Republicans against big government

[GMDino]

So NPR did a story just now and they were interviewing people in a town in Ohio.  One recurring theme was the jobs leaving.

They all blamed NAFTA.  (The businesses were leaving before NAFTA too.)

Got me to thinking:

Why do Republicans want government interference in business to force them to stay here or not leave?

One of Trump's promises (Clinton too to an extent) is to "bring the jobs back".  But how?  Force them by changing laws?

Isn't that some those darn "regulations" that the right hates so much?  Isn't that giving government more power over businesses?

Serious question here.  How do you justify wanting government to "get out of the way" so businesses can run along with a desire to have government "do something" to get jobs back in the US?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-01-2016, 05:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: So NPR did a story just now and they were interviewing people in a town in Ohio.  One recurring theme was the jobs leaving.

They all blamed NAFTA.  (The businesses were leaving before NAFTA too.)

Got me to thinking:

Why do Republicans want government interference in business to force them to stay here or not leave?

One of Trump's promises (Clinton too to an extent) is to "bring the jobs back".  But how?  Force them by changing laws?

Isn't that some those darn "regulations" that the right hates so much?  Isn't that giving government more power over businesses?

Serious question here.  How do you justify wanting government to "get out of the way" so businesses can run along with a desire to have government "do something" to get jobs back in the US?

Not a Republican, but I can throw out my answer to your question, at least.

All you have to do to keep jobs around here is look at Ireland:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/10/15/ireland-reduces-corporate-income-tax-rate-to-6-5-good-but-correct-rate-is-0/#3b66ad3836d8
http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/02/technology/ireland-apple-eu-tax-appeal/index.html

Now the US:
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/us-has-highest-corporate-income-tax-rate-oecd


The government didn't have to force anyone to stay, they tempted them to come by lowering taxes. They came and brought plenty of good paying jobs for their people. Is there any surprise that companies are leaving the US?

You lose tax dollars from the corporation, but you get more jobs (specifically good paying jobs). The government has plenty of places they can scale back or lean up on without losing anything vital.

So yeah.. they don't have to force anyone to do anything, just stop trying to squeeze every last dollar you can out of people, and people will WANT to bring jobs here.

[Belsnickel]

(11-01-2016, 05:55 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not a Republican, but I can throw out my answer to your question, at least.

All you have to do to keep jobs around here is look at Ireland:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/10/15/ireland-reduces-corporate-income-tax-rate-to-6-5-good-but-correct-rate-is-0/#3b66ad3836d8
http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/02/technology/ireland-apple-eu-tax-appeal/index.html

Now the US:
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/us-has-highest-corporate-income-tax-rate-oecd


The government didn't have to force anyone to stay, they tempted them to come by lowering taxes. They came and brought plenty of good paying jobs for their people. Is there any surprise that companies are leaving the US?

You lose tax dollars from the corporation, but you get more jobs (specifically good paying jobs). The government has plenty of places they can scale back or lean up on without losing anything vital.

So yeah.. they don't have to force anyone to do anything, just stop trying to squeeze every last dollar you can out of people, and people will WANT to bring jobs here.

The problem is that in our current situation there really isn't much room to cut. Our tax revenues would cover all of our mandatory plus roughly have of the discretionary spending as it is. Half of the discretionary is the defense budget. Yeah, we can cut, but we can't reduce our tax revenues significantly without putting ourselves in a worse fiscal situation.

Something a lot of people don't consider when looking at situations in countries like Ireland is that geographically we can't compare them. We would need hundreds of companies to set up hundreds of locations around our country to have the same economic impact because of our geography.

We need some corporate tax reform, but so many companies get by with paying little to no effective tax rate that isn't really a major factor. There is absolutely no corporation paying an effective tax rate of 39.1% in this country. The average effective tax rate is likely around 16%, if that, just base don my experience in corporate tax. Maybe we were better than the average, I don't know, but our effective was around 14.3%, including all of the states we did business in.

[SunsetBengal]

(11-01-2016, 07:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem is that in our current situation there really isn't much room to cut. Our tax revenues would cover all of our mandatory plus roughly have of the discretionary spending as it is. Half of the discretionary is the defense budget. Yeah, we can cut, but we can't reduce our tax revenues significantly without putting ourselves in a worse fiscal situation.

Something a lot of people don't consider when looking at situations in countries like Ireland is that geographically we can't compare them. We would need hundreds of companies to set up hundreds of locations around our country to have the same economic impact because of our geography.

We need some corporate tax reform, but so many companies get by with paying little to no effective tax rate that isn't really a major factor. There is absolutely no corporation paying an effective tax rate of 39.1% in this country. The average effective tax rate is likely around 16%, if that, just base don my experience in corporate tax. Maybe we were better than the average, I don't know, but our effective was around 14.3%, including all of the states we did business in.

I admire you number crunchers for being able to make solid predictions based on statistical analysis.  So, with all of your experiences with Finance, Economy, and Taxation in mind;  Why do you believe that so many companies are relocating outside of the US?  Is it simply cost of labor and regulations, or is there something more that I'm not seeing?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-01-2016, 07:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem is that in our current situation there really isn't much room to cut. Our tax revenues would cover all of our mandatory plus roughly have of the discretionary spending as it is. Half of the discretionary is the defense budget. Yeah, we can cut, but we can't reduce our tax revenues significantly without putting ourselves in a worse fiscal situation.

Something a lot of people don't consider when looking at situations in countries like Ireland is that geographically we can't compare them. We would need hundreds of companies to set up hundreds of locations around our country to have the same economic impact because of our geography.

We need some corporate tax reform, but so many companies get by with paying little to no effective tax rate that isn't really a major factor. There is absolutely no corporation paying an effective tax rate of 39.1% in this country. The average effective tax rate is likely around 16%, if that, just base don my experience in corporate tax. Maybe we were better than the average, I don't know, but our effective was around 14.3%, including all of the states we did business in.

Anyone who tells you that there isn't much room to cut isn't looking very hard. Same with the defense budget. You can get rid of a lot of crap in there without making our armed forced any less potent.

-Heck, they're spending over $1t+ on a stealth fighter jet program with questionable stealth, terrible maneuverability, extremely limited payload, ton of software problems, and costs like $115m a pop to make. (You could buy 72 F-16s for the price of 10 F-35s)

-The US found $1.7b pretty easy to pay Iran's ransom.

-Does the US really need SEVENTEEN intelligence agencies?
- - - - - - - - - - - -
This article (man I am using a lot of Forbes links today) sums up a nice little list. Read this and tell me that there isn't much room to cut.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2014/10/22/how-did-the-government-waste-your-money-in-2014-separating-fact-from-fiction/#25b6d1ef6ca2
"The following groupings contain three items of government spending pulled from the Wastebook, and one pulled from my own imagination. See if you can guess which one is the fake!"

1 Animal Division

a. $387,000 to study the effects robot-provided Swedish massage has on the physical recovery of rabbits after exercise.
b. $856,000 to train three mountain lions to run on a treadmill in order to measure the energy consumption of the cats’ hunting techniques.
c. $171,000 to teach monkeys to gamble in order to determine if monkeys, like humans, believe in the concept of a “hot hand.”
d.  $473,000 to house 100 chimpanzees in a room with 100 typewriters for the entire year to determine whether, if given enough time, they could recreate the complete works of Tucker Max.

2. Public Safety Division

a. $3 million to create a snarky social media presence named “Think Again Turn Away” to counter the propaganda movement of terrorist organizations.
b. $331,000 to study whether the concept of “hanger” was real by testing whether hungry spouses were more likely to stab a voodoo doll representing their significant other.
c. $335,000 to build 38 “speed humps” (which incidentally, is how six of Adrian Peterson’s children were conceived) in two Portland, Maine neighborhoods.
d. $820,000 to determine the impact of public breastfeeding on the rate of car accidents at crowded intersections.

3. Tax Division

a. $4.2 billion lost to improper tax refunds issued to identity thieves.
b. $10 million in lost tax revenue by permitting the super-rich to rent their homes for up to two weeks each year tax-free.
c. $4 billion in funding issues to states who improperly achieve a double benefit on federal Medicaid payments.
d. $1.9 million in lost tax revenue attributable to the ill-advised one-year extension of the “Too Tired to Work” credit.

