-
If Romney gets in which country will America start a war with next?
Just wondering which country will be attacked in order to "help the economy." Iran seems like a pretty difficult target. Canada has lots of oil and fresh water and we do have that commie health care.:biggrin5:
-
As the middle class disappears and the poor grow in greater numbers we will probably be at war with ourselves.
I think it will be Iran and I think they are already working on justification for one. Unless of course N. Korea gets a little crazy.
-
I thought Iran too but unlike Iraq - Iran has a real army - well trained and much bigger and probably already has nuclear weapons.
On the social front they're ready to set back the country 50 years in terms of human rights. They're good for the rich people though.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Just wondering which country will be attacked in order to "help the economy." Iran seems like a pretty difficult target. Canada has lots of oil and fresh water and we do have that commie health care.:biggrin5:
Poor question. Romney's not interested in helping the economy. He's interested in shrinking government and deregulating industry. No need to go to war for that.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by noddin0ff
Poor question. Romney's not interested in helping the economy. He's interested in shrinking government and deregulating industry. No need to go to war for that.
He is not interested in shrinking anything. He is interested in neutering the government so it cannot do anything about the destruction a deregulated Industries will cause.
-
My guess it America will wage war with itself. We are slowly creating a class war and we need to rid ourselves of these rich snotty capitalist bastards like Willard Romney. I never trust a person who can't use his real name because he is ashamed of it.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyfi
My guess it America will wage war with itself. We are slowly creating a class war and we need to rid ourselves of these rich snotty capitalist bastards like Willard Romney. I never trust a person who can't use his real name because he is ashamed of it.
To add to this. I never trust a politician running for office who is afraid to show his tax returns to the public. I never trust a politician who openly says that if he released specific details of his plan to turn this country around, he would not be elected. I never trust a man who off shores his IRA to protect it from taxes. Romney is a rich coward, and 1/10 the man his father was.
-
Well I guess according to this Pin Head if Obama gets re-elected we will have another war to contend with. It amazes me that people like this can even get elected dog catcher.
Texas official warns of Obama civil war - Houston Chronicle
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekid
Interesting there is another theory that if the wrong man is elected and the middle class continues to erode there will be civil war by 2016. I need to search for that link.
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
To add to this. I never trust a politician running for office who is afraid to show his tax returns to the public. I never trust a politician who openly says that if he released specific details of his plan to turn this country around, he would not be elected. I never trust a man who off shores his IRA to protect it from taxes. Romney is a rich coward, and 1/10 the man his father was.
Right on!
And I am still trying to figure out how I am in the 28% tax bracket while Romney is in the 13% or less.
I still say a flat tax is the only fair way.
-
1 Attachment(s)
I live in Hong Kong and there is as close to a flat Tax as you can get.
It's a sliding scale. No one pays tax on the first $100,000 (HKD or around $12,000US. The poor only make that in a year so they don't pay tax - but neither do I or any rich people.
Then it goes something like 2% on $12,001 to $13,500 then 4% then 10 etc. Stops at 15% until you get to very high dollars where it stops at 17%
There is no sales tax on anything and no tipping. Some restaurants will charge 10% service fee. (Similar to Britain).
Public sector salary increases are based on how the private sector fared and cost of living. The calculation metrics are in place to keep the public sector in line with private sector who get paid more but have more risk (in a down year the private sector employee could be forced to take a 10% pay cut - perhaps more). Public sector never takes the pay cut but earns less money -- trading security for higher potential rewards.
The calculation this year gave teachers a 5.8% salary increase. Meanwhile my union to the hilt province (B.C.) Canada were on a working strike all year battling the province for scraps and taking it up the arse in the press (and this board). And teachers got ZERO.
So now they're pissed off and like it or not it enters the classroom in some fashion no doubt creating a toxic working environment and view of government (polarizes people and creates arguments). Meanwhile in HK - the calculation is the law and A and B happened so C results. Everyone is on board. Teachers did not have to ask for the increase - they got it. Math is often absolute.
Pretty sure the cost of living went up in BC too. So if private sector isn't making money - chances are they're incompetent boobs and should be fired - and they should be hiring more Chinese since HK is growing and the west are spending money on bombs instead of education. Canada isn't spending on either except 50% pay increases to their politicians.
But this is the reason the west is falling apart.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by noddin0ff
Poor question. Romney's not interested in helping the economy. He's interested in shrinking government and deregulating industry. No need to go to war for that.
Correct. And of course, lowering taxes on the Rich.
I'll remind people Republicans in recent history have shown no ACTUAL concern for reducing the budget deficits or the the debt. Since Reagan it has always been more important to arm for or fight a war and to reduce taxes on the Rich than to do these things.
