More Red Causes Far Less Green

Perhaps after watching the abysmal game between North Carolina and Kentucky, some of you may have stayed on the channel and watched the 60 Minutes report on companies that have taken their operations out of the United States and deposited them in more tax friendly countries. I listened to the report with interest. As many of you know, I have for years been saying that the United State’s insistence on raping corporations in tax rates is one of the primary drivers of unemployment and fiscal difficulty in our country. True to form, the side supporting the such tax rates immediately fell back to an emotional appeal. But it falls on deaf ears in my case as I ask myself, “When will the United States Government wake up and realize that they cannot control the world and that they are committing suicide by continuing to arrogantly think that they can?”

Let’s just be honest and blunt. Over the last few decades the United States has watched as manufacturing migrated abroad, followed by the service industries, in an effort to limit expenses so that more revenue was realized as profit instead of liability. I understand that there are several different ways that this can happen. There have been some companies that moved abroad for cheaper labor. I am not talking about the limited few who went to “sweat shops” in China or elsewhere. We know they exist and we understand that many find their position morally reprehensible, not because they sought cheaper labor, but because they didn’t adhere to a moral standard in acquiring it.

But the majority of organizations didn’t do that. They merely moved to where labor was cheaper. They provided a relatively safe working environment and paid the normal labor rates for the region they operated in. I personally think that the unions played a large part of causing this form of coercion to move abroad. But unions are a different discussion for a different day.

What we are talking about today is the fact that the United States government, in its zeal to bring in more money, has continued to levy unwarranted high levels of taxes on businesses in the US. They do it for the same reason that we now live with roughly 70% of our earnings, on average, going to the government in some form of tax or levy (Income tax is just the largest tax, but far from the only). They do it because it is the only way to fund the corruption, to fund the ever-increasing nanny state, and to centralize the power at the federal level where it can command and control everything.

And the real problem is that the United States government is doing so at a higher rate than the rest of the world. Japan is set to lower their taxes on businesses, which will vault the US to the number one status as the highest taxes on businesses of the 30 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (a collection of the most economically developed countries in the world). 35% at the federal level, which with state corporate taxes added in takes us over 39%! The average corporate income tax rate in the OECD is about 25 percent. The United States’ rate is almost 15 percentage points higher. Of the 30 countries in the OECD, 27 of them have cut their corporate income tax rates since 2000. By standing still, the United States has fallen behind.

And to think, this is not enough for some folks who consistently whine about corporations not being taxed enough.

As a result, corporations are leaving in droves. Some of the largest businesses in America have moved significant portions of their operations overseas. Microsoft, Cisco, Google, Facebook, Tyco, General Electric, Accenture, IBM, Morgan Stanley, AT&T, Disney, TimeWarner, and others have all moved significant amounts of their business to avoid the business unfriendly environment of the USA. The aforementioned 60 Minutes segment had an interview with the CEO of Cisco, John Chambers. He noted that the tax rates in the US are insane. The government forces companies to resort to leaving in a world where the rest of the countries out there (including our neighbor to the North!) are lowering tax rates to entice more businesses to move to them.

Of course, Leslie Stahl who was conducting the interview ended the clip by making Chambers look like he was evil, by stating that it sounds to her like he is asking for some sort of special favor. No, Ms. Stahl, he asked that corporate tax rates in America be brought down to levels more in line with the rest of the developed world. Or the money stays abroad…

Because what is worse is that these organizations who move their operations, as a result of a 2004 law passed by Congress, would still have to pay the US taxes if it is brought back into the US. But when Cisco moves its headquarters to Ireland, any money they make in the rest of the world cannot be touched by the US government. But it also cannot come back into the US without being taxed. Which means that money made overseas will STAY outside of the US. Chambers admitted that Cisco alone has $43 BILLION abroad which will never come back to the US for this reason. Estimates are that the total amount out there is $1.2 Trillion. American companies that would love to invest in the US economy, create jobs in the US, and help solve the economic problems in the US.

But they are not going to do it so long as they lose an additional 15% of their revenue in doing so.

The result is that a country like Ireland, with a 12.5% corporate tax, has roughly 600 American companies there that employ a little over 100,000 people. Boy it sure would be nice to have those 100,000 jobs created here in the US, wouldn’t it?

For those who read Atlas Shrugged while engaging their brain and understanding that it was a fictional idealized storyline meant to spawn critical thought, they recognize that what is happening is exactly what Rand wrote about when describing how so many corporations were packing up and moving to Colorado in order to get better tax rates. As a result, a character in the NorthEast who is watching a supplier leave the area proclaims, “there ought to be a law…” outlawing the move to Colorado. Eventually there is. And our story today has its own Wesley Mouch to attempt yet another such law.

Democratic Congressman Lloyd Doggett is interview by Stahl and he laments that no matter what laws Congress can come up with, the corporations can find a way around them. But that doesn’t stop him from proclaiming yet another piece of legislation that will further alienate the US from businesses. He is pushing a bill that will make it illegal for corporations to move corporate offices to overseas locations, thus avoiding the crippling US tax rate. He acknowledges that they will avoid this as well, by simply moving everything, not just a corporate office.

Great job Lloyd, they will take the jobs away now too. Of course Doggett did the quintessential political move, invoking words meant to make an emotional appeal rather than a logical one. He stated that these companies have “renounced their citizenship and begun saluting a foreign flag.” How very Joseph McCarthy of you Mr. Doggett. Next we will get, “Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the capitalist party…” Also sprinkled throughout the segment were statements about how these immoral companies are leaving America high and dry when the deficit is so high and the economy so fragile.

I have news for you. Those companies didn’t make the deficit that high. The government did. An entitlement mentality did. And they have no “moral obligation” to stick around and bail out a government that has done nothing but cripple them economically if they stayed. You cannot compete over the long term when your competitors are paying 15% less in taxes, enabling them to put 15% more into finding ways to beat you.

The bottom line is this: So long as the United States insists on keeping corporate taxes higher than the rest of the world, companies are not going to be investing their money here. And that means that they won’t be creating jobs here. It means they won’t be contributing to the economy of the United States. They will instead continue to boost the economies of other countries. You cannot stop them. And the fact is that you have no right to. The answer is to scale back government in a very big way and stop pretending that the government is entitled to so much of what they don’t create. Corporations don’t claim they should pay no taxes. They claim that the US is not competitive in setting their tax rates.

Our economic problems are being caused by the very federal government that many out there are relying on to solve the problem. The sooner people realize that the better our chances to recover and get things fixed. But try telling that to the federal government. You can report it to the Ministry of Truth. It’s right next to the ministry of Peace, which is busy in Libya at the moment.

The closer we get to being a socialist/fascist/communist environment for business, the weaker our economy gets. Hence the title of the article. Realistically, the US government is cutting its own throat, while claiming to all of you that it is just shaving.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Freedom Flies a Red Flag says:

    Our economy will only be strengthened by ensuring that those resources do not leave the United States. If they choose to leave they will pay a severe penalty to re-enter – the bottom line is they still need to American consumer to buy from them at some point. They exist only because they are allowed to do so. Let the cowards and thieves run….their goods and services should not be welcome back in!

    Support the SP-USA!

    http://www.sp-usa.org/

    • USWeapon says:

      Good Morning and Welcome,

      While I imagine that you are nothing more than a “post and run” supporter of the socialist party (something I bet that you don’t fully understand), I will reply on the off chance that you may engage us here at SUFA.

      I should point out the ridiculousness of the position that you are taking here. Exactly how is it that you intend to “ensure that those resources do not leave the United States”? Are you going to pass a law not allowing companies to pack up and leave? That shoudl work well in a free society. If they choose to leave it is not them, but us, that pays the penalty. How will you penalize them to come back? They will simply not come back and invest in America. The only way I can think of is to impose a tariff on their goods coming in, which will be passed on to the consumer. Brilliant.

      You are so lost in your understanding of the economy and you wouldn’t recognize freedom if you were run over by it. I am going to throw a guess out there and say you are a college student, wise in the way of rhetoric and eager to please your professors, but completely ignorant of the real world. Just a guess.

      USW

      • Freedom Flies a Red Flag says:

        Thank you for your insults sir. I am a boomer, retired military, thrice wounded veteran, former POW, retired business owner, and lover of life.

        For every blood and money sucking corporation out there that wants to leave our shores I say good riddance! You want to sell back to these shores it should be painful enough for them to think twice about leaving. We should take our business to someone hungrier and more willing to remember that it is….

        “We the People”

        not

        “ME – the individual”

        Your individual freedom rests upon the shoulders of many. It always has and always will.

        Support the SP-USA!

        http://www.sp-usa.org/

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Individual freedom does not “rest on the shoulders of many”. Individual freedom rests with the individual.

          Individual freedom can be PRESERVED by the shoulders of many, but ONLY if those many HAVE THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.

        • TexasChem says:

          True freedom rests upon those individuals whos shoulders are reinforced with personal responsibility and not coerced propoganda that has resulted in an oppressive servitude.

        • Hey! Stop piling on the new guy.. SUFA needs a few more commies!

          Hail, comrade. I’d be interested in a more nuanced discussion of your views if you’re so inclined.. don’t let these hooligans scare you off.

          And welcome to the asylum!

        • I apologize if you read what I wrote as insults. I am blunt, but I certainly don’t intend to insult.

          • Freedom Flies a Red Flag says:

            I am ok with blunt Mr. USW. I have worked under far more nasty conditions than most Americans could not even find on a map. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a teenage/early 20s liberal/progressive college kid (or professor) that just wants to yank your dick. Is that too blunt? Wink.

        • Hey, I found a brother-in-arms.

          One way to guarantee they don’t leave is called nationalization. Make all the fun you want of Mr. Castro down south, but he’s still around, so is his country and they have a national heatlh policy. No, it isn’t the best model, but think about all the abuse in that country before Castro?

          The mob sure enjoyed their stay there … both the illegal mob and big business.

    • TexasChem says:

      What are you going to do to stop them from leaving? Hold them hostage at gunpoint?
      If you enact a “severe” penalty to re-enter wouldn’t you be defeating your purpose by insuring the “wealth” would not come back? There are consumers in other countries that have just as much buying power as the consumers in the US.
      Stop drinking the kool-aid. It has your thought process locked up in a conundrum that keeps you from thinking for yourself.

