Chef Jim Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Let's all bow down to the wealthy who profited from the labor of the workers for giving us our jobs. Taxes aren't the main motivation for moving jobs overseas, it's because they can maximize their profits with cheap labor and lax regulations. If they show a committment to keeping jobs in America, then they should get taxbreaks, but not when they still move jobs overseas. How many small business have moved their operations overseas? And those that have why have they done it? I want specific answers with hard facts to back it up. I'll wait....... The media has brainwashed you Joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Back to the original topic, Tom Friedman had an excellent article in the NY Times today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 It just seems to me that people find it easy to say their wealthy, why help out one way or another? If those other people are low or middle-class they must not have worked hard enough. That is sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 How many small business have moved their operations overseas? And those that have why have they done it? I want specific answers with hard facts to back it up. I'll wait....... Not quite relevant to the conversation...but this just reminded me about what my brother-in-law at Citigroup told me last week. Citi closed their office in Mumbai, India, and moved that particular operation to Buffalo. Reason being the labor costs in WNY were cheaper. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 To bump this one more time, another good editorial piece from the Washington Post today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Back to the original topic, Tom Friedman had an excellent article in the NY Times today. that was a really good article, one of the best I've seen on the realities of Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 How many small business have moved their operations overseas? And those that have why have they done it? I want specific answers with hard facts to back it up. I'll wait....... The media has brainwashed you Joe. I'm not talking about small businesses, which will get tax breaks from either party. I'm talking about large corporations, like UTC-Carrier in particular as an example. They complained about the taxes, so the state offered them tax breaks and utility cost breaks. Then they complained about the union costs. So the union offered them concessions that would allow the already profitable Syracuse manufacturing operations to be even more profitable. The company came back and said no thanks, we're moving the manufacturing operations to China and Singapore because they can make even more money there. I could see if they were losing money, but it was a profitable operation and the Carlyle Compressor division I worked with was the most productive of all Carrier's plants worldwide. So over 500 people lost their jobs, and of course there was a ripple effect on all the suppliers and local businesses. How do I know this? Because I was working there as a salaried employee when it happened. And the salaried employees had already made a 10% salary giveback as well as no raise for a couple of years. But UTC continues to want American tax breaks. Give ME a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 I'm not talking about small businesses, which will get tax breaks from either party. .... Sorry Joe, I stopped right there. Obama is going to raise taxes on those making $250k or more. THOSE are small business owners you nimrod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Sorry Joe, I stopped right there. Obama is going to raise taxes on those making $250k or more. THOSE are small business owners you nimrod. Here we go again with the name calling. If they own a small business they will get a tax break. You asked and I gave you an answer. I can lead a horse to water... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Here we go again with the name calling. If they own a small business they will get a tax break. You asked and I gave you an answer. I can lead a horse to water... Nimrod...yeah that must sting. Anyway, so they'll get a tax break (I'll believe it when I see it) but their income taxes will go up (which Obama pretty much guarantees) because they're part of that "rich" demographic. So what's the net result of that? Oh, and they better not sell anything at a capital gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Nimrod...yeah that must sting. Anyway, so they'll get a tax break (I'll believe it when I see it) but their income taxes will go up (which Obama pretty much guarantees) because they're part of that "rich" demographic. So what's the net result of that? Oh, and they better not sell anything at a capital gain. We will get a true politician in office- they will tax small businesses, then give the same money back via tax breaks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 We will get a true politician in office- they will tax small businesses, then give the same money back via tax breaks! And for every dollar they are taxed Obama will return some change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted June 19, 2008 Author Share Posted June 19, 2008 To bump this one more time, another good editorial piece from the Washington Post today Freidman is a smart MoFo...I enjoy reading his pieces and books. He paints a pretty accurate picture of the conditions and choices we face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 To bump this one more time, another good editorial piece from the Washington Post today Obama has a much greater chance of alerting his opinion and adapting than the stubborn McCain. Freidman rightly pointed out that Obama cannot publicly come out and say he is changing his views, for several reasons. But the Foreign Minister's quote about their conversation was very telling. I fully expect Obama to adapt a stategy once he assumes office (if that happens) that evolves depending on the situation on the ground. There is zero chance he is just going to say we're starting to leave now and we will be gone in 18 months. It will likely be a much slower lessening of troop levels than he said two years ago, and a compromise between what he campaigned on, what the generals say in January 2009, and what the Iraqis really want from us regardless of their public pronouncements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Obama has a much greater chance of alerting his opinion and adapting than the stubborn McCain. Freidman rightly pointed out that Obama cannot publicly come out and say he is changing his views, for several reasons. But the Foreign Minister's quote about their conversation was very telling. I fully expect Obama to adapt a stategy once he assumes office (if that happens) that evolves depending on the situation on the ground. There is zero chance he is just going to say we're starting to leave now and we will be gone in 18 months. It will likely be a much slower lessening of troop levels than he said two years ago, and a compromise between what he campaigned on, what the generals say in January 2009, and what the Iraqis really want from us regardless of their public pronouncements. So basically, he's going to remain status quo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 So basically, he's going to remain status quo... Status quo to what? What I think is going to happen, just an opinion, is that he's going to end up doing more toward what the Iraqis want, than what the US army or his own party and the general public seems to want. The Iraqis seem to be about halfway between. To me, that's not a bad way to go. It's probably too soon to leave, too costly and unwise to stay as long as McCain wants, the generals want to finish the job as well as they can before the political process can take over, and the Iraqis want the best of both worlds: Stay while we still need you but scram the day we think we don't (which will probably be too early). It will be a very gradual withdrawal, not nearly as fast as the 18 month prediction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 So basically, he's going to remain status quo... Pretty much. I would expect anyone but the most stubborn of idoits to moderate their position on Iraq once they get in to the White House and and actually have to be responsible for the mess, instead of merely critical of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted June 19, 2008 Author Share Posted June 19, 2008 OK Kelly, let me get this right...The Messiah makes getting out of Iraq by the end of next year one of the main planks of his campaign and now you're saying "of course he's not going to do that". He also made a commitment to accept public funding for his campaign which he just recently re-negg'ed on... what's next? Change we can believe in! This guy is no different than any other politician. You're fooling yourself if you feel any differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Status quo to what? What I think is going to happen, just an opinion, is that he's going to end up doing more toward what the Iraqis want, than what the US army or his own party and the general public seems to want. The Iraqis seem to be about halfway between. To me, that's not a bad way to go. It's probably too soon to leave, too costly and unwise to stay as long as McCain wants, the generals want to finish the job as well as they can before the political process can take over, and the Iraqis want the best of both worlds: Stay while we still need you but scram the day we think we don't (which will probably be too early). It will be a very gradual withdrawal, not nearly as fast as the 18 month prediction. Which is basically what McCain has been saying. But feel free to perpetuate the "100-year" mischaracterization, while Obama is moving closer to McCain's & Bush's position on the Iraq situation. Which is pretty similar to all of Obama's points now that he's forced to provide more details - don't expect much change because a lot of actions are already predetermined by events on the ground and the global macroeconomic conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 So basically, he's going to remain status quo... Which he should. Anyone else notice the dearth in bad news coming from Iraq when put into the perspective of what 2006 looked like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts