Obama Thanks Supporters After Winning Re-Election

[Chicog]

If you are busy, don't hurry to respond. Chicog will be scrunched over his keyboard with his flying fingers poised in mid-air just waiting to attack my post.

Chuck, you have to stop being so judgmental.

I'm totally in agreement that putting up taxes is not the sole solution to the problem.

That's why Obama said he is NOT going to add two trillion dollars to the defence budget, in fact I believe there are cuts planned.

But it takes all sides to agree a recipe that does both, don't you agree?

[Chicog]

Doesn't this article demonstrate that Romney's carping at Obama for not signing permits to drill on Federal land was essentially pointless?

Nope. How about the Keystone Pipeline?

I don't see how it relates to drilling on federal land, but what I see is TransCanada trying to force through a project without a proper environmental impact analysis to avoid losing business to the alternative, er, "trans-Canada" pipeline which will probably end up feeding China.

I did notice how Romney subtly shifted "US Energy Independence" to "North American Energy Independence".

I'm sure Canada doesn't really care who buys its oil.

[samran]

Chuck:

Interesting article about consumption taxes from that radical lefitst publication: Bloomberg

http://www.bloomberg...ficit-view.html

Finally back with you. Let me make a couple of comments before we get into a discussion.

Firstly I am not a trained economist as you claim to be so my positions are likely not to agree with what you might know or believe to be true. They will be mostly based on opinions I have gleaned from years of working in the private sector.

Secondly, I am an American and I really don't like to comment on matters that really don't concern me and that I know very little about. I do not understand the VAT concept to any great extent. I have traveled extensively through Europe and have paid VAT there as well as in Thailand.

The VAT in LOS is some 7% based on particular parameters. Since Thailand has no individual states, the VAT constitutes the same function as being a sales tax.

Do European states have sales taxes to which a European VAT is further added? If so, can you provide me with a few examples of the total Sales/VAT taxes that must be paid by purchasers based on their consumption?

Now on to a discussion based on your link from Bloomberg.

My objection to a VAT is it would be added to any state sales axes that are existent. Adding a hypothetical 10% VAT to a 7% sales tax adds $.10 to every dollar one spends in their daily needs and is hardly an insignificant amount to retirees like me (a.k.a Angry old white men), students, blacks, latinos, Asian Americans and virtually everybody other than the imaginary 1% and would possibly grind the economy to a halt. Since stopping commerce is hardly a function of the US government, I fail to see where a VAT will do anything to help the deficit but will do much to harm the imaginary 99%.

What I have trouble wrapping my head around is why all you (generic) liberals claim the problem is not having enough revenue for the government to spend, when the problem is clearly the government has too much spending for the amount of revenue they are taking in. Why not have the government cut down on their spending to better meet their income rather than the reverse? My suggestion would be to cut the budgets of every government agency and department by 5% annually for the next ten years. That equates to a 50% reduction in government spending in ten years and has overcome some of the debt. The tax payers do not have to face yet another tax increase and the 47% can continue with life as usual.

There is an old adage that (paraphrased) says...government will always grow to exceed the amount of it's income. Where this is written and why is it so, I do not know.

Probably not technical enough for you to pick apart but them's my opinions.

If you are busy, don't hurry to respond. Chicog will be scrunched over his keyboard with his flying fingers poised in mid-air just waiting to attack my post.

Alhtough I was the one who initiated the conversation, might have love you and leave you for a while. Got a fair few flights between now and Tuesday. So communications will be patchy. Seeing half of ASEAN and Australia. Will be in Burma when you pres is there too.

A couple of points though - I'm an economic conservative. Yes, you heard it here first. Markets work most of the time, and sometimes they don't. I hate rent seekers as a general rule. I hate monopoies even more. I'm for more efficient government. But not no governtment.

The modern GOP is none of these things. IF they were, I'd be more partial to them. Socially thoough they scare the heck out of me.

To some extent I'd support things like vouchers in schools. Privatisation of social security. You don't want taxes on business which artificially encourage one sector over another (hence getting rid of corn subsidies). I'd get rid of solar and wind subsidies too. The chinese have invested in them to make them nearly competitive with coal in some cases. The technology will get better. A renewable future is on its way, regardless.

I'd propose that the VAT replace sales taxes, which differ from state to state and thus take away 'level playing fields'. The states get the revenues however.