      • Freedom Flies a Red Flag says:

        TexasChem – there is ample consumption needs here in the US of A. We don’t need them.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          You cannot consume without producing, because without producing you cannot afford to consume.

        • Is it your opinion that in this scenario, people will only “buy American”? Because any other alternative would send money overseas to China via Walmart and we would have no means of getting it back.

          Yes, we are the Saudi Arabia of coal and we can ship that and other resources abroad, but we need a lot of things we don’t have. I just don’t see how the modern world operates under this theory because you basically are shutting down international trade.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      “Our economy will only be strengthened by ensuring that those resources do not leave the United States. If they choose to leave they will pay a severe penalty to re-enter – the bottom line is they still need to American consumer to buy from them at some point.”

      How do you propose to ensure that those resources do not leave the United States?

      What resources, specifically, are you referring to?

      If they have to pay a severe penalty to re-enter, it is quite simple, they simply WON’T re-enter, as there is no incentive for them to do so!

      Nearly everything the American consumer buys is already imported from somewhere else. You are only ensuring that even more of what we buy will be imported from somewhere else by what you propose.

      Now, instead, try to come up with a REASON for companies to stay in (or come to) America, instead of trying to FORCE them to. How would you go about that?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      There has never been a single, demonstrable, attempt at socialism which resulted in the masses being better off than they would have been under a free market.

      • USWeapon says:

        Amen Peter

        • You’re going to scare him off.. you were a little rough for a first post – he clearly didn’t realize what he was diving into (as I didn’t when I suggested on my first day that even black flag must appreciate the need for some taxes). You can’t grow diversity by beating up commies.

          Go gentle, my friend, and they will duke it out with you to the end – jump on them and SUFA looks no different than a Glen Beck forum.

          My two cents.

      • Freedom Flies a Red Flag says:

        There has never been a single, demonstrable, attempt at a free market which resulted in the masses being better off than they would have been under any other system.

        And Mr. Peter. We have been socialist in the United States since our inception. Its what makes us “United”.

        • ::thunderous applause from the liberal quarter::

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Red Flag,

          Socialism is not what makes us “United”. What used to unite us was a common desire for freedom and individual liberty.

          Also, there are plenty of examples of the masses being better off under a “mostly” free market than they have been under any other system. You could certainly argue (and correctly) that there never has been an example of a completely free market, but in general, the greater freedom of the marketplace, the greater prosperity for the society as a whole.

          Finally, yes, there have ALWAYS been aspects of socialism in the United States. Hamilton and others made sure of that! As such, you will get no argument from me on that point 🙂

          There have been more and more aspects of socialism as time has gone by, resulting in more and more government debt, and a lessening of prosperity for society as a whole.

          Please note, I do not claim for a free market to be “perfect”, there is no such thing as “perfect”. What I do claim is that a free market, though imperfect, yields better results than any other system, unless and until people attempt to regulate the free market, which then makes it into something else, which is no longer a free market.

          Whether we will ever see anywhere (including the US) have an ACTUAL free market, I have no idea. Oh, and by the way, it wasn’t all that long ago that I thought very much like you did. There are many reasons why my position on many things has greatly changed.

        • FFARF (that was much harder to type that it looks). You will often find here that when “free market” is a convenient argument, it will be used. Other times you’ll read that we aren’t a free enough market. Inconsistency often rules the day.

          It’s nice to have a fellow “red through and through” here … now I’m going to celebrate by going to the gym and reading while ellipticating … or something like that.

          More later …

          • Freedom Flies a Red Flag says:

            Thank you Charlie – I have often read and most certainly appreciate your previous posts and words here on this blog. Its what finally convinced me to wade in.

          • “red through and through” I’m firm on the outside with a warm red center 🙂

            About 145°F: Medium Rare.

      • Add to that, more people died under socialism than fighting both world wars. Would think a decorated vet would have an issue with that….

        • ::throws a penalty flag::

          Yes, this is true, but irrelevant. Communism does not sanction mass-murder, nor intentional famines. These are crimes which happened to occur under a communist system. Similarly, Bernie Maddoff’s Ponzi scheme should not be tied to capitalism just because it happened under the system.

          Please limit your objections to communism to things that are actually part of communism or necessary consequences – mass murder is not necessarily a consequence.

          ::2nd and goal, LOA’s possession::

          • Mathius

            ::throws a penalty flag::

            “The instant reply of the flag throwing has shown that the flag was thrown in error”

            Yes, this is true, but irrelevant. Communism does not sanction mass-murder, nor intentional famines. These are crimes which happened to occur under a communist system.

            Your understanding is backwards.

            The Communist system must resort to massive violence on the people to enforce radical redistribution of resources by gun point

            Thus in every nation embracing Communism, massive, systemic economic disasters from mass slaughter of those the resist and massive famine has resulted

            You cannot pick one Communist nation that has not suffered this.

            Similarly, Bernie Maddoff’s Ponzi scheme should not be tied to capitalism just because it happened under the system.

            It didn’t happen under the Free Market system – it could not happen under the Free Market system.

            True, small ponzi’s are possible – evil does not disappear under Freedom.

            But large one’s are impossible under the Free Market.

            Madoff was successful for the same reason Goldman Sach’s was successful – massive amount of fiat money created out of thin air to fund massive government expenditures.

            Without the ability to hold the cost of money to near zero, Madoff could not have happened.

            But since there existed no investment vehicle that was able to pay any return (interest rates near 0% don’t make a great return), the People were drawn to lies that promised greater than zero – and when Madoff offered 10%-15% every year…. many could not resist.

            “The ball will be placed back to original position – First and goal!

            • Play will be placed on hold while the referees bicker.

              So, let me get this straight: when evil occurs under Communism, it’s inherent to the system. When evil occurs under Capitalism, it’s inherent to certain isolated incidents of evil individuals? Did I get that right?

              Ball will be placed halfway between the penalty point and the original position. First and a half and goal!

              • Mathius

                One requires, by its very definition, theft perpetrated by Govt. That is evil inherent to the system

                The other does not. But it does not prevent theft perpetrated by individuals. The system is not evil but evil can exist within it.

              • “One requires, by its very definition, theft perpetrated by Govt.” False.

                Communism does not permit the existence of a government and all collective sharing and redistributing is voluntary.

                Because this cannot exist, communism has never been implemented. The closest anyone has gotten is a society where the sharing is enforced by government (ie stolen) and redistributed. This is a different animal entirely.

                Imagine that I devise a system of society where manna fall from the heavens by an act of god and people are happy and peaceful. You go to implement this, but can’t get the manna to fall from heaven and instead decide to steal it from the people and then drop it from a plane, should my system be blamed for the violence in yours? No, mine should be written off as a pipe-dream and yours decried as evil.

            • But large one’s are impossible under the Free Market.

              That inconsistency I mentioned earlier … now we aren’t a free market so the bailouts don’t count.

              And of course because we aren’t a free market, Hiroshima and Nagasaki don’t count (killing innocents) … nor do the fire bombings of German cities during WWII … because a) we don’t do bad things and b) if we do, it isn’t really a free market we’re protecting anyway.

              Dictators came to control so-called communist nation states. I call it revisionism gone wild. Semantics. If the free market was so moral and winning a concept, why hasn’t it produced what you claim it can — this total freedom. Why do people feel the need to shackle it from time to time (labor laws, etc.)? Serious question but I may not have the time or energy left to respond — just back from 64 minutes of aerobics at the gym. Two good things about unemployment; extra writing and weightlifting training time … I mean, it isn’t a $22 million golden parachute but beggers can’t be choosers.

          • Matt,

            “Communism does not sanction mass-murder,”
            Yes they do/did, explaining it was necessary for greater good to kill those too greedy to share. Class warfare at it’s best.

            “Communism does not sanction intentional famines.” No, it sanctions central planning, seizing private property, etc, that results in said famines. Add to that, they never admitted they caused the deaths.

            Just a study of what forms of government and economic policies throughout history shows adopting socialism would be like fighting a fire with gasoline.

            LOI powers it up the middle for an easy TOUCHDOWN. Hands the ball to the ref, not a worthy moment deserving a spike to celebrate the occasion.

    • Red Flag,

      I’m a liberal, which puts me way way way to the left of these folks. I assume that you’re well to the left of me. That’s cool. You have your ideology and I have mine. So convince me. The guys above may seem hostile, but they’re not really – just inquisitive, and there are a lot of them on the same side of the fence. I’d love to see your responses to their questions, but for my money, I’d like this one:

      Start to finish, how do you see this playing out, not the cliff-notes version, the long version. Tax incentives pull them abroad, we pass laws that… they respond by… so we… and then..

      I’m all ears.

      The one,
      The only,
      The Mathius

      • Red Flag,
        I am interested in your responses as well. From the outset, it appears that your idea that “we don’t need them” is based on the assumption that we are so wealthy that we are needed by companies. It appears a very arrogant and close-minded position to think that the 300 million people here are so essential to businesses that they dare not leave our shores. Many companies, like Philip Morris, make far more overseas than they do here already. PM makes more in Japan alone than in the states, and they maintain offices here more due to the costs involved in moving and the availability of tobacco than because of any dependency on the US consumer.

        I think you will find the US consumer not so important to companies that are large enough to go global. Good riddance, you say, but when all that is left to purchase is made in China, where will the corporate tax revenue come from?

        • I wonder how we are supposed to survive and prosper as a consumer only society? Add to that, most of our farming is corporate, will we tax them out of business?

        • Why would China sell to us at that point? We aren’t producing anything to sell and we’re heavily in debt to them already. We have dollars (because we can just print those), but no “money.” Forget where our revenue comes from for the federal government, where does it come from for the the would-be consumer?

      • Freedom Flies a Red Flag says:

        Mr. Mathius – thanks for some defense here and for the welcome. You have entertained me for months that I have read here and I do acknowledge that my views are probably to the left of you.

        I do not believe (yet) in complete nationalization of business. It has been years since the government could lead in innovation – much that to do with a lack of risk taking and inability to attract the better talent (a dollars and sense issue).

        Our founding document gives the government the power to regulate commerce. Further, this argument about taxes = theft is just preposterous. Taxation is legal. Theft is illegal. Legal cannot equal illegal.

        Many corporations already do a great job of evading taxation. So I laugh at the examples shared by Mr. USW. The reform in tax laws that needs to be done is to close loopholes that allows corporations to evade/nearly evade paying any taxes.

