Wal Mart shoppers are running out of money.

[Gipper]

I am a little lost...are you implying that deteriorating American education is the cause of fewer manufacturing jobs in the US?

No. I would assume you would agree our failing but very expensive p-school system, is not preparing many Americans for the current world economy. The result of this will be an ever expanding underclass dependent on government welfare to survive. And those silly ineffective p-school unionize teachers want their gravy train to continue rolling...I say F them.

We lost those manufacturing jobs because of several factors including the following:
1. Government at all levels imposing onerous regulations and taxation on business.
2. Manufacturing processes are much more efficient (technological improvements) resulting in the need for fewer employees.
3. Worldwide competition particularly from China along with China's devaluing their currency.
4. The expensive cost of labor in the USA due to #1 above prevents business owners from hiring more employees.

As I stated earlier in this thread, IMHO China's rise has negatively impacted low skill/educated Americans who no longer can obtain a middle class life style with a manufacturing job. This has little to do with outsourcing as Gen confirms. But, when products made in China are a fraction of the cost to make here, business can't compete and ultimately close up shop resulting in a lose of manufacturing jobs for Americans.

 

[Centrehalf]

As I stated earlier in this thread, IMHO China's rise has negatively impacted low skill/educated Americans who no longer can obtain a middle class life style with a manufacturing job. This has little to do with outsourcing as Gen confirms. But, when products made in China are a fraction of the cost to make here, business can't compete and ultimately close up shop resulting in a lose of manufacturing jobs for Americans.

If it were up to you, what would you do to correct this?

 

[Gipper]

If it were up to you, what would you do to correct this?

I think it is quite simple, but thank you for asking.

First, dramatically reduce and eliminate government regulations and taxation on businesses, particularly small business.

Second, outlaw unionization and tenure for p-school teachers. Fire ALL ineffective teachers today. Discontinue the gravy benefits given to teachers. Impose standards students must attain prior to moving on to the next grade. Fire teachers who fail to get a certain very high percentage of students to the next grade.

Third, implement policies and educational programs for preparing school age kids for the new economy.

 

[Dr.Who]

I think it is quite simple, but thank you for asking.

First, dramatically reduce and eliminate government regulations and taxation on businesses, particularly small business.

Second, outlaw unionization and tenure for p-school teachers. Fire ALL ineffective teachers today. Discontinue the gravy benefits given to teachers. Impose standards students must attain prior to moving on to the next grade. Fire teachers who fail to get a certain very high percentage of students to the next grade.

Third, implement policies and educational programs for preparing school age kids for the new economy.

Ah ha! I caught you advancing a plan that makes sense. It is exactly what we need to do to adapt to a world economy as GenSenica said.

 

[Gipper]

Much like anyone who is different from Bush was the motto for 2008, but what did we wind up with? Bush. Barorge Obambush. Hope and change indeed. Now, who do you think that anybody but Obama is going to be? Newt and Ron Paul are the only choices thus far.

No....Newt and Paul are not the only choices. Where in the hell did you get that? Oh, MSLSD right?

Have you heard of the following?

• Romney
• Cain
• Gary Johnson
• Pawlenty
• Santorium

And several very good prospective candidates:

• Bachmann
• Bolton
• Mitch Daniels
• John Huntsman

I would like to see Rick Perry run. Three term gov of TX. He would beat BO like a drum. And, he has much better hair than BO. So, he will get the female vote...ugh...was that sexist??? Maybe, but there is some truth to it.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/18/3636625/perry-for-president-rush-limbaugh.html

 

[PLC1]

No....Newt and Paul are not the only choices. Where in the hell did you get that? Oh, MSLSD right?

Have you heard of the following?

• Romney
• Cain
• Gary Johnson
• Pawlenty
• Santorium

And several very good prospective candidates:

• Bachmann
• Bolton
• Mitch Daniels
• John Huntsman

I would like to see Rick Perry run. Three term gov of TX. He would beat BO like a drum. And, he has much better hair than BO. So, he will get the female vote...ugh...was that sexist??? Maybe, but there is some truth to it.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/18/3636625/perry-for-president-rush-limbaugh.html

Thus far, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are the only declared candidates. Anyone else is pure speculation.

 

[Gipper]

Thus far, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are the only declared candidates. Anyone else is pure speculation.

Gary Johnson has also declared. http://2012.republican-candidates.org/

And it is more than "pure speculation" that Romney and a few others will run. Don't you think?

 

[PLC1]

Gary Johnson has also declared. http://2012.republican-candidates.org/

And it is more than "pure speculation" that Romney and a few others will run. Don't you think?