4. Military Division

a.  $1 billion to destroy $16 billion in unneeded purchases of military-grade ammunition.
b. $80 million for the development of a real-life Ironman suit.
c. $21 million for the Army Corps of Engineers to rebuild buildings that continue to burn down because of their shoddy construction.
d. $37 million for an initial inquiry as to the total cost for the U.S. to quell rising unrest in the middle East by “having everyone pretend to convert to Islam for a year or two.”


5. Animal Division, Round 2.

a. $371,000 to study if mothers loved their dogs as much as their own kids by studying the way their brains responded to pictures of both.
b. $1.97 million in grants to crate a new communication network for “fossil enthusiasts and professionals.”
c. $307,000 to study the impact schools of swimming Sea Monkeys have on ocean current.
d. $1.2 million to study whether eating radioactive tuna caused by the Fukushima disaster as part of a balanced meal will provide humans with mild superpowers.

6. Recreational Division

a. $194,090 to determine if automatic text messages can encourage heavy drinkers to stop boozing.
b. $100,000 for the Coast Guard to patrol some of the country’s most exclusive real estate to stop uninvited guests from crashing private parties.
c. $120,000 in performance bonuses paid to an Environmental Protection Agency employee who admitted to viewing porn up to six hours a day on government computers.
d. $484,000 to study whether “drunk recall” of information learned while intoxicating is a real phenomenon, as part of a program titled “E=MC hammered.”

7. The Arts Division

a. $10,000 to produce “Zombie in Love,” a musical about a teenage zombie “dying to find true love.”
b. $15,000 for the Colorado Symphony Orchestra to  produce “Classically Cannabis: The High Note Series,” with the intention of attracting younger audiences to the symphony.
c. $10,000 to return to the stage ”RoosevElvis,” a pay about a shy woman who channels the personality of Elvis Presley and her imaginary friend, Teddy Roosevelt.
d. $27,000 to produce “One-Man Jurassic Park,” a play meant to terrify and tantalize audiences after “‘mankind’s desire to play God backfires in spectacular fashion.”













- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Answer Key:
1. d is the false answer.
2. d is the false answer.
3. d is the false answer.
4. d. is the false answer.
5. d is the false answer. 
6. d is the false answer.
7. d is the false answer.

[fredtoast]

(11-01-2016, 07:23 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Anyone who tells you that there isn't much room to cut isn't looking very hard. Same with the defense budget. You can get rid of a lot of crap in there without making our armed forced any less potent.

-Heck, they're spending over $1t+ on a stealth fighter jet program with questionable stealth, terrible maneuverability, extremely limited payload, ton of software problems, and costs like $115m a pop to make. (You could buy 72 F-16s for the price of 10 F-35s)

-The US found $1.7b pretty easy to pay Iran's ransom.

-Does the US really need SEVENTEEN intelligence agencies?
- - - - - - - - - - - -
This article (man I am using a lot of Forbes links today) sums up a nice little list. Read this and tell me that there isn't much room to cut.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2014/10/22/how-did-the-government-waste-your-money-in-2014-separating-fact-from-fiction/#25b6d1ef6ca2
"The following groupings contain three items of government spending pulled from the Wastebook, and one pulled from my own imagination. See if you can guess which one is the fake!"

1 Animal Division

a. $387,000 to study the effects robot-provided Swedish massage has on the physical recovery of rabbits after exercise.
b. $856,000 to train three mountain lions to run on a treadmill in order to measure the energy consumption of the cats’ hunting techniques.
c. $171,000 to teach monkeys to gamble in order to determine if monkeys, like humans, believe in the concept of a “hot hand.”
d.  $473,000 to house 100 chimpanzees in a room with 100 typewriters for the entire year to determine whether, if given enough time, they could recreate the complete works of Tucker Max.

2. Public Safety Division

a. $3 million to create a snarky social media presence named “Think Again Turn Away” to counter the propaganda movement of terrorist organizations.
b. $331,000 to study whether the concept of “hanger” was real by testing whether hungry spouses were more likely to stab a voodoo doll representing their significant other.
c. $335,000 to build 38 “speed humps” (which incidentally, is how six of Adrian Peterson’s children were conceived) in two Portland, Maine neighborhoods.
d. $820,000 to determine the impact of public breastfeeding on the rate of car accidents at crowded intersections.