        In terms of what is “fair”? Here is where I get another chuckle. We have USW and others openly comparing us to other countries? This is sort of a (paraphrasing) “look at how good Europe does such and such or so and so” when it comes to corporate taxes. This after the once-in-a-while article that bashes anything/everything European – I do not get it. I guess relativism does work/apply when it jives with their “philosophy”.

        So – I hope this does not sound too cliff notes-ish to you. But we should determine a corporate tax rate that we feel is appropriate to our needs. And our needs alone. If a corporation feels it is too much – then the hell with them. Go overseas. Let’s see some homegrown folks that want to serve the American consumer develop a better Cisco router. Heck, I’ll even incentive them to do so.

        As an example, I’d tax the bejesus out of Apple iPhones. You want to send jobs overseas mr jobs? Go for it. I’ll find or provide incentive fund for someone state-side to make the phone and it won’t cost as much. As more and more jobs are pulled back to the U.S. I will lower the corporate tax burden. More employed Americans means more of a broader tax base which means we need less from each individual or business.

        Our problem has been we say or pretend we’re activist when it comes to trade imbalance but we do nothing about it.

        I cringe when I read the article before this one. We “pretend” to want to protect the American way – but its really about oversensitive whining right wingers that think seeing “press 1 for English press 2 for Spanish” on the local ATM cash machine is somehow forcing something un-becoming onto them. These are the same folks who pretend to protect America’s values but only if those values jive with their own view of things and most certainly not, in the case of this article, if its something that does not affect the their particular working situation.

    • Red Flag:

      As an economic system, Socialism has been shown to be a disaster, and its premise – theft – is immoral.

      The only adherents to this system are the disenfranchised who by varying reason ranging from their own consequences of their choices up to suffering from mercantilistic and fascist policies of government.

      In the former – their own fault – seizing immoral means to mitigate the consequences of your own choices is evil.

      In the latter – the Socialists demand more of what they fight against.

      In all cases Socialism as a pogram is completely irrational.

      • How’s China doing these days? I can’t remember..

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Mathius,

          China is no longer a Socialist Economic Model. Totalitarian government, but not Socialist Economy. Hence why their economy has vastly improved.

          • Well China seems to be wiping the floor with us, so maybe we should copy whatever it is that they’re doing?

            • Mathius,

              maybe we should copy

              Bingo! You win the prize!

              Absolutely we should! We need to pick up our productivity – massively – and lower our expectations of consumption.

              The only way you can “win” economically is to produce more than you consume.

              China is doing this right now.

              The US is not.

        • Mathius,

          They do better every day the further they move away from Socialism.

          They are the proof that the Socialist system is economically disastrous and Free Market is economically prosperous.

          But the government is Keynesian too – so they are more Mercantilism then Free Market, but they are much further away from Socialism – which goes to show how bad Socialism is…. if Mercantilism can “out run you”, you know you suck.

          • They do better every day the further they move away from Socialism.

            “They” do better every day they exploit their work force and “they” get to do that for obvious reasons (all those living in poverty or below) … I have a feeling the “theys” there are the few … just like here.

            • Charlie,

              China is moving away from Socialism and towards Mercantilism, which is infinitely better than Socialism, but a far cry from the Free market.

              Further, you are also correct in believing a “few” benefit massively – primarily the Communist Party and the Army.

              However, the masses are benefiting as well – they are a whole lot better off than 10 years ago – though would be much better off if the Chinese did not invoke the mercantilism.

              The Chinese have decided to follow the West into Keynesian hell – boom/crack-up economies.

              It is the typical transition of an Keynesian economy – from totalitarian economic failure, to mercantilism abroad and moderate success, to mercantilism and consumerism locally with large success, then back to socialist practices resting on the economic surpluses, to economic collapse after consuming the surplus and the productive economy.

      • Freedom Flies a Red Flag says:

        Mr. Black Flag – you operate from an incorrect premise. “We the People” have agreed to be taxed. It is therefore not illegal nor immoral.

        • Red Flag,

          “We” did not.
          You and your gang can agree as you wish.

          But “us” over here do not agree.

          Your agreement does not compel my agreement.

        • Red Flag,
          I am part of “the people”. I have never agreed to be taxed. Tax = Theft By definition: the act of taking anothers property without his freely given consent. So yes, it is immoral.

  2. TexasChem says:

    How long before the citizen taxpayer decides to move to a state that is more tax friendly? Ooooops that’s already happening. How long before the citizen taxpayer moves to a country that is more tax friendly?

    USW Stated:” Realistically, the US government is cutting its own throat, while claiming to all of you that it is just shaving.”

    TC: Are we expected to believe that no one in DC is intelligent enough to see this? Only a fool would believe that our government does not see and understand exactly what their legislations impact is upon America socially, economically and morally.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Good Morning TC 🙂

      TC says “Only a fool would believe that our government does not see and understand exactly what their legislations impact is upon America socially, economically and morally.”

      G says ” Wow, we have an awful lot of fools running around then. I just can’t help by remember that super fool, Michael Moore and his words in Wisconisin. It just seems the a vast majority of the Liberal left just don’t understand economics 101. Wait, they may not understand economics kindergarten.

      Your statement, so far, is the staement of the day!

    • Tex

      How soon you forget your own words.

      If the businesses are moving overseas it is because they want them to move overseas.

      • TexasChem says:

        Hell JaC, I AGREE with you!

        I haven’t forgotten anything. I had already arrived at that conclusion long ago. The question one must ask is what is the final purpose of this chess move?

      • USWeapon says:

        BINGO JAC… You succinctly put into words what I was saying in reply to TC below

    • USWeapon says:

      TC… I didn’t claim they don’t know what they are doing. In fact, I posit that there are many of the elite in Washington DC and elsewhere that have as their very intention the death of the USA as we know it. Heck there are several who come right out and say so. Even our resident Red Charlie doesn’t attempt to hide his belief that liberty and freedom should take a back seat to income redistribution and extreme government power.

      • TexasChem says:

        Not meant as an attack upon your position. I was just postulating the idea that sprung from my thoughts for discussion purposes! 🙂

        • USWeapon says:

          Didn’t take it as an attack, my friend. But a valid question that required my response so that all can better understand what I believe.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        The idea from the left wing might be to tax/destroy corporations.

        The idea from a right wing might be to force corporations overseas to destroy unions and improve stock values/dividends.

        Then all us Americans reap big stock profits while we play golf. No more environmental problems either…… sorry, I’m just having a ‘brain tornado’ 😉

  3. gmanfortruth says:

    USW, another fine article! 🙂 Now we sit back and ponder the root cause and the best fix for a very simple problem. I hate it when the fix to something a first grader can identify, yet the vast amout of union protestors have no clue what is happening outside their pathetic little liberal world.

  4. Okay, so all the tax breaks you want are provided. What’s to stop corporations from seeking cheaper labor elsewhere anyway? If the name of the game is profits (speaking logically here), why would a corporation hire here for $30.00 an hour what they could hire elsewhere for $5.00 an hour? Do you not see that the reserve labor force worldwide would eventually put more and more Americans out of work. Then you’d be Stand up for Corporations instead of stand up for America. The nationalism aspect is necessarily removed via profit seeking.

    Those are not sarcastic questions above. Why would any corporation that can earn greater profit using overseas labor produce or stay here anyway?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Charlie, Good to hear from you again! Not all businesses pay 30 bucks an hour. I’ve worked for a few very good companies that paid in the range of 12 bucks an hour, they were non-union, I might add. While this is not a union topic, per se, they are a part of the problem. The government that the left love so much (not so much in Wisconsin anymore) has proven to be incompetent. Until people see this as a problem (government), it will remain a problem. They want us divided to keep their hold on power, and the left is marching right along like a big herd of sheep.

      • How are you, Gman, my brother.

        You guys keep trying to paint me in the pro “this” government corner. That’s just not being honest. I’d like to see this government in irons … all of them.

        If a company here is paying $12.00 an hour, trust me, there’s somebody willing to take 11 or 10 or 9 and so on somewhere else (sometimes here, just in a more depressed area). So what are we supposed to do, keep diminishing as much as we can from the many so the few can keep accumulating? I don’t see where everyone losing is a win in the end.

    • Charlie

      You are partly correct but looking at the wrong metric.

      It is TOTAL costs that matter. So it is TOTAL labor cost nor the hourly rate. Total cost against production for a $cost per unit of output.

      Moving is not free. The cost of the move must be less than the cost of staying here.

      But something else is being missed in all the demagoguery.

      Many of these companies are moving to be closer to the consumers they are serving. WE are no longer the primary consumer. If your products are sold only to the USA there is little advantage to moving overseas and then shipping the product back. Especially if you can get tax breaks.

      But if you sell 50% or 60% of your product to Europe and/or Asia then the numbers change drastically.

      We will have a chance to fix the problems when the conservatives start recognizing the faults of big business and the liberal/progressive/communists start recognizing this is not capitalism and we are now living in a Global Economy.

      We can not prosper by using Govt protection as a means to shelter ourselves from the effects of competition.

      1. Eliminate the Corporate Veil of protection for liability.
      2 Eliminate income taxes on all Business income.

      • USWeapon says:

        Excellent Reply JAC… It seems that this morning you are already in tune with my responses. The first time I typed out my reply and hit submit, and then read on and found you had already touched on it. This time, I was more wise and read ahead… and you had me again 🙂

        I hope you are well. How goes preparing for your trek to the Land of the Lost?

      • Buck the Wala says:

        It always amazes me to learn that those who want to substantially reduce or eliminate corporate taxes (arguing that high corporate taxes are driving businesses away, causing unemployment, etc. etc. etc.), would also argue for the elimination of the corporate veil and impose direct liability.

        Wouldn’t eliminating the corporate veil have the same effect you attribute to high corporate taxes? Driving businesses away to jurisdictions where they would be entitled to the protection of the law?

        • Buck

          Probably but not absolutely. Why would businesses abandon a 300 million person market when those 300 million are the most prosperous and consumptive in the world?

          The Corporate Veil amounts to a Govt subsidy on the cost of protection. As that veil has eroded over time the insurance industry stepped up with E&O and Proff Liability. I say let the Private sector deal with it.

          And of course we need to work on our laws to make sure that Liability is restricted to ACTUAL harm and not just a means of winning the lottery.

