Time to tax the poor?

[TGHusker]

reform trade laws so that it is beneficial for a company to actually produce their products in the US instead of in China and importing them. You want to see manufacturing jobs come back? Make American made products cost affective with imported.

 

And...no....I'm not talking about lowering any pay or standard of living of any American worker.

Then what are you talking about?

Some manufacturing is never coming back. This is a different era of the American worker.

 

Maybe so but maybe not. With 90 million out of the workforce now (see other thread), we have a base of people who could fill those jobs that are now out sourced. I don't want to pay SE asia labor rates but we don't have to pay the highest union labor rates to make it happen. There has got to be a wage balance point, mixed in wt tax incentives and some protectionism for it to work. While the goal of globalism was to raise everyone's boat, it did so by lowering ours as a whole. It was thought that the USA would have all of the high tech jobs - highly educated jobs. However, there are smart people in India and elsewhere who can do the job just as well as we can at less $$.

[TGHusker]

hard to pull yourself up from your bootstraps when you do not have boots.

 

Give a man a fish and he'll have fish for the day, Teach him to fish, and he has fish for a lifetime. Give a man a handout, and he has it for today, Give him a job and he has boots for a lifetime. Time to create jobs and enact policies that do just that. We are creating dependance, time to create independance. There needs to be a safety net while people don't have jobs, but the safety net can only last so long and hold so many people before it fails - Then it is time for job producing policies to come into play that would move people out of the safety net and into jobs.

i agree. in fact, i could not agree more. i have long thought that resources should go to job training instead of unemployment. that way the people are on unemployment for less time, they make more, create more revenue for the gov't, and it is ultimately cheaper for the gov't.

Amen - spot on. A lot of people like to pick on Newt, but he has had some good creative ideas. One of them was to tie unemployment to education - while you are paying someone unemployment - have them go though some type of job training program. Of course that goes back to the 1st issue - we need a job ready and available for him/her to go to.

robert reich really pushed for this during his time in clinton's cabinet. unfortunately they were too concerned with the deficit to worry about what is really important, jobs.

I didn't know that.. Good for him but bad for us that it didn't get done.

[carlfense]

reform trade laws so that it is beneficial for a company to actually produce their products in the US instead of in China and importing them. You want to see manufacturing jobs come back? Make American made products cost affective with imported.

 

And...no....I'm not talking about lowering any pay or standard of living of any American worker.

Then what are you talking about?

Some manufacturing is never coming back. This is a different era of the American worker.

 

Maybe so but maybe not. With 90 million out of the workforce now (see other thread), we have a base of people who could fill those jobs that are now out sourced. I don't want to pay SE asia labor rates but we don't have to pay the highest union labor rates to make it happen. There has got to be a wage balance point, mixed in wt tax incentives and some protectionism for it to work. While the goal of globalism was to raise everyone's boat, it did so by lowering ours as a whole. It was thought that the USA would have all of the high tech jobs - highly educated jobs. However, there are smart people in India and elsewhere who can do the job just as well as we can at less $$.

This isn't new . . .

[Junior]

reform trade laws so that it is beneficial for a company to actually produce their products in the US instead of in China and importing them. You want to see manufacturing jobs come back? Make American made products cost affective with imported.

 

And...no....I'm not talking about lowering any pay or standard of living of any American worker.

Then what are you talking about?

Some manufacturing is never coming back. This is a different era of the American worker.

 

Maybe so but maybe not. With 90 million out of the workforce now (see other thread), we have a base of people who could fill those jobs that are now out sourced. I don't want to pay SE asia labor rates but we don't have to pay the highest union labor rates to make it happen. There has got to be a wage balance point, mixed in wt tax incentives and some protectionism for it to work. While the goal of globalism was to raise everyone's boat, it did so by lowering ours as a whole. It was thought that the USA would have all of the high tech jobs - highly educated jobs. However, there are smart people in India and elsewhere who can do the job just as well as we can at less $$.

This isn't new . . .

 

Yea, but it really all started around the time Obama was born. In Kenya.

[carlfense]

reform trade laws so that it is beneficial for a company to actually produce their products in the US instead of in China and importing them. You want to see manufacturing jobs come back? Make American made products cost affective with imported.

 

And...no....I'm not talking about lowering any pay or standard of living of any American worker.

Then what are you talking about?

Some manufacturing is never coming back. This is a different era of the American worker.

