Paul Ryan!!

[Elizabeth502]

I think a more likely answer is they’re unsure of what the policy will be in the future and they’re waiting. Businesses need stability, not one policy one year and a different policy the next, and so on. If they are going to make decisions that are long-term committments then they need to be reasonably sure of the govt. policies - tax rates, regulation, etc. (healthcare policy, eg.!) over the next few years. If they are unsure, they will be very conservative and won’t expand or open that factory, e.g. Seems pretty simple to me. Read Amity Schlaes’ The Forgotten Man in which she demonstrates how the private sector didn’t expand in the 30’s during the Great Depression partly due to apprehension about FDR’s unpredictable policies and endless tinkering. Schlaes has written for New Yorker and New Republic - just in case you’re afraid she’s just another right-wing blogger. If you were a business owner and you thought that Obama was about to drive us over the fiscal cliff would you expand your business?

amazon.com/The-Forgotten-Man-History-Depression/dp/0066211700

Ishii

Well, ishii (and thanks for your reply)…It has been my sense that businesses are waiting for a new election, then, because they already know what the current policies are. I just think that that was a little dishonest of them. When lobbying for tax cuts, the rationale they used was that they couldn’t create jobs without such cuts, and with that rationale was the plea for urgency, since at the time of the legislation, jobs desperately needed creating, yesterday. If they didn’t sincerely mean to create jobs during an Obama administration, then the cuts lacked urgency.

(I’m not “afraid” of “right-wing bloggers,” by the way. , but again I appreciate the detail in your reply.)

 

[ishii]

Well, ishii (and thanks for your reply)…It has been my sense that businesses are waiting for a new election, then, because they already know what the current policies are. I just think that that was a little dishonest of them. When lobbying for tax cuts, the rationale they used was that they couldn’t create jobs without such cuts, and with that rationale was the plea for urgency, since at the time of the legislation, jobs desperately needed creating, yesterday. If they didn’t sincerely mean to create jobs during an Obama administration, then the cuts lacked urgency.

(I’m not “afraid” of “right-wing bloggers,” by the way. , but again I appreciate the detail in your reply.)

Thanks for your reply. What “tax cuts” are you referring to? Do you mean the extension of the Bush tax rates? I would not call those tax cuts but rather merely keeping the tax rate as it had been the past eight years. Or, to put it another way, I would call it “not raising taxes during a recession” which even Obama said is not a good idea.

Ishii

 

[RACJ]

You criticize so-called “trickle down” theory, but with the modern Obama/Democrat welfare state you get trickle down charity which empowers bureaucrats, politicians, and increases dependency. But atleast it makes certain liberals*** feel*** they are living out the ideals in the gospel by supporting wealth redistribution. Maybe wealthy/corporations are “sitting on their profits” because they fear that Obama administration will, if it wins, begin acting on its anti-business philosophy that it has espoused in non-teleprompter, unguarded speeches: “we need to spread the wealth around” “you didn’t build this business” etc.

How about the stimulus package, Cmatt. Wasn’t it supposed to spur economic growth and reduce unemployment? What happened? Obama doesn’t know the first thing about what causes economic growth and business to flourish - please tell me what in his life experience would give him a clue about how the economy and business works? Community organizing? Harvard Law School? He is a committed ideologue - and so are his defenders on these forums.

Ishii

As I have pointed out before to Matt, there is nothing noble or charitable about voting to give "benefits" to someone, from another, at the point of a gun. In my world, that's *stealing*. Matt trusts the powerful federal government leviathan, but seems to disdain corporate entities which actually *produce* wealth. No wealth-producing corporation can take a dime off us against our will, yet he has come to resent *them*. Matt and millions like him, for reasons I can't fathom, have come to love Big Brother. :blush:

 

[RACJ]

One of the few areas about which I agree with you wholeheartedly. I wrote a similar post to this on either this or another thread in the last couple of days.

The most recent excuse that the corporations have given for not creating jobs with their newer tax cuts (which, yes, they promised they would do) is that they’re still insecure about the economy. Hmmm.

Elizabeth, corporations are not charities. They only hire people when they can understand what the cost of hiring will be, and when they stand a good chance of making more profit by adding bodies. Under Obama, there is little incentive to hire anyone. The golden goose, or private sector, is being strangled. Set the goose free!!! Trickle down government is killing us. uch: Rob

 

[_Abyssinia]

I never said anything different. I only said while one cannot vote for an avid pro-abortion candidate, there is not a corresponding obligation to vote for a republican pro-life candidate.

Democrats have rejected to allow pro life people to have a platform. Can you name a democrat with a pro life record?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Democrats have rejected to allow pro life people to have a platform. Can you name a democrat with a pro life record?

I never said anything about voting for a democrat, although it is possible there is one with a pro-life record. All I said is, the Church in no way teaches that our only option is to vote for Romney, if there is another pro-life candidate on the ballot, that is acceptable as well.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

You criticize so-called “trickle down” theory, but with the modern Obama/Democrat welfare state you get trickle down charity which empowers bureaucrats, politicians, and increases dependency. But atleast it makes certain liberals*** feel*** they are living out the ideals in the gospel by supporting wealth redistribution. Maybe wealthy/corporations are “sitting on their profits” because they fear that Obama administration will, if it wins, begin acting on its anti-business philosophy that it has espoused in non-teleprompter, unguarded speeches: “we need to spread the wealth around” “you didn’t build this business” etc.

How about the stimulus package, Cmatt. Wasn’t it supposed to spur economic growth and reduce unemployment? What happened? Obama doesn’t know the first thing about what causes economic growth and business to flourish - please tell me what in his life experience would give him a clue about how the economy and business works? Community organizing? Harvard Law School? He is a committed ideologue - and so are his defenders on these forums.

Ishii

Its called “trickle up poverty”, but only the super-rich, which are protected by the Democrats and Republicans, are safe.

 

[Ecoclimber]

As a former corporate manager, corporations are not waiting to ‘see’ about policies or new laws, we already know what those policies and legislation will be. Corporations will continue to outsource American jobs to China and India and other Asian countries as the best practices strategies in exercising cost efficiency across the board within a corporation Corporations will increase profitability by secure tax breaks and tax incentives to persue such policies through the use in retraining their Asian counterparts by American workers. It’s time to stop the stranglehold that unions have on this country and observe how a profitable corporation can be successfully by offering minimum wage jobs and benefits to support their dreams and their community…

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

As a former corporate manager, corporations are not waiting to ‘see’ about policies or new laws, we already know what those policies and legislation will be. Corporations will continue to outsource American jobs to China and India and other Asian countries as the best practices strategies in exercising cost efficiency across the board within a corporation Corporations will increase profitability by secure tax breaks and tax incentives to persue such policies through the use in retraining their Asian counterparts by American workers. It’s time to stop the stranglehold that unions have on this country and observe how a profitable corporation can be successfully by offering minimum wage jobs and benefits to support their dreams and their community…

Large corporations know what those policies will be, because they spend millions of dollars a year in lobbying COngress to get those laws put into place.

 

[SamH]

As a former corporate manager, corporations are not waiting to ‘see’ about policies or new laws, we already know what those policies and legislation will be. Corporations will continue to outsource American jobs to China and India and other Asian countries as the best practices strategies in exercising cost efficiency across the board within a corporation Corporations will increase profitability by secure tax breaks and tax incentives to persue such policies through the use in retraining their Asian counterparts by American workers. It’s time to stop the stranglehold that unions have on this country and observe how a profitable corporation can be successfully by offering minimum wage jobs and benefits to support their dreams and their community…

So what will next year’s tax rates be?

Who predicted ObamaTax would make it by the Supreme Court?

Who wins this year’s presidential election?

Will the Democrats keep the Senate?

How does my construction corporation based in Kansas outsource its jobs to China, India and Asian countries? I’d love to get in on those massive profits and tax breaks.

 

[epan]

So what will next year’s tax rates be?

Who predicted ObamaTax would make it by the Supreme Court?

Who wins this year’s presidential election?

Will the Democrats keep the Senate?

How does my construction corporation based in Kansas outsource its jobs to China, India and Asian countries? I’d love to get in on those massive profits and tax breaks.

Most wall board comes from china now, along with many other items used in construction. Try to buy structural steel made in the US. It has become nearly impossible to domestically source a large project. Try to find any software written here. Microsoft and apple use China. Others sources are India and Pakistan.

 

[LisaA]

Most wall board comes from china now, along with many other items used in construction. Try to buy structural steel made in the US. It has become nearly impossible to domestically source a large project. Try to find any software written here. Microsoft and apple use China. Others sources are India and Pakistan.

Don’t know if you missed SamH’s point or are obfuscating. A construction company performing work in the US can hardly outsource that work to China. The components such as steel, wallboard etc are made there but the nails are pounded right here in America. We should all do what we do best, most efficiently, and least expensively. The idea of propping up expensive (unions play a part here as do “green” companies) and inefficient industries to “protect” jobs in America is simply a wealth distribution plan. Why on earth are we subsidizing solar energy companies when the panels can be made less expensively overseas? How does it help to take my tax dollars to prop up an industry that has simply failed to provide better quality or cost savings?

I used to be a horse breeder. Shucks why didn’t the government prop up buggy whip manufacturers when the auto became the better mode of transportation? Instead those dying or dead businesses can either reinvent themselves or the capital moves to another industry. Ya’ll might have heard of (or sat on) Kohler Company products. The original business was HORSE TROUGHS…now if Mr Kohler had decided to either stubbornly cling to a dying industry or demanded government subsidies, where would Kohler be or where would the taxpayers be? Instead he took the basic theory…a product that holds water and turned it into a multibillion dollar company.