3. Tax Division

a. $4.2 billion lost to improper tax refunds issued to identity thieves.
b. $10 million in lost tax revenue by permitting the super-rich to rent their homes for up to two weeks each year tax-free.
c. $4 billion in funding issues to states who improperly achieve a double benefit on federal Medicaid payments.
d. $1.9 million in lost tax revenue attributable to the ill-advised one-year extension of the “Too Tired to Work” credit.

4. Military Division

a.  $1 billion to destroy $16 billion in unneeded purchases of military-grade ammunition.
b. $80 million for the development of a real-life Ironman suit.
c. $21 million for the Army Corps of Engineers to rebuild buildings that continue to burn down because of their shoddy construction.
d. $37 million for an initial inquiry as to the total cost for the U.S. to quell rising unrest in the middle East by “having everyone pretend to convert to Islam for a year or two.”


5. Animal Division, Round 2.

a. $371,000 to study if mothers loved their dogs as much as their own kids by studying the way their brains responded to pictures of both.
b. $1.97 million in grants to crate a new communication network for “fossil enthusiasts and professionals.”
c. $307,000 to study the impact schools of swimming Sea Monkeys have on ocean current.
d. $1.2 million to study whether eating radioactive tuna caused by the Fukushima disaster as part of a balanced meal will provide humans with mild superpowers.

6. Recreational Division

a. $194,090 to determine if automatic text messages can encourage heavy drinkers to stop boozing.
b. $100,000 for the Coast Guard to patrol some of the country’s most exclusive real estate to stop uninvited guests from crashing private parties.
c. $120,000 in performance bonuses paid to an Environmental Protection Agency employee who admitted to viewing porn up to six hours a day on government computers.
d. $484,000 to study whether “drunk recall” of information learned while intoxicating is a real phenomenon, as part of a program titled “E=MC hammered.”

7. The Arts Division

a. $10,000 to produce “Zombie in Love,” a musical about a teenage zombie “dying to find true love.”
b. $15,000 for the Colorado Symphony Orchestra to  produce “Classically Cannabis: The High Note Series,” with the intention of attracting younger audiences to the symphony.
c. $10,000 to return to the stage ”RoosevElvis,” a pay about a shy woman who channels the personality of Elvis Presley and her imaginary friend, Teddy Roosevelt.
d. $27,000 to produce “One-Man Jurassic Park,” a play meant to terrify and tantalize audiences after “‘mankind’s desire to play God backfires in spectacular fashion.”













- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Answer Key:
1. d is the false answer.
2. d is the false answer.
3. d is the false answer.
4. d. is the false answer.
5. d is the false answer. 
6. d is the false answer.
7. d is the false answer.

The federal budget is about $4 trillion.  That means you need a cut of $40 BILLION just to reduce it by 1%.

And cutting "lost tax revenue" does not reduce the budget.  So all of the thuings you mentioned here would not even total $1 billlion which would be .025% of 1 percent of the budget.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-01-2016, 07:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The federal budget is about $4 trillion.  That means you need a cut of $40 BILLION just to reduce it by 1%.

And cutting "lost tax revenue" does not reduce the budget.  So all of the thuings you mentioned here would not even total $1 billlion which would be .025% of 1 percent of the budget.

All the things I mentioned just there don't equal $1b? Damn you are terrible at math.

A on #4 was $17b alone. 

Not even touching the $1t+ F-35 program. 

[fredtoast]

(11-01-2016, 05:55 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not a Republican, but I can throw out my answer to your question, at least.

All you have to do to keep jobs around here is look at Ireland:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/10/15/ireland-reduces-corporate-income-tax-rate-to-6-5-good-but-correct-rate-is-0/#3b66ad3836d8
http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/02/technology/ireland-apple-eu-tax-appeal/index.html

Now the US:
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/us-has-highest-corporate-income-tax-rate-oecd


The government didn't have to force anyone to stay, they tempted them to come by lowering taxes. They came and brought plenty of good paying jobs for their people. Is there any surprise that companies are leaving the US?

You lose tax dollars from the corporation, but you get more jobs (specifically good paying jobs). The government has plenty of places they can scale back or lean up on without losing anything vital.

