finknottle

??? What's wrong with what I said?

I work with a lot of small startups and the story is the same. If the exit strategy is to get a product established and then get acquired (typical for technology niche companies), they are all trying to attract a suitor before the rates increase. For most of these guys, their successfull company is the only home-run they will ever hit, and this sale their only payday. If they stand to lose an additional 5% by waiting a year or two, they will err on the side of rushing things. (And more often than not, that means putting getting a deal done ahead of protecting the interests of their employees.)

You think the idea stinks now? The plan as describes invests your money in 3% bonds. Fine. We might have to mandate buying bonds anyway, once China stops investing, lol. But with Pelosi & Friends running things without check, I can guarantee that any legislation that actually materializes will be progressive along the lines of Social Security: If you make 40k, your $2,000 may get 3%. But if you make 20k, they will give you a higher return, 6% maybe. And if you make 100k? Your mandatory $5,000 investment will earn 0%, or maybe even a negative return If they do that with social security, why wouldn't they do that here?

Is this why he still supports driver's licenses for illegal immigrants? To get them over here to fill the job-creation quota?

I was listening to an Obama speech on the radio today where he went down his litany of campaign promises. I was struck by how many involve the creation of jobs through direct government action. In today's speech he promised - 6 million new high-paying nonoutsourceable jobs within 10 years through investing in Green Technology (at $15 billion, or 2k per job, that's a great trick if he can do it) - 2 million new jobs immediately rebuilding roads and infrastructure (How? He say's the 10 billion a month from Iraq. I think he assumes his supporters won't do the math, for you realize that if you spent every penny of the $10 billion/month on salaries and not on things like asphalt and materials, they would be jobs paying about $40,000 a year) - An additional 1 million jobs through "a Jobs and Growth Fund that will help states and local communities move forward with projects to rebuild and repair our roads, our bridges, and our schools." - While he's at it with the funds, "That's why I'm going to create a $25 billion fund to help states and local governments pay for health care and education, police and firefighters, without having to raise your taxes." - His plans for early education require "recruiting an army of new teachers, and paying them better" - We will effectively be putting every college kid on the payroll: "if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford your tuition. No ifs, ands or buts." 10 million jobs, just from that speech, and not counting the college kids. That's more than the number of unemployed he have in this country, according to government figures. In earlier debates he's also promised to expand national service organizations to the same size as the Defense Department. He never explained whether that means funding or numbers, but in an earlier speech he promised to increase - Americorps from 75,000 employees to 250,000 employees - expand service programs for retirees - expand the Peace Corp from 7,800 to 16,000 By way of comparison, Americorps at the present 75k is significantly larger already than most government agencies. (Who knew?) And let's not forget he has also promised to expand the size of the volunteer army - he'll be cutting military programs, but will not let it not be said he is weak on the the military! So where will all these people filling these jobs come from? And who will pay their salaries?

I think this is correct. While there may be a fortunate few selling because they are worried about stock gains, I think the majority are anticipating a flat decade ahead which, given the uncertainty right now, hardly merits the risk. The other big impact you are seeing is an upsurge in the acquisition of small privately-held businesses, whose owners want to cash in before the capital gains tax rises. For anybody who lucked out with a successfull startup, selling now vs selling in a few years could cost them $5 million.

Yeah, Bush and Cheney and the gang don't decide on foreign policy themselves, they listen to their nutjob supporters. The decades-long cozying up between the Bush family and the Saudi's was a front to mask their true anti-muslim agenda. Retard.

Yes. So what? It's about being able to choose without coercion. The stakes are high to the worker: once a union is formed, as long as they want that job they are stuck with them in their lives whether they wanted a union or not - the dues, political contributions, work stoppages, union visits at to their house for a 'chat' if they act out of line, etc. Do you realize that the purpose of the legislation is to increase union membership? That's what the unions say and what their political supporters say in friendly environments. In a non-friendly setting (such as a news show with an opposition guest), they say it is because when there is a private vote called companies can call meetings [on paid company time] to make the case against unionizing, and this can be intimidating. [That's legal, and by law the union reps are allowed to talk to employees anywhere after work, such as their houses.] Proceedures protecting against intimidation and coercion should apply whether you are talking about half the work force, 7% of the workforce, or a handfull of attorneys in the Justice Department, or a solitary whistle-blower. Just because union membership has been declining doesn't give them a free pass to unionize ACORN-style. People need to be able to make that choice freely, and as far as I can tell the current system acheives that pretty well: petition for enough signatures, with the company providing address information. If enough employees sign, you have a binding secret ballot. Nobody knows who voted how.

The FBI made an effort to clean them up, but they are not. Some unions are notorious- try opening a grocery store in the NY/NJ area without unions and see how often meats are left to rot in the isles by customers... Nobody say's people shouldn't be allowed to organize. The question is whether it should be mandatory to join if you ae in the minority, and whether the process for joining should be free of intimidation and coercion. You will never be able to eliminate those, but getting rid of the secret ballot removes that last defense. Right now, if you don't want a union but your co-workers harrass you into signing a petition for a vote, you can still vote no when they are not looking over you shoulder. This legislation takes away the vote - the union is in place once sufficient cards have been submitted.

You would be ok. But at the end of the day, your car wouldn't... Check out this video from CNN Here something in the card-check legislation from the Right-to-Work Foundation. Skip the infomercial at the beginning and go straight to the interviews... More on coercion

Just goes to show that the massive Obama media machine works - even overseas they equate McCain with 8 more years of Bush. Not a surprise, really, since the source of AQ information on the candidates is the Post and the NYT. They basically hear what the electorate hears. It's not an endorsement based on dialog and carefull study of the candidates platforms, lol.

