|
although I'm Canadian, I'm an American Politics Junkie (I don't need any Reality TV shows, since this is all too real)
RE Your Friends Points:
-Still dislikes public sector unions; believes they are fronts for political agendas.
Well, some members of my family are in fact Union Members...Tradesmen who are very skilled - Before one of them was a part of a Union, he worked for a local welding company, who did not provide him with the proper equipment, and thus he went home injured in some way almost everyday; with small burns on his arms..and his eyes were not properly protected..it was so scary, because this fella works very hard and is tough. He received low pay and no overtime. He's now a Union Member, his Apprentice Program is long since finished - He's an IronWorker...and he has a VERY dangerous job hanging off the side of buildings. In one instance on job a few years ago, the developer of a high rise he was working on would not replace the broken elevator that took these men up to the top with all their equipment. Although it did work, it would drop a floor or two, while in motion while on it's way up! This scared these tough guys. Remember, these elevators ride up the exterior of a highrise. These guys, would walk up 20 floors with their equipment on because this elevator was not fixed. Well, one day they decided to try the elevator again, and guess what, it dropped over 5 floors (I think it was 5)...they all thought they were going to die. That's when the Union stepped in, the guys went home, and the elevator was properly repaired (or replaced, I can't remember), and once that was done, they were back to work.
So tell your friend that Unions protect people - fair pay, overtime, safety. I understand that this fella probably thinks that all Union people are lazy, and take advantage (cause that's the stuff I often hear...and some are lazy and take advantage...but that's no different than lazy people in the private sector who take advantage, or someone in the private sector who gets the promotion over another person who deserved it. Getting rid of Unions benefits the bottom of line of companies, it does not benefit workers. But the real bottom line is, workers want to work in a safe environment with fair pay and they do want the companies they're working for to profit, why wouldn't they? A successful company ultimately means more work down the road.
---Opposes raising taxes on businesses as he says they compensate for raised taxes with price hikes;
Well, firstly, I could be wrong, but wasn't President Obama speaking about raising taxes on people who pay more than $250,000 per year for their personal income, not corporate income...so is your friend saying not to raise "Corporate Taxes"? not sure.
Lets say it's Corporate Tax - give him the example of GE (I think it was GE..it was on the news the other day)...did they not make a profit of $5 billion in the US, and they did not pay a dime in tax...yet they are still opening a new plant...in China, or somewhere far away from the US...because of cheap labor and no duty to bring their products back into the US!
From what I've been reading and watching - it seems irrelevant if a company pays no tax - they still want to open up shop in other countries where the labor is cheaper...so taxes on corporations are not the problem...the problem is, in my opinion, companies need to have a clear incentive, beyond taxing, that encourages them to open plants in the US, or in my case, Canada...I hear politicians talking about penalizing companies who open businesses outside the country - and that could work - but maybe thinking outside the box is the way to generate interest in having corporations open in your country, in YOUR town - ...just throwing out thoughts....instead of a tax cut, have the government provide them with full reimbursement of salaries on "x" amount of people they hire, from various sectors, for the first "x" amount of years...then other incentives kick in to keep the operation running in the US (or Canada)... I'm sure there are so many things we can come up with to combat "cheap labor" and "taxes" and still keep prices down.
So tell your friend, taxes are not the problem right now, cheap labor is, and creative incentives could be a way to keep businesses in our respective countries. The tax argument is so old.
-Thinks government is "too big" and needs to be "culled"
Government has too much red tape, there is no doubt about that! It frustrates a lot of people. However, the bigger problem is waste and inefficiency....That's what needs to be tackled...not trashing entire departments!...because if that's what your friend is for, then he's more of an ideologue than a problem solver.
-Believes the science behind global warming is still inconclusive.
Hmmm.....how old is your friend.....although I'm still deadly hot, I'm no spring chicken (lol)...I remember a time here in Canada when Tornado warnings were never a thought when we had a thunderstorm! and now...when we get severe storms, I'm texting all the kids and listening to the darn weather channel....when I was a little girl, nobody had this sense of worry in them.
I'm sure your friend knows that companies hire their own scientists to sway data in their favor right?
-Says too much regulation kills innovation; points to the old Soviet Union as an example of "big government."
Too much deregulation wipes out your investments and costs people their homes! ...so what's he saying?? get rid of all regulation, that's insane. Responsible regulation is the problem...there is no reason a country can't have responsible regulations.
The previous administration's deregulation went way to far. I followed all of it over the last 10 years...and in regards to the mortgage markets here in Canada, we didn't go down the road of deregulation that the US did, and our economy managed to hang on a little tighter.
Here's an everyday example...I remember in Canada, many years ago, when the maximum amortization period for a mortgage was 25years...it was that way for a long time...then it started to creep up here...and we eventually went to 40 year Ams, like the US..I couldn't believe that...but I knew why it was done...to get more people to afford the payments on their homes and thus buy homes, (because home prices were going up and up). However, as soon as the crunch came, our government (and believe it or not it was the Conservatives) began the process of changing Amortization periods from 40 to 35 and now down to 30 years. They also started to stiffen up rules on mortgages for investment properties. It meant fewer home sales, but it was a smart thing to do. That's a regulation that had a benefit? No?
So get ready....a balanced approach to regulation is the answer, but real regulation...not fake "rules" that are never enforced are not the answer.
Anyway, hope this helps a bit,
Barb
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(637 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