Supply Side, Trickle Down, or as I call it, "Bribe the Rich" economics has had 30+ years to work but has only resulted in declining real median income, especially in the last decade. It hasn't, can't, and won't work, yet apparently more people believe that Republicans are more "fiscally responsible" and that Romney will be strong for the economy than Obama. People are idiots.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
Correct. And of course, lowering taxes on the Rich.
I'll remind people Republicans in recent history have shown no ACTUAL concern for reducing the budget deficits or the the debt. Since Reagan it has always been more important to arm for or fight a war and to reduce taxes on the Rich than to do these things.
Supply Side, Trickle Down, or as I call it, "Bribe the Rich" economics has had 30+ years to work but has only resulted in declining real median income, especially in the last decade. It hasn't, can't, and won't work, yet apparently more people believe that Republicans are more "fiscally responsible" and that Romney will be strong for the economy than Obama. People are idiots.
While I generally believe that the Democrats and the Republicans are cut from the same cloth in their general approach to the economy for the past 30 years (short term thinking-lack of true leadership in addressing the fundamental economic issues) I just wanted to add a couple of observations.
Deficits and the size of government are not an issue when you are the party in power but are the source of all things evil when you are not the party in power. (See American Politics 1980-Present)
Romney's own behavior with his wealth illustrates the absurdity of his own economic plan. According to the proposed theory, lower taxes on the wealthy encourage investment in business thus providing more jobs and greater tax revenue. What does he do with his money??? He keeps a good portion of it in offshore bank accounts in the Cayman's and Switzerland - Not businesses. In addition because the money was kept off-shore it lowered the tax revenue to the government.
I am not aware of any good business people who decide to expand or contract their business based largely on tax policy. Market conditions, competition, technological advancements and to some degree regulatory requirements are much larger factors than tax policy to business. There is historical evidence to support this as the wealthiest people have been taxed as high as 90% during times of economic prosperity. If lower taxes actually produced substantial economic stimulus then every President who was ever faced with a recession would have just lowered the effective tax rates. Saint Ronald raised taxes several times during his time in office but this largely seems to have been forgotten.
-
Simple rule
You only get to put 1% of your net worth in off shore accounts. If you earn over $1million dollars you WILL BE AUDITED yearly. If you go over the 1% then 100% of your assets WILL BE SEIZED and sold off at auction and your bank accounts seized and taken by the government to spend on education, roads, hospitals, police, and fire.
The exception -
If you head a business - the business will be taken over and converted into a CO-OP where the employees may, if they wish, become part owners to ensure they don't lose their jobs if the owner is a douche bag and gets caught. The corrupt owner loses 100% of his rights to the company and any future earnings.
Drakonian? The rich have sucked the life out of the poor long enough. Extreme measures must be taken. You will pay to keep America going or America will take every penny you make and leave you destitute. Alternatively, the poor can rise up shoot the top 1% in the head and take it by force.
I think my plan is quite reasonable - you still get to be a mega bazilion-mazillionaire but you pay taxes and ensure the health of the entire country.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekid
...
I am not aware of any good business people who decide to expand or contract their business based largely on tax policy. Market conditions, competition, technological advancements and to some degree regulatory requirements are much larger factors than tax policy to business. There is historical evidence to support this as the wealthiest people have been taxed as high as 90% during times of economic prosperity. If lower taxes actually produced substantial economic stimulus then every President who was ever faced with a recession would have just lowered the effective tax rates. Saint Ronald raised taxes several times during his time in office but this largely seems to have been forgotten.
Stop It !!! Just too much damned common sense. :frown5:
A little more common sense will tell anyone but the staunchest idiot that it isn't lower taxes that companies need to start investing -- it's customers. The major underlying cause of the current recession is that typical Americans (and Canadians) have faced stagnant real incomes for 30 years and declines in the last decade.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Simple rule
You only get to put 1% of your net worth in off shore accounts. If you earn over $1million dollars you WILL BE AUDITED yearly. If you go over the 1% then 100% of your assets WILL BE SEIZED and sold off at auction and your bank accounts seized and taken by the government to spend on education, roads, hospitals, police, and fire.
The exception -
If you head a business - the business will be taken over and converted into a CO-OP where the employees may, if they wish, become part owners to ensure they don't lose their jobs if the owner is a douche bag and gets caught. The corrupt owner loses 100% of his rights to the company and any future earnings.
Drakonian? The rich have sucked the life out of the poor long enough. Extreme measures must be taken. You will pay to keep America going or America will take every penny you make and leave you destitute. Alternatively, the poor can rise up shoot the top 1% in the head and take it by force.
I think my plan is quite reasonable - you still get to be a mega bazilion-mazillionaire but you pay taxes and ensure the health of the entire country.
RGA
I will defer to you on your knowledge on % of worth allowed to be kept in off-shore accounts. What I have heard is that in the last several years once the US government started to pressure overseas banks to provide names of their US depositors that a good number of depositors pulled their money out of overseas accounts. Does not seem to be the actions of innocent people if they were in compliance with laws like the one you state.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Simple rule
You only get to put 1% of your net worth in off shore accounts. If you earn over $1million dollars you WILL BE AUDITED yearly. If you go over the 1% then 100% of your assets WILL BE SEIZED and sold off at auction and your bank accounts seized and taken by the government to spend on education, roads, hospitals, police, and fire.
The exception -
If you head a business - the business will be taken over and converted into a CO-OP where the employees may, if they wish, become part owners to ensure they don't lose their jobs if the owner is a douche bag and gets caught. The corrupt owner loses 100% of his rights to the company and any future earnings.
Drakonian? The rich have sucked the life out of the poor long enough. Extreme measures must be taken. You will pay to keep America going or America will take every penny you make and leave you destitute. Alternatively, the poor can rise up shoot the top 1% in the head and take it by force.
I think my plan is quite reasonable - you still get to be a mega bazilion-mazillionaire but you pay taxes and ensure the health of the entire country.
Richard, I almost always defer to your knowledge of music and music reproduction and I usually consider your views on politics and institutions worthy of consideration. I do that out of respect and because you present yourself in an informed and measured way.
Please consider that when I say the following:
That has to be the most ignorant post I've ever read, anywhere, anytime...
....and I've read all of SVI's posts...
,,,and Dusty Beiber too.
-
How dare you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekid
While I generally believe that the Democrats and the Republicans are cut from the same cloth in their general approach to the economy for the past 30 years (short term thinking-lack of true leadership in addressing the fundamental economic issues) I just wanted to add a couple of observations.
Deficits and the size of government are not an issue when you are the party in power but are the source of all things evil when you are not the party in power. (See American Politics 1980-Present)
Romney's own behavior with his wealth illustrates the absurdity of his own economic plan. According to the proposed theory, lower taxes on the wealthy encourage investment in business thus providing more jobs and greater tax revenue. What does he do with his money??? He keeps a good portion of it in offshore bank accounts in the Cayman's and Switzerland - Not businesses. In addition because the money was kept off-shore it lowered the tax revenue to the government.
I am not aware of any good business people who decide to expand or contract their business based largely on tax policy. Market conditions, competition, technological advancements and to some degree regulatory requirements are much larger factors than tax policy to business. There is historical evidence to support this as the wealthiest people have been taxed as high as 90% during times of economic prosperity. If lower taxes actually produced substantial economic stimulus then every President who was ever faced with a recession would have just lowered the effective tax rates. Saint Ronald raised taxes several times during his time in office but this largely seems to have been forgotten.
Hey man... don't muddy a political discussion with facts and common sense. Don't you know how the game is played?
Worf (Registered Independent for 25 years).
-
A few observations...
1. The unions overplayed their hands - Too many strikes, too many ridiculous work rules all designed to keep as many on the payroll as the camel's back would bear as opposed to doing what's best for the company and country as a whole. But those kinds of unions and contracts are now all but gone.
2. The Rise of the Multinationals - As oft predicted in dystopan SciFi since the '30's Corporations divorced of a single, physical location or forced national ties will act in the company's own self interest and thier's alone.
3. Corporations no longer need America for Manufacture.
4. Corporations no longer need America as its primary market.
5. Take 2,.3 and 4 together you have a situation where corporations, shed the American work force for cheaper overseas labour with little market consequences since they can sell all they need to China and India while paying little or no taxes here.
As one observer put it, "if this trend continues we'll be a banana republic in 20 years." The corporations only need America as a safe place to spend its money, collect its toys and provide soliders to protect their interests overseas. Behind their gated walls patrolled by private security they'll watch as the whole country/world burns. The problem with fires though is that once started they can quickly get out of hand, ask the Romanoffs if you can find one.
Worf
-
Hummm ... well, yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worf101
...
1. The unions overplayed their hands - Too many strikes, too many ridiculous work rules all designed to keep as many on the payroll as the camel's back would bear as opposed to doing what's best for the company and country as a whole. But those kinds of unions and contracts are now all but gone. ...
With much regret I have to agree. I've said before that I see a problem for public sector unions were they seek to perpetuate relative wage & benefit levels that are increasingly above those of private sector workers. I believe that unions once were huge boon to American workers, but the selfish obstinacy of public sector unions in the present day brings disrepute on the history role unions -- and has become a major "wedge issue" which the Right-wing exploits to divide potential liberal/progressive voters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worf101
...
2. The Rise of the Multinationals - As oft predicted in dystopan SciFi since the '30's Corporations divorced of a single, physical location or forced national ties will act in the company's own self interest and their's alone. ...
This is so self-evident you'd think it was superfluous to state -- and in fact its mentioned by neither Republicans (as you might expect) OR Democrats (as you might well wonder why not, except for corporate donations they still get :frown5:).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worf101
...
3. Corporations no longer need America for Manufacture.
4. Corporations no longer need America as its primary market.
5. Take 2,.3 and 4 together you have a situation where corporations, shed the American work force for cheaper overseas labour with little market consequences since they can sell all they need to China and India while paying little or no taxes here. ...
Indeed. :mad: But lets understand that the Republican policy is to accelerate this pernicious globalization by redistributing wealth from the poor & middle classes to The Rich so they can invest it offshore. [Bribe the Rich to help American to win the in the Race to the Bottom.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worf101
...
As one observer put it, "if this trend continues we'll be a banana republic in 20 years." The corporations only need America as a safe place to spend its money, collect its toys and provide soliders to protect their interests overseas. Behind their gated walls patrolled by private security they'll watch as the whole country/world burns. The problem with fires though is that once started they can quickly get out of hand, ask the Romanoffs if you can find one.
Worf
This is the Paul Ryan / Ayn Rand vision of the future.
-
Bobsticks
I get it but at some point individual amassed wealth is a problem. It's a scale - there is only so much money and it needs to be "balanced."
What I suggest you do is take a trip to Wenzhou China and live there for one month. This is the Republican party dream scenario.
What Right wing voters don't get is that ALL public works are paid for through tax dollars. When you walk down a street and see garbage everywhere, lamp lights out, cracks in the roads, homeless people everywhere, an education system putting out massively illiterate numbers of people - that is the result of a lack of funding. It is not government lazy workers, it is not government wasting money on stupid things, it's not even government crooks stealing money. It's because all the money is going to ONE guy who buys a 50,000 square foot home, a fleet of cars, a private jet, probably tons of money on cocaine parties. And when they run a business - they make $10 billion a year but gee I can make another $3 billion if I fire all the U.S. workers and move the plant to China and have little girls work 15 hour days for peanuts.
We gave corps tax breaks to supposedly create jobs - not in China - but here. You bailed out, with your tax dollars, the automakers. I would like to see their employee list and compare U.S. full time jobs in 2012 to say 1972 and 1982. CEOs are probably 20 times richer (factoring in inflation) while employees are not.
Wenzhou is the future. The rich skirt tax laws by bribing Red Party members. Communism bought by capitalism. So the government receives no taxes - there are no street cleaners, no road fixes, no building codes that get checked, no water treatment, no food safety regulations, no pollution control standards. The U.S. is only marginally better as it is. There is no real pollution control - sure there's a law but companies don't have to follow it - they wait for a lawsuit which if they get caught killing people is lower than the cost of paying the fines and damages. So they elect to choose profit over lives. And then they often settle out of court to avoid any bad press.
These people are socio and psychopaths that run these types of companies - they are typically drawn to power and the "game" and they have powerful lobby organizations and the ability to control media (see Fox News) which convinces poor mostly semi-retarded people to vote against their interests. Give more money to the rich and they will protect you and give you a job. Rich people don't care one iota about the poor. The poor are lazy leeches who should be sterilized (it's happened and some states advocate offering women a couple hundred dollars to be sterilized). Money stays within families so a new generation is born into that easy wealth and there is no empathy for the other half cause again if you're poor you're lazy. Even though they never worked a day in their life (see Paris Hilton).
Unions were formed to protect employees from dictators. America is supposedly a free country but your boss can invade your privacy in dictator fashion. You can be fired without cause, you can be tested for drugs, smoking, alcohol. Businesses are asking for people's Facebook password - don't give it to them - you don't get hired. All the power is with the business and zero power is with the employee. A nice looking woman doesn't give the boss a blow job and you can be fired for some concocted reason they'll make up later.
Before that businessmen had 5 year olds going up chimneys to clean them for pennies - and if the kid dies - well there are more where they came from. See Dickens.
Business people care about money - that is the one thing they care about more than anything else - they may also care about their family but not your family - your family can rot so long as they get theirs. So the choice was to form unions or pull a Guillotine out and ensure they get some cake by stuffing the bosses head under the blade.
My dad who was not a big fan of unions noted that companies tend to get the union they deserve. And you probably have a union because you're screwing your employees over. I worked for a Steel Foundry in Canada for 7 years. no union - nobody even hinted at a union. That's because unlike every other shop like it - they treated people properly, paid well, etc.
If you have unions battling for better working conditions it's because you're a cheap ass owner or incompetent fool who runs an unsafe place and putting people into harm's way. If they're battling for salary it's likely because every other place selling the same crap is paying considerably more than you are. Unions will get ultra testy if you cry poverty while driving a top of the line B&W, Porsche, or flying around in a private jet and the CEO salary is $14million. You're idea of poverty may be that a "hey a B&W is no Bentley" but without the workforce you walk.
As for public sector - I've said this before. Public workers are typically on contracts. When the contract ends it's time to negotiate. That's the ONLY time you get to negotiate and so you make a list of requests.
Unlike the private sector - whatever you ask for as a union body will get into the papers. It's a negotiation - you ALWAYS ask high hoping to get half or 1/4 or hell 1/8 of whatever you ask for. if you don't ask you get zero. Government like a businessman isn't giving you something for no reason.
The major problem I have seen in education (I'm a teacher) in Canada is that the government is receiving tax money to offer families a service. that service is to provide education that will give their child (and Canada's future workforce) the tools to be competitive in a tough global world where those countries don't mess around molly coddling everyone's self-esteem.
The quality of education in the west has dropped dramatically - and it wasn't the unions - the unions never get anything anyway. When was the last time the teacher union truly got something. Teacher buying power is 50% of what it was in 1985. So teachers have taken a 50% pay cut while tripling their workload. This is just one part of government service but if education has been gutted then so to has everything else. Meanwhile the top earners are paying less taxes and because people have taken 50% pay cuts it's not like you can get more taxes from them!
And yes I get the arguments - there's a recession so you should not ask for more money - it's a global recession and I got a 5.8% raise due to cost of living. Private sector increased. If we're going to base C.O.L increases on how the private sector did only - then perhaps the reason the private sector is failing is because the kids who have gone through a weakening education system are incompetent fools who don't know how to run a business. Hong Kong who uses a science methodology of "survival of the fittest" has put ALL the resources into the best and the brightest. The best and brightest all go to schools where there are no Thugs and autistic special needs and "integration" touchy feel good BS.
So they put out brilliant people who run companies that make money. While in the West "everyone is equal" and no one knows who the hell to hire because everyone comes from mixed classes.
No in Hong Kong a company knows what high school you went to. you went to a band one school they know you're bright - you went to a band 3 they know you're suited to be a dishwasher or cab driver.
You want to fix things - public service - you want money - more taxes (or hell just equal taxes) for the rich and cut the defense budget by half. America has to get over their paranoia. No one is going to attack you - hell they've already got the oil. Asia and Europe make the best cars and stereo equipment. What the hell would they want the U.S. for? To pick up the trillions in debt?
Rich people are not creating wealth for the middle class and poor. They are creating wealth for themselves. You gotta stop that. Individual wealth caps - if the world had no billionaires we'd be better off.
-
See this is why you still need unions.
Workers are told they have to go to a mandatory event. They don't get paid to go to this event and in fact LOSE a day's pay to go to said event. Employees worry if they don't go they may get fired.
This is your possible next president - God help you. And since there is no God - you're all in big trouble if this utter sleaze bag gets in.
Murray Energy Miners Allege They Had To Give Up Pay To Attend 'Mandatory' Romney Rally (AUDIO)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worf101
3. Corporations no longer need America for Manufacture.
What you missed is because of #1-The unions overplayed their hands, they have also driven up the cost of products, made it so the corps send the MFG to China to save money and NOT pay the Union wages and endless bennies.
So Unions were at one time a good thing, 100 years ago, but today they have made America into a Consumer Country and not an MFG Country.
Americans can't afford to buy American Made Products. Something does not make sense about that.
Yesterday I was listening to NPR and an interview with authors of a new book about Romney and his money. Due to his questionably legal yet immoral tactics, his IRA is worth somewhere between 20 and 100 million, 1/100 of 1%- percentile have that. The way he and the others at Bain did it was by quickly switching the investments to the ones that Bain created of businesses that they would shut down for the profits as they were doing it, but they used a blind trust or whatever the term.
He himself is the one who years ago when running against one of the Kennedys started the whole Tax Return issue and now that it has turned around on him, he claims it's an issue of privacy. A-Hole!
It's a shame Obama is killing the middle class and will continue to do so if he gets re-elected, but Romney is not the better choice of two evils. He may help me to save a little of what I have for 4 years, but someone has to pay all the outrageous debt sometime and guess who it will be? The Middle Class. We are screwed no matter what over the course of time no matter which F'ed up party has control.
-
I'll lob some more random thoughts over the wall.
We shouldn't be worrying about the deficit right now. We can borrow money at historically low rates. The Gov't should be borrowing and investing in infrastructure and jobs to build it. We're missing the deal of the century by not doing this. It costs more to triage infrastructure that has failed than to prevent failure; and when it does fail, borrowing rates will most certainly be higher. Money spent now is money saved later--and that is what reduces deficits long term.
The Gov't should be paying people to work now. Teachers, police, firemen, all manner of civil servants. We should be investing in research and education. AND, we can easily do this because we can print our own money; we can print as much as we want. The Fed could shovel money into grants to State and/or Local governments. Put people to work > people buy things > companies make money > investors happy > taxes go up. Win!
Inflation? Destroy the value of the dollar? Pfft. The value of the dollar is what the world thinks it's worth. Right now it is still the most trusted currency in the world. It was put to the Treasury that it consider permitting bids for negative interest. That is allowing bidders to pay the Gov't to lend their money to the Gov't (Link). The dollar is sound. Printing more of them ain't gonna hurt anything. Inflation's been under good control for over 20 years (Link). Yes, that could change. But we're far better at controlling inflation than we are at keeping the financial sector from failing and taking everyone down with them. We shouldn't be worrying about inflation either.
In summary. Borrow money while it's cheap and invest it in infrastructure. Pay people to work. Invest in education and research. -- (That's funny... if I were a good business person that's how I'd run a successful company. Irony?)
Health Care and Social Security? If the U.S. wasn't entirely politically dysfunctional we could put a dent in it, but reality is that we have more older people and we can either provide a social safety net or have a lot of homeless and sick old people in the emergency rooms. Emergency rooms expensive, preventative care cheap. More old people; more tax money. No running from math.
Oh yeah. Wash your hands and get vaccinated.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyfi
What you missed is because of #1-The unions overplayed their hands, they have also driven up the cost of products, made it so the corps send the MFG to China to save money and NOT pay the Union wages and endless bennies.
So Unions were at one time a good thing, 100 years ago, but today they have made America into a Consumer Country and not an MFG Country.
Americans can't afford to buy American Made Products. Something does not make sense about that.
Yesterday I was listening to NPR and an interview with authors of a new book about Romney and his money. Due to his questionably legal yet immoral tactics, his IRA is worth somewhere between 20 and 100 million, 1/100 of 1%- percentile have that. The way he and the others at Bain did it was by quickly switching the investments to the ones that Bain created of businesses that they would shut down for the profits as they were doing it, but they used a blind trust or whatever the term.
He himself is the one who years ago when running against one of the Kennedys started the whole Tax Return issue and now that it has turned around on him, he claims it's an issue of privacy. A-Hole!
It's a shame Obama is killing the middle class and will continue to do so if he gets re-elected, but Romney is not the better choice of two evils. He may help me to save a little of what I have for 4 years, but someone has to pay all the outrageous debt sometime and guess who it will be? The Middle Class. We are screwed no matter what over the course of time no matter which F'ed up party has control.
I believe the Corps would've left the US eventually anyway. The Unions didn't HELP, but their greed would've led them to leave eventually. The only thing about Oil depletion is that it will force some companies to return to U.S. soil as the costs of world spanning supply lines becomes prohibitive but it won't be out of a sense of patriotism or anything else that forces them to do it. I don't see your Obama - War on the Middle Class thing but you must have a reason for believing it and you don't sound like a knee-jerker by any means.
I personally think the man inherited a "no-win" situation and has done the best he could with Congress and the rich aligned against him but who's to say.
'
As for the nation's future? I personally think the Republic is finished unless we get the lobbyists and money out of it. Elected office has devolved to an exercise of raising money to get re-elected THAT and ONLY THAT matters to the average politician of either party. Citizen's United legalized bribery and as long as the situation remains that way, we're doomed as a representative democracy.
Worf
-
Worf, It is not a matter of Obama's war on the middle class, it's more an issue of every handout he sets up comes out of the middle class's pocket.
When people like Romney making the money he does in his sleep pays 13% or less in taxes, and I pay closer to 28% where do you see the money coming from?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worf101
...
As for the nation's future? I personally think the Republic is finished unless we get the lobbyists and money out of it. Elected office has devolved to an exercise of raising money to get re-elected THAT and ONLY THAT matters to the average politician of either party. Citizen's United legalized bribery and as long as the situation remains that way, we're doomed as a representative democracy.
Worf
The USA is now a plutocracy. That was doubtful up until the US Supreme Court declared corporations = people, money = free speech, and allowed anonymous contributions, but it's a done deal now. I don't see a way back.
Well, it would take much smarter, better informed voters -- good luck with that. :frown5:
-
On some levels I agree...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyfi
Worf, It is not a matter of Obama's war on the middle class, it's more an issue of every handout he sets up comes out of the middle class's pocket.
When people like Romney making the money he does in his sleep pays 13% or less in taxes, and I pay closer to 28% where do you see the money coming from?
In some respects we are "over entitled" in some areas. However you know that when the axe falls it doesn't fall evenly. If cuts were made and EVERYONE sacrificed I could swallow some of the cost cutting rhetoric on the right. But anyone with eyes knows it doesn't work that way. Oil subsidies, agribusiness subsidies, defence contracts they all get theirs and will keep getting theirs. Because they contribute the big money
Pell grants, day care, summer jobs, school lunches, etc... all get it in the neck. If I believed for one blessed minute it would be otherwise, I'd be right with you.
Worf
-
If Corporations are deemed the problem for moving offshore why don't people get together and boycott those corporations?
We are in an internet age and you can educate people that the reason they're out of work is that corporation X dumped your jobs for foreign workers to save them money and make the board of directors hundred millionaires.
Can't boycott them all you say but you can do a series of targeted boycotts. So for 6 months no in the U.S. or Canada purchases a single Nike product of any kind - no shoes shirts etc. Or any of their subsidiary companies under different names.
That would probably decimate their corporation. And it spreads so Britain and most of Europe would go along with them.
The idea is to basically send a message to the entire corporate world that the people can shut you down. Sure not everyone will be on board but everyone doesn't need to be - just a real lot of people to make a very serious dent.
People were angry over Gas prices so I suggested the same idea to target one gas station chain such as Chevron and no one goes to a Chevron for 3 months. If it's the only one in town fine - but in most major cities there are many choices - just skip them - send a message - next time it could be Texaco and it could be for a year. Scare them. The only way to change corporate thinking is money. Convince them that doing good will make them money - or negative reinforcement through boycott is the way to go.
It's the way you get your cat off the couch, or your kid to behave like a human and not a thug.
Condition the corporations and the businesses to do our bidding - the bidding of the "national interest."
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
If Corporations are deemed the problem for moving offshore why don't people get together and boycott those corporations?
We are in an internet age and you can educate people that the reason they're out of work is that corporation X dumped your jobs for foreign workers to save them money and make the board of directors hundred millionaires.
Can't boycott them all you say but you can do a series of targeted boycotts. So for 6 months no in the U.S. or Canada purchases a single Nike product of any kind - no shoes shirts etc. Or any of their subsidiary companies under different names.
That would probably decimate their corporation. And it spreads so Britain and most of Europe would go along with them.
The idea is to basically send a message to the entire corporate world that the people can shut you down. Sure not everyone will be on board but everyone doesn't need to be - just a real lot of people to make a very serious dent.
People were angry over Gas prices so I suggested the same idea to target one gas station chain such as Chevron and no one goes to a Chevron for 3 months. If it's the only one in town fine - but in most major cities there are many choices - just skip them - send a message - next time it could be Texaco and it could be for a year. Scare them. The only way to change corporate thinking is money. Convince them that doing good will make them money - or negative reinforcement through boycott is the way to go.
It's the way you get your cat off the couch, or your kid to behave like a human and not a thug.
Condition the corporations and the businesses to do our bidding - the bidding of the "national interest."
RGA
I would agree that is a method but it is not the method. Government can end loopholes that reward moving jobs overseas or if that is too harsh then reward business that stays.
I know we compete in a global market place and that business often chases the cheapest labor costs to stay competitive but that is not always the case and often we lose jobs to countries whose governments subsidize certain industries so while it smacks of protectionism we cannot continue to export jobs.
Also I do not want to hear one more idiot spout off about how the US has the highest corporate taxes and that the key to growth here is to lower the corporate rates. Because of all the tax loopholes the actual corporate tax rate paid in the US is very competitive and among some of the lowest among the industrialized countries. Throw in the fact that many corporations have relocated key segments of their business and even their corporate offices (There are many sham offices overseas manned by only a secretary and a phone) they pay even less taxes. I am not willing to lower the taxes of any corporation that already has relocated the majority of their operations overseas. Close the loopholes and subsidies and THEN we will talk about tax rates.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
If Corporations are deemed the problem for moving offshore why don't people get together and boycott those corporations?
I don't shop at Wal-Mart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
We are in an internet age and you can educate people that the reason they're out of work is that corporation X dumped your jobs for foreign workers to save them money and make the board of directors hundred millionaires.
Many of those people will never get it, internet or hammer over the head. As long as the person running for office is against abortion........that is how the majority of voters think so they won't be helping matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
People were angry over Gas prices so I suggested the same idea to target one gas station chain such as Chevron and no one goes to a Chevron for 3 months. If it's the only one in town fine - but in most major cities there are many choices - just skip them - send a message - next time it could be Texaco and it could be for a year. Scare them. The only way to change corporate thinking is money. Convince them that doing good will make them money - or negative reinforcement through boycott is the way to go.
All people need to do is stop frivolous driving. Group several trips into one. Don't just drive around cause your bored. If it's all about supply and demand, lets create less demand. How many women do you see driving around every day in a giant SUV by themselves?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyfi
...
All people need to do is stop frivolous driving. Group several trips into one. Don't just drive around cause your bored. If it's all about supply and demand, lets create less demand. How many women do you see driving around every day in a giant SUV by themselves?
Yes, and to incentivize them, our nations need to adopt fossil fuel taxes that will raise the price of gas to a level were includes the "negative externalities", principally harm to the environment, pollution, and urban congestion.
Practically speaking fossil fuel taxes will need to be phased in overtime but the process should start now.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyfi
Worf, It is not a matter of Obama's war on the middle class, it's more an issue of every handout he sets up comes out of the middle class's pocket.
When people like Romney making the money he does in his sleep pays 13% or less in taxes, and I pay closer to 28% where do you see the money coming from?
Can you give some examples? And if you're speaking stimulus, did not Bush do the same? So I think we know what that was about.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchmon
Can you give some examples? And if you're speaking stimulus, did not Bush do the same? So I think we know what that was about.
Who is going to pay more for health care so those mandated to get it do?
Who is going to pay more for cars in 12 years because of his latest 54MPG rule?
Who pays all the time in order for those less fortunate? The Middle Class always foots the bill while Billionaires find all the tax loopholes and never seem to pay their share in accordance to what the middle class pays.
Flat Tax is the only fair way. No Loopholes, no special protection, no excuses.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyfi
Who is going to pay more for health care so those mandated to get it do?
Who is going to pay more for cars in 12 years because of his latest 54MPG rule?
Who pays all the time in order for those less fortunate? The Middle Class always foots the bill while Billionaires find all the tax loopholes and never seem to pay their share in accordance to what the middle class pays.
Flat Tax is the only fair way. No Loopholes, no special protection, no excuses.
No loopholes, no special protections, no excuses -- and a progressive tax rate would be even better.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor;386920 and [I
a progressive tax rate[/I] would be even better.
We already have that. The more wealthy you are, the less % of taxes you have to pay.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyfi
We already have that. The more wealthy you are, the less % of taxes you have to pay.
:lol::lol: ... well technically that's called "regressive" taxation.
In other counties than the good ol' US of A, people cheat on their taxes, bribe officials and politicians, etc. There are no countries I know of where so much evasion is written into the code from the get-go.
A big issue State-side is the capital gains rate of only 15% -- it's a gift to the Romney's of the land. As I understand, in some countries, such as Canada I believe, if you make your living making capital gains, then they're not capital gains but regular income and taxed as such.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
:lol::lol: ... well technically that's called "regressive" taxation.
In other counties than the good ol' US of A, people cheat on their taxes, bribe officials and politicians, etc. There are no countries I know of where so much evasion is written into the code from the get-go.
A big issue State-side is the capital gains rate of only 15% -- it's a gift to the Romney's of the land. As I understand, in some countries, such as Canada I believe, if you make your living making capital gains, then they're not capital gains but regular income and taxed as such.
Yep, that is because the people who write the Tax Codes are those with money and trying not to pay taxes on it.
Below is a link to an NPR article and interview on Romney including some of the things he did to amass a 20 million dollar IRA by investing in the things that his company was putting under to make stockholders more money.
As said earlier, he was the one who started the whole Tax Return issue and now does not want to follow thru on it.
'Real Romney' Authors Dissect His Latest Campaign : NPR
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyfi
Who is going to pay more for health care so those mandated to get it do?
Who is going to pay more for cars in 12 years because of his latest 54MPG rule?
Who pays all the time in order for those less fortunate? The Middle Class always foots the bill while Billionaires find all the tax loopholes and never seem to pay their share in accordance to what the middle class pays.
Flat Tax is the only fair way. No Loopholes, no special protection, no excuses.
I dont know that Neil Borts flat tax is the way...I wish the rich a$$ people would pay there fair share. Stop blaiming Obama for this mess....it extends back well before he got in office.
You where already paying for the scumb bag who could afford insurance but never bought it. Now I wont have to pay for him anymore.....grown a$$ peolple should be responsible for theres now they will.
The car issue....good. I wont have to pay so much to fill my car....and then it sorta works out....less in gas more for the car. The way it is now... expensive a$$ car....expensive a$$ gas.
I dont think I can blame Obama for the stupid a$$ tax problem...you know who to blame for that stupid a$$ crap.
frenchmon
|