Basic economics works every time. It’s the tinkering and meddling that makes a muck of everything.

Lisa

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Sorry you feel so threatened by me. I thought I had mentioned earlier that the political and economic system I was referencing is called a “Christian Democracy”. Here’s the wikipedia page on it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_democracy

Here is a bit from the article:

Christian democracy does not fit precisely into the usual categories of political thought, but rather includes elements common to several other political ideologies:

• In common with conservatism, traditional moral values (on marriage, abortion, etc.), opposition to secularization, a view of the evolutionary (as opposed to revolutionary) development of society, an emphasis on law and order, and a rejection of communism.
• In contrast to conservatism, open to change (for example, in the structure of society) and not necessarily supportive of the social status quo.
• In common with liberalism, an emphasis on human rights and individual initiative.
• In contrast to liberalism, a rejection of secularism, and an emphasis on the fact that the individual is part of a community and has duties towards it.
• In common with socialism, an emphasis on the community, social solidarity, support for a welfare state, and support for some regulation of market forces.
• In contrast to socialism, most European Christian Democrats support a market economy and do not adhere to the doctrine of class struggle. This does not necessarily carry over to some Latin American Christian Democratic Parties, which have been influenced by liberation theology.

1. The list is not entirely accurate. Christian Democracy isn’t for a welfare state since a welfare state crowds out charity.
2. Latin American Christian Democratic parties don’t truly represent Christian Democracy because of their liberation theology influences. In general Christian Democratic parties are conservative.
3. Maybe you would like to join forums.catholic-questions.org/group.php?groupid=257

 

[LisaA]

I don’t believe it’s a waste of time considering Ryan’s initial budget proposal, which did not offer seniors Medicare as an option, since this gives us a good idea of his thinking. This is why I am able to infer that Ryan would in fact prefer a voucher system for the purpose of replacing Medicare altogether rather than for making Medicare more solvent. Insofar as Romney’s plan, why should we believe Romney will not be persuaded by his running mate to adopt the latter’s plan? After all, Ryan is supposedly the expert in this area. Besides, Romney is quite fickle, to put it mildly, with respect to his own beliefs and choices on a variety of issues.

Well my concern is that this constant revisiting of plans that were considered and rejected simply muddies the water and gives people the wrong impression. Ryan might well prefer a voucher system in theory but both he and Romney are pragmatic. People need to quit looking at Romney as an idealogue who is married to a certain way of thinking or doing things. THAT is IMO Obama’s biggest flaw, he is often wrong but NEVER in doubt. OTOH Romney is a businessman who focuses on problem solving. He may not seem to “feel our pain” like Clinton but he is willing to look at what works the best. Unlike idealogues he doesn’t have a dog in this fight. “His” plan vs Ryan’s plan…I believe based on everything I’ve seen, read or heard about Romney…that he will look dispassionately on all sides of the issue and focus on what works. That being said, I think he will also adjust if the indications a particular course of action doesn’t work.

I’d much rather have someone who RESPONDS and is willing to change his mind than someone who has put us on the road to perdition and won’t get off because his ego is such that he REFUSES to acknowledge every thing he’s done has turned to rot.

Lisa

 

[Ridgerunner]

It is amazes me that people support the GOP who will outsource most jobs still left in America to a communist country. These multi national global corporations do not need America anymore. So why are the people supporting these Global Multi national corporations and thereby supporting the economy of the communist counrty unless they are communist sympathizers. Your jobs are going to be shipped overseas. Ross Perot said the same thing by stating the largest sucking sound you will hear will be jobs leaving this country.

So tell how people will be able to compete with Chinese workers in sweat shops working for $8 dollars a day for a government who refuses to float their currency? You can’t.

That is why all steel mills closed down and went overseas and Pittsbug became known as the ‘Rust Belt’. How about the garment industry when all clothing was outsourced to third world countries employing children in sweat shop conditions. The southern mills and textile mills of New England were shut down. Now we have computer and technology jobs being outsourced to third parties. Coporate America does not need the United States. They are looking at the 3-4 billion population in Asia and China. In 1989, if your view Tinenamen square the majority of the people rode bicycles. Now they have Porches, Lamborghini, Ferrari, BMW etc.

So why are global Multi Natoinal corporations supporting a communist regime if these corporate executives are not sysmpatheic to their cause? Does that alarm anyone? Why has China proped up North Korea? Why had China and Russia voted against every resolution in the security council to stop Iranian and Syrian aggession? Why is China taking over territorial waters from the Philiphine and Vietnam in the South China Sea? Why is China more concern about Sudan interests than our own when we supply them with largest trade surplus in any countries history, provide them with technolical and manufacturing jobs and a huge industrial complex to employ their people. Yet, with all that we provide in the way of jobs, they thumb our nose at us everytime.

