• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Romney's plan for America. Will it create actual jobs?

Whynot

New member
It's something I am having trouble wrapping my mind around and since we have many business owners here, I will ask for your insight.

Here is my problem, Romney wants to focus on energy (oil, coal, etc.) which I think is a great idea. It will create a huge boost for the economy, but unless i'm missing it, nothing else in his plan encourages new jobs to be created.

Sure, a lower corporate tax rate is going to help small to medium businesses, but large corporations, who employ large numbers of people, pay close to or 0 corporate tax. ( yes, I realize they pay other taxes, but Romney's plan says corporate tax). These same corporations are cutting heads left and right to outsource jobs and there is nothing spelled out in Romney's plan to stop this.

Couple that with the fact that if Romney is going to reduce Government, he has to cut heads. So will an energy boom and a better tax rate favorable for small to medium size business, create enough jobs to make up the deficit left by outsourcing and smaller government? Or will people just switch job sectors and the numbers remain stagnant?
 
Last edited:

snowstorm

Active member
GOLD Site Supporter
Well, I am not sure its a cure or even if there is one at this point it is a step in the right direction. If nothing else lowering energy cost has an effect on Every Person and business and will have the effect of helping to create some disposable income. In a nation of consumers the net effect should be positive for the economy across the board.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
I don't think and never have thought that presidents or congress really effect hiring that much really. Yes they cut taxes but must cover that revenue lose with something else and in Romney case on the backs of those working for wages who's income has been in decline now for decades. If people don't have jobs they have no money, no money they can't buy which is what makes the economy work. It doesn't matter the product if people can't buy it then the maker is forced to close their doors, basic laws of supply and demand.

Now more drilling for oil, coal etc is a good idea with in reason however thinking that will lower the price is strictly wishful thinking. Just look at the spike in gas prices this week alone. Prices jumped because speculators got nervous over a hurricane in the gulf which had no effect other than to shut down drilling and refineries for a couple of days. This whole thing is nothing more than smoke and mirrors on both sides of this issue.

Now I won't even get into what effect out sourcing has had on our economy other than to say many where right to oppose it in the beginning and too bad they didn't prevail.
 

JEV

Mr. Congeniality
GOLD Site Supporter
Yes they cut taxes but must cover that revenue lose with something else and in Romney case on the backs of those working for wages who's income has been in decline now for decades.
Please explain how this "on the backs of those working for wages..." thing works. I don't get where reductions in taxes, which lead to increases in hiring, which leads to an increase in income taxes back to the treasury, has a negative effect on wage earners. Maybe I'm missing something, but I see it as the road leading back to people being able to support their families through jobs, and not with government handouts on the backs of those of us who are already working through redistribution of what we have earned.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
...Romney wants to focus on energy (oil, coal, etc.) which I think is a great idea. It will create a huge boost for the economy, but unless i'm missing it, nothing else in his plan encourages new jobs to be created.

Wow seriously?

Have you looked at his plan?

How about cutting spending (or even just cutting growth in spending) because that alone can stimulate jobs growth because it will allow both business and citizens to keep more cash, which allows them to spend it which stimulates sales/profits and the economy as a whole.

How about his focus on regulations and reducing the burden of regulations? That is a main tenet in his economic platform, how did you miss it?

How about his focus on reforming trade treaties with foreign nations?

How about his plan to restore the NLRB to a level agency rather than one that has a strong bias toward union labor and has actually prevented jobs?

Seriously there is so much that I can list that you missed. He has something like a 53 point economic recovery plan, you only keyed in on 1.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
Please explain how this "on the backs of those working for wages..." thing works. I don't get where reductions in taxes, which lead to increases in hiring, which leads to an increase in income taxes back to the treasury, has a negative effect on wage earners. Maybe I'm missing something, but I see it as the road leading back to people being able to support their families through jobs, and not with government handouts on the backs of those of us who are already working through redistribution of what we have earned.

Basically because with these tax cuts are tax incentives to out source in the form of tax breaks. This puts more out of work in this country but is great for India and China's labor force. Meanwhile wages have been pretty much flat for 40 years now and down even more now. I figure our unemployment at this point will stay the same giver or take 1% either way.

Yes it would normally however these are really normal times either. I never said anything about redistribution of wealth nor implied it but taxes under Romney will go up on middle income earners not down while it goes down on those that can give more. It is basically the old trickle down format that doesn't work and was abandoned by even Reagan after a year in office.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
What? Show me. I don't see any incentive to "out source" jobs in his plan via the tax code.

Romney's tax plan: http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax

Well they get tax breaks now for shipping jobs overseas and he stated he won't change it as he is for it. Romney hasn't explained a plan of any kind that I've heard. He has not laid out any single policy in any detail that he wants to do period. He is basically saying trust him, sound familiar pretty much the same BS as last time. He also has to deal with the congress and that isn't going to happen either as most will be back and the makeup won't change enough on either side to make a difference. The Republicans won't follow his lead any more than the Democrats have Obama's. Most of you in the past wanted a dead locked congress well guys you have it and have had now for a while. As I've always said careful what you wish for as you just might get it.
 
Last edited:

Mama

New member
It's something I am having trouble wrapping my mind around and since we have many business owners here, I will ask for your insight.

Here is my problem, Romney wants to focus on energy (oil, coal, etc.) which I think is a great idea. It will create a huge boost for the economy, but unless i'm missing it, nothing else in his plan encourages new jobs to be created.

Sure, a lower corporate tax rate is going to help small to medium businesses, but large corporations, who employ large numbers of people, pay close to or 0 corporate tax. ( yes, I realize they pay other taxes, but Romney's plan says corporate tax). These same corporations are cutting heads left and right to outsource jobs and there is nothing spelled out in Romney's plan to stop this.

Couple that with the fact that if Romney is going to reduce Government, he has to cut heads. So will an energy boom and a better tax rate favorable for small to medium size business, create enough jobs to make up the deficit left by outsourcing and smaller government? Or will people just switch job sectors and the numbers remain stagnant?

Maybe this will help: Believe In America - Mitt Romney’s Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth
 

Whynot

New member
Wow seriously?

Have you looked at his plan? 1.

I've read it quite a few times. If I hadn't I wouldn't be here asking the question that I am. I keyed in on the one that many have the same concerns about, jobs. And yes, a good economy will create jobs, but will it really create jobs, if you are putting all your eggs in one basket?

Cutting spending, I say give it hell Mitt. But like I explained in my original post, cutting spending puts government workers out of a job. Where do they go? The energy sector creating a false job increase? That was my original question.

Decreased regulations and energy independence go hand in hand. He can't do one without the other. So yes, I did say that energy jobs are a good thing and will create jobs, but will it create enough?

NLRB is pro-union? That may be the case, but it is not stopping employers from expanding. I'm not for or against PRIVATE sector unions, but they make for an easy target. A company and a union make a contract, company pays union x dollars for x amount of work. The union doesn't force the company to sign a contract and vice versa. Look at Cat, Verizon, AT&T etc. All involved strikes/lockouts. CAT got what they wanted, Verizon is in federal mediation, and AT&T came to an amicable agreement with some of it's unions and the ones it didn't are still to be decided. Trade unions provide the flexibility for a company to have a flexible workforce. They are not much different then day laborers, they are just organized. If you want to argue on the merits of their politics/mob mentality, you won't get an argument from me, but it's their right to put up giant rats, picket, and at times, look like fools.

As for trade reform, what exactly are we going to trade? There are still some things made here in America and if Romney is successful with his energy policy he will have resources, but you really can't trade a service. And that is what we have become, a service related economy. There is also ag products, but South America is doing a good job at getting into that market. Read where an American pork producer is buying corn from Brazil, because it will be cheaper for him to import it then to purchase it here. Then there is Russia, who is making a big push into ag also.
 
Last edited:

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Business tends to look at the government as their unwanted silent partner. Now, when that partner brings something to the table, contributes effort,advice, resources, depth, it benefits the partnership. When that partner interferes with operations,it does not.

For most of our nation's history, the government promoted the benefits of a good partner with business. Small and out of the way,it brought resources, ease of capital and a stable environment which encouraged the taking of risk.

One example of this is the boom of the railroads. In a thumbnail view, the great wealth of our infant government during the 1800's was not gold or cash in the treasury. It was land. By offering great grants of land to upstart railroads,the government encouraged the coelescence of private capital to be risked by operators with innovative ideas.. These entreprnuers were now able to garner resources of labor and materials to build their dream products, literaly anywhere and everywhere.
The result was the great expansion of our nation, and our economy, as land once used to hunt and gather was now used to mine for recources and farm for food and fiber.

People came.

And Commerce bloomed.

Now, that same partner is reclaiming much that same land by regulation and sometimes outright possesion. Thus preventing econiomic exploitation of natural resources. All to keep Bambi (Who is actualy doing much better than before) back in his natural state. And to keep the Oceans from rising.

And Commerse is waning.

When the railroads crossed the prairie, it didn't just put trackmen, engineers and bridgebuilders to work. It made fecund the environment for farmers, ranchers, homesteaders, miners and subsequently tavern owners, shop keepers, blacksmiths, teachers, pasters, homebuilders.....on and an,the complete fabric of societies and their neccesary infastructures of civilization. AKA Commerce.

Government management of these things "FOLLOWS" commerce. It does not create it. How often have we seen a road to nowhere built so a bustling town would then spontaniously grow. Virtually never. I believe it has been the experience of most that local roads are overburdened by commercial growth beyond belief until the government finally improves them.

Now to you rpoint. Our nation is blessed, and BTW not uniquely so, with abundant resources. At our nation's birth the government was originaly blessed with one, abundant, universal, currency of that time,,,,land. It spent it. And wisely so.

That was then,this is now

Under that land lies the current universal currency,,,,Energy. Properly marsshaled, it will lead to the creation of another blossoming prairie. And seaport, And mountain range. And river system. And frankle, railroad. Commerce will bloom not from a government mandated redistribution of monetary Fiat wealth, but the development of real wealth.

And all who freely participate will benefit. Right down to the guy who delivers pizzas to the coal miner's and oil worker's weekend BBQ .

This story is currently being proven, in real time, in North Dakota. Ther the poor unemployed can report to a job, not the unemployment office. They canuse a mastercard,not a food stamp card at the grocer. They can get the pickup fixed or ,,,replaced with a new one. Move out of mom's basement, or that FEMA trailer. maybe buy a house, not rent a studio flat.

Why not try it off the shores of Virginia, N &S Carolina and frankly San Diego?

Bambi will be just fine.
 
Last edited:

JEV

Mr. Congeniality
GOLD Site Supporter
Basically because with these tax cuts are tax incentives to out source in the form of tax breaks. This puts more out of work in this country but is great for India and China's labor force. Meanwhile wages have been pretty much flat for 40 years now and down even more now. I figure our unemployment at this point will stay the same giver or take 1% either way.

Yes it would normally however these are really normal times either. I never said anything about redistribution of wealth nor implied it but taxes under Romney will go up on middle income earners not down while it goes down on those that can give more. It is basically the old trickle down format that doesn't work and was abandoned by even Reagan after a year in office.

First, it was me that used redistribution, describing how the unemployed get paid from the government with my tax dollars. I file my tax return and the government keeps my money. They file a return and get all of their taxes paid returned to them, PLUS a check that comes from MY taxes paid.

Can you tell me where I can go to find out how the tax breaks become incentives for outsourcing? I've heard that from the left, but cannot find it with a Google search. Thanks.

Lastly, for which group of people have wages remained flat? From what I see, the less educated a person is, the lower their wage potential. Even if a person takes technical classes, the wage potential increases as the knowledge base increases. It doesn't always mean college degrees, but I see that even self education has the potential to increase one's wealth potential. A particular job has a particular value ( wage) attached to it, and no amount of education will increase that wage until and unless that job changes upward or downward. So if a person wants to be an assembly worker in a toy factory, they can only expect to make a maximum wage based on the value of the job. If they want more money, they must increase their value to the organization, which would move them to a job requiring more knowledge or skills. Am I missing something here in your flat wage argument?
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
First, it was me that used redistribution, describing how the unemployed get paid from the government with my tax dollars. I file my tax return and the government keeps my money. They file a return and get all of their taxes paid returned to them, PLUS a check that comes from MY taxes paid.

?

