Obama begins campaigning for 2012

[Grieves]

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama promoted an economic plan Saturday he said would create 2.5 million jobs by rebuilding roads and bridges and modernizing schools while developing alternative energy sources and more efficient cars.
"These aren't just steps to pull ourselves out of this immediate crisis. These are the long-term investments in our economic future that have been ignored for far too long," Obama said in the weekly Democratic radio address.
The goal is to get the plan quickly through Congress, with help from both parties, after Obama takes office Jan. 20. The plan, which envisions those new jobs by January 2011, is "big enough to meet the challenges we face," he said. The president-elect said he has asked his economic advisers to flesh out the recovery plan — one "big enough to meet the challenges we face. ... We'll be working out the details in the weeks ahead, but it will be a two-year, nationwide effort to jump-start job creation in America and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy."http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081122/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economy

Everything he is "proposing" will be an even further burden on an already crippled tax payer and economy. He knows that most of this can't happen and will use it as a carrot to try and gain votes for his second term run, promising that as soon as he wins again he can get down to business and really do it this time. Really.

[BIG PIZZLE]

I think it's a good idea. I'd rather spend money on this than on banks.

[Grieves]

"We" don't have the money for either, now.

It will be worse in a couple of years.

[Morfin]

Maybe it's time for FDR's WPA and CCC. (Yes, I say this with a trollish intent. I'm not serious.)

[riseabove!]

we need to start a war to boost the economy, works every time! owait

[freegood]

I think it's a good idea. I'd rather spend money on this than on banks.

Or on fruitless wars....

I wonder if people would still despise Bush if he poured trillions into our infrastructure but left us with the same bad credit we're facing in the markets today.

[BIG PIZZLE]

"We" don't have the money for either, now.

It will be worse in a couple of years.

The only thing that was remotely successful for Bush was getting people into homes, the early part of this century. And we all know how that turned out. If the government throws the same amount of weight behind this, at least we will have new technology/shcools/roads/bridges/schools to show for it. Nobody has money but that hasnt stopped us before. But I'd rather spend nobody's money on something I can see and use.

[Grieves]

I understand what you are saying, but it won't even be an option then.

[Archangel]

I wonder if there is one thing that Obama can say that won't bring out the defeatists.

[Grieves]

I wonder if there is one thing that Obama can say that won't bring out the defeatists.Is there anything a socialist would say that you wouldn't defend?

[Archangel]

I wonder if there is one thing that Obama can say that won't bring out the defeatists.Is there anything a socialist would say that you wouldn't defend?

That is literally the most idiotic thing I've ever read on these boards, including everything ever written by Crack, Yelram and Smuckers. It's tantamount to asking Pollo whether he'll ever stop cheering for the Suns.

a) Obama is not a socialist, and you have obviously no fucking idea what a socialist is.

b) I have lived under an actual socialist government.

c) I have NEVER voted for a socialist in my life.

d) That is mostly due to the fact that I think that they are the scum of the fucking earth.

e) When have I ever defended anything said by a socialist? Are you quite daft?

f) It must be awfully nice, being able to pigeonhole people based on slogans. Thinking is teh hardz.

g) Shut the fuck up.

[Grieves]

You didn't like that?

Well people that don't agree with Obama aren't necessarily defeatists. So quit your whining.

[locke8]

I wonder if there is one thing that Obama can say that won't bring out the defeatists.Is there anything a socialist would say that you wouldn't defend?

straw-man argument.

[Archangel]

You didn't like that?

Well people that don't agree with Obama aren't necessarily defeatists. So quit your whining.


Still haven't shut up, have we?

And the supreme irony of you talking about people whining is just priceless. I have no stake in your politics, the fact aside that your next president is less likely to kidnap and torture my countrymen or have my city bombed because he can't read a map.

But just because your guy didn't win, EVERY FUCKING TIME the man says or proposes something, it's a bunch of bitter arsehole sore losers talking about how it can't be done because there's no money (because the bloke THEY VOTED FOR pissed it all away - conveniently not mentioned).

Jesus Christ, I thought you people were supposed to be optimists. Your bitching about how the socialist is gonna destroy America (translation: cost YOU a couple of extra hundred dollars a year, boo fucking hoo) is getting tiresome.

[Grieves]

I have no stake in your politics
Then keep your fucking mouth shut about it.

[Archangel]

I have no stake in your politics
Then keep your fucking mouth shut about it.

Make me.


Are you honestly denying me the right to have an opinion? Jesus Christ, you Yank cons are a bunch of fascist cunts. What are you gonna do, lynch me?

[URFloorMatt]

It's called investment. You spend money now to reap the rewards in the future. If we had been investing in our crumbling schools and infrastructure, we wouldn't have an economy whose growth is crippled by incompetent workers and exploding travel costs.

For instance, for the last 10 years or so, Northern Virginia has seen enormous growth that has fueled an economic boom. Now the infrastructure is so overtaxed we can't afford new growth because we don't have the schools, roads, etc. to support new development and to bring in new people to spawn new jobs, and so on.

Investment. Spend money to make money. I just hope Obama sticks to his guns when everyone realizes that the benefits of spending money on infrastructure improvements aren't readily apparent (or at least not fully realized for a decade or so).

Aside from the Wall Street crisis, we were still entering an economic slowdown precisely because we had neglected critical infrastructure elements for transportation. Air travel is a mess and only getting worse. Roads are clogged and decaying and piling up with cars. Gas prices at the time were skyrocketing, increasing the costs of travel exponentially. All of these things make it difficult to grow the economy, lead to decreased service quality, and spur price inflation.

Obviously, you can't just pave your way out of the problem, but during the campaign Obama reflected both a willingness to think long term at the expense of short term victories and to embrace technology to spread his message and build up a strong base of supporters. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now that he can apply those strengths to governing and really make some inroads to better infrastructure in the next four years. I just hope the short term gain in jobs from starting these projects is enough to kickstart the economy.

[Grieves]

I guess I hit a nerve.

[Archangel]

I guess I hit a nerve.

What, my inability to suffer boorish ignorant trolling cunts? Yeah, hit that dead on. Proud of it, are you?

[Claydon]

change?

[Archangel]

Here's a quarter. Don't spend it on booze.

[Claydon]

if obama proposed 500 billion to nasa, i would have been all over him like ky on mongo.

[Claydon]

wait, does the EU have quarters?

[Archangel]

Nah, we have 1, 2, 5, 10, 20 and 50 cent coins. Plus the €1 and €2 ones, obviously.

