Forget Bain: Obama?????s equity record is the real scandal

[_ajax18]

High unemployment has nothing to do with increased immigration. Immigration was just the same when the unemployment rate was at 4% a decade ago.

I still don't understand why letting in more immigrants doesn't leave fewer jobs for the people in a country that already suffers from unemployment. Have you ever also contended that paying tithing makes people better off temporally as well as eternally?

This is why most people who are not upper-middle to upper class, are generally miserable and needing to work multiple jobs just to stay afloat:

So are we supposed to destroy all the factory machinery like the Jacobites during the industrial revolution in England? If labor jobs are obsolete than why would that not free people up to work another job or free up more profits for a business owner to invest in something else? It looks to me like a surplus of human beings and a shortage of capital. With no new land to colonize, we can't just go back to the farm until someone is wiling to invest. Perhaps that's why people were so reluctant to leave the farm in the first place.

[_Kevin Graham]

I still don't understand why letting in more immigrants doesn't leave fewer jobs for the people in a country that already suffers from unemployment. Have you ever also contended that paying tithing makes people better off temporally as well as eternally?

Because you're framing the situation all wrong. They do not come here and "take" anything. For lower skilled workers, they do the jobs most other Americans simply don't want. A perfect example of this is the lettuce farms, where workers can make anywhere between $14-20 an hour, but it requires hard work bending over all day working in the hot sun. When lettuce farms were raided by INS in Yuma Arizona some years ago, the price of lettuce skyrocketed across the nation. The farmers couldn't get enough Americans to do the job because they quite simply didn't want to work that hard.

And for the high end jobs, legal immigrants compete for these positions and beat out their American competitors. A perfect example of this is in the number of immigrants from India who specialize in specific fields like engineering and science, and usually end up getting their education at upper tier institutions like Harvard. Are they "taking" jobs away or are they competing for them and winning the battle? Clearly the latter.

[_ajax18]

The farmers couldn't get enough Americans to do the job because they quite simply didn't want to work that hard.

But that's what I've been saying all along. I don't understand why Americans who don't want to work that hard should be entitled to welfare. If the Americans don't want to do it, then they shouldn't eat or breed. How can you condone that and then impose upon people like myself to pay taxes to support their children. How many generations are immigrants willing to do that? It seems like children of immigrants act a lot like Americans in this way, thus we create more people who are only willing to do certain jobs only to bring in more immigrants again to repeat the cycle.

Are they "taking" jobs away or are they competing for them and winning the battle? Clearly the latter.

They're competing for them and winning the battle. I can't argue with you on that. But when we're a semi socialist welfare state like we are (many of us children of those who bore the battle that gave us a right to anything we might now have or enjoy in this country), is it all about competition? Can we really afford to take care of every American who loses the job market battle to a new immigrant? Or is showing preference to help fellow Americans while billions of Indians live squalor racist and not proper conduct for a citizen of the world? If it is, than the welfare we dole out should be divided amongst the billions of people in India as well. My guess is that it wouldn't go very far to improving the human predicament, especially when you can't force people to stop overbreeding.

[_ajax18]

A perfect example of this is in the number of immigrants from India who specialize in specific fields like engineering and science, and usually end up getting their education at upper tier institutions like Harvard.

And once they've gotten the benefits of American socialism and no longer need it, they renounce their citizenship to avoid paying taxes.

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNew ... 98428.html

I guess this Eduardo Saverin guy really knows how to play both sides of the coin depending on his situation in life. It's nice to be able to change the rules to fit what you want at a given time.