It is actually worse thanthat. Unemployment comes from mandated contributions by employers. Sowhenyou buy a product or service some of your purchase price is redistributed to that out of work person.
Againbusiness does not pay taxes,,,,it collectsthem for the government. Who then spends it, and not often wisely.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
First, it was me that used redistribution, describing how the unemployed get paid from the government with my tax dollars. I file my tax return and the government keeps my money. They file a return and get all of their taxes paid returned to them, PLUS a check that comes from MY taxes paid.

Can you tell me where I can go to find out how the tax breaks become incentives for outsourcing? I've heard that from the left, but cannot find it with a Google search. Thanks.

Lastly, for which group of people have wages remained flat? From what I see, the less educated a person is, the lower their wage potential. Even if a person takes technical classes, the wage potential increases as the knowledge base increases. It doesn't always mean college degrees, but I see that even self education has the potential to increase one's wealth potential. A particular job has a particular value ( wage) attached to it, and no amount of education will increase that wage until and unless that job changes upward or downward. So if a person wants to be an assembly worker in a toy factory, they can only expect to make a maximum wage based on the value of the job. If they want more money, they must increase their value to the organization, which would move them to a job requiring more knowledge or skills. Am I missing something here in your flat wage argument?

Unemployment is paid equally buy employer and employee in to a plan. Employee must work a length of time before they are eligible to collect but pay from their first check on regardless. It is insurance and nothing more. It also isn't uncommon regardless of party in the white house and congress to extend it over the standard period of time in extremely high unemployment. It is an insurance the US Government hence tax payers elected to underwrite.

Now as for the tax breaks simply listen to the news or look up the deductions allow by corporations they are there so do a little research and you will find it. I might add turn on C-Span and listen to either the Senate or House channels and the tax breaks they receive with be debated on both floors on a regular basis.

The middle class in this country wages have remained flat that would be those that work at a job for an employer. That is also well documented and has been for a few years now. When we had manufacturing jobs people earned a living wage and could buy. Well those days are leaving us and going over seas due mostly to paying pennies on the dollar in wages and little to no working rule conditions. Nike shoes is a simple example, just price their shoes per pair and it cost them about .50 a piece to make in China yet they charge more than they ever did. That is true of most products once made in the US. The manufacturer sector moving overseas is also easy information to find.
 

loboloco

Well-known member
Unemployment is paid equally buy employer and employee in to a plan. Employee must work a length of time before they are eligible to collect but pay from their first check on regardless. It is insurance and nothing more. It also isn't uncommon regardless of party in the white house and congress to extend it over the standard period of time in extremely high unemployment. It is an insurance the US Government hence tax payers elected to underwrite.

Now as for the tax breaks simply listen to the news or look up the deductions allow by corporations they are there so do a little research and you will find it. I might add turn on C-Span and listen to either the Senate or House channels and the tax breaks they receive with be debated on both floors on a regular basis.

The middle class in this country wages have remained flat that would be those that work at a job for an employer. That is also well documented and has been for a few years now. When we had manufacturing jobs people earned a living wage and could buy. Well those days are leaving us and going over seas due mostly to paying pennies on the dollar in wages and little to no working rule conditions. Nike shoes is a simple example, just price their shoes per pair and it cost them about .50 a piece to make in China yet they charge more than they ever did. That is true of most products once made in the US. The manufacturer sector moving overseas is also easy information to find.
The bold is factually incorrect. Employers pay for unemployment insurance. Self-employed may pay for unemployment insurance. The employee pays no part of it. By federal mandate. any employer requiring the employee to pay part of his unemployment insurance is violating the law.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
The bold is factually incorrect. Employers pay for unemployment insurance. Self-employed may pay for unemployment insurance. The employee pays no part of it. By federal mandate. any employer requiring the employee to pay part of his unemployment insurance is violating the law.

The same thing is true of Social Security. But the reality to the employer is the same. It is a total cost added to the cost of labor operations and is included in the sale price of what ever the employer charges customers.

How many people realize that 15% of their paycheck is siphoned off for Uncle Sam,JUST FOR SOCIAL SECURITY.

BTW, Social security was originaly called insurance too. After considerable argument in courts,,,,it is now deemd a Tax.

Might be because the payments go to the government. Just like the unemployment insurance payments do.

Now to those who suggest the employer takes 1/2 that out of his pocket, I suggest they try and prove it. I'm an employer and I know I don't.

