Ron Paul!

[almost40]

Originally Posted by alex.s

point C: at least one company (supposedly apple) isn't completely corrupt, holding far too much power over our government in the form of unlimited campaign contributions through PACs or the annonymous shell corporations donating to those PACs, or through the use of lobbyists or annonymous gifts and or free trips.

I didnt say anything about being corrupt or pac money. I was just pointing out the irony of protesting the very corprate "big-wigs" that make modern life possible.

[almost40]

Heres a picture of a Ron Paul supporter at the protests.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

Herman Cain is my man.

I like Cain...but I fear he wont get enough traction or money......Im starting to think were stuck with Romney.....I cant stand Romney.

My choice in order as of today would be Cain, Perry, Newt, Bachman, then Romney.

[CynicalC]

I just think you are confused and think the protests are some kind of campaign for Ron Paul. While there might be many Ron Paul supporters there, that has nothing to do with the occupation - even if one of them is holding a sign.

I'm not here to argue with you. I just post things that are relevant to the topic of discussion; here being Ron Paul as denoted by the thread title.

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by almost40

I didnt say anything about being corrupt or pac money. I was just pointing out the irony of protesting the very corprate "big-wigs" that make modern life possible.

you're right, I did. because clearly you have no idea why people are protesting.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by alex.s

you're right, I did. because clearly you have no idea why people are protesting.

Please enlighten us.
It seems to me the protests are a moving target depending on the day and location.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by almost40

I like Cain...but I fear he wont get enough traction or money......Im starting to think were stuck with Romney.....I cant stand Romney.

My choice in order as of today would be Cain, Perry, Newt, Bachman, then Romney.

Cain is picking up speed. I think he really has a chance. Besides they cant say your just a racist if youre voting for him right? lol but I guess a lot of black liberals are calling him an "uncle tom" so yeah damn you Herman Cain for making money on your own and being a successful black man... You need to think the like the rest of the liberals and say you need special privileges and such!

Originally Posted by almost40

Please enlighten us.
It seems to me the protests are a moving target depending on the day and location.

I would agree with this, the protest have a pretty GENERAL theme they are protesting, there is NOTHING that they will accomplish, except look like a bunch of stupid hipsters. Their "demands" if you want to call them that are for the most part unreasonable...

Ron Paul is a nut. Plain and simple. I like some of his ideas, but then he says a bunch of crazy impossible stuff... to each their own, but he's not my guy if he encourages this type of stupid ****.

[shiroganeshinobi]

Jon Huntsman was the best bet for republicans because he was the most grounded candidate. I love all the references to Reagan during the debates when even Regan himself would not pass Republican standards today because he would be too liberal. This is how perverted the Republican base has become through the hyper basis of the tea party.

The OWS protesters arent against corporations but the unfairness of upper level management of them. Here's a graphic that summarizes what wrong with the middle class aka the 99% The bottom half of that graphic speaks the whole truth. There are other reasons for the protests but that's one of the main ones.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

Jon Huntsman was the best bet for republicans because he was the most grounded candidate. I love all the references to Reagan during the debates when even Regan himself would not pass Republican standards today because he would be too liberal. This is how perverted the Republican base has become through the hyper basis of the tea party.

The OWS protesters arent against corporations but the unfairness of upper level management of them. Here's a graphic that summarizes what wrong with the middle class aka the 99% The bottom half of that graphic speaks the whole truth. There are other reasons for the protests but that's one of the main ones.

Wall Street isnt to blame for the disappearance of the middle class...

[alex.s]

i don't know if you guys realize this or not but the protesters have already accomplished quite a bit. public opinion. people are talking about it.

and almost40... i will copy and paste what i already wrote because you seem to have glanced over it without giving it any thought:

[companies are] completely corrupt, holding far too much power over our government in the form of unlimited campaign contributions through PACs or the annonymous shell corporations donating to those PACs, or through the use of lobbyists or annonymous gifts and or free trips.

laws preventing corporate corruption and government corruption by corporations no longer have any effect at stopping things like open bribes of political offices. people don't like it.

[massacremasses]

Ok they are upset about the corruption or the disappearance of the middle class? Or they are blaming it on the corruption. Companies, like people are going to do what they do to get what they want. Its the govt. who has allowed itself to become corrupted. Thats what needs to change. We need to fix the corruption in the govt. itself. laws and regulations arent gonna help. Putting moral men and women in office who will not let themselves become corrupt will solve problems. Men are greedy this will not change. Lets put the most moral people we can find in office. This is when we will see real "change"

[Heed]

Newt Gingrich ?

Mitt Romney ?

Michele Bachmann is an evangelical airhead, says gas will be <$2 again

Rick Perry doesn't believe in evolution and will probably pray for jobs just like he prayed for rain in Texas

Ron Paul won't get elected because he tells it like it is.

Herman Cain: "I don't have facts to back this up, but herpity derp... If you don't have a job, blame yourself"

Rick Santorum ?

John Huntsman ?

[massacremasses]

because the alternatives are so great....

[alex.s]

you contradict yourself more than once.

