Third Party & Independents Archives

On The Hunt For Jobs

Seems everyone is putting jobs on the front burner these days. A little strange that people should be that concerned at this point in time. I think most of us are of age to recall Perot’s campaign mantra; ‘the sucking sound of jobs going overseas’. Only a few, 19% seemed concerned back then.

Now, the pols, media, think tanks, universities, the person on the street, all are talking up the creation of jobs. Shouldn't be much of a problem and solutions to job creation abound.

For example:

This ABC news story suggests that immigration of the right type would create skads of jobs. Amit Aharoni, an Israeli national and a graduate of Stanford Business School, who secured $1.65 million in venture capital funding with two cofounders to launch, an online cruise booking company, initially was denied a visa to continue operating his business in the United States. . .


"When every other country wants the best and the brightest, we're trying to keep them out. It doesn't make a lot of sense. ... [T]he truth of the matter is we are sending the future overseas," Bloomberg told ABC News today. "We need people to start companies and create jobs. People that come from overseas are something like ... five times more likely to create jobs than people who are here. ... So we've got to do something about this."

Another ABC News report suggest we just kinda wiggle around and skirt WTO/IMF/World Bank/World Court/Nafta, and the afta's regulations, and our lender of most import, China, and buy American when it comes to housing, we could create lotsa jobs.
"Lewendal is convinced that if every builder bought just 5 percent more U.S.-made materials, they would create 220,000 jobs. The Boston Consulting Group agrees, confirming that Lewendal's numbers add up.
In all, the U.S.-made house is being built with more than 120 products from more than 33 states. But builders do acknowledge that using American products can be more expensive."

Another offers a five part plan to get us going again. "Today, there are 1.7 million fewer Americans working than when the President's stimulus bill was enacted. Recommendations are to: Do less not more, Restore Confidence, Eliminate Uncertainty, Get spending under control, Eliminate unnecessary regulation and Repeal Obamacare. "

One fella is recommending an iHuman Revolution; "Ultimately, a truly SMARTER government approach would enable American working class people to compete better in a global economy. We might classify this new political science as "object oriented democracy or cause based initiatives" that provide human based solutions, says James Rickman 3rd, Director iHuman Evolution."

From the folks who for 30 years have worked harder to bring us to where we are, the gop has this to offer: "If we've learned anything during the recession, it's that we cannot tax and spend our way to prosperity. The best way to get people working again is to rein in the growth of government and end the uncertainty facing small businesses. By addressing both issues, our plan revives free enterprise and moves America away from a debt-driven economy. Permanently Stop All Job-Killing Tax Hikes, Give Small Businesses a Tax Deduction, and Repeal Job-Killing Small Business Mandates,"
Strong stuff, don'tcha think? A little dab of that and you could stretch a gnats ass over a telephone pole. The word 'big' must not be in their database. I didn't see anything about 'big' business in their game plan.

This couple writes that 'Pragmatic Caucus' or the crème de la crème of large metros is the key to creating jobs. "While it took four years for Washington to finally pass a series of free trade agreements, metros such as Los Angeles, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Portland and Syracuse are reorienting their economic development strategies towards exports, foreign direct investment and skilled immigration. (See how the 2012 GOP candidates are faring with Latino voters.)"

I really need some help in understanding this one. I am not sure what these metro's might be looking to export. Louisiana crayfish or Chesapeake Bay oysters? I'm aware shipping cost are favorable. One can ship hay from the farm to China for less than the cost to ship it 50 miles down the road. Have they talked this over with the Asian rim? Agree, we could sell it off under FDI for the land value. If China buys in here would they not have the same/similar export problems as US firms? I can see where foreign entities would like to buy non-exportables like toll roads and airports. Maybe that's what they have in mind. And, one would think we are getting all the skilled immigration we can handle through heavy hiring from UC Berkley.

Or, we could just pick up and move North like so many others are doing: "The most popular routes for Immigration to Canada is via a Working Visa, which attracts immigrants with skills and desirable business experience that can contribute to the further of the Canadian economy." Yup, go to Canada and get a job on the shale oil pipelines doing work those Canadians won't do. You would be employed, just not in this country.

I seem to be the only human alive that would like to talk about globalisation and how we lost our economy in the first place. But, that seems to be so far off the table, in fact just conjuring up the thought can lead to a Rick Perry moment lasting hours or longer.

Otherwise - - -.

Posted by Roy Ellis at November 12, 2011 3:25 PM
Comment #331939

Approx. $3.1B was spent on lobbying in 2010. Jack Abramoff is out of jail and on the dog and pony circuit. Says that he guesstimates about 20% of congresspersons are on the take, or crossing the line. He thinks there is too much money influence in politics/gov’t. He said he helped out with deals totaling billions while he took millions. Only one congressperson went to jail relative to the Abramoff hearings.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 13, 2011 3:01 PM
Comment #331949

Simple solution, limit the power of the federal government to the limits that they are supposed to be constrained in. There would be no power for anyone (corporations, unions, special interests, etc) to try to buy.

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. — James Madison
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 13, 2011 4:37 PM
Comment #332019

Limiting the size and the mandate of corporations to that of the Revolutionary Era will do a better job of limiting corporate influence. Trimming the hedges would be an effective tool as well.

Discussing the Founding Fathers ideas about limited government is not very constructive unless we willing to accept their ideas on corporations as well.

Limit the governments ability to regulate corporations and corporations will do whatever they want to do. The housing bubble is an example of limited government regulation.

Posted by: jlw at November 14, 2011 10:30 PM
Comment #332021

I like what James Madison had to say and we need to focus his suggestions on the corporations as jlw recommends. At the forefront are Reclaim Democracy and Move To Amend. These two org’s are just warming up but its going to get real hot real soon.

Excerpt: “Editor’s note: is a member of the Move to Amend coalition. We’re thrilled that our original home base of Boulder, CO is now among the communities driving localopposition to corporate personhood.

In the year and a half since the Citizens United decision, Americans from all walks of life have become concerned about corporate dominance of our government and our society as a whole. In Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court (in an act of outrageous judicial activism) gutted existing campaign finance laws by ruling that corporations, wealthy individuals, and other entities can spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns.

Throughout the country people have responded by organizing against “corporate personhood,” a court-created precedent that illegitimately gives corporations rights that were intended for human beings.

The movement is flowering not in the halls of Congress, but at the local level, where all real social movements start. Every day Americans experience the devastation caused by unaccountable corporations. Thanks to the hard work of local organizers, Boulder, CO could become the next community to officially join this growing effort. Councilmember Macon Cowles is proposing to place a measure on the November ballot, giving Boulder voters the opportunity to support an amendment to the U. S. Constitution abolishing corporate personhood and declaring that money is not speech.

At the forefront of this movement is Move to Amend, a national coalition of hundreds of organizations and over 113,000 individuals (and counting). Move to Amend is committed to building a grassroots movement to abolish corporate personhood, to hold corporations accountable to the public, and ultimately to fulfill the promise of an American democratic republic.

Boulder is not alone in this fight, nor is it the first community to consider such a resolution. In April, voters in Madison and Dane County, WI overwhelmingly approved measures calling for an end to corporate personhood and the legal status of money as speech by 84% and 78% respectively. Similar resolutions have been passed in nearly thirty other cities and counties. Resolutions have also been introduced in the state legislatures of both Vermont and Washington.

Despite the momentum, Move to Amend organizers know this won’t be an easy fight. Corporate America controls traditional media, and has invested heavily in politicians, lobbyists, and extremist groups to oppose our efforts. We can’t expect Congress to act, nor can we depend on the courts to solve a problem of their own making. We draw our strategy and inspiration from the great social movements of history.

The abolition of slavery, the struggle for women’s suffrage, trade unions, and the civil rights movement all started with grassroots organizing. The ruling elites denounced these movements as un-American, and they will make the same accusation against this effort. Others claimed that those movements went “too far,” and were unrealistic. Thankfully, folks before us did not quit or give up. They gained traction with solid strategy, unwavering commitment, and moral authority.

Move To Amend proudly identifies with this tradition of engaged citizen participation. Building momentum with local organizing and resolutions is our best chance of driving a constitutional amendment into Congress. Recent events in Boulder provide an example of this strategy in practice. Months of education, organizing, and advocacy by Boulder Move to Amend empowered Councilman Cowles to provide political leadership and prepared the community to respond.

Awareness of corporate personhood in Boulder is now higher than ever before. It is widely viewed as a mainstream issue, having earned the support of local Democratic Party leaders. Answering critics of the measure, Boulder County Democratic Party Chairperson Dan Gould recently told the Daily Camera that corporate personhood is an issue that must be addressed locally. “This is as important as municipalization, this is as important as school bonds,” he said. “This is immediate.”

Move to Amend is gaining momentum rapidly in communities throughout the country precisely because the problems of corporate power are most evident locally. Developers seeking special favors pour money into elections. Big polluters avoid investigations and litigation by hiding behind their illegitimate “rights.” Bad employers lie to the public about unfair labor practices with no legal consequences. People see it every day. They get it and they’re ready to fight back. Move to Amend is here to help them do that with a strategy for long-term success.” End excerpt.

Super-wonderful to know the tautology is done. Now, the action begins.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 14, 2011 11:32 PM
Comment #332031

jlw, “Limit the government’s ability to regulate corporations and corporations will do whatever they want to do.” I would re-phrase that to say corporations will do whatever they need to do to return profits to their shareholders.

