Rod38um

Bain invested its own money, took a chance with it and it saved failing companies 78% of time while contributing to the treasury by paying taxes along with the now profitable companies who pay taxes and employ people who would have otherwise lost their jobs. Obama invested tax payer money in companies who were not failing but wanted to take a larger chance and who also had contributed heavily to his campaign. Now, had Obama invested his own money, all would be fine. But I can assure you that if Romney is elected and he invests billions of tax payer dollars into companies who donated heavily to his campaign and they promptly go broke with no mechanism to recuperate our investment....... you liberals will be squealing like an upside down pig on castration day.

Yes we do. I do understand it. I also understand that every business must calculate all costs when calculating the price of its product, after which they must determine if they can make a profit at that price and can they compete with their competition at that price. Any one of the factors used in this calculation can push a company out of business or into higher profits depending on which way they move. I also understand that those factors may represent different percentages depending on the company and the product. If you drive costs up, companies will suffer as will jobs. If you drive costs down, companies will flourish as will jobs. I and the candidate I support, Romney, support driving costs down, Making doing business here easier and cheaper. Obama and the democrats support driving costs up making doing business here expensive and difficult. If you cant see the difference...... cant see the cause and effect...... you simply dont want to see it........

Best Post of the thread!

There is no manufacturing that cant be done cheaper overseas under the current structure. If you cant sell your product overseas, it does almost no good. We need positive cash flow in the treasury. Obama learned the hard way with his "green" job stimulus. He pumped billions of tax payer dollars into solar and battery companies. They have now failed but their technology is being manufactured overseas because they cant make a profit manufacturing the same product here. The point is; if we want to start bringing jobs back, we have to make it cheaper and easier for companies to do business in the US. We have to stop punishing investors with high capital gains rates and we need stop punishing people for bringing profits earned overseas back to the US where they could be invested domestically.

That may be the only thing keeping you employed. Most companies sell something more than air.... lol I see you point on shipping but I am suspect on your tax and regulation cost numbers. Either way...... as time goes by and we either increase costs or foreign countries decrease cost for business, another company somewhere can see a cheaper path to manufacturing by moving overseas. Its been happening for decades now and as in China, wages have risen, factory workers are demanding benefits and getting them, they have a middle class. There will always be someplace that has cheap labor but there are enough benefits to manufacturing near your supply chain that given good tax rates and reg costs, business will locate here...... but they wont if we do nothing.

We are part of the nuclear fuel cycle. So if where you work labor is 15 -20% and they can still make a profit in this country...... seems to me they could expand if their taxes and regulatory costs were lower.......... See what I mean? But if you raise them as Obama has planned, most likely they will move overseas and you'll be out of a job.

I know I'm wasting my time responding because you never seem to understand a logical counter point. You always dismiss the point and repeat rhetoric but I'll say it again anyway. Labor is not the only factor in the cost of doing business. We have a huge domestic market. Many companies would like to be able to afford to manufacture here. If taxes are cheaper here, if regulation was more cost effective to comply with here, if energy prices are lower here for manufacturing equipment and shipping then you can afford to pay decent wages especially when labor costs are a smaller percentage of the cost of your product. As I said, our company's labor cost was .02% of the cost of our product. Energy was our largest cost then taxes and regulatory. Simply put, a smaller government that requires less to feed it, means we can lower taxes,lure more business and employ more tax payers to share in the burden. Your assumption is that any company moves here, they must pay the same wage as a third world country, thats just wrong.

Now I know why you are always on the computer. Its a worthless endeavor for you to leave the house.

In effect, your also saying its useless to try to compete so you would rather sit here unemployed and wait until the rest of the world passes us economically at which point we will be glad to have any job. I dont agree........ Decades ago, labor cost were a signifigant factor in the business model. With modern manufacturing technology, labor has been reduced but the start up cost increased. The prime concern is startup capital, taxes, regulation and energy. My last job published their cost stats, it showed labor was .02% of the cost of our product. Thats not even realy a concern. We can compete with other countries for jobs but we have to get the government (and liberals) out of the way.

..

Soooooo much fail.......... just soooooo much fail..........

The debate should never be about who should pay more taxes, the debate should always be about why the government is spending too much.