So yeah.. they don't have to force anyone to do anything, just stop trying to squeeze every last dollar you can out of people, and people will WANT to bring jobs here.

But the Ireland system is only successful because it is the only one in the world.  It is kind of like how Las Vegas used to be so successful  because it was the only place that had legal gambling.  When lots of other places legalized gambling they did not all grow as popular as Vegas.

Ireland has attracted a lot of foreign investment but only involving the high end R&D.  General Motors can not manufacture and sell 10 million cars in Ireland.  WalMart can not operate 10 thousand stores in Ireland.

Also Ireland has other tax loopholes that allow most businesses to pay almost zero in taxes.

Meanwhile Ireland has not reduced government expenditures so someone else has been required to pay the taxes that corporations used to.  If the tax cuts create massive growth in GDP then tax revenue can grow even with lower rates.  But that is not what is happening in Ireland, and it is definitely not what will happen if every other country cuts corporate taxes so dramatically.  Corporations do not use tax savings to pay higher wages or re-invest in growing their companies.  Instead the lower taxes just go to make stockholders richer.

[fredtoast]

(11-01-2016, 08:16 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: All the things I mentioned just there don't equal $1b? Damn you are terrible at math.

A on #4 was $17b alone. 

Not even touching the $1t+ F-35 program. 

You are right.  I missed that A in #4 was billions instead of millions. But the $16 billion spent on munitions was not in one year.  So you have $1 billion in savings which is one quarter of one tenth of one percent of the budget.

The F35 program was spread out over 50 years I believe.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-01-2016, 08:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are right.  I missed that that was billions instead of millions.

The F35 program was spread out over 50 years I believe.

$1.5t through 2070, but they have been constantly late, overbudget, and under-delivering on every step of this program. It's been 10 years and there's still no F-35s in combat. Or even fully functional. Even if you go by their $1.5t original estimate, that's still $23.437b per year for a fighter jet that so far doesn't work and isn't good.

An F-16 costs about ~$16m a piece. The F-35s are currently costing over $100m a piece and that's not counting an engine for the plane.

- - - - - -

Either way, that list of things is just a small sample, it's by no means the entirety of waste in government spending.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wastebook-report-details-30b-in-questionable-federal-spending/
"One million dollars to build a bus stop in Virginia.
"Three million dollars for NASA employees to attend seminars on how Congress works."

This isn't even organizations that could be gotten rid of in the government, this is just lists of single acts that are wasteful.



Here's a couple more I was remembering:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-turns-486-million-afghan-air-fleet-32000/story?id=26083173
The US bought 20 Italian made cargo planes for the Afghan Air Force to use, only to realize after they spent $486m on them that they could not work well in sandy/dusty conditions.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/10/07/new-air-force-planes-go-directly-to-boneyard.html
US AF buys 21 cargo planes (US built this time) for $567m, realizes it has no need for them, so they immediately go straight to storage.

[fredtoast]

(11-01-2016, 08:27 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: $1.5t through 2070, but they have been constantly late, overbudget, and under-delivering on every step of this program. It's been 10 years and there's still no F-35s in combat. Or even fully functional. Even if you go by their $1.5t original estimate, that's still $23.437b per year for a fighter jet that so far doesn't work and isn't good.

An F-16 costs about ~$16m a piece. The F-35s are currently costing over $100m a piece and that's not counting an engine for the plane.

- - - - - -

Either way, that list of things is just a small sample, it's by no means the entirety of waste in government spending.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wastebook-report-details-30b-in-questionable-federal-spending/
"One million dollars to build a bus stop in Virginia.
"Three million dollars for NASA employees to attend seminars on how Congress works."

This isn't even organizations that could be gotten rid of in the government, this is just lists of single acts that are wasteful.



Here's a couple more I was remembering:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-turns-486-million-afghan-air-fleet-32000/story?id=26083173
The US bought 20 Italian made cargo planes for the Afghan Air Force to use, only to realize after they spent $486m on them that they could not work well in sandy/dusty conditions.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/10/07/new-air-force-planes-go-directly-to-boneyard.html
US AF buys 21 cargo planes (US built this time) for $567m, realizes it has no need for them, so they immediately go straight to storage.