The profit motive is not perfect but it’s better than a say a system of guys with guns and jails compelling your actions. And your vision is anarchy is not the vision that more conservative or libertarian minds have when they speak out against excessive regulation. For me it’s about looking at regulations from an economic lens (scarcity of resources, cost benefit, unintended consequences) versus looking at regulation from a political lens (who’s constituent will this help, how much money can I raise by promoting this legislation, how rich can I get if I push this through, can I advance my political career by promoting this regulation). Some balance of those is needed and many fear that too much of the weight has been shifted to latter.

Posted by: George at November 15, 2011 9:27 AM
Comment #332045

“I would re-phrase that to say corporations will do whatever they need to do to return profits to their share holders.”

George, “whatever they need to do” covers a lot of territory from polluting the environment to starting wars. IMO, this could mean that deregulated corporations might not be as bad as men with guns and jails, but it could be as bad or worse.

Besides, just returning a profit is no longer acceptable to many shareholders. Maximization of profit returns is the in thing now. This is why corporations aren’t real popular with many people at this time.

My concern that anarchy will evolve from deregulation is not great because I think corporations would actually have to go to war with one another to create a situation of anarchy. Not likely to happen. And, the Mafia has fairly well proven that murdering people in the street can be detrimental to business. Cooperation for profits is a more likely scenario, 21 airlines bust for price fixing.

My concern is control. Corporations controlling governments, not just ours. Corporations controlling the media and controlling the message through their brand of propaganda. We see this with the corporate owned media outlets now. Liberal, conservative and corporate propaganda. And, Fox News is the worst of the bunch.

My vision for an American empire is not Pax Romana, but that is exactly what our country is evolving into. Making war for vassal states, for control of resources, for a return of profit. That is what Vietnam was primarily about, and Iraq as well. The American taxpayers pony up the money for the right to buy the resources at a profit from the corporations. Corporations aren’t interested in changing the game because the game is where the profits are.

Regulations looking through an economic lens? Is government approval of fracking, which has been proven to cause earthquakes, proven to pollute ground water, an economic, political, or geopolitical decision?

Would you describe air and water pollution standards as politically based regulations? I would. The people wanted these regulations so they are politically motivated.

Science should have the most input in such decisions and corporations should not be allow to interfere with the science by producing their own science and promoting it as the truth. We have seen this all to often.

Please provide a reason why we should trust any of these politicians, liberal or conservative, to deregulate corporations that are funnelling large cash contributions to the politicians?

We trusted them and they gave us GLB, which helped to facilitate to the housing bubble, a very profitable venture for the big banks and a few insiders. There were constant warnings, whistle blowers going back to the beginning, and they were ignored, silenced, for profit. Profits for the bankers, not the bankers customers. The banks were ripping off their own customers.

I for one do not trust these politicians, especially the Republicans, but by a small margin.

IMO, the profit incentive has it’s place in society, but not as lord and master. What can be very profitable for a few can be very detrimental for the many. That is exactly what I am hearing from the Republicans, laissez faire, caveat emptor baby, individualism rules.

If you want to talk about reducing some regulations on small business you can expect some cooperation from me, but many of these corporations are to big and powerful as it is and some of them need to be broken up. When the profit incentive becomes a detriment to the country as a whole, it must be checked. That is the situation we are in now, corporations deciding what is best for us all.

Corporate personhood? When Texas executes BP for killing it’s citizens, breaks it into pieces and sells off the parts to cover the damages, with the rest going to the families of the victims. The same laws that apply to felons should be prescribed for the corporations, three strikes and you are out.

P.S. Iraqi planes at my U.S. base, I could find no evidence to support my memory. I could grasp at straws and say it could have been a secret, but I think my memory failed me in that regard.

Posted by: jlw at November 15, 2011 5:02 PM
Comment #362871

Nike Free 3.0 Shoes barefoot series of running shoes is one of the last couple of years, most the Nike fans favorite Nike Free 3.0 V4 running shoes.The series generally forefoot Waffle husband outside shading road design, has raised friction block has extremely suitable for running grip, and can be dispersed impact, make running more comfortable. The heel BRS1000 carbon fiber rubber, more wear-resistant, good grip, but the intense friction will leave a black mark on the ground.If Nike Free 3.0 Womens flexibility rating, 0.0 for barefoot running, 5.0 for ordinary running shoes. Nike Free Run Shoes running shoes introduced a FREE 3.0, Nike Free 3.0 V3 , FREE 7.0 FREE EVERYDAY FREE RUN + FREE style.nikefree30shoessale130315

Cheap Air Jordan Shoes series shoes are far ahead of other products in the sales and market demand, Air Jordan Retro 1 and set up one after another higher design, innovation and functionality benchmark year for the entire Air Jordan 4 industry. The core product is the perfect combination of athletes and technology - the most dazzling history of basketball star Michael Air Jordan 11, and accompanied by the the superstar experience the brilliant career of Cheap Jordan 4 Shoes, highlights his relentless pursuit of functionality, innovation and achievement.cheapairjordan4sale130315

Posted by: Nike Free 3.0 Womens at March 15, 2013 4:39 AM
Post a comment