Boehner, where are the jobs?

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
70
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Their government workers who cares. In most cases the private sector can do the work and pick up those jobs. Oh ya if the government workers then had to work in the private sector they might actually half to work. Dam their goes my plan.

Sorry... if my house caught on fire I wouldn't want to rely on a private sector firehouse to take care of my needs. Something about the fire chief pulling out a POS machine in front of a burning house, where people may be trapped inside and dying while workers stood on standby, just doesn't appeal to me. :rolleyes:
 

Attila the Hung

Admired Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Posts
677
Media
11
Likes
777
Points
248
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Forgive my ignorance but just how in the hell does someone like John Boehner even get his foot into the door of politics and spew the kind of absolute nonsense that he does and with a straight face no less?

As a Canadian seeing the freakshow that is american politics is quite fascinating and disgusting at the same time, but for the life of me I cannot fathom how some folks actually support people like Boehner, Bachman, Palin, etc.. basically anyone in the Rep party.

I really do believe that the American govnt should come up with a law that says ANY company that decides to do business in the US can only have say 25% of their workforce overseas, the rest has to be stateside to provide jobs for the American people and help your own economy, not the economy of other nations.

That would be a good start imo, another one would be for Obama to grow a pair once and for all and charge the entire republican party as ennemies of the state and american people and lock them all up and throw away the key. Okay maybe thats unrealistic but its nice to think about though, I know I wish somebody got rid of Stephen Harper over here, the guy is a fucking cancer for our nation to say the least.

Sorry for the rant, on my 5th glass of whiskey tonight.
 

tomjay122

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Posts
50
Media
15
Likes
154
Points
178
Location
Glasgow (Kentucky, United States)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
when he took office unemployment was at 7.9 percent and soared all the way to 10.2 percent...now its fallen to 9 percent...only because they actually count those on unemployment...not those who have exhausted theirs....not being for or against Obama here... its not like hes created a ton of jobs here...hes still lost more than hes gained...I think alot of people would be shocked if they actually counted everybody...and keeping 75 percent of all US companies jobs in the US would be a good idea....but how many people from Ford and GM work in Canada...oops there goes Canadas unemployment rate even higher...whiskey is good!!!!!
 
Last edited:

bisexualjock

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2010
Posts
94
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I really do believe that the American govnt should come up with a law that says ANY company that decides to do business in the US can only have say 25% of their workforce overseas, the rest has to be stateside to provide jobs for the American people and help your own economy, not the economy of other nations.
And every country would make a similar law saying only 25% of any good can come from an American source. Goodbye Apple/Microsoft/Ford/GE/IBM/Google/etc global competitiveness.

That would be a good start imo, another one would be for Obama to grow a pair once and for all and charge the entire republican party as ennemies of the state and american people and lock them all up and throw away the key. Okay maybe thats unrealistic but its nice to think about though, I know I wish somebody got rid of Stephen Harper over here, the guy is a fucking cancer for our nation to say the least.

Thank you for proving, once and for all, that drinking does indeed lower your overall IQ. Or maybe it's just the result of the inferior Canadian higher education system.
 

bisexualjock

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2010
Posts
94
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I really do believe that the American govnt should come up with a law that says ANY company that decides to do business in the US can only have say 25% of their workforce overseas, the rest has to be stateside to provide jobs for the American people and help your own economy, not the economy of other nations.
And every country would make a similar law saying only 25% of any good can come from an American source. Goodbye Apple/Microsoft/Ford/GE/IBM/Google/etc global dominance.
 

Attila the Hung

Admired Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Posts
677
Media
11
Likes
777
Points
248
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Thank you for proving, once and for all, that drinking does indeed lower your overall IQ. Or maybe it's just the result of the inferior Canadian higher education system.

Do some research before you go and criticize our education system you intellectual dwarf, our education system while far from perfect ranks among the best in the world, better than yours at this point in time thats for sure. And btw your opinion on anything means less than nothing to me, ignorant fools who have too high an opinion of themselves such as you do can kiss my hairy ass.
 