Please tell me then how Chinese submarine popped up alongside the U.S.S. KittyHawk in the middle of naval exercises surrounded by a screen of the most technologically advanced naval frigates, destroyers and submarines?

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

The Dong Feng 21D is an unprecedented carrier-killing missile that could be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier at a distance of more than 1,500 kilometers (900 miles).

Gates said China’s investments in cyber and anti-satellite warfare, anti-air and anti-ship weaponry, along with ballistic missiles, “could threaten America’s primary way to project power” through its forward air bases and carrier strike groups.

It would not be able to get within 900 miles of China to protect Taiwan or the Philippines. Armed Services cancelled orders to build anymore carriers

It would be helpful to click on the actual links to understand the technology

weapons.technology.youngester.com/2010/08/df-21d-chinese-aircraft-carrier-killing.html

“Most Favored Nation” status was given to China by Clinton. Trade and outsourcing followed that decision like night follows day. Whether or not it was wise to do it, you can’t say rightly say it was a Republican development either then or now. For goodness sake, Obama’s “jobs advisor” is Jeffrey Imelt of GM who has shut down plants in the U.S. while opening them in China.

 

[DeniseNY]

GE actually, not GM.

 

[LisaA]

Yes, I am aware of the concept of differential diagnosis in medicine in which several diseases may have overlapping symptoms, and sometimes this is a valid reason for more tests. However, extra tests are also often performed apart from this situation, sometimes due to fear of litigation, as you mentioned, but also due to the demands of the insurance companies…

Curious why you think insurance companies would demand more tests. Intuitively that makes no sense at all as they have to PAY for each test. It would be preferable to question, reject or fail to authorize particular tests or treatments and thus reduce their costs. Working with insurance companies on a daily basis, I have yet to see one that asks the doctor to do MORE rather than less. Now there are certain tests and screenings that are mandated, mammograms etc. So the doctor will refer a patient for those tests even if he/she thinks they aren’t needed.

I think the main reason for “excess tests” is a doctor who is truly trying to do the best for his patient, trying to pin down a diagnosis or determine the best course of treatment depending on the results. Regardless of what some think that doctors are all in it for the money…greedy pigs that they are…the fact is that one MUST care about people or they wouldn’t get into medicine.

The other reason is the defensive medicine aspect. Honestly Meltzerboy, do you know of insurance companies that demand excessive test and if so why?

I maintain that a single medical record is worth the cost and would indeed improve the efficiency of medical care and, consequently, the patient’s outcome. This record might even be the domain of the physician’s administrative assistant rather than the physician by means of a coordinated division of labor. The current piecemeal chart method means extra paper work and is more prone to human error as well as mis-diagnosis due to the physician’s not having the complete history of the patient’s treatment. Hacking may be a problem and must be safeguarded against as much as possible; but at least it is less likely that vital information will be missing.

Honestly Meltzerby, why? I know it SOUNDS great but a) charts are pretty much electronic now, the piles of paper are oh so 20th century b) how does this help in a patient care aspect? IOW is a one chart with everything from circumcison to prostate cancer all that helpful in diagnosis or treatment?

I’m simply weighing the incredible costs vis a vis the perceived benefit. I don’t see it as someone who works in a clinic and understands the process. Further the risk of hacking, personal information being compromised, and manipulation of records is too great given the possible benefit.

Sorry to go down the rabbit trail here but what I see in Obamacare and the many legislative actions regarding the practice of medicine is that they are not patient centered but bureaucrat centered. Costs piled on with minimal if any benefit to the PATIENT. That’s what we should care about, the patient. But poor guy he’s the pawn of the various powers that be while the doctor is trying to care for him while simultaneously being assaulted by new regulations, requirements and administrative tasks.

Lisa

 

[ComputerGeek25]

“Most Favored Nation” status was given to China by Clinton. Trade and outsourcing followed that decision like night follows day. Whether or not it was wise to do it, you can’t say rightly say it was a Republican development either then or now. For goodness sake, Obama’s “jobs advisor” is Jeffrey Imelt of GM who has shut down plants in the U.S. while opening them in China.

I can summerize your paragraph: There is plenty of blame to go around.

Simply blaming all outsourcing on Republicans simply shows that one is ignorant of history.

 

[Ridgerunner]

GE actually, not GM.

Oops! Typo. Sorry.

 

[qui_est_ce]

On a long term basis we are going to need more doctors, not fewer, and focusing on how little we can pay them is hardly going to inspire someone to go into medicine.

Lisa

Great post. What we have to remember is health insurance =/= health care.