Unenployment continues to rise.....

• Manhattan Buckeye

  In the 1950's Europe and much of the far East was in shambles, they were devastated by the war. The U.S. manufacturing base was more or less a monopoly because there was no manufacturing ability anywhere else, taxes had nothing to do with it.
• Footwedge

  Manhattan Buckeye wrote:
  And what do you say to the folks that work for businesses in the U.S. that are from overseas? UBS? Deutsche Bank? Credit Suisse? BMW? Honda? Novartis? HSBC? Roche?

  You've cited all European companies. European countries also have a social safety net (more overhead) than countries such as China, India, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
  
  We have no problems at all in trading with the countries and the respective companies that you listed.
  
  Because they abide by the same laws (by and large) that we do.
• j_crazy

  

  Skyhook79 wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:

  Mr. 300 wrote: Last week's numbers unexpectedly rose by 38,000.
  
  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/21/new-jobless-claims-rise-expected/?test=latestnews
  
  "Unexpectedly".............why would anyone not expect this???? One year now under Obama and we still don't have "jobs created" as promised.

  Turns out it is harder than expected to fix the ills of the last administration.
  
  The fix is easy. However the wealthy do not want to even consider it therefore it probably will not happen.

  
  Yes, the fix is easy. Cut taxes for the working people. Get rid of Capital Gains
  and cut Business taxes so that they feel more inclined to hire and expand their business's.
  
  BTW- How much longer are you and The Dems going to blame the "previous Administration" for the shortcomings of This Administration?

  
  FWIW 8 yrs of Bush backers blaming Clinton got old too.
• BCSbunk

  Manhattan Buckeye wrote: In the 1950's Europe and much of the far East was in shambles, they were devastated by the war. The U.S. manufacturing base was more or less a monopoly because there was no manufacturing ability anywhere else, taxes had nothing to do with it.

  This is completely false. The 1950's were great for Germany's manufacturing and they were the ones that lost the war.
  http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/series/sfb-649-papers/2008-68/PDF/68.pdf
  
  You see higher taxes can have a good affect on the economy it has been proven however the wealthiest do not want to hear that.
  
  I propose tariffs and NAFTA being done away with. Raising taxes on incomes of over 3.8 million dollars (it was 91% on income over 450K in 1950 which with inflation is 3.8 million today.) to 91% There are loopholes of course.
  
  You can invest in your infrastructure and pay your workers better to reduce profits. The common worker would have taxes reduced. This means there are people with money to buy things.
  
  Taxes reduced on those who make less money.
  
  This is the way it was during the 1950's. Taxes were 91% on people who made more than 450k.
  
  This alone would make our country strong again making a HUGE middle class just like there was in the 1950's.
  
  It is very easy to create more jobs and make the economy better.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  I'm assuming you read your own article, and you noticed that it was a comparative analysis in western Europe, the United States wasn't mentioned at all.
• gut

  Manhattan Buckeye wrote: In the 1950's Europe and much of the far East was in shambles, they were devastated by the war. The U.S. manufacturing base was more or less a monopoly because there was no manufacturing ability anywhere else, taxes had nothing to do with it.

  Yes, but you'll never convince some people that evil corporations aren't destroying American jobs.
  
  Globalization means the line worker no longer has a relative monopoly on his job. When you introduce competition from people with a standard of living decades behind the US, wages are going to decrease. The American worker has not been willing to take such a wage cut and is then left to bitch when his job goes overseas. This is not really new. You could argue the rust belt "lost jobs" when foreign manufacturers and non-union shops recognized the cheaper labor in the south and began locating there.
  
  And for the most part our economy has adapted and persevered. The decline in the inflation-adjusted standard of living/wages is debateable as well when you include benefits, which have been rising.
  
  You want to keep these jobs here, which implies higher labor costs. Those companies then either die trying to compete at a cost disadvantage, or you raise import taxes which then garners retaliation (=inflation). And then net net you are possibly no better off, perhaps worse, and ultimately the entire pie shrinks.
  
  I'm against protectionism. I favor education and training to produce skills and expertise that have a higher value than putting a screw in a door. I shed no tears over losing jobs at the bottom of the pyramid. The key is expanding the upper levels of the pyramid.
• gut

  BCSbunk wrote: I propose tariffs and NAFTA being done away with. Raising taxes on incomes of over 3.8 million dollars (it was 91% on income over 450K in 1950 which with inflation is 3.8 million today.) to 91% There are loopholes of course.
  
  Taxes reduced on those who make less money.
  
  This is the way it was during the 1950's. Taxes were 91% on people who made more than 450k.
  
  This alone would make our country strong again making a HUGE middle class just like there was in the 1950's.
  
  It is very easy to create more jobs and make the economy better.

  How exactly does increasing taxes to exhorbitant rates on the people who create the jobs going to provide them greater ability and incentive to create more jobs?
  