 

Maybe so but maybe not. With 90 million out of the workforce now (see other thread), we have a base of people who could fill those jobs that are now out sourced. I don't want to pay SE asia labor rates but we don't have to pay the highest union labor rates to make it happen. There has got to be a wage balance point, mixed in wt tax incentives and some protectionism for it to work. While the goal of globalism was to raise everyone's boat, it did so by lowering ours as a whole. It was thought that the USA would have all of the high tech jobs - highly educated jobs. However, there are smart people in India and elsewhere who can do the job just as well as we can at less $$.

This isn't new . . .

 

Yea, but it really all started around the time Obama was born. In Kenya.

I wouldn't worry about that. Sheriff Joe's Cold Case Posse is on the hunt . . .

[BigRedBuster]

reform trade laws so that it is beneficial for a company to actually produce their products in the US instead of in China and importing them. You want to see manufacturing jobs come back? Make American made products cost affective with imported.

 

And...no....I'm not talking about lowering any pay or standard of living of any American worker.

Then what are you talking about?

Some manufacturing is never coming back. This is a different era of the American worker.

 

 

Stop making free trade agreements with countries that compete directly with our manufacturing but have no environmental laws, extremely low pay scale and no employee safety regulations only to have them flood our market with those products. Some how, turn around and make those companies or countries bring their standards up to ours (through import laws) or they can't sell into our market.

[BigRedBuster]

or, fund innovative new technologies (preferably green jobs) so america could be the leader in an industry and have something to export. also, if we redesign our energy grid and do other green projects (e.g. highspeed rail), we could have jobs here that would be impossible to outsource. not to mention the greater spending power from spending less on energy.

 

I completely agree with this. However, it will mean very little if a company can take that technology, build a plant in China, produce the products for 40% less even after freight and import costs.

[sd'sker]

time to wax the floor?

[strigori]

Strig- Getting land from the govt in that time period cannot be compared to the govt handouts of today. To make that land payoff a person had to do something with it. It was basically worthless without adding your own toil and sweat.

 

The thing that most caught my attention in this article was the statistic; 1.25 taxpayers paying for 1.0 persons on assistance or govt employees. That is simply not sustainable long term.

It gave people a place to start. Many people on assistance right now have nowhere to start. Min wage jobs and no avenue to job training. The land grants would be more comparable today with the gov giving grants for college and job training programs. It gives people a place to start. Which one party is very much against.

 

The second number includes all the social security people, which is largely due to the upset population pyramid due to the Baby Boomers. And the 'tax payer' number also only includes income tax citizens. But pretty much the entire population pays all sorts of other taxes.

[sd'sker]

giving someone land was giving someone a job. giving someone welfare is just giving someone substandard living conditions.

[strigori]

or, fund innovative new technologies (preferably green jobs) so america could be the leader in an industry and have something to export. also, if we redesign our energy grid and do other green projects (e.g. highspeed rail), we could have jobs here that would be impossible to outsource. not to mention the greater spending power from spending less on energy.

 

I completely agree with this. However, it will mean very little if a company can take that technology, build a plant in China, produce the products for 40% less even after freight and import costs.

An answer would be to brutally penalize a company that dos not have an overseas structure of pay, environmental costs and so on. Be it massive fines, or taxing revenue to even out the playing field.

 

What is going to be interesting is when the Chinese people decide they don't like living in a cesspool decide to change things. American companies may end up sued in international courts by China seeking costs to undo a lot of the damage.

[Junior]

Strig- Getting land from the govt in that time period cannot be compared to the govt handouts of today. To make that land payoff a person had to do something with it. It was basically worthless without adding your own toil and sweat.

 

The thing that most caught my attention in this article was the statistic; 1.25 taxpayers paying for 1.0 persons on assistance or govt employees. That is simply not sustainable long term.

It gave people a place to start. Many people on assistance right now have nowhere to start. Min wage jobs and no avenue to job training. The land grants would be more comparable today with the gov giving grants for college and job training programs. It gives people a place to start. Which one party is very much against.

 

 

You should just borrow from your parents. Everyone has wealthy parents, right?

[BigRedBuster]

Your first paragraph doesn't make sense.

[JJ Husker]

Strig- Getting land from the govt in that time period cannot be compared to the govt handouts of today. To make that land payoff a person had to do something with it. It was basically worthless without adding your own toil and sweat.

 

The thing that most caught my attention in this article was the statistic; 1.25 taxpayers paying for 1.0 persons on assistance or govt employees. That is simply not sustainable long term.

It gave people a place to start. Many people on assistance right now have nowhere to start. Min wage jobs and no avenue to job training. The land grants would be more comparable today with the gov giving grants for college and job training programs. It gives people a place to start. Which one party is very much against.