[_Kevin Graham]

Media Uncritically Forward Romney's Claim That Obama Gave Loans To "Friends." The Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN and Fox News uncritically repeated Romney's claim that Solyndra is an example of "crony capitalism" and Obama "giving [taxpayer money] freely to his friends."[Los Angeles Times, 5/31/12] [Wall Street Journal, 5/31/12] [CNN, Starting Point with Soledad O'Brien, 6/1/12, via Nexis] [CNN, John King USA, 5/31/12, via Nexis] [CNN, The Situation Room, 5/31/12, via Nexis] [Fox News, Special Report, 5/31/12, via Nexis] [FoxNews.com, 6/1/12]

But After Long Investigation, There Is No Evidence Of Wrongdoing. Bloomberg Businessweek's Joshua Green reported:

A White House source passed along some information that gives a sense of just how much time, money, and effort has been spent pursuing this investigation: House Republicans have sent 32 congressional letters, compelled 187,000 pages of administration documents, 72,000 pages of documents from Solyndra investors, 9 committee staff briefings, 5 committee hearings, and a sworn committee interview with the Obama bundler who raised money from people involved in the company. Much (but not all) of the committee's $7 million budget has been devoted to funding this inquisition. And it's turned up no evidence of wrongdoing.

[Bloomberg Businessweek, 2/17/12]

Feeling dumb yet bcspace?

http://mediamatters.org/research/201206010006

[_Analytics]

So are we supposed to destroy all the factory machinery like the Jacobites during the industrial revolution in England? If labor jobs are obsolete than why would that not free people up to work another job or free up more profits for a business owner to invest in something else? It looks to me like a surplus of human beings and a shortage of capital. With no new land to colonize, we can't just go back to the farm until someone is wiling to invest. Perhaps that's why people were so reluctant to leave the farm in the first place.

If anything, there is a surplus of capital. Look at interest rates. Investors are willing to loan you money for 30 years for your house for 3.7% a year interest. Investors who don't want to take that much risk gladly tie up money with the government for 30 years in exchange for 2.5%.

If U.S. investors could figure out opportunities to invest in something productive, do you think they'd be investing trillions in these low-interest loans?

Apple alone is sitting on over a $100 billion in cash. The problem isn't a shortage of capital; it is a shortage of demand. People with money are buying everything they want, and have a ton of money left over the save. That savings is available for capital, but they just can't find enough opportunities to put it all to productive use because, again, they are already purchasing everything they want.

[_Brackite]

...

Feeling dumb yet bcspace?

http://mediamatters.org/research/201206010006

Media Matters is a liberal and a progressive site, which is very partisan. (Unlike Factcheck.org, which is basically a non-partisan site.) Bcspace, who is even more conservative than I am, is not going to accept the opinions of Media Matters on Political issues.

[_Kevin Graham]

...

Feeling dumb yet bcspace?

http://mediamatters.org/research/201206010006

Media Matters is a liberal and a progressive site, which is very partisan. (Unlike Factcheck.org, which is basically a non-partisan site.) Bcspace, who is even more conservative than I am, is not going to accept the opinions of Media Matters on Political issues.

The beauty of Media Matters is that they almost always rely on the most credible sources on any given political point. If you had read the article you'd know this wasn't some opinion piece written by a political pundit who was just asserting things. It was a detailed refutation based on official statements from the only sources that mattered. And that's why you guys hate it so much, and have to resort to complaining about the fact that it is liberal. Of course it is. Liberals and an appreciation of factual information go hand in hand. You guys on the Right just feed off of regurgitated opinion pieces in the form of blog posts from every Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to rant on the web. They're all cross referencing each other in an incestuous manner the same way FARMS scholars are constantly referencing other FARMS scholars in their hit pieces.

The fact is bcspace's point was decimated, which is why he hasn't responded. It proves he just accepts anything the Right Wing blogosphere comes up with, and he doesn't verify the claims. He becomes part of the problem by relaying it as if it is authoritative.

Whining about the liberal nature of MM for America isn't going to help him.

[_bcspace]

Obama's GM investment currently at a $16 billion loss.

[_Analytics]

Obama's GM investment currently at a $16 billion loss.

Do you think the reason the federal government bailed out GM was to make a quick profit on the stock? In other words, do you think the government made this move with the motivation of a venture capitalist? If not, your headline here doesn't make any sense.