I fact checked that letter for you before you posted a link to it.
Does this mean anything to you?
"The taxpayers voted on it. Same thing with the sports complex. It's up to us to do what the people are asking for."
Or, was she supposed to be like a donk and turn her nose up at the will of the people?
And one more thing. Why are you so concerned what a now private citizen did as mayor of a small town in Alaska years ago?
Sounds like Palin Derangement Syndrome.
Seek help.
So now you think it's a good idea for the government to be building stadiums? Just a few posts ago you were opposed to it. I'll let you sort this out on your own.
yaaarrrgg;1352803 wrote: So now you think it's a good idea for the government to be building stadiums? Just a few posts ago you were opposed to it. I'll let you sort this out on your own.
No, I don't think tax payer funds should go to build stadiums for pro teams; however the ppl voted for a stadium for their own use in Wasilla and that's what they got.
Got a problem with that?
BTW, there was no public vote in Miami on the Marlins domed baseball stadium tho they did get a smidgen of state tax $.
BaghdadBob;1352806 wrote: No, I don't think tax payer funds should go to build stadiums for pro teams; however the ppl voted for a stadium for their own use in Wasilla and that's what they got.
Got a problem with that?
So you are opposed to it, but also okay with it. Makes perfect sense to me.
BaghdadBob;1352806 wrote: No, I don't think tax payer funds should go to build stadiums for pro teams; however the ppl voted for a stadium for their own use in Wasilla and that's what they got.
Got a problem with that?
BTW, there was no public vote in Miami on the Marlins domed baseball stadium tho they did get a smidgen of state tax $.
Seek help. Really.There's nothing like a politician who takes the bull by the horns and takes a poll before making any decisions. Oh wait, republicans never do that, do they. :wah:
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
BaghdadBob;1352806 wrote: No, I don't think tax payer funds should go to build stadiums for pro teams; however the ppl voted for a stadium for their own use in Wasilla and that's what they got.
Got a problem with that?
BTW, there was no public vote in Miami on the Marlins domed baseball stadium tho they did get a smidgen of state tax $.
Seek help. Really.Are these tics, Baghd?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
yaaarrrgg;1352809 wrote: So you are opposed to it, but also okay with it. Makes perfect sense to me.
Good! I'm glad you're not equating a multi-use sports complex designed for everyday participation and enjoyment by the ppl that funded it with a domed baseball stadium for participation only by millionaires, and managed by billionaires, that can't possibly be enjoyed if you're a Mets fan.
For two decades, jobs and dollars have flown out of the US and across the Pacific, meanwhile the American people have suffered high unemployment and a diminished standard of living.
Looking for someone to blame, politicians point to Asian countries on the rise, seemingly at America’s expense.
As US Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen puts it “The American people have also borne the brunt of China’s mercantile trade policies, which promote trade surpluses through cheap exports based on an artificial depreciation of China’s currency.”
Overlooked in Washington is the US corporate jungle, which has long ago become the elephant in the room.
Pepe Escobar of Asia Times says, “This is what they explain to the American middle and working class: they are both destined to oblivion because of policies decided by corporate boards inside the US, which are now global corporations.”
Those who agree say the problem started on Wall Street and that US corporations are to blame for hijacking American jobs and investment dollars and taking them overseas with free rein to boost their bottom lines, fueled by this mindset.
“So we delocalize to Asia, where the salaries are nil, there’s no worker movement to cut us off from our maximization of profit,” Pepe Escobar says.
And in the US, it appears no lawmakers will try to cut them off either. President Obama, after pushing to regulate the business community, has taken to embracing it, making an attempt to befriend the US Chamber of Commerce.
“If we brought over a fruitcake when we first moved in, we would get enough for a better start,” the president said.
Making up for lost time, he appointed a JP Morgan Wall Street executive to be his Chief of Staff and tapped the CEO of America’s fourth-largest corporation to head his council on jobs and competitiveness. That is General Electric’s Jeff Immelt.
“I’m confident that they’ll generate good ideas about how we can spur hiring, educate our workers to compete in the 21st century and attract the best jobs and businesses to America rather than seeing them spring up overseas,” said President Obama.