The overburden costs of an employee amounts to 25 to 35% of their wages depending on what state you are in and their overall benefit package.
So the decision to raise someone's pay by $10,000 a year isn't a $5.00 an hour increase in labor costs. It is a $6.50 per hour increase. That must be supported by a commenserate raise in revenues. Suggesting that just to be even, the efforts of that employee must provide, on average, a minimum of $70,000 in increased sales.

I downsized by 25 employees last year. To bring them back I must find $1,400.000.00 in new sales. That is more than double our current gross incomes.

Nope, the SS and the so called Unemployment Insurance, are not coming out of my pocket. Next time you buy a box of cereal or lunchmeat or prepared chicken, it is coming our of yours.

Don't worry, I'll send it to Barry and he will be happy to spend your money for you on something he wants.

"Every dollar you must send to the capitol is a loss of your freedom. Yes, your freedom of choice."
Senator Jim Talent to me personaly during a meeting.
 
Last edited:

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
The bold is factually incorrect. Employers pay for unemployment insurance. Self-employed may pay for unemployment insurance. The employee pays no part of it. By federal mandate. any employer requiring the employee to pay part of his unemployment insurance is violating the law.

I stand corrected then. However in fact employees get in place of wages they might other wise get though. The same with any benefit an employer pays really. At least that is what my employers in the past said explaining why we didn't make more than we did.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
I stand corrected then. However in fact employees get in place of wages they might other wise get though. The same with any benefit an employer pays really. At least that is what my employers in the past said explaining why we didn't make more than we did.

That was the truth of the matter Joec. What else could they have said?

Unemployment insurance was suppose to be a bridge to cover one untill they got new work. Now it is an entitlment, a civil right.
We have extended it to 99 weeks. And then wonder why many just don't bother to look for work.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
That was the truth of the matter Joec. What else could they have said?

Unemployment insurance was suppose to be a bridge to cover one untill they got new work. Now it is an entitlment, a civil right.
We have extended it to 99 weeks. And then wonder why many just don't bother to look for work.

I agree but the benefits have been extended under many congresses and parties since it was started. The same with Government stimulus which has been done by all administrations and congresses regardless also. They don't always call it a stimulus but it is regardless of what a particular party or group call it.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
I agree but the benefits have been extended under many congresses and parties since it was started. The same with Government stimulus which has been done by all administrations and congresses regardless also. They don't always call it a stimulus but it is regardless of what a particular party or group call it.


And that co-conspiacy co-responsibility has what to do with the problem?
It is still the reality, it is still presented to the public in the form of a lie. We cannot afford it, our ecoonomy suffers for it, and it is still wrong.:hammer:
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
And that co-conspiacy co-responsibility has what to do with the problem?
It is still the reality, it is still presented to the public in the form of a lie. We cannot afford it, our ecoonomy suffers for it, and it is still wrong.:hammer:

Well then the only choice is to cut so what do you want to cut? Those things that help the countries citizens such as social security medicare, unemployment etc. Or would you cut military, education, aid to states, infrastructure spending? You pick those you want to cut as they all have a down side I would think. You are posting like you have the answers so tell me what they are.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Well then the only choice is to cut so what do you want to cut? Those things that help the countries citizens such as social security medicare, unemployment etc. Or would you cut military, education, aid to states, infrastructure spending? You pick those you want to cut as they all have a down side I would think. You are posting like you have the answers so tell me what they are.

Why is that "the only choice"? My argument is the perpetuated lie.

Most people who received the 99 weeks had no idea who paid for it. They presumed it came spontaneaously from the govenment. In reality, it comes from everyone, including them.
And could be a very key reason their job went to China.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
Why is that "the only choice"? My argument is the perpetuated lie.

Most people who received the 99 weeks had no idea who paid for it. They presumed it came spontaneaously from the govenment. In reality, it comes from everyone, including them.
And could be a very key reason their job went to China.