Here in southern ohio, we are swamped with osp. I run a radar/laser detector in the truck. I have a 20 minute drive to work. Its rare that I dont get lit up by an osp. I have been hit 5 times on that 20 minute drive before. This week, I've started seeing something new. I saw a car pulled over by an unmarked black chevy truck and one pulled over by an unmarked black dodge challenger. I dont see much benefit in employing ticket writers that require high tech equipment to determine if someone may be slightly over some blanket policy speed limit.

If the number of unemployed dropped by 456,000, but only 114,000 jobs were added, that means that 342,000 people left the workforce in some fashion. Couple that with the fact that the number of part-time workers saw an increase of 582,000 while manufacturing unemployment saw a decrease of 16,000 jobs and this drop in unemployment rate begins to looks less and less optimistic, and more like a misleading mathematical equation. In 2012, employment growth has averaged a gain of 146,000 jobs per month, a drop from the average monthly gain of 153,000 in 2011. Given these numbers, the 114,000 jobs added in September begin to look worse and worse, regardless of what the often-misleading unemployment rate says. The much more telling U-6 unemployment rate, which accounts for unemployment, underemployment, and those marginally attached to the workforce, remained the same at 14.7 percent. That 7.8 percent number does not include so many factors and does not tell the whole story. For instance, if a worker should be employed full time but could only find part time work in September, they helped the “unemployment rate” decrease from 8.1 to 7.8 percent, but they would not have changed the U-6 number at 14.7 percent. http://www.ijreview.com/2012/10/18256-breaking-september-jobs-report-released/

Thanks, what all have you done to yours? I'm not sure what upgrades I may want yet. I'm not really a rifle guy. I've been a 1911 guy for years so this is a new area for me.

Thanks, I appreciate it, I'd verify before loading anyway, But I agree with your thinking!

Thats sort of deceiving. They actually borrowed the money from the government to pay the government back. It made great pro Obama headlines but all they really did was refinance. Also shortly after refinancing they announced (only in China) that GM had partnered with SAIC a company owned by the chinese government and they started construction of a new assembly plant, a powertrain plant and there are supposed to be 70 some dealerships opening, all in China. But I'm sure none of the US tax payers money went to creating chinese jobs, I'm sure it was all spent right here. Never the less, they still owe the debt to the tax payers.

Several companies have already stated that they intend to drop coverage and pay the fine. It will be cheaper and for them and the employee is still covered on the tax payers dime. I believe McDonalds was the most recent. The problem is that as more companies drop coverage, that eats into the insurance company's bottom line and they will have raise rates, which will lead others to drop coverage. Snowball effect. Which, many believe is the intent behind this legislation. They want a complete takeover.

I feel that pain............... So I rode the bike around to several gun stores today........ I'm trying to cope!

LMAO....... sounds like: "We have to pass it to find out what's in it" If the law goes into full effect, most companies will drop the insurance for their employees then everyone will be on government rationed health care. Maybe I can get a job sitting on the board deciding if people are valuable enough to receive treatment! I bet that job could be lucrative..... under the table.....

Do you mind sharing your recipe? I just bought this: I've never loaded .223 but I have a ton of 556 and 223 brass. I load 45 acp weekly. This was an impulse buy and I have not researched anything as of yet so I'm pretty ignorant on it. I can see I may be shooting it more often than I expected.......

His promise was that health care costs would go down. there are 21 new taxes set to start kicking in after the election. Do you think those will reduce cost? Do you think it was underhanded to set all the benefits to be implemented before the election and the taxes after?

He has 3 paragraphs??? The first one he says tax the wealthy. Well, income tax rates are progressive, the more you make the higher percentage you pay. So either he's so out of touch he doesnt know it or he;s talking about increasing capital gains tax which will, as proven time and again, stifle investment and stunt job growth. The second one: He's talking about increasing the size of government and our debt because we dont have the extra money. We borrow 50 cents of every dollar we spend now so until you get the private sector producing more revenue than the public sector spends, this is just pure stupidity. I wouldnt do it in my house nor would any responsible person. The third one: Reducing the debt... Well lets look at his track record so far. Nearly 6 trillion in new debt just since he took office. He passed the largest budget in history with his super majority and then refused to negotiate another one ever since, knowing that the same bloated budget stays in place till a new one is agreed upon. Failure!

Obama and his agenda are miserable failures........... I understand you dont want to admit it...... but its obvious. Where is that Obama plan?