2011-2012 Tax Extension Bill

[akoff 0]

um, the US is still the world's leading manufacturer, by the way.

but as a contractor a sizeable amount of my income comes from industrial work and I am in and around them daily. All the factories of any size that are profiable are / have or continue to automate more. they run the plants will less workers for more product everyday and just about every time they upgrade anything the automation goes up, the production goes up and the employment numbers go down.The US needs to produce jobs, the need to create new industries, services and products....and they need Washington, state caps and Unions to get out of the way, make it cheaper for them to start up and not tax the shit out them. None of these things happen in our current system.

[El Guapo 8]

Obama signs off today.I found this quote hilarious - especially the bold."There probably is nobody on this floor who likes this bill," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "The judgment is, is it better than doing nothing? Some of the business groups believe it will help. I hope they're right."

[vbnautilus 48]

The US needs to produce jobs

No.

[Balloon guy 158]

No.

They need to legalize pot...amIrght?

[Roll the Bones 74]

Jokes on everyone. Everyone who is was saying he was a muslim, non-citizen, racist liberal, marxist, facist has egg on their face. Turns out he was a Republican who passed their health care and tax plan.

[Balloon guy 158]

Jokes on everyone. Everyone who is was saying he was a muslim, non-citizen, racist liberal, marxist, facist has egg on their face. Turns out he was a Republican who passed their health care and tax plan.

I do love to hear all the democrats now saying that they passed the Bush Tax Cuts because to not do so would have hurt the economy.So they are going to have a hard time justifying raising taxes in the future after admitting that raising taxes hurts the economy.

[ahosang 0]

Bob etc are getting it. Either jobs go abroad where the cheap labour is or you let the cheap labour in from mexico or wherever to do them in your homeland. Alternately of course you make your 'own people' do them at a lower rate. This is free trade(so remember NAFTA is an ideological sham as Mexicans should be allowed in en masse to work).So anyone who wants tight immigration control, yet gripes about jobs going overseas, but still suggests free trade & capitalism is the way(etc and other such contradictions) is ideologically incoherent....

[dapokerbum 0]

I do love to hear all the democrats now saying that they passed the Bush Tax Cuts because to not do so would have hurt this economy.So they are going to have a hard time justifying raising taxes in the future after admitting that raising taxes hurts the economy.

That is how they will justify it. They will say that they couldn't do it in such a recessed economy but since the economy will *crosses fingers* be healthier in the future then Americans will be able to handle more taxes.

[dapokerbum 0]

Bob etc are getting it. Either jobs go abroad where the cheap labour is or you let the cheap labour in from mexico or wherever to do them in your homeland. Alternately of course you make your 'own people' do them at a lower rate. This is free trade(so remember NAFTA is an ideological sham as Mexicans should be allowed in en masse to work).So anyone who wants tight immigration control, yet gripes about jobs going overseas, but still suggests free trade & capitalism is the way(etc and other such contradictions) is ideologically incoherent....

OR we get rid of minimum wage and let those people who don't have jobs ... oh I don't know WORK for a living instead of living off the government dole. I'm not saying that we pay them $5 / day or anything as the dollar goes further in China, but we do need to make people start to sacrifice something. If people really do want to work then let them work. Just let them know that you will actually have to work. I posted something a while back saying that if we could get people off of welfare and let them know that they can either start to starve to death, live on the streets, or maybe work in the fields for awhile. Maybe we could get unemployment back to reasonable. But if no one wants to do the jobs that are out there except the illegal immigrants then we should no longer have to offer them assistance.Just a few thoughts.

[strategy 4]

but as a contractor a sizeable amount of my income comes from industrial work and I am in and around them daily. All the factories of any size that are profiable are / have or continue to automate more. they run the plants will less workers for more product everyday and just about every time they upgrade anything the automation goes up, the production goes up and the employment numbers go down.The US needs to produce jobs, the need to create new industries, services and products....and they need Washington, state caps and Unions to get out of the way, make it cheaper for them to start up and not tax the shit out them. None of these things happen in our current system.

I don't see higher productivity in factories as a bad thing. if better technology represented a threat to employment, wouldn't we be looking at 90%+ unemployment right now?

[Balloon guy 158]

Bob etc are getting it. Either jobs go abroad where the cheap labour is or you let the cheap labour in from mexico or wherever to do them in your homeland. Alternately of course you make your 'own people' do them at a lower rate. This is free trade(so remember NAFTA is an ideological sham as Mexicans should be allowed in en masse to work).So anyone who wants tight immigration control, yet gripes about jobs going overseas, but still suggests free trade & capitalism is the way(etc and other such contradictions) is ideologically incoherent....

I don't see it that way. I know low paying jobs are not a goal to have, but they are a necessary part of any healthy economy. Having entry level jobs, is a positive. And let's face it, not everyone is going to earn a wage that allow them to support a family, irregardless of your desires.Immigration control is about protecting the life style you have achieved for your populous. If we have plenty of people to do the work, and we have a strong economy,. then bringing in large numbers of people can very easily upset that balance.You can't let people in 24/7 and have it not impact every aspect of your community.Capitalism is the best choice for everyone ( tempered with a bit of governmental controls )I don't feel I am being hypocritical or inconsistent with my beliefs to support these positions simultaneously.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Immigration control is about protecting the life style you have achieved for your populous. If we have plenty of people to do the work, and we have a strong economy,. then bringing in large numbers of people can very easily upset that balance.You can't let people in 24/7 and have it not impact every aspect of your community.

There are many countries that need to have a large amount of immigration to sustain the life style of the current population. In Canada we have an aging population and we don't have enough children so the only way to have enough people of working age to support our aging population and replace retiring workers is through immigration.For the US this isn't as much of a problem because American women have more children than Canadian women do.

[brvheart 1,752]

There are many countries that need to have a large amount of immigration to sustain the life style of the current population. In Canada we have an aging population and we don't have enough children so the only way to have enough people of working age to support our aging population and replace retiring workers is through immigration.For the US this isn't as much of a problem because American women have more children than Canadian women do.

well that... and millions of illegal immigrants.

[Balloon guy 158]

There are many countries that need to have a large amount of immigration to sustain the life style of the current population. In Canada we have an aging population and we don't have enough children so the only way to have enough people of working age to support our aging population and replace retiring workers is through immigration.For the US this isn't as much of a problem because American women have more children than Canadian women do.

Are Canadian women that ugly that men won't have sex with them?Or is Canada so lousy that all your children leave for America after college?

[hblask 1]

Are Canadian women that ugly that men won't have sex with them?Or is Canada so lousy that all your children leave for America after college?

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Are Canadian women that ugly that men won't have sex with them?Or is Canada so lousy that all your children leave for America after college?

We have the option of Moose as well here.

[ahosang 0]

I don't see it that way. I know low paying jobs are not a goal to have, but they are a necessary part of any healthy economy. Having entry level jobs, is a positive. And let's face it, not everyone is going to earn a wage that allow them to support a family, irregardless of your desires.Immigration control is about protecting the life style you have achieved for your populous. If we have plenty of people to do the work, and we have a strong economy,. then bringing in large numbers of people can very easily upset that balance.You can't let people in 24/7 and have it not impact every aspect of your community.Capitalism is the best choice for everyone ( tempered with a bit of governmental controls )I don't feel I am being hypocritical or inconsistent with my beliefs to support these positions simultaneously.

I didn't say it well. I mean the libertarian/AC/laissez-faire crowd. You're not in that purist camp, so no need to justify your position. It's people who shout free trade/markets etc as the big thing. Also the points that you make, I agree with in general.

[Roll the Bones 74]

http://www.seiu.org/2010/12/big-banks-bonus-bonanza.phpBig Banks Bonus BonanzaBy Matt Browner-HamlinOnce again, Wall Street is on track to pay astronomical bonuses to its star traders, even as the rest of America is reeling from the devastation the banks have unleashed on the global economy. These billion-dollar bonuses come at our expense, have no rational justification, and only serve to destabilize the larger economy. It is time to rein in banker compensation to get the economy working for Main Street again and to prevent another global economic catastrophe in the near future. Today SEIU has released a new report, Big Banks Bonus Bonanza. From the report:Despite unleashing havoc on the global economy, Wall Street is once again getting ready to pay astronomical bonuses this year. The nation's six largest banks alone are on track to pay their bankers a staggering $143 billion in bonuses, benefits and compensation ("bonus and compensation"), more than enough to fill the $130 billion2 total budget gap for all 50 states in FY 2011. If Wall Street pumped this money directly into the economy instead of paying it to its bankers, it could create 3.6 million new jobs, and lower the unemployment rate by 2.3 percent. Bank of America tops the list, with $35 billion in bonuses and compensation set aside for its bankers.Additional metrics for the scale of Wall Street's bonus bonanza: If even a fraction of the big banks' $143 billion in bonuses and compensation were used to fund important policy priorities, we could bring about a real economic recovery in this country: •If $143 billion were injected directly into the economy as a cash stimulus, it could create 3.6 million jobs, at no cost to taxpayers.•Just half of the money the top six banks are getting ready to pay in 2010 would provide the $73 billion needed to give all underwater homeowners in the country loan modifications with principal and interest rate reductions to market value.•The banks' bonus and compensation pool for 2010 is more than enough to fill the $130 billion budget gap in every single state for FY 2011.•Just 28 percent of the total payout could finance a $40 billion federal jobs initiative to create 1 million jobs in early childhood education, in-home services for the elderly and people with disabilities, and other community services.•$10 billion, less than a third of what Bank of America alone is doling out to its bankers, could fund an increase to Head Start that would create 330,000 new jobs and better prepare children for school.•The full $143 billion could extend unemployment coverage for each of the 15 million unemployed workers in the United States by more than seven months or buy individual health insurance plans for 65 percent of the nation's uninsured, changing the lives of more than 29 million people in the process.$140.5 billion comes to $549 million each work day for bonuses and compensation. Even if the bankers donated just one day's pay to our communities, it could change lives. •One day's pay at the top six banks could save 141,000 homes from foreclosure by providing mortgage payment assistance to struggling families.•It could fund a 14-week extension of unemployment benefits for 134,000 laid-off workers.•It would be enough money to fund full yearlong scholarships for 72,000 college students, allowing them to attend an in-state public university for free.

[custom36 4]

There are many countries that need to have a large amount of immigration to sustain the life style of the current population. In Canada we have an aging population and we don't have enough children so the only way to have enough people of working age to support our aging population and replace retiring workers is through immigration.For the US this isn't as much of a problem because American women have more children than Canadian women do.

Are you saying you need us to come up there and make babies? We can do that./packs car

[El Guapo 8]

Rando, why are you posting this extremely biased article?We can do this circular reasoning with anything financial. Bottom line is, and it has always been this way, banks and investment companies work for bonuses. They have targets that they need to reach and if they reach them the get compensated.It is a system that works. I wish more government and corporate structures were the same. Imagine if a government agency's employees were monetarily rewarded if they cut their spending and improved productivity.We would have a lot less waste and more productive employees.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Rando, why are you posting this extremely biased article?We can do this circular reasoning with anything financial. Bottom line is, and it has always been this way, banks and investment companies work for bonuses. They have targets that they need to reach and if they reach them the get compensated.It is a system that works. I wish more government and corporate structures were the same. Imagine if a government agency's employees were monetarily rewarded if they cut their spending and improved productivity.We would have a lot less waste and more productive employees.

There is a guy who is proposing based on this data that Obama should use the full force of government agenies to pressure Wall Street execs to use this money to help solve our economic woes which is a huge, Robin Hood scheme. Inn essence it isn't asking the government for any money, it's strictly asking them to take half of their bonus this year and by using that amount, we could vastly improve the economy, unemployment, housing crisis, etc. It's pretty radical by any standards but the argument is, "Hey, they didn't have any problem taking our money to bail them out."

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

"Hey, they didn't have any problem taking our money to bail them out."

Actually many of the Banks DID have a problem with "taking" TARP funds. And most of that cash has been repaid with interest - it wasn't money "spent". People seem to have these misconceptions regarding TARP for Banks. Now based on these misconceptions we're going to try and force them to give away billions of dollars of shareholder money?

[akoff 0]

I don't see higher productivity in factories as a bad thing. if better technology represented a threat to employment, wouldn't we be looking at 90%+ unemployment right now?

oh i agree productivivty is huge. it is the only thing has saved the jobs we do have. my point is our future is in the new techs, new ideas not old school manufacturing. call it new school manufacturing. we have to find ways to maunfacture goods / products but they are going to be new differnt type things.and some freakin wind turbine that doesn't pay for itself isn't going to get it done

[nutzbuster 7]

I don't see it that way. I know low paying jobs are not a goal to have, but they are a necessary part of any healthy economy. Having entry level jobs, is a positive. And let's face it, not everyone is going to earn a wage that allow them to support a family, irregardless of your desires.Immigration control is about protecting the life style you have achieved for your populous. If we have plenty of people to do the work, and we have a strong economy,. then bringing in large numbers of people can very easily upset that balance.You can't let people in 24/7 and have it not impact every aspect of your community.Capitalism is the best choice for everyone ( tempered with a bit of governmental controls )I don't feel I am being hypocritical or inconsistent with my beliefs to support these positions simultaneously.

yup

We have the option of Moose as well here.

yup. Love moose. And mounties. And LaBatts.

Rando, why are you posting this extremely biased article?We can do this circular reasoning with anything financial. Bottom line is, and it has always been this way, banks and investment companies work for bonuses. They have targets that they need to reach and if they reach them the get compensated.It is a system that works. I wish more government and corporate structures were the same. Imagine if a government agency's employees were monetarily rewarded if they cut their spending and improved productivity.We would have a lot less waste and more productive employees.

yupSo glad the omnibutt bill got yanked. So glad the tax bill went through. So glad O'bummer shot himself in the foot. Feeling like the clouds may be finally breaking here...

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Rando, why are you posting this extremely biased article?We can do this circular reasoning with anything financial. Bottom line is, and it has always been this way, banks and investment companies work for bonuses. They have targets that they need to reach and if they reach them the get compensated.It is a system that works. I wish more government and corporate structures were the same. Imagine if a government agency's employees were monetarily rewarded if they cut their spending and improved productivity.We would have a lot less waste and more productive employees.

One of the factors that helped lead to the mess though is that same bonus culture where people in financial institutions in an attempt to make millions for themselves took on massive risks that in the end would have bankrupted many of the companies without gov't intervention.