You don't do a VAT to necessarily raise more tax. You do it to broaden the tax base, maintain certainty for government on the revenue streams, and when you broaden the tax base you can lower other taxes for everyone else. Especially in areas which are detrimental for encouraging new innovation and taxing business.

Taxing business - espeically if they are part of the production process - is silly. Sure, tax their profits, but if they are paying any sort of sales tax, it should be credited passed on. Which is what VAT's do. Only the final consumer only ever pays the VAT. And if they don't consume - ie save - then they are taxed less.

Think of a VAT as sturdier rudder for he ship of government. Better predictablilty in your tax base is essential - regarless of how big or small you want it.

Now, as to size - if you want to be a modern effective country these days - a tax rate of 20% to 25% of GDP is what passes these days for a good low tax base. Look it up, internationally, you don't want to go below that.

Hope this outlines the basic pillars of my economic fundamentals.

[maidu]

I like how so many Americans are concerned about their country. Of course, they're mostly concerned about their immediate circumstances which, for many, is crowned by not having enough money. Yet overall, it's healthy to have discourse and conversations. Many Americans are becoming more aware of bigger issues (int'l relations, global weather changes, how gov't works, how Wall St. produces no products yet is the tail wagging the US dog, etc.). Being aware is a big step towards implementing improvements.

[StevieH]

But it takes all sides to agree a recipe that does both, don't you agree?

does anybody yet know what romney's plan for rescuing the economy was? because on the campaign trail all he and ryan talked about was what they wouldn't do and how the current guy was ballsing it up.

spending an extra $2 trillion on defence and cutting taxes by 20% doesn't seem like much of a route to recovery.

[Baloo22]

Oh and if you're interested, Obama will be making a statement later on the "Fiscal cliff" in his first address since the election.

I'm all ears after listening to his promise to halve the deficit last time he was elected.

http://www.politifac...t-deficit-half/

Pretty certain that Bumbling Barack will continue with some very smooth talking and, of course, will be blaming everybody but himself. He is very good at that!

[Baloo22]

Yes, the U.S. is very divided politically with The Women, The Blacks, The Latinos, The Asians, The Homosexuals, The Young, The College-educated on one side and some angry, bitter, old, white males on the other.

What's with all the bigotry and hatred?

There are plenty of angry, bitter people that are young, women, Black, Latino, Asian, homosexual and college educated. You chose to only single out "old white males" as angry & bitter. What's that all about?

Most likely because he is very angry and very bitter. And the fact that haters have got to hate! It's what they do!

Oh, and by the way; I'm one of the college-educated. But he would not like me either. Because I'm intelligent enough not to swallow the kool aid from Obama the snake oil salesman.

[ttelise]

If I can go back to this election for a while (!), I was actually fortunate enough to catch the Limbaugh Advanced Institute of Terminal Whinging last night and it was truly hilarious.

I've never heard the obnoxious buffoon sound so deflated and confused.

And he seemed shocked from reading about exit polls and interviews that demonstrated that more than half of those who voted for Obama did so on the basis of his handling of the economy, and specifically because they blamed Bush and the Republicans for making the mess in the first place.

It's heartening to hear that so many people saw through the rubbish the GOP churned out and realised what a monumental task they left for Obama.

Now if the Republicans could just do the decent thing and stop thinking about themselves for the moment, and try not to block,out of sheer spite, everything Obama tries to do to fix the economy, the USA might actually have a chance at repairing the damage.

Besides throwing a lot of money at the problem (most of it misspent), like FDR, and Obamacare, can you please detail what Obama has done to repair the economic damage? Do you consider Obamacare to be an effort to repair the economic damage, BTW?

Do you actually listen to Rush Limbaugh or just get a second-hand opinion from the MSM (which is often quite mis-representative of what he actually says)? Are you a candidate for paying for the 6 trillion or so debt Obama has piled on top of the pre-existing Bush trillions?

Auto bailout, bank bailout, investment banking bailout, AIG bailout, and trying to finish two wars ain't cheap. Maybe Bush tax cut extension not so smart.

You didn't mention the great 'stimulus' bill and the burgeoning welfare and social security (phony) disability payments, just for starters. At least they were able to cut our financial losses in Iraq by failing to get a status of forces agreement with the those 'folks'. But how about all the parasitical costs such as the, what, billions we're going to give Pakistan and Egypt. We'll have to look at the budget to get the details. Oops, where did we put that budget, anyway?