 

The second number includes all the social security people, which is largely due to the upset population pyramid due to the Baby Boomers. And the 'tax payer' number also only includes income tax citizens. But pretty much the entire population pays all sorts of other taxes.

Sure it gave people a place to start. The land was unsettled, basically wild wilderness. I still don't think it is very appropriate to compare the land grants to current day welfare handouts. Now if you want to compare it to college grants and job training programs, I would agree those are things to help give people a start. I don't view those types of things as "government handouts" even though technically they are funded by the government (taxpayers). I view those types of expenditures as worthwhile investments in our future. Things I do not consider worthwhile, in many cases, would include; extending unemployment benefits, food stamps, housing assistance, basically just handing people money to exist. I realize that there is a small portion of our society that is incapable of taking care of their own basic needs due to mental and physical reasons- those are not the people I am against helping. Hell, I'm not even against short term temporary help for capable people. What I am against is the system that teaches them to expect help from the moment of birth, that more kids equals more benefits, and that uncle Sam has their back in every endeavor. I don't totally get the whole notion of needing the government to provide a "place to start". I would need it explained in detail how anyone born in this country in the last 50 years didn't/doesn't have a place to start. The one thing the government will never be able to provide, no matter how much money is thrown at it, is drive, determination, and perseverance. If you were born in this country and want a better life, you can achieve it. It may not be easy and nobody is going to hand it to you but, you can get there from here. (why in the heck can I not enter/return to create a new paragraph. ughhhh) How do you know that 2nd number includes people on social security? I would be interested to see that ratio with/without SS benefits.

[strigori]

Strig- Getting land from the govt in that time period cannot be compared to the govt handouts of today. To make that land payoff a person had to do something with it. It was basically worthless without adding your own toil and sweat.

 

The thing that most caught my attention in this article was the statistic; 1.25 taxpayers paying for 1.0 persons on assistance or govt employees. That is simply not sustainable long term.

It gave people a place to start. Many people on assistance right now have nowhere to start. Min wage jobs and no avenue to job training. The land grants would be more comparable today with the gov giving grants for college and job training programs. It gives people a place to start. Which one party is very much against.

 

The second number includes all the social security people, which is largely due to the upset population pyramid due to the Baby Boomers. And the 'tax payer' number also only includes income tax citizens. But pretty much the entire population pays all sorts of other taxes.

Sure it gave people a place to start. The land was unsettled, basically wild wilderness. I still don't think it is very appropriate to compare the land grants to current day welfare handouts. Now if you want to compare it to college grants and job training programs, I would agree those are things to help give people a start. I don't view those types of things as "government handouts" even though technically they are funded by the government (taxpayers). I view those types of expenditures as worthwhile investments in our future. Things I do not consider worthwhile, in many cases, would include; extending unemployment benefits, food stamps, housing assistance, basically just handing people money to exist. I realize that there is a small portion of our society that is incapable of taking care of their own basic needs due to mental and physical reasons- those are not the people I am against helping. Hell, I'm not even against short term temporary help for capable people. What I am against is the system that teaches them to expect help from the moment of birth, that more kids equals more benefits, and that uncle Sam has their back in every endeavor. I don't totally get the whole notion of needing the government to provide a "place to start". I would need it explained in detail how anyone born in this country in the last 50 years didn't/doesn't have a place to start. The one thing the government will never be able to provide, no matter how much money is thrown at it, is drive, determination, and perseverance. If you were born in this country and want a better life, you can achieve it. It may not be easy and nobody is going to hand it to you but, you can get there from here. (why in the heck can I not enter/return to create a new paragraph. ughhhh) How do you know that 2nd number includes people on social security? I would be interested to see that ratio with/without SS benefits.

Take a drive through some poor areas in a city, there are plenty of people who do not have a reasonable 'place to start' they are starting so far in a hole that it is not a fair chance. Decades past simply a will to work hard was enough to get ahead. Its not anymore. So much emphasis is erroneously placed on 'higher education' that makes getting ahead a serious hurdle. College or job training takes some serious money. And there simply are not enough grants or scholarships to go around for those who would make good use of them. Jobs that used to pay well without a piece of paper are very few and far between anymore, as more and more companies put degree requirements to even app, and they don't even care about what a degree is in.

 

We seem to be on the same page at least when it comes to actual job training and the like. That would be the equivalent of 'teach a man to fish' and I think attaching that to some of the welfare programs is a good idea, even though with the current state of one party, it would never get funding.

 

In one of the other threads there is a chart or two about the social security spending and the budget. Past that its just demographics of the massive number of baby boomers set to retire. Wall St will not be happy when that occurs.