ForumGarden

The rich, businesses and corporations get billions in cheap loans and who knows what in tax breaks and other bennies. It seems to me that it was said this was supposed to create jobs.

Where are the jobs?

Nation & World | Where are the jobs? For many companies, overseas | Seattle Times Newspaper

Does anybody see anything wrong with this?

The American sheep voters (which currently outnumber thinking citizens) are convinced that they only have a choice between the lesser of two evils, and then are surprised when the result is evil.

New business creates new jobs. Allowing relics of past business practice to collapse allows new business to flourish. Bailing out failed business is wasteful and harmful to American society.

It seems to me that this is the biggest problem with centralizing so much of our gov't control and decision-making in Washington. The decision-makers can't make a single program fit all situations throughout the country. We've got to return control of domestic operations back to the state and local governments. If they do harm they only harm their area, but if they do good then that good can be adapted to suit other areas.

It seems to me that this is the biggest problem with centralizing so much of our gov't control and decision-making in Washington. The decision-makers can't make a single program fit all situations throughout the country. We've got to return control of domestic operations back to the state and local governments. If they do harm they only harm their area, but if they do good then that good can be adapted to suit other areas.


So we stop giving corporations that ship jobs overseas tax breaks, tax imports heavily and take that tax money and give it to states to create businesses which hire people? The states could give loans or grants to entrepreneurs and domestic business?

I can't quite visualize what you're saying.

posted by accountable

It seems to me that this is the biggest problem with centralizing so much of our gov't control and decision-making in Washington. The decision-makers can't make a single program fit all situations throughout the country. We've got to return control of domestic operations back to the state and local governments. If they do harm they only harm their area, but if they do good then that good can be adapted to suit other areas.


Trouble is you need central control with the authority to make big corporations behave themselves. The problem you have it seems to me is not central big government but the reality that big corporations control it. It was government that took away the legislation that would have prevented the mortgage debacle in the states. It's the lack of control that led to the gulf opil leak. It's the inability of thord world countries to control multinational corporations that lead to so much suffering and misery in nigeria and south america. Government is not a problem it's who controls it that is. It seems nowadays anyone that yells power to the people in the US gets shouted down as a communist or something. Yet that's what it was all about in 1776 was it not?

posted by scrat

So we stop giving corporations that ship jobs overseas tax breaks, tax imports heavily and take that tax money and give it to states to create businesses which hire people? The states could give loans or grants to entrepreneurs and domestic business?


In europe one of the functions of govt is to help areas with high unemployment to recover. The EU enterprise fund actually did make a difference.

I think that unions need to be done away with.

flopstock;1348996 wrote: I think that unions need to be done away with.Why?

Do a google search on the series "Waste On The Water". It's a documentary about the fraud in the Washington State Ferry System. I do think we need unions but what we don't need is the abuse and corruption unions are rife with.

Corporations nor government in America work for the good of the country. Investors do not work for the good of the country nor do unions. No one works for the good of the country.

I can't think of a better way to destroy a country.

Scrat;1349034 wrote: Corporations nor government in America work for the good of the country. Investors do not work for the good of the country nor do unions. No one works for the good of the country.

I can't think of a better way to destroy a country.Define "work for the good of the country".

Define "work for the good of the country".


Example. Boeing and the farce called the 787 Dreamliner. They've outsourced its various parts to different countries, taking jobs out of the country and this whole project has basically been a disaster. It's years behind schedule.

It's not working for the good of the country.

Another example is the car I just bought, its a Hyundai. It was assembled in Canada and most of its parts were and or still are made in Korea. Why is that? Cheap labor and increased profits. Why aren't the cars and the parts made here so more Americans will have living wage jobs?

This doesn't serve the country. There are many more examples I'm sure.

Scrat;1349068 wrote: Example. Boeing and the farce called the 787 Dreamliner. They've outsourced its various parts to different countries, taking jobs out of the country and this whole project has basically been a disaster. It's years behind schedule.

It's not working for the good of the country.

Another example is the car I just bought, its a Hyundai. It was assembled in Canada and most of its parts were and or still are made in Korea. Why is that? Cheap labor and increased profits. Why aren't the cars and the parts made here so more Americans will have living wage jobs?

This doesn't serve the country. There are many more examples I'm sure.Ah, I see. This explanation supports your claim that: "Corporations nor government in America work for the good of the country. Investors do not work for the good of the country nor do unions. No one works for the good of the country.

I can't think of a better way to destroy a country."

Scrat;1348962 wrote: So we stop giving corporations that ship jobs overseas tax breaks, tax imports heavily and take that tax money and give it to states to create businesses which hire people? The states could give loans or grants to entrepreneurs and domestic business?

I can't quite visualize what you're saying.
I don't think anyone should get any federal tax breaks at all.

Tax imports heavily? That smacks of market manipulation, which Washington has proven time and again that they can't do well. Although taxes from imports could be used for federal gov't operations so that they would take less from citizens. That would be good.

State governments don't create jobs any more effectively than the federal gov't. Jobs is not the government's job, but I like your idea of state gov't loans from taxes. It could be more easily focused on the towns that need it than Washington could ever do.

I have a saying: Washington should only be allowed to do what only Washington can do. Washington politicians have stretched the definitions of "interstate commerce" and "general welfare" until they can be forced to apply to anything, which renders them meaningless. We need to wrestle domestic affairs out of the greedy grasping fingers of the Washington power-mongers and return them to local & state control.

Decentralized control means multiple approaches to problems, which naturally encourages innovation. Good ideas in one State spur better ideas in another State. Centralizing control in Washington squelches innovation, removes decision-makers from the problem, and dilutes accountability. How many times have we heard "Don't blame me. I voted against it but the other state reps outnumbered us"? Making the decisions at the level of gov't as close as possible to the problem is always the way to go, imo.

gmc;1348984 wrote: posted by accountable



Trouble is you need central control with the authority to make big corporations behave themselves. The current central control has the authority, they simply don't use it.The problem you have it seems to me is not central big government but the reality that big corporations control it. True, and yet you're recommending that we keep control in central big gov't hands. It was government that took away the legislation that would have prevented the mortgage debacle in the states. True. It's the lack of control that led to the gulf opil leak. Lack of enforcement; the authority was there. It's the inability of thord world countries to control multinational corporations that lead to so much suffering and misery in nigeria and south america. Government is not a problem it's who controls it that is. It seems nowadays anyone that yells power to the people in the US gets shouted down as a communist or something. Yet that's what it was all about in 1776 was it not?
I don't understand your point. My whole arguement is to bring power back under The People's control by bringing decisions as physically close to home as possible. It would make decision-makers more accountable to The People because they would only be working for those who elected them. Our current federal congress ostensibly works for all The People, but each representative is not accountable to all - only to their own state.

flopstock;1348996 wrote: I think that unions need to be done away with.Unions, government, guns, are all necessary and useful at times, but are harmful if overused or used when something else would serve better. Unfortunately we can place a gun in a cabinet and it will dutifully do nothing until called upon. Unions and governments have people in them. Those people are paid for running the unions & governments, and so must justify their jobs. It's too bad that a candidate would never win with a slogan of "If elected, I will do nothing!"

Scrat;1349034 wrote: Corporations nor government in America work for the good of the country. Investors do not work for the good of the country nor do unions. No one works for the good of the country.

I can't think of a better way to destroy a country.
I agree. That's why only the absolute minimum amount of power should be allowed in Washington. The only decisions they should be allowed to make are those which can't be made at the state or local levels. That should be the litmus test of any new law: can each state make its own decision on this? If the answer is yes, then it should not be a federal law. Narrowing federal gov't responsibilities in this way would make it easier to catch Washington politicians acting in their personal interests rather than national interests.

Ahso!;1349006 wrote: Why?


I'll second that why.

Why take away the rights of people in private industry to organize? Actually, you can't. The SCOTUS would overturn a law banning unions 9-0. Now, govt employees are a different matter and their unions can and should be dissolved.

Better idea! Do away with all of the anti-trust exemptions the unions enjoy and put them onto equal footing with the businesses with which they negotiate. Surprisingly, I believe union membership would grow dramatically. I could see unions becoming associations were members could use their leverage to negotiate lower health care costs and form funds for retirement accounts. You see, when I become king, you'll be responsible for your own health care and retirement because employer paid bennies, Medicare & SS will be fazed out.

This will shed some light on the subject.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/busin ... s&emc=tha2

I'll be back later, I need to tinker with my truck. Anybody know where the PCV valve on a Toyota 3 litre V-6 is? It's not the black fitting on top of the right valve cover.

It's likely on the passenger side valve cover. Under the intake plenum. It's a little hard to see.

Yeah, I found it. Damn near impossible to get to.

Anyway back on topic.

Better idea! Do away with all of the anti-trust exemptions the unions enjoy and put them onto equal footing with the businesses with which they negotiate.


I'm in agreement. Not a lot of competition out there when it comes to certain things, especially large public projects. I see one problem beginning with ACs idea though.

We just broke ground here on the biggest public utility project in this states history. The replacement of the Alaskan Way viaduct with a tunnel. This is a local state project with a small amount of government dollars involved. It's also the most expensive choice we had and the cost overruns are going to be tremendous, it's going to be the west coasts big dig.

It seems our state wanted to make everyone happy, property owners, unions and business in general. If you read about it you will cringe, they're trying to do the hardest thing in the worst possible place at the worst possible time.

What about inept pandering government at state level? This is just as bad as the Feds.

Scrat;1349307 wrote:

What about inept pandering government at state level? This is just as bad as the Feds.


Toss them out on their ears.

It is much easier and less expensive to campaign and get good results at the local level.

Scrat;1349307 wrote: What about inept pandering government at state level? This is just as bad as the Feds.
Not nearly. The government's smaller, generally within driving distance of any citizen, and can't print its own money.

You know...I was just thinking about this today. Wouldn't it have been a better idea to have given all that money to start up smaller manufacturing companies? I also think it would be a good idea to have our government computing power take a look at everything that we have in surplus and how we could use it to turn a profit and make things. In other words...

I'm sick of "Made in China" on everything I own.

I agree that that would have been better than giving billions to companies who've already wasted billions.

It would have been even better to have cut extraneous programs such as the Dept of Education and closing permanent military bases that we have on allies' sovereign soil, then declaring 2008 a federal tax-free year. Individual citizens could have taken their tax refund checks and made their own decisions on how to spend their own earned money.

1.A local union is fighting the firing of a local nurse and four aides who restrained a veteran and inserted suppositories as a practical joke on the night shift staff at the local veterans home. The night shift had apparently complained they were lazy and left routine care of the patients for them to handle.

These folks admitted what they had done eventually and were fired. The union is sticking with them.

2.The local teachers union had their teachers strike because they weren't getting enough of a raise and were being asked to contribute a small percentage for family insurance under the new contract. This, at a time when businesses around them are closing and their students families are losing jobs on a massive scale.

3.My ex used to get overtime pay for not working - if something that fell under his job needed doing and they just had someone who was there go ahead and do it, they both got paid.

Unions used to protect workers. IMO, it's easier and less expensive to just farm it out anymore. And hey, we can all afford these cheaper products, made in foreign lands - at least until our own job is gone.

We used to have a Westclox and Sundstrand in this town - now we have walmart and japanese owned plants who only hire temps.

posted by scrat

Another example is the car I just bought, its a Hyundai. It was assembled in Canada and most of its parts were and or still are made in Korea. Why is that? Cheap labor and increased profits. Why aren't the cars and the parts made here so more Americans will have living wage jobs?


Why are you buying foreign made cars then and not supporting american factories by buying american cars made in america?

posted by accountable

I don't understand your point. My whole arguement is to bring power back under The People's control by bringing decisions as physically close to home as possible. It would make decision-makers more accountable to The People because they would only be working for those who elected them. Our current federal congress ostensibly works for all The People, but each representative is not accountable to all - only to their own state.


True, and yet you're recommending that we keep control in central big gov't hands.




How do you control the activity of big powerful corporations? If one state has -say tough environmental or employee protection laws then corporations move to a state where it is lax. You need some kind of central control to prevent abuse. You need both good local government and central government but to whom do your elected representatives listen, the people or the big companies that help finance them? The bankers or the vast majority that think they are getting away with wrecking the economy? You need a balance of power to stop the rich and powerful taking advantage as they will always do.

Lack of enforcement; the authority was there.


Bet when the report comes out it will be found that either safety inspections were skimped or the recommendations were not enforced.

A free for all dog eat dog capitalist economy is not actually capitalism you need to have some way of curbing the power and influence of the powerful interests that want the freedom to do as they like.

Our current federal congress ostensibly works for all The People, but each representative is not accountable to all - only to their own state.


All politics is compromise political systems need to be able to change with the times. There's nothing wrong with the basic concept you just need to break the ability of power brokers to power broke for narrow interests. I haven't a clue how you can do it. Ordinary people are the ones suffering most in the present crisis yet they did nothing to cause it maybe they will get pissed off enough to take action.

