automotive shop 3 days out of 5 without any danger of hitting
anything. My brother's shop is one of the busier small shops (3 men, 5
bays including an alignment rack and A/C equipment - they handle just
There are times when he has more work than they can handle - but more
days when there's barely enough work for one man.
I have been hesitating on posting this question for the past several
days but Stormin Mormon you just convinced me to do so. As a
contractor in Southern California (the stronghold of Democrats) I have
been busy as a one armed paper hanger lately. A far cry from February
to April of this year when I hardly had anyone call. I would
appreciate any input from any contractors out there as to why. Tell
your mechanic that maybe his son needs to join the Army like my son
did because he didnt want to get sewage and grease on his hands like
Well, during the GWB time, we had about 5% unemployment. I believe
that the spike in unemployment was due to the BHO tax increases,
reckless spending, and many new regulations and other unfunded
That unemployment number you are so fond of only counts those that were
employed. Under W there was nearly a net loss of jobs his first term and
a pathetic total over the whole 8 years.
As far as unfunded mandates, what about the Medicare Dug Bill W pushed
through, there never was any funding for that. Nor were the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan ever funded. What about it? Nor were his tax cuts for
the rich ever funded.
And just what benefit did we get out of deregulating derivatives?
That was McCaine's chief economic advisor who snuck that through in the
dead of night.
At this point it looks like you are just babbling talking points
without any real knowledge. But blind faith is your thing, isn't it?
You should have just kept your OT hate to yourself.
While I more or less agree except with the tax cuts. That assumes
that the government is entitled to some of your money just because it
was there before. Also, you do realize that the cuts included taking the
former 10% bracket down to nothing at all, correct?
majorities, so the Dems voted for it in droves. And "sneaking it through
in the dead of night" included votes in both Houses-after committee
meetings-- sending it to the conference committee and then back to both
Houses. I'd have to look it up again, but IIRC, the vote in the Senate
was by acclimation or voice vote.
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
Employment figures mean nothing if they're not sustainable.
The former machinist or factory laborer doing customer service or
applying lawn care chemicals or selling cell phones isn't sustainable.
Didn't see anybody here get to the real problem.
Manufacturing has always been the core of America's wealth.
The core is almost gone.
The economy was always trickle up, from the manufacturing core.
The factory workers enriched the economy and were consumers in the
They were to key factor for most of the "service" economy.
Call them the flywheel, the pilot light, the sourdough starter, or
whatever you want.
Look around you right now. What do you see that didn't come from a
factory or mill?
All that "employment" of service workers for the last 15 years or so
was not sustainable.
Because America's "core" has been shipped overseas.
It ain't hard to figure out.
People making 50 grand buying 300 grand houses and 40 grand cars.
Full of stuff manufactured overseas.
Paid for with more debt.
Gimbel a break.
Didn't anybody here see that coming?
Nobody here struggle to save for their first house and wonder how
their kids could ever afford a house?
Nobody here ever work in a factory whose work was off shored?
Nobody here ever work an IT job that was off shored?
Then you got your public sector salaries and pensions.
Ever wonder why "administrators" pull down $3-400k salaries.
Then $100k pensions after 10 years?
I don't know when this "wealth creation" BS started.
Started noticing it in the Clinton years.
Money grows on trees by shuffling paper.
Don't normally work that way.
Wealth come from work and production.
And making sure more comes in than goes out.
That's why China is rich and we ain't.
Just check out the history of trade balance.
Sure, some get rich by luck with Ponzi schemes like Wall Street
They got paid for investing to offshore jobs.
But that's the exception, not the rule.
Quirk of timing.
Anyway, in the end people usually get what they deserve.
So the guy who got rich with stock "investments" deserves that.
The SOB who laid off his own son deserves that too.
Some people are laughers, some crybabies.
Some just work every day and do both.
You work the "system" to do what's best for you.
Same with changing the "system."
If you don't like it, change it.
Try not to be a sucker for anybody.
A romantic notion.
Gone are the days of the hunter/gatherer society. It was replaced by an
Then the agrarian society was replaced by the industrial revolution.
We are at the beginning of the manufacturing society being replaced by the
information and service society.
The largest employer in the U.S. is Walmart, and they manufacture nothing.
They leave the production of goods to those who can do them best.
Right. Talk about romantic. Those tired old arguments about American
society's evolution to a "service" economy lead us exactly where we
are - rampant unemployment, soon-to-be second nation status to commie
So they are true in that respect.
All the societies you mentioned except the current American society
involved sweat and hard work by a significant portion of the
population in the production of goods.
Like I said, look around you.
You think all that "stuff" was magically created?
Those who create the "stuff" call the shots.
They own the world. Always have.
And have Americans thinking that Walmart jobs are just great.
Believe what you want.
Just be aware that Walmart probably leads every state with employees
on the Medicaid and food stamps rolls.
Not something I ever aspired to, and not nearly enough slots at
Walmart to provide the masses with jobs.
Hard to fathom how anybody can hold Walmart up as the exemplar of the
"New American service economy."
Bet those Walmart employees provide a lot of work for other service
sector workers, what with all the money they make to spend on
Anyway, I been making my argument for decades without much success.
So your resistance doesn't surprise me.
Many others who said what you do came around though.
Usually right after their job got outsourced overseas.
No reason to think how I do if you're working and making a good buck.
Well, maybe if your grown kids or other family needs your
"assistance," then you might think about it.
That's happening to some.
Don't know for sure if my argument is correct, but so far my
predictions have come true.
Maybe it's not as bad as I think.
I'm just grateful I made and saved my money when "times were good."
Thank the Lord for luck is what I say.
I appreciate your romantic notion that making "stuff" is the secure way to a
If you had asked a 1910 New Yorker about the future transportation problems
when the population of the city reached eight million, he would probably
have asked: "Where will we get enough horses and what will we do with all
the horse shit?"
The fact remains that others can make "stuff" cheaper than we and attempts
to reverse that trend are doomed. And we should not try because it can't be
We should do, instead, what we do better than the rest of the world.
Tabasco sauce comes to mind.
I'd propose a massive cut in Federal spending. Extend the Bush tax
cuts, and ashcan the Obama medical care take over. I'd propose
simplifying the tax code, and make all elected persons subject to the
same laws, entitlements, and medical care that thier constituents
I'm astounded at how those on the right know so much on faith. They have
such faith in their own beliefs that they can not accept that they could
be wrong. It's a fantasy world they live in and they are so convinced
that everyone who thinks differently than they do just has to be wrong.
Tax cuts never pay for themselves.
The tax cuts have been largely opposed by American economists, including
the Bush administration's own Economic Advisement Council. In 2003,
450 economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the
Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President Bush
stating that "these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook...
will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security
and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health,
infrastructure, and basic research... [and] generate further
inequalities in after-tax income."
The Bush administration has claimed, based on the concept of the Laffer
Curve, that the tax cuts actually paid for the themselves by generating
enough extra revenue from additional economic growth to offset the lower
taxation rates. However, income tax revenues in dollar terms did not
regain their FY 2000 peak until 2006. Through the end of 2008, total
federal tax revenues relative to GDP have yet to regain their 2000 peak.
In contrast to the claims made by Bush, Cheney, and Republican
presidential primary candidates such as Rudy Giuliani, there is a broad
consensus among even conservative economists (including current and
former top economists of the Bush Administration such as Greg Mankiw)
that the tax cuts have had a substantial net negative impact on revenues
(i.e., revenues would have been substantially higher if the tax cuts had
not taken place), even taking into account any stimulative effect the
tax cuts may have had and any resulting revenue feedback effects.
Subtract out the W tax cuts and the costs of the two wars and wouldn't
have the deficit we have now. Subtract out W's policy of letting the
markets and big business do whatever was in their immediate best
interest and we wouldn't have a fiscal crisis.
Now, here is how I feel about this. Either actually come up with some
argument based on something other that your blind belief and supported
by nothing more that your saying it is so, or resign yourself to being
referred to as "Storm'n Moron".
Tax cuts increase federal revenue. Always have. It's the spending that
unbalances the budget.
As for medical care changes saving anything, there's a one-word answer:
Saving money in health care should NOT be the goal. Better care and greater
access should be the goals, period. There are those that think these goals
can be more closely reached by reducing cost - but they have not proved that
case. Further, these same folks hold that the recent health care makeover
will reduce costs - but they haven't proved that either.
What we DO know about the new health care law comes out in dribbles and
drabs. Like this week, for instance, a new regulation that Healthcare
Savings Accounts can no longer be used to buy over-the-counter drugs. So, if
you have arthritis that can be alleviated by Alleve or an allergy that can
be managed by Benadryl, you'll have to pay out-of-pocket.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.