Oh, it's a given that the GOP will see additional candidates. We can speculate on who they might be even now. I already do speculate that Romney will be a choice next time around. If he can get past the evangelicals, he might even win the nomination, in which case Obama will have a real race to run.

Let's hope so, anyway. The declared candidate list is a little thin at this point. There still is time, though, and so we can hope that the list will change, maybe even for the better.

(hope- change- get it? It was a little joke)

 

[PLC1]

OK, the time has come:

I hereby declare my candidacy for the Republican nomination for the Presidency of the United States.

If Gingrich can do it on Twitter, then I can do it here, can't I?

My platform is as follows:

I will not solicit nor accept any donations. That way, I won't have to make any pay backs after I'm elected.

I'm running as a solid RINO, not caring a fig about the party line, party talking points, or ideology. If it isn't practical and workable, I'm against it. If the Democrats to something right, kudos to them. If the Republicans are right, then I'm with them too. Parties are a bane.

The Congress had better come up with a balanced budget, or I'm vetoing it.

If anyone doesn't like the executive decisions I make while in office, tough. If they don't like it, they can pick someone else next time around.

I'm not giving out my real name or any other personal data, so there can't be any nonsense about my religion, citizenship, or whether I'm a "real American."

 

[BigRob]

OK, the time has come:

I hereby declare my candidacy for the Republican nomination for the Presidency of the United States.

If Gingrich can do it on Twitter, then I can do it here, can't I?

My platform is as follows:

I will not solicit nor accept any donations. That way, I won't have to make any pay backs after I'm elected.

I'm running as a solid RINO, not caring a fig about the party line, party talking points, or ideology. If it isn't practical and workable, I'm against it. If the Democrats to something right, kudos to them. If the Republicans are right, then I'm with them too. Parties are a bane.

The Congress had better come up with a balanced budget, or I'm vetoing it.

If anyone doesn't like the executive decisions I make while in office, tough. If they don't like it, they can pick someone else next time around.

I'm not giving out my real name or any other personal data, so there can't be any nonsense about my religion, citizenship, or whether I'm a "real American."

Going to highlight in on your last point here... if you do want to run you will need to file some actual paperwork with your real name etc...

 

[Dr.Who]

Oh, it's a given that the GOP will see additional candidates. We can speculate on who they might be even now. I already do speculate that Romney will be a choice next time around. If he can get past the evangelicals, he might even win the nomination, in which case Obama will have a real race to run.

Let's hope so, anyway. The declared candidate list is a little thin at this point. There still is time, though, and so we can hope that the list will change, maybe even for the better.

(hope- change- get it? It was a little joke)

As soon as the field is down to one or two the candidate will be raked over the coals by the msm. The longer he/she waits the better off he/she will be - to a point.

 

[PLC1]

As soon as the field is down to one or two the candidate will be raked over the coals by the msm. The longer he/she waits the better off he/she will be - to a point.

Being raked over the coals is a part of running for president. If the media can't find some issue to take up with the candidate, it will invent one.

 

[Gipper]

Being raked over the coals is a part of running for president. If the media can't find some issue to take up with the candidate, it will invent one.

Was Obama "raked over the coals?" I think not. The MSM fawned all over him and there was no criticism even after the numerous disgusting details about his Marxist past came to light. In a sane nation (one not infected by Liberalism), he would never have gained the D nomination.

There is a double standard if you haven't noticed.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Was Obama "raked over the coals?" I think not. The MSM fawned all over him and there was no criticism even after the numerous disgusting details about his Marxist past came to light. In a sane nation (one not infected by Liberalism), he would never have gained the D nomination.

There is a double standard if you haven't noticed.

You are correct, to a point. Talk radio, Fox, plenty of internet websites, and "fair and balanced" print media outlets, raked Obama over the coals, which needed to be done to expose his many "shortcomings".

But, as you pointed out, the "usual suspects" in the news media........the alphabet networks and their spinoffs, certain cable networks/channels, the New York Times, many other left wing newspapers and magazines, and internet websites like the HuffPo, as well as all of the George Soros-funded organizations, all gave Obama a pass, as expected.

 

[Dr.Who]

You are correct, to a point. Talk radio, Fox, plenty of internet websites, and "fair and balanced" print media outlets, raked Obama over the coals, which needed to be done to expose his many "shortcomings".

But, as you pointed out, the "usual suspects" in the news media........the alphabet networks and their spinoffs, certain cable networks/channels, the New York Times, many other left wing newspapers and magazines, and internet websites like the HuffPo, as well as all of the George Soros-funded organizations, all gave Obama a pass, as expected.

A shame that legitimate news organizations did not do their job while entertainment media like talk radio did. Fox was the exception but they are also not as unbiased as they should be.