[Claydon]

i thought it was 'centi'

[Deadhead Derek]

Maybe it's time for FDR's WPA and CCC. (Yes, I say this with a trollish intent. I'm not serious.)I actually think it is.

[Claydon]

Maybe it's time for FDR's WPA and CCC. (Yes, I say this with a trollish intent. I'm not serious.)I actually think it is.

Fact: Those programs did nothing except prevent rioting.

FACT: The only thing that got us out of the depression was WW2.

I am thinking it is time to kick germany and japans collective asses....once again....



excelllent!

[Insomniac]

And nationalize the auto industry to make tanks for us.

[taters]

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama promoted an economic plan Saturday he said would create 2.5 million jobs by rebuilding roads and bridges and modernizing schools while developing alternative energy sources and more efficient cars.
"These aren't just steps to pull ourselves out of this immediate crisis. These are the long-term investments in our economic future that have been ignored for far too long," Obama said in the weekly Democratic radio address.
The goal is to get the plan quickly through Congress, with help from both parties, after Obama takes office Jan. 20. The plan, which envisions those new jobs by January 2011, is "big enough to meet the challenges we face," he said. The president-elect said he has asked his economic advisers to flesh out the recovery plan — one "big enough to meet the challenges we face. ... We'll be working out the details in the weeks ahead, but it will be a two-year, nationwide effort to jump-start job creation in America and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy."http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081122/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economy

Everything he is "proposing" will be an even further burden on an already crippled tax payer and economy. He knows that most of this can't happen and will use it as a carrot to try and gain votes for his second term run, promising that as soon as he wins again he can get down to business and really do it this time. Really.


Sure, his plans will cripple the economy further...just like the last new deal plans did after the great depression...WAIT, they actually formed the stepping stone to making our economy what it was at its height.

The only way NOT to cripple the economy is MORE TAX CUTS and big business bail outs! And to END investment in small business and middle/working class homeowners.

/sarcasm

Anyone else think its odd that Obamas detractors (the right) seem to think the only way out of this economic mess is to continue with the exact same policies that got us into it? (that they supported with open arms)

[Archangel]

How about you invade another country that doesn't threaten you. That seems to do wonders for your economy...

[Insomniac]

Does Germany have oil?

[Archangel]

Not a single drop of it.


Thank God.

[Rover]

Anyone else think its odd that Obamas detractors (the right) seem to think the only way out of this economic mess is to continue with the exact same policies that got us into it? (that they supported with open arms)This isn't true.

McCain ran on freezing government spending and cutting corporate tax rates to be competitive in the world economy. How is this continuing with the same policies?

[Claydon]

Anyone else think its odd that Obamas detractors (the right) seem to think the only way out of this economic mess is to continue with the exact same policies that got us into it? (that they supported with open arms)This isn't true.

McCain ran on freezing government spending and cutting corporate tax rates to be competitive in the world economy. How is this continuing with the same policies?


Because it does not appease the victim demographic.


MORON!

[taters]

Anyone else think its odd that Obamas detractors (the right) seem to think the only way out of this economic mess is to continue with the exact same policies that got us into it? (that they supported with open arms)This isn't true.

McCain ran on freezing government spending and cutting corporate tax rates to be competitive in the world economy. How is this continuing with the same policies?



Um, cutting corporate taxes (as well as cutting taxes for the rich overall) is exactly what got us into this mess. No regulation of the market, lessening taxes while our bridges schools roads and cities fall apart.

As Arch said, invading other countries to divert attention and propping up fear tactical threats to win elections with failing policies didnt help either.

[Claydon]

Anyone else think its odd that Obamas detractors (the right) seem to think the only way out of this economic mess is to continue with the exact same policies that got us into it? (that they supported with open arms)This isn't true.

McCain ran on freezing government spending and cutting corporate tax rates to be competitive in the world economy. How is this continuing with the same policies?



Um, cutting corporate taxes (as well as cutting taxes for the rich overall) is exactly what got us into this mess. No regulation of the market, lessening taxes while our bridges schools roads and cities fall apart.



Really?! So potentially increasing my employers taxes by 20% which amounts to roughly 100,000 a year is a good idea. Whereby they will either A. have a hiring freeze or B. Need to cut one or two people from the payroll.

(slow clap)

fantastic!

Nevermind that the US has some of the highest coporate tax rates.

[Grieves]

Tater and Arch make a perfect team.

[Insomniac]

Nevermind that the US has some of the highest coporate tax rates.

I have heard people claim this, and claim we have some of the lowest. Where do you get your facts?

[Rover]

Really?! So potentially increasing my employers taxes by 20% which amounts to roughly 100,000 a year is a good idea. Whereby they will either A. have a hiring freeze or B. Need to cut one or two people from the payroll.

(slow clap)

fantastic!

Nevermind that the US has some of the highest coporate tax rates.I've learned that you can't convince people that corporations pay no taxes. Whatever logical reasoning is required to understand that a corporation passes on it's taxes to their consumers just doesn't exist for some people.

Some people just believe that PepsiCo will sit in their board room completely frustrated that they have no other recourse but to pay the increase in their taxes.

Oh, that sly government tax increase, if only we had some way of maintaining our current profit margins. If only we had some way of passing on this cost. Like if we had something that we sold billions of and could marginally increase the cost a few fractions of a cent.

You would think that Democrats would hate the regressive nature of corporate tax increases. But no, surprisingly they do not. They love the regressive effects. Hating big business must be good for their Union lobby.

Democrats might as well argue for tax increases on the poor people; it makes just as much sense.

[Platzhouse]

[quote=Claydon;257153]Democrats might as well argue for tax increases on the poor people

It's about time.

[Claydon]

wow you fucked that one up

[Rover]

Nevermind that the US has some of the highest coporate tax rates.

I have heard people claim this, and claim we have some of the lowest. Where do you get your facts?From the government:
In 1960, America was home to 18 of the world’s 20 largest corporations. By 1996, however, only eight of the world’s 20 largest companies were based in America. So, before we run around congratulating ourselves on any economic stimulus package, we ought to address this jarring trend that is far more dangerous to American prosperity than next quarter’s economic forecast.

The simple fact is the United States can stem the tide of American businesses moving abroad. The train has not left the station on a one-way ticket to China, India or even Europe for that matter. The answer is fairly simple and straightforward: Reduce the corporate tax rate.