They haven't curtailed the Bush-era tax 'cuts', yet. They still have time to kick something down the road until next year. California just voted for tax hikes on themselves. Actually, it was the have-nots voting for taxing the haves, I believe. One voter was greatly surprised, I understand, to discover that there was a sales tax buried in the proposition, heh, heh.

Forget that Iraq alone costs $120 billion a year, and we are paying $ 300billion a year on interest for Iraq war, $225 billion a year in increases for payment to vets of Iraq suffering from disability, medical issues or death and for veteran benefits.

The big issue is taxpayer losses related to financial, baking and mortgages. A total of about $ 23 Trillion has been pumped into various bailout programs to try and stabilize banking and financial industry. Consumers experienced $ 7 trillion in real estate value losses, thank you George W.

No talks about or apparently wants to acknowledge the ongoing CMO, REMIC, MERS Corp defaults triggering more guarantees for Frannie, Freddie and Ginnie who already sought billions in TARP.

The stimulus package money at least, in theory went to tax payers whereas tax payers are just pouring several trillion down drain yearly related to Iraq, Afg, and the financial and banking industry.

Remove Iraq, Afg, financial, AIG, GM, banking bailouts from equation and we have surplus each of the last four years.

Obama and Bernacke did George W a huge favor by over the last four yearsby quietly keeping the big three banks afloat and not letting AIG, GM, GMAC, Ginnie, Freddie, Fannie, and a slew if banks and investment companies go under. It costs unprecedented amounts of bailout money, but George W does not go down as the President that let our banks and largest insurer fail.

Edited November 9, 2012 by ttelise

[Baloo22]

Social Security is an entitlement for which I and every other working American have already paid. I contributed for 50 years for my government "stipend". I never drew unemployment, food stamps or welfare of any sort. You may be the expert on that, I do not know.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Samran, give me a little time to do some things around the house. Let me address one thing before I complete my chores. Your suggestion that we cut out all agricultural subsidies will save about $20 Billion per year. You have just covered the cost of 2 days and five hours of government operations. Congratulations.

How about cutting the EPA, DHS, Energy Dept., Education Dept., foreign aid, Labor Dept, Czar Dept., ad nauseum? This is only the start of my suggestions.

Are you an Anachist? Did you get Expelled by the Education Department? Obviously let those honest Loggers and miners into Yellowstone and <deleted> places like the Congo.

I'm a little confused by your post. Are you wondering if I am an anarchist or the Anti-Christ? The Education Department has noting to do with expelling students, but even considering your little faux pas about that...No, I have never been expelled from any school. How about you? Yellowstone is a national park. I don't think anybody is threatening to log or mine in Yellowstone. Care to pass on any rumors about that?

The Congo is doing very well "<deleted>" itself without any help from me.

"Are you an Anachist?"

"Are you wondering if I am an anarchist or the Anti-Christ?" Chuck, I doubt that he even knows the difference!

[geriatrickid]

Doesn't this article demonstrate that Romney's carping at Obama for not signing permits to drill on Federal land was essentially pointless?

Nope. How about the Keystone Pipeline?

I don't see how it relates to drilling on federal land, but what I see is TransCanada trying to force through a project without a proper environmental impact analysis to avoid losing business to the alternative, er, "trans-Canada" pipeline which will probably end up feeding China.

I did notice how Romney subtly shifted "US Energy Independence" to "North American Energy Independence".

I'm sure Canada doesn't really care who buys its oil.

It does now. China has billions available to help develop the tar sands.The PM is over in India now trying to drum up investment and just signed a uranium supply deal that had been delayed 2 years. Keep in mind that it was the Republican controlled states that blocked the pipeline. The Democrats were mindful of an election and did not push back. In any case, the governors and state legislators were quite correct in their position. TCP did not present a proper paln. It was the company that blew it. The Canadians really want to develop the asian energy market as there is growing resentment of US cross border trade policies, especially the impact of Buy American policies. The Michigan bridge proposal delays that would see Canada build a new bridge to the USA and be paid for by Canada has really peeved the Canadian government. Mr. Matoun, who's family control's the only bridge, had blocked the plans for years. Michigan voters, finally voted his self serving interference down. However, the Canadians are very sensitive to how vested interests can impact trade and are looking for trade partners that will honour agreements and respect the principles of fair trade. The election of Mr. Obama has gone a long way of providing an avenue to ease those trade concerns. What Americans lose sight of is that Mr. Obama is still held in high regard in Canada and his presence will allow for a repair of frayed trade relations. This is something Romney would not have been able to do as the Canadian press and public were very anti GOP. The reality is that Obama will be able to get things from foreign governments that Romney could only dream of.

