If you like shopping at a place that urges it's suppliers to take
their manufacturing jobs to other countries with cheap labor then go
ahead. IMO, the more we shop with them the more we will need them
because of the loss of jobs here that they help create.
I often wondered that too. They keep on telling us we need to lower
ourselves to match other countries. Walmart is trying their best with
near minimum wage jobs and no or minimal benefits but there is still a
ways to go before they can get people to work for $25/week.
I know that you believe some pretty crazy things for no apparent
reason, you are a Mormon after all, but do you really believe that the
current problems are caused by a Democratic Congress over regulating
business? Did you not miss what letting banks do whatever they want did
to the financials? Or for that matter letting BP drill for oil any way
it wants or run the Alaska Pipeline the cheapest possible way.
Big businesses will always cut corners and prefer to have no
regulation, to save costs. Not that regulations are perfect, but
disabling regulatory agencies (which W did), always has had the same sad
consequences. Rewind back to Reagan and the S&L crisis, for example.
If the "regulators" really regulated and were concerned with the
elements of operation that involve public safety, which is the ONLY
thing they should be concerned with, it would be acceptable to all
business. That is not the case and hasn't been for many decades if
ever. The government BURROCRAPS setup a self-serving nightmare of
regulations that serve only to keep themselves employed doing nothing
while adding a never ending burden of paperwork on business that is
costing the public billions of dollars every year. In spite of all
these regulations and partly because of them we end up with an ever
increasing call for MORE regulations.
Government regulations are measured by weight and not by
effectiveness. That is true of the written regulations themselves,
the required results of those regulations and last but not least the
cost of those regulations. I can also guarantee that no matter how
much you spend, how diligent you are, there will be some government
regulations local, city, county, state or federal that you will not be
in compliance with.
When I read Hayley Barbour (R) congratulating himself about how the
Republicans were the "real" civil rights champions during the 60's and then
proceeded to lie his fool head off about his education record, I realized
that truth has nothing to do with the deep rifts appearing in our society.
But the lack of truth has everything to do with it.
Everyone seems to believe all that "wealth" was lost in the last big
meltdown but that's not true. Much of it went to the top 1% of the
population. The demographics are clear - the money is all going to a very
few people at the top of the food chain, so much so that no one has money
left to buy goods and services.
The middle class is being beaten down mercilessly and instead of trying to
correct that trend, certain political parties are promoting divisive social
issues to keep our eyes off the ball (financial and political reform). They
like things just they way they are, although the rest of us are suffering.
Wal-mart is blamed, certainly, but the exodus of US jobs was visible to
everyone. Low prices at Wal-mart made people think they had more money
(although earning have stagnated horribly in the last 10 years). I've seen
the reports from CA about how Wal-mart employees use food stamps and gov't
health benefits more than others, but the choice may be "work at Wal-mart or
instead live *completely* on gov't handouts." In a comparison like that,
people having at least entry-level jobs at Wal-mart doesn't seem like such a
bad idea. Another reason the benefits are low is that they hire seniors and
part-timers already drawing some sort of government assistance before they
came to Wal-mart. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems, especially when
politics is involved.
I read a fascinating story about how Chicago was born, mostly from
investments from wealthy New Yorkers who wanted access to the growing
midwest. Very little attention was paid to things like clean water,
building codes, urban planning and livable housing. The results were very
predictable: cholera outbreaks, locomotives running at street level all the
way into the city (at one point, 2 people a day were being killed or mangled
in RR accidents) and, of course, the Great Fire.
Business has its role in our society, but government does too. The Federal
government acts as a counterbalance to the sometimes very bad acts by greedy
businessmen. For all the hooting and hollering about socialist Roosevelt,
there's not an economist in the world that will say this latest crash wasn't
softened at least a little because we still had some protections, like the
FDIC, in place. I would rather have seen the SEC put Madoff down fast and
quick, before he put SIPC and a lot of other on the hook for his crimes. We
pay for all the criminality, one way or another. Wall Streeters will insist
that ANY regulation is bad - until THEY are the ones defrauded by a failure
to regulate. Then it's "Daddy, daddy, bail me out!"
Of course the GOP was, at least in the 60s. For the Civil Rights Act
of '64, the GOP was the only reason it was passed.
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%20%)
Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%18%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%18%)
Humphrey and Johnson publicly thanked Dirkson and said without his
support it never would have happened. Of course that was 50 years ago.
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Your belief debunked by Kurt, so no more comments needed.
Here's a thought experiment: Assuming most of the wealth does go to the top
1%. What do you think they do with it?
A. Stuff it in a mattress.
B. Turn it into, say, gold and hoard it.
C. Invest or othewise use it to create jobs.
Exactly WHAT social issues are in the top ten this political season?
Here's Gallup's list
Corruption in government
Please note there are NO classic "social issues" (abortion, gay rights,
discrimination, gender equality, minimum wage, slavery, etc.) in the list.
As for the middle-class being beaten down, isn't this an incentive to move
to the upper-class? And lest you say it can't be done, here's an idea: Start
a web site to sell and trade Pez Dispensers.
No, wait... Somebody already did that.
I'm a believer in the free market. Democrats are well known for
regulating the life out of everything. The latest over regulation
known as the health care bill is going to be major problems.
Wasn't it during the Clinton era when Congress forced the banks to
make all kinds of loans to minorities who couldn't pay the loans back?
Mostly. The Community Redevelopment Act was passed during the Carter
administration. In 1995, under Clinton, the act was expanded to require
banks and lending institutions to devote up to 55% of their loans - and
other activities - to "lesser served" areas of the community.
Look around. Often you'll find a Chase or Bank of America store front
competing with the hookers and dope-dealers as the only retail
establishments on the block. Do you really think a national bank would, of
their own free will, open such a facility?
Of course the banks and mortgage companies went nuts over the "quota system"
for making loans, so Fannie & Freddie had to guarantee the insane loans.
Nobody said they had to make lier loans. They made the loans because
they made a butt load of money and then sold them off.
Fannie and Freddie and for that matter the CRA provided standards, which
just got in the way of making those and the money.
...that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by
the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S.
Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,
stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions
considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that
approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent
mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25%
to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and
affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made
"perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most
widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal
George W Bush is a typical Republican, it is never their fault. It's
always too much regulation, taxes and Democrats.
Not true. In testimony before Congress, both the FDIC and the Federal
Reserve testified that the frequency and percentage of loans directed toward
formerly deprived groups counted significantly in the evaluation of the
financial institution when considering permission for new branches,
capitalization requirements, loan limits, and other favor bestowed by the
Exactly. The world would be a better place if we could eliminate any one of
the three, or, in the alternative, reduce all of them to a mere nusiance
It has everything to do with your point. Greedy business owners,
mostly Republicans, are what you claim created the loss of jobs.
Those business owners must have a sense of greed or they will surely
fail. But as much as you seem to hate them you need them and would be
the first to complain if they did not exist. Because without them you
would not have a job. I can also guess that you don't have the desire
to become one of them because you are lacking in one or more ways.
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.