What about the next recession that is sure to come?

Perhaps.

And yes, there is blame to be placed on Bush II for overspending on wars and Medicare Part D. But there is also blame to be placed on Clinton for removing Depression-era laws separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities. Also under Clinton, Henry Cisneros, the head of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), was loosening mortgage restrictions so that first-time buyers could qualify for loans they could not previously obtain.

This set up the perfect storm to combine the Wall Street derivatives fiasco with the busting of the unsound mortgage bubble; all contributing to the present recession that has staggered this country.

So, really, who’s responsible for the fiscal mess that this country is in? And yes, Obama should accept some blame for certain unwise expenditures made in an effort to get us out of this mess. You all can make partisan-line arguments until you are blue (or red) in the face – pun intended. However, truly attempting to lay blame on one party or the other is entirely disingenuous.

@patchreader123
I was very specific not to include party affiliation as both parties have failed to uphold the ideals of american individuality that the founding fathers imparted via the constitution. However, the ideology of liberalism and is quest for large government control is the reason we have reached this point of decline in our history.

JB:

Understood. My comment was not directed to you, individually. Nonetheless, these blogs and comments, as well as the entire presidential election, have digressed into a pointless, partisan blame game.

Many people, including myself, are sick and tired of having the pot stirred every four years - only to have its contents settle into the same sticky mess, or worse, from one administration to the next. This is the very baseline of our current American government. How many years are we to wait, and how many administrations are we to trust, to address and correct the federal deficit? This is but one example of the "pass-the-buck and blame others" mentality of our government.

Unfortunately, the very citizens that our elected officials serve are almost powerless to truly change it. The SYSTEM, i.e., Electoral College, Commission on Presidential Debates, campaign finance, lobbying and redistricting, ensures the continuation of a stagnant two-party system filled with career politicians who often put self-interest and re-election goals over the interests of a broken middle class.

Bren is a sad reminder that even with the powerful opiate Obama administers with the percentage of takers vs. producers becoming more and more addicted and euphoric, they still will continue to place blame for their own failures on someone or something else.

Yes, we could be in Illinois.

I wonder how many times the Dems will run to Illinois in the coming years in order to obstruct the Republicans...

CowDung-

OBAMA-BIDEN WIN.

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now that the election is over, will you go back to Florida and stop crapping on all the threads here?

@Beth Norquist -

An Obama/Biden win is no laughing matter - it's actually quite tragic!

Thankfully, we didn't screw up the House.

Yes chalk up a victory to partisan redistricting.

@Bob McBride...The situation requires us to back off of our ideological hard lines and search for ways to give a little to gain a lot.

Lyle, it does no such thing. It leaves us right where we were yesterday. The balance of power remains the same. Nobody's rethinking their positions on anything. Why should they?

It's not a loss or a win/win. It's stagnation. America punted. We better be able to survive another 4 years exactly like the last 4, because that's what we got.

@Lyle
As a progressive yourself, you suffer from an inability to see the forest through the trees.

Obama has shown no attempt to 'work together' and not a single policy has proven any initiative to 'move forward'. As example, most employees are seeing a double digit increase in health care cost through their employers as insurance agencies prepare for onslaught of federal mandates that come into play with Obamacare. This will surely continue to have a negative affect on income levels and the advancement of government control. Either way, individual freedom is the loss and increased government dependency leading to the bankrupting of the federal government is the gain.

Okay, Lyle, you first. What are you willing to back off on? ACA? Attempting to pay for increased spending by taxing the rich? Anything?

@Bob McBride....I would back off of ACA and attempt to repair the flaws even if it meant starting over with the process. ACA was a Republican idea and proposal to begin with. You know my position has been an NHS all along. I would also support wide spread overhaul and reform in public education. I would also support a revised military budget with a planned transition of replacing old systems with new systems. I would strongly support one aircraft carrier for two. Build one aircraft carrier CVN-21 and retire two. We can go line item by line item. I am also willing to look at ways of reform entitlements, but I would oppose a block grant movement to the states.

Lyle,

Seriously? Blame Republicans for Obamacare, then say you're willing to back off on it so NHS could be put in it's place? Where's the willingness to back off your ideological hard line in that?

This is precisely what I mean. There is no willingness to make meaningful, serious compromise. We've got 4 more years of gridlock to look forward to. Again, apparently that's what America wants and you can interpret that anyway you want. A clueless electorate, or one that doesn't trust our government to do anything right and feels safer when it's unable to do much of anything.

@Lyle
Your willingness to transition from one liberal policy to another is admirable, but still ignores half the population that believes healthcare is a privileged rather then a right or that entitlements are unconstitutional.

How willing are you look at a voucher program for medicare or privatizing SS? Maybe you are suddenly willing to incorporate Act 10 provisions nationally?

Big Yellow Diamond Shaped : : : FLASHING : : : Sign on the Economic Roadway:

: : : FISCAL CLIFF AHEAD -- ROADWAY ENDS : : :

Faded sign on dilapidated old barn at edge of economic road:

Get your 2-4-1 trade-in deal on Aircraft Carriers
........ who-da-u know, wants to buy 'n aircraft carrier.........
--Free healthcare with every purchase--.

Weeeee!!! Here we go!! See you on the other side....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z88U915uq8

Jay, we've already had that. Time for the posturing to stop and to work on fixing problems. We should hold every politician's feet to the fire. No more filibustering just to filibuster, no more holding the debt ceiling, middle class taxes, etc., hostage for political gain. If these things are needed, make them happen or deal with the scourge of constituent discontent. Our problems are fixable, there's just too many personal agenda in the way of progress.

@Bob
Unfortunately, as a 1%'er Obama maybe driving the car; but unlike the majority of his middle and lower class supporters, he is wearing a multi-million dollar parachute that protects him the destruction at the bottom of the cliff.

I'm not optimistic that anyone can hold Obama's feet to the fire. If he couldn't get it together when he was under the threat of not being re-elected, he certainly isn't going to do anything as a lame duck...

JB, the fact that he's got them believing (and probably believes himself) that the brakes still work when the car's in free-fall doesn't help either.

@Bren -

How exactly is it posturing if the Republicans are voting according to the platforms they ran on, and therefore in accordance with the wishes of the constituency that elected them to their positions in the House and Senate?

Apparently, you don't believe in a government of "by the people, for the people," but rather a government that kowtows to the whims of whatever the current national majority happens to be, regardless of how slim that margin truly is. FYI - that's not how our system of government was designed to operate.

The American people spoke last night - and apparently, they want four more years of gridlock.

The bright side to all of this is that at least the federal government will be significantly slowed down. The bad side is that Obama probably won't get serious about addressing the budget, deficit, and debt.

The winners are those who work for the government. The loser are everyone else.

What can you bring to the negotiating table, Bren. Not just your list of 'wants', but what have you to 'give'.

Okay Bren, I'll give you carte blanche;I'll agree to anything and everything you want to do, as long as three straightforward 'quality outcomes' are -always- met: 1/10th to 2/10ths of 1% inflation rate(gold bench-marked), total government spending as a percent of GDP never exceeds 18.5%(except by a 2/3 voted-on Congressional override & President signed), U3 unemployment rate never exceeds 7.0%.

I believe the word is, "compromise?"

A politician may have run on a certain platform and be elected to it. Does anyone reasonably expect 100% follow-through? (Sidenote: I remind about Walker's 250,000 new jobs by the end of his first term because it was 1) Ridiculous, 2) Unrealistic, and 3) Disrespectful of constituents to make such a specific promise. Realistically, we would all be happy with reasonable growth, which isn't happening, either).

Compromise. And an attitude adjustment, stop pointing fingers of blame and get to work. I'll settle for these.

Where do you want me to compromise?

I've handed you complete control, to enable you to achieve defined results that will benefit all;a set of 'universal good' with the 'highest of utility', regardless of political affiliation.

There is no try;do or not.

@Brian Dey...Another reality for you to digest is that Obama may have three US Supreme Court Justices to appoint.

Lyle- Don't think that didn't cross my mind.

Thanks for that reminder. On the flip side, I guess that means I have a right for free medication so I can get a boner.

@Luke
The first thing to happen is more monetary easing, devaluation of the dollar and a sudden increase in inflation. All the things you mentioned as problems will happen, but the biggest drag on the American public will be the inflation of all costs.

@Luke We have to fire Bernanke!

@michael

The Dem guests on CNBC this morning made a convincing argument that he will hand in his resignation within a year anyhow.

@Luke My point is that his wacko inflationary policies will lead to all of our ruin.The poor are especially vulnerable.

We can only hope that he is replaced by a hard money man. It is too bad that Volcker is too old for the job.

@Luke
Actually, the bailout of Illinois has already started. The Justic Department is buying an empty prison there for $165 million because they couldn't pay to run it.

Jay, we really REALLY don't want to hear about that. We just fought off the racists, we sent the first openly gay person to Congress, re-elected our local guys who AREN'T the problem (everybody else is the problem) and pot's legal in CO. It's a great day in America!

@Victor Drover The founding fathers would not recognize the size of the federal government. Well, maybe Hamilton would.

@Victor
Are attempting to say the democrats would be recognizable?

The entirety of the US government is a perverted institution the founding fathers would have destroyed in an instant. Those of us not on the public dole are now the unrepresented class the most reflects the situation our founding fathers faced with Britain.

Victor Drover. Surrealism personified.

Victor, my ancestors might call them "King's Men." And I agree with Michael McClusky. Hamilton had some big-picture ideas.

@Bren Hamilton believed in having a political and economic elite. He had no faith in the American people. Is that what you want?

Quite frankly, I've lost my faith in the majority of the American Populace. At least one of the founding fathers had an accurate "big picture idea":

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic" - Benjamin Franklin

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from then beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.

Here are some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:
Number of States won by Obama: 19, McCain: 29
Square miles of land won by Obama: 580,000, McCain, 2,427,000
Population of counties won by Obama: 127 million McCain, 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by Obama: 13.2, McCain, 2.1
In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare. The United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of the definition of democracy, with some forty five percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase. If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to America in fewer than five years.

Heres, the difference, Swithin.

If the shoe was on the other foot, we'd be hearing caterwauling about racism, homophobia, cheating, voter suppression, recounts, lawsuits challenging outcomes, elections being "bought" by big money and on and on and on. We've got a historical record of just that type of behavior right in this state to reference, if you doubt me on that.

You may not agree with JB's take on the issues, but at least he's discussing issues, not screaming like a baby about how he got robbed.

@St.
I don't need Fox and rarely watch it as the cheer leading is unbearable. However, as I look at the world without the blinders of ideology, I see the following:

1) The healthcare of my family (as provided by an employer) will increase by double digits next year as the insurance industry prepares for Obamacare. Obama said this increase would cease as he corrected the health care problem. Turns out the opposite effect is bearing down on the American people.
2) Aside form an Iraq pullout (planned prior to Obama) foreign policy is worse then 4 years ago. Not because the conservative media claims it, but because an US Ambassador was killed, Afghanistan stability questionable and security in the Middle East region has degraded over the past four years.
3)The Economy shows NO signs of getting better and by all accounts is stagnant. Many are predicting a worsening in the near future.
4) Fox news is less biased then MSNBC. http://now.msn.com/msnbc-more-biased-than-fox-news-according-to-pew-research-center-study

If you think that this election will change anything for the better, then your kool aid is stronger then mine. Stop accepting Obama's words as gospel and take a look at the world around you. Start with the Stock Market, they understand where the money is going and its downward turn today proves in the next fours years it is going to the government.

@St. Swithin -

While you may form your conclusions based on the ramblings of media talking heads such as Rachel Maddow, Rev. Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Matthews, etc., not everyone is as susceptible to media as you apparently are.

Why is it that just because someone has a tendency to support a conservative political ideology, that they must therefor have been brainwashed by the Fox News Channel?

Nothing but a pathetic leftist red herring meant to shift the subject and deflect when they're unable to defend their own positions. Not a single liberal has been able to explain to Hoffa how Obama's plan of raising taxes and hiring 100k new teachers will expand our economy/jobs while addressing the federal budget, deficit, and debt. Can you?

Gary thank you for protecting me from false blame. The whole 47% is a false picture. I think as the vote is examined, if it is, we will find a younger older age split and a recent education since 1970 and a before 1970 education. Like it or not critical thinking has been replaced by programed thinking. Inform thyself by conform thyself. May God give us wisdom.

It is funny to see you 'critical thinking' libs immediately point out those that have either earned government support (soldier pay and medical expenses) or those that are incapable of caring for themselves (young, old and disabled unable work). Yet you completely close your eyes to those who are generationally dependent, illegal citizens, those that find living off the government easier, people who have lived irresponsible lives and have the sudden expectation of free cell phones, mortgage relief or college loan relief.

This country was great before the decline of that came with government dependence.

@Hoffa -- Oh no, I agree that there re generational dependents, but they are far from 47% of the population. It was ignorant, foolish, and possibly duplicitous for Romney (and J.B.) to conflate the 47% of non-federal taxpayers with that group.

@Hoffa -- They're doing better than they were doing in September of 2008 or back in 2001. This is to be expected as a bunch of disappointed conservatives panic and sell off. That's how it has always worked -- the market goes up, the market goes down. And it comes back up again.

"That's how it has always worked -- the market goes up, the market goes down. And it comes back up again."

...except of course when the Left is trying to demonize plans to privatize a portion of Social Security contributions. Then the market is going to crash, never go up and leave seniors hungry and living in the streets.

@Randy1949 Are you suggesting that the people who actually work for a living are actually worth something? Corporate America will have a few foul things to say to you about that. Shame on you!

@Randy
What should the limit be for wealth creation? Where should we cap salary?

Just because you couldn't make the best of your life doesn't therefore mean that others took that from you. You talk like a child. My 19month old daughter has the same outlook on life. If she doesn't get something it means some one has taken something from her. She fails to understand that she is not entitled to everything she wants.

@Randy1949 -

FYI - Nixon took us off the gold standard over 35+ years ago. Ever since, wealth is essentially infinite, subject only to the amount of perceived value created by an individual.

What we have in this country is a finite supply of those who are willing to create perceived value. And with Obama wanting to essentially punish them for being successful, and with no real plan to address the deficit and debt, there are going to be even less who are willing to create perceived value.

So knock off the nonsense about how wealth is finite and being sucked up by the 1% - it's a completely erroneous statement according to the type of monetary system that we actually have in this country!

BTW - How's the stock market doing today? Is such performance indicative of more private sector jobs being created in the near future, or less?

Randy:

What the 99% fails to understand is that in order for the 'one percent' to 'live richly', they need to spend their money. Spending money is what drives the economy. Just as the rich people need the 99%, the 99% also need the 1%...

@Michael McCluskey -- Yesterday, on another board, I listened to a small business owner opining that his workers were nothing but trained monkeys and warm bodies to generate wealth for him, with no right to healthcare or a life of anything other than living ten to a house just to have shelter. He sounded a lot like Mitt Romney aghast at the idea that the 47% felt entitled to food, shelter, and medicine.

And they wonder why Romney lost.

@Hoffa -- See above for how Romney 'perceives' my value and yours, eventually.

@CowDung -- One can either spend money or save it for the future, because wasn't that the gist of 'personal responsibility'? As of yesterday, I feel a little more secure about my retirement and can possibly be a little less miserly with myself. That's all to the good, isn't it?

@Randy1949 -

How are your investments in the market doing today? Still feel more secure about your future?

@CowDung I'm afraid that you are misinformed in how our economy works. The 1% cannot and does not spend enough money to keep the economy rolling. There simply is not enough of them. It is the 99% and their spending habits that actually matter. When they don't have enough money, then things simply don't improve.

@Michael
Where does the 99% get their money from?

The 1% isn't exactly trading dollars with each other, are they? Where do you think their spent money goes if the 99% never gets to see it?

@Randy1949 I recently had an argument with a business man who rejected the notion that wages are in direct connection to someone's savings rate. He contended that the poor are simply irresponsible with their money. Whether or not employees can make ends meet is simply not his concern.

@CowDung Wages have been falling just as profits have been hitting record levels. Combine this with the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies, then one can conclude that we are headed towards another recession. Our economy depends upon demand.

@J.B. Schmidt -- "Where does the 99% get their money from?"

In my own small business we get it from the 99%. When they don't have a lot of money to spare, business goes down.

@ Michael McCluskey -- Yeah, when I was working for a little above minimum, I blew my wages on frivolities like food and heat and doctor visits for my kid. And we still had to deplete savings to make ends meet. How I was supposed to buy health insurance or save for my own retirement, I have no idea. Fortunately we had been very frugal and prudent in the past, so we had those savings and IRAs that we did our best not to touch. People who start out as the working poor and stay that way haven't a chance.

My business owner 'friend' insists his minimum wage workers would be fine if they didn't blow it on beer and flat-screens. I think I'd be tempted to buy some beer too if my life held so little hope.

Michael:

Are the 'record level profits' being measured in dollars or as profit margin? Profit margins really aren't hitting record levels. Companies are making more dollars in profit, but they are also spending more dollars in costs...

The 1% are a big part of that 'demand' that you mentioned...

@Randy
And this small business does not fall into the 1% bracket? According to the CBO the 1%'ers start in the neighborhood of $350K, does your business do less then that?

No, J.B. the business does not gross $350K nor does it net that. If it did, I'd be paying my taxes and feeling grateful rather than whining about the marginal rate like some of you guys.

Excuse me, CowDung, but isn't 'profit' the amount of revenue you have left over after paying your costs of business?

@CowDung Corporate America is currently sitting on 1.8 trillion dollars in cash. Oh, how they suffer. They need further tax cuts. They cannot afford to give anyone a decent wage either. Wake up and smell the coffee!

Michael:

Reducing corporate taxes will cause more companies to pay their taxes to the US rather than to the foreign countries with lower tax rates. It will actually bring more revenues into the treasury, not less...

@CowDung -- You know President Obama is in favor of reducing corporate tax rates. Just not the marginal tax rates for individuals.

Yes Randy, that is how profit is defined. It can be measured in dollars, or as a percentage. If I run a company and make $100 million in profits, one might call it 'record profits'. The real story is told by how much money was spent in order to make that $100 million return on the investment. Earning $100 million in profits isn't very good if one had to spend $100 billion to make that money.

@Michael McClusky.... Unwillingness to 'reinvest profits' is not the same as making more money than ever before(measured in actual dollars) or % profit margin.

Unwillingness to 'reinvest profits' appears to be tied to economic uncertainties.

Randy:

Somewhere in the conversation, we blurred the line between 'the 1%' and corporate taxes breaks...

@Randy
If you are passionate about redistribution of wealth, shouldn't this business pay above its tax rate, as I assume it makes a profit?

@Jay Sykes The economic uncertainty that you mention is directly involved with the customers' income. Since most customers are employed in the private sector and their wages have been falling, then one can conclude that their spending habits are in jeopardy. Corporate America does not want to hear about it.

On three separate times this year on CNBC they had guest economists on to talk about the economy. Each time that the guest mentioned medium household income, they shouted each of them down. CNBC does not want to hear how the employees are doing. They know they are being screwed.

Sorry, guys, I'm not showing you my tax return. Suffice it to say I don't pay anywhere near the topmost bracket, and on my income I shouldn't have to.

@Michael McClusky -

What do you propose the federal government do to remedy the problem that you've identified?

@Hoffa Simply put, the government cannot do anything about it. The only way that the economy will improve consistently is if the consumers' lot improves consistently. This will not happen as long as unemployment remains high. And so my conclusion is that the private sector would have to voluntarily treat their employees better. Have you ever seen hell freeze over?

Companies tend to pay according to the value of the work. Simply put, they treat their employees about as well (often slightly better) as their competitors treat their employees. Businesses cannot afford to be paying wages that are several times greater than other businesses offering the similar products.

Paying high wages translates to higher prices for products produced. As people tend to buy the cheaper products, the guy with the highest prices will get few sales. The guy that gets few sales will soon be out of business.

The global economy has decreased the value of manufacturing labor. It's great to say that businesses should be paying everyone high wages, but the reality of it is that it is unsustainable to pay wages that are well above the value of the work being done.

@CowDung I wasn't talking about manufacturing, I was talking about the workforce in general.There are plenty of sectors that are not involved with global competition. Wages are kept low and are falling because the bastard companies know that unemployment is high. Everyone is expendable.

You always imply that labor is worthless and therefore do not deserve a decent wage. I don't know what the hell you do for a living, but I have worked with many, many people who were well worth every penny. You come across as some sort of selfish elitist.

Labor is not worthless at all. The value of labor is determined by the amount of money that people are willing to pay for it. In general, the higher skill level the job, the higher the value of the labor. Supply and demand of workers that are able and/or willing to do the work also contributes to that value.

Businesses don't exist to provide jobs for people, businesses exist to make money for the owners. If businesses cannot get enough money through the sale of product to cover their labor costs, then they lose. If they don't pay employees well enough, the employees will tend to find an employer that will. It's a rather delicate balancing act to keep wages, product sales and material costs in line...

...and I would argue that most sectors of employment are subject to the effects of global competition.

@CowDung Again, Corporate America has never done better than it is doing now. Essentially the private sector is taking advantage of a bad situation. Even the Wall Street Journal agrees. Whether people are living in cardboard boxes and eating spam is simply not the private sector's concern.

As I have stated before, the economy is based on money flow and not on wealth accumulation. The greater the money flow, the more people benefit from it. There will be more and more people on entitlements because of the private sector's rotten attitude.

The business sector could care less if people are living out in the snow and having nothing to eat. It comes up with any excuse to justify its cold-blooded calculations.

@Michael
How do you intend to a) create money flow and b) impose a sense of morality on the private sector?

@JB Schmidt As I understand it, the Federal Reserve began its policy of quantitative easing in order to create more money flow in our society. The end result was even more hoarding of cash by the 1% and higher commodity prices for the rest of us. The banks and the rest of the private sector did not spread the wealth in our society. The policy was a failure. My problem with Bernanke is that he initiated QE3 last month, another failure, and the poor will suffer because of it.

That is why money flow can only improve by the private sector's move, not the government's. The private sector is too short-sighted to see or even care about the big picture. Think of quarterly profit reports.

As for morality: this was the first time that unemployment rose while the Baby Boom generation was in charge of the economy. It saw it as an opportunity to put the screws to the workforce. I guess we are just going to have to wait for the Boomers to retire so that they cannot make any more decisions.

What measure are you using to make the claim that corporate America has never done better than they are now? While some sectors of the economy are growing (healthcare), other sectors (manufacturing) have definitely been doing poorly.

You claim that businesses are making record profits, but don't indicate if that is measured in raw dollars or margin. Bigger companies typically make more dollars in profit, but 'record profits' measured in dollars is meaningless without context such as the dollars being spent to earn those profit dollars. Increased profit margins aren't necessarily a true indication, particularly if companies aren't spending money to grow the company. Hoarding cash can artificially inflate profit margins.

When businesses are feeling more secure about their financial positions, they will start spending that cash again. Unfortunately, we have a climate where government is looking for ways to collect as much of their money as possible. Until that climate changes, businesses will continue to hoard their money rather than spend it.

@Michael
Are you saying the QE is the answer to having more money supply? You are right; however, how does that solve the problem? If I have 1 dollar in my pocket that is worth a full 100 cents now and the the federal reserves decides to adjust that by filling my pocket with 100 dollars worth 1 cent each am I better off? QE will only drive up inflation.

To be a corporation and to hoard money is not good business. Good business is to reinvest and create a large company therefore providing bigger profits. If business are not reinvesting, the reaction should not be condemnation, but rather questioning why building a bigger business to attract high profits seems unreasonable.

Have you considered the fact that businesses are gun shy about investing in an economy that is stagnant because they don't want to lose their money? Or maybe that Obamacare is around the corner and they are preparing to have to pay for those new mandates? Or that Obama is playing plinko with the economy and nobody is sure which tax rate he will target next?

@J.B. Schmidt I openly said that QE was a failure; government is simply not the answer.
As for business models: remember, companies usually only prosper when their customer base prospers. It goes hand in hand.
As for tax uncertainty: You are correct. Whatever Washington finally decides on, I hope it is a long term policy. This constant jumbling around and deferring until a later date makes us all dizzy.
As for Obamacare: Again, you are correct. This program is so massive and its consequences so uncertain that only a deranged lunatic would have voted for its passage. I also have problems with its constitutionality as well.
As for business climate: Keep an eye on medium household income trends; this an adequate measure of future spending. Last month it was reported as flat. For the last 12 months wages, as always, wages rose below the inflation rate.

You, truly, are insane.

@Nick -

"Obama clearly is schooled in the Harvard Negotiations principles of "getting to yes!""

So, that's where his now infamous quips of "elections have consequences," "I won," and Biden's "this is a big f'ing deal," in addition to many others, all came from - that explains a lot!

Correct Hoffa if he's wrong, but aren't all these statements more indicative of someone who is advocating a 'my way or the highway' approach to negotiation, as opposed to the 'great uniter,' that you are now holding him out to be?

As McBride eloquently put it - "you, truly, are insane."

@Bob and Hoffa
Please be quiet. The Oracle of Whitefish Bay is speaking. Let us bask in the warmth of his enlightened voice.

Yeah, what the heck. He's already completely devalued my UWM diploma

Spew on, Mr Hand.

Clearly, Hoffa is the expert on "my way or the highway" :)

@JB -

Sorry, for a minute Hoffa forgot that these are the words of the great Poulos - Hoffa should have known better, especially on your blog ;-)

@Hoffa
While having Nick comment on my blog is itself a wonderful experience, I hope that an inspired rebuttal will be written by the expert on all things, Lyle.

@Nick Poulos...

If one is going to come to the negotiating table, and compromise, one needs to bring something that the other-side wants more than what they have now.

Please identify what 'things' Obama and the Democrats have that the Republicans know will 'right our Nation' and true our economy that they(D) has, in good faith, presented to them(R).(4 out 5 economists, who chew gum, need to agree that the proposed fixes are good for our economy)

I'm not sure how you see Obama as a great negotiator. From the last 1/3 of a century, most would identify both Clinton and Reagan as great negotiators. What Clinton/Reagan qualities does/has Obama demonstrated?

Come on JB, you know as well as Hoffa does that Lyle is major league - to garner a response from him, you really have to rise to the level of an intellectual elite, like Jason Patzfahl.

Just don't be disappointed if Lyle passes you on by looking for bigger fish ;-)

History just provided as close a comparison as we're likely to get between Obama's lame demand side Keynesian stimulus and Reagan's dynamic supply side incentives of lower taxes and less government interference.

Reaganomics created more jobs in just one month (January, 1983) than Obamanomics did in the last six months (with a population of 80 million fewer people.) The Reagan success extended to 96 months of unbroken economic growth and 18 million new jobs.

The Obama failure is a shrinking workforce, a rapid increase in food stamps and permanent disability enrollment, persistent high unemployment and falling household incomes, down an average of $4,300 per family.

The republican controlled House passed two budgets that would have put the country on a path to fiscal sanity. Obama proposed one budget that was rejected by the democratic controlled Senate 0 - 97. Neither Obama nor his party have shown any talent or inclination for bi-partisanship or problem solving. I expect four more years of the same.

@Watts
Like the liberals label of the 1%'ers?

Hypocrite!

WATTS (gets offended if you think he's from Belmont Shores/Naples) NOT A SPAMMER - just likes to start 14 simultaneous conversations.

The Basics
Profile Home
Profile Photos
Watts on Patch
Comments
Reviews
More Stuff
The Board
Recently

It has been the Republican goal to objectify people as "...
Obama Wins Minnesota
-by Watts

Mitt Romney Wins Missouri
-by Watts

It has been the Republican goal to objectify people as "...
Barack Obama Re-Elected ...
-by Watts

It has been the Republican goal to objectify people as "...
Like 2000, Will the 2012 ...
-by Watts

It has been the Republican goal to objectify people as "...
Barack Obama Re-Elected ...
-by Watts

It has been the Republican goal to objectify people as "...
Barack Obama Re-Elected ...
-by Watts

It has been the Republican goal to objectify people as "...
Speak Out: Where Does GOP ...
-by Watts

What a surprise, "Mr. Macaca" lost.
Allen Concedes; Kaine Wins ...
-by Watts

UPDATE: Romney Rally Monday...
-by Watts

It has been the Republican goal to objectify people as "...
Barack Obama Re-Elected ...
-by Watts

It has been the Republican goal to objectify people as "...
47% Wins, the United States...
-by Watts

It has been the Republican agenda to objectify people as...
Barack Obama Wins Wisconsin
-by Watts

It has been the Republican agenda to objectify people as...
Strongsville Election ...
-by Watts

You can, but Patch won't do anything about it. It's all eyeball counts to them.

4 years of Obamaahhh is worse than 12 years of Bush...
When Clinton's first budget went into effect, the national debt was at $4.3T. When Clinton's last budget ended, the national debt was at $5.8T
Clinton added $1.4T over 8 years.
Reagan added $1.8T over 8 years.
Bush Sr. added $1.4T over four years.
Bush W. added $4.6T over 8 years.
Obama added $5.6T and counting.
Predictions are the next four years will be much much worse. It is entirely conceivable that Obamaaaahh will add more debt than all Presidents before him.
I like Greeks, but I don't want US to be Greece.

Finally, a female voice.

And pithy, too.

Thank you, Craig, for educating me. Please substantiate your numbers. As you might imagine, I have seen opposing.

Pamela: A simple google search would let you find this info. I had to do a search myself, because those numbers have been filed in my memory and were not something I recently found on line. But here are a couple sources. http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/budget-create-deficits?gclid=cigczqugwlmcfuwnpaodozqaqg http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
You are more than welcome, Pamela.

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/increases-us-debt-limit http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/us-debt
Just a couple more slides to illustrate the point.

I'm sorry Craig. I thought you might have had an objective source which we could have used as a a springboard for open minded discussion. I guess an old dog can't be taught new tricks afterall. Peace.

Pamela: If you wish to refutiate my numbers, do so with your own citations. You have not submitted anything but a pms comment. Take some midol and reply in the morning.
Even an old dog will bite you if you taunt him.

correction - reputiate
Talking about dogs and lipstick got me thinkin' of Sarah Palin ;)

repudiate- sorry an Al Gore moment. :-P

@Adam Wienieski....You can't look at everything through an economic lens. That is the mistake the right has made, it is not the economy stupid; but much more. Welcome to the new America. If you want to continue living and working here you might as well start accepting the new reality of a much more diverse America.

@Lyle
The new America where economic understanding now comes second to emotional responses to social stimuli will lead us to ruin. Diversity has nothing to do with economic success unless the government imposes an artificial level of equality, at which point we all lose.

The public has been tricked into thinking that birth control, abortion, your ancestry and what class you belong to play a larger role in American success then the size and scope of a heavy handed central government. The lust of the material has replaced the desire for a strong country. The new reality is that America now places more value on what your country can do for you then what you can do for your country. That change will be our ultimate downfall, because as the Sandy victims are realizing is that government is powerless when the individual refuse to take responsibility.

@Lyle Economic well-being is always the primary concern of people. There is nothing more important than bread and butter issues. I mean, what is more important to a person when he is cold and hungry?

Good luck looking at a $150 trillion debt of unfunded liabilities through your superior liberal lens! The GOP represents the adults, the Democrats are the children who don't want to hear the truth.

Frankly, Go Galt, if anyone is acting like children it would be the losers of this election (other than Mitt Romney, who showed some grace and class in his concession speech). All yesterday and today, so far, it's wah-wah-wah they're taking away my tax breaks to give free stuff to losers! Layoffs being announced, even though not a thing has changed so far.

Speaking of unfunded liabilities, I think a good place to start tweaking would be Medicare Part D and Medicare Advantage, which are costing the program more than they need to. They were a giveaway to big pharma and private insurance companies.

We're all going to have to take some hits between now and the end of the year, so man up and stop whining.

@Randy: I believe you just moved toward center a little bit?
We agree in the need to tweek medicare. Before the election, there was no desire to tweek any entitlement programs. Yet we all know it is something that must be done to preserve the program(s). Seems to me that both parties have ignored the inevitable. Other than Ryan, I do not know of anyone who has proposed anything to address this. I would prefer to see a dozen ideas, and thow out ten of them that are too radical, and decide on the remaining two.
It still boils down to the National Debt. If we were not so deeply bogged down with debt, we could carry the programs until a deal was reached. Kicking the can down the road has not worked, and we have been doing that for more than a decade.

"If you want to continue living and working here you might as well start accepting the new reality of a much more diverse America." – Lyle Ruble

Conformity for diversity's sake? That's not a remarkable statement coming from an old apparatchik like Lyle but it demonstrates how Leftism always leads to tyranny.

First, an individual liberty (e.g. homosexual sex) is deemed so personal the government rightly has nothing to say about it. Then having identified a group of victims in need of protection and approval the high priests of political correctness demand the persecuted minority is celebrated as equal in all things. Finally, diversity and tolerance are coerced by government fiat in the name of progressive public policy and its detractors silenced and condemned.

The fascist and Orwellian policy of compulsory conformity in the name of diversity must be resisted with the first two tools provided by the constitution: the first and second amendments. Freedom from government is the canary in the coalmine of liberty.

@Taoist
The true tragedy in this is that as we watch socialist societies around the world fail under the weight of a top heavy government unable to cash all the checks it has written, we continue down that path.

Atta boy!

@Taoist Croc -

Hmmm... remember how you guys on the left reacted to Act 10, Scott Walker, and the GOP in this state?

Honestly, do you see the right doing any of the kind of crap that you guys did - ie: staging fraudulent sick-outs in our public schools, occupying Capitol buildings, marching around Capitol buildings with signs depicting the political opposition as Adolf Hitler, pouring beers over the heads of the political opposition, launching a bunch of costly and frivolous recalls, initiating a bunch of costly and frivolous litigation, cheering our represents to disregard their jobs and flee the state/country to prevent a quorum, wearing goofy t-shirts and shouting down the political opposition, stalking the political opposition and their families in public and making death threats against them, etc?

Honestly, Hoffa hasn't seen anyone on the right doing any of that kind of crap!

And guess what - despite all your foolishness, the State Senate is now once again solidly under GOP majority control by 18 seats to the Dems' 15 seats! The GOP also maintained their control of the State Assembly, the Governor's Mansion, and the State Supreme Court.

Did you guys change your ideology at all due to such crushing defeats? Sure looks like you guys also learned absolutely nothing from defeat as well, doesn't it?

BTW - Walker is currently working on the next biennial budget! Where's Obama's federal budget?

In 2004 George W Bush won re-election 51-48 percent and the republicans won a total of 55 Senate seats plus a majority in the House. In 2012 Barack H Obama won re-election 50.5-48 and the Democrats hold 55 Senate seats without the House.

On the day after the election the stock market experienced its biggest one day sell-off of the year. Higher taxes for all in January 2013 plus the job killing effects of Obamacare, environmental regulations and permanent increases in baseline spending thanks to the crony stimulus package have created an Obama recession. People with true wealth will easily move it off shore to avoid the higher capital gains taxes scheduled for investment income. We will all be the poorer for it.

Conservatives will not go quietly into that good night. I've recognized Obama's policies as creeping tyranny since the beginning but have never experienced a visceral dislike of the man. Until now. Congratulations, the left now has its very own George W Bush.

Dirk, did this happen?

************************

Dirk Gutzmiller
6:24 pm on Monday, November 5, 2012
I am more concerned about the intimidation of a million Tea Party poll watchers, tomorrow, mostly in minority neighorhoods, yelling and challenging voters. We will be hearing about these Suppressionists (modern KKK types) and their attempts to keep others from voting. Every American deserves the chance to vote.

*******************

Relax. Your side one. Enjoy it. No votes were suppressed. Put the paranoia and hate away for another day.

McBride - Mostly African American and Latino precincts were targeted. Yes indeed, the Tea Partiers showed up. They were banned in Cincinnati's Hamilton Co. for fraud on the forms they submitted. In my precinct, the Tea Party guy just sat there and stared at people. This is not counting the fraudulent letters to minoriites challenging their right to vote. Come on McBride admit it, it was one of those tactics you totally bought into as a suppressionist. Anyway, your views are becoming more inconsequential as the Republican Party will move away from extremists. The nation as a whole is on to the "voter fraud" fear-mongering.

Dirk, I didn't ask if they showed up. I asked if the scenario you dreamt up occurred.

Did it? If so, I'd think you'd be able to find a link to some footage pretty easily. Got any?

Seriously, Dirk, the election is over. There was no voter suppression. You win and you still can't give up on the paranoia driven hatred. I honestly think you should see a specialist. Probably just a pill or two a day to keep it under control is all you need.

@Dirk Gutzmiller... If you are going to continue to scream 'FIRE' in a crowded theater you need to have your camera. ( I tried to help you; see below)

Please post the video of the crazy tea party guy starring at everyone or any video, uploaded to youtube, of the behavior you describe from this past Tuesday.

**********************************************
Jay Sykes
4:52 am on Tuesday, November 6, 2012
@Dirk Gutzmiller... Thanks to the cellphone camera, an example of intimidation at the polls. (Black Panthers with nightsticks)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpnF8MXfdgE

@Dirk -

New Black Panthers, Voces, and other minority groups were out intimidating at the polls once again:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/new-black-panther-party_n_2082423.html

BTW - True the Vote in a non-partisan election watchdog. They are not affiliated with any Tea Party group.

BTW Dirk,

How come you never replied to Hoffa over on the other board:

http://mountpleasant.patch.com/articles/barack-obama-wins-wisconsin2

Does the truth hurt your perceptions too much?

McBride - Thank god the media got involved and the voter suppressionists cooled it. The publicity was terrible for the Tea Party. Brownshirt tactics at minority polling places is something to watch for, however.
You're the one that needs some medication, you seem so depressed and bitter and venting steam. Well, extremism in the Republican Party will fade now, the demographics are changing, and elections really cannot be bought by billionaires. That must be devastating to you and your career as a Tea Party spokesman.

Hoffa - Some of us are not full-time commenters like you, and have to step away for periods of time for career, family, and life. Go over and find my comments you so eagarly anticipate.

Dirk,

Try to focus. Have you got any links indicating that millions of Tea Party folks were yelling at minorities? Did you do as I suggested the other day and gather evidence on your own. Do you even have a shot of the scary guy who stared at you at the polls?

If not, then once again I have to call bull on you.

You really are not very good at this, Dirk. Maybe shuffleboard or checkers would better suit your "abilities".

@Dirk -

Hoffa looked at and replied to your comments - all you did was spin and attempt to deflect and shift the subject. You failed to address the issues actually being discussed.

Hoffa calls that an EPIC FAIL.

Hoffa - Of course that is what you would say about your own "brilliance". My opinion is you are very good at hopeless cases, but the lawyer gets paid anyway. Even Republicans are ashamed of Bush and Cheney, why were they not speakers at the Rep. Conv.? huh, huh, huh? It is so very ludicruous in this day and age to be a Bush lover.

McBride - Just because you find a link or two on the wide open Internet does not win your point. You need to get off of Patch being another of your computer games and get some genuine humanity.
Did you notice those billboards coming down in minority neighborhoods that inimidated voters? Did you notice the news coverage on letters to voters questioning their right to vote? True American patriots accomplished the defeat of those tactics, and the Tea Party slinked back into their primitive hole. The word had gotten to the Tea Party poll watchers not to cause turmoil. It was becoming a P.R. disaster for the Tea Party, getting the minority vote to get out and vote, and the Tea Party cooled it with the shouting and intimidation.

Victory over suppression, thanks for your suppression efforts, it paid off for the other team.

Dirk,

Either you've got something to back up your nonsense, or you don't. Don't carp about the methodology. It's accepted and routinely used here.

So cutting through all the crap, Dirk, essentially what you're saying is you've got nothing.

Figures.

Take it easy, Mike. We've got important things to consider before we get around to thinking about that boring stuff.

Like the two experts on NPR yesterday who were trying decide if the decline in the number of black males voting for Obama this time around had to do with their disappointment over his first term, or because he came out in favor of gay marriage and eliminated DADT. That's a very important issue. It may come into play when he runs for his third term. Oh...wait...duh!! LOL! ROFLMAO! DUH!!!!

Nevermind. What was that? Economy? Jobs? Debt?...okay...

Bob: We have to plan for the inevitable; Figure out who mom is going to live with when the USA defaults on SS, etc.
One only has to look at history and remember a certain chancellor of Germany. He took away the citizens weapons. What happened next was impossible to predict...

roger that.

I bet even JFK rolled over in his grave....
"Ask not what your Country can do for you"....
This ain't your granpa's Democratic party anymore.

Yes, like the hypocritical celebrities who complain about the rich not paying their "fair share" while at the same time having THEIR accountants find every possible way to shelter money and not have to pay taxes. Russell Simmons drives down Occupy Wall Street in a $500,000 car, pretends to be a 99-percenter, then heads back to his (LITERALLY) 35,000 square-foot house and tries to figure out how to shelter his income.

Don't be so sure of that. Romney didn't appeal to the ultra rich. Obama took 8 out of 10 of the richest counties in the Country.
This is another one of those false claims that the Dems are there for the little guy.

He promised to lower corporate taxes, and thought it was fair that he paid lower taxes than poorer people (because his contributions of capital is more important than someone's contribution of labor).
These are Grover Norquist guys (Ryan and Romney). They are only serious about debt reduction if there is no pain for wealthy people.
That is one reason I refused to vote for Romney, and just wrote someone in. We need independent thinkers, not establishment hacks. Ryan also needs to dislodge himself from these corporate think tanks and get real.

@Ed
You independent types are poor analytically thinkers. Not unlike Ron Paul who chose not to back Romney, in your distaste for the system you allowed a man who embodies all that is wrong with America to remain in the White house. I understand that Romney was not the perfect candidate and Ryan's chiseled figure isn't to everyone's liking, most conservatives were not happy with the Romney pick originally either. However, there comes a time when your own selfish desires to have a president that respects you ideas of America in every form must be put aside for the betterment of the country. If you truly wrote some one in, I am fairly sure it was not because Obama was not liberal enough, but rather that Romney was to much to the center. So instead of electing a man that could partially pull us back from the cliff, you voted by default for a man that has governed as if the cliff doesn't exist.

For third party supporters, I get your desire and wish it were possible, but in the end you only hurt your own cause. Obama was as far liberal as you can go and ran a campaign based solely on expansion of government, most third party people are against that and not voting for Romney is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

@Dirk
Obama has claimed that he will bring people together, yet his campaign website had a page for every ethnic or cultural group possible. The reality is Obama is further left of center the Romney was right of center.

@JB Schmidt -

Sorry, but have to correct you here - Obama had no page specifically targeted only at white people.

Thus, logic would appropriately dictate that Obama hates white people.

Hoffa - Your snide insinuation that Obama hates white people reflects on your lashing out having lost so badly in spite of your great efforts to get Obama defeated. Maybe the future scene you painted was so sparse, so dismal, so mean.
Obama is not white, not black. Perfect for moving all of us moving ahead. Or are you just going on skin color? Lamentable.

I have not idea what you are talking about Jim, but the new agenda is to work together to help our Nation. Are you in?

@Taoist Idiot -

Apparently you didn't get the memo - Nixon took us off the gold standard over 35 years ago. Better that you realize this later, as opposed to never. Ever since, the generation of wealth has become infinite as opposed to finite, limited only by one's capacity to create perceived value in society. Potentially, everyone could be super rich if they wanted to be.

So, essentially, you're advocating that those who are willing to create must take care of those who refuse to create. How very socialistic/communistic of you.

Instead of leeching off others, why don't you try going out into the world and creating something of value - oh, that's right, because that would actually involve hard work, something liberals apparently are allergic to.

Sorry, Hoffa should have realized that you were an ignorant fool earlier!

Hoffa's comment is another great example of mindless, uncritical acceptance of some pretty silly economic mythology, coupled with his characteristic pompous lashing out at anyone who tries to explain reality to him. It should be embarrassing how interchangeable these right-wing talking point responses of his are, but I don't see any evidence of shame. Possibly a head injury?

@Taoist Doorknob -

Are you arguing that our money supply is finite instead of being limited only by one's capacity to create perceived value in society and backed by the full FAITH and CREDIT of the US Government?

If the monetary supply is indeed finitely limited, as you appear to believe it is, then please, oh great Taoist, explain how it works to us peons.

Hoffa, as always, you've decided to derail an argument that you can't possibly win, and steer it into one of your canned ideological huff-and-puff sessions. If you feel like talking about the points I made above, then come on out of your bunker. However, be warned - you will be soundly beaten and embarrassed.

I thought that it was this post that derailed the conversation:

"Hoffa's comment is another great example of mindless, uncritical acceptance of some pretty silly economic mythology, coupled with his characteristic pompous lashing out at anyone who tries to explain reality to him. It should be embarrassing how interchangeable these right-wing talking point responses of his are, but I don't see any evidence of shame. Possibly a head injury?"

You address none of Hoffa's points, but instead just attack Hoffa.

@CowDung -

That's what the left does when they know they've been beaten by the great Hoffa - clearly the superior intellect!

@Hoffa - You argue rather poorly, than claim victory. The Great Depression, The Great Repression, the Great Hoffa! Superlatives can work both ways.

Has anyone noticed that Hoffa manages to pull in others when he is ln trouble in a thread? Easy enough to have several screennames. Just takes a minute or two.

Thank you, Newbie, for such a perfect example of the way the .00013% want you to think about this issue. The fact is, the lower capital gains rate has the effect of limiting government revenue, which contributes to the deficit, and thereby the debt. It also contributes to the stratospheric income gap that we have in this country, which is bad in itself for democracy, dragging our two parties into populist and plutocratic stances, respectively. Additionally, it contributes to the financialization of our economy, which leads directly to problems like the dot com bubble and the housing bubble.

It's not about envy at all, it's about preserving the USA. Think about it for the 15 seconds that it took me to write this.

Thank you Croc for pointing out how completely brainwashed you are. By completely ignoring the spending component to the budget you have assumed that government is the sole solution to your problems and when its leader, Obama, tells you the issue of deficits is because producers must both build the economy and build government; you believe it blindly. As the layoffs from various companies around the country begin to role in, your entire ideology crumbles around itself. However, by all means continue to prop up a system that has failed every time it is tried, while the rest of us producers continue to bail you out.

JB, it's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm all for a balanced approach. Raise the capital gains tax, close the loopholes that allow multinational corporations to pay zero US taxes on profits, trim spending where it's possible (starting with defense), and, after that's all on the books, then look into lowering the corporate tax rate.

I'm just pointing out what everyone knows - one party in this country cares more about keeping taxes low than addressing the debt, and it's the GOP. Even after getting smacked up, roughly, in an election that they really SHOULD have won (if not for their own incompetence), they're still acting like they should call all the shots!

Keep it up, JB - acting like your opponents are the extremists, when everyone else can see differently. I expect that it will keep working out really, really well.

Oh, and get out of here - you're no producer. Unless you've started a business recently that I don't know about? By the way, if you want any tips on how to do that, feel free to ask.

@Croc
Obviously you are must be right, increasing taxes won't push and more jobs over seas, accept maybe Jeep.

Then you Dems own the results. No more blaming Bush.

JB, it's awesome that you think that one of the Romney campaign's thoroughly debunked lies is an argument that favors your position. You really are getting better at this!

@Croc
Which lie would that be?

JB, that's a fair question, since there were so many. However, I'm referring to the implication that building Jeeps in Asia, for Asian markets, the same way foreign car companies build cars in the US, for the US market, is somehow "shipping jobs overseas."

Just let me know if you still don't understand, and then pay me $100/hr, and I'll explain that aspect of international business to you.

@Taoist Moron -

Any over-demand for Jeep products that is currently present in the Asian market and not being met by Asian production/assembly has typically been filled by US produced/assembled exports, as opposed to Venezuelan exports.

Thus, as Jeep is planning to expand production/assembly capacity in Asia to meet the market demand there, that effectively translates to less demand for exports from their US production/assembly factories. Less demand on those factories translates to potential lay-offs at those plants if domestic demand doesn't correspondingly increase, doesn't it?

Accordingly, new jobs are being created in China by Jeep as opposed to here, which could limit the demand for US exports which could potentially lead to lay-offs at the domestic Jeep production/assembly facilities.

Mitt Romney was advocating to fight to have those jobs created here and to protect the jobs that already exist here by maintaining, as opposed to reducing, Jeep's current US export level.

You are either extremely ignorant of the FACTS and REALITY of the situation, or you have drank too much of liberal so-called 'fact-checkers'' kool aid.

In either case, anyone with a half a brain should have been able to analyze the situation correctly, as Hoffa has done for you above, to come to the appropriate conclusions in this matter.

Romney did not lie and you proved yourself to be a brainwashed fool once again!

Cheers!

Hoffa,

I'm not at all surprised that you have such ignorant views. Are you suggesting that, rather than manufacturing vehicles in the market where they're to be sold, as all of the worlds' largest automakers do, Chrysler should either refrain from entering that market, or should enter that market with products that are neither regionally appropriate nor competitively priced? And that would be better for Chrysler - how, exactly?

You clearly have some revolutionary ideas about global manufacturing that are going to turn the world upside-down, and make you billions of dollars, so I can understand if you're reluctant to fully elaborate them here.

Oh, FYI - capitalizing the words FACTS and REALITY doesn't make your sadly lacking reasoning any stronger.

@Taoist -

Are you claiming that Fiat/Chrysler doesn't currently export Jeeps produced/assembled in the US to Asian markets?

From the words of Chrysler Chairman and CEO Sergio Marchionne himself:

"Chrysler currently builds all Jeep SUV models at plants in Michigan, Illinois and Ohio. Rather than to continue shifting output from North America to China, which prevents Jeep sales from being as competitive as they could be due to Chinese import customs and duties, Chrysler is currently looking at adding Jeep production sites in China to meet the potential expanded demand in this emerging and highly competitive market.”

As you can clearly see, Jeep does in fact currently export domestically produced/assembled Jeeps to China. And Hoffa's analysis is wholly accurate.

Hoffa thought that you liberal Democrats were all about protecting American jobs and workers rights, even if that means limiting a corporations marketability and profitability. But now all of a sudden, you're a free marketeer only interested in profit margins?!?!

You libs/Dems - do you guys ever get dizzy from all the constant spinning that you do?

I'm pulling my money out of Obama’s economy and doing the equivalent of burying it in the ground until America gives up its love of socialism. We need to create more pain than Obama ever thought of creating.

Hoffa - your post from Sergio Marchionne makes the exact same points that I made, above. In order to grow Chrysler's market share in Asian markets, they need to manufacture in those markets.

I'll be honest - I have no idea what your point is. Are you suggesting, as JB did above, that Chrysler's decision to manufacture for the Asian markets, in Asia, is based on high US taxes? Because that is utterly absurd - not that I'd put that kind of gross misunderstanding past you.

"Young Conservative" - don't forget to draw yourself a map!

Croc:

Do you really think that Chrysler is going to choose to pay their taxes at the higher US rate when they can save money by paying taxes to China instead? They are going to follow the lead of every other multinational company and pay their taxes where it is most financially advantageous.

@Taoist the Inept -

Point 1:

Chrysler currently exports Jeeps to China. Exporting product creates American jobs. Mitt Romney claimed that by expanding production facilities in China, we'd lose American jobs. You said that was a lie. Clearly, it wasn't unless you're claiming that domestic demand will all of sudden exponentially increase to make up for the loss in demand of product needed for export. And if that's the case, then please provide your source or admit that Romney wasn't lying after all.

Point 2:

The need to manufacture in China to be competitive in China derives from China's unfair trade policies, currency manipulation, and lax (by comparison) labor, environmental, regulatory, and taxation standards. Romney said he'd take on China to make trade more balanced and fair, which would be beneficial to our industrial/manufacturing workforce. Obama, by contrast, hasn't done very much except to prosecute complaints with the WTO - which hasn't changed very much! China needs our marketplace for their goods more than we need to consume their cheaply produced goods. Romney wanted to get tough on China, while Obama cowers, fearful of what a 'trade war' may do.

Those are the points you half-wit!

@Taoist
Based on your illogical train of thought, wouldn't all companies that export then be free to move all production of those exports over seas? Is that the solution you favor?

In essence what you want it a country that only manufactures for the needs of its people and nothing more. Please explain then how we ever achieve a reasonable level of employment when you have now artificially capped production? Especially considering that we have millions of people in the US employed making exports, where do those jobs go in your world?

JB,

You really are a babe in the woods. Firms ARE free to produce and sell wherever they can. That's not the "solution I favor," that's reality. If you were at all committed to, or conversant in, free market principles, I wouldn't have to explain this to you.

The US needs to take the problem of its competitive advantage seriously, there's no question about that. And what is our competitive advantage vs. China? Why, it's primarily the rule of law! The fact that we have regulations that ensure that US made products are safe, and that intellectual property is protected! You know, all that "government" stuff that you hate so much!

And seriously - if you had any credibility on this issue, you'd be insisting that the US government, the one purchaser that SHOULD be buying according to US national interest, sources ALL of its purchases in the USA. But no; conservatives would rather privatize everything, and put our tax dollars in the hands of buyers that have no responsibility to buy American made products.

Let's just wrap it up by pointing out that my business is in manufacturing, and we source items from all over North America, Asia, and Europe. You and Hoffa can spout off about how it's wrong and bad for America for Chrysler to make and sell cars in China, but it's clear to me, and to anyone else who makes their living this way, that you have no idea what you're talking about.

@Croc
If you had stated from the beginning that you suffered ADD, we probably would have approached this from a different direction. Seriously, could you focus for a minute.

Are you saying that Jeep is moving it production over seas because they feel constrained by US laws on safety and intellectual property rights?

Is it in the governments best interest to purchase a product at an inflated price in order to buy American? Are you saying that the government should be doing more to subsidize private sector jobs? At what cost to the tax payer? Or is that irrelevant?

"Privatize everything", are we still talking about auto companies? What if the government lowered taxes by cutting subsidies out of the federal budget, then US manufacturers could produce a product at lower cost and make it a better purchase for the government.

It appears that you are in favor of companies taking their jobs over seas.

Hey, I came here wanting to make a point about how, in 2009, 16% of capital gains went to the Forbes 400. For some reason, that doesn't bother any of you, and you want to defend Mitt Romney's desperate, dishonest, last-minute, and thoroughly debunked attempt to scare Ohio voters. And I'm the one with ADD?

Never mind, you guys have fun licking your wounds and doubling down on the idiocy that led to Tuesday's result. I'll just kick back and bask in the fact that all of the bitching, moaning, mudslinging and doomsaying you tried over the last 4 years had NO EFFECT!

The history lesson that covers the Tea Party will be short and sweet: "Angry white people, working themselves up and wasting their own time while the rest of the world passed them by."

@Taoist Jackhole -

"JB, that's a fair question, since there were so many. However, I'm referring to the implication that building Jeeps in Asia, for Asian markets, the same way foreign car companies build cars in the US, for the US market, is somehow "shipping jobs overseas." Just let me know if you still don't understand, and then pay me $100/hr, and I'll explain that aspect of international business to you."

As Hoffa demonstrated to you via Marchionne's comment, Jeep currently exports US produced/assembled product to China for sale there. Thus, some of the demand that is driving the domestic Jeep factories is vested in providing exports to China.

Are you claiming that if Jeep started producing all Chinese market Jeeps in China, instead of here as they currently are to a certain extent, that it wouldn't constitute "shipping jobs overseas," by lowering the demand placed on the US factories?

In fact, that's exactly what it would do and you basically admit to this.

The debate here isn't what's in the best interest of globally competitive business - it's over the allegation that you made about Romney supposedly lying.

Hoffa proved that Romney was not lying, and you appear to agree with this.

So, just admit that you were WRONG in accusing Romney of lying about Jeep and get on with living your life with your head up your rectum, such as it is.

@JRH --Not lying? I distinctly heard Mitt Romney telling a crowd that "all" Jeep production was moving to China. He didn't say "all production of Jeeps intended for the Chinese market." You are quick to accuse other folks of lying, merely for saying something you don't believe to be true. Don't you consider Mr. Romney's remarks to have been the least bit misleading?

@Randy1949 -

What do you think about the Obama campaign claiming that Romney was personally responsible for the death/murder of Joe Soptic's wife? Was that a factually accurate portrayal, or might it "have been the least bit misleading?"

It's up to the voter to investigate for themselves and decide on the shade's of gray. Personally, Hoffa feels that Romney's over generalizations were far more fair than those made by Obama during this election!

Also, we were working within the confines of Taoist's original statement:

"I'm referring to the implication that building Jeeps in Asia, for Asian markets, the same way foreign car companies build cars in the US, for the US market, is somehow "shipping jobs overseas.""

And clearly, Jeep upping production in China would in fact be "shipping jobs overseas," right? Or do you have proof that domestic demand will instantaneously exponentially increase, completely alleviating the loss of demand for product for export to China? And if you do, then how come you and your crystal ball aren't making millions in the business sector?

Were those words out of Barack Obama's own mouth? I don't know, because I never did see any of those political ads.

The word 'all' came directly out of Romney's lips. You can't get around that.

@Croc
I would like you read the following Bloomberg article. Pay close attention to the following quote, “should we be localizing the entire Jeep portfolio or some of the Jeep portfolio.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-21/fiat-says-china-may-build-all-jeep-models-as-suv-demand-climbs.html

As for an Ranieir quote to the opposite, he can only speak for Jeep. Fiat can still move Jeep production where ever it wants. Mike Manley, as quoted, represents Fiat.

JB, I don't think you're reading that article correctly. They're talking about adding capacity in China, not moving capacity from the US to China. The "portfolio" refers to all Jeep models, which will now be produced in China in addition to being produced elsewhere. The article doesn't support your position at all.

@Croc
You are seeing what you want.

JB, the article that you linked to says this:

"Chrysler currently builds all Jeep SUV models at plants in Michigan, Illinois and Ohio. Manley referred to adding Jeep production sites rather than shifting output from North America to China."

Are you telling me that that sentence says something other than what it says?

@Jason
A free election does not mean it was the correct election. I believe Hitler was also elected freely after pitting groups of citizens against each other.

But that's not what they said, Kenneth. They said they want more of what we've had over the past 4 years. Nothing has changed. The balance of power has remained unchanged, the same people are in the key positions. Americans have said they the logjam to continue.