  The fact is, regardless of the incomes tax rates, the IRS has historically collected a very flat percentage of GDP, pretty tightly in a range of 19-21%. This suggests the tax rate is largely irrelevant within a wide band and the real driver of increased revenue is not higher rates but REAL pro-growth policies to increase the size of the pie.
  
  Also, the US has among the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Many are concerned that this is hurting the US ability to attract corporations, and that is far more concerning than the loss of manufacturing jobs because corporate jobs pay higher wages, plus you also get to tax the profits and you get the opportunity to invest and participate in growth through the markets.
  
  And I'm not sure how you are going to lower taxes on those "making less money" considering something like 40% already pay no taxes.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "It is very easy to create more jobs and make the economy better."
  
  Of course it is, we'll just go into a time machine to the 1960's when a high school diploma guarantees a lifetime job with a pension and 2.5 kids and a labrador retriever. This isn't reality anymore.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Actually, I agree with Bunk, to a certain extent, on this.
  That is, to the whole Perot/sucking sound scenario.
• fan_from_texas

  Manhattan Buckeye wrote: In the 1950's Europe and much of the far East was in shambles, they were devastated by the war. The U.S. manufacturing base was more or less a monopoly because there was no manufacturing ability anywhere else, taxes had nothing to do with it.

  Exactly. We had a roaring, war-fueled economy that was significantly more advanced and technical than the rest of the world. Unlike most of Europe and East Asia, we didn't experience significant bombing and infrastructure destruction. That Golden Age of the 1950s had more to do with the lack of global competitors than it did with our economy on its own. The idea that the marginal tax rate had anything to do with it is laughable (as if anyone actually paid the marginal tax rate in the 1950s . . .).
  
  BCSBunk, have you read anything about the Great Depression? Do you think the protectionist wave there have a positive or negative impact on the US and the rest of the world?
  
  The idea that most taxpayers should bear the brunt to prop up globally uncompetitive industries, engendering equal reactions around the world and driving down global utility, is ridiculous. Over the history of the world, economies innovate/adapt or die. Subsidizing inefficient industries that can't compete on the global stage weighs down the rest of the economy and poses nothing but trouble. The idea that we can tariff our way into prosperity is ridiculous.
• fan_from_texas

  BCSbunk wrote: Taxes reduced on those who make less money.
  
  This is the way it was during the 1950's. Taxes were 91% on people who made more than 450k.
  
  This alone would make our country strong again making a HUGE middle class just like there was in the 1950's.

  There have been numerous threads on the FH and the OH regarding the "tax tipping point." Already, a majority of working Americans don't pay any taxes, and many of those actually pay "negative taxes," whereby they're actually paid by the gov't. It's not possible to lower taxes less than zero on the 50% of Americans who already free ride.
• gut

  My god, people! You are all so slow and naive! Think how many jobs we could create if we would just ban computers.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "Already, a majority of working Americans don't pay any taxes, and many of those actually pay "negative taxes," whereby they're actually paid by the gov't. "
  
  I'm not sure how many people posting here didn't know this, but in case some didn't realize this point it should be repeated and explained in greater detail. Many Americans not only don't pay income taxes, they are actually funded with taxpayer dollars in tax season and it isn't necessarily 'welfare'. They aren't 'bad' people, they have just become used to getting the relatively big check in May or whenever based on their tax credits and don't have any real motivation to get a better job or an education or training that will lead to a better job. I work often with pro bono clients in their landlord/tenant cases, and it is the same situation over and over, if they make too much money they have to hide it (including me because I have to report it) or else they will lose their subsidized housing and their Medicaid. They are rational individuals, and understand that they are better off living in poverty and getting the government handouts rather than making $35,000/year and dealing with bills and obligations. Again, they aren't bad people, they are simply rational.
• jmog

  j_crazy wrote:
  
  
  FWIW 8 yrs of Bush backers blaming Clinton got old too.

  Come on, you can't even believe that the Bush number of Bush backers that blamed Clinton was even in the same universe as the number of Obama backers blaming Bush.
  
  Also, Bush never blamed the previous administration for much of anything, Obama's administration can't stop blaming Bush, its their rallying cry.
  
  "Wait, something went wrong? It must be Bush's fault."
• Footwedge

  jmog wrote:

  j_crazy wrote:
  
  
  FWIW 8 yrs of Bush backers blaming Clinton got old too.

  Come on, you can't even believe that the Bush number of Bush backers that blamed Clinton was even in the same universe as the number of Obama backers blaming Bush.
  
  Also, Bush never blamed the previous administration for much of anything, Obama's administration can't stop blaming Bush, its their rallying cry.
  
  "Wait, something went wrong? It must be Bush's fault."

  Everybody on the right blamed Clinton for 9-11. Everyone. In fact they still do...to this day.
  
  Secondly, there wasn't much to blame Clinton for. He left office with an approval rate of 62%. Compare and contrast that with Bush. His approval rate was in the mid to high 20's.
  
  I don't blame Bush for the financial meltdown at all. But the way politics works, he was running the show when the London bridge came tumbling down.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "Everybody on the right blamed Clinton for 9-11. Everyone. In fact they still do...to this day."
  
  No they didn't, maybe some people on the far fringe, but most folks blamed it on extremist Muslim terrorists, you know the truth...but I'm sure you're going to tell me it was an inside job or something weird.
• fan_from_texas

  Footwedge wrote: Everybody on the right blamed Clinton for 9-11. Everyone. In fact they still do...to this day.

  Is that a joke? I didn't blame Clinton for 9/11. I don't personally know of any righties who did. I guess if you associate with fringe right-wing militia-type conspiracy-theory groups, they probably blame Clinton, but I don't think most of us do/did.
• jmog

  Footwedge wrote:
  
  Everybody on the right blamed Clinton for 9-11. Everyone. In fact they still do...to this day.
  
  Secondly, there wasn't much to blame Clinton for. He left office with an approval rate of 62%. Compare and contrast that with Bush. His approval rate was in the mid to high 20's.
  
  I don't blame Bush for the financial meltdown at all. But the way politics works, he was running the show when the London bridge came tumbling down.

  Now you are just making stuff up.
  
  I have only ever heard anyone blame Clinton for 9/11 on the conspiracy websites, the same ones that blame Bush for it.
  
  Now your proof is approval numbers?
  
  1 post ago you said everyone blamed Clinton, now you are saying "well really there wasn't anything to blame him for".
  
  Would you make up your mind, pick one path and go with it, you are looking pretty bad.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Yet another vote here that NOBODY I know blamed Clinton for 9-11.
  
  The only president I EVER heard blamed for it was Bush -- and that was obviously from moon bats on the left.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Unemployment rises in Virginia:
  
  http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/article/JOBSGAT22_20100122-142401/319444/
  
  We're going in the wrong direction. Huge, Quickly.
• LJ

  

  Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Huge, Quickly.

  Whatever you say, Tiger.
• FatHobbit

  

  Footwedge wrote: Everybody on the right blamed Clinton for 9-11. Everyone. In fact they still do...to this day.

  FWIW I do remember some people saying that if Clinton would have taken care of Bin Laden when he had the chance, 9/11 would have never happened.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  FatHobbit wrote:

  Footwedge wrote: Everybody on the right blamed Clinton for 9-11. Everyone. In fact they still do...to this day.

  FWIW I do remember some people saying that if Clinton would have taken care of Bin Laden when he had the chance, 9/11 would have never happened.

  Not quite the way I recall it.
  
  I was critical of Clinton for not pulling the trigger when he had the chance, too. But 9-11 was in the works for years, so taking him out may or may not have had an effect on his plans.
  
  But directly blaming him for the attacks on 9-11?
  
  No.
  
  There were systemic failures in US intelligence that spanned both administrations.
• Footwedge

  jmog wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:
  
  Everybody on the right blamed Clinton for 9-11. Everyone. In fact they still do...to this day.
  
  Secondly, there wasn't much to blame Clinton for. He left office with an approval rate of 62%. Compare and contrast that with Bush. His approval rate was in the mid to high 20's.
  
  I don't blame Bush for the financial meltdown at all. But the way politics works, he was running the show when the London bridge came tumbling down.

  Now you are just making stuff up.
  
  I have only ever heard anyone blame Clinton for 9/11 on the conspiracy websites, the same ones that blame Bush for it.
  
  Now your proof is approval numbers?
  
  1 post ago you said everyone blamed Clinton, now you are saying "well really there wasn't anything to blame him for".
  
  Would you make up your mind, pick one path and go with it, you are looking pretty bad.

  
  "Now you are just making stuff up".
  
  LOL. And how many links do you need showing Fox News etal continuallly blaming Clinton for 9-11?
  
  10? 20? 100? 1000?
  
  LMAO.
  
  And for the record, IMO, Clinton WAS a major player in what went wrong on 9-11.
  
  And George W. Bush blamed Clinton himself
• Footwedge

  FatHobbit wrote:

  Footwedge wrote: Everybody on the right blamed Clinton for 9-11. Everyone. In fact they still do...to this day.

  FWIW I do remember some people saying that if Clinton would have taken care of Bin Laden when he had the chance, 9/11 would have never happened.

  And I agree. People for some reason have very short memories apparently.
  
  Obama blames Bush. Bush blamed Clinton. Clinton blamed the older Bush. And Reagan had a field day blaming Carter.
  
  It's just pure humor to me...all the people criticizing Obama for laying blame on the last guy.