B_Alt33

Just Browsing
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Posts
112
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
51
Location
NY
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Interesting the teachers in ontario basically have the same salary of that in the US. What is the reason that the US is still behind?? Its obviously not money
 

Attila the Hung

Admired Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Posts
677
Media
11
Likes
777
Points
248
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
when he took office unemployment was at 7.9 percent and soared all the way to 10.2 percent...now its fallen to 9 percent...only because they actually count those on unemployment...not those who have exhausted theirs....not being for or against Obama here... its not like hes created a ton of jobs here...hes still lost more than hes gained...I think alot of people would be shocked if they actually counted everybody...and keeping 75 percent of all US companies jobs in the US would be a good idea....but how many people from Ford and GM work in Canada...oops there goes Canadas unemployment rate even higher...whiskey is good!!!!!

For your information, Ford and GM have been moving their operations overseas from here, just recently in Ontario I believe a GM or Ford plant closed costing I don`t know how many jobs that was relocated somewhere else overseas. And here in my province of Quebec companys are constantly trying to move their operations overseas as well, thus creating even more unemployed people.

I really don`t understand why some folks are adamantly opposed to keeping jobs and work in your own country and not exporting it somewhere else because you can pay people peanuts to the work for you instead thus making insane amounts of profit. Why don`t you keep the jobs in the country you are located in, thus creating employment for your own countrymen and providing them with a means to sustain themselves and their familys?

Sure, you won`t make as much money but you will still be making a shitload of it, so why the constant need to send the work overseas? Just to make more fucking money? Always more, more, more, money as that is the only thing that matters? Some of you don`t seem to realise what effect this will have on your nation in the long term, not everyone has the means, ability or opportunity to go to college or university to study for a bachelor or a doctorate or whatever, some of us have to make do with doing more hands on type of work.

What will you do when you have millions of unemployed men sitting around getting more and more frustrated and angry at their inability to find a job to support themselves and their familys? Look whats happening in Egypt and Yemen and Algeria and Tunisia, all those men in the streets are there because their ain`t no fucking jobs to keep them at work instead of protesting in the street demading changes.

They are angry and pissed off, and its only a matter of time before this kind of things starts happening in the US and Canada even, especially here in Quebec where shit has gone completely out of control. Then you add guns to the mix and you have a very dangerous situation on your hands if you are the govnt. I know people here who have been out of work for almost two years and its not for a lack of trying to find a job, ANY job whatsoever, there simply isn`t anything available and its fucking scary.

And what is even scarier is some of the thoughts that cross their minds, after awhile they start getting very angry at their situation and start thinking to themselves somebodys gotta pay for this, somebody has to pay for me losing my house, my family, my inability to buy anything because I simply have no fucking money! These are ordinary men who I have known for a long time and who are starting to lose it mentally, a man who has nothing left to lose and has an axe to grind is the most dangerous man in the world, he has no fear left anymore just hatred and rage inside of him, and that cannot be contained forever, and what happens when it is unleashed?

You guessed it, sheer mayhem, now imagine it on a much grander scale, with hundreds of thousands if not millions of men just like this, then what will you do? There is so much more I can say about this subject unfortunately I am not nearly as eloquent in my writing as I am when I speak, plus I am already tipsy and don`t feel like writing anymore at this time so I`ll bow out now. Point is exporting all the work you can overseas just in the name of maximizing profit is very short-sighted, in the long run it will create far more harm than good.
 
Last edited:

B_Alt33

Just Browsing
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Posts
112
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
51
Location
NY
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
You did a good job boxingman. All companies need to profit otherwise they would fail (GM). There are many factors why businesses use overseas companies one of which is yes greater profit. But think of all the pensions and shareholds of companies like Ford. If Ford stays in Canada or the US their profits go down which means the shareholders dividends also decrease. So all the older folks that worked for Ford and live off their dividends would suffer. The whole system is screwed, we can't not provide jobs to 3rd world countries because then the US would be scolded, we can't fight to much with China because they own all our debt and all they need to do is call in the debt and that's it no more US.