          My issue with business taxes is more basic, not just because they drive off business.

          Taxes should be PERSONAL, just as all transactions are ultimately PERSONAL.

        • No, Buck, because they do not get the protection of the law in places with cheap labor either. The protection they have is that they are an American Corporation. If that was removed, they would be taking far higher risks going overseas. The only places they would be able to go to get the same protection are places like Europe, which has high enough tax rates to prevent a move there. Direct liability is costly, sure, but it is not a garaunteed cost, just a risk. Tax rates are a garaunteed cost. The mind of the entrepreneur is one that is able to handle risk, but is frustrated by direct obstacles to success. Removal of corporate veil will not drive businesses away unless they are seeking to operate nefariously, increasing their chances of legal liabilities. If that is the case, then, as Red Flag said, good riddance.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            I’d disagree. One of the drivers of business is the protections afforded to those starting new businesses. There is a huge risk involved, and we reward that risk by granting a measure of liability to protect those entrepreneurs and induce them to go ahead with their plans.

            The protection they have is not merely that they are an American Corporation. Many other countries afford liability protection to business owners as well.

    • USWeapon says:

      Okay, so all the tax breaks you want are provided. What’s to stop corporations from seeking cheaper labor elsewhere anyway?

      Realistically, nothing Charlie. And for the record I don’t ask for tax breaks, I ask for tax elimination. A permanent move to under 20%, not a temporary 2 year promise to give them a break. But changes to the tax structure alone are not going to fix the issue. We also need to nullify the power of the unions to demand ridiculous wages and benefits.

      If the name of the game is profits (speaking logically here), why would a corporation hire here for $30.00 an hour what they could hire elsewhere for $5.00 an hour?

      Some will, some won’t. I know I spoke to a major corporate big wig a number of years ago, completely off the record. He expressed a sincere desire to invest in the US rather than abroad. He was even willing to forego some profit in order to help drive the US economy, but he wasn’t willing to forego at the level required to operate here now. Will all CEO’s mirror him? Of course not. But I am willing to bet that there are many out there who love where they are from, who want to see their company build a factory in their home state, but who cannot become completely fiscally irresponsible to do so. The Cisco CEO said they have $43 Billion that won’t come back, and he didn’t ask for tax free. He asked for a level playing field. Give them that, and why would they NOT choose to invest here rather than abroad?

      Do you not see that the reserve labor force worldwide would eventually put more and more Americans out of work. Then you’d be Stand up for Corporations instead of stand up for America. The nationalism aspect is necessarily removed via profit seeking.

      I think that you make the mistake of believing that all corporations act from one brain that is molded in the character of Gordon Gekko. The reality is that most companies are run by people who care about this country just as much as you do. They would prefer to invest here. They would prefer to better the economy here. Even the playing field completely and they will choose to do business here instead of there.

      Those are not sarcastic questions above. Why would any corporation that can earn greater profit using overseas labor produce or stay here anyway?

      And this is not a sarcastic answer. If labor is cheaper abroad, then the taxes should be cheaper here to make up for the difference. The bottom line is that so long as we refuse to give them a level playing field, they will not do their business here. And as a result we will be the losers in this game, whether you like it or you don’t like it. The reality is that your personal crusade for communism will punish us all, regardless of whether your position is morally superior or inferior to mine.

      In a fair world, David would beat Goliath 50% of the time. In the real world, he wins once in a thousand and gets written into the world of legends for it. You desire a world where he wins 50% of the time. I submit that you desire a dream. Your version of the world cannot work. I don’t fault you for your desire even though I believe it to be morally unjust. But I am always surprised when an intelligent person like yourself cannot see the flaws of their desired outcome.

      • In a fair world, David would beat Goliath 50% of the time. In the real world, he wins once in a thousand and gets written into the world of legends for it. You desire a world where he wins 50% of the time. I submit that you desire a dream. Your version of the world cannot work. I don’t fault you for your desire even though I believe it to be morally unjust. But I am always surprised when an intelligent person like yourself cannot see the flaws of their desired outcome.

        I return submit that you also desire a dream; the idea that those running/owning corporations (effectively the shareholders) would keep their businesses here when they can earn much more elsewhere. It is the nature of capitalism to expand. While some may maintain a nationalistic approach, they may well be eclipsed by shareholders or next generations (why I’m against inheritance) … a purely free market capitalist society does not guarantee a good result for the greater good. I think too often you guys do not see the end result (or refuse to see it). If corporations/businesses are to sustain themselves in a global economy, I think it pretty much guarantees they need to maximize profits wherever they can; goodbye American workforce where and when it suits them. You can only ignore the greater society for so long before it bites you in the ass.

        I guess my question then becomes: What do you do with all those out of work people? Forget what’s going on now, I’m talking about 40-50% unemployment. Help desks for AOL, Citibank, Chase, etc., have had their calls going through India for years now … law firms here in New York, when they aren’t sending jobs to India, are sending them to other states for cheaper labor (how I went from working 7 days a week to 0 days a week). And that is with what you all believe here to be too many restrictions on business (remember, I’m no longer in a dreaded union–I was a white collar worker for the last 36 years (off and on, but the last dozen straight without a loss of a job). What makes you think the better angels are going to show when a group of shareholders are told they can earn $8.00-$22.00 more per employee if they send the jobs elsewhere? This while corporations feast (I didn’t notice the profits they are showing in your initial post).

        I do see the flaws in socialism and communism both. And I’m currently going through hell with Medicare/Medicaid for my mother who has been waiting for an electric wheelchair for six months now while Florida continues to dole out hundreds of millions in Medicaid fraud annually. And I’m well aware of the flaws of unions (as they are being run today). I’m not living in the fog you’d like to believe … but I also can’t ignore how (I believe) these abuses came to be. I don’t blame it all on the system (capitalism) but it seems to me there are a lot more people on the financial edge today while a very small percentage are insulated by government and corporations than is healthy; a government bought and owned by the same corporations/businesses. I see no difference in Obama and Bush/Democrat & Republican. I smile when you guys call him a socialist. I smile when the Republican Party talks about reducing the deficit but won’t touch defense. I know you’ve pointed that out, but your answer doesn’t seem to hold anyone on the business end accountable for anything; they can do no wrong … yet the gap between them and the rest of us increases daily.

        I think it is inevitable that at some point the gap is so great that whether business ups and leaves or not, the bulk of the county is forced to revolt. Probably not in my lifetime; they still have enough gelt to toss in the form of bones (what many of you call entitlements). But sooner or later, the scales will tip way too much for anything else to happen. Then you’ll have out of control socialism/communism (the violent kind that has little to do with democracy and produces yet another disaster).

        • Charlie

          I thought your motto was “workers of the WORLD unite”?

          So now you want the supposed benefits of your socialist utopia to stop at the shores of the USA????

          “a purely free market capitalist society does not guarantee a good result for the greater good.”

          Really?? Then who the hell is the Greater Good?

          Workers/employees who work for Officers who work for Board of Directors who work for Shareholders who ARE workers, officers and directors. Thousands of businesses all containing the same arrangement of workers, officers, directors, shareholders. All working to maximize value to the customers, who are workers, officers, directors and shareholders.

          Yet somehow, the vitality and profitability of this thing called “business” does not benefit the “greater good”.

          “I think too often you guys do not see the end result (or refuse to see it). If corporations/businesses are to sustain themselves in a global economy, I think it pretty much guarantees they need to maximize profits wherever they can; goodbye American workforce where and when it suits them. You can only ignore the greater society for so long before it bites you in the ass.”

          Greater Society? Which greater society? Your friends in Jersey or the USA or the World?

          So lets see, you admit they must maximize profits in order to survive in a global economy, which of course is the “ultimate” greater good, but you then seem to want to squeeze them to prevent them from being able to survive in a global economy. So in effect what you want is All businesses in the USA to do business ONLY in the USA.

          You seem to be calling for a CLOSED economic model and system. So tell me Charlie, where are you going to get your supply of Cobalt?

          • JAC, you’re bordering on sarcasm again … I’m not going to go back and forth over this. I don’t have the time or desire to convince 18 or so idealogues … there may even be some legitimate questions in your sarcasm but USW’s post was about the US, yes or no? Consider my questions a microcosm (if that works for you–it does for me)… or go crazy and post revisionist marxism if you need to. I’m not going to engage and play tennis all day (too much real work to do at home).

            Or you can address what I asked and maybe I can respond.

            • Charlie

              This is not sarcasm Charlie. It is the summary of what you espouse and a display of the gaps in your reasoning.

              You cry out against companies moving yet admit they must maximize profits to compete. You demand they stay and want to use govt to make that happen. You want a CLOSED economic system.

              So tell me where you are going to get the Cobalt under your closed economic model?

              • They must maximize profits under this system (one reason it works against the greater good–accumulation by the very few). At some point, the exploitation of workers works against you (the original cause for the unions you so hate). So long as corporate heads get to reward themselves (whether they go bankrupt or actually earn for their shareholders) with multi-million dollar bonuses, jobs are going to flee. What will be left is the hedge fund guy, his computer and the janitor (who at the point, will take $.02 an hour because of all that “free competition in the labor force”). Redistribute the wealth so the cobalt is accessible anyway. Nationalize in the name of the people/workers rather than a handful of greedy SOB’s who get to own the government and set the laws.

              • Charlie

                You are like one of those fortune telling 8 balls.

                No matter what the question we get the same answers.

                Regardless of relevancy.

  5. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    We don’t have a free market when it comes to goods produced, and we also don’t have a free market when it comes to cost of labor. As such, there are really only two options:

    1. Try to force people to do what you want them to do (what we do now).

    2. Allow the free market to operate.

  6. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/david-evans-carbon-modeler-says-its-a-scam/

    Off-topic for today, but very IMPORTANT. An Australian “climate scientist” does a very good job of scientifically explaining precisely WHY global warming is a scam.

    Even if you have very little science background, this is pretty easy to read 🙂

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Just a note about natural systems as a follow-up:

      There are basically two types of natural systems. Systems which are controlled, and systems which are out of control.

      Systems which are in control tend to oscillate between extremes in a roughly cyclical pattern. “Climate” can be classified as this type of system, with the extremes being roughly the medieval warm period, and the depths of an ice age. Ice ages tend to last quite a bit longer than warm periods – which we seem far too prone to forget!