[chuckd]

Doesn't this article demonstrate that Romney's carping at Obama for not signing permits to drill on Federal land was essentially pointless?

Nope. How about the Keystone Pipeline?

I don't see how it relates to drilling on federal land, but what I see is TransCanada trying to force through a project without a proper environmental impact analysis to avoid losing business to the alternative, er, "trans-Canada" pipeline which will probably end up feeding China.

I did notice how Romney subtly shifted "US Energy Independence" to "North American Energy Independence".

I'm sure Canada doesn't really care who buys its oil.

It does now. China has billions available to help develop the tar sands.The PM is over in India now trying to drum up investment and just signed a uranium supply deal that had been delayed 2 years. Keep in mind that it was the Republican controlled states that blocked the pipeline. The Democrats were mindful of an election and did not push back. In any case, the governors and state legislators were quite correct in their position. TCP did not present a proper paln. It was the company that blew it. The Canadians really want to develop the asian energy market as there is growing resentment of US cross border trade policies, especially the impact of Buy American policies. The Michigan bridge proposal delays that would see Canada build a new bridge to the USA and be paid for by Canada has really peeved the Canadian government. Mr. Matoun, who's family control's the only bridge, had blocked the plans for years. Michigan voters, finally voted his self serving interference down. However, the Canadians are very sensitive to how vested interests can impact trade and are looking for trade partners that will honour agreements and respect the principles of fair trade. The election of Mr. Obama has gone a long way of providing an avenue to ease those trade concerns. What Americans lose sight of is that Mr. Obama is still held in high regard in Canada and his presence will allow for a repair of frayed trade relations. This is something Romney would not have been able to do as the Canadian press and public were very anti GOP. The reality is that Obama will be able to get things from foreign governments that Romney could only dream of.

The "Republican controlled states" could not, by themselves, block the pipeline.

[Chicog]

Oh and if you're interested, Obama will be making a statement later on the "Fiscal cliff" in his first address since the election.

I'm all ears after listening to his promise to halve the deficit last time he was elected.

http://www.politifac...t-deficit-half/

Pretty certain that Bumbling Barack will continue with some very smooth talking and, of course, will be blaming everybody but himself. He is very good at that!

Well judging by the shots of the podium in the Whitehouse, I'm guessing you'll be able to find out soon on most major news networks. And Fox, of course.

[Chicog]

Highlights:

Inviting leaders from both houses to WH next week; also leaders from business, etc.

Wants to focus on jobs and growth.

Wants to reduce deficit in balanced and responsible way.

It's urgent because of end of year deadines.

"We can't just cut our way, so we have to increase revenue. And that means the wealthiest paying a little more in taxes. That's how we did it in the 90's when Bill Clinton was President.

I want to reduce defecit by four million details over the next decade.

I refuse to accept any approach that isn't balanced.

This was a central question during the election, and the majority of Americans showed on Tuesday that they agree with my approach.

If Congress fails to come to an agreement by the end of the year,everybody's taxes will go up and that makes no sense.

We should not lead long negotiations or trauma to reach that part of the agreement.

Even as we are agreeing a broader package, let's extend the middle class tax cuts right now - would give 98% of Americans and 97% of small businesses certainty going into the new year.

The senate has already passed it, it just needs the house to agree. I have the pen and I'm ready to sign it now.

Let's get to work"

Strong, straightforward, will the right buy it?

Edited November 9, 2012 by Chicog

[Dancealot]

3 years ago, after obamas first win: When your fries are served cold....

I want to see the franchise owner.

Realise what the architecturality(reality) of this ruling government is doing to people's minds.

Freedom is not given, it is taken....

Edited November 9, 2012 by Dancealot

[Dancealot]

"If somebody else can give you freedom, they can also take it away" --in respect: KRS-1

[Chicog]

I think you should listen to Alex Jones and his Infowars crap.

