Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=69042)

sterlingice 10-22-2011 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMax58 (Post 2554143)
You know, I have this theory about Presidents (and perhaps all people in general).

They tend to make better decisions about topics they can admit to themselves (and others) that they are not the expert on. Its when they believe they already have the answer that they make poor decisions.

Foreign policy & military operations are things I think Obama is fully willing to have a completely open mind on and evaluate on their merits...because he does not believe himself to be an expert or authority on it so he fully engages & absorbs the information brought to him.

I think the opposite is why he does not make the best analysis on domestic policy, namely regarding financial conditions & legislative policy. I think he believes himself smarter than the others in the room on such subjects, and feels it is something they should conclude in a way that satisfies his presumptions.


Kindof an interesting thought - might have some merit to it

SI

JPhillips 10-22-2011 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2554148)
Semantics though. We all know the US was supporting UK with lend lease. If someone did that for the Taliban/AQ et al in Afghanistan and Pakistan you can bet that's a declaration of war.


It's a hell of a lot more than semantics. Providing a relatively small amount of supplies is a far cry from complete military engagement. It's a fascinating alternative history exercise to imagine what would have happened if the Japanese and Germans never declared war on the U.S.

stevew 10-22-2011 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2554149)
Yes, huge cost.

It stopped/reduced the "domino effect" throughout the region, see below wiki has for/against the argument. I tend to believe there is alot of truth to it.

Domino theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Vietnam is literally half a planet away from us. It could have domino'd that whole region, and it is very questionable if that would have affected us or any of our allies.

JPhillips 10-22-2011 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew (Post 2554172)
Vietnam is literally half a planet away from us. It could have domino'd that whole region, and it is very questionable if that would have affected us or any of our allies.


The domino theory also relies on a monolithic view of communism. Both the Soviets and Chinese discovered the Vietnamese weren't interested in being a communist client state. Vietnam was much more of an anti-colonial revolution.

Edward64 10-22-2011 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew (Post 2554172)
Vietnam is literally half a planet away from us. It could have domino'd that whole region, and it is very questionable if that would have affected us or any of our allies.

Allies that participated includes New Zealand, Australia, Korea, Thailand and Phillippines. If it domino'd it certainly would have impacted them.

Edward64 10-22-2011 10:32 PM

I can just see Hillary's face - WTF? and then start laughing.

Afghanistan to back Pakistan if wars with U.S.: Karzai - World news - South and Central Asia - Afghanistan - msnbc.com
Quote:

ISLAMABAD — Afghanistan would support Pakistan in case of military conflict between Pakistan and the United States, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said in an interview to a private Pakistani TV channel broadcast on Saturday.

The remarks were in sharp contrast to recent tension between the two neighbors over cross-border raids, and Afghan accusations that Pakistan was involved in killing the chief Afghan peace envoy, former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani, by a suicide bomber on September 20.

"God forbid, If ever there is a war between Pakistan and America, Afghanistan will side with Pakistan," he said in the interview to Geo television.


stevew 10-23-2011 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2554388)
Allies that participated includes New Zealand, Australia, Korea, Thailand and Phillippines. If it domino'd it certainly would have impacted them.


No offense to Groundhog or Neon Chaos, but all of those nations could have fallen and it would not have mattered.

Australia and New Zealand are Island nations that are at least 3000 and 6000 miles away from Vietnam. Manilla is a thousand miles. South Korea more than 2200. Geographically alone, the domino theory is a load of shit.

JonInMiddleGA 10-23-2011 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew (Post 2554473)
Geographically alone, the domino theory is a load of shit.


Yeah, I mean it's not as though any of those countries were ever threatened by an enemy based in Asia or anything.

Warhammer 10-23-2011 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMax58 (Post 2553952)
I know its unpopular to say it for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is sensitivity to people who did lose their lives in it...but I still believe the dethroning of Saddam was perhaps one of the most long-term beneficial things for the world (and the US). Impossible to say what might have become (either way) but the Middle East will become a different place without such a man leading one of its countries...and I think for the better.

I'd say the same for Libya as well. The entire conversation is different when you no longer have crazy tyrants accepted as "normal" in international affairs.


I prefer the Iraq over Libya. In Iraq we've given the government time to get on their feet. Also, Iraq over the ages has been fairly moderate, compared to say Iran (Shi'a vs. Sunni, etc.).

My only issue with Libya, is that too often we see some dictator get offed, and then the "next verse, same as the first," phenomena.

Warhammer 10-23-2011 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2554158)
It's a hell of a lot more than semantics. Providing a relatively small amount of supplies is a far cry from complete military engagement. It's a fascinating alternative history exercise to imagine what would have happened if the Japanese and Germans never declared war on the U.S.


We were already in an undeclared war with Germany at sea in Spring/Summer '41.

JPhillips 10-23-2011 11:07 AM

Only in a very limited way. The vast majority of our naval resources were not engaged. It's no secret that FDR, rightly IMO, considered Germany such a threat that the U.S. should get involved, but it took Hitler's declaration of war to create the political environment where it could happen. If Hitler hadn't declared war it would have been extremely difficult for FDR to provide the materiel and manpower needed turn the tide on the Western front.

Warhammer 10-23-2011 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMax58 (Post 2554041)
Yeah, you could add the space shuttle missions to the list of things that aren't worth the human and financial tolls when they cause more deaths than expected (in relation to the tangible lives that are saved). Certainly there are relative scales to that expectation (such as, we expect 0 casualties from a given SS mission whereas an invasion has a certain amount of anticipated casualties that number in the thousands).

But I don't think you point to the f-ups that occur as reasons for it not being worthwhile.


In the case of any type of exploration, death is a potential consequence. Look at how many people died settling the West Coast of our country. Was that worth the cost?

Also, I would wager that if you told many astronauts that they had a 25% chance of not coming back (and we're no where near that number), they'd still take that bet.

Warhammer 10-23-2011 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2554560)
Only in a very limited way. The vast majority of our naval resources were not engaged. It's no secret that FDR, rightly IMO, considered Germany such a threat that the U.S. should get involved, but it took Hitler's declaration of war to create the political environment where it could happen. If Hitler hadn't declared war it would have been extremely difficult for FDR to provide the materiel and manpower needed turn the tide on the Western front.


I'm not sure I'd say limited (sure we weren't sending in the carriers or battleships), but we had standing orders to shoot U-boats on sight. I also think we were flying ASW patrols as well.

I'm not saying I disagree with his actions either. Had anyone taken the same actions against Hitler in 1938, WWII would never have happened.

Warhammer 10-23-2011 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew (Post 2554473)
No offense to Groundhog or Neon Chaos, but all of those nations could have fallen and it would not have mattered.

Australia and New Zealand are Island nations that are at least 3000 and 6000 miles away from Vietnam. Manilla is a thousand miles. South Korea more than 2200. Geographically alone, the domino theory is a load of shit.


Until you consider the proximities to other nations trying to export their revolutions. Korea was/is very close to China who borders Vietnam. China supported N. Korea during the Korean War.

The Philippines have always been somewhat in a state of turmoil. That has included religious and political dissidents. Its not far fetched to think at the time that the Philippines would have been next on the list.

JPhillips 10-23-2011 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warhammer (Post 2554565)
I'm not saying I disagree with his actions either. Had anyone taken the same actions against Hitler in 1938, WWII would never have happened.


Hitler was ready for war in 1938. Sure he wasn't as strong, but neither were the Allies. All standing up to Hitler would have done is start the war a year sooner.

SteveMax58 10-23-2011 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warhammer (Post 2554563)
In the case of any type of exploration, death is a potential consequence. Look at how many people died settling the West Coast of our country. Was that worth the cost?

Also, I would wager that if you told many astronauts that they had a 25% chance of not coming back (and we're no where near that number), they'd still take that bet.


Yeah, I agree but was speaking more to any given mission. People always want to say "well, it isn't worth the human/financial toll" when things don't go the way you expect, or there is some sort of f-up that occurs. So you might expect casualties over 10 missions but you don't expect casualties (else you wouldn't do it) on the 10th mission even if 9 missions have been free of casualties.

But where I was going is you don't go & scrap the idea nor do the reasons for doing it become less worthwhile. Doing anything which puts people in harm's way is only not worthwhile if you don't believe it possible to do....if it is worth trying in the first place. And even then...you'll find some things worth trying even when not believed to be possible or probable (i.e. Normandy).