      Systems which are out of control tend to OSCILLATE WILDLY from one massive extreme to another, meaning that over geologically short periods of time, we would go from extreme heat to extreme cold. Natural systems which are out of control don’t generally go out of control in only one direction, although, because of the wild oscillations from one extreme to another, the system which is out of control will either (1) seek to find a state where control can be somehow established, or (2) self-destruct.

      If the climate of the earth were an out-of-control natural system, it would show the signs of being an out of control system (wild oscillations ending in either re-establishment of a controlled system or self-destruction).

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      This one is a bit more “sciency” but still worth a read, and if you look up the background of the author, you may well be surprised!

      http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2011/03/on-gargantuan-lie-of-climate-change.html

  7. Ray Hawkins says:

    Good article USW. Heavier tax burdens merely trickle down.

    Posting for comments.

    Death by meeting today.

    😦

    • Odd that tax burdens trickle down, but tax cuts and savings don’t seem to..

      • Mathius

        Of course they do.

        Imagine what your standard of living would look like if they did not.

        Oh, never mind. I forgot you are one of the upper 2% so you probably don’t realize that us lower folks have actually realized a reduction in tax burden these past 10 years, thanks to Mr. Bush.

        • I wasn’t really working before Bush. My first real job was in the summer of ’06, so I never knew a tax environment before then.

          I do remember what my father said once about the cuts: “I don’t really need them, but it sure does save me a lot of money.” And then he put the money in savings.

          And as near as I can tell, I’m in the top 3%. Maybe next year I’ll be in the top 2%.

          • How does it feel to be in the group so despised and hated by your political friends?

            • Well, you know, I hate myself.

              I used to have trouble sleeping at night until I replaced my old mattress with a big pill of hundred dollar bills. Now I sleep like a baby.

  8. So wait – I’m confused.. is the government in bed with big government with government using the might of government to further profits at the expense of the citizenry’s wallets and rights or is the government so hostile to corporations that they’re fleeing en masse?

    I can’t seem to keep these things straight..

    • Buck the Wala says:

      It seems you are confusing the Progressive Guidebook with the Conservative Guidebook. Gotta choose one to follow or you’ll just get all confused.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      It is very easy to confuse “Big Government”, “Big Corporations”, “Big Banks”, “Big Military”, etc. Right now, in this country, it is all the same beast.

    • Mathius

      I have been waiting all morning to see this comment.

      It took three hours since I first checked in.

      The answer young apprentice is BOTH.

      And that is why both the Left and Right have it so wrong. Until they realize that there is little chance of meaningful solutions.

      Fascism is like a dance between a mongoose and a cobra who have signed a death pact with each other. Each hoping that it will be able to trick the other, allowing it to be the sole survivor.

      • Glad I didn’t disappoint you 🙂

        • Mathius

          Actually I was a little surprised. I thought Ray would be the one to point out the apparent contradiction or conundrum, if you will.

          He is usually the more critical thinker in the early morning. But based on his reaction I am guessing he just got done with his taxes. 🙂

          • I’m not a morning person.

            No critical thought until I’ve finished my first Red Bull.

  9. Dread Pirate Mathius says:

    The beatings will continue until morale improves..

  10. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hi Everyone

    I have a question here. How is it a company like GE, who made billions of dollars didn’t have to pay taxes, but, yet the little guy who owns his own company, gets stabbed with higher taxes?

    Hope all are doing well today.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Because GE utilizes the loopholes and offshore entities like its nobody’s business. Their tax attorneys are my heroes…

      GE is a prime example of how having the highest corporate tax rates in the country is pure BS. No large company pays anywhere close to these rates. You need to look at the effective corporate tax rates, what these companies are actually paying, and compare that to the rest of the world. I’d be curious if anyone here has done that research…

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Thanks Buck for answering.

        Hope you’re doing well.

      • That’s a good point – it’s like how people complain about the top marginal tax rates for millionaires, but no one pays anywhere close to that.

        If they do, they should fire their tax attorney immediately.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I suspect that GE did in fact pay at least SOME taxes, although far, far less percentage-wise than “the little guy”.

      GE has off-shored a tremendous amount of its operations. What GE generally does is show a tremendous profit off-shore, and either a wash, or a loss here in the US. This allows them to avoid the vast majority of US Corporate Taxes.

  11. Canine Weapon says:

    http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459.abstract

    Now that right there is some dry wit.

  12. March 27, 2011
    Would the last business leaving Illinois please turn out the lights?
    Rick Moran
    Caterpillar, Inc, one of the largest employers in the state of Illinois and an iconic symbol of heartland solidity, is seriously considering a move to another state.

    CEO Doug Oberhelman sent a letter to Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, saying that “the pressure was on” from other states who are trying to woo the tractor maker and their 23,000 jobs away from their home in East Peoria.

    The Pantagraph:

    “I want to stay here. But as the leader of this business, I have to do what’s right for Caterpillar when making decisions about where to invest,” Oberhelman wrote in the letter obtained Friday by the Lee Enterprises Springfield bureau. “The direction that this state is headed in is not favorable to business and I’d like to work with you to change that.”

    Oberhelman said he’s being actively courted to move.

    “I have been called, ‘cornered’ in meetings and ‘wined and dined’ — the heat is on,” Oberhelman wrote. “Before, I never really considered living anywhere else and certainly never considered the possibility of Caterpillar relocating. But I have to admit, the policymakers in Springfield seem to make it harder by the day.”
    Cat spokesman Jim Dugan said the letter was designed to show Quinn that Oberhelman wants to be involved in finding solutions that benefit the company, which employs 23,000 people in Illinois.

    “I view it as an olive branch to offer our help,” Dugan said.

    […]

    “The governor welcomes frank and open exchanges between the business community and government, and we are always open to new ideas that can help our businesses grow, innovate and create jobs,” Callahan said.

    Illinois recently almost doubled its business tax and income taxes for employees. Oberhelman has a fiduciary responsibility to the company’s shareholders to examine options that would increase the profitability of Caterpillar. He could be fired (or charged with a crime) if he failed to do so. The huge tax increase makes staying in Illinois an unprofitable option.

    It would be hard to overstate the effect of Caterpillar leaving downstate Illinois. It would devastate the local economies who depend on Caterpillar and their employees to pump tens of millions of dollars into these communities.

    And then there’s the uncertainty:

    Republican leaders, who unsuccessfully fought Quinn on the tax hike, say the letter confirms why they were opposed to the increase.

    “These are the kinds of letters we fear,” said Patty Schuh, spokeswoman for Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno, R-Lemont. “Even more worrisome are the hundreds of businesses being wooed that we don’t know about.”

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/would_the_last_business_leavin.html

  13. However….

    …though Red Flag’s core philosophy is corrupt and evil, let’s not dismiss his anti-corporate stance immediately.

    His error: he believes his philosophy is enough of an argument.

    I have no problem with whatever tax government places upon the beast it itself created.

    Corporate Tax is paid by the created to its God. You can see the equivalence of Christian tithing.

    I would have no problem whatsoever with 100% tax on corporations.

    So corporations run away? Good riddance.
    Let evil leave, do not fight to keep it close!

    If you do not want the economy to leave with the evil, stop doing evil at home

    100% Corporate tax, but 0% personal income tax. No tax – none – zero – on a human being.

    Companies exist where the people live, not where the piece of paper lives.

    I worked decades in many tax-free jurisdictions. TO be clear, it was tax-free for offshore companies and ex-pats – locals had to pay tax (bizarre, huh? – people who don’t live there, get tax free while “living there”, but people living there have to pay tax!)

    So huge multi-nationals had their international business companies located there for the 0% tax. Billions of dollars flowed through these paper companies.

    But how rich was the island? …. dirt poor. Why? Because this is not where the product and services existed.

    An economy is where the people live and work, not where the piece of paper lives

    If the US had zero income tax – no tax at all on any person – where do you believe people would want to live? Some piece of rock where their corporation piece of paper lives in a filing cabinet or … here?

    Let evil run from these shores – and stop the evil upon the people.

    The People will win massively, the economy will flourish and prosperity and freedom will be preserved.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      All too often, people do not understand the essential difference between “business” and “corporation”. The words are often used inter-changeably, but they have tremendously different meanings.

      • Peter!

        The Dread Pirate Peter has a keen well trained eye! 🙂

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Even when not fully awake, I do grasp the important things now and again 🙂

      • I struggle with this difference and because so, often don’t understand the evil directed toward corporations.

        Help me see what I am missing.

        • Kathy,

          I will invoke the spirit of Aristotle and answer you by asking questions.

          What is a Corporation?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Damn!

            I inadvertently answered your question (below) about the same time you were writing your answer 😦

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          A business is an entity that produces a good or a service and hires individuals to create or provide that good or service.

          A Corporation is a governmental construct which has no basis in reality.

          Briefly, that is the difference.

        • Kathy – Peter,

          No prob.

          A corporation is a legal entity that is created under the laws of a State designed to establish the entity as a separate legal entity having its own privileges and liabilities distinct from those of its members.

          Kathy, a Corporation whole reason to exist is to absorb the NEGATIVE consequences of the actions of its members

          A member of a corporation gets to receive the positive consequences of the member’s action – typically called “Profits” – but avoid the NEGATIVE consequences of the member’s action – typically called “Losses”.

          Loss is a zero-sum game.

          If you do business with me, and I lose your money, you come after me to get your money back. The formulas:

          Profit:
          Kathy -} $100 -} BF.
          BF gains $100 (Score: Kathy = $-100; BF=$+100)
          BF makes $200. (Score: Kathy = $-100; BF=$200)
          Kathy demands repayment, plus interest
          BF -} $110 -} Kathy (Score: Kathy =$+10; BF=$+90)

          Pretty fair, the guy who earns the success gets the profit – (minus a small “rental fee” for the initial loan)

          Loss:
          Kathy -} $100 -} BF.
          BF gains $100 (Score: Kathy = $-100; BF=$+100)
          BF loses $100. (Score: Kathy = $-100; BF=$0)
          Kathy demands repayment.
          BF -} $100 -} Kathy (Score: Kathy =0; BF=$-100)

          Pretty fair – person whose actions lost the $100 loses the $100

          Now Kathy deals with BF’s corporation, called “EVIL Inc.”