So at the end of the day the problem is government and government intervention trying to have an effect on private business. I as a business owner has the right to place my workforce where I want. This means I can make more money for my family and my investors. There is simply nothing wrong with that and in doing that I may displace my current employees. But that is the risk of owning a business and being an employee. Sorry it just the way it is. Everyone has the opportunity to be successful we just measure that differently.
 

Attila the Hung

Admired Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Posts
677
Media
11
Likes
777
Points
248
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
You did a good job boxingman. All companies need to profit otherwise they would fail (GM). There are many factors why businesses use overseas companies one of which is yes greater profit. But think of all the pensions and shareholds of companies like Ford. If Ford stays in Canada or the US their profits go down which means the shareholders dividends also decrease. So all the older folks that worked for Ford and live off their dividends would suffer. The whole system is screwed, we can't not provide jobs to 3rd world countries because then the US would be scolded, we can't fight to much with China because they own all our debt and all they need to do is call in the debt and that's it no more US.

So at the end of the day the problem is government and government intervention trying to have an effect on private business. I as a business owner has the right to place my workforce where I want. This means I can make more money for my family and my investors. There is simply nothing wrong with that and in doing that I may displace my current employees. But that is the risk of owning a business and being an employee. Sorry it just the way it is. Everyone has the opportunity to be successful we just measure that differently.

You make valid points and I won`t disagree with anything you have said except one part:

Everyone has the opportunity to be successful we just measure that differently

This I disagree with, some of us are dealt a shitty hand right from the get-go as soon as we enter this world, and try as we might there simply isn`t any opportunity for advancement both financially and professionaly, and that is the sad fucking truth of the matter.

As for the rest I don`t have any qualms with most of what you have written, and I especially agree with this part:

The whole system is screwed

I agree, and I have the nagging feeling only a 3rd World War will be the impetus for changes to be made, once half the world has been destroyed by mankinds insatiable greed for profit and resources then the storm of steel will begin and whoever is left standing will have to start up from scratch only to have the same damn thing happen again and again. The great failure of man is his absolute inability to learn from the mistakes of the past, history has shown that to be true and it will be our inevitable undoing imo.

Anyway, goodnight.
 

B_24065

1st Like
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Posts
639
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
163
And I'll give you this in return. Produce a link that backs your claims or you're full of it.

Also, do keep in mind I've already done the math just in case these numbers have any real relevance and you still don't have enough of a gripe to make. But because I'm such a fair sport, let me clue you in on one of the specifics. Keep in mind you did say taxpayers (plural) and according to statistics, there are roughly 138 million taxpayers in the United States. So you can only imagine how your figures (if they're even true) breaks down when you look at one individual taxpayer. I'll leave it there for now. It's now up to you to provide proof of your claims or back down... or go into your usual tirade of insults. Believe me, I'm prepared either way for the outcome.

Chrysler:
Chrysler-Fiat Bailout Cost: 0,000 Per Job Saved

GM:
The New Auto Bailout – Costs To Taxpayer Increases to $710,000 Per GM Employee

Note: The GM article, though it appears in a webblog, first appeared as an associated press article on YahooNews.com

And your point about how that breaks down to an insignificant amount per taxpayer is utterly irrelevant. Insufficiency is insufficiency no matter how you try and spin it.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
According to a study by the Center for Automotive Research, the auto bailout didn't just save the jobs of workers at Chrysler and GM. When you extend that out to businesses dependent on manufacturing, parts suppliers, etc., the number of jobs saved is estimated at well over a million - close to 1.5 million over two years to be precise. The cost per job saved was $57,000, not the $710,000 or $870,000 pricetag one of our rabid idealogues pulled out of old rightwing weblogs. Not to mention all the other businesses across the spectrum that would have suffered had all those workers lost purchasing power in the marketplace, the "cascading" effect. Not to mention the additional strain on social services already past the breaking point, billions paid out in social security payments and unemployment benefits, potentially hundreds of thousands of more homes going into foreclosure, the incalcuable devastating effects on individuals and families with a million plus more people unemployed. Not to mention that the state of Michigan and the city of Detroit were quite possibly saved from bankruptcy. Not to mention that the American auto industry has been rescued, and all that entails and symbolizes, in a nation sorely lacking in pride and good manufacturing jobs. Had GM and Chrysler gone into bankruptcy, the hit to the economy would have been nearly $100 billion in the short term, $100's of Billions more down the road.

And here's the kicker - most of the bailout has been repaid. As it stands now the total loss to the taxpayers is estimated at $19 Billion and dropping, not the original $80 Billion bailout, or even the $40 Billion loss originally projected. When everything's taken into account, we did better than break even on this deal, plus we avoided all the nasty consequences listed above and the loss of $100's of Billions it would have cost us in the long run.

Rescuing the auto industry was one of the smartest, boldest, most successful economic initiatives the Obama administration undertook in the depths of the Bush recession. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either completely ignorant of the economics, or a blind idealogue, or both.



 
Last edited:

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
According to a study by the Center for Automotive Research, the auto bailout didn't just save the jobs of workers at Chrysler and GM. When you extend that out to businesses dependent on manufacturing, parts suppliers, etc., the number of jobs saved is estimated at well over a million - close to 1.5 million over two years to be precise. The cost per job saved was $57,000, not the $710,000 or $870,000 pricetag one of our rabid idealogues pulled out of old rightwing weblogs. Not to mention all the other businesses across the spectrum that would have suffered had all those workers lost purchasing power in the marketplace, the "cascading" effect. Not to mention the additional strain on social services already past the breaking point, billions paid out in social security payments and unemployment benefits, potentially hundreds of thousands of more homes going into foreclosure, the incalcuable devastating effects on individuals and families with a million plus more people unemployed. Not to mention that the state of Michigan and the city of Detroit were quite possibly saved from bankruptcy. Not to mention that the American auto industry has been rescued, and all that entails and symbolizes, in a nation sorely lacking in pride and good manufacturing jobs. Had GM and Chrysler gone into bankruptcy, the hit to the economy would have been nearly $100 billion in the short term, $100's of Billions more down the road.

And here's the kicker - most of the bailout has been repaid. As it stands now the total loss to the taxpayers is estimated at $19 Billion and dropping, not the original $80 Billion bailout, or even the $40 Billion loss originally projected. When everything's taken into account, we did better than break even on this deal, plus we avoided all the nasty consequences listed above and the loss of $100's of Billions it would have cost us in the long run.

Rescuing the auto industry was one of the smartest, boldest, most successful economic initiatives the Obama administration undertook in the depths of the Bush recession. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either completely ignorant of the economics, or a blind idealogue, or both.





Sir Giant, enormous, so-bg-that-it-hurts is pretty much correct in his post. And I agree with him. But you'd still have to hold a gun to my head to buy a Ford, GM, or Chrysler product. :smile:
 

B_Alt33

Just Browsing
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Posts
112
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
51
Location
NY
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
The bailout was not required by any means both by Bush and Obama. Look at Ford they restructured and came out profitable. The problem with GM and Chrysler is that they really don't have a product worth purchasing. So rather than let market forces dictate the outcome the government stepped in. Watch in 5 years from now GM and Chrysler will be in the same position looking for a government handout.

It would have been easier for GM and Chrysler to file bankruptcy restructure their debt, change the union agreements and create efficiencies. Then come back a stronger company with a product people want. The current revenues are bloated by the fact they have a shit load of government money. Again give them 5 years and they will back in the same place. Not to mention there are many Americans that will simply not purchase a GM or Chrysler due to the fact they took a government handout.
 

bisexualjock

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2010
Posts
94
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I won`t even dignify this with a response, I don`t have time to waste on idiots.

Not only are you Quebecois awful drivers (I live off 87), but you are apparently also horrendous at making arguments. Please stay North of the border and enjoy your Cirque du Soleil.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
70
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male

A February 18, 2009 CNN article estimated the bailout could cost U.S. taxpayers $130 billion. As of early June 2009, the Bush and Obama administrations had invested $80.3 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect...tomotive_industry_crisis_on_the_United_States

When you do the math, it doesn't break down to anyone of the amounts touted in the links you provided. If it honestly did cost taxpayers $710,000 or even $870,000 per employee, at 1.14 million workers whose jobs were saved in the process, our government would have had to invested nearly a trillion dollars and they didn't.