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-25-2011 09:51 PM

Shocked that no one has posted this information yet. Fantastic news for people who are looking to refinance with an underwater mortgage. This problem was discussed previously in this thread. Looks like they're finally taking the cap off the refinance rules, which should allow a lot more people to reduce their monthly payments without giving away taxpayer money.

Obama to detail new housing rules in Nevada speech - 44 - The Washington Post

ISiddiqui 10-26-2011 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2554179)
The domino theory also relies on a monolithic view of communism. Both the Soviets and Chinese discovered the Vietnamese weren't interested in being a communist client state. Vietnam was much more of an anti-colonial revolution.


This. Vietnam really wanted little to do with being beholden to the Russians or Chinese. In fact, Ho Chi Minh first came to, wait for it... Woodrow Wilson for support in getting independence (considering Wilson was talking about self-determination... but he only meant it for white people).

And, of course, the Chinese and Russians despised each other. The Chinese hated the Russians more than the they hated the US - which is why Nixon was able to exploit that.

Edward64 10-30-2011 06:56 AM

I like this idea but it seems so cold war like.

NYT: US plans Gulf buildup after Iraq exit - World news - The New York Times - msnbc.com
Quote:

The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.

The plans, under discussion for months, gained new urgency after President Obama’s announcement this month that the last American soldiers would be brought home from Iraq by the end of December. Ending the eight-year war was a central pledge of his presidential campaign, but American military officers and diplomats, as well as officials of several countries in the region, worry that the withdrawal could leave instability or worse in its wake.

After unsuccessfully pressing both the Obama administration and the Iraqi government to permit as many as 20,000 American troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2011, the Pentagon is now drawing up an alternative.

In addition to negotiations over maintaining a ground combat presence in Kuwait, the United States is considering sending more naval warships through international waters in the region.

With an eye on the threat of a belligerent Iran, the administration is also seeking to expand military ties with the six nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. While the United States has close bilateral military relationships with each, the administration and the military are trying to foster a new “security architecture” for the Persian Gulf that would integrate air and naval patrols and missile defense.

The size of the standby American combat force to be based in Kuwait remains the subject of negotiations, with an answer expected in coming days. Officers at the Central Command headquarters here declined to discuss specifics of the proposals, but it was clear that successful deployment plans from past decades could be incorporated into plans for a post-Iraq footprint in the region.
:
:
Despite such concerns, the administration has proposed establishing a stronger, multilateral security alliance with the six nations and the United States. Mr. Panetta and Mrs. Clinton outlined the proposal in an unusual joint meeting with the council on the sidelines of the United Nations in New York last month.

Edward64 10-30-2011 07:15 AM

Nov 23 is the day. I bet these guys are getting ulcers. I think its a good sign that there is no public finger pointing at this time.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...eadline-nears/
Quote:

With less than a month remaining until its deadline to engineer $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade, the Deficit Super Committee has worked exclusively over the past month behind closed doors – out of the public’s view to determine whether the panel is making substantial progress.

Today, the committee will hold its first open public hearing in more than a month, as the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Doug Elmendorf, testifies on “Discretionary Outlays: Security and Non-Security.”

The lack of transparency has left many on Capitol Hill scratching their heads and wondering just what progress the committee has made since it last met publicly on Sept. 22. Without a steady flow of information coming from the private meetings, it’s also left some political observers skeptical that the 12-member panel will succeed in reaching its mandate.
:
:
As outlined in the Budget Control Act, the committee has until Nov. 23 to pass a proposal with at least $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction for the full Congress to consider. Congress then has until Dec. 23 to enact $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction. If they fail to meet the deadline, sequestration cuts totaling $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction would kick in, slashing defense spending and Medicare benefits.

Edward64 10-30-2011 07:20 AM

It does seem that Syria is the next logical step to confront within the broader picture of limiting and isolating Iran more. It'll be a tough one, Assad has lessons learn now and suspect he will be as aggressive as possible to hold on to power.

BBC News - Syria's Assad warns of 'earthquake' if West intervenes
Quote:

In the Sunday Telegraph interview, Mr Assad said Western countries "are going to ratchet up the pressure, definitely".

"Syria is the hub now in this region. It is the faultline, and if you play with the ground you will cause an earthquake," he said, .

"Any problem in Syria will burn the whole region. If the plan is to divide Syria, that is to divide the whole region.

"Do you want to see another Afghanistan, or tens of Afghanistans?"

President Assad admitted that "many mistakes" had been made by his security forces in the early part of the uprising, but the paper said he insisted that "only terrorists" were now being targeted.

He said he had responded differently to the Arab Spring than other, deposed Arab leaders.

"We didn't go down the road of stubborn government," he said. "Six days after (the protests began), I commenced reform.


DaddyTorgo 11-02-2011 11:13 PM

Not really a surprise I guess, but a disappointment:

Fucking Geithner. DIAF.

A Foreclosure Settlement That Wouldn't Sting - NYTimes.com

Edward64 11-04-2011 05:11 PM

T - 20.

I guess we can officially start the countdown clock for the Super Committee.
  • Nov 23 - super committee agrees to proposal to submit
  • Dec 23 - straight up or down vote

'Devastating' cuts if super committee fails - Nov. 4, 2011
Quote:

More criminals on the street. Fewer border guards. More instances of food poisoning and less reliable weather forecasts.

Sound like fun? These scenarios -- and more like them -- could play out if the so-called super committee fails, according to a paper by centrist Democratic think tank Third Way.

The 12-person committee must come up with at least $1.2 billion in deficit reduction over ten years -- and then get the rest of Congress to agree.

If that doesn't happen, heavy automatic spending cuts will hit military and discretionary budgets starting in 2013.

And that, Third Way says, would not be pretty.


panerd 11-04-2011 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2560682)
T - 20.

I guess we can officially start the countdown clock for the Super Committee.
  • Nov 23 - super committee agrees to proposal to submit
  • Dec 23 - straight up or down vote

'Devastating' cuts if super committee fails - Nov. 4, 2011


Oh please (not you, the article). I guess we could spend double or triple what we are and have even less crime and even safer food. The spending is out of control they need to find somewhere to cut it from or raise taxes or shut the fuck up. But since they want to be re-elected they will choose to do none of the three. Oveerseas adventures would be my choice but these is why these guys were elected to Congress and chosen for the super committee. Suck it up and make a hard decision for once. (I am not a big fan of more taxes but at least that is an attempt at doing something)

JPhillips 11-04-2011 06:27 PM

I don't know if it would pass the full Congress, but the Dems made a plan worth @4 trillion in cuts and tax increases. The GOP won't agree to any tax increases so the committee can't get anywhere.

Julio Riddols 11-04-2011 08:31 PM

Congress will never again produce meaningful legislation that is for the good of the country. I don't know why any of us hold out any hope that we will see a change in this. A second civil war seems far more likely to happen.

Buccaneer 11-04-2011 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols (Post 2560788)
Congress will never again produce meaningful legislation that is for the good of the country.


You assumed that they had (in the past 11 years) produced legislation that was good for the country?? Most of them (the big tickets ones) were stuff that looked better on paper but failed miserably in reality (as in far too great of cost for such little benefits). It's is much better they don't pass anything than to pass something (except for a major tax code overhaul).

flounder 11-05-2011 04:58 AM



Yeah, wow. I don't see how the country can survive cuts of that magnitude. I better stock up on guns and ammo.

sterlingice 11-05-2011 08:07 AM

It's all about where you spend it. You know that a majority of those bars are from structural entitlements and defense. If you make most of your cuts to non-discretion spending, you will be cutting some of that to the bone while not touching the actual problem.

SI

DaddyTorgo 11-05-2011 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2560928)
It's all about where you spend it. You know that a majority of those bars are from structural entitlements and defense. If you make most of your cuts to non-discretion spending, you will be cutting some of that to the bone while not touching the actual problem.

SI


They're not "entitlement" programs. That right-wing lexicon (which has distressingly been adopted by the mainstream Democratic Party) is an insidious way of pre-framiing the issue.

sterlingice 11-05-2011 09:40 AM

That's ok- it gets more amusing when you frame it to the average voter, too.