Some lawmakers will shudder at the thought of cutting the corporate tax rate. These folks will use old refrains like “corporate welfare” or “unjustified tax cuts for big business” to scare Americans from embracing changes desperately needed to keep pace in this dynamic global marketplace. While America continues to lead the way in terms of economic output and low employment, we are falling behind — way behind — other countries in terms of our international competitiveness.

In December the Treasury Department released a staggering report that should serve as a wake-up call to my colleagues.

http://thehill.com/op-eds/look-at-the-next-decade-not-the-next-quarter-2008-01-30.html

And think tanks.High corporate tax rates are undermining U.S. international competitiveness. The global economy demands that companies be flexible and swift in order to remain competitive. High tax rates deprive companies of both the means and the incentive to take advantage of new market opportunities or technological changes that can improve productivity.
Most advanced countries in the world have responded to new global economic realities by slashing corporate tax rates. The U.S. stands almost alone in having resisted such cuts, and its corporate tax rates are now among the highest in the world. Future U.S. prosperity depends on the willingness of our political leaders to resist populist anti-corporate dogma and make the necessary adjustments to keep the U.S. economy competitive.
http://www.heritage.org/research/tradeandeconomicfreedom/wm2065.cfm

[Claydon]

Fucking rover and his "facts".

pashaw I say!

[Rover]

In fariness to the other side, they have their points, but the basic argument is that corporations hide their income, so nobody knows how much they pay.

[taters]

Really?! So potentially increasing my employers taxes by 20% which amounts to roughly 100,000 a year is a good idea. Whereby they will either A. have a hiring freeze or B. Need to cut one or two people from the payroll.

(slow clap)

fantastic!

Nevermind that the US has some of the highest coporate tax rates.I've learned that you can't convince people that corporations pay no taxes. Whatever logical reasoning is required to understand that a corporation passes on it's taxes to their consumers just doesn't exist for some people.

Some people just believe that PepsiCo will sit in their board room completely frustrated that they have no other recourse but to pay the increase in their taxes.

Oh, that sly government tax increase, if only we had some way of maintaining our current profit margins. If only we had some way of passing on this cost. Like if we had something that we sold billions of and could marginally increase the cost a few fractions of a cent.

You would think that Democrats would hate the regressive nature of corporate tax increases. But no, surprisingly they do not. They love the regressive effects. Hating big business must be good for their Union lobby.

Democrats might as well argue for tax increases on the poor people; it makes just as much sense.

ITs not an issue of 'hating big business', its an issue of getting them to act responsibly and beneficially to the public and their country, rather than their anonymous international shareholders.

They have used predation on every faucet of our nation, moved our jobs away, and increased the amount of debt we all must go into just to survive The price of education, transportation and housing, the basis of all things, has skyrocketed up, while they have made it to where more and more loans are needed (and therefore debt) to access them.

It doesnt take a fucking genuis to realize that if you

1. Raise the cost of living while-
2. -Stagnating and even shrinking income levels
3. Remove career oriented jobs with decent pay for skilled labor and replace them with service jobs with low pay
4. Increase costs for necessary living items (healthcare, housing, transportation, education, energy) in order to decrease the cost of needless consumer goods... and finally
5. Cut tax rates to the rich while leaving them the same for everyone else


- The result is what we have now. NO ONE SPENDS BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE MONEY and ARE INDEBTED AND HAVE RELIABLE FEAR OF LOSING THE LOW PAYING JOB THEY HAVE.


This country is FILLED with skilled labor that goes to waste working in starbucks, walmarts and gas stations paying off enourmous debt because the 'free market - globalization unregulation' policies of the last 25 years.

THis isnt rocket science or high end microeconomics and logistics. Its common sense. You guys on the far right will continue to lose elections until you learn that.

[cAsE sEnSiTiVe]

I have no stake in your politics
Then keep your fucking mouth shut about it.

Make me.




I'd be glad to. I can't stand your fucking ass....and the mere thought of you not breathing the same air as me, would make me ecstatic. You're most definitely a load that mother fraulein should have swallowed!!

If you don't care for the bickering, don't read the thread, and certainly don't stoke the fire, dickhead. You simply come off looking like the shitheel you are.

[heelsguy]

Anyone else think its odd that Obamas detractors (the right) seem to think the only way out of this economic mess is to continue with the exact same policies that got us into it? (that they supported with open arms)This isn't true.

McCain ran on freezing government spending and cutting corporate tax rates to be competitive in the world economy. How is this continuing with the same policies?



Um, cutting corporate taxes (as well as cutting taxes for the rich overall) is exactly what got us into this mess. No regulation of the market, lessening taxes while our bridges schools roads and cities fall apart.



Really?! So potentially increasing my employers taxes by 20% which amounts to roughly 100,000 a year is a good idea. Whereby they will either A. have a hiring freeze or B. Need to cut one or two people from the payroll.

(slow clap)

fantastic!

Nevermind that the US has some of the highest coporate tax rates.
taters does not care about equality--when it comes to creating a level playing field for the U.S corporations vs the world. but if a US company moved its operations elsewhere due to better taxes/lack of unionization, he would cry "foul"

[cAsE sEnSiTiVe]

Does Germany have oil?

No....just plenty of assholes like Arch

[Archangel]

I wonder whether people like him feel pain at their intellectual inferiority, or whether they are simply too dumb to recognise it, believing that they can actually insult one such as me as an equal.

[Claydon]

So arch does not believe all men are created equal?!

[Morfin]

This country is FILLED with skilled labor that goes to waste working in starbucks, walmarts and gas stations paying off enourmous debt because the 'free market - globalization unregulation' policies of the last 25 years.

This is an absurd statement. If there are skilled workers who don't have work in their professions, is that business' fault? There are only so many positions and if there is more supply than demand, then there are going to be skilled people working in other areas, such as in Starbucks. But is that wrong?

Global unregulation is bad? I call Bullshit. Let's look at the NHL. This league used to be all US and Canadian players. Now, due to global unregulation, 30% of players are from Europe. Why is that bad, that the NHL has attracted the best players from all over the world. Yes, some talented American boys can't qualify and are now working in Starbucks, but, according to a meritocratic profession, this is exactly what should happen -- everyone gets an equal shot and the most-qualified get to play/work. The same can be said for the NBA, to a lesser-extent.

Putting this into a corporate environment, why is it bad that companies go overseas for cheap labor? The market demands lower prices and the companies deliver. Companies may want to make everything in the U.S. with the higher labor costs, and they are free to do so and are free to market that way (which is what the Big 3 did for all those years). And many "loyal" Americans are willing to pay more to help the Big 3. But those companies that use foreign labor to save money, they are not doing anything wrong. Don't they owe it to their shareholders to make their products as cheaply as they can (and still maintain quality and customer satisfaction)?

One industry which has changed a lot over the past 25 years in terms of "global unregulation" is medicine. There is a huge influx of foreign-born and foreign-trained doctors coming to the U.S. And when they do, they take residency spots and medical school spots away from Americans. But many of these foreign physicians are staying in the U.S. when their training ends. And that is good because Americans are getting the advantage of the best and most intelligent physicians -- even though some Americans were unable to get into medical school and had to find different professions. Still a net gain for the U.S.

There are a lot of workers -- skilled and unskilled -- in America that are unable to find work due to companies going overseas. Why is that bad? We, the consumers, get the benefit of lower prices. Isn't that what we want? Be honest now.

There is a great South Park episode about Wal-Mart. The point of the show being that, while people say that Wal-Mart is bad because it pushes small businesses out, they still shop at Wal-Mart because that is where the best prices are.

So, you can talk about how skilled workers are working at Starbucks or Wal-Mart, but that is because there aren't enough jobs in their skill area and because we, the American market, are not willing to pay more just for Americans to have those jobs.

[taters]

Anyone else think its odd that Obamas detractors (the right) seem to think the only way out of this economic mess is to continue with the exact same policies that got us into it? (that they supported with open arms)This isn't true.

McCain ran on freezing government spending and cutting corporate tax rates to be competitive in the world economy. How is this continuing with the same policies?



Um, cutting corporate taxes (as well as cutting taxes for the rich overall) is exactly what got us into this mess. No regulation of the market, lessening taxes while our bridges schools roads and cities fall apart.



Really?! So potentially increasing my employers taxes by 20% which amounts to roughly 100,000 a year is a good idea. Whereby they will either A. have a hiring freeze or B. Need to cut one or two people from the payroll.

(slow clap)

fantastic!

Nevermind that the US has some of the highest coporate tax rates.
taters does not care about equality--when it comes to creating a level playing field for the U.S corporations vs the world. but if a US company moved its operations elsewhere due to better taxes/lack of unionization, he would cry "foul"


Thanks for speaking for me.

Now, for what I DO care about.

Listen, IT WONT WORK TO CONTINUALLY TRY TO CHEAPEN GOODS IN AMERICA TO SELL.

WHY? bECAUSE

1. We no longer make anything (steel, manufacturing, industry...all have been 'outsourced')

2. ANYTHING we did or could make, CHINA, RUSSIA, INDIA and BRAZIL can make it cheaper.

Even if you got rid of all unions, did not tax corporations, lowered EVERY employee in the countries wage to 2 bucks below the current minimum, THEY WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO MANUFACTURE all our goods cheaper.

When you outsource jobs, the MONEY from sales comes back to america, BUT the jobs are lost. And the money does not even come back to america as a whole, it goes to the top corporate shareholders and CEO's, who in turn REINVEST it in other overseas adventures. Long story short, they get richer, everyone else loses their job and ends up looking for work for 10 dollar an hour thankless service jobs.


By the way, corporations PAY LESS than what they paid 30 years ago when you count for inflation...do you even know how corporations are taxed? (Corporate taxation v S-corporation taxation v LLC taxation). Since most locate out of Delaware, they pay among the lowest taxes of anywhere in the country nothing.

[heelsguy]

When you outsource jobs, the MONEY from sales comes back to america, BUT the jobs are lost. And the money does not even come back to america as a whole, it goes to the top corporate shareholders and CEO's, who in turn REINVEST it in other overseas adventures. Long story short, they get richer, everyone else loses their job and ends up looking for work for 10 dollar an hour thankless service jobs.


By the way, corporations PAY LESS than what they paid 30 years ago when you count for inflation...do you even know how corporations are taxed? (Corporate taxation v S-corporation taxation v LLC taxation). Since most locate out of Delaware, they pay among the lowest taxes of anywhere in the country nothing.
(do you even proof read before posting? what the fuck is this sentence supposed to mean?)

yes...in fact, I am president of a sub-s corp. but that does not change the fact that most corporations are NOT delaware-based, and pay some of the highest in the world. so these companies try to lower their profits by paying out bonuses to CEO's, etc. Maybe if they had less fear of the corporate tax bill they would not do that.

people bitch and moan about imports. I feel countries should be required to import as much as they export, or very close at least. But other than that free trade works. The US needs to be creating more Intel's cisco's and Microsofts...not underwear and texile makers like Hanes and Fieldcrest/Cannon. All I know is that you can go buy today at Target a better-made and cheaper-than-1988 blender, gas grill, whatever. that is more money for families to use for savings, to pay for gas, whatever. I agree with Morfin: those people bitching about walmart are the first ones there this friday morning for that bike or dvd player.

[Morfin]

We have threads which we can use to review the discussion. It doesn't have to all be quoted. Just because you can quote it all, doesn't mean you have to. The delete key can be your friend here.

[Claydon]

Thanks for speaking for me.

Now, for what I DO care about.

Listen, IT WONT WORK TO CONTINUALLY TRY TO CHEAPEN GOODS IN AMERICA TO SELL.

WHY? bECAUSE

1. We no longer make anything (steel, manufacturing, industry...all have been 'outsourced')

2. ANYTHING we did or could make, CHINA, RUSSIA, INDIA and BRAZIL can make it cheaper.

Even if you got rid of all unions, did not tax corporations, lowered EVERY employee in the countries wage to 2 bucks below the current minimum, THEY WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO MANUFACTURE all our goods cheaper.

When you outsource jobs, the MONEY from sales comes back to america, BUT the jobs are lost. And the money does not even come back to america as a whole, it goes to the top corporate shareholders and CEO's, who in turn REINVEST it in other overseas adventures. Long story short, they get richer, everyone else loses their job and ends up looking for work for 10 dollar an hour thankless service jobs.


By the way, corporations PAY LESS than what they paid 30 years ago when you count for inflation...do you even know how corporations are taxed? (Corporate taxation v S-corporation taxation v LLC taxation). Since most locate out of Delaware, they pay among the lowest taxes of anywhere in the country nothing.

Stupid fucking douchebag. Not all coporations are just in delaware, you are thinking of the credit card companies that pay shit tons of money to our VP elect Joe Biden.