If you believe that then, so be it. I sure have not found out what you base it on but so be it. :hammer:
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Unemployment is paid equally buy employer and employee in to a plan. Employee must work a length of time before they are eligible to collect but pay from their first check on regardless. It is insurance and nothing more. . .
Actually employees don't pay into it, its only from the employer. Further, the problem with that is that the Democrats (when they controlled both the house & senate), at the urging of Obama, extended it to 2 years (99 weeks) and there is NOT ENOUGH $ going into it to cover what is coming out. Can't blame the GOP for this one. GOP makes a lot of mistakes, I'm not going to defend much of what they have done, but this one falls squarely on the shoulders of the Dems.

They also reduced the contributions going into Social Security so that, which is already underfunded, is now about to go critical.



Romney hasn't explained a plan of any kind that I've heard...
Stop waiting for the media to feed it to you and go read his plans for growth on his website. Its on several different pages so you have to do some work.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
Actually employees don't pay into it, its only from the employer. Further, the problem with that is that the Democrats (when they controlled both the house & senate), at the urging of Obama, extended it to 2 years (99 weeks) and there is NOT ENOUGH $ going into it to cover what is coming out. Can't blame the GOP for this one. GOP makes a lot of mistakes, I'm not going to defend much of what they have done, but this one falls squarely on the shoulders of the Dems.

They also reduced the contributions going into Social Security so that, which is already underfunded, is now about to go critical.




Stop waiting for the media to feed it to you and go read his plans for growth on his website. Its on several different pages so you have to do some work.

I have read his plan and also what others in the know have said from the CBO down. It raises the national debt and doesn't create anything except more wealth for what that will be worth shortly.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
If you believe that then, so be it. I sure have not found out what you base it on but so be it. :hammer:
Joec I am not sure from what labor pool you ever hire, but I hire skilled and unskilled labor. This is the perceptionthey relate to me. And have done so since I started managing and running factories.

Sorry, MSNBC did not do a survey to prove it. But I certainly believe it.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
Joec I am not sure from what labor pool you ever hire, but I hire skilled and unskilled labor. This is the perceptionthey relate to me. And have done so since I started managing and running factories.

Sorry, MSNBC did not do a survey to prove it. But I certainly believe it.

I don't hire people today except contractors to do construction improvements and unskilled to cut my grass and easy maintenance. However over the years I have hire both also. As for MSNBC what is that about, as you seem to watch it much more than I do as I rarely watch more than morning joe. I go to work running my own small business till 6 PM most days except weekends, with breaks during slow time to come on here or mess with a hobby or two.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
I don't hire people today except contractors to do construction improvements and unskilled to cut my grass and easy maintenance. However over the years I have hire both also. As for MSNBC what is that about, as you seem to watch it much more than I do as I rarely watch more than morning joe. I go to work running my own small business till 6 PM most days except weekends, with breaks during slow time to come on here or mess with a hobby or two.

A couple of things here JOEC. I'm sure you work hard. I never said differt;.
As for MSNBC that was an obvious point. I would appreciate if you would be honest about what you bring to our discusions. Assuming you honestly wish a respectful response.

BTW, anyone who watches only one or two outlets, and refuses to see what is on those channels that broadcast the other party lines, is un-informed. How can they then presume to bring an intelligent and informed conversation to this forum?
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
A couple of things here JOEC. I'm sure you work hard. I never said differt;.
As for MSNBC that was an obvious point. I would appreciate if you would be honest about what you bring to our discusions. Assuming you honestly wish a respectful response.

BTW, anyone who watches only one or two outlets, and refuses to see what is on those channels that broadcast the other party lines, is un-informed. How can they then presume to bring an intelligent and informed conversation to this forum?

Fact is I have 3 TVs in my home and rarely watch any of them ever. Most of my time is spent on other things and as a father of 4 with 17 grand kids and 6 great grand kids I've learned to tune out background noise in general. It is the only way I haven't lost my mind in the last 48+ years.:yum:

I catch bits and pieces of news reports in the course of a day however I'm not what one would call a dedicated listener to any of them. I tend to read most of my news from multiple sources.
 

Whynot

New member
Franc, without going into too much detail about your operation, (I believe you package product, but I'm not here to pry.) besides the hope of lower energy costs and a better tax rate, do you think Romney's plan is a good start?

I realize you cannot predict what might happen in the future, but does his plan give you hope that you will be hiring sometime in the future?

Added after edit: or that his plan will entice those companies you package for, to keep that work in the US?
 
Top