Nutters don't really solve problems.

Maybe David Icke would interest you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAGTJErVNBU

[maidu]

Fox News has a webpage titled: 2012 Presidential Election

subtitle: Your Election Command Center

Yet, three days after polls closed, they can't publish an Obama win for Florida, even thought Florida has been 'declared' for Obama. This fits with the finding, last week, that followers of Fox News are less informed about national and ww events than those that watch any other news channel. According to the poll, Foxers are even less informed than people who claim to watch no news channels at all. The poll was comprised of questions about international events.

[keemapoot]

^@Maidu. What is unfortunate, as an expat, is that because Fox News is the cheapest (nearly free in fact- think about why?) of all US News Broadcast programming sales, the foreign TV airwaves are lousy with it. Because of this, many people around the world get the mistaken impression that Americans are really dumb as batshit, for watching and believing such drivel. American negative stereotypes are really compounded by Fox.

I can't tell you how many conversations I've had with people who say "Do Americans really hate Obama so much, why did they vote for him."

[maidu]

This was a defeat for hard-right US Christians also. During the Rep primaries, they backed one candidate after another (other than mormon Romney), and finally had to settle for Romney. At the latter stages of the national campaign, they poured tens of millions of dollars at 'swing states' to get their followers to vote for the Rep candidates. All that money and effort didn't get their candidate elected, and neither did it work to thwart state initiatives of same-sex marriage or legalizing pot. LTheir political heyday or 5 to 10 years ago, when they could strongly influence elections, is over - for the time being, at least. Americans are changing, and are generally leaning Liberal. 10,000 Karl Roves with a billion $$'s in campaign spending can't change that.

[maidu]

We're hearing about so many Republicans being depressed now that the election has been settled. I don't like to hear about so many people being depressed, regardless of how their political views mesh with mine. I think at least part of the onus of such mass depression is upon Fox News and others of that ilk who polarized the campaign to such a degree. They start by painting Romney's opponent as the devil. Then they intensly harp on that topic for weeks. Millions of people were influenced by such pap, and mass depression is the other side of the coin - when their 'perfect' candidate loses.

Those people have been brainwashed in to thinking the US will slip inexorably downward, now that Obama has kept his job. Of course, the ship of State is run by more than one man, but Foxers can't be expected to fathom that, given Fox's daily diatribes. Incidentally, Romney kept proclaiming he would create 12 million more jobs for Americans if he were elected. 12 million is actually a conservative estimate that fits with many economists' predictions from months ago. All indications are the economy will improve markedly, with construction up, etc. If Romney had become president, he could bask in that trend, yet the increased jobs for the next 4 years will have been largely from the efforts of the previous 4 years of cleaning up the messes left by Bush/Cheney.

Edited November 10, 2012 by maidu

[bendejo]

Fox News has a webpage titled: 2012 Presidential Election

subtitle: Your Election Command Center

Yet, three days after polls closed, they can't publish an Obama win for Florida, even thought Florida has been 'declared' for Obama. This fits with the finding, last week, that followers of Fox News are less informed about national and ww events than those that watch any other news channel. According to the poll, Foxers are even less informed than people who claim to watch no news channels at all. The poll was comprised of questions about international events.

I think they were ready to contest any of the swing states as being so close a recount would be warranted. On election night when the results were coming in Rove was going through a county-by-county description of Ohio, claiming some were GOP strongholds and that the election data wasn't right because O was leading. They seemed to be ready to jump on Virginia and Florida as well.

It is really sad that after the 2000 recount debacle, NOTHING was done to attempt to prevent it from happening again. Instead, it just gave political operatives a new way to get things to work in their favor.

[lomatopo]

Fox News has a webpage titled: 2012 Presidential Election

subtitle: Your Election Command Center

Yet, three days after polls closed, they can't publish an Obama win for Florida, even thought Florida has been 'declared' for Obama. This fits with the finding, last week, that followers of Fox News are less informed about national and ww events than those that watch any other news channel. According to the poll, Foxers are even less informed than people who claim to watch no news channels at all. The poll was comprised of questions about international events.

The best line I've heard recently re: Bullsh*t Mountain News, previously known as Fox News:

"I watch Fox News for my comedy, and Comedy Central for my news."

Seriously, those two bumbling idiots and Gretchen in the AM is much funnier than any sitcom ever.

Yes, the U.S. is very divided politically with The Women, The Blacks, The Latinos, The Asians, The Homosexuals, The Young, The College-educated on one side and some angry, bitter, old, white males on the other.

What's with all the bigotry and hatred?

There are plenty of angry, bitter people that are young, women, Black, Latino, Asian, homosexual and college educated. You chose to only single out "old white males" as angry & bitter. What's that all about?

Because the angry, old, white male demographic is the only one that Romney seemed to appeal to.

Edited November 10, 2012 by lomatopo

[maidu]

It is really sad that after the 2000 recount debacle, NOTHING was done to attempt to prevent it from happening again. Instead, it just gave political operatives a new way to get things to work in their favor.

Actually Florida authorities have done lots to try and fix the problems of 2000. They eliminated the faulty ballot system with hanging chads. However, because Florida is run by Republicans, some of the election changes they implemented were biased in their favor. One example: They allowed early voting, but then when they found out inner city churches were going to bus their (mostly black) members to polling stations, they disallowed the early voting for the preceding Sunday only. Other days were ok.

There are other problems with voting mechanisms in other States, but nothing as bad as Thailand, where most votes are paid for directly (although Nevada campaigners spent over $6 per voter).

[maidu]

Speaking of Ms Gretchen on Fox News. I submitted two comments on her blog. Both using civil language. Neither was published - probably because my views aren't right-wing enough for her blogosphere.

[lomatopo]

Speaking of Ms Gretchen on Fox News. I submitted two comments on her blog. Both using civil language. Neither was published - probably because my views aren't right-wing enough for her blogosphere.

Miss America, 1989.

[uptheos]

Isn't it time to close this thread and open up something constructive, like what is going to change in the next four years?

No one has a plan how can it be discussed?

[poanoi]

The only way anything constructive is going to happen is if David Walker is in charge

[MaxYakov]

The only way anything constructive is going to happen is if David Walker is in charge

Not as long as his little bro' (in name only) Johnny and his girlfriend Mary Jane and her Buds are really running the show.

Edited November 10, 2012 by MaxYakov

[poanoi]

I'm not sure i understood,

but i'm guessing you refer to congress & senate doing all they can to prevent any real changes from status quo

[thaibeachlovers]

What the 47% don't seem to realise is that no matter how much they tax the 1% it's not going to give them the "stuff" they want. The US is broke. 16 trillion $ in the red and counting.

All that will happen if they raise taxes too high on the 1% is that they will leave the country and take their money elsewhere.

I think a lot of people just want everyone to pay their fair share. I've never understood why people who make their living in the "two and twenty" world don't have to pay income tax on money that was clearly derived from work and hence "income"?

Of course I understand how they do it, just not sure how we fell asleep and let them get away with it.

And those who talk about lowering the Corporate Tax rate, say from the current 35% figure to 20% crack me up. A 20% rate would be huge increase in what is paid today.

Between 2008 and 2010, a dozen major US corporations—including General Electric, ExxonMobil, and Verizon—paid a negative tax rate, despite collectively recording $171 billion in pretax US profits, according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice. Taken together, these companies' tax burden was -$2.5 billion, and ten of the companies recorded at least one no-tax year between 2008 and 2010.

When George Romney (Mitt's father) ran for the Republican Presidential primary in 1968 he released twelve years of income tax records, and in 1967 I think he paid ~ 43%. Mitt clears what, 150 million each year and pays about a third of the rate his father did.

Look I understand everyone wants to minimize their tax burden but changing the rules in your favor, which is essentially what has occurred over the last ~ 30 years isn't fair to everyone else. And where else in the world do you have the opportunities to be so successful?

<Mitt clears what, 150 million each year and pays about a third of the rate his father did>

Mitt pays capital gains on his income ie the money was already taxed previously, so second dip by the government. He'd probably be happy to pay more if the government didn't waste it on fiascos like Solyndra and the Volt.

Mitt gives 20% to charity- how much did Biden give, LOL.

End of the day, who invests in businesses, which create jobs, the rich or the 47%?

In a world with free movement of capital, like it or not, if the US can't attract investment, unemployment will rise, and all the social principles will not make an iota of difference.