Getting a little off topic here.

Going back to your response to the OP cutting coprotae taxes dramatically will not help uys keep jobs or grow the economy.  It worked for Ireland to attract a few high paying R&D jobs, but that would not have much of an effect on the United States.

Being a tax haven does not grow an economy.

[Dill]

(11-01-2016, 07:23 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: -The US found $1.7b pretty easy to pay Iran's ransom.

-Does the US really need SEVENTEEN intelligence agencies?
- - - - - - - - - - - -

The "ransom" money you allude to was already Iranian, wasn't it? Not from our budget.

And yes, the US needs SEVENTEEN intelligence agencies.

Reading through the list of grants for science and humanities programs, I got to thinking about how little people
understand about scientific/scholarly research. 

I don't consider a few thousand in humanities grants a waste.

[SunsetBengal]

(11-01-2016, 09:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Getting a little off topic here.

Going back to your response to the OP cutting coprotae taxes dramatically will not help uys keep jobs or grow the economy.  It worked for Ireland to attract a few high paying R&D jobs, but that would not have much of an effect on the United States.

Being a tax haven does not grow an economy.

So, wise one, why do you say that?

[*Nately120*]

Why do republicans want to bring jobs back to America? Shouldn't republicans already have jobs?

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2016, 11:15 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Why do republicans want to bring jobs back to America?  Shouldn't republicans already have jobs?

So we do not have to pay for those that do not. 

[Dill]

(11-01-2016, 05:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Why do Republicans want government interference in business to force them to stay here or not leave?

One of Trump's promises (Clinton too to an extent) is to "bring the jobs back".  But how?  Force them by changing laws?

Isn't that some those darn "regulations" that the right hates so much?  Isn't that giving government more power over businesses?

Serious question here.  How do you justify wanting government to "get out of the way" so businesses can run along with a desire to have government "do something" to get jobs back in the US?

Dino, Republicans aren't one thing.  The big employers and their apologists still don't want regulation any more than they want unions.

Out of work Republicans are understandably upset because their jobs have fled to other lands. That is why they are susceptible
to Trumpist populism and angry at the free-market loving "establishment."  That is why the Republican party is seriously,
dysfunctionally, irrationlly divided, with Trump schizophrenically promising tax cuts to the rich and jobs back for the out of work.

Cheaper corporate taxes in places like Ireland may encourage some companies to relocate headquarters.

But the main driver for offshoring and outsourcing jobs is not cheaper corporate taxes in other lands, but cheaper labor. Some argue that
NAFTA facilitates the movement of jobs to lands with cheaper, non-union labor.  Cutting taxes on the rich isn't going to fix that.

[*Nately120*]

(11-01-2016, 11:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So we do not have to pay for those that do not. 

I thought people were unemployed because they are lazy.

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2016, 11:29 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I thought people were unemployed because they are lazy.

Not true as a general statement. I would tend to say unmotivated as opposed to lazy. Reduce subsidies and increase employment opportunities is a good thing for the employed and those seeking employment. More will be seeking if subsidies dwindle.  

[*Nately120*]

(11-01-2016, 11:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not true as a general statement. I would tend to say unmotivated as opposed to lazy. Reduce subsidies and increase employment opportunities is a good thing for the employed and those seeking employment. More will be seeking if subsidies dwindle.  

Can't we just reduce subsidies to the point where what jobs we have are appealing enough?  And I mean all sorts of subsidies, like that bs disability every dumbass redneck in the south who doesn't have an education gets on because he/she is fat and smokes. 

It just seems like a pipe dream to expect American labor to be able to produce the crap American consumers demand on a constant basis.

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2016, 11:45 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Can't we just reduce subsidies to the point where what jobs we have are appealing enough?  And I mean all sorts of subsidies, like that bs disability every dumbass redneck in the south who doesn't have an education gets on because he/she is fat and smokes. 

It just seems like a pipe dream to expect American labor to be able to produce the crap American consumers demand on a constant basis.

Your plan is sound if you are of the opinion that there are enough readily available jobs in the US. I see nothing wrong with bringing in more, just in case there are not. Your insults aside: I further agree no one should claim disability for being obese (given there are no medical abnormalities) and smoking.