"men are greedy this will not change." so finding another greedy man to take bribes is the answer??? you won't find someone who wants to go into politics to save the world that is successful. look at ron paul. isn't greedy, doesn't take as many bribes, completely ignored by mainstream media and corporations. i wonder why that is? you should listen to the statement released by the protestors. they aren't protesting companies. they aren't protesting government. they're protesting the citizens of the US that let this **** happen. we let our government change laws allowing this corruption. we have noone to blame but ourselves for not standing up sooner. now when we do stand up you criticize? maybe instead of calling protestors names you should support the idea that a government should be regulated by the people, not solely by the government. when the government isn't doing what you want it to what do you suggest people do? the only thing people really can do (aside from voting which doesn't change anything when all the candidates are corrupt) is protest. after protest doesn't work the next step is revolt. hopefully it doesn't get that far.

there needs to be accountability against corruption. it should be *illegal* to take unlimited campaign contributions. it should be *illegal* to take gifts from lobbyists or free trips or speaking jobs. but it's not anymore. these are bribes with fancy names attached to them. which means people who are taking advantage of those loopholes have no means for being punished. which means it will become more and more prevalent.

Originally Posted by massacremasses

Ok they are upset about the corruption or the disappearance of the middle class? Or they are blaming it on the corruption. Companies, like people are going to do what they do to get what they want. Its the govt. who has allowed itself to become corrupted. Thats what needs to change. We need to fix the corruption in the govt. itself. laws and regulations arent gonna help. Putting moral men and women in office who will not let themselves become corrupt will solve problems. Men are greedy this will not change. Lets put the most moral people we can find in office. This is when we will see real "change"

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by alex.s

you contradict yourself more than once.

"men are greedy this will not change." so finding another greedy man to take bribes is the answer??? you won't find someone who wants to go into politics to save the world that is successful. look at ron paul. isn't greedy, doesn't take as many bribes, completely ignored by mainstream media and corporations. i wonder why that is? you should listen to the statement released by the protestors. they aren't protesting companies. they aren't protesting government. they're protesting the citizens of the US that let this **** happen. we let our government change laws allowing this corruption. we have noone to blame but ourselves for not standing up sooner. now when we do stand up you criticize? maybe instead of calling protestors names you should support the idea that a government should be regulated by the people, not solely by the government. when the government isn't doing what you want it to what do you suggest people do? the only thing people really can do (aside from voting which doesn't change anything when all the candidates are corrupt) is protest. after protest doesn't work the next step is revolt. hopefully it doesn't get that far.

I dont think you understand. I have no problem with protesting. I have a problem with what they claim to be protesting and how they are going about it. People have a reason to be angry. However the whole "occupy wallstreet" thing is stupid. Most of those kids dont know wtf they are even protesting. Ive seen plenty of them say its bullshit that they have to pay student loans and that the govt wont pay stuff for them. This makes no sense to me. Youre upset with corruption and greed yet you want the govt. to help you out?

I can get behind Ron Paul when he talks about keeping the govt. out of peoples lives, but a lot of these people obviously still want the govt. help, they are just pissed that some people have more money then them. They are pissed at the "fat cats" in wall street that make all the money leaving them so poor... Ok so do something. Get a job, invent something. This is why I liked what Herman Cain said. While I dont know if these protesters are "jealous" they need to sack up and get jobs and earn their own money.

If they were solely pissed at the corruption I could be behind it. But, again,I cant be behind a protest where in one interview I hear. "We are tired of the greed" Then in the next hear "These people have all this money and I dont have anything, they should be paying off my loans and my bills" WAIT WHAT? So you are tired of greed? but you dont want to pay your own bills? THAT would seem a bit hypocritical....

as for contradicting myself... I dont think I did. Men are greedy, but there are moral men that I think have the ability to push back their "greedy nature" and be decent human beings. So Im not sure where you got that I wanted "more greedy men in office"

If you like Ron Paul more power to you, Hes not my favorite. If that offends you then so be it.

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

Ok they are upset about the corruption or the disappearance of the middle class? Or they are blaming it on the corruption. Companies, like people are going to do what they do to get what they want. Its the govt. who has allowed itself to become corrupted. Thats what needs to change. We need to fix the corruption in the govt. itself. laws and regulations arent gonna help. Putting moral men and women in office who will not let themselves become corrupt will solve problems. Men are greedy this will not change. Lets put the most moral people we can find in office. This is when we will see real "change"

You blame government but you dont think the people who influence government has no blame? Money talks and guess who has all the money? You rub my back, I'll rub yours? Regulations help keep greed in check but if written in legalese then someone is going to find a way to backdoor it. Lack of regulation means no one is on my back while I exploit the system. That's not everyone but if one person gets away then everyone will do it. Look at CDOs, it was going to be regulated but Rubin/Summers said no under Clinton.

How isnt Wall Street partly responsible for the disappearance of the middle class? You mean those bonuses they get to kept for laying off people and cutting wages has nothing to do with that? Reckless speculation in the markets, especially commodities? Have you been listening to the news that middle class wages are down 6%? If you dont see what's wrong with the "1%" in this country then you dont see the ultimate picture.

The power resides with the people. When the un-informed people are brainwashed into believing the 1%, then we're divided like we are now. The middle class is what makes America great but we're dying. Understand why we are dying. Listen and articulate what the other side is saying and not dismiss it because you don't agree. Understand why you don't agree.