And your point about how that breaks down to an insignificant amount per taxpayer is utterly irrelevant. Insufficiency is insufficiency no matter how you try and spin it.

And false equivalency is false equivalency... that is, unless you think a trillion is equal to a billion. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

bisexualjock

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2010
Posts
94
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
A February 18, 2009 CNN article estimated the bailout could cost U.S. taxpayers $130 billion. As of early June 2009, the Bush and Obama administrations had invested $80.3 billion.

Effects of the 2008

When you do the math, it doesn't break down to anyone of the amounts touted in the links you provided. If it honestly did cost taxpayers $710,000 or even $870,000 per employee, at 1.14 million workers whose jobs were saved in the process, our government would have had to invested nearly a trillion dollars and they didn't.


And false equivalency is false equivalency... that is, unless you think a trillion is equal to a billion. :rolleyes:

Your logic is ridiculous. To claim that the 1.14 million jobs would simply be "lost" without a bailout is insane. Have you ever heard of bankruptcy restructuring? Do you even know what that entails? GM/Chrysler would not have gone out of business - they would have been forced to deal with mountin labor costs, benefits liabilities, and structural deficiencies. Instead, they were artificially propped up by the taxpayer, vs dealing with the issues as any other industry (minus the banking sector) would have approached it.

In addition - if GM or Chrysler did go under, it would only increase demand for products from Ford and the remaining companies that were still in existence. It's like trying to claim that if RIM went out of business, all of the suppliers for Blackberries would lose all of their jobs. In fact, it would increase demand for iPhones, and those employees would simply produce products for Apple instead.

Stay in your bubble VinylBoy. I'm guessing you didn't go to school for anything involving calculations?
 

NYCdude

1st Like
Joined
May 20, 2008
Posts
112
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
163
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
But they did go bankrupt, and they did restructure.

And I'm not so sure if Blackberry went under those people would get jobs at Apple. I understand your "calculation," but it's not so simple.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
70
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Your logic is ridiculous. To claim that the 1.14 million jobs would simply be "lost" without a bailout is insane.

I didn't pull that claim out of thin air:
In 2009, The Center for Automotive Research said the government’s bailouts of the U.S. auto industry spared more than 1.14 million jobs last year alone. - GM IPO: Auto Bailout Saved More Than 1 Million Jobs, Study Says - Deal Journal - WSJ

Also, I never claimed that these jobs would have been lost. Do pay attention.

Have you ever heard of bankruptcy restructuring? Do you even know what that entails? GM/Chrysler would not have gone out of business - they would have been forced to deal with mountin labor costs, benefits liabilities, and structural deficiencies. Instead, they were artificially propped up by the taxpayer, vs dealing with the issues as any other industry (minus the banking sector) would have approached it.

That doesn't matter now because that is not the approach our government took when dealing with this crisis. So speculation as to how you thought it should have went and its results are irrelevant.

In addition - if GM or Chrysler did go under, it would only increase demand for products from Ford and the remaining companies that were still in existence.

According to Consumer Reports, here are the top ranked automobiles for 2010:

Nissan Altima
Hyundai Elantra SE
Volkswagen GTI
Subaru Forester
Lexus LS 460L
Chevrolet Traverse
Infiniti G37
Mazda5
Toyota Prius
Chevrolet Silverado 1500

Ford didn't even make the list. Regardless, the majority of top sellers are imports and not American made products. So if GM and Chrysler did fall, we would have lost major players in this field as well as jobs. Sure, demand would have went up for other auto companies but to the likes of Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, Volkswagen and Mazda. Ultimately that doesn't help our economy as much as it would if people bought more domestics.

Stay in your bubble VinylBoy. I'm guessing you didn't go to school for anything involving calculations?

Clearly, the boy in the bubble in this case is you. If you're going to make it this easy to embarrass & discredit you, please refrain from challenging me ever again. I tend not to like picking on little kids. Now please... let's go back to talking about job creation and the current Speaker's lack of presenting bills to do something about it. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited: