ThatGuy85 wrote:At least he's removing tax cuts for companies moving jobs overseas. You CANNOT argue that this is a bad move.

I certainly can. You do realise the companies that receive those tax breaks will now move somewhere else where they can get the tax breaks they need. Forcing a company to utilise overpriced labor will just push them away, thus resulting in even fewer jobs.

And I can speak to this personally, as I work in Global Resourcing for the largest financial institution in the world....that didn't take bailout money. Sorry, but why pay someone $30k + a year to do data input that a monkey on a typewriter can do, when you can utilise labor in other countries to do the same work for almost 1/3 the cost?

Trust me when I tell you, companies such as my employer are not based in the US, and will have no problem pulling out of the US all together.

So ya, that would result in thousands if not hundreds of thousands more jobs lost in the US.

Explain to me how forcing this upon companies will help? I would really like to hear your position on a subject you clearly are not thinking thru.

J03Y Esquire wrote:Forcing a company to utilise overpriced labor

Company's move over seas to get cheap labor and to get a tax cut DUHHH!!!

I'm sorry is called "Greed"

Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Friday, February 27, 2009 4:27 PM

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:What is your objective by posting every day about Obama? Dude, you are obsessed with this man! Is your tin-foil hat that tight on you?

Because he, unlike any president we have had, is doing the most damage to this country, and every day he does, or says he's going to do, something worse. People need to open their eyes. You are one of the completely blind sheep out there, being lead around by the rhetoric and charisma of our liar-in-chief, and the drooling MSM's who hang on his every word. You are completely dilusional if you think he's doing good so far. Why do I post so often about it? Because this happens to be a communtiy I frequent, and I try to help people here see what is really going on. I have been paying attention to what's going on in politics for the past 20+ years, but no one has enfuriated me more than the current administration and congress, who are completely trying to turn our country upside down into a socialist nation.

Exactly what do you think would prove to people like me (who are getting more and more pissed off at what him, Pelosi, and Reid are doing to this country) that he's actually done a good thing? I would really like to know what statistics you would believe prove their plan is working. When (and I am 100% sure that they will) the unemployment rates continue to increase, into double digits, and GDP continues to tank, what excuses are you going to be spouting? My guess would be whatever BS is coming from the administration and the MSM's.

As for him lowering taxes on anyone, forget it. He says he is doing it, but it's all smoke and mirrors. Call your local H&R block, CPA of choice, or knowledgeable tax establishment of your choice, and ask them about the new "tax cuts" he's written. They're phony. They're a loan. What the hell do you think "refundable tax credit" is? It means you have to pay it back. He has not lowered a single tax bracket, and he is eliminating deductions. This equals a net tax increase, without a rate change. Again, don't believe me, go ask someone who does it for a living, and who has actually read up on the changes.

And Harrington, you obviously don't get it, either. If you find it stupid to say that statistics don't lie, obviously rhetoric is all that you believe in, so an intelligent debate with you is pointless. Statistics given in a poll may be manipulated, because the poll can be configured to get the answers the poller wants, but cold hard statistics in the public records can't be argued with, in spite of Goodwrench's attempts in other threads.

I'm not necessarily a Republican nut swinger. I'm a conservative. I believe the Republican party has been making one blunder after another, and it needs to stop, and get it's sh!t together, which it seems might actually start happening now that they're up against the wall. However, when you get down to the real issues, they would never be doing what we are seeing now if they had the control. The problem is that when they had control, many of them were trying to be "moderate", but in reality, were simply not sticking by the principles that the party once stood for. There are some Democrats out there that I've been impressed with, because of their conservative principles. However, when the majority of the Democrats are pushing for more and more government, and even those conservative ones are voting party lines, it becomes a party issue again. I gave kudos to the ones who voted against the stimulus bill. I will also slam Republicans, such as my own two Senators, who give BS reasons for siding with their opposition. While I would still vote the same way in my state elections given the choices I had this past year, I am looking for someone to oppose them next round.

spoiler wrote:

J03Y Esquire wrote:Forcing a company to utilise overpriced labor

Company's move over seas to get cheap labor and to get a tax cut DUHHH!!!

I'm sorry is called "Greed"

Another foolish post proving you don't know a damned thing about the way the economy really works with these things. Companies don't just move jobs because they are greedy. They move jobs because the economics of whatever product or service they provide mandates a cutting of costs. In most cases, they are looking to cut costs because they are trying to be competitive. When they can not cut other costs to lower their price and be competitive, they look at outsourcing, building overseas facilities, etc., to cut costs that way. It is far more advantageous from the standpoint of management and other factors, such as lack of shipping products from overseas, for a company to have their entire operation in the country they are based. It costs companies vast amounts of money to set up an overseas operation. If they could continue to be profitable without moving jobs. Don't speak about that which you have no knowledge in.

J03Y Esquire wrote:

ThatGuy85 wrote:At least he's removing tax cuts for companies moving jobs overseas. You CANNOT argue that this is a bad move.

I certainly can. You do realise the companies that receive those tax breaks will now move somewhere else where they can get the tax breaks they need. Forcing a company to utilise overpriced labor will just push them away, thus resulting in even fewer jobs.

And I can speak to this personally, as I work in Global Resourcing for the largest financial institution in the world....that didn't take bailout money. Sorry, but why pay someone $30k + a year to do data input that a monkey on a typewriter can do, when you can utilise labor in other countries to do the same work for almost 1/3 the cost?

Trust me when I tell you, companies such as my employer are not based in the US, and will have no problem pulling out of the US all together.

So ya, that would result in thousands if not hundreds of thousands more jobs lost in the US.

Explain to me how forcing this upon companies will help? I would really like to hear your position on a subject you clearly are not thinking thru.

So, letting companies move jobs overseas is GOOD for the economy, right?

Look I'm not trying to say Obama is the golden prophet that America has been waiting for, but you cannot tell me that giving companies money to un-employ American's is a good plan! Removing the incentive for this plan would at least discourage companies from outsourcing their helpdesk and call centers to groups of people who can barely speak English. I would much rather companies lower pay rates for these "monkey on a typewriter" jobs rather than lose them altogether.

Quiklilcav wrote:they are looking to cut costs because they are trying to be competitive.

they have cheaper labor, what part of CHEAPER LABOR don't you understand? that's the bottom line. cheap damn labor and that is it! god you're so annoying!!!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Friday, February 27, 2009 7:54 PM

spoiler wrote:

Quiklilcav wrote:they are looking to cut costs because they are trying to be competitive.

they have cheaper labor, what part of CHEAPER LABOR don't you understand? that's the bottom line. cheap damn labor and that is it!

It is you who does not understand. You are gulping up the corporate hatred the liberals hand out constantly. Don't try to play off your first post as if you were explaining anything intelligent. You were trying to make it sound like companies do this just to make higher and higher profits, hence your statement about it being called greed. Just so you know, the average profit margins have been dropping consistantly for years. Again, don't talk about that which you do not know. You are repeating the BS rhetoric that was designed to villify corporate America, for the sole purpose of advancing a political agenda.

spoiler wrote:god you're so annoying!!!

Get the sand out of your vagina. You have no idea what you are talking about the majority of the time you post. If you can't handle being called on it, and shown your own ignorance, then don't get involved in the discussion. If you actually open your mind up, and read what's posted, you might actually learn something.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
At first I was not to crazy for him and it took me awhile to consider him, but after his work he has surpassed expectations, so far- no regrets.
IMO you should pose this question 4 years from now.

Quiklilcav wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:What is your objective by posting every day about Obama? Dude, you are obsessed with this man! Is your tin-foil hat that tight on you?

Because he, unlike any president we have had, is doing the most damage to this country, and every day he does, or says he's going to do, something worse. People need to open their eyes. You are one of the completely blind sheep out there, being lead around by the rhetoric and charisma of our liar-in-chief, and the drooling MSM's who hang on his every word. You are completely dilusional if you think he's doing good so far. Why do I post so often about it? Because this happens to be a communtiy I frequent, and I try to help people here see what is really going on. I have been paying attention to what's going on in politics for the past 20+ years, but no one has enfuriated me more than the current administration and congress, who are completely trying to turn our country upside down into a socialist nation.

Exactly what do you think would prove to people like me (who are getting more and more pissed off at what him, Pelosi, and Reid are doing to this country) that he's actually done a good thing? I would really like to know what statistics you would believe prove their plan is working. When (and I am 100% sure that they will) the unemployment rates continue to increase, into double digits, and GDP continues to tank, what excuses are you going to be spouting? My guess would be whatever BS is coming from the administration and the MSM's.

As for him lowering taxes on anyone, forget it. He says he is doing it, but it's all smoke and mirrors. Call your local H&R block, CPA of choice, or knowledgeable tax establishment of your choice, and ask them about the new "tax cuts" he's written. They're phony. They're a loan. What the hell do you think "refundable tax credit" is? It means you have to pay it back. He has not lowered a single tax bracket, and he is eliminating deductions. This equals a net tax increase, without a rate change. Again, don't believe me, go ask someone who does it for a living, and who has actually read up on the changes.

And Harrington, you obviously don't get it, either. If you find it stupid to say that statistics don't lie, obviously rhetoric is all that you believe in, so an intelligent debate with you is pointless. Statistics given in a poll may be manipulated, because the poll can be configured to get the answers the poller wants, but cold hard statistics in the public records can't be argued with, in spite of Goodwrench's attempts in other threads.

I'm not necessarily a Republican nut swinger. I'm a conservative. I believe the Republican party has been making one blunder after another, and it needs to stop, and get it's sh!t together, which it seems might actually start happening now that they're up against the wall. However, when you get down to the real issues, they would never be doing what we are seeing now if they had the control. The problem is that when they had control, many of them were trying to be "moderate", but in reality, were simply not sticking by the principles that the party once stood for. There are some Democrats out there that I've been impressed with, because of their conservative principles. However, when the majority of the Democrats are pushing for more and more government, and even those conservative ones are voting party lines, it becomes a party issue again. I gave kudos to the ones who voted against the stimulus bill. I will also slam Republicans, such as my own two Senators, who give BS reasons for siding with their opposition. While I would still vote the same way in my state elections given the choices I had this past year, I am looking for someone to oppose them next round.

spoiler wrote:

J03Y Esquire wrote:Forcing a company to utilise overpriced labor

Company's move over seas to get cheap labor and to get a tax cut DUHHH!!!

I'm sorry is called "Greed"

Another foolish post proving you don't know a damned thing about the way the economy really works with these things. Companies don't just move jobs because they are greedy. They move jobs because the economics of whatever product or service they provide mandates a cutting of costs. In most cases, they are looking to cut costs because they are trying to be competitive. When they can not cut other costs to lower their price and be competitive, they look at outsourcing, building overseas facilities, etc., to cut costs that way. It is far more advantageous from the standpoint of management and other factors, such as lack of shipping products from overseas, for a company to have their entire operation in the country they are based. It costs companies vast amounts of money to set up an overseas operation. If they could continue to be profitable without moving jobs. Don't speak about that which you have no knowledge in.

Yep... .



Good luck on your ongoing mission to spread your ignorant .



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Quiklilcav wrote:

James (ROLN19S) (JuicyJ) wrote:It is WAY too early to ask this now anyway...

Just out of curiosity, how many trillions more does he have to spend on wasteful programs, and increasing entitlement programs, before it's enough time to make a judgement call on him? Personally, the way the "stimulus" plan was rammed through was bad enough, but on top of that, already increasing this year's budget, and submitting by far the largest budget ever for next year, which there is absolutely ZERO hope to ever pay for, the only way I could possibly be convinced he's not destroying everything that makes this country great would be if he came out one day and announced that he had made a huge mistake, and he's going to push for the repealing of all the bullsh!t spending that's been going on. But that will never happen. He just wants more and more and more, with absolutely no care of ever paying for it.

Now they're already putting through tax increases. Get ready for the unemployment rate to double and quite possibly worse within the next couple of years. I can only hope that 2010 is the turnaround we had in 94, and that the Republicans actually get their sh!t together, and blow the tax increases out of the water before they take effect.

NewAmericanTeaParty.com is a good place to start for anyone looking to oppose this massive trend of screwing the American people.

So, since you know EXACTLY what should have been done instead and know he is a failure and you can see into the future, Why didn't you run for President and save us all?? I would have voted for you, I mean you know the outcome of things before they actually take time to unfold, right?

Anyone else?? I bet most or the .org would have voted for you. You know that is like 98% of the US population. You'd for sure have won. 2012????

LOL. Goodwrench, not only do you fail at debating, but you fail at PS. Why don't you try answering the question? Have you completely run out of any substance, and now simply resort to more weak attempts at insulting?

And James, I know what's going to happen because it's been tried before. It's been tried more than once, and never works. It always has the same outcome: failure of the economy. Across the board actual tax rate decreases has resulted in stimulating the economy, and an increase in tax revenue, every time. And as I asked Goodwrench, why don't you try answering the question? How much does he have to spend, how many expansions in government does he have to sign, and how high do taxes need to go, before you think it's time to start questioning him? This guy came out of the gates cramming legislation through without giving anyone enough time to fully read and understand it, using fear tactics to scare everyone into believing it needs to be passed now before the world ends.

Quiklilcav wrote:Why don't you try answering the question?

Heh, I answered yours, yet no answer from mine. But that is typical from you.
Oh and BTW, it's MS Paint not PS, get it straight. lol



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Quiklilcav wrote:I know what's going to happen

No you don't,
you think you know what's going to happen.

if you do know what's going to happen, then tell us what do you think is going to happen 2 years from now. Are things going to get better or worst?
A. Better
B. worst
C. The same

2 years from now. okay?

I think:

A. Better
I think things are going to get better.

What do you know Mr.Quick?

Quiklilcav wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote: What is your objective by posting every day about Obama? Dude, you are obsessed with this man! Is your tin-foil hat that tight on you?

Because he, unlike any president we have had, is doing the most damage to this country, and every day he does, or says he's going to do, something worse. People need to open their eyes. You are one of the completely blind sheep out there, being lead around by the rhetoric and charisma of our liar-in-chief, and the drooling MSM's who hang on his every word. You are completely dilusional if you think he's doing good so far. Why do I post so often about it? Because this happens to be a communtiy I frequent, and I try to help people here see what is really going on. I have been paying attention to what's going on in politics for the past 20+ years, but no one has enfuriated me more than the current administration and congress, who are completely trying to turn our country upside down into a socialist nation.

Exactly what do you think would prove to people like me (who are getting more and more pissed off at what him, Pelosi, and Reid are doing to this country) that he's actually done a good thing? I would really like to know what statistics you would believe prove their plan is working. When (and I am 100% sure that they will) the unemployment rates continue to increase, into double digits, and GDP continues to tank, what excuses are you going to be spouting? My guess would be whatever BS is coming from the administration and the MSM's.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Quiklilcav wrote:Why don't you try answering the question?

Heh, I answered yours, yet no answer from mine. But that is typical from you.

Clearly you didn't, and if you're talking about me not answering your Reagan question, it's because we've been through that argument in another thread, you can't seem to understand facts (particularly how they are tied to the policies of the times), and this thread it not for another Reagan argument, it's about the current administration.

So I'll try this again, for you and for James: What statistics will you look to over the next couple of years to prove that these massive spending plans and tax increases are working, and where do you think those statistics should be at that time? What will be your answer when unemployment is up in the teens next year?

spoiler wrote:No you don't,
you think you know what's going to happen.

if you do know what's going to happen, then tell us what do you think is going to happen 2 years from now. Are things going to get better or worst?
A. Better
B. worst
C. The same

2 years from now. okay?

I think:

A. Better
I think things are going to get better.

What do you know Mr.Quick?

I know what will happen, not because I am clairvoyant, but because I know what has happened every time this type of thing has been done. Why don't you try studying the history of economics, and looking at facts. Particularly, compare statistics such as unemployment, GDP, and collected tax revenue contrasted against policy implementation during various presidencies. When taxes go up, revenue and economic activity go down. When taxes go down, economic activity, and collected tax revenue goes up.

So to answer your question:
B. worse
We will see lower GDP, higher unemployment, more failing businesses, and more people looking for the government to hand them something.

Next year, when we are in the position I'm telling you we are going to be in, will any one of you be willing to admit you were wrong, and that this administration and congress screwed our country over? I've already said that if the economy rebounds strongly, I will admit that I was wrong about Obama, but knowing the history of what has happened in this country when these type plans have been passed, I feel very strongly that I'm right.

By the way, Goodwrench, I forgot to add: in regards to Reagan increasing the tax on the lower bracket, you conveniently left out that he also increased the exemptions, and adjusted the brackets. He also removed deductions from higher income brackets. The end result was that the entire system was simpler, with less loopholes, and no one saw an actual increase in the amount of tax they paid. If you increase a marginal rate, but raise the level that the rate applies to, it is not a tax increase. Conversely, if you look at what is being done now, they are playing games: they are removing deductions, without changing the rates, and claiming they aren't raising taxes. However, people will pay more taxes, and not just "the rich" as everyone is so fond of repeating.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Sunday, March 01, 2009 8:05 AM

ThatGuy85 wrote:

J03Y Esquire wrote:

ThatGuy85 wrote:At least he's removing tax cuts for companies moving jobs overseas. You CANNOT argue that this is a bad move.

I certainly can. You do realise the companies that receive those tax breaks will now move somewhere else where they can get the tax breaks they need. Forcing a company to utilise overpriced labor will just push them away, thus resulting in even fewer jobs.

And I can speak to this personally, as I work in Global Resourcing for the largest financial institution in the world....that didn't take bailout money. Sorry, but why pay someone $30k + a year to do data input that a monkey on a typewriter can do, when you can utilise labor in other countries to do the same work for almost 1/3 the cost?

Trust me when I tell you, companies such as my employer are not based in the US, and will have no problem pulling out of the US all together.

So ya, that would result in thousands if not hundreds of thousands more jobs lost in the US.

Explain to me how forcing this upon companies will help? I would really like to hear your position on a subject you clearly are not thinking thru.

So, letting companies move jobs overseas is GOOD for the economy, right?

Look I'm not trying to say Obama is the golden prophet that America has been waiting for, but you cannot tell me that giving companies money to un-employ American's is a good plan! Removing the incentive for this plan would at least discourage companies from outsourcing their helpdesk and call centers to groups of people who can barely speak English. I would much rather companies lower pay rates for these "monkey on a typewriter" jobs rather than lose them altogether.

i gotta agree with joey on this one. first off it was brough up like bush only gave tax cuts to companies who sent jobs overseas. when in reality he gave tax cuts to all the countries. its sounds like a good thing at first but hell just take a look at gm. its floudering to stay alive now, it has workers overseas, now its going to cost them even more money to make cars. yeah that will help the us. im sorry but gone are the days when americans worked for cheap. now they want large salaries for doing a basic no skills job, thats not going to happen. tax the companies all you want you either going to push them out of the u.s. completly. or your going to run them out of business. the world is changing and america needs to either step up or just fall by the wayside. look at telemarketing jobs. they all went overseas several years ago for the cheap labor. and whats happening now? those jobs are starting to filter back to the u.s. because companies are learning they can do a better job here. there is no gaurentee that the job you have right now will be around in 40 years. not shoudl there be. its just life. you adjust and move on.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

For a real-world example that supports what Jason and Joey are talking about (and on point with what I said about companies actually being better off keeping everything in the country if possible), consider this: I heard an interview with a CEO of a manufacturing company (if I can remember who it was, I'll post it up) who currently employs about 2500 people. They have about 2000 US employees, and 500 employees in Mexico. They have been working toward bringing all of their operations into the US, to have 100% American employees, but after seeng what this administration is starting to do, they fear they may end up moving all operations out of the country. Reason? They can not manufacture their product for a competitive price. As they are seeing the cost increase through taxes, and increased potential of unionization, they may be forced to relocate entirely. This was straight from the mouth of a CEO who has been trying to make his company 100% US employees.

So I think we call all agree here that the problem is Unions, correct? American's expect too much money for a low-skill job. Going back to my previous point, I said I'd rather them lower the wages for these types of jobs rather than move them out of the country. Look at Wal-Mart, they are non-unionized, undercut nearly everyone on price, and have record profits. So if we somehow abolish unions or tax the hell out of them, then everyone wins, right? Great, problem solved. Next up: World Hunger.

unions are an issue but not the end all be all of the problem. the reality is the job market is changing and america has to change with it. lets look back say 50-60 years. a typical company may have employed a 1000 workers to run a assembly line. and along came someone who invented machines that could do that job of several employees at once. so now this shop has tons of robots doing the work and maybe only 200 employees now. image how the country would be today if all those workers got the president to ban all robots so the employees could keep their jobs. instead of forcing the goverment to stop production of robots they worked on getting those displaced workers into the robotics industry because now you have to make robots and repair these machines, people job skill changed to keep up with the change in the workplace. now is no diffrent. jobs are going overseas because its cheaper and easier to do the work over there versus overhere so peoples job skills need to change to do the things that need done over here. when you look at history losing jobs isn't new, wether a robot takes over your work or wether the job goes over seas and is no longer there, the guy is still out of work. so the unemployed person can sit there and grumble and try to force the goverment to "make" a job for them. or they can go out, find a field that needs workers and make a change in direction.

there are no gaurentees in this country that a field your in right now is going to be there in 50 years or 30 years or even 10 years. you have to learn to adapt. people are acting like this is the first time this ever happened (the us losing jobs) when if you look in the history books its happened a few times. just now its jobs going overseas versus a robot replacing a worker. no diffrence both men are unemployed.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

Quote:

Clearly you didn't, and if you're talking about me not answering your Reagan question, it's because we've been through that argument in another thread, you can't seem to understand facts (particularly how they are tied to the policies of the times), and this thread it not for another Reagan argument, it's about the current administration.

Yep that is exactly what I asking and they are all found on the first page. And yet.... YOU STILL DID NOT ANSWER THE F-ING QUESTIONS. Nothing new on your behalf. That for sure we went through.

See... it looks like you are here to start $hit instead to hide all the F.uck-ups that Bush did the last 8 years (AS IF WE ARE TO FORGET) instead coming to a solution and being constructive.
--But why Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. do you say that???
Well, You are bitching on the mass spending that Obama will do... Yet you fail to recognize, No... Bitch at what Nixon, Reagan or Bush Jr did? It is ok that they sky rocketed the debt up your ass and you make NO announcement or history reference on that (AND if you did, you would look like a total hypocrite... haha), yet Obama does it, and here you are like sensationalist FOX news reporter with 20 threads of it. Heh, and the man has only been in office for less then two months and you are crucifying him from left to right and how much of failure he will be. Hmmm that sound astoundly familiar? Oh that's right, that's what Rush Limbaugh preaches daily, what coincidence? Wait, stop, yhea.. I forgot who I'm dealing here.

You mention NO to tax hikes... and in 1986 Reagan hiked it nicely for the average middle class society and lowered tremendously on the highest tax bracket. Where are you talking about that? Where is that sensationalist reporter "Quicklittlecav" making history reference on that? (Wait..you did know he did that right? I forgot who I'm dealing here with) If so, why so one sided? If Reagan did it: it is ok. Nixon, the start of mass spending with the war in Vietnam is a mirror image to the occupation in Iraq today in terms of expense of uselessness. Why don't you criticize that?

Do you see where I am going with this? Much like the thread on intelligence and knowledge, you and your republican party have no room to talk.

Quote:

So I'll try this again, for you and for James: What statistics will you look to over the next couple of years to prove that these massive spending plans and tax increases are working, and where do you think those statistics should be at that time? What will be your answer when unemployment is up in the teens next year?

Heh... Buddy, unemployment will not get as high as in the Reagan era. Whoooooops! That is taboo when it comes to you and your threads.



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Yep that is exactly what I asking and they are all found on the first page. And yet.... YOU STILL DID NOT ANSWER THE F-ING QUESTIONS. Nothing new on your behalf. That for sure we went through.

See... it looks like you are here to start $hit instead to hide all the F.uck-ups that Bush did the last 8 years (AS IF WE ARE TO FORGET) instead coming to a solution and being constructive.
--But why Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. do you say that???
Well, You are bitching on the mass spending that Obama will do... Yet you fail to recognize, No... Bitch at what Nixon, Reagan or Bush Jr did? It is ok that they sky rocketed the debt up your ass and you make NO announcement or history reference on that (AND if you did, you would look like a total hypocrite... haha), yet Obama does it, and here you are like sensationalist FOX news reporter with 20 threads of it. Heh, and the man has only been in office for less then two months and you are crucifying him from left to right and how much of failure he will be. Hmmm that sound astoundly familiar? Oh that's right, that's what Rush Limbaugh preaches daily, what coincidence? Wait, stop, yhea.. I forgot who I'm dealing here.

You mention NO to tax hikes... and in 1986 Reagan hiked it nicely for the average middle class society and lowered tremendously on the highest tax bracket. Where are you talking about that? Where is that sensationalist reporter "Quicklittlecav" making history reference on that? (Wait..you did know he did that right? I forgot who I'm dealing here with) If so, why so one sided? If Reagan did it: it is ok. Nixon, the start of mass spending with the war in Vietnam is a mirror image to the occupation in Iraq today in terms of expense of uselessness. Why don't you criticize that?

Do you see where I am going with this? Much like the thread on intelligence and knowledge, you and your republican party have no room to talk.

Quote:

So I'll try this again, for you and for James: What statistics will you look to over the next couple of years to prove that these massive spending plans and tax increases are working, and where do you think those statistics should be at that time? What will be your answer when unemployment is up in the teens next year?

Heh... Buddy, unemployment will not get as high as in the Reagan era. Whoooooops! That is taboo when it comes to you and your threads.

As I've pointed out in the past, big capital letters doesn't make you right. You are proving yourself more of an idiot. It's clear that you seriously haven't even read half of anything I've ever posted. Just because I haven't said anything about Bush's spending in this thread, you blow a fuse and post another ignorant rant. I can picture the smoke coming from your ears while you typed it out. LOL. And now you want to bring Nixon into this? Seriously pathetic. You can't keep on a subject. Just like Obama's excuse for blowing the debt through the roof in his first month is that "well, I was handed the debt we have now", as if that justifies further deficit spending. If you want to debate on past presidencies, why don't you start another thread. Better yet, why don't you start one for each president you hate? Maybe you can start one for each president you are in love with, too.

Also, while I am against the level of spending being done, (and I have never said that Bush was any better in that department), it's more about how he and congress are spending the money right now. They are trying to chop down the producers of the country, and make as many people dependant on the government as possible. If you can't see it (which I'm guessing you can't), you're simply blind.

This thread was about what's going on right now in our country, but you would rather try to argue on sh!t that happened long ago, and leave out parts that blow holes in your theory. This is starting sh!t, (which you accuse me of doing). Again, you left out the fact that Reagan raised the breakpoints on the tax brackets, still making it a net tax cut. Of course, if you recognize that fact, then you can not b!tch about him raising taxes on the middle class while severely lowering them on the rich. Typical liberal BS. You also left out the fact that when he took office, the top marginal rate was 70%, not 50%. He brought it down to 50%, and then lowered it again to 38%, and then cut all of the brackets down so that there were essentially only 4 brackets, and the second from the top was the highest bracket. And yes, the largest cuts were on the rich, but that's because they were paying more than double the rates of the majority of Americans. This is completely unfair. But then again, the liberal version of "fair" is when everyone has the same amount of money, regardless of what they earned. Pelosi has even been quoted as having a goal of "equalizing income". Most likely a Freudian slip on her part, but it's a great illustration of the true liberal idealism. More of them have this belief than you'd like to think, and yes, Obama is one of them. He keeps talking like he's the great moderator between the parties, but it was very clear during the "stimulus" debates, that he was completely on the left, and wasn't going to give into the Republicans. Meeting with them was purely posturing for the people, so that he could say he tried to include them, but they were unreasonable.

To use some serious statistics that should really wake people up (I don't expect that you will wake up, this is for anyone listening in), right now, 20% of Americans pay 80% of the tax burden. Under the Obama tax plan, that same 20% would pay 90% of the burden. But to you, that must be fair, because the people who work their ass off and make a lot of money need to be taken down, because they don't deserve it. All of them just screwed the poor to get where they are, right?

And you seriously don't think we're going to get to even 11% unemployment? Pure delusion. I'll be pleasantly surprised if we're not there this year, and well beyond that in 2010.

So again, are you capable of staying on topic, and answering the relevant questions that I posed, or would you rather waste time pissing and moaning about the past in a thread about our present and future, as if somehow it makes everything that's going on right now OK.

I wanted to add this quote from JFK (yes, I'm quoting a Democrat--you can sh!t your pants now, Goodwrench) regarding tax revenues and the budget:

Quote:

"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."

This is true, and has been proven every time taxes have been lowered. Want another history lesson regarding tax cuts? Here's one since you love to Reagan bash: The share of income taxes paid by the top 10% of earners jumped significantly in the 80's, climbing from 48% in 1981 to 57.2% in 1988. The top 1% saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6% in 1981 to 27.5% in 1988.

Source: Historical Lessons of Lowering Taxes

might as well






and lets not forget,


Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Sunday, March 01, 2009 5:35 PM

deficit spending- since it worked so well for president hoover.




Check out my build thread!

spoiler wrote:might as well

Yep, might as well, since you can't post anything of substance that's actually on topic.

ThatGuy85 wrote:So, letting companies move jobs overseas is GOOD for the economy, right?

Look I'm not trying to say Obama is the golden prophet that America has been waiting for, but you cannot tell me that giving companies money to un-employ American's is a good plan! Removing the incentive for this plan would at least discourage companies from outsourcing their helpdesk and call centers to groups of people who can barely speak English. I would much rather companies lower pay rates for these "monkey on a typewriter" jobs rather than lose them altogether.

Did you read my last post, or glance thru it?

removing the incentive will not discourage them from outsourcing. If anything it will make them want to move to another country all together, not say "oh, we're getting less tax cuts and will need to pay more for our employees..LETS HIRE MORE PEOPLE!!!"

As far as lowering the pay rates for these jobs, not only would you get minimal applicants, but you would also get a very small percentage of educated people. You know those people that can barely put together the Whopper you're about to eat......ya, I certainly want those people as the voice to my customers.

At least with people, in India for example....have a much higher level of education than the people in the US that work the same call center jobs. Most that we recruit have an MBA and work their way up the ladder like it's supposed to work....not how some government or short sighted American thinks it should. They work hard, and earn their way, whether you like their accent or not. Some uneducated random person does not deserve a job solely based on the fact they are American. You have to earn it, not have it given to you.

So for an example....we'll use you applying for a call center. Why should a company be mandated to hire you as opposed to using cheaper labor? With my info above, let's take you, with "some college"(from your profile). I should hire you with less education than say those in India that have an MBA AND work for 1/3 the cost. What is my motivation to hire you instead? Because you are American?

Believing it is the governments job to provide jobs is not only ridiculous, but scary that people actually believe that.

Quote:

I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.

If you disagree with that last bolded sentence, please do not ever reply to me again in a political thread as I will not read nor reply your post.


also, You know Obama wants to tax those who make $250k or more right? And guess who falls in that $250,000 and up category? SMALL BUSINESS. 68% of all those small businesses are going to be paying those higher taxes. Tell me where is their incentive is to keep the shop open, or even keep employees and hire more?


phew.........what a rant Anyway, the moral of the story is you can't expect the government to provide you or anyone else a job. And you also can't assume that every job in the country is liable to be outsourced.


edit: and to answer your question "So, letting companies move jobs overseas is GOOD for the economy, right?"

yes, it allows companies to continue to operate in our country and generate revenue, as opposed to a complete relocation to another country where all jobs are lost.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, March 02, 2009 10:11 AM