          Profit:
          Kathy -} $100 -} EVIL Inc..
          EVIL Inc. gains $100 (Score: Kathy = $-100; EVIL Inc.=$+100)
          BF makes $200. (Score: Kathy = $-100; EVIL Inc.=$200)
          Kathy demands repayment, plus interest
          EVIL Inc. -} $110 -} Kathy (Score: Kathy =$+10; EVIL Inc.=$+90)
          BF gets dividend from Evil Inc. (Score: Kathy =$+10; EVIL Inc.=$+10, BF=$+80)

          Pretty fair, the guy who earns the success gets the profit – (minus a small “rental fee” for the initial loan, and a little bit behind for Evil Inc. costs and taxes…)

          Loss:
          Kathy -} $100 -} EVIL Inc
          EVIL Inc gains $100 (Score: Kathy = $-100; EVIL Inc=$+100)

          BF bets and wins $100, and dividends the $80 on himself (dividend), then gambles and losses everything – but under the guise of Evil Inc, so BF doesn’t actually lose his $80, only what was left in Evil Inc. (Score: Kathy = $-100; EVIL Inc=$0, BF=$+80)

          Kathy demands repayment, not from BF, who lost the money but from BF’s corporation, EVIL Inc.
          EVIL Inc declares bankruptcy.

          (Score: Kathy =$-100; Evil Inc=$0; BF=$+80)

          Kathy is prohbited by law to go after BF. BF is immune to any claim Kathy may make, and happily keeps the money in his pocket. Kathy is on the hook for the whole thing….

          person whose actions lost the money gets to keep his part of it, and YOU, Kathy are the sucker holding the bag

          You, the innocent person – who did not do the gambling – suffer 100% of the loss to my gambling.

          I get the benefits when the gamble wins.
          You get the suffering when the gamble loses.

          • The problem is the corporation was created by capitalists who don’t like losing; now they can’t lose. Greed wins; everybody else loses. You will never get this government to overrule itself since it exists for the sole purpose of big business.

            And all those gains it makes (i.e., the stealing of tax dollars for the bailouts) make their profits immoral and equally as evil (since it was stolen). So what’s wrong with taking it back?

            And maybe hanging a few of those who created the mess (interesting how the legaleaze of the bailouts precluded them from going to court at any future date).

            Thus, no government whatsoever is as idealistic as the workers paradise … both can’t happen; neither will happen. What will happen is sooner or later, as things continue along the same path they are now, whether through national bankruptcy or war or whatever, enough people won’t be able to survive without a revolution. What happens then is anybody’s guess, but the numbers will surely be on the side of those in need, the greater good.

    • And you accuse me of being a sly old dog!!!

  14. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
  15. I’m not sure exactly how this fits with this conversation-maybe just the ways the government is destroying this country. On purpose it seems.

    March 28, 2011
    Soros Wins Under Obama’s Energy Policies
    By Ed Lasky
    Are Barack Obama’s energy policies influenced by hedge fund billionaire and political patron, George Soros?

    Abby Wisse Schacter, in the New York Post, notes that the Obama administration is clamping down on oil and gas development in America (both onshore and offshore) but is hell-bent on helping other nation’s tap their resources and points out that such help is being showered specifically in New Guinea, of all places.

    It is starting to look obvious that the administration doesn’t want oil exploration and extraction at home while it is promoting the same exploration and extraction elsewhere — specifically Brazil and New Guinea. “The Bureau of Ocean Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) has assigned only six drilling engineers to process all permit applications pending in the Gulf of Mexico. While Michael Bromwich bemoans a lack of the staff necessary to speed up the process, he’s sending his staffers to Papua New Guinea to advise its officials on ways to develop the country’s offshore drilling infrastructure. A significant portion of the agency’s budget is covered by fees, royalties, taxes, and rents from energy production, so curtailing drilling closes off cash flow too.

    Others have commented on Obama’s generosity regarding Brazil’s oil wealth and how those actions might help George Soros.

    But focus should now turn towards the exotic land of New Guinea.

    New Guinea? Why there? Why is he using our taxpayer dollars to help energy development in New Guinea? Hasn’t Secretary of the Interior Salazar bemoaned that his budget is just not large enough to process all the drilling permits submitted for tapping America’s oil and gas wealth? Why are he and the President devoting staff and money to help that undeveloped island nation?

    Perhaps, he just wants to pay back George Soros, who was so instrumental in helping his election and the election of fellow Democrats across America. George Soros is the Patron Saint of the Democratic Party and was a very early and generous supporter of Barack Obama’s. Soros even used a loophole in Federal campaign laws that allowed him and his family to give outsized donations to Barack Obama; he also fielded his army of so-called 527 groups (such as MoveOn.Org) to help Obama win the Oval Office.

    Soros also stands to massively benefit if New Guinea becomes an energy power, especially if the American taxpayer subsidizes this development.

    As I have written before (see Cheap Natural Gas and Its Enemies; Cheap Natural Gas and its Democratic Enemies) George Soros, through his hedge fund, has a huge ownership interest in a company called InterOil (stock symbol IOC), whose one major asset is reportedly a huge reservoir of natural gas in New Guinea. He has been increasing his ownership stake in recent months and, as of last November, showed an 11.9% ownership stake. His InterOil holding is the third-largest stock holding in his hedge fund.

    InterOil has been subject to some controversy — there are some investors who are shorting the stock, thinking that the reserves may not be as large as claimed and that it will be very difficult to develop them given the problems with developing energy resources in such an undeveloped nation and the heavy expenses overcoming those problems entail.

    The stock has been soaring upward, along with the rise in energy prices. The move may also be related to the prospect that Japan will rely more on liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports (from Asian nations such as New Guinea) to power its economy in the wake of its nuclear energy problems.

    But there may also be a short squeeze propelling the stock upwards. This occurs when people sell the stock short. Shorting happens when investors think a stock will fall in price. They borrow the stock from others and then sell it. They hope to be able to replace the stock they borrowed by buying it back in the market after the stock price has declined. They profit if the price they pay to buy it back (and return it to the people they borrowed it from is lower than the price they sold it at).

    The nightmare for short-sellers is when the price of the stock moves contrary to what they hoped, and it moves up. Then the pain and bloodletting starts. They may face margin calls. They have to see their shorts decline in value as the stock price moves up. They may eventually be forced to buy back the stock at ever high prices. Sometimes, if there is a large short position in terms of the percentage of the stock float, serious pain ensues as the stock shoots upwards when they are compelled to meet margin calls and cut their losses. Being caught on the wrong side of a short squeeze is akin to being subject to the Wall Street equivalent of water-boarding.

    Meanwhile, those who own the stock (are “long” the stock) are happily counting their riches as the value of their stock soars. They laugh all the way to the bank, as the shorts lie bloodied, bruised, and defeated, all but begging for mercy.

    How can one help engineer a short squeeze? One proven way is to foster a positive news flow that boosts the prospects for the stock and send its shares upwards. Sometimes, public relations firms are involved as they spin out a series of “news” items that promise untold riches to come from a company and its shareholders (a new product, new customers and contracts, the possible sale of the company).

    However, the hype can go into overdrive if you partner up with a more powerful and richer partner — say, the United States of America.

    In the case of InterOil, one big positive development has been Barack Obama’s decision to invest taxpayer dollars in stoking the development of energy resources in New Guinea. InterOil disproportionally benefits from the steps Barack Obama has taken in New Guinea since InterOil’s assets are dominated by its New Guinea operations. InterOil will not have to spend its own money to develop (basically, build from the ground up) the infrastructure that is needed to fully tap the wealth that lies under the leases that InterOil has in New Guinea.

    Instead, the American taxpayer picks up the tab. Sweet deal. We pay the costs and InterOil (along with its major shareholder, George Soros) picks up the profits.

    The market sees what is going on, even if the American taxpayers do not. The American government is picking favorites and InterOil is one of them.

    Has Barack Obama made American taxpayers complicit in engineering a short squeeze in InterOil stock by deciding to help build up the nascent energy industry in, of all places, New Guinea?

    This is far from the first time that political patrons of Barack Obama have minted money from his energy policies (for a partial list of the members of Barack Obama’s “Friends and Family Program” who have benefited from his waste of taxpayer dollars on green schemes see Obama’s Edifice Complex).

    To compound the insult to American taxpayers, much of government spending comes from borrowing money from other nations, such as China. That nation is a huge energy importer. The Chinese would be among the first beneficiaries of the development of New Guinea energy resources. Why aren’t the Chinese paying to develop New Guinea’s energy wealth?

    We won’t be the beneficiaries from the spending of tax dollars in New Guinea? We may actually be the losers from all that spending.

    We have an abundance of natural gas (due to the tapping of our own shale gas reserves); we don’t need LNG. We have such vast amounts of natural gas that ports that were built to import LNG are being reconfigured to export LNG. Why is Obama spending our tax dollars to help a foreign competitor while increasing taxes exponentially on American oil and gas companies? Why encourage New Guinea to develop its LNG capability to export to China, Japan, and other nations when we can and should export our own LNG to them?

    But helping America’s oil and gas industry (and helping lower the energy bills for Americans) is not and never has been on the agenda of Barack Obama.

    Obama’s rewarding his friends and donors, who no doubt will reciprocate by supporting him in 2012, is Cook County Politics writ large. That modus operandi has always guided him.

    Does his agenda include helping further enrich George Soros, sugar daddy of the Democratic Party?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/soros_wins_under_obamas_energy.html

    • TexasChem says:

      Criminal.
      There have to be kickbacks that can be traced floating some papertrail that exists somewhere which would make watergate seem trivial in comparison to this. How in the hell is it legal to use our tax dollars in this manner?

      • That is my question-if you take Soros out of the equation-why can they use our tax dollars to finance this type of thing in another country. Especially while they are stopping it here. Just another way to give our jobs to someone else.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          If the goal is to “give our jobs to someone else” then such an activity makes sense, yes?

  16. Mathius,

    Play will be placed on hold while the referees bicker.

    So, let me get this straight: when evil occurs under Communism, it’s inherent to the system. When evil occurs under Capitalism, it’s inherent to certain isolated incidents of evil individuals? Did I get that right?

    No. You tripped over the means.

    Socialism requires violence to enforce itself upon the people – theft is it means of redistribution of resourcesit is not voluntary.

    Free Market systems exist by voluntary action – not forced.

    Whereas Socialism requires force, Free market resists force.