Yes, it's our fault we vote people into office when they do a 180 when they get there. Liberals projected Obama to be the agent of change when in reality, Obama is a moderate conservative. Yet he rode that ticket all the way to office. Check out Professor Cornell West's criticism of him, it's pretty spot on.

[massacremasses]

Ok I can go along with the "its our fault" thought process...

We have allowed it to get the way it is with voting the way we do... (not me in particular I would argue)


How is Obama a moderate conservative? Under Obama there has been MORE spending, and MORE regulation. This doesnt seem very conservative to me... This is why Bush wasnt a good conservative. Under Bush we saw more spending (a lot of because of the "war on terror") he even created another govt. office (homeland security) by making the govt. bigger he went against his conservative base. Obama has done things on the mark with what a liberal would do. More govt. spending and more regulations. Making us go further into debt then even Bush....

but I digress...

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

How is Obama a moderate conservative? Under Obama there has been MORE spending, and MORE regulation. This doesnt seem very conservative to me... This is why Bush wasnt a good conservative. Under Bush we saw more spending (a lot of because of the "war on terror") he even created another govt. office (homeland security) by making the govt. bigger he went against his conservative base. Obama has done things on the mark with what a liberal would do. More govt. spending and more regulations. Making us go further into debt then even Bush....

Why is spending a liberal agenda? What is war spending then, how come we cant cut that? Why is regulation liberal too? Are we saying we should let banks and corporations make more money while they are sitting on now?

Not a real article but it gets you thinking.

Op/ED in NYT kinda confirms that thinking.

Then Matt Tabbbi says his piece

Also a good opinion piece on why the Democratic party is broken

Why the republican party is broken

Then you ultimately realize



If you read any of those links congrats! You might have an idea of how screwed we are!

[massacremasses]

lol I already know how screwed we are....


Im a nut too I guess. I dont really even believe in politics. Its front for the trilateral commission. There are three families in power. Its been this way for awhile...

But I play the game.



Also I hate the idea of communism and socialism. These occupy wallstreet guys seem to be under illusion that more regulation, perhaps like a socialist state, would be better. Anti capitalism to me = anti-american. Socialism isnt the answer. Remember the Soviet Union? Remember their revolution? IMO there is a strong resemblance... Of course the Russians had it a lot worse...

[Xoulrath]

Originally Posted by alex.s

i don't know if you guys realize this or not but the protesters have already accomplished quite a bit. public opinion. people are talking about it.

Yeah, talking about how damn stupid they are.

Sorry but the protesters are idiots. Most of them don't even know what they are protesting. A lot of them are college students with no clue how real life works.

And I agree with Herman Cain. Get off your ass and get a job. Don't blame everyone else. There ARE jobs out there. If you have been out of work for more than six months, then suck it up and work WHEREVER is hiring. You don't have the luxury of being picky. You may get paid less than you are worth. Who cares. It's money, and you aren't being a parasite. I get paid a third of what I'm worth, to do a job that requires a unique skill set and that no one else wants. In fairness, I do love my job, and it has opened avenues for my future growth. However, I'm still not paid what I'm worth. It makes it easier since I love it, but the pay still sucks. These deadbeats need to put the protest signs down and start filling out applications.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by Xoulrath

Yeah, talking about how damn stupid they are.

Sorry but the protesters are idiots. Most of them don't even know what they are protesting. A lot of them are college students with no clue how real life works.

And I agree with Herman Cain. Get off your ass and get a job. Don't blame everyone else. There ARE jobs out there. If you have been out of work for more than six months, then suck it up and work WHEREVER is hiring. You don't have the luxury of being picky. You may get paid less than you are worth. Who cares. It's money, and you aren't being a parasite. I get paid a third of what I'm worth, to do a job that requires a unique skill set and that no one else wants. In fairness, I do love my job, and it has opened avenues for my future growth. However, I'm still not paid what I'm worth. It makes it easier since I love it, but the pay still sucks. These deadbeats need to put the protest signs down and start filling out applications.

Exactly, and the only people "praising" them are other political idiots like Nancy Pelosi...

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by Xoulrath

Yeah, talking about how damn stupid they are.

Sorry but the protesters are idiots. Most of them don't even know what they are protesting. A lot of them are college students with no clue how real life works.

And I agree with Herman Cain. Get off your ass and get a job. Don't blame everyone else. There ARE jobs out there. If you have been out of work for more than six months, then suck it up and work WHEREVER is hiring. You don't have the luxury of being picky. You may get paid less than you are worth. Who cares. It's money, and you aren't being a parasite. I get paid a third of what I'm worth, to do a job that requires a unique skill set and that no one else wants. In fairness, I do love my job, and it has opened avenues for my future growth. However, I'm still not paid what I'm worth. It makes it easier since I love it, but the pay still sucks. These deadbeats need to put the protest signs down and start filling out applications.

Link to original page on YouTube.

[Xoulrath]

Give me a break. I could barely stomach that garbled mess.

The Nazis in the 1920s? How about America in the 1920s and the housing problems we had as a country back then? This housing bust isn't new; it has happened before. So much for learning from history. The government is not going to protect you. If they were, then they would never have forced the sub-prime market. Whether it was banks lobbying and pushing for it for new blood or whether it was just some politician trying to get votes doesn't even matter. The government did this. They don't solve problems, they create them. They don't produce, they steal what they have.

Answer me this: When all of the productive people who work and can take care of themselves are gone, who will the government tax for all of these social programs? It is so painfully obvious that some people want nothing more than a free ride. It amazes me every time people complain about jobs going overseas. They go overseas because people with the same education level are working for half as much or less and doing a better job. You would have to be a colossal idiot to NOT want to do this if you owned a business where this was a viable solution.

I concede we need a few regulations for businesses. I think the laws regarding corporations are horsesh*t. I do not agree, however, that all of our problems are because of a few rich people, at least not in the sense of businesses. I do believe that most of our problems come from people who spend more time trying to stay in office in positions of power, than they spend actually doing their jobs. Government has grown bloated and it needs to go on a diet. Taxes need to be payed by ALL citizens, especially those who end up benefiting the most from them.

And Chomsky is absolutely right about one thing: The government is doing a great job of keeping ignorant, uneducated masses from blaming them for any of this, despite the fact they have all the power. So, yes, the people are being distracted, just not as he states.

Try again.

[shiroganeshinobi]

Really, that video was bad? Isn't the current criticism of occupy wall street the same as the tea party in that video?

Everyone was angry about the recession and bailouts. We wanted answers and we "got our answers". Did you stop to think to consider the different answers being presented or did you just accept what you heard through your normal new sources. The video touches upon on this idea at least twice.

The government is suppose to protect us. How can it protect us when it is rigged in favor of the other side? Yes, we elect these people but how was it they were able spread their campaign message so successfully? Who helped put these people in office?

Jobs went oversea due to companies wanting to make more money by paying slave labor overseas rather than a fair wage at home. How much profit is enough? When does it become too much money? Do you not want to see your fellow American neighbor to prosper and do as well?

Why does the wealth in this country matter? Since it seems most people are too hassled to click and read links, here's another quick video. This is where part of our money is.

We are a consumer based economy. Businesses make money when we spend money at their business. How many of us are there compared to the 1%? What happens when we dont get raises or a fair wage? We don't spend as much at these businesses. So what did we do? We used credit, aka the bubble since wages were stagnated. Now we dont have credit, so we don't spend as much. Businesses don't profit as much, layoffs and paycuts occur and then we spiral towards doom.

Based on the video, now our money is concentrated at the top. What do they do with that money at the top? Not create jobs because they don't spend it, they hoard it. Here's a bonus link if you think the CRA was responsible for the housing bubble but I doubt anyone will read it.

[almost40]

Just an FYI for those arguing about outsourcing.
The main reason outsourcing has occured is not due to the bankers or "fat cats" on wall street or free trade agreements or whatever other reason you have been spoon fed.
Take a good look at the corprate tax rates in the US. (2nd higest in the world behind Japan at just shy of 40%) Ironic that outsourcing picked up steam as the corprate tax rates in all the other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries dropped.
Interesting to me how the economic explosition in China seemed to correlate with the 10 point reduction in the countrys corprate tax rate. (to 25%) Add to that less government regulation (yes, less regulation in a communist country. Go figure) and it all adds up to dollars and cents for any corparation to locate all or part of there facilites in China. Then you factor in labor costs, property taxes, and shipping costs (to name just a few) and you will find out that its cheaper to produce nearly anything in china.
Only an incompetent CEO would not locate all or part of the companys operations elsewhere. Most CEO's have to answer to the stockholders. (thats the common-folk...not the fat-cats) Hard to explain away why it cost more to produce goods here in the states than it does in china and why you as CEO are costing the company money.
The solution is to make the US competitive in the tax arena and buisness will boom, right here in the United States. Its pretty simple. If Im paying 40% taxes here in the states and 25% in china along with another 5% to ship the goods to the states. who wouldnt try to keep that extra 10%?? The shareholders will demand it.

Heres a grap to help make my point.
look up when outsourcing really picked up steam....bet you will find it matches the below graph.
Ironic how the econmic boom and balancing of the budget (on paper) occured during the years that the US had a lower or at least close to the OECD avg corprate tax rate. Make the tax code competitive and companys will locate here in the US.
The outsourcing is picking up steam as the gap in the tax rates widens. Its plainly obvious.
Go ahead and believe that its not the feds fault. Ask the fed to tax those evil people more and blame the producers of good and services for something they cant control but have to pay. (no matter how much they donate to either political party)
Nothing like a little marxist/communist propagand for the masses who are not informed enough to understand econmics.
Its not the feds fault, (ask them...thats what they tell you) Trust us, its those damn "fat-cats" that caused this mess. Now.... go protest those greedy ba$tards, and off to wall street we go with our little signs and sound-bites
Lemmings, mindless robots.... the lot of them

[massacremasses]

BOOM Headshot.



I agree with you 100%. Our companies biggest competitor just moved their plant Mexico. How are we suppose to compete with that? Their labor is now cheaper, their land is cheaper, they pay next to nothing in taxes.... seriously... HOW ARE WE SUPPOSE TO COMPETE WITH THAT? meanwhile here in CA they want to raise more state taxes, raise our workmans comp ins. take our free enterprise zone away...