Yeah, but at least they back up their research with facts. If you read the report you will find the statistics of cases brought before the NLRB etc. They also give the statistics from he NLRB on the time to resolve cases, which flatly contradicts the claims of those supporting this legislation. Just out of curiosity, do you think cases of illegal company behavior even remotely approaches that of illegal union intimidation? Have you ever seen a picket line and what they do to scabs? Do you think for one moment that a company could get away with that kind of harrassment? One big difference: if a company is found guilty, the company is punished severly. If an individual is 'found guilty' (assuming somebody wants to spend the money bringing it to trial) of illegal union coercion, it's an individual crime. So in practice companies are extremely carefull to tow the line on the legalities. Individuals who want to form a union don't need to be - they can throw all the bricks they want, they are doing it as individuals not as union policy. I'd be very curious to find out how many people have been convicted of union coercion in relation to how much of it we think occurs.

I know that's what the media wants to say... but spin doesn't make it true. The Times and the Post have abandoned their integrity long ago. I haven't heard any of my Republican friends regretting the choice (nor my Democrat friends regretting Biden).

They aren't now, under NLRB rules. http://www.heritage.org/research/labor/wm1359.cfm

Background on the "Employee Free Choice Act" from the leftist media http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/washington/20labor.html and from what looks like a rightwing blog http://theunionnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/w...-on-secret.html Note that even McGovern has come out against it - but not any of the current Democrats in Congress, unfortunately.

How would you frame it? And where would the major battle come from with a fillibuster-proof majority? The Dems pushed it in the past, knowing that a presidential veto made it moot. Obama say's he'll sign it, and Pelosi say's congress will re-introduce it, so now it seems an open and shut case.

Yeah, there is no way they can turn around and deny labor this after the unions have come through financially for the Dems this year. *This* is the only piece of legislation that matters to unions right now - not NAFTA not Iraq not raising taxes on the rich and not taxing companies more. Turning back the clock on the decline of union membership is the single defining issue.

And which Obama has endorsed and say's he will sign.

I'm more worried about labor unions being formed without a secret ballot, simply by turning in a petition with enough signatures... Are you going to refuse to sign when the union goons corner you in a bar? Or if a petition is turned in with your signature, and you going to say "wait a minute, I didn't sign that!" and become an instant scab in the workplace? Obama supports this legislation.

That's a maximum, and it's pretty much factored in already - that's why the amount taken out of your paycheck for given deductions claimed comes pretty close to how much you actually owe. It's not found money. (I should also point out that state taxes reverse this, forcing you to include taxes paid back into your raw income.) Why would state and local issues be any different with a streamlined federal tax process?

Divisive politics are working like a charm for the Democrats. Anybody not supporting Obama is - stuck in the old partisan way of politics - a racist - an embittered yahoo clinging to guns and religion - an angry feminist - a Bush 2.0 looking for tax cuts for overpaid CEO's - a racist again

I think he needs to wipe the windows on his glass house. What this really confirms is the Obama-friendly spin of the media. The article glosses over the fact that all of the Democrats opposed the bill; of the targeted Republicans who stood firm, 5 of 7 lost their re-election bids in 2006 and with them control of the Senate switched parties; and McCain stood firm in supporting the bill. The bottom line is that the Democrats were already in the pocket of FM/FM, while the Republicans wanted more regulation. So FM/FM went after the Republicans by hiring a lobbyist firm with close ties to twist their arms and threaten if neccessary. The only surprise here is that they didn't find it neccessary to target any Democrats. This isn't a Republican scandal, it's a Democrat scandal.

Itemizing state taxes etc is not that big a windfall - it's an income adjustement, not a tax credit. So if you are in the highest tax catagory, the net would be that you get less than a third of it back. Even so, you don't actually get that after you factor in the AMT, which has the effect of limiting most deductions. I won't answer for the poster, but yeah - they should be closed. The tax code should be simplified. It should be a 30 second calculation based on your total income and a progressive tax chart, with no deductions or credits for anything.

No. They are perfectly free to treat people pro bono, they just shouldn't bill the government. In fact, it is not obvious to me why the government should be subsidizing services to patients at all, citizens or not. If the USG wants to provide subsidies, be upfront with it and pass universal health care. Burying reimbursement the way we do now only masks the extent of the problem and encourages abuse and inefficiency. Or is it your position that any professional organization - lawyers, say - should be allowed to create rules for themselves that mandate providing legal services to anybody regardless of their ability to pay, and should be allowed to pass the legal bills on to the government for those that can't?

I think it is worse than you describe. Sure they do not have the understanding of the economy that an economist does. But they do not even have the understanding of the economy that an average shopkeeper does. Do they have any experience running a business, and being responsible for generating income? Do they even know the overhead behind a salary? Do they understand how labor and environmental regulations impact a business? Sure, people tell them stuff - but their picture is limited to the spin of whoever had their ear last. None of them has ever had to make a business decision, weighing the benefits of expenditure against the revenue it will produce. Same with science. These are not guys who don't happen to be experts in climate change. They are people who essentially have no scientific training at all (except McCain, minimally), pursued non-technical careers, and (other than McCains experience as a pilot) have never even worked indirectly in a technical environment. I have seen nothing to suggest that they know even as much as an average teenager. You talk about Palin's lack of curiosity - both she and McCain have shown enough curiosity to get engaged in Climate Change, bucking their party's base. What is Obama's track record on science? He is curiously silent on climate change, sticking with the platform but decidely not making it an issue - I suspect he will do nothing meaningfull once in office, his priorities are elsewhere. And his original plan called for gutting NASA to pay for the first year of pre-school education (since softened once Florida came into play). The picture I get is of someone who has no interest in science beyond what it does for him politically. Just curious - what does Obama say in his books about the impact of science on his life?