    This does not mean that under Socialism, some poor soul cannot be charitable – that is, there exists many people under Socialism who voluntarily give away their resources to the needy. These people do not make Socialism “good”. It remains incredibly evil.

    Likewise, under Free Market, there are some evil people who steal. These people do not make the Free Market “bad”. It remains the most moral of economic systems.

    First and goal!

    • ::lets the air out of the ball and leaves it on the 10 yard line::

      Ok, let’s try this again.

      True communism as envisioned is very different than attempts at communism as applied.

      Similarly, true capitalism as envisioned is very different than attempts at capitalism as applied.

      Communism is not supposed to be forced on anyone. It is supposed to be a completely voluntary system wherein everyone takes according to their need and gives according to their ability. Now, you and I know that human nature makes this completely impossible without the use of force (and merely absurd with the use of force), but the use of force is not a flaw inherent to communism – it is inherent to the people who are trying to implement a system which does not and cannot work.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        Force is a flaw inherent to communism, simply because no matter how good it sounds, it is IMPOSSIBLE to implement without the use of force!

        So, you have a contradiction! You claim communism is not supposed to be forced on anyone, but the system is inherently impossible to implement without force (in fact, to bring the system about requires a “workers revolution”).

        This imbedded contradiction is the main reason why the system does not, and cannot, work.

        • I agree that it does not and cannot work. Nor, in fact, as you pointed out, can it even be implemented.

          However, that fact is the flaw in communism. The theory specifically eschews violence, so any use of violence is contradictory to the theory of Communism. That said, any used to uphold communism is now upholding something that is no longer pure communism.

          So, murdering as part of “communism” is a non-sequitur. Government violence in a communist society cannot exist or the society is no longer communist – in fact, there can be no government in the first place as a communist society does not permit such an entity to exist. That one appears or that, having appeared, it causes violence, means that you are now dealing with a pseduo-communist system.

          Once more with feeling: communist systems cannot use violence, because if they use violence then they are not communist.

          The flaw in communism is that it cannot exist. Period.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            “The flaw in communism is that it cannot exist. Period.”

            Hmm… I would argue that it could exist on a VERY limited scale, such as a nuclear family.

            However, as a FORM OF GOVERNMENT, your statement is patently true.

      • Mathius

        “Communism is not supposed to be forced on anyone.”

        Per the Manifesto:

        1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

        4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

        Do I need to go any further?

        You claim is absurd Mathius. Where did you ever get such a notion?

    • Free Market systems exist by voluntary action – not forced

      Not that I want to get into this again, but the free market was voluntary for about 2 seconds (relatively speaking). Once power was consolidated, free went out the window. We disagree on this big time so I won’t go back and forth, but I’ll continue to believe that nobody is worth $2.4 million an hour (unless it’s a minimum wage … :).

      The market does not determine that cost. It is as fixed as a minimum wage by those too greedy to share. Nobody needs that much while others suffer. It is truly immoral and totally unnecessary.

      The wealth accumulated over time immorally and handed down the same way can never approximate freedom for those forced (to survive) to work for so much less. Greed is what drive jobs overseas; not competition. Corporations can use that excuse (competition) so many of you seem to swallow whole forever; there will always exist cheaper labor elsewhere. Obviously those who have chosen to move parts of their business overseas (whether it is IT, word processing, help lines, etc.) could care less about the cost (or they wouldn’t have done it). The resident red says you’re all barking up a tree about to fall on your collective heads (maybe not in your lifetimes but eventually). Social darwinism will bite you in the ass before it weeds out the so-called slackers. A new government formed by those without connections to big business has a much better shot at governing fairly than letting this system run its course — eventually to revolution, probably armed, that would lead to yet another abortion.

      Safety!

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        “Once power was consolidated, free went out the window.”

        Charlie, at which point it was NO LONGER A FREE MARKET!

        You cannot confuse “what we have now” with a “free market”. There is no comparison.

        • You tell me when it was “free” … you guys are the ones moving that goal post from side to side whenever it is convenient. I don’t think it was ever free. So long as there are haves, there are have nots. Was it a free market when the land used to accumulate capital was stolen from the native Indians? Was it free when slaves worked the land (and entreprenuers gained capital that lasted into future generations)? You tell me …

  17. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I don’t feel like working very hard today. If I did, I would put together a list of countries and how to ROUGHLY classify economies.

    The Scale would look something like

    Free Market—–Capitalist—–Mercantilist—Socialist/Fascist

    Then I would attempt to classify various countries as to where they fall on that scale. Then it might be possible to compare which end of the scale yields better results for societies as a whole.

    But, as I said, I am feeling lazy today, so the rest of you are stuck thinking about it 🙂

    • This should give you a good start – pay special attention to #6 and #132.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Excellent start!

        However, I suspect that the US used to be higher than #6, and China used to be MUCH LOWER than #132 🙂

        • OK, but we’re #6 and they’re kicking our asses.. your take?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            My take part 1:

            We are moving in the wrong direction, they are moving in the right direction on the economic freedom scale.

            My take part 2:

            They have 4 times our population, and do not have very favorable resource, energy, and labor costs compared to ours.

            My take part 3:

            They have discovered that the “average” US consumer has a tremendous appetite for things that are of only middling quality but cost very little. This is in large part because the “average” US consumer no longer has the disposable income to demand things of high quality that are more expensive.

            My take part 4:

            We are going to have to start producing things here again in order to afford to start consuming things again. I am not yet sure how this is going to be accomplished (or even if it will be accomplished). However, we have clearly gone from a PRODUCTION economy to a CONSUMPTION economy, and consumption economies CANNOT be self-sustaining.

            • A consumption economy can sustain itself as long as it can force the world to continue to provide.

              Ask the Romans.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Please note that the Roman Empire did collapse. It took a while, but the collapse was unavoidable.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Also, I noted that a consumption economy cannot be SELF-sustaining. It can, like the Roman Empire, attempt to sustain itself by use of force.

          • Here is my unsolicited TAKE.

            You, like most on the left who make this comparison have a far to narrow window of evaluation.

            You want to take a 1 to 5 year event and project it into some long term reality that quite simply defies reality.

            China today is no different than the USA in 1945. A huge pent up demand with massive opportunities for expansion.

            But what is really happening? Inflation and future financial collapse is in their future as much as ours. All thanks to Govt control of the economic engine.

            When you start from nothing every thing looks like roses.

            You also make the wrong comparison. You think China is beating the USA and that is proof of “socialism is better”.

            But in reality we are playing the SAME game. They are beginning to pull ahead because of their size and where they started. This is NOT a comparison of free market vs socialism.

            It is a comparison of Big Fascism vs. Bigger Fascism. BOTH will collapse eventually.

  18. Mathius,

    True communism as envisioned is very different than attempts at communism as applied.

    As I’ve pointed out before – which is communism though never called this – is how you run your family.
    “From those that can to those that need”.

    Communism – big “C” stuff – requires violence.
    Please note the REQUIRED.

    It TAKES – by force – and gives over here.

    It says it does this specifically in its philosophy – there are no questions here

    Similarly, true capitalism as envisioned is very different than attempts at capitalism as applied.

    Capitalism – a consequences of the Free Market – does not state anywhere it needs to FORCE anyone to do something

    Communism is not supposed to be forced on anyone.
    It is supposed to be a completely voluntary system wherein everyone takes according to their need and gives according to their ability.

    There is nothing voluntary – did you not read Marx?

    [Marx] reviews its implications for the advancement of society, including the abolition of property and family. This section also stresses a kind of Utopia that can only be brought about by violence and conflict with the working class wresting power from the bourgeoisie (the owners of the means of production). This conflict is projected also to bring about the end of nation-states and, ultimately, all forms of government, resulting in a worker’s paradise.

    So, the ball is re-inflated – First and Goal!

    • “Our socialism or communism should, therefore, be based on non-violence and on harmonious co-operation of labour and capital, landlord and tenant. (ABP, 2-8-1934)”

      “Meaning of Communism
      Communism of the Russian type, that is communism which is imposed on a people, would be repugnant to India. If communism came without any violence, it would be welcome. For then no property would be held by anybody except on behalf of the people and for the people. A millionaire may have his millions, but he will hold them for the people. (YI, 11-12-1924, p. 406)”

      -Ghandi

      • Touchdown, Mathius …

      • Mathius,

        So your counter argument is to go to a man who did not conceive of Communism and take his definition which is contrary to the inventor.

        So Gandhi redefines the meaning – claims it to be good – the people seize it, but the essence of the beast has not changed – so the People give rise to a horrific evil.

        Brilliant stratagem, but does not change Socialism or Communism – they are evil – they require violence.

    • That’s a nice try (that quote) … 15 yard penalty.

      That isn’t “reading Marx” … it is a very subjective summary.

      But let’s forget it for now and deal with what you say is a moral choice (capitalism). Moral for who? The millions on the shit end of the stick or those controlling things?

      Seems to me you’re outnumbered. Those who see immorality in the few having the lot will eventually change the rules of the game, whether by force or not. You cannot outrun that without using violence yourselves. Some consider being forced out of their homes violence. Some consider having to choose between their homes and their health violence. Especially when clowns who bankrupt a company walk away with $22 million in a golden parachute. Trust me, those days will eventually come to an end. When you remove enough restraints on business and they finish having their field day, they’ll be nothing for the rest of us to do but take it back (savages that we are) … and survival demands we do it. I only hope Blankfeld of Goldman Sachs is the first tossed off the roof.

      • Charlie,

        Knowing you haven’t read Marx at all, I will past the words specifically:

        In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

        • You should post the next paragraph, which explains the why of it, BF. At least be honest. And it doesn’t change the fact that your first post was a summary (a subjective one).

          But I’m not going to engage that nonsense again. What makes capitalism so moral? And who is it moral for?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Charlie,

        Look at all socialist and communist governments – who controls all of the wealth?

        Why have the Chinese people become more prosperous? Because of MORE government intervention or because of LESS government intervention?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Don’t confuse people like Blankfeld with free market capitalists.

        He is about as far from it as Mao.

  19. Charlie,

    They must maximize profits under this system (one reason it works against the greater good–accumulation by the very few).

    Your analysis always fails here.

    You cannot obtain profit without a sale.

    The People will only buy products which solves their problem.

    They People will buy the products that best solves their problem.