We can barely compete now... How are we suppose to compete like that? Its almost impossible to be competitive if you produce in the US now! We've done this to ourselves. I just hope and pray we can get out of CA before all this **** hits the fan and we are stuck here. but I digress...

[almost40]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

BOOM Headshot.



I agree with you 100%. Our companies biggest competitor just moved their plant Mexico. How are we suppose to compete with that? Their labor is now cheaper, their land is cheaper, they pay next to nothing in taxes.... seriously... HOW ARE WE SUPPOSE TO COMPETE WITH THAT? meanwhile here in CA they want to raise more state taxes, raise our workmans comp ins. take our free enterprise zone away...

We can barely compete now... How are we suppose to compete like that? Its almost impossible to be competitive if you produce in the US now! We've done this to ourselves. I just hope and pray we can get out of CA before all this **** hits the fan and we are stuck here. but I digress...

It happens every day... weather its China, Mexico or even Canada They are all more buisness friendly than the US. But hey we can still play the class warfare card. then the racisim card and any other card that divides the people. Nothing like a little divide and conquer to usher in the socialist/marxist agenda. Off the cliff they march....hand in hand like good little mindless automatons. Goebbels would be proud.

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by almost40

Just an FYI for those arguing about outsourcing.
The main reason outsourcing has occured is not due to the bankers or "fat cats" on wall street or free trade agreements or whatever other reason you have been spoon fed.
Take a good look at the corprate tax rates in the US. (2nd higest in the world behind Japan at just shy of 40%) Ironic that outsourcing picked up steam as the corprate tax rates in all the other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries dropped.
Interesting to me how the economic explosition in China seemed to correlate with the 10 point reduction in the countrys corprate tax rate. (to 25%) Add to that less government regulation (yes, less regulation in a communist country. Go figure) and it all adds up to dollars and cents for any corparation to locate all or part of there facilites in China. Then you factor in labor costs, property taxes, and shipping costs (to name just a few) and you will find out that its cheaper to produce nearly anything in china.
Only an incompetent CEO would not locate all or part of the companys operations elsewhere. Most CEO's have to answer to the stockholders. (thats the common-folk...not the fat-cats) Hard to explain away why it cost more to produce goods here in the states than it does in china and why you as CEO are costing the company money.
The solution is to make the US competitive in the tax arena and buisness will boom, right here in the United States. Its pretty simple. If Im paying 40% taxes here in the states and 25% in china along with another 5% to ship the goods to the states. who wouldnt try to keep that extra 10%?? The shareholders will demand it.

Heres a grap to help make my point.
look up when outsourcing really picked up steam....bet you will find it matches the below graph.
Ironic how the econmic boom and balancing of the budget (on paper) occured during the years that the US had a lower or at least close to the OECD avg corprate tax rate. Make the tax code competitive and companys will locate here in the US.
The outsourcing is picking up steam as the gap in the tax rates widens. Its plainly obvious.
Go ahead and believe that its not the feds fault. Ask the fed to tax those evil people more and blame the producers of good and services for something they cant control but have to pay. (no matter how much they donate to either political party)
Nothing like a little marxist/communist propagand for the masses who are not informed enough to understand econmics.
Its not the feds fault, (ask them...thats what they tell you) Trust us, its those damn "fat-cats" that caused this mess. Now.... go protest those greedy ba$tards, and off to wall street we go with our little signs and sound-bites
Lemmings, mindless robots.... the lot of them

Your graph shows me a corporate tax rate if nothing else. I need a hard objective data showing that outsourcing/globalization was a direct effect of a high corporate tax rate. Could you cite a source saying that China's economy is less regulated than the US? I would argue it's the opposite due to its technocracy.

I do agree it's cheaper to produce in China. If you're saving the costs there, what happens to that extra money? You say it goes to the shareholders only? What about compensation and bonuses? I'm drawing the picture of slow redistribution of wealth in the US.

Do you not agree that we the consumers drive the economy? Yes or no? Does a business not make a sale or profit when someone buys from them? What happens when we don't buy from them? I don't post sound bites, I read and think, do you? I see no questions regarding my content but the standard conservative response? What if I told you to google "Karl Marx was right". Would that idea blow your mind? It is a compelling observation.

massacremasses, you talk of competition, but with who? Consumers will buy who they trust to make a quality product. You see this here all the time. Why buy dainese over A*? Look at apple. Expensive but beautiful products. Look at say Toyota vs KIA? If you make a cheaper product, consumers will know. If you can make a comparable product to your competitor at a cheaper price, good for you. What do you do with that money? That's part of the million dollar question.

Here's a better question. Why do you think it's the fed's fault. Can you post a source backing up your claim?

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

massacremasses, you talk of competition, but with who? Consumers will buy who they trust to make a quality product. You see this here all the time. Why buy dainese over A*? Look at apple. Expensive but beautiful products. Look at say Toyota vs KIA? If you make a cheaper product, consumers will know. If you can make a comparable product to your competitor at a cheaper price, good for you. What do you do with that money? That's part of the million dollar question.

Here's a better question. Why do you think it's the fed's fault. Can you post a source backing up your claim?

You want me to link our competitors? I can Im just trying to see what you want?

and using apple is a not a good example since THEY OUTSOURCE the production of their units. Your ipad was not made here...

Sooo now the "why I think its the fed's fault" well in my case we are seeing more of a problem with the local govt. (CA) then the federal govt. HOWEVER the federal govt. isnt helping since what CA does it usually adopts as a federal standard within a year or so. I first need to understand where you are coming from and your worldview so I dont waste my time trying to explain myself. Why do you think its NOT the Govts fault? Are you a socialist? Do think that system is better then capitalism? Im not going to call you unamerican or anything silly like that if you are I just need to see where you are coming from to explain my views in a matter that would make the most sense to your view point.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by almost40

Take a good look at the corprate tax rates in the US. (2nd higest in the world behind Japan at just shy of 40%) Ironic that outsourcing picked up steam as the corprate tax rates in all the other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries dropped.

...snip...

The solution is to make the US competitive in the tax arena and buisness will boom, right here in the United States. Its pretty simple. If Im paying 40% taxes here in the states and 25% in china along with another 5% to ship the goods to the states. who wouldnt try to keep that extra 10%?? The shareholders will demand it.

This is called cherry-picking statistics to support a viewpoint, rather than actually using data to produce a viewpoint. The stated top corporate tax rate in the US is almost a meaningless figure, as the effective tax rate is significantly less, and has gone down over time. The tax code is so complicated that the larger and more savvy the organization, the less taxes they ultimately pay. If you look at the actual corp taxes paid over GDP, the number is even much lower than just about any 1st world (and some 2nd world) countries. Saying that the miraculous 40% number is the problem, and if it were lowered business would boom, is ignoring the fact that in reality the number is already much lower than that. And as it goes lower, somehow business hasn't boomed. Why is that?

Originally Posted by almost40

Nothing like a little marxist/communist propagand for the masses who are not informed enough to understand econmics.

The fact that people disagree with you doesn't make them dumb by default.

Originally Posted by almost40

Its not the feds fault, (ask them...thats what they tell you) Trust us, its those damn "fat-cats" that caused this mess. Now.... go protest those greedy ba$tards, and off to wall street we go with our little signs and sound-bites
Lemmings, mindless robots.... the lot of them

I have no particular affiliation or excitement about these particular protesters. I would tend to agree with those who feel they are wasting their time, would be just as happy to protest just about anything, and likely have no idea about any real solutions to economic problems. But if I were to point out people in my mind who are much closer to lemmings and mindless robots, it would be those who are so bound to the idea that over taxing and over regulation is driving business from our shores, and simply lowering taxes and rolling back regulation is the answer to grow business. The facts just don't support it, and simply never have. Of course, there are always the soundbites to point to "this regulation about the spotted owl is silly". But none of that has a material effect on why it's cheaper for foxcon to build ipads in China than it would be in Des Moines. It's not a tax rate issue, as the taxes are in bulk mitigated already by savvy tax accounting and keeping dollars out of the US in the first place (Apple has $70B+ sitting offshore). It's not a regulation issue, as that's just not the true driver of costs. Labor + materials are always going to be the key in manufacturing and many other industries, and if those are easily available at a cheaper cost, that's the conundrum. The way out is not to wish that that Foxcon would build worker dormitories in the midwest with workers willing to live on $2,000 yearly. The way out is to continue to develop ideas, products, services, that aren't so easily duplicated in an uber-cheap labor market thousands of miles away. That requires a skilled work force, a strong education system, and yes, the initiative of individuals and corporations to succeed in a challenging environment. The extreme ideas on the right (gov't bad, all tax is bad, lowering any particular rate is always a net gain, damn the consequences) are just as silly as the extreme ideas on the left (individuals should rely solely on the gov't to fix all problems, wealth as a concept is bad, all corporations by definition are evil).

These problems are never simple, and nor would any thoughtful individual actually believe them to be. Couple that with the fact that political climate means that there isn't any viable way forward to actually change any of the underlying issues, and we're set for some interesting times.

And just to keep this post on topic, no, Ron Paul is not and will never be the answer.

[almost40]

The first thing that jumps out at me alex is apples 70 billion offshore. The reason it is still offshore is..... the tax code.
Want the money back here in the states?? repeat 2005


In 2005, U.S. corporations were permitted to bring earnings back from overseas that normally would have remained abroad for tax reasons, declare them as taxable profits, and pay a steeply discounted tax rate of 5.75%.


I dont have time to go into detail this min. but rest assured I will tomorow.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by almost40

In 2005, U.S. corporations were permitted to bring earnings back from overseas that normally would have remained abroad for tax reasons, declare them as taxable profits, and pay a steeply discounted tax rate of 5.75%.

Yes, but the knock against doing it again is that it didn't actually help. Significant numbers of new jobs weren't created, R&D spending didn't go up much, and overall growth didn't occur. The reasons for doing it didn't pan out, and the reasons are exactly the same this time. If it were to come to pass again, the hope is that there are more requirements to meet to get such a gift. I.E. tax rate on those inbound dollars is X% if some metric on jobs or other investment is made, but the tax rate goes higher if those metrics aren't met within a fairly short time period.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

Yes, but the knock against doing it again is that it didn't actually help. Significant numbers of new jobs weren't created, R&D spending didn't go up much, and overall growth didn't occur. The reasons for doing it didn't pan out, and the reasons are exactly the same this time. If it were to come to pass again, the hope is that there are more requirements to meet to get such a gift. I.E. tax rate on those inbound dollars is X% if some metric on jobs or other investment is made, but the tax rate goes higher if those metrics aren't met within a fairly short time period.

And theres some truth to that (alot of it).....but it is the tax code or the fed that is holding up the show and keeping the money abroad.

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

You want me to link our competitors? I can Im just trying to see what you want?

and using apple is a not a good example since THEY OUTSOURCE the production of their units. Your ipad was not made here...

Sooo now the "why I think its the fed's fault" well in my case we are seeing more of a problem with the local govt. (CA) then the federal govt. HOWEVER the federal govt. isnt helping since what CA does it usually adopts as a federal standard within a year or so. I first need to understand where you are coming from and your worldview so I dont waste my time trying to explain myself. Why do you think its NOT the Govts fault? Are you a socialist? Do think that system is better then capitalism? Im not going to call you unamerican or anything silly like that if you are I just need to see where you are coming from to explain my views in a matter that would make the most sense to your view point.

My example of Apple is the willingness to purchase a more expensive product over its cheaper alternatives as my other examples. What if they didn't save costs overseas and brought it here to the US, which would drive up prices. Would people still buy it or not? I'd argue yes.

Your reasoning seems anecdotal. What do you think about proposition 13? Also, why is it a waste of time for you to explain yourself? If another reader or I learn something, is it a waste? It doesn't take a genius to see that government isn't working out too well right now, it's all over the news. Clearly it's a difference of beliefs. What are those beliefs and what are its influences? What objective data do they have that backs up their beliefs?

I'm a humanist. Why do you think socialism is unamerican. What do you think of FDR?

[massacremasses]

Im a realist.

Im not familiar with that proposition. Is it state of federal? If its a state one, I dont live in your state. sooo. unless its really been in the new lately I am not familiar with it.

Socialism goes against the "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" While sure wealth doesnt necessarily mean happiness.. but when you have a decent amount of money that is somewhat liberating. but I could argue my own point there.. lol anyways for ME I say socialism limits your ability to prosper. While a pure capitalistic society would be barbarian. A pure socialist would never work. Socialism stifles growth and wealth. Capitalism creates wealth. I agree the middle class is dying. But I am not going to only blame greedy business men. Blame the enablers in the govt. be pissed about irresponsible spending.. the Govt. is the one who is actually taking tax payer money and miss using it.

so I am not disagreeing the govt. IS NOT WORKING.

However protesting one small part of the problem is stupid but again I think the protesters are stupid as well because they only THINK that greedy wallstreet is the problem and half of them dont know exactly what they are protesting. I listen to the radio all day I hear all of their interviews. Some I think are just misguided and misinformed others I think are plain ignorant.

Ill elaborate on my "wasting time explaining"
I think its a waste to go off on a tangent about something that wasnt asked. I love hanging on ninjette and talking politics even, but id prefer to talk in person, I dont always come across on forums right... another long story. Ill explain if we meet in person. lol

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

Im a realist.

Im not familiar with that proposition. Is it state of federal? If its a state one, I dont live in your state. sooo. unless its really been in the new lately I am not familiar with it.

Socialism goes against the "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" While sure wealth doesnt necessarily mean happiness.. but when you have a decent amount of money that is somewhat liberating. but I could argue my own point there.. lol anyways for ME I say socialism limits your ability to prosper. While a pure capitalistic society would be barbarian. A pure socialist would never work. Socialism stifles growth and wealth. Capitalism creates wealth. I agree the middle class is dying. But I am not going to only blame greedy business men. Blame the enablers in the govt. be pissed about irresponsible spending.. the Govt. is the one who is actually taking tax payer money and miss using it.

so I am not disagreeing the govt. IS NOT WORKING.

However protesting one small part of the problem is stupid but again I think the protesters are stupid as well because they only THINK that greedy wallstreet is the problem and half of them dont know exactly what they are protesting. I listen to the radio all day I hear all of their interviews. Some I think are just misguided and misinformed others I think are plain ignorant.

Ill elaborate on my "wasting time explaining"
I think its a waste to go off on a tangent about something that wasnt asked. I love hanging on ninjette and talking politics even, but id prefer to talk in person, I dont always come across on forums right... another long story. Ill explain if we meet in person. lol

You say that you're a realist but what if your view is skewed? Did we not believe the earth was flat? You should read up on Proposition 13. There are studies and arguments on on whether or not that is the real problem for the budget problems in CA.

You didn't quite give me a direct reason on why socialism is "bad". Socialism requires people to think about their fellow humans and to not be driven by greed. It's something that our world isnt quite ready for but it's always interesting to talk about philosophically because it may one day be the next step.

Sometimes you get the crazies or whoever mixed into any protests but the message is united and clear. Why dont you think Wall Street isn't the problem? Do you believe that the economy is driven by the consumers or the investor? If you believe in the investor, what happens if their business investment does not grow? What drives that investment? If you believe the consumer, what happens if they don't buy as much? One has to look at the objective data and put together the pieces.

