if it is, and we know rated won't always be this low, so sure...government can subsidize the rate so the bank makes a return they need to make to justify the loan and the student nevers pays more than a few percent.
If the student fails to pay their loan...they get the same consequences as anyone else who has made a commitment and fails to repay it....a bad credit score. But let's be honest, if we try to insulate people from the consequences of theirs choices, people aren't accountable for their choices and then they don't have to care about the outcomes.
So...all future student aid is loans....administered by banks....guaranteed by the government if needed....with rates subsidized by the government if necessary. Do you realize how we have just cut the deficit? We should be proud of ourselves!!!!?
As far as outsourcing...are you willing to pay 15% for all of your clothes if they are made in the USA with our more expensive labor? So...you buy the same product, same quality but pay 15% more for it? Can't we just spin that as a tax increase on the middle class? I won't be as presumptuous on this topic as I was with student aid because I genuinely would like to understand the dems position. I don't know of any GOP folks would applaud outsourcing...we just came to terms with the economic feasibility of it. After all, in the words of every reality TV talent show host, "America has voted,and......" they have made it economically clear they would prefer to pay 15% less for products made in a foreign country....hence we outsource. Companies wouldn't do it if Americans voted with their wallets and showed them they want "made in the USA" even when it costs more.
ReplyDeleteSo, please elaborate for me. How is this Company's fault for outsourcing? Isn't it the American people driving this movement?
Don't forget about these two posts - we are getting so close to building a true political bond! Looking forward to your feedback on both items!
ReplyDeleteI didn't know you commented or responded again! OK...so for the student loans...I do think that Government needs to subsidize...but Brian! There are already government subsidized student loans! So are we talking about lower qualifications...or in other words the same structure in place for Pell Grants but apply those guidelines for these loans? I understand that it will affect their credit if they do not pay it back...but I am just saying that right now is not the best time to get a job even with a bachelor's degree...and so if they do not get a job...I don't want them to be in debt and then have nothing good come from it (although education is always good). Ya know? So if they can't pay bc they cannot get a job...I think there should be something in place...that is why Pell Grants were great incentives for students to further their education. I am kinda torn on this. So close!
ReplyDeleteOutsourcing:
I am fine with paying more for USA made...but I think I said, I don't think that outsourcing should be illegal...but that they should not have the same tax breaks as people who keep their manufacturers in America. Those people should be applauded...and thereby rewarded for trying to help us be self-sufficient and provide jobs to his/her fellow man...when it is easier to pay other countries less to do it. Ya know?
On the loans - Yes, come one, come all - all people qualify for loans now regardless of race, economic circumstance, grades in high school, etc because the government will guarantee the loan against losses. As far as finding a way to insulate people from the unfortunate circumstances of making a commitment (forgiving debts if they can't find a job) - dangerous slope to tread down, don't you think? Where would you stop? I am sure there are a lot of mortgage holders who would love to get a clean credit score after the housing crisis - but at some point, we are accountable, are we not? I realize its not the perfect scenario for the Democrats but certainly there is much good from a proposal like this when government checking account balances are running low. Moment of truth - if this proposal were to come down on the Senate floor and you were representing Utah - would you vote yes or no on it?
ReplyDeleteThis is how I would reach across the aisle when I am a Senator - trying to test the waters to see if my efforts could produce bi-partisan results!
Outsourcing...okay, so let me get this straight from the Dems point of view...you concede that its American people who are voting with their wallets to tell companies that they want products produced in a cheaper environment. You concede that these companies are responding to what consumers are asking for. Its just the government's role to intercede in the transaction by posing some sort of tax consequence onto the companies for responding to the American consumer - to provide goods at a cheaper price? Wouldn't the government's tax increase to the company just wipe out the cost savings the company realizes by using cheaper overseas labor? I think the answer is yes to that question. So if yes, then wouldn't the US companies just translate that cost of doing business overseas into a higher sale price of their merchandise - thus eliminating the 15% benefit our middle class American's currently save by buying products made in foreign countries? So that idea of yours would just pass the savings realized from producing goods in China into the US Government's wallet via a tax instead of the Middle Class wallets at the registers of Wal-Mart. Personally - I am opposed to taxing the middle class like you have suggested. Maybe I misunderstood your point of view and what the end result would be on the middle class wallets?? Please clarify.
Oh man...here again we find differences, don't we? I am not going to argue responsibility...I am just a realist. I think that Democrats would be upset with taking funding away from education...the loans would only work if they somehow guaranteed that people with no or poor credit (and I am mostly referring to young people starting college) to get a subsidized loan from the Government...if you are taking Pell Grants off the table. But see...that is why we won't. BC banks won't lend to these people and they are then stuck. They cannot break the cycle of poverty...and I can't agree with that. Darn...so close.
ReplyDeleteYes, with outsourcing I think that the government should in times like today when we need to employ our own bc millions are out of work, give incentives in the form of tax cuts to those companies willing to take the "risk" on the American people and keep jobs at home. It isn't so much PUNISHING the people who outsource. They are still getting business through the people "voting with their wallets." I look at it more as awarding the manufacturers who stay local. Talk about entitlement! Wealthy companies whining about losing out on tax cuts. You are fighting harder for the wealthier Americans than the poor...and that is where we are different. I think you are very charitable...don't get me wrong! But even though the church has a wonderful welfare system...many people do not participate in this system...millions do not! Therefore, I think it is a good thing that Government work for us to better the lives of our people. I think people in the church forget there is life outside the church.