But optimism cannot overcome reality. What is good for a company like GE is not necessarily what is good for America.
“GE’s responsibility is to do what’s best for GE. If that’s also best for America, great, and if it’s not, too bad,” mocks professor of economics and financial analyst Max Fraad Wolff.
And that goes for any company, but staring powerful corporate money and interests in the face, one should neither forget that Barack Obama’s run for re-election is looming, nor that the mainstream media is beholden to the corporate owners.
“When you have journalists treading lightly around corporate and governmental elites, it almost defeats the reason for their even existing,” shared Steve Rendall, Senior Analyst at FAIR.
Some people who criticize corporations, like Darrell Lillie, president of Local United Steelworkers, find themselves locked out of the conversation.
“It’s all about helping the bottom line whatever it takes. It is definitely profit over people,” Darrell says.
And some economists argue profit comes over America’s prosperity too.
“It’s quite often that what’s good for business isn’t good for America” concludes Max Fraad Wolff.
For two decades, jobs and dollars have flown out of the US and across the Pacific, meanwhile the American people have suffered high unemployment and a diminished standard of living.
Looking for someone to blame, politicians point to Asian countries on the rise, seemingly at America’s expense.
As US Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen puts it “The American people have also borne the brunt of China’s mercantile trade policies, which promote trade surpluses through cheap exports based on an artificial depreciation of China’s currency.”
Overlooked in Washington is the US corporate jungle, which has long ago become the elephant in the room.
Pepe Escobar of Asia Times says, “This is what they explain to the American middle and working class: they are both destined to oblivion because of policies decided by corporate boards inside the US, which are now global corporations.”
Those who agree say the problem started on Wall Street and that US corporations are to blame for hijacking American jobs and investment dollars and taking them overseas with free rein to boost their bottom lines, fueled by this mindset.
“So we delocalize to Asia, where the salaries are nil, there’s no worker movement to cut us off from our maximization of profit,” Pepe Escobar says.
And in the US, it appears no lawmakers will try to cut them off either. President Obama, after pushing to regulate the business community, has taken to embracing it, making an attempt to befriend the US Chamber of Commerce.
“If we brought over a fruitcake when we first moved in, we would get enough for a better start,” the president said.
Making up for lost time, he appointed a JP Morgan Wall Street executive to be his Chief of Staff and tapped the CEO of America’s fourth-largest corporation to head his council on jobs and competitiveness. That is General Electric’s Jeff Immelt.
“I’m confident that they’ll generate good ideas about how we can spur hiring, educate our workers to compete in the 21st century and attract the best jobs and businesses to America rather than seeing them spring up overseas,” said President Obama.
But optimism cannot overcome reality. What is good for a company like GE is not necessarily what is good for America.
“GE’s responsibility is to do what’s best for GE. If that’s also best for America, great, and if it’s not, too bad,” mocks professor of economics and financial analyst Max Fraad Wolff.
And that goes for any company, but staring powerful corporate money and interests in the face, one should neither forget that Barack Obama’s run for re-election is looming, nor that the mainstream media is beholden to the corporate owners.
“When you have journalists treading lightly around corporate and governmental elites, it almost defeats the reason for their even existing,” shared Steve Rendall, Senior Analyst at FAIR.
Some people who criticize corporations, like Darrell Lillie, president of Local United Steelworkers, find themselves locked out of the conversation.
“It’s all about helping the bottom line whatever it takes. It is definitely profit over people,” Darrell says.
And some economists argue profit comes over America’s prosperity too.
“It’s quite often that what’s good for business isn’t good for America” concludes Max Fraad Wolff.
The article is correct but one sided. Those board room decisions didn't happen in a vacuum. They happened because the place were they want to do business has been assaulting them with an unfriendly business climate.
I will take issue with a point in the article about unemployment over two decades. When the govt gave business a firm plan upon which to deal, unemployment was relatively low and the economy did OK.
I'll go further and say it's govt policy that drives jobs outta this country. Saying it's wages is simplistic and generally not true.