    You cannot make a profit unless you are good at solving People’s problems

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      One of the reasons our economy is doomed to utter collapse, is that the system has been rigged to “generate profit” by not solving any problems whatsoever. It is EASY to generate profits when you are given money printed out of thin air at 0% interest, and then invest this money in the stock market, thereby inflating the price of stocks.

      Who does this benefit? The very people Charlie is talking about.

      However, printing money out of thin air CANNOT HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET! It is anathema to free market principles!

      Someone loaning money to someone else at 0% interest doesn’t generally happen in a free market either, although it could BY CHOICE, but it wouldn’t be a regular occurrence.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      In other words, a way has been created to “make a profit” while creating huge problems, rather than solving problems. Economically this means disaster.

    • Your analysis always fails here. You cannot obtain profit without a sale. The People will only buy products which solves their problem. They People will buy the products that best solves their problem. You cannot make a profit unless you are good at solving People’s problems

      And I think it’s spot on analysis. The people will buy what the need to survive (as well as that which they may not need). If a monopoly exists that offers what they need, they are forced to buy. Profit, the motive, will always seek a highest level (sooner or later) and then your profit is maximized and the only problem solving was how to create more profit (i.e., corporations).

  20. “The measure of the state’s success is that the word ‘anarchy’ frightens people, while the word ‘state’ does not.”

    ~ Joseph Sobran

  21. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
    • I love it!

    • Peter

      It is not unreasonable to claim that melting ice sheets will result in earthquakes.

      The earths crust is still rising in the upper mid west due to reduced weight of the retreating glaciers.

      • JAC,

        It is incredibly unreasonable!

        One cubic kilometer of ice weighs 900 megatonnes (or 0.9 Gigatonnes)

        During the Ice Age, there was 27,000,000 cubic km of ice covering North America.

        Greenland Ice sheet is 2,800,000 cubic km.

        There was 24,300,000 Gigatonnes of Ice on North America.
        There is 2,520,000 Gigatonnes of Ice on Greenland.

        Greenland has lost 294 Gigatonnes of ice over the last 10 years.

        North America has lost 21,780,000 Gigatonnes since the last ice age – or 75,000 times more – roughly 4.5 magnitudes more….

        • Black Flag

          It is NOT unreasonable.

          But once again you seem to skip over my words to fast.

          Please note that I did not link this connection to the claims made by this Greenie lunatic. At this point, the quakes associated with such melting would more than likely be local in nature.

          As in Greenland, Iceland and the Antarctic.

          The proponent forgot the biggest ice melt has occurred over open ocean. Last I checked frozen water can add that much weight to water that suspends the ice from which it came.

          By the way, when exactly did you measure the volume of the glaciers that covered North America?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        The pressure exerted by an ice sheet resting ON THE SURFACE of the earth is MINISCULE compared to the pressure 5 to 6 km BENEATH the surface of the earth, which is where earthquakes happen.

        • Peter

          Whether you maintain it is minuscule or not there have been various geologic papers and studies linking the two.

          But as I said to BF above, the stuff I read showed such responses to be localized and not popping up thousands of miles away.

    • TexasChem says:

      I hope the ice continues to melt and uncovers the continent of Antarctica to the point in which it could be colonized and and a new VDLG Nation formed…

      🙂

  22. Wow.. this guy is amazing.. If anyone supports this guy, let me know and I’ll be happy to tear your viewpoint apart 🙂
    LINK

    • Mathius

      Let’s at least explore the specifics. It makes a good example of how the Statists (lefties) use the fallacy of erroneous association to distort truth and muddle the people’s ability to think.

      “Bryan Fischer, the “Director of Issues Analysis” for the social conservative group the American Family Association, says that when it comes to Islam, the First Amendment is a privilege, not a right.”: OK, this one is fun. You see most lefties support the notion that our rights stem “from the constitution”, therefore they are by definition “privileges” as their existence depends on Govt. But, this “privilege” is not limited to any group. So on point one true, if your a lefty, and on the other point false. But he groups them together in an attempt to get you to agree that if A is true then B must also be true.

      “”Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam,” Fischer wrote today.”: This is a TRUE statement. This is the set up for the second part;

      “”The First Amendment was written by the Founders to protect the free exercise of Christianity.” TRUE, along with ALL other religions. The trap is getting sophisticated.

      “They were making no effort to give special protections to Islam.” TRUE, they did not discriminate, but here the trap shuts;

      “Quite the contrary,” Fischer wrote on his Renew America blog.” : Completely FALSE. There is no Contrary. This is where the completely false association occurs and affects the non critical thinker.

      If A is true and B is true and C seems true then D must be true.

      So now the million dollar, and unanswerable, question. Does this ass-clown believe this or is he deliberately twisting history in his propoganda scheme?

      • I don’t have enough information to answer that. I’ll just have to go with the following:

        … [the Virginia Act’s] protection of opinion was meant to be universal … they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it’s [sic] protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.

        — Thomas Jefferson, in his autobiography, in Writings

        • Works for me!!!

          • Actually, the most interesting thing to me about that quote is the evolution of the terms and spelling:

            Hindoo = Hindu
            Mahometan = Muhammadean = Muslim

            These things always fascinate me for some reason.

            • Mathius

              I recall seeing Mahamedan as well during that period.

              Another of my favorites of the time was their use of the word “approbation”.

              It is also interesting to note the absence of “fear about Islam” that seemed to exist during this period. Yet these men were much more in tune with the history of the Crusades and Caliphates than we are today.

  23. Bama dad says:

    Charlie is she one of those rich evil people?

    Part of the story

    A business maverick
    A native of Massachusetts, Quimby was the black sheep of a family in which her father was an engineer and a salesman and her sisters both earned their MBAs. Foregoing the business track, she went to art school in San Francisco, where she joined the “good life’’ back-to-the-land movement led by Helen and Scott Nearing.
    With $3,000 in savings, she and her boyfriend ended up in Maine in 1975 — not because of the state’s rugged natural beauty but because the land was cheap.
    They bought 30 acres in Guilford and built a cabin with an outhouse. They cut their own firewood. What staples they didn’t grow, they bought in 60-pound bags.
    Eventually, Quimby met beekeeper Burt Shavitz, the namesake whose bearded face appears on the labels of Burt’s Bees lip balm, moisturizers, and shampoos. Quimby used Burt’s beeswax to create candles she sold at craft fairs in 1984. In the first year, her company made $20,000. In 1991, Burt’s Bees introduced what remains its most popular product — lip balm made from beeswax.
    As the business grew, Quimby moved her business out of Maine, which she said was a punishing place to do business. She relocated to a North Carolina industrial park, and eventually bought out Shavitz’s shares.
    As Burt’s Bees grew, she began buying land for conservation. Once again, she chose to buy in Maine. In 2003, she sold 80 percent of Burt’s Bees for $170 million, she said. She made another $180 million when she sold her remaining stake four years later to Clorox, which now owns Burt’s Bees.

    Whole story:

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2011/03/28/burts_bees_founder_hopes_to_create_new_national_park/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+–+Today%27s+paper+A+to+Z

    • She isn’t necessary evil, of course not. But her $170 million profit from isn’t “hers” … something tells me there were quite a few workers involved in the process described above. Does she really need $170 million to live? Was that the magic number that made her sell off “her” business? And now that Clorox owns it, the immoral earnings (sweat of her brow, really?) are passed on to another corporation that will hord profits for shareholders while they pay the people who do the actual producing peanuts by comparison. Nobody can earn or need $170 million. You asked, I answered.

      • “But her $170 million profit from isn’t “hers”

        Why? The whole thing was her idea, no idea no money.

        “Nobody can earn or need $170 million.”

        Actually her profit was $350 million and she did earn it, she started out in a log cabin. Did you read the whole article? I like the 120 thousand acres she bought and now wants to turn it into a national park.

  24. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
  25. I would laugh so hard that my insides would burst . . . But it just ain’t funny.

    Now, all of a sudden, this “younger and more smarter” generation has finally realized that we have been “Progressively” taxed more and more until over 70% of our hard earned income is going to taxes in one form or another?!?

    *sigh* I hate to tell you this, kids, but this old fart has been screaming at the top of his lungs about this for DECADES! But all you wanted to do was go out and buy your toys and half-million dollar houses on credit and ignore the old geezer.

    Oh, and FYI – Corporations being taxed until they run overseas and government backed union demands DO belong in the same conversation because they are two poisons in the same bottle!

    So . . . NOW that you have started to wake up to the real world . . . JUST WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO GET UP OFF YOUR FAT GLUTEMUS MAXIMUS AND ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS?

    Or are you just going to be content to sit here and continue to whine about it?

    • Papa,

      Coming up soon: Part Two-demi and Part Three

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Papa Dawg,

      We ARE doing something about it! You just don’t realize that we are doing something about it, and because of that lack of realization, you feel that we are doing nothing.

      I assure you, this is not the case.

  26. Panic sets in on the left
    Steve McCann
    Two recent headline stories: 1) Chinese police have arrested prominent writer Ran Yunfei for challenging the ruling Communist Party; the latest in a string of arrests in a deepening crackdown on dissent. 2) the George Soros-funded Media Matters has announced open guerilla warfare and sabotage of Fox News and various conservative blog sites. They plan to intimidate, through character assassination and opposition research, the executives and personalities at all levels of these organizations.

    China has become the symbol to many Americans of a monolithic financial and economic giant with an insatiable appetite for power. The fact of the matter is that China’s greatest dilemma is that it has become a financial and economic powerhouse in a comparatively short time with a governing structure that is anathema to a capitalist system which inherently promotes freedom and individuality.

    No one group is aware of that more than the current Chinese leadership. The recent upheavals in the Middle East and the call by many Chinese pro-democracy activists for their own “Jasmine Revolution” (the term for the Tunisian rebellion) have the Chinese leaders initiating crackdowns that border on paranoia. They have arrested and detained hundreds of lawyers, bloggers and dissidents in China’s harshest crackdown in years.

    The Chinese leadership also knows that the economic miracle with which they legitimize power is in danger. The country is experiencing a massive real estate bubble and unchecked food inflation. Many provincial officials are fueling this phenomenon by selling more and more land, stirring up resentment in the process. Farmers who protest are tormented by police officers and government thugs, or even thrown into jail without being charged.

    Despite these risks, thousands of Chinese rebel against communist authority year after year, almost always