I work for a corporation, we are a multimillion dollar corp, however it is still within the realm of the small business as the VAST majority of coporations are. Coporations can be 1 fucking person who is self employed you ignornant fuck. So if you raise all the coporate tax rates, you not only slap Proctor and Gamble, you will also squeeze the balls of smaller companies. But hey its ok, I am sure you are expecting that reparations bill to pass arent you?

[freegood]

This is an absurd statement. If there are skilled workers who don't have work in their professions, is that business' fault? There are only so many positions and if there is more supply than demand, then there are going to be skilled people working in other areas, such as in Starbucks. But is that wrong?

Global unregulation is bad? I call Bullshit. Let's look at the NHL. This league used to be all US and Canadian players. Now, due to global unregulation, 30% of players are from Europe. Why is that bad, that the NHL has attracted the best players from all over the world. Yes, some talented American boys can't qualify and are now working in Starbucks, but, according to a meritocratic profession, this is exactly what should happen -- everyone gets an equal shot and the most-qualified get to play/work. The same can be said for the NBA, to a lesser-extent.

Putting this into a corporate environment, why is it bad that companies go overseas for cheap labor? The market demands lower prices and the companies deliver. Companies may want to make everything in the U.S. with the higher labor costs, and they are free to do so and are free to market that way (which is what the Big 3 did for all those years). And many "loyal" Americans are willing to pay more to help the Big 3. But those companies that use foreign labor to save money, they are not doing anything wrong. Don't they owe it to their shareholders to make their products as cheaply as they can (and still maintain quality and customer satisfaction)?

One industry which has changed a lot over the past 25 years in terms of "global unregulation" is medicine. There is a huge influx of foreign-born and foreign-trained doctors coming to the U.S. And when they do, they take residency spots and medical school spots away from Americans. But many of these foreign physicians are staying in the U.S. when their training ends. And that is good because Americans are getting the advantage of the best and most intelligent physicians -- even though some Americans were unable to get into medical school and had to find different professions. Still a net gain for the U.S.

There are a lot of workers -- skilled and unskilled -- in America that are unable to find work due to companies going overseas. Why is that bad? We, the consumers, get the benefit of lower prices. Isn't that what we want? Be honest now.


Read some stuff by Paul Craig Roberts. Hollowing out American manufacturing is NOT good. Some would say it's already dead.

I might make a thread about it if I feel up for the lobotomy.

[Archangel]

Well, except construction equipment, aircraft/defence equipment and computers, what do you guys actually build anymore?

[Infotainment]

Well, except construction equipment, aircraft/defence equipment and computers, what do you guys actually build anymore?

Nothing, we're a service based economy. All of the leading global economic powers moved on from manufatcuring to servicing in the 70's and 80's.

[Archangel]

Um, I'm pretty sure that Japan and Germany are G8 members.

[Insomniac]

And how in the hell does Germany export more than the EU? I know it's wikipedia, but that can't be right.

[Archangel]

Because Germany's main trading partners are IN the EU, duh. But don't worry, we account for the lion's share of the EU's exports into the rest of the world.

[kid_vidrio]

Maybe it's time for FDR's WPA and CCC. (Yes, I say this with a trollish intent. I'm not serious.)I actually think it is.

Fact: Those programs did nothing except prevent rioting.

FACT: The only thing that got us out of the depression was WW2.


FACT: I have hiked on trails and stood on platforms that were built during that time.
I say if you want welfare assistance, you put in some time serving the community.
I would also vigorously support two years mandatory pseudo-military work-related boot camp for all males, during which time they worked on infrastructure.

[taters]

This is an absurd statement. If there are skilled workers who don't have work in their professions, is that business' fault?

Yes.

If you have a shit ton of people who are skilled at metal works, either from education or experience, and your government fosters an atmosphere of moving metal jobs away, and those people have no other skill, its a waste.

Its a waste because the jobs here would create innovation, industry, and jobs.

As said, all our careers have been shipped off to foreign countries. Unless our colleges start removing majors in the departments of 'medicine, law, architecture, industrial mechanics, business' and start replacing them with 'human resources, customer service, data entry and walmart greeting', we will continue to have wasted talent.

In a economically growing and successful nation, the people are not supposed to build themselves around whatever industry is around, the industry should work for the people, and through THIS innovation and growth occurs.

Outsourcing = outsourcing innovation.

(do you even proof read before posting? what the fuck is this sentence supposed to mean?)

You posted 2 paragraphs and are asking me about a sentence. Which one are you talking about?


yes...in fact, I am president of a sub-s corp. but that does not change the fact that most corporations are NOT delaware-based, and pay some of the highest in the world. so these companies try to lower their profits by paying out bonuses to CEO's, etc. Maybe if they had less fear of the corporate tax bill they would not do that.

http://blog.pharmalive.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/o_rly.jpg


http://www.corp.delaware.gov/aboutagency.shtml
The State of Delaware is a leading domicile for U.S. and international corporations. More than 850,000 business entities have made Delaware their legal home. More than 50% of all publicly-traded companies in the United States including 63% of the Fortune 500 have chosen Delaware as their legal home.


I suppose I should have said most public companies are based in Delaware, since smaller companies are not nearly the drivers of our current economy.

As for taxes-
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1249465620080812?sp=true

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.

The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.

More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.[/B]

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/07230%20r.pdf - This is very long, but you have to read pages 41-43 to get to the jist of it. A half-sum of the report can be made from this quote:

The U.S. ratio of corporate remittances to GDP, at 2.2 percent, is below the OECD
average of 3.4 percent. This ratio decomposes into the U.S. ratio of corporate taxes to corporate
operating surplus (13.4 percent) and the ratio of U.S. corporate operating surplus to GDP
(16.7 percent), which are both below the OECD averages of 16.1 percent and 21.6 percent,
respectively.


Dude, you dont know wtf your talking about. Dont make comments on things you just made up or dont know the facts behind. Your starting to sound like FOX NEWS.

I feel countries should be required to import as much as they export, or very close at least.

We dont. We are a consumer nation. We export jobs and income to foreign companies in the way of investment in international corporations or manufacturing jobs, and we import cheap goods.

Fatal flaw lies in the fact that we no longer make anything here of substance to export, nor do we have any industry to employ the people to even be able to afford the cheap goods. The nations youth now is dependant on retiring social securees spending their money at wal marts, coffee huts, fast food and malls.

Ever actually talk to a real person when you get your food at the grocery store, or the fast food joint, or shop at the mall, at the coffee house?

They are not filled with high school students and uneducated excons or single parent drop outs as they once were. They are filled with college grads who worked though college, deferring on loans who cant find jobs in their industry. Even grad students. The law school I went to was full of 'recently returning grads' who could not find jobs because baby boomers werent retiring and no increase of industry or jobs was occurring.

[Yelram]

Okay, how many small business owners/employees do we have here? I'll bet 80-90% are conservatives/republicans. This is the problem the "intelligencia" (and I use that word very loosely, loosely enough to group together Arch and Tater), who have absolutely no grasp on simple economics and principles of taxation. They think they understand something they've NEVER had to deal with Arch: "That rich bloke with the Ferrari can pay 95% tax and he can still eat", or Tater "We need to force jobs to stay, even at the expense of EVERYONE (consumer, the business, eventually the government)". Yeah we need more fucking steel mills, and manufacturing. Its funny to see people who claim to be "environmentalists", claim we need more manufacturing., but then put regulation on businesses that makes it next to impossible to make a profit.

[kid_vidrio]

Hemp farming and manufacturing ftw.

[Archangel]

This is the problem the "intelligencia" *intelligentsia
(and I use that word very loosely, loosely enough to group together Arch and Tater)
Hey, now that's just uncalled for.

[redsox39]

You didn't like that?

Well people that don't agree with Obama aren't necessarily defeatists. So quit your whining.


Still haven't shut up, have we?

And the supreme irony of you talking about people whining is just priceless. I have no stake in your politics, the fact aside that your next president is less likely to kidnap and torture my countrymen or have my city bombed because he can't read a map.

But just because your guy didn't win, EVERY FUCKING TIME the man says or proposes something, it's a bunch of bitter arsehole sore losers talking about how it can't be done because there's no money (because the bloke THEY VOTED FOR pissed it all away - conveniently not mentioned).

Jesus Christ, I thought you people were supposed to be optimists. Your bitching about how the socialist is gonna destroy America (translation: cost YOU a couple of extra hundred dollars a year, boo fucking hoo) is getting tiresome.

To be fair, everytime Bush Exhaled for the Last 6 years, you could hear the disappointment from the left. So let's not get too carried away. Bush was also one of the top selling pinatas in the Southwest in the last 6 years as well...

As far as Obama being Socialist...obivously, not even close. However, as far as American politicians go, he IS the farthest left we have ever seen, and the first taste of Socialism since FDR...so let's not piss in the wind here...

[redsox39]

Ever actually talk to a real person when you get your food at the grocery store, or the fast food joint, or shop at the mall, at the coffee house?

They are not filled with high school students and uneducated excons or single parent drop outs as they once were. They are filled with college grads who worked though college, deferring on loans who cant find jobs in their industry. Even grad students. The law school I went to was full of 'recently returning grads' who could not find jobs because baby boomers werent retiring and no increase of industry or jobs was occurring.

Actually, having run 3 different resturants, including owning a Pizza Hut, I HAVE spoke with a lot of fast food workers. And most are stoners, not all. In 2.5 years of Pizza hut, I had 2 people with a College degree. An Anti-Social Social worker as a delivery driver and a retired chemist who was a delivery driver. The rest? GED's, High school diplomas, College Stoner drop-outs.

Trust me, in none of my positions, including being an Owner, did I run into poor college graduated people looking to get an $7-8 an hour job unless they were in a circumstance brought on by themselves. I am sure in other Metro Areas, this might be the case Tater's, but before you paint the whole country with your sad story, I can tell you, the major Metro's in the Midwest, Omaha, KC, The Twin Citites...not the right story.

[Morfin]

These two statements are just too wild to comprehend.


As said, all our careers have been shipped off to foreign countries. Unless our colleges start removing majors in the departments of 'medicine, law, architecture, industrial mechanics, business' and start replacing them with 'human resources, customer service, data entry and walmart greeting', we will continue to have wasted talent.

The blame goes to our colleges for, what, not forcing students to study in majors where there are more jobs? It is the colleges' fault that corporations are out-sourcing to foreign countries because it is more cost-effective? I know it is an alien concept, but businesses operate to make a profit; they do not act in terms of what you, the experts, or the government deem to be the public good. The only way that our college graduates can compete with other countries' labor force is to make it 1) financially cost-effective (i.e., take less money, get off your high horse and recognize that your true worth is not what you believe you ought to be earning); and 2) intellectually cost-effective (i.e., set yourself apart, a la Apple with the iPhone, Mercedes and other high-end cars. It's called free market capitalism and I face it every day in terms of convincing clients to hire me instead of one of the other 37,000 lawyers in Michigan even though I want to charge more than most other lawyers.

In a economically growing and successful nation, the people are not supposed to build themselves around whatever industry is around, the industry should work for the people, and through THIS innovation and growth occurs.Let me get this straight. Industry, that is, corporations and business are supposed to modify their businesses not on whatever product or service they produce and not on competing, but they are "supposed to work for the people"? How in the world does innovation and growth occur where businesses are not focused on what they can best produce, but on focusing on what the labor force wants or can do? That is like saying that a company shouldn't mandate to its workers that the workday starts at 8:00 a.m., but should work for the people -- who like to sleep in -- and open at 10:00 a.m.

Businesses are not in business (and will not stay in business) if their main focus is the worker and "shaping" itself to the worker -- it is to the customer and to the shareholders/owners. Period. End of sentence.

[redsox39]

Thank god you said it...I was about to have a stroke...

[taters]

Actually, having run 3 different resturants, including owning a Pizza Hut, I HAVE spoke with a lot of fast food workers. And most are stoners, not all. In 2.5 years of Pizza hut, I had 2 people with a College degree. An Anti-Social Social worker as a delivery driver and a retired chemist who was a delivery driver. The rest? GED's, High school diplomas, College Stoner drop-outs.

You ran the restraunts, which means you saw them from the points of view of a 'boss'. Not a person to relate to, but a person to lord over them.

I have to think your perspective is more than likely going to be MORE than skewed. That, or you live in the south somewhere.

That being said, you still did not respond to the claims on Corporate Taxes. If you run an S-Corp, and you are paying too much, you either have a bad tax lawyer, are doing something wrong, or (I go with this one) are actually paying a minimal amount but complaining about that.

The blame goes to our colleges for, what, not forcing students to study in majors where there are more jobs?

Wow, you totally missed what I was saying. Try and read it again before replying. Here, Ill repost it.


If you have a shit ton of people who are skilled at metal works, either from education or experience, and your government fosters an atmosphere of moving metal jobs away, and those people have no other skill, its a waste.

Its a waste because the jobs here would create innovation, industry, and jobs.

As said, all our careers have been shipped off to foreign countries. Unless our colleges start removing majors in the departments of 'medicine, law, architecture, industrial mechanics, business' and start replacing them with 'human resources, customer service, data entry and walmart greeting', we will continue to have wasted talent.

In a economically growing and successful nation, the people are not supposed to build themselves around whatever industry is around, the industry should work for the people, and through THIS innovation and growth occurs.


I was saying that people are educated in a broad range of fields ripe for innovation, but the only jobs available are ones that take no use of that for this generation, ie service jobs. The reference to college was a facetious rhetorical metaphor, in words, I was replying to someone who stated its people in colleges fault for not finding jobs available in high employing industry, so I facetiously pressed that fallacious argument further by saying "why not start making colleges educate in fields that are big in america now, such as wal mart greeters, starbucks baristas and customer service reps."

Read the whole thing before replying to it. Havent we had th is talk before? This is getting old with you.

[Yelram]

You ran the restraunts, which means you saw them from the points of view of a 'boss'. Not a person to relate to, but a person to lord over them.

I have to think your perspective is more than likely going to be MORE than skewed. That, or you live in the south somewhere.

That being said, you still did not respond to the claims on Corporate Taxes. If you run an S-Corp, and you are paying too much, you either have a bad tax lawyer, are doing something wrong, or (I go with this one) are actually paying a minimal amount but complaining about that.



You've never really had a job have you Tater? Other than "Wannabe Lawyer". You think you are just too good to "serve" people. What you dont seem to realize, is that most small businesses feed off of large businesses. They buy their products from large corporations, who have a large rate of taxation. So a tax on them, is a tax on us, which is a tax on the consumer. The idea of taxing businesses to do business is absolutely stupid. They are already the ones creating the largest amount of tax revenue, and wealth, we dont need to cannibalize them just because some people dont understand simple economics. You see them taking your money, and you assume they just put it in their pockets, and dont take into account overhead, like insurance, health benefits, utilities, TAXES. You want more government services, and less businesses, that is the only reasoning for a high rate of corporate taxation. I say lower them down to something trivial, and then force them to put the money they WOULD have spent in taxes, into a higher level of standards, be it quality, or environmental regulation. The people, and the government, do not benefit from a high rate of corporate taxation, and unreasonable organized labor. Talk about benefiting the few at the expense of many.

[redsox39]

Actually, having run 3 different resturants, including owning a Pizza Hut, I HAVE spoke with a lot of fast food workers. And most are stoners, not all. In 2.5 years of Pizza hut, I had 2 people with a College degree. An Anti-Social Social worker as a delivery driver and a retired chemist who was a delivery driver. The rest? GED's, High school diplomas, College Stoner drop-outs.

You ran the restraunts, which means you saw them from the points of view of a 'boss'. Not a person to relate to, but a person to lord over them.

I have to think your perspective is more than likely going to be MORE than skewed. That, or you live in the south somewhere.

That being said, you still did not respond to the claims on Corporate Taxes. If you run an S-Corp, and you are paying too much, you either have a bad tax lawyer, are doing something wrong, or (I go with this one) are actually paying a minimal amount but complaining about that.

The blame goes to our colleges for, what, not forcing students to study in majors where there are more jobs?

Wow, you totally missed what I was saying. Try and read it again before replying. Here, Ill repost it.


If you have a shit ton of people who are skilled at metal works, either from education or experience, and your government fosters an atmosphere of moving metal jobs away, and those people have no other skill, its a waste.

Its a waste because the jobs here would create innovation, industry, and jobs.

As said, all our careers have been shipped off to foreign countries. Unless our colleges start removing majors in the departments of 'medicine, law, architecture, industrial mechanics, business' and start replacing them with 'human resources, customer service, data entry and walmart greeting', we will continue to have wasted talent.

In a economically growing and successful nation, the people are not supposed to build themselves around whatever industry is around, the industry should work for the people, and through THIS innovation and growth occurs.


I was saying that people are educated in a broad range of fields ripe for innovation, but the only jobs available are ones that take no use of that for this generation, ie service jobs. The reference to college was a facetious rhetorical metaphor, in words, I was replying to someone who stated its people in colleges fault for not finding jobs available in high employing industry, so I facetiously pressed that fallacious argument further by saying "why not start making colleges educate in fields that are big in america now, such as wal mart greeters, starbucks baristas and customer service reps."

Read the whole thing before replying to it. Havent we had th is talk before? This is getting old with you.

You're fucking retarded. I was the best man in 2 of their weddings, I definetly was a Fratenizer, hell, alot of my employees were older than me. there was no lording over them, I knew all about their schools, their friends, their parents, their relationships. I truly liked and loved alot of them, probably to the point where I made poor business decisions about them.

Hindsight being 20/20, I SHOULD have lorded over them...but those days are done now.

Have you ever worked in a restaurant? Run into some real slave drivers there? Not the norm, I assure you...

[Morfin]

taters,

You asked me (in your special obnoxious way) to reread your post. I did, on the off-chance that I misunderstood what you said. Nope, I totally understood it. If you failed to write clearly to make your point, that is not my failure to somehow divine your point -- it is your failure to communicate.

Here is what I you told me to look at again:

If you have a shit ton of people who are skilled at metal works, either from education or experience, and your government fosters an atmosphere of moving metal jobs away, and those people have no other skill, its a waste.

Its a waste because the jobs here would create innovation, industry, and jobs.

As said, all our careers have been shipped off to foreign countries. Unless our colleges start removing majors in the departments of 'medicine, law, architecture, industrial mechanics, business' and start replacing them with 'human resources, customer service, data entry and walmart greeting', we will continue to have wasted talent.

In a economically growing and successful nation, the people are not supposed to build themselves around whatever industry is around, the industry should work for the people, and through THIS innovation and growth occurs.

The point you are missing, is that this is not a governmental problem -- it is the free market acting to make the market more cost-efficient. Here is what you fail to understand: 1) Corporations are profit-oriented and rightly so. 2) Publicly-traded corporations owe it to their shareholders to make profits as cost-efficiently as possibly while maintianing customer satisfaction (i.e., sufficient quality). 3) If that manufacturing can be done in Mexico, China, India, etc. with a similar quality yet more cost-effectively than in the U.S., not only is that owed to the shareholders, but it is what the free market demands.

4) What you are advocating is that the government has failed to protect American jobs and therefore, Americans who used to do manufacturing, customer service, etc., are now unemployed or underemployed because those jobs have gone overseas. You phrase it as "your government fosters an atmosphere of moving metal jobs away," as if the government has allowed or enouraged overseas out-sourcing. I don't believe this is the case, but what you are saying is that the government -- not corporations -- should protect these workers, keep the jobs available. The only way to do that is through tariffs or taxes on out-sourcing or importing foreign-made goods.

The bottom line of that type of governmental action (or intrusion, is how many would call it), is higher prices for Americans. Innovation does not occur where corporations are hamstrung by governmental policies requiring them to use people and resources in a restricted and inefficient manner -- it comes from free markets and free capitalism.


By the way, taters, last week, after I told you my experience, I asked you for yours. Attorney, public interest attorney, paralegal, law student, "pre-law" student. Your silence is deafening.

[freegood]

Well, except construction equipment, aircraft/defence equipment and computers, what do you guys actually build anymore?

You know who puts that shiny stamp that says DELL or Apple on freshly made Taiwanese/Japanese laptops and computer towers?

We do.
::pats own back::

The idea that we'd be the innovative brains on products manufactured elsewhere hinges on our IP/branding and the credibility for our system.

The latter has been shattered now that the rest of the world is blaming the US and its financial products for the global recession.

For the former, it could be a matter of time before those offshored countries decide that they could desgn their own brands, slap it on the same product they make and earn 2-3 times more from the markup.

Let's not discuss our joke of an education system and the war of attrition with China or India's college grads...

[Claydon]

Well, except construction equipment, aircraft/defence equipment and computers, what do you guys actually build anymore?

You know who puts that shiny stamp that says DELL or Apple on freshly made Taiwanese/Japanese laptops and computer towers?

We do.
::pats own back::

The idea that we'd be the innovative brains on products manufactured elsewhere hinges on our IP/branding and the credibility for our system.

The latter has been shattered now that the rest of the world is blaming the US and its financial products for the global recession.

For the former, it could be a matter of time before those offshored countries decide that they could desgn their own brands, slap it on the same product they make and earn 2-3 times more from the markup.

Let's not discuss our joke of an education system and the war of attrition with China or India's college grads...

Our lower education system is not the best I would never argue with you on that, however, our universities are some of the best in the world and the UC system in California is probably the best in the US. Expensive....for sure.

[heelsguy]

You ran the restraunts, which means you saw them from the points of view of a 'boss'. Not a person to relate to, but a person to lord over them.

I have to think your perspective is more than likely going to be MORE than skewed. That, or you live in the south somewhere.




My God you are a fuckwad.

I love all these people who are speaking about the "real world' economy from their dorm rooms and have never had to meet a payroll, or answer to shareholders.

It is every corporation--from exxon to johnson and johnson's--job to remember their sole responsibility is to increase shareholder value. Anyone can buy stock, and thereby own a part of a company and ride that efficiency to the bank. So if they can save money by sending jobs overseas, so be it.

example: in 1998 I started a online store, and advertised on AOL. I quickly saw how fucking profitable AOl was being when I was paying them like $1,000 a month for 400,000 ad IMPRESSIONS. So instead of getting pissed, I bought 100 shares at 102. It split 4 times between 1998 and when time warner and AOL merged. So I WON. I beat them at their own fuckin game.

[HAWK]

Everyone seems to be either Right or Left on this issue. Can't everyone see that it's a combination that has brought us here? Yes jobs have been outsourced. Yes corporations have raped us. Yes we had to make decisions based on global economics. These are all true. But to much has been done here. Corporations have went to far. Whether for the shareholder or their own greed. Things have went to far. The government has let us down. No oversight here...to much over there.

Can Obama change it? Who knows. But what I don't get is why some of you don't hope for the best. For our children's sake we all should be praying that Obama ends up being the greatest president ever. Some of you are to busy reciting what Rush Limbaugh or Alan Colmes have told you to think and say rather than hoping we can all come out of this economic disaster were in. If not for us, then for our children. Regardless of whom you wanted in the election...it's done. Stop being such a whiny bitch that McCain (or whomever) lost and hope Obama can put a dent in this. Or are to many of you so blind with Red and Blue that you can't even wrap your mind around this?? Politicians are like so many of you. They'd rather see this country crash and burn than actually lend their support to someone other than "their guy."

Give me a fucking break already.

[taters]

The point you are missing, is that this is not a governmental problem -- it is the free market acting to make the market more cost-efficient.

If you cant understand a simple concept, no matter how lay I term it, its not my problem. I did NOT MEAN COLLEGES SHOULD TEACH low income paying subjects. My point was the contrary.



ie..

The reference to college was a facetious rhetorical metaphor, in words, I was replying to someone who stated its people in colleges fault for not finding jobs available in high employing industry, so I facetiously pressed that fallacious argument further by saying "why not start making colleges educate in fields that are big in america now, such as wal mart greeters, starbucks baristas and customer service reps."


Have you ever worked in a restaurant? Run into some real slave drivers there? Not the norm, I assure you...

Fair enough. Yes actually. And became one for a time (though Id say not as bad as the guy who was over me or whoever replaced me).

You still havent commented on the US corporate income taxation rate.
You've never really had a job have you Tater? Other than "Wannabe Lawyer". You think you are just too good to "serve" people.

YOu wish. Excusing the 'wannabe' part (they sure as shit work me more than a wannabe would be asked...how can you even be a wannabe lawyer? A paralegal? A non-practitioner?)

Lets see, I worked in an industrial factory capacity standing all day making boxes and putting food items in them, I worked as a (for lack of better term) desk assistant/secretary, various clerk jobs, a city water maintence worker, a mcdonalds supervisor, a phone rep, an archiver, a computer repair tech, and a ton of other temp jobs.
Ive worked serving the public unpaid as a student senator at one of my colleges, a government rep at another, an alternatives-to-drinking volunteer (NEVER ask again about that), A support our troops volunteer, a snow shoveler, a driver for the disabled, and a campaigner.

So in short, YES, Ive had many 'real' jobs, and have worked serving the public for years.

The idea of taxing businesses to do business is absolutely stupid.

Start off with an ad hominem attack to make up claim on a statement that I never made. Yelram, you are a master of debate.