Yes, government is the other problem. What are some of the big problems? Regulatory capture, special interests favoring, and promised jobs after service point to the same culprit each time. Some would argue the Fed, but that delves into economic theory of Keynesian vs Austrian(Data favors Keynesian), though as Krugman once stated that we are back in Dark Ages of Keynesian theory(directed to most modern economists).

[massacremasses]

Greed is inherent to us all...

in a socialist society it assumes that we will all be ok with getting the same things, the same amount of money and live like everyone else. It doesnt offer a chance to better yourself or get ahead. Youd would be lying to yourself if you said that most people dont want to get ahead, move up in the corporate ladder and ultimately make more money. This is the reason a socialist society wouldnt work. Also politicians are always corrupt and there is no doubt in my mind that they would abuse power to get more money, and more power and wouldnt want to give it up (if we still held democratic elections in the first place) poke holes in it all you want, but the simple fact is that humans are pieces of ****. If you dont believe that then look at your kids. Did you not have to teach them how to have manners? how to behave in public? how to respect others? Yes. Did you have to teach them how to fight one another, hit each other, yell at each other. No. Humans are inherently bad/evil
Socialism assumes that a person will be ok with being equal to one another, and embrace that. If people were inherently good, Id be all over communism, socialism and everything. But humans are not.

I am familiar with prop 13 now that youve linked it to me. However Ill have to do more research as to why it is a problem. Thank you for your link.

I am no arguing with the other problems you've mentioned. I would agree.

[almost40]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr195.pdf
Look here alex for insight on the US corprate tax code. Theres over a dozen studies by different companys to back up my position.

If you dont feel like reading it all....heres a copy and paste of the Key points.

Key Findings

• The U.S. has the second-highest statutory corporate income tax rate in the developed world. Despite anecdotes regarding a few companies that exploit the dubious carve-outs in the tax code to minimize their tax liabilities, the results of 13 unique studies of the effective tax rate on corporate investment across the globe show that the average U.S. effective corporate tax rate, like the statutory rate, is nearly the highest in the world.

• By every available measure, the U.S. imposes a very high tax burden on its corporate sector, in comparison to other nations, even after credits and deductions are considered.

• The most recent studies show that the average effective corporate tax rate for corporations headquartered in the U.S. is roughly 27 percent, while the average of other nations is about 20 percent. The effective average rate for new investment in the U.S. is roughly 29.8 percent, 7.4 point above worldwide competition.

• The U.S. effective corporate tax rate consistently ranks among the five highest of nations considered. The only nation with a higher effective tax rate in each study is Japan, which not by coincidence is the only developed nation with a higher statutory rate than the U.S.

• The literature shows that high corporate taxes and high effective tax rates are detrimental to attracting investment, and subsequently detrimental to economic growth.

The United States currently lays claim to the second-highest statutory corporate income tax rate in the developed world. At 39.2 percent, the rate is only 0.35 percentage points behind OECD-leading Japan.1 Since 1997, 30 of the OECD's 34 member nations have lowered their statutory rates in an effort to retain and attract investment while the U.S. has sat idle. In the process, the average statutory corporate tax rate for OECD nations has dropped from 36.5 percent to the current 25.1 percent. While this shift has been noted by the Tax Foundation and others—including Presidents Obama and Clinton—as reason for a competitive rate reduction, skeptics accurately note that statutory rates do not reflect the effective rates that corporations actually experience.
Taken as a whole, these studies indicate that the average effective tax rate for U.S. corporations—like the statutory rate—is one of the highest in the world. By every available measure, the U.S. imposes a very high tax burden on its corporate sector, in comparison to other nations, even after credits and deductions are considered. As the issue of corporate taxation is currently mired in a great deal of misinformation and confusion, this link should serve to quell some of the misinformation.

[almost40]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/27695.html
Heres a link to register for the upcoming capital hill briefing on the subject of corprate taxes.
heres a link to Obama's view on the tax code.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-tax-code.html

Originally Posted by Alex

This is called cherry-picking statistics to support a viewpoint, rather than actually using data to produce a viewpoint. The stated top corporate tax rate in the US is almost a meaningless figure. Saying that the miraculous 40% number is the problem, and if it were lowered business would boom, is ignoring the fact that in reality the number is already much lower than that. And as it goes lower, somehow business hasn't boomed. Why is that?

I would say that yes the 40% number is inaccurate but using it a baseline for my argument was correct. the real number might be 38% but the fact still remains that we have nearly the highest corprate taxes in the world and when Japan lowers the rate they charge corps. we will have the highest in the OECD.
As far as cherry picking goes check out the links I posted with multiple independant studies that back up my position.

Originally Posted by Alex

If you look at the actual corp taxes paid over GDP, the number is even much lower than just about any 1st world (and some 2nd world) countries.

Tsk tsk for saying im cherry picking alex. lol...is that not what you have done??

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by almost40

Conservative tax data link and points

Going off your link and previous post, you say that companies are keeping their money off shore because the taxes are too high. If taxes were lowered as you wished, what is the effect? If companies are already sitting on record cash reserves and doing nothing, then how would giving them more money help? They already admit they aren't going to spend it due to uncertainty in Europe, why would they spend even more now?

My bud Krugman, makes an excellent point with regards to talking about taxes. with regards to the wording.

Fresh off the press, my favorite econ blog posts something about high taxes.