Well, see this is what politics are all about...negotiating! Okay, okay - no more pell grants (free money) at all. Government guarantee and subsidize bank loans for students as a first line of defense. If a student is not approved via this process (which I would suggest would be very small given the government's guarantee)...then the government can run a student loan program of its own where the gov't funds the loans for those who aren't approved via the traditional route of government guaranteed bank finance. Now you are not stuck and Senator Emily can now vote for this law, right?
ReplyDeleteOutsourcing...I was confused...I thought you were proposing a tax increase on the company outsourcing...sounds like you are talking about a tax credit for those that don't outsource. Yeah - that would never work nor be an economically feasible approach. Remember my last statistic where the Labor department noted that 1/10th of 1% of jobs are outsourced annually...translated another way, we have 90+ percent of jobs still in America (give or take). We can't go giving 90% of employers a tax credit for making a product in America to save the 60,000 net jobs that will get eliminated this year and won't get replaced. If you were a senator and saw the pricetag on saving those 60,000 jobs - would you honestly vote for that law? Good heavens, just pay those 60,000 unreplaced workers via the government payroll at $50,000 a piece, that would be much cheaper then giving a tax credit to the 90% of US companies that don't outsource. I would pray the Dems wouldn't really vote for a tax credit like that - its policies like that which don't make any fiscal sense (spend more giving a tax credit to save 60,000 jobs then just putting those 60,000 outsourced workers on the payroll of the US government for a fraction of the cost - of course, the tax credit isn't political suicide, hence Dems would be more prone to support that) that drive American's concerned about the deficit nuts! Wouldn't you agree that a tax credit as described isn't feasible at all? Usually a tax credit is geared at providing an economic incentive to a smaller contigency of people to motivate a certain activity - not a way to congratulate a large population who are already doing it the way you want them too simply to punish the 10% that aren't doing it the way you want. See, in this case, its a tax increase on the 10% that aren't behaving the way you want them to that is feasible - of course, that would just be looked at as a tax increase on the middle class - which neither Dems or GOP would support.
Wanna modify your stance on it?
haha. Obviously I need to research outsourcing more...really only that many outsource? That is amazing! OK..then I go back to my original...to tax people who out source...? I think. I will get back to you on that. You made a good argument not to tax them...but I really am against outsourcing! haha. But like I said...if it is something we can do here...and would cost 15% more to purchase...just do it here. But if it is something which we cannot make here...which would be a VERY FEW then outsource away. I guess I am more against the principle of outsourcing, ya know? But Democrats really are not talking about this...FYI! Republicans on the news might make it sound like it...just bc they like to highlight the points you have stated in favor of outsourcing...or not taxing a company bc it does outsource. Do you know what the tax rate is for outsourcing? I really have NO info on this...and have never looked it up...it really isn't a big deal to me. But principally it sounds wrong bc of so many people out of work. I think more importantly, we need job training and education to get people ready for the many jobs available which cannot be filled bc the people out of work do not have the skill set or knowledge to fill those jobs. So that is more important to me.
ReplyDeleteOK! Here is where it gets exciting! I agree with the student loan program you suggest! We agree! Can you believe it!!!? Compromise! See if we can do it...so can the "folks" in Washington...right?!!
OK...with outsourcing...what if they get a tax credit when they START a business, the 1st yr, in the U.S? For new businesses kinda like when you buy a house...what do you think of that tax guy? I am glad I am not the one who has to come up with this stuff! It is exhausting! haha.
ReplyDeleteMy figures were based on the latest available report from the Department of Labor - but that is 2008 data. But yes, this is not as big of a deal as we all think it is. And of course, if everything could be made in the USA we'd all be happy. Just not economically feasible to make it the governments role to regulate outsourcing via tax hikes or incentives. I guess we agree.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the student loan deal - lets ink it up and send it to congress for an immediate vote!
Here is another aspect of outsourcing I have always been curious about from the Dems POV. In 2010, the USA gave nearly $53 billion in aid to foreign countries. Using your own logic of the government should play referee in times of economic stress like today and financially discourage companies from outsourcing when we have so many Americans out of work. Isn't the US government effectively outsourcing stimulus money to other countries when we need it for our people here? Of course,we would all love to give lots of money, hugs, and kisses to our foreign neighbors, allies, and friends. But isn't this one of those buckets that should be turned off in fiscally challenging times like this? Is it worth going into debt for?
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't have the facts...will have to look into what that money went to and to whom. My gut tells me I will agree with it...bc just like I agree with the car industry bail out and still funding welfare and those things...you would disagree with. Sometimes doing small acts for other countries goes a long way in line of defense strategy...so it really depends on the info. That $53 billion is cheaper than the longest war in history isn't it? :) So if it was to build relationships...might be smart. I really have NO idea what countries were benefited.
DeleteI do want to note that Bush was guilty of writing checks left and right and that is why we are in this mess...so certainly scrutiny needs to be used when writing out fatty checks to other countries.
The question is in deed...is it worth going into debt for?
I would never make that a partisan comment. Dems and GOP alike should consider the use of foreign aid dollars. A checkbook without regard to having enough money that flows to foreign countries in good times and in bad times creates a sense of entitlement from foreign countries, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteP.S. you are for the auto bailout because it saved jobs and kept good companies operating in the USA. Can I safely assume your were just as passionately for the bank bailout too for all those same reasons?