Bringing power back to the people, power to the people, are you a closet socialist? A soviet in every town ( no smilies for some reason, just imagine they are there). Left wing parties always self destruct, right wing parties some bastard ends up on top. The people get pissed and force change and then go back to sleep till the next time they feel the need to sort the bastards out. It's quite an interesting time to be around, at least we seem to have got beyond the urge of the major powers to destroy each other with nuclear weapons

gmc;1349406 wrote: posted by scrat

Why are you buying foreign made cars then and not supporting american factories by buying american cars made in america?Because they don't exist, at least not in the pure form you seem to imply. Foreign cars are assembled here. San Antonio has Toyota's largest Tundra plant. American car parts are manufactured in the Far East. I used to drive a Plymouth Laser



which looks eerily similar to the Mitsubishi Eclipse



When I was in England in the early '90's Vauxhall's cars all coincidentally carried the same names as our Chevrolets. It would take a lot of research to figure out which car purchase would reward putting the most money in Americans' hands.

gmc;1349406 wrote: How do you control the activity of big powerful corporations? Some really effective ways would be to disallow their financial influence on the political system, stop giving them unfair advantage over their smaller competition, and allow them to fail when they screw up. If one state has -say tough environmental or employee protection laws then corporations move to a state where it is lax. You need some kind of central control to prevent abuse. You need both good local government and central government but to whom do your elected representatives listen, the people or the big companies that help finance them? The bankers or the vast majority that think they are getting away with wrecking the economy? You need a balance of power to stop the rich and powerful taking advantage as they will always do. Do you use this argument when supporting giving more power to the EU? That's essentially equivalent. So change the POV for a sec: If Scotland has -say tough environmental or employee protection laws then corporations move to the US where it is lax, do we need some kind of central control to prevent that abuse? Where is the line of sovereignty? As I wrote earlier in this thread, "... the absolute minimum amount of power should be allowed in Washington. The only decisions they should be allowed to make are those which can't be made at the state or local levels."

gmc wrote: Bet when the report comes out it will be found that either safety inspections were skimped or the recommendations were not enforced.

A free for all dog eat dog capitalist economy is not actually capitalism you need to have some way of curbing the power and influence of the powerful interests that want the freedom to do as they like. :-2 You state this as if the first sentence disagrees with what you quoted from me, and the second sentence refutes something that I've said. Neither is the case.

posted by acountable

Do you use this argument when supporting giving more power to the EU? That's essentially equivalent. So change the POV for a sec: If Scotland has -say tough environmental or employee protection laws then corporations move to the US where it is lax, do we need some kind of central control to prevent that abuse? Where is the line of sovereignty? As I wrote earlier in this thread, "... the absolute minimum amount of power should be allowed in Washington. The only decisions they should be allowed to make are those which can't be made at the state or local levels."


I would say yes you do. Take the danube for instance, that runs across several countries, one countr'ys **** run in to the next, to clean it up took pan european action as well as at local level. It's the same cleaning up your rivers, if one state doesn't bother it doesn't matter what the one downstream does you still have the problem. Some things do need to be at a supranational - supra-state(?) level. As to the line of sovereignty that needs to be on a case by case basis IMO. I like the idea of the EU not necessarily all aspects of it. You gain more of you can work together as the EU has shown as has the united states. I have no pat answers and don't trust anyone that thinks they do.

You state this as if the first sentence disagrees with what you quoted from me, and the second sentence refutes something that I've said. Neither is the case.


I was broadly agreeing with you. Sometimes I do this late at night when I'm tired and what I write confuses me in the cold light of day never mind anyone else.

Because they don't exist, at least not in the pure form you seem to imply. Foreign cars are assembled here. San Antonio has Toyota's largest Tundra plant. American car parts are manufactured in the Far East. I used to drive a Plymouth Laser


What about chrysler and ford? The chrysler PT cruiser does well but the engine is german the rest, sebrings and the like are imported from the US and quite frankly they seem pretty crap. They end up just about giving them away I don't know why they bother frankly - Things like the sebring are a bit too wide for our roads and parking spaces.

Incidentally I have a czech made toyota. But if you had seen a british leyland car of the seventies and eighties you would understand why no one would buy them.

gmc;1349503 wrote: I was broadly agreeing with you.
You need to borrow a couple of these.

Accountable;1349505 wrote: You need to borrow a couple of these.




Sometimes when i reply I don't have access to smilies. I haven't yet worked out what it is I'm doing to not access them. :-5:-5:-3:sneaky::yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl