The biggest problem our country faces at this time, is not in Washington, it is in our own communities. It is very hard to find an employee that will give 40 hours a week of dedicated work for 40 hours of pay. The jobs will keep flowing out of this country until the average American will get off of their ### and get to work.
Washington can't control that problem.

 

I find the whole outsourcing debate interesting – and I work for a company that’s done a ton of it. (And I’m not saying I agree with it.) Why do companies do it? It’s pretty simple. It’s flat out cheaper to have the work done in other countries. The standards of living are lower, so the people are willing to work for less. They are also willing to pollute the environment more than we are because they feel it’s an acceptable tradeoff for a higher standard of living. All in all, what they’re doing is exactly what we did here in America a number of years ago. Remember when everything was made here? Remember when Lake Erie caught fire? As I’ve said many, many times. All the rest of the world wants is what we now have. Can you blame them?

Almost everybody who’s losing jobs through outsourcing says it’s bad and wants to stop it. But how do we reverse the trend? Before I get into the proposed solutions, remember that to succeed, a company needs to make money. If they make money, people want to buy their stock as an investment for their retirement. If a company loses money, their stock goes down, people lose money and don’t like it. Companies have been outsourcing so they can continue to make money, so they can pay their ever increasing tax bills, so they can give their employees raises, so their stock can continue to go up … This is a fairly important point.

So what do the liberals (Obama & company) propose that we do to bring jobs back here? First, let’s tax the people that own / run these companies because they think these folks make too much money. (I’m not going to get into that one.) Then, let’s tax these bad companies for “unacceptable behaviors” (outsourcing, pollution, profits, etc.) so that it’s more expensive to do work oversees than it is here. In essence, put more money in the hands of government and let them decide how & where it’s spent. More importantly though, this further raises the cost of doing business here.

Great, so what do we get? Whether they did the work here or oversees, the cost of goods sold just went up. In order to still make money, the company now has no alternative but to raise prices. Does anybody really think that most folks will be willing to pay higher process just because something was made here? (Other than liberals, union members, K-Mac and the Borg.) I don’t think this is the answer.

What do the conservatives say? Let’s reduce the cost of doing business in this country by reducing taxes – pretty much across the board – so that the cost difference between making something here and oversees isn’t as great. Then, if you reduce taxes on the people actually buying the goods, they have more money to buy more goods. If the cost of doing business went down and more people bought their products, companies would make money and people might buy their stock – which might actually go up. Said another way, put more money in the hands of the people and let them make the right decisions. That’s a path I could agree with.

 

Here's a cost cutting and revenue enhancing idea for the government. Do away with corporate taxes. The forms are think, complex and a drag on companies, taxpayers, and the IRS. Instead tax dividends and capital gains on stocks at a higher rate. Those items are required to taxed to the individual anyway, so it will not increase the burden on the individual taxpayer and will work to decrease the burden on the federal government.

To blame the economy on the POTUS is a little far fetched (unless he has a rubber stamping Congress that passes his ideas pretty much unchanged). All he can do is sign or veto what Congress gives him. The real power is in the Congress. Since the Congress has been controlled by Dems since 2006 they share the majority of the blame. I'm not saying the Republicans don't have to eat a piece of the blame pie, but it has been four years since they had any power, and their effect has been diminished by time.

 

The solution is in the tax code prior to the past 30 years. For every decade from the 1930 until the 1980s we had very high tariffs on goods produced in places with low wages to offset the labor difference. In addition, the top tax tier was 70-90% which forced reinvestment versus profit taking. During these times we were more productive than anytime in history.

I know the Libertarians find this draconian and taking from their freedom to choose what they do with their money but say you put those rates on $ over 5 million a year. I think that most can feed their family on a measly $5 mil a year and not suffer too bad.

 

One has to love the way liberals conveniently forget certain “other” things that were going on in that same period. There was this little hissy fit called World War II that had just ended – and we won as I recall. The world was a shambles and we pretty much set all of the rules. It would have been extremely difficult not to grow at silly rates in that kind of environment. It’s tough to have global competition when you just kicked the crap out of everyone.

 

If we reduce taxes, we also have to work REAL hard at eliminating government waste, fraud, and abuse. This will result in a LOT of government workers losing their jobs, which in turn will raise the unemployment rate. It's a vicious circle.

We can start by taking away Pelosi's airplane........and forcing Obama to cancel his $2 billion trip to India........

 

That was true through the 50s maybe, but we still had a consistently strong growth through the late 70s. I think the world had recovered by then. With low taxes, there is no incentive to reinvest in the business. One can take profits and invest in commodities and all kinds of other ventures that don't produce jobs but makes the rich richer. You don't think speculators were behind $140 a barrel oil?

I am not anti business but to whom much is given much is required. Today's CEOs aren't focused on long term growth and sustain ability but rather stock prices and quarterly earnings reports.

Consider what would happen if there was no regulation, most large companies would merge into larger and larger companies leading to monopolies. What would we pay for gas if there was only 1 oil company? $10 a gallon?

Corporations work to be more profitable and if you get rid of all competition then you can maximize profits as prices can go through the roof for "necessity" items. While people don't have. To buy Ferraris (expensive) they do have to buy gasoline to get to work or move other goods.

Wealth would become even more concentrated. Ever play the game monopoly? One person owns everything in the end!

 

Government workers losing jobs is a good thing. The tax money that was used to pay them would be used for business expansion, creating many more long-term jobs.

 

That's a given.
The previous Speaker was from Illinois and the C20 Gulfstream served him well (average use was weekly).

That aircraft could not make California non-stop, So Pelosi needed a larger aircraft (averaged a monthly flight by the way).

Boehner(?) is from Ohio. Look forward to seeing him downsize back to a C20.

The whole idea of the plane is that the Speaker is number two in the line of succession and must not be encumbered in reaching DC, some bunker or wherever, should the poo-poo hit the fan.

Or do we want the Speaker of the House enadvertently bumped from a Southwest Airlines flight because of a computer glitch. Do you really think the Speaker, their Staff, and the Secret Service have any chance of getting past the typical TSA worker you have encountered?

 

You do realize how unrealistic that number is right? That would be $200 million a day. Our war effort in Afghanistan is costing $190 million a day!

Seeing this is a peaceful head of state visit, I doubt that would be valid.

Also since this came from an anonymous Indian reporter, it seems there is credibility issues here. The White House denies the number and no other source can validate it...well Rush Limbaugh but again look at the source?

For all we know that $200 million could be Rupees which is what $5.00??

 

The trip to India costs were probably an honest mistake made during translation, I'm sure Rush didn't just run with a bloated number on purpose. No doubt the figure was Indian Rupees.

An Indian Rupee is roughly 2 cents US currency.
If you divide the $200 million per day estimate by 50 it comes to $4 million US per day, and that's a bargain in today's market for World leader summits.

1 million in Rupees = about $20,000 US
(now you know what a Indian millionaire is worth)

 

The reports are an entourage of 3,000 persons, 40 air craft, two jumbo jets, 6 armored cars, plus 45 other vehciles including a special Obama Cadillac.

Should we divide those numbers by 50, also?

Looks like us taxpayers are booking the entire Taj Hotel, plus hundreds of rooms in other nearby hotels.

Even if you don't include the cost of sending an aircraft carrier and 33 other US Navy ships to India for this trip, I think taxpayers are looking at well over $4 million per day.

 

No, those numbers are actually quite low.
You see, $200 million a day divided by an entourage of 3,000 = $66,666 per day/per person.

Clearly, 66 grand a day would support at least four people with money to spare.

So, we have to up the true entourage number times 4.
The entourage must be at least 12,000 persons.
This would explain the 40 planes and two jumbo jets.

It's the only way it adds up.

 

My bad, made a decimal error.

I was figuring $16,000 per day per diem in India, vice $1,600.
Up the entourage times 40 not 4.
Entourage = 120,000 persons

(now there aren't enough planes but that's not my problem, let Rush explain it)

 

Let's think about this for just a moment.
Do you really believe this critical data would be released?

Seriously, an Obama Cadillac?
Are terrorists so stupid they will turn their RPGs to the 6 armored vehicles listed in your inventory and ignore THE OBAMA CADILLAC ?



What I want to know is what are the license plates of these vehicles?
Why haven't we been told, we have a right to know!