"Do you think we spend too much on Social Security/Medicare?" - The answer is invariably "yes" because the cost is so high.

"So, are you willing to move Social Security and Medicares ages to 70 to make the programs much more solvent and to make up for longer life spans" - HELL NO! KEEP YOU GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE!

SI

Buccaneer 11-05-2011 11:07 AM

Just need to do health, military and safety net programs a lot smarter and effectively instead of building onto the piles of junk that has been accumulating for decades. But for most, it's about the status quo and the power and perks that derive of bring in legislative and executive branches.

sterlingice 11-05-2011 11:48 AM

Social security is the most interesting to me. If we raised the age by just 5 years to compensate for people living longer, problem solved. But when you hit anyone from across the entire political spectrum who is over 30 and even some under 30 to say "hey, you're going to have to wait until 70 instead of 65 to start collecting social security because your life expectancy is longer", it's like you just screamed bloody murder.

Health care and military spending- well, those are tougher nuts to crack. We have to burst the medical care bubble that we've been building. And with military spending, you have to fight against the brilliant planning that made sure there is money spent in pretty much every congressional district which makes it very difficult politically to pull that back across the political spectrum.

All you have to do is solve those and all of our spending problems are solved! :D

But back to the point that spawned all of this- if you're going to cut $100B in discretionary spending, that is going to cut very close to the bone. Non-defense/TSA discretionary spending was about $600B last year. A 16% change is going to make some really drastic cuts and you know it's not going to be the politically protected plans that need a haircut that take it but some of the most necessary ones we have.

As an aside, I work for a large muti-national corporation and it's run just as inefficiently as the federal government. Go look at the waste at the "best run" and most profitable companies. Do you think Google doesn't waste a ton of money? Wal Mart? Toyota? No- but they can cover it up because of their size and that's just what happens at the federal government level. It's not easy to break into the oligopoly but once you do, it's pretty easy to maintain it. Airline industry too competitive with 7 or 8 companies? Just merge into 4. Southwest starting to lose some market share as the "cheap" airline to Airtran? Just buy them up. It's the size and lack of competition that makes it inefficient, not that it's the government or a corporation.

One answer can be to make it smaller. But if you do that with the government, I need to see that happen with companies too, otherwise you have what we're working on right now which are companies governing by default. Who writes pollution laws in this country? Big Oil and power companies. Who writes financial laws in this country? Goldman Sachs. And we wonder why things are effed up. If you hate big government, I want to see you in line to also take a hatchet to large companies, too.


SI

Buccaneer 11-05-2011 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2561017)
Health care and military spending- well, those are tougher nuts to crack. We have to burst the medical care bubble that we've been building. And with military spending, you have to fight against the brilliant planning that made sure there is money spent in pretty much every congressional district which makes it very difficult politically to pull that back across the political spectrum.
SI


Perfectly said.

Buccaneer 11-05-2011 12:05 PM

SI, I think the fundamental difference is that a company is product/consumer-driven. If they have no customers (because of the high-cost of waste that drove up prices of the products/services, for example), then they will cease to exist. What's the consequences of waste/inneficiency/bureaucracy/politicizing/grafts/extortions in the federal government where they can force "consumers" to pay revenues at the point of a gun? Now, where it gets muddy is the federal govt propping up consumer/service-centric businesses through bailouts, subsidies and corporate welfare. I don't necessarily agree with any of those approaches.

sterlingice 11-05-2011 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 2561030)
SI, I think the fundamental difference is that a company is product/consumer-driven. If they have no customers (because of the high-cost of waste that drove up prices of the products/services, for example), then they will cease to exist. What's the consequences of waste/inneficiency/bureaucracy/politicizing/grafts/extortions in the federal government where they can force "consumers" to pay revenues at the point of a gun? Now, where it gets muddy is the federal govt propping up consumer/service-centric businesses through bailouts, subsidies and corporate welfare. I don't necessarily agree with any of those approaches.


I think the simplistic version of the view is that there's an easy dichotomy between politics and business: if you don't like the company/government then just don't spend/vote the person you dislike out. But I realize that is too simplistic of a view.

I think those who argue that "you can just boycot a company you don't like" are just as naive/disingenuous as those of us who say "you can just vote out who you don't like". My retort to your "who are you going to elect? that guy on the other side of the aisle who is identical" is "who are you going to get your goods from". There is some truth to the statement- don't mistake my claiming these beliefs are somewhat naive and disingenuous for the sentiment that they are completely so.

Isn't it a joke that if I'm lucky, I have a telecom choice of a handful of small local companies with slow internet and expensive phone service, one satellite option, a large telephone conglomerate, and a large cable conglomerate with nearly identical pricing? And that's if you're in a city with some "vague" competition. If I want to get from Los Angeles to New York for business, as of next year, I'll be stuck with 1 of 4 major airlines instead of the 7 there used to be. And even now before US Air, Continental, and Airtran have merged- they have nearly identical (artificially controlled) prices. And those prices will skyrocket- how is that good for anyone but shareholders? Less people employed, higher prices to the consumer- there's no tangible public benefit.

Due to specialization and size, the entry barriers of cracking into an established industry are immense. If I wanted to start up a new telecom business or airline to compete, I would need literally billions of venture capital, which just isn't going to happen. But once I was there, I could have extreme waste and never really go out of business. Yeah, you can overleverage like Worldcom did in the late 90s. But, really, anyone excited about the service or prices of Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Cox, et al? Would you leave if there was a better alternative? How about Delta, American, Continental/United, or Southwest/Airtran?

I use cable and air travel, but you can do this with practically every industry: consumer electronics, household goods, electricity, entertainment, etc. Even if you have a more elastic market with robust choices like clothing where there are lots of manufacturers and a range of pricing, they are subject to the whims of the few retailers that carry their items ("sorry, we can't stock your cheap clothes because no one would buy our expensive clothes"). But that's a smaller and smaller number of markets. The majority are still controlled by gigantic businesses who don't really bring anything to the market except for their sheer size and the ability to put quasi-monopolistic pricing in place.

SI

Julio Riddols 11-05-2011 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 2560825)
You assumed that they had (in the past 11 years) produced legislation that was good for the country?? Most of them (the big tickets ones) were stuff that looked better on paper but failed miserably in reality (as in far too great of cost for such little benefits). It's is much better they don't pass anything than to pass something (except for a major tax code overhaul).


I can't think of anything good to come out of congress in much of my lifetime. It seems every year more money gets concentrated in fewer pockets (By that I mean the top of the top - The .1% if you will) - And their lobbying power and overall funding capabilities buy more and more loopholes and favorable legislation each year, allowing them to cut jobs here and send them overseas, dodge taxes, and find other ways to make even more money. By now, the government is second in command to the true powers that be and it just spirals further and further out of control every election year. Meanwhile we have congress voting on things that dont matter, like whether to re-affirm "In God We Trust" as the national slogan rather than spending their time trying to find solutions. I assume that is because they're either scared of what will happen to them if they cut out loopholes and stop bailing out these huge companies, or they're afraid they'll lose the support of the public through all the misinformation and bullshit that is passed around as news these days, since the huge corporations own the media as well.

The "job creators" obviously make enough money to create more jobs, but they continue to claim they are struggling in this economy as a reason to not do so. Instead they are cutting jobs and rerouting the money saved into bigger bonuses and higher severance packages for their brass. They may realize that fewer people working means fewer people with the finances to continue purchasing their products, but at this point I just don't think they care. They figure by now that they might as well take all they can and when the time runs out they'll be ok. The ones that will suffer will be the people who worked for/invested in them and the people who don't have a hand in that honey pot. But what do they matter, really?

flounder 11-05-2011 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2561017)
But back to the point that spawned all of this- if you're going to cut $100B in discretionary spending, that is going to cut very close to the bone. Non-defense/TSA discretionary spending was about $600B last year. A 16% change is going to make some really drastic cuts and you know it's not going to be the politically protected plans that need a haircut that take it but some of the most necessary ones we have.


The $100B isn't coming all from non-defense spending. Half of it is coming from discretionary defense spending. That's why the military has been all up in arms about the sequestration. Some of it is also from Medicare. The CBO estimates that cuts to non-defense discretionary spending will be about $36B a year.

In addition, those aren't real cuts. They are only reductions from currently planned spending increases. Non-defense discretionary spending was $581B in 2009. In 2010 it rose to $682B. Without cuts it will drop to $640B in 2014 before rising to $705B in 2020. With the cuts, it will drop to $600B in 2014 before rising to $673B in 2020. So from 2009-2020 it will have risen from $581B to $673B. That's about a 1.4% increase annually, which means it probably keeps steady with inflation. That's not a lot, but it's not cutting to the bone.

Buccaneer 11-05-2011 05:13 PM

I'd go along with what both SI and Julio said.

lcjjdnh 11-05-2011 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2561090)
I think the simplistic version of the view is that there's an easy dichotomy between politics and business: if you don't like the company/government then just don't spend/vote the person you dislike out. But I realize that is too simplistic of a view.

I think those who argue that "you can just boycot a company you don't like" are just as naive/disingenuous as those of us who say "you can just vote out who you don't like". My retort to your "who are you going to elect? that guy on the other side of the aisle who is identical" is "who are you going to get your goods from". There is some truth to the statement- don't mistake my claiming these beliefs are somewhat naive and disingenuous for the sentiment that they are completely so.

Isn't it a joke that if I'm lucky, I have a telecom choice of a handful of small local companies with slow internet and expensive phone service, one satellite option, a large telephone conglomerate, and a large cable conglomerate with nearly identical pricing? And that's if you're in a city with some "vague" competition. If I want to get from Los Angeles to New York for business, as of next year, I'll be stuck with 1 of 4 major airlines instead of the 7 there used to be. And even now before US Air, Continental, and Airtran have merged- they have nearly identical (artificially controlled) prices. And those prices will skyrocket- how is that good for anyone but shareholders? Less people employed, higher prices to the consumer- there's no tangible public benefit.

Due to specialization and size, the entry barriers of cracking into an established industry are immense. If I wanted to start up a new telecom business or airline to compete, I would need literally billions of venture capital, which just isn't going to happen. But once I was there, I could have extreme waste and never really go out of business. Yeah, you can overleverage like Worldcom did in the late 90s. But, really, anyone excited about the service or prices of Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Cox, et al? Would you leave if there was a better alternative? How about Delta, American, Continental/United, or Southwest/Airtran?

I use cable and air travel, but you can do this with practically every industry: consumer electronics, household goods, electricity, entertainment, etc. Even if you have a more elastic market with robust choices like clothing where there are lots of manufacturers and a range of pricing, they are subject to the whims of the few retailers that carry their items ("sorry, we can't stock your cheap clothes because no one would buy our expensive clothes"). But that's a smaller and smaller number of markets. The majority are still controlled by gigantic businesses who don't really bring anything to the market except for their sheer size and the ability to put quasi-monopolistic pricing in place.

SI


Well said.

SteveMax58 11-05-2011 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2561090)
I use cable and air travel, but you can do this with practically every industry: consumer electronics, household goods, electricity, entertainment, etc. Even if you have a more elastic market with robust choices like clothing where there are lots of manufacturers and a range of pricing, they are subject to the whims of the few retailers that carry their items ("sorry, we can't stock your cheap clothes because no one would buy our expensive clothes"). But that's a smaller and smaller number of markets. The majority are still controlled by gigantic businesses who don't really bring anything to the market except for their sheer size and the ability to put quasi-monopolistic pricing in place.

SI


I think you are getting right to the crux of our structural problems regarding jobs (and subsequent demand driven by people who have jobs) but I'd add that much of it starts with a large centralized government authority...followed by larger conglomerates in order to more effectively influence (read: lobby) such large, centralized authority. After all, if you want to influence, having 20M subscribers gets yuou a LOT more face time with members of Congress than having 20k (not to even mention money).

I'll take one of your examples you used since I happen to know a shit-ton about it...the cable/telecom companies. One of the key things that has happened was the overreach (my word) of the federal government to enable bypassing local franchise laws so that Verizon, AT&T, and the other telcos at the time could "more efficiently" negotiate their franchises at the state level to offer video services (or "cable TV"). Oh this was great...it would create "competition" of course but the real result is that the telcos bought up some of their smaller telco brethren in order to maximize their ability to centralize & offer a competitive product. Well...they are doing that to improve those systems, right? What's to hate about that after all?

I'll tell you what there is to hate. They sparked an "arms" race where "he with the lowest overhead & greatest influence in Congress/Senate wins". That means Time Warner, Comcast, Cox...ALL of the big Cable companies felt the pressure to compete with this new "streamlined" competitive product. So, not only did they already have a competitor in Dish & DirecTV which fell outside of the normal franchises (who have their own unique challenges in fairness) but now they have companies built right on top of them with an easy button to gain access to the franchises without the franchise having to agree to it...and by companies that are MUCH larger companies to begin with. No, not a waiver for small business competition such as we saw with CLECs on the telco side...a waiver for mega-corps because everybody wanted competition on the video side.

So, what do the cable ops do to stay competitive? The same thing, of course. Buy up small cable companies with some value, cut excess workers & redundant job functions, consolidate facilities, centralize operations, add a larger lobby influence in Washington, and overall...employ less people because the market bears what it will bear. Sure, everybody has to continue adding features & capabilities to improve their product offering...but I'm telling you it would have been less impacting to the common worker in this industry (and residual impact to other industries) had it been allowed to take shape organically over time by not stepping in & enabling fasttrack competition for the sake of it. It was a shock to the industry & and as with any shockwave, you leave the unimportant (workers) & cling to the important (profitability) until the dust settles.

So don't misunderstand my intention...competition is good for both consumers & workers in a healthy environment (at least for the ones that are still working). Its just that once again, the federal government steps in under the guise of helping the "consumer" only to be the root cause of having less "consumers" because they're put out of work. Now, you can blame all of these companies for being "scumbags"...but I'm telling you those decisions aren't all made by 1% people...they are made by the "monster" that is corporate America (or the top 20% if you will). They have no viable choices...if you are faced with a new & massive competitor, you simply have to do what is necessary to stay relevant. It is your job & obligation to your shareholders, fellow workers (that remain), and certainly your family to do what is needed to remain solvent. Whether that's as CEO, or what have you.

But what Congress/Senate don't get is that they are enabling the "monster" that is corporate America consolidation & downsizing when they stick their noses into things that they don't understand and can be handled at a local level. And the unintended consequences of their ignorance litters the unemployment lines.

I can only imagine how many other industries have had much worse impact because the federal government needed to step in under the guise of the "consumer". I guess in a way, they truly are helping the "consumers"...the problem is that we have less & less of them as a result.

sterlingice 11-05-2011 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 2561208)
I'd go along with what both SI and Julio said.


So, we've now spawned some pretty long posts and we're all mostly in agreement about the core problem.

Dumb question: anyone know how we solve this? Or are we all just destined to be Cassandra- being able to foresee the great catastrophe and powerless to do anything about it? Well, at least until we have another Great Depression (and I think odds on that in the next 50 years are pretty darn good)- then when the torches and pitchforks come out, who knows.

SI

sterlingice 11-05-2011 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMax58 (Post 2561276)
So don't misunderstand my intention...competition is good for both consumers & workers in a healthy environment (at least for the ones that are still working). Its just that once again, the federal government steps in under the guise of helping the "consumer" only to be the root cause of having less "consumers" because they're put out of work. Now, you can blame all of these companies for being "scumbags"...but I'm telling you those decisions aren't all made by 1% people...they are made by the "monster" that is corporate America (or the top 20% if you will). They have no viable choices...if you are faced with a new & massive competitor, you simply have to do what is necessary to stay relevant. It is your job & obligation to your shareholders, fellow workers (that remain), and certainly your family to do what is needed to remain solvent. Whether that's as CEO, or what have you.

But what Congress/Senate don't get is that they are enabling the "monster" that is corporate America consolidation & downsizing when they stick their noses into things that they don't understand and can be handled at a local level. And the unintended consequences of their ignorance litters the unemployment lines.


I agree but only to a point.

I strongly disagree with your assertion that a large centralized government causes all of this. It's a chicken and egg problem- if you had small state-level governments, don't TW, Cox, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc still all buy up smaller competitors with or without government intervention? And if you have large companies, don't they just try to create a larger more powerful government to help unlevel the playing field for them? Again, so long as there are larger entities, there will be a power arms race.

Secondly- 20% make that decision? Not in the least. I work for corporate America- I even supervise roughly 20 people. Myself and none of those below me and even none at my level or the next two to four levels up have any sort of real influence towards that. You're talking about a handful of folks, probably 100 or so- certainly less than 1000, in a 300K worker company with any real influence over that process. That's well under 1%.

At some point, our generation is going to realize the con that is the stock market. Baby boomers will start cashing out and there will be less and less worth in it. We'll reach some tipping point where a significant portion of our generation just is through with it and pull out and the rest of the market just craters without that tent pole. At the end of the day, you can't fucking justify taking away people's livelihood "because of an obligation to the shareholders". People try to moralize it now and it's partially creepy but mostly met with indifference because we all have some skin in the game and that retirement money is greater than our odds of losing our job. But when we're staring a depression in the face with 30% unemployment- no one is going to care about silly rationalizations and mindless corporate worship. Because not having food has an emperor's new clothes effect on "because it's the way it's always been done".

SI

Buccaneer 11-05-2011 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2561294)
So, we've now spawned some pretty long posts and we're all mostly in agreement about the core problem.


SI


Didn't say that I agreed with all of it but they presented a reasonable point of view.

JonInMiddleGA 11-05-2011 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2561304)
At the end of the day, you can't fucking justify taking away people's livelihood "because of an obligation to the shareholders".


I can't imagine any greater justification than that. Those are the only people who are owed anything in the entire equation, they own the company.

There is no divine right to a job under any circumstance.

sterlingice 11-05-2011 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2561374)
I can't imagine any greater justification than that. Those are the only people who are owed anything in the entire equation, they own the company.

There is no divine right to a job under any circumstance.


Which is a good idea in a micro sense. But for society as a whole, it's just not practical

SI

lcjjdnh 11-05-2011 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2561374)
I can't imagine any greater justification than that. Those are the only people who are owed anything in the entire equation, they own the company.

There is no divine right to a job under any circumstance.


There's no "divine right" to having a corporation either. If the government is going to intervene in the "free market" by allowing the creation of limited liability companies, it's not at all unreasonable to ask for those that receive that benefit to exercise some social responsibility. At their core, corporations are rather extraordinary distortions of the free market--prices within firms are set by centralized decisionmaking as opposed to the market--that could not exist in the absence of the government granting corporate personhood (giving the you the ability to sign contracts) and limited liability.

Buccaneer 11-05-2011 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2561447)
Which is a good idea in a micro sense. But for society as a whole, it's just not practical

SI


So a company should not exist to make profits for their investors but instead become a charitable organization funded by the government for the common good? Where's the personal incentive in that when the basic human nature is selfishness and the freedom for one to get ahead? Institutions (from pensions funds, financial, and other entities) need to make money for the society as a whole, so it can provide credit, benefits and jobs for all. That's the practicality of investing for the society on a generalistic macro level. Or something like that.

Edward64 11-06-2011 12:21 AM

T - 18.

What do you guys think? Will the super committee succeed in agreeing on something to propose? There is not alot of noise which I think is a good sign ... but I really have no idea.

cartman 11-06-2011 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 2561493)
So a company should not exist to make profits for their investors but instead become a charitable organization funded by the government for the common good? Where's the personal incentive in that when the basic human nature is selfishness and the freedom for one to get ahead? Institutions (from pensions funds, financial, and other entities) need to make money for the society as a whole, so it can provide credit, benefits and jobs for all. That's the practicality of investing for the society on a generalistic macro level. Or something like that.


C'mon Bucc, this isn't a binary equation. A company doesn't exist in a vacuum to solely provide profits to their shareholders, any more than an alternative would be a completely charitable organization funded by the government. That is lazy thinking.

Yes, institutions need to make money, but for capitalism to truly function there needs to be churning of the capital that rises to the top. If it just rises to the top and sits there, then that is analogous to an aquarium where there is no circulation and the lower levels die off.

JonInMiddleGA 11-06-2011 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2561447)
But for society as a whole, it's just not practical


But it's incredibly realistic.

JonInMiddleGA 11-06-2011 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cartman (Post 2561545)
and the lower levels die off.


That's not inherently a bad thing, depending upon the contribution of those lower levels to the eco-system.

Unless of course you just want them there for aesthetic purposes, in which case you have to be able to afford that luxury AND be willing to forego other non-necessities to fund them.

JonInMiddleGA 11-06-2011 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cartman (Post 2561545)
A company doesn't exist in a vacuum to solely provide profits to their shareholders ... That is lazy thinking.


Believing otherwise is astonishingly naive thinking.

cartman 11-06-2011 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2561556)
Believing otherwise is astonishingly naive thinking.


Yes, a company should do anything at all possible to make money for their investors. In a vacuum, that makes sense. In the real world, that is why there are things like safety regulations, environmental regulations, and financial oversight.

cartman 11-06-2011 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2561554)
That's not inherently a bad thing, depending upon the contribution of those lower levels to the eco-system.

Unless of course you just want them there for aesthetic purposes, in which case you have to be able to afford that luxury AND be willing to forego other non-necessities to fund them.


But if there are no servants available, that silver isn't going to polish itself. Or grow the arugula. Or make the limos.

JonInMiddleGA 11-06-2011 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cartman (Post 2561562)
But if there are no servants available, that silver isn't going to polish itself. Or grow the arugula. Or make the limos.


If supply exceeds the demand ...

JonInMiddleGA 11-06-2011 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cartman (Post 2561561)
Yes, a company should do anything at all possible to make money for their investors. In a vacuum, that makes sense. In the real world, that is why there are things like safety regulations, environmental regulations, and financial oversight.


Each of which I firmly believe are overly restrictive, to the point of being unreasonably punitive & downright petty to the point of being a detriment to productivity & should be scaled back considerably with all immediate haste.

cartman 11-06-2011 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2561573)
Each of which I firmly believe are overly restrictive, to the point of being unreasonably punitive & downright petty to the point of being a detriment to productivity & should be scaled back considerably with all immediate haste.


Wow. Both lazy AND naive. Congrats.

JonInMiddleGA 11-06-2011 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cartman (Post 2561582)
Wow. Both lazy AND naive. Congrats.


Just painfully realistic and honest to a fault.

cartman 11-06-2011 01:11 AM

Yet you continue to castigate Ron Paul, when he would strive to create your non regulated dream world.

JonInMiddleGA 11-06-2011 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cartman (Post 2561585)
Yet you continue to castigate Ron Paul, when he would strive to create your non regulated dream world.


You're confusing legitimate & positive deregulation with anarchy (or at least reasonable & justifiable regulation, which Paul typically lacks).

Not the same thing.

cartman 11-06-2011 01:17 AM

You yourself said "Each of which I firmly believe are overly restrictive, to the point of being unreasonably punitive & downright petty to the point of being a detriment to productivity & should be scaled back considerably with all immediate haste."

There is no possible way that all current regulations are not either legitimate or positive, thus reinforcing my claim of laziness and/or naivete.

SteveMax58 11-06-2011 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2561304)
I agree but only to a point.

I strongly disagree with your assertion that a large centralized government causes all of this. It's a chicken and egg problem- if you had small state-level governments, don't TW, Cox, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc still all buy up smaller competitors with or without government intervention? And if you have large companies, don't they just try to create a larger more powerful government to help unlevel the playing field for them? Again, so long as there are larger entities, there will be a power arms race.

The large centralized government does this because these companies aren't lobbying 50 individual state governments & their 100s of associated franchises. There is an easy button that was put in place called centralized authority. Again, this centralized authority trumps the local market's ability to set parameters around offering services in their communities. Yes, sometimes those communities are unreasonable & ask for ridiculous amounts of compensation but at the end of the day they are still accountable to their local community. How is the federal (or centralized authority) level accountable to these communities now? How do these communities know that they are being properly compensated for not only the benefit of competition...but the lost jobs that follow because there is "no more business to be done at the local level".

And yes, some level of consolidation with these companies always occurs. I'll give you an anecdotal line I heard one time from a regional director I met a while back when I was first starting in the industry. He said..."I have 2 books in the bottom drawer of my desk. 1 is a playbook for centralizing operations to gain efficiency...the other is a playbook for decentralizing
to gain accountability. I pull 1 or the other out every 5 years."

The point is that companies centralize & decentralize all the time based on market conditions. But adding incentive to centralize everything (more rapidly than its organic path) is a big contributor to the problems we see with "nobody is hiring because there is no work to be done". Our legislation has pulled out the need to do any "work" to offer a product to communities & as such...no need for those job functions or roles. I'm not advocating protectionism in job functions, but accountability was there and now it is not.

Quote:

Secondly- 20% make that decision? Not in the least. I work for corporate America- I even supervise roughly 20 people. Myself and none of those below me and even none at my level or the next two to four levels up have any sort of real influence towards that. You're talking about a handful of folks, probably 100 or so- certainly less than 1000, in a 300K worker company with any real influence over that process. That's well under 1%.
Top 20% from an income standpoint is what I meant...not literally 20% of the people. Maybe its more fair to say top 10% but my point was that while "decisions" may be made by the 1%...the 10% are the ones with the idea, plan, and knowledge that it takes to execute restructuring plans. But it isn't their job to recommend "hey Mr. CEO...we're tanking right now & not selling a dam thing but since you are rich, can't we just keep some of our redundant job functions around because it will help keep them as customers as well?"

I'm being facetious obviously, but that is what I mean by the "monster" that is corp-America. It doesn't even take the 1% to make such decisions...the decisions are self-evident across the entire management teams that have any insight into the finances. I actually work for some outstanding people that are much more progressive than myself. But reducing costs when you have to reduce your prices because there are less customers with less money isn't a problem my execs can solve with their charity.


Quote:

At some point, our generation is going to realize the con that is the stock market. Baby boomers will start cashing out and there will be less and less worth in it. We'll reach some tipping point where a significant portion of our generation just is through with it and pull out and the rest of the market just craters without that tent pole. At the end of the day, you can't fucking justify taking away people's livelihood "because of an obligation to the shareholders". People try to moralize it now and it's partially creepy but mostly met with indifference because we all have some skin in the game and that retirement money is greater than our odds of losing our job. But when we're staring a depression in the face with 30% unemployment- no one is going to care about silly rationalizations and mindless corporate worship. Because not having food has an emperor's new clothes effect on "because it's the way it's always been done".
I think you're conflating 2 issues here though.

I agree the stock market is a con. 401k has been a nice economic activity driver for a number of years now but just like all bubbles created by baby boomers (not all purposely, mind you...but sheer numbers) it will also pop some day. The only incentive is how much of your money is matched by your employer...I know I sure as hell wouldn't be putting my money there if I wasn't getting a nice match from my employer as I simply don't have the time or inclination to play the game.

What I take exception with is the notion that "shareholders" don't deserve to be given priority in preserving their investment. That is why their money is there in the first place & why people are entrusted to watch after it...because it is not their obligation to invest, its their choice. You & I are both shareholders in many companies I'd imagine & I would not appreciate some CEO running his company to bankruptcy, losing all my money into a black hole, but telling me "well, we kept em working a little too long on doing nothing despite having no sales & not accepting a salary myself for a year". Not acceptable obviously.

You are seeing society as this place where everybody "should" be looking after each other equally. Guess what? Not everybody shares that view to begin with even if you & I agree in principle...and that view goes across ALL income ranges. The common denominator historically is equal rights, not equal results.

But I will agree that equal results is a more desirable outcome (or flatter)...I just disagree that focusing more authority to centralized government makes that happen. And the risk of a more centralized government becoming well, what we already think it is an Oligarchy is much higher.

SteveMax58 11-06-2011 06:06 AM

Dola,

Holy s--t thats a long post. Thats what happens after some coffee. :)

SteveMax58 11-06-2011 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cartman (Post 2561561)
Yes, a company should do anything at all possible to make money for their investors. In a vacuum, that makes sense. In the real world, that is why there are things like safety regulations, environmental regulations, and financial oversight.


Naturally they need parameters to work within but to me, Jon's point is valid in the sense that the more regulation & adherence to standards that are needed...the larger & larger companies become.

Not always to maximize profit, but to be more influential in that regulation process. And the more piles of regulation documents you stack up on the desk of a 20-person company to adhere to...the less able they are to compete and more willing they are to sell off to the "big guys" because these, in and of themselves, are barriers to market entrance where you need a LOT of capital to even think about getting in.

This is the fundamental problem people like myself have with regulation & overreach of the federal government. You are creating a system where only somebody AS BIG as the government can adhere to...the government. And we wonder why faceless corporations lay us off? Because we are just numbers...we don't work for "Bill" any more...Bill is just some manager now that got put out of business by a faceless conglomerate. But you won't solve any of that with more regulation.

JPhillips 11-06-2011 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMax58 (Post 2561628)
Naturally they need parameters to work within but to me, Jon's point is valid in the sense that the more regulation & adherence to standards that are needed...the larger & larger companies become.

Not always to maximize profit, but to be more influential in that regulation process. And the more piles of regulation documents you stack up on the desk of a 20-person company to adhere to...the less able they are to compete and more willing they are to sell off to the "big guys" because these, in and of themselves, are barriers to market entrance where you need a LOT of capital to even think about getting in.

This is the fundamental problem people like myself have with regulation & overreach of the federal government. You are creating a system where only somebody AS BIG as the government can adhere to...the government. And we wonder why faceless corporations lay us off? Because we are just numbers...we don't work for "Bill" any more...Bill is just some manager now that got put out of business by a faceless conglomerate. But you won't solve any of that with more regulation.


Almost every small business is going to be far more burdened by state and local regulations than by federal. Everything from licensing to zoning to permitting happens at levels lower than the federal government. For example, very few small businesses run into any problems with EPA regulations.

SteveMax58 11-06-2011 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2561633)
Almost every small business is going to be far more burdened by state and local regulations than by federal. Everything from licensing to zoning to permitting happens at levels lower than the federal government. For example, very few small businesses run into any problems with EPA regulations.

The EPA would prevent them from ever starting.

But my example should probably be more like 50-100 person companies rather than 20. I'm talking small(er) businesses such as the traditional regional type businesses like grocers, an internet access provider, certain types of manufacturing, etc.

But that's the beauty of local regulation...if its too cumbersome, it will give at some point because local communities will demand it. Perhaps not as quickly as you'd like but it will.

SteveMax58 11-06-2011 07:06 AM

Just to add...I'd say there are a lot of local barriers to entry as well. But lets have those localities be more accountable for getting some of those barriers reduced or streamlined rather than adding more from a federal level, or taking complete control away.

JPhillips 11-06-2011 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMax58 (Post 2561638)
The EPA would prevent them from ever starting.

But my example should probably be more like 50-100 person companies rather than 20. I'm talking small(er) businesses such as the traditional regional type businesses like grocers, an internet access provider, certain types of manufacturing, etc.

But that's the beauty of local regulation...if its too cumbersome, it will give at some point because local communities will demand it. Perhaps not as quickly as you'd like but it will.


What businesses aren't starting because of EPA regulations? I don't think that's a significant barrier to employment.

lcjjdnh 11-06-2011 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2561573)
Each of which I firmly believe are overly restrictive, to the point of being unreasonably punitive & downright petty to the point of being a detriment to productivity & should be scaled back considerably with all immediate haste.


Perhaps increased growth and productivity shouldn't be the only goal for society--especially, you know, when it comes at the cost of destroying it.

SteveMax58 11-06-2011 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2561647)
What businesses aren't starting because of EPA regulations? I don't think that's a significant barrier to employment.

The EPA is only 1 arm of government regulation...its the sum of all parts that make it more ideal for a massive entity to do better than a smaller entity.

You gave the EPA as an example of why the federal government is less restrictive than a local government & I said they would be the type of regulation arm to prevent a business from ever conceptualizing. But there are many other factors that have nothing to do with the EPA so I'm not sure there's a valid answer to your question which presumes opposition to any government = opposition to any standards.

flounder 11-06-2011 09:19 AM

One example is the CPSIA. A lot of small businesses were hurt or even forced to shut down because of the cost of compliance. They just couldn't afford to submit their products to a lab for destructive testing. Large corporations? They were granted a waiver to allow them to do their testing internally.

Buccaneer 11-06-2011 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2561647)
What businesses aren't starting because of EPA regulations? I don't think that's a significant barrier to employment.


Oil and gas drilling here in Colorado (and to some extent recently, hydrofracking in many parts of the country) seem to go through wild swings of not getting permitted from the state and feds. I'll have to look up what caused the massive decline, and shutting of businesses (new and old) of that industry here in Colorado in the 1980s(?) that caused significant unemployment and the ripple effect of devastating the real estate market (and jobs).

JPhillips 11-06-2011 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flounder (Post 2561692)
One example is the CPSIA. A lot of small businesses were hurt or even forced to shut down because of the cost of compliance. They just couldn't afford to submit their products to a lab for destructive testing. Large corporations? They were granted a waiver to allow them to do their testing internally.


Do you have specific examples?

I'm not saying regulation can't hurt businesses, but the kinds of regulations that come from the federal government are generally not as important to small businesses as are state and local regulations. Even the energy examples Buc gave are largely about state regulations (at least here in NY and PA).

Gutting federal regulations will benefit big business without doing much of anything for small business. One thing I'd do for small business is severely reduce the license requirements for most professions. That alone would do more to reduce entry barriers than anything with the EPA, and it's state and local controlled so in theory it should be easier to do than changing the federal government.

Buccaneer 11-06-2011 10:15 AM

If I recall from working with our Environmental Services department, many of the state regulations and permits were mandated by the feds, following the feds rules and guidelines. While most of the reportings are submitted to the State EPA, they act as a clearhouse for the feds.

SteveMax58 11-06-2011 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2561707)
Gutting federal regulations will benefit big business without doing much of anything for small business.


Agreed, but how do you put the genie back in the bottle is the bigger problem at this point.

flounder 11-06-2011 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2561707)
Do you have specific examples?

I'm not saying regulation can't hurt businesses, but the kinds of regulations that come from the federal government are generally not as important to small businesses as are state and local regulations. Even the energy examples Buc gave are largely about state regulations (at least here in NY and PA).

Gutting federal regulations will benefit big business without doing much of anything for small business. One thing I'd do for small business is severely reduce the license requirements for most professions. That alone would do more to reduce entry barriers than anything with the EPA, and it's state and local controlled so in theory it should be easier to do than changing the federal government.


There's a list of citations from news articles at the Wikipedia link. You can also check out the Handmade Toy Alliance web site for more info.

I'm not sure why you would say that federal regulations aren't important to small businesses. They are still subject to the regulations, and because they don't have economies of scale, the relative cost of regulation is much higher. In addition, a lot of regulations are written by lobbyists for large industries. They have a vested interest in making barriers to entry as large as possible.

JonInMiddleGA 11-06-2011 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cartman (Post 2561592)
You yourself said "Each of which I firmly believe are overly restrictive, to the point of being unreasonably punitive & downright petty to the point of being a detriment to productivity & should be scaled back considerably with all immediate haste."

There is no possible way that all current regulations are not either legitimate or positive, thus reinforcing my claim of laziness and/or naivete.


Which is why I said "scaled back considerably" instead of "eliminated entirely". Seems entirely sufficient for the purposes of this thread (or any other internet thread for that matter).

If you're looking for an itemized laundry list try someone with a great deal more time & patience than I've got. If I end up with the authority to eliminate any with the stroke of a pen/keyboard then I'll have a great deal more enthusiasm for being thorough.

Edward64 11-06-2011 07:31 PM

I don't remember her being so hawkish (or at least in public).

Rice: U.S. Should Do Everything Possible To Bring Down Iran's Government | Fox News
Quote:

WASHINGTON – The U.S. should consider tougher penalties against Iran's government and "be doing everything we can to bring it down," Condoleezza Rice said Sunday.

As Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul argued on "Fox News Sunday" that sanctions should be removed altogether to get Iran to act differently, the former secretary of state under George W. Bush told ABC's "This Week" that the U.S. should never take the option of military force off the table when it comes to dealing with Iran.


Ron Paul is a little too isolationist for my liking.
Quote:

But Paul said the U.S. response to Iran's nuclear pursuits is an "overreaction," especially considering that Iran has been saying for 10 years that it is seeking nuclear power for peaceful purposes and neither the U.S. nor the international community has never proven otherwise.

Paul added that a House bill that passed out of the international relations committee last week increasing sanctions on Iran is an aggressive weapon.

The bill says "if any other country, even if an ally, does any trading with Iran, we're going to punish them. So, that is -- when you put on strong sanctions, those are acts of war because we did that in Iraq for 10 years, and little kids died, could [not] get medicines and food. It led to war," Paul said.

Paul said a better art of persuasion would be to offer friendship, the way the U.S. approached the Soviets and Chinese.

"I was in the military during the '60s and it was dangerous. But we didn't think we have to attack the Soviets. They had capabilities. The Iranians can't make enough gasoline for themselves.
For them to be a threat to us or to anybody in the region I think is just blown out of proportion," he said.

Paul, who won Illinois' straw poll of Republican presidential candidates over the weekend and ranks third in many polls of the field, said he is not an isolationist as some charge, but instead wants a very open relationship around the world that does not involve having U.S. troops deployed in foreign places.

"By having too many troops, it helps to bankrupt our country, the wars that we have been fighting, that were undeclared -- and from my viewpoint is unconstitutional and illegal," he said, arguing that the last 10 years of war has cost $4 trillion in fighting as well as debt accrued to be paid to other nations.

Paul added he also opposes drone strikes because of the collateral damage it causes and enmity it builds.

Dutch 11-06-2011 09:19 PM

I wouldn't consider Ron Paul an expert on foreign affairs. Rice on the other hand, has some credibility and experience...and has attended all the same briefings that Presidents have attended. I'm sure she's not just talking out of her ass.

M GO BLUE!!! 11-08-2011 07:36 AM

French President Nicolas Sarkozy called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a "liar" in remarks to US President Barack Obama overheard by journalists.

"I can't stand him any more, he's a liar," Mr Sarkozy said in French.

"You may be sick of him, but me, I have to deal with him every day," Mr Obama replied.

The exchange at the G20 summit was quoted by a French website, Arret sur Images, and confirmed by other media.

The remarks - during a private conversation - were overheard by a few journalists last week but were not initially reported, the BBC's Christian Fraser in Paris says.

BBC News - Sarkozy called Israeli PM Netanyahu 'liar'

Love it! Nice, candid remarks that you never hear from men who are guarded as hell when talking about each other publicly. And although some will try, I don't see it as a comment that can really hurt Obama.

JonInMiddleGA 11-08-2011 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!! (Post 2562873)
And although some will try, I don't see it as a comment that can really hurt Obama.


You're probably right. No one who gives a damn about Israel would vote for the miserable SOB anyway.

Edward64 11-08-2011 09:53 PM

Whew, one battle (of many) won.

Appeals court upholds Obama health care law - politics - More politics - msnbc.com
Quote:

WASHINGTON — A conservative-leaning appeals court panel on Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care law, as the Supreme Court prepares to consider this week whether to resolve conflicting rulings over the law's requirement that all Americans buy health care insurance.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a split opinion upholding the lower court's ruling that found Congress did not overstep its authority in requiring people to have insurance or pay a penalty on their taxes, beginning in 2014. The requirement is the most controversial requirement of Obama's signature domestic legislative achievement and the focus of conflicting opinions from judges across the country. The Supreme Court could decide as early as Thursday during a closed meeting of the justices whether to accept appeals from some of those earlier rulings.

Ksyrup 11-09-2011 01:23 PM

Quote:

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear will win a second term, CNN projects, easily beating Republican state Sen. Steve Williams in a race that centered on jobs and the economy.

Williams frequently criticized Beshear's record on creating jobs and balancing the state budget. Beshear kept a tally of the number of jobs that companies were bringing to the state on his website.


Um, yeah. You know you got your ass kicked when CNN can't even get your name right as a candidate for governor. It's David Williams.

SirFozzie 11-09-2011 01:50 PM

Sounds like the D's did well in the year before elections (the Ohio anti-unions vote going down 60-40, Maine same day registration, Mississippi definition of "personhood"m and the recall of the author of Arizona's tough immigration law).

Sounds like the Republican/Tea Party wave has peaked and is starting to recede...

The fact is that the current top two candidates in the Presidential race are either a notorious flip-flopper who actually did a mandatory health care law when he was governor of what R's consider the most liberal state in the Union, or a political neophyte with a catch phrase (Nine Nine Nine!), and harassment charges being brought up more and more every day.. there may not be much drawing power at the top of the ticket.

Galaxy 11-09-2011 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2563504)


Eh, it's going to get decided by the Supreme Court.

DaddyTorgo 11-09-2011 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaxy (Post 2563871)
Eh, it's going to get decided by the Supreme Court.


This is true - but it's nice "cover" for the Supremes when conservative-leaning Federal appeals courts uphold it (not that they really "need" cover, but you know what I mean).

JonInMiddleGA 11-09-2011 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaxy (Post 2563871)
Eh, it's going to get decided by the Supreme Court.


Yep. Which is why I haven't gotten too high on any previous victories nor particularly discouraged by this setback. They're all just steps toward the inevitable final one.

lcjjdnh 11-09-2011 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2563876)
This is true - but it's nice "cover" for the Supremes when conservative-leaning Federal appeals courts uphold it (not that they really "need" cover, but you know what I mean).


Adds to the number of prominent and well-respected conservative appellate judges that have upheld the law (including a former Scalia clerk). I'd be pretty surprised if it is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. At best they'll adopt one of the lines of reasoning that allow them to punt on jurisdictional grounds and decide the constitutionality later (as one of the conservative judges on the D.C. Circuit did).

Edward64 11-10-2011 10:32 PM

I don't remember Obama admin really talking about the crisis in Europe and how we may be able to "help". I get we don't have alot of disposable income right now but I think we could have helped by paying into whatever Euro pool was established.

Certainly in our interest - Greece and Italy can cause real problems for Europe and by extension, the US.

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Death of the euro
Quote:

PREPARATIONS were under way last night for the break-up of the euro as Europe’s debt crisis spiralled out of control.

As Treasury officials worked through the night to soften the impact on Britain, David Cameron warned that the single European currency was facing its “moment of truth”.

Business Secretary Vince Cable went further and spoke about “Armageddon” while Brussels officials warned that the chaos threatened to plunge us all into a new recession.

Ministers are understood to be deeply concerned that French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel are secretly plotting to build a new, slimmed down eurozone without Greece, Italy and other debt-ridden southern Euro- pean nations.

Well-placed Brussels sources say Germany and France have already held private discussions on preparing for the disintegration of the eurozone.

JPhillips 11-11-2011 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2564719)
I don't remember Obama admin really talking about the crisis in Europe and how we may be able to "help". I get we don't have alot of disposable income right now but I think we could have helped by paying into whatever Euro pool was established.

Certainly in our interest - Greece and Italy can cause real problems for Europe and by extension, the US.

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Death of the euro


They don't need our money. They can print as many euros as they want. They have just decided that the pain from a euro breakup is preferable.

panerd 11-11-2011 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2564794)
They don't need our money. They can print as many euros as they want. They have just decided that the pain from a euro breakup is preferable.


Also the members of the EU don't really consider themselves "countrymen" like the United States. Sure we might have people that say they hate people from Texas or California but in the end of the day most people consider everyone living in the 50 states Americans. I would guess most Germans see bailing out the Greeks as nothing more than WWII war reparations.

panerd 11-11-2011 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2564719)
I don't remember Obama admin really talking about the crisis in Europe and how we may be able to "help". I get we don't have alot of disposable income right now but I think we could have helped by paying into whatever Euro pool was established.

Certainly in our interest - Greece and Italy can cause real problems for Europe and by extension, the US.

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Death of the euro


And Portaugal and Spain and Ireland... This is just like the war in the Middle East, certainly all of these things are in our interest. Where does the money come from is all I want to know?

Dutch 11-11-2011 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2564811)
Also the members of the EU don't really consider themselves "countrymen" like the United States. Sure we might have people that say they hate people from Texas or California but in the end of the day most people consider everyone living in the 50 states Americans. I would guess most Germans see bailing out the Greeks as nothing more than WWII war reparations.


The EU is not a country.

panerd 11-11-2011 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2564824)
The EU is not a country.


I am aware but the richer countries like Germany are still on the hook for bailing out the countries that spend beyond their means and aren't big fans of it either.

JonInMiddleGA 11-11-2011 09:43 AM

My mind still boggles at how anyone thought the Euro wasn't doomed to failure from the start.

edit to add: But I'll admit that it survived quite a bit longer than I ever expected.

Edward64 11-12-2011 05:41 AM

T-12

First Read - Obama phones supercommittee leaders ahead of weekend talks
Quote:

President Obama phoned the bipartisan co-chairs of the deficit reduction supercommittee on Friday as the bipartisan members head into a critical weekend of negotiations.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said that the president had called Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) from Air Force One today to urge the 12-member supercommittee to strike a "balanced" deal by its rapidly approaching deadline.

According to Carney, the president told the leaders that he would reject any attempt to repeal the automatic cuts that would be triggered if the group fails to reach agreement on at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. The automatic cuts, which includes $600 billion slashed from the defense budget, were installed as a backstop in the August deal to raise the debt ceiling. Until now, the White House has remained largely on the sidelines as the two sides have met over the past two months.

For the supercommitee, time is running out; a flurry of talks are expected to continue into the weekend. The 12 members have until Nov. 23rd to strike a deal. Aides warn, however, that they need to get something done this week to ensure the Congressional Budget Office has enough time before the deadline to provide feedback on how much deficit reduction would be achieved on a particular proposal.


Edward64 11-12-2011 09:32 PM

Gingrich is definitely out for me. Not that I disagree but to state it that way is too "cowboyish".

Iran dominates GOP contenders' debate - Politics - msnbc.com
Quote:

The Republican presidential contenders met in a debate on foreign policy Saturday with the question of Iran atop the agenda.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said as president he’d order covert operations to stop the Iranian regime from building nuclear weapons, with options including “taking out their scientists” and “breaking the regime and bringing it down.”

And he added, “all of it (is) deniable,” that is, he as president would deny that the United States was behind the operations.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, issued a report Tuesday in which it said Iran appeared to have worked on designing a nuclear bomb.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said President Barack Obama’s policy toward Iran was his “greatest failing, from a foreign policy standpoint.”

Romney said he work to impose “crippling sanctions” on Iran and would work for regime change. And he said he would be willing to take military action to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

“If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if you elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon," the former Massachusetts governor declared.


Quote:

In the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released last week, while only 40 percent of poll respondents approved of Obama’s handling of the economy, 52 percent approved of his handling of foreign policy.

And 71 percent of poll respondents said Obama’s decision to withdraw all American combat troops from Iraq by the end of December is the right decision.


SteveMax58 11-13-2011 07:37 AM

I think the Repubs are making a gigantic mistake by attacking Obama's foreign policy. 2 reasons for that really...

1) There is no practical improvement with regards to Iran that isn't already being done or tried. ..whether that be covertly (i.e. virus in the nuclear labs cooperating with Israel) or in the public (i.e. economic sanctions & isolation). Perhaps some small technocratic improvements in existing sanctions but certainly none of the Repubs can possibly sell us on uniting a coalition better than Obama to do that...can they?

You can ratchet up the rhetoric if that makes you feel better about the situation but that will only serve to fuel escalation to a point where neither side can back down gracefully when it comes to actual combat.


2) Following on (1)...the American public (imho) is not even remotely interested in combat with Iran. They are much more interested in hearing about how they (and their neighbors) will get back to work. So do what you must as President...but don't try to sell the public on a new war, or the same old rhetoric. It's just not that critical to most people. And of course, how do you answer the question of "funding a new liberation war" without raising taxes on the wealthy. No good can come of this political strategy at all, imo.

Not to mention...I think you can make a much better argument that Iran will eventually succumb to the same Arab spring movements we've seen elsewhere. Certainly there was an initial wave crushed already, but that doesn't mean we won't see people rise up again. It will need a stable & democratic Iraq, same in Libya, same in Egypt...but there is at least a chance it can happen gracefully with influence rather than force. You couldn't say the same thing 10+ years ago with any sort of confidence, but I think you can now.

JonInMiddleGA 11-13-2011 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMax58 (Post 2565736)
I think you can make a much better argument that Iran will eventually succumb to the same Arab spring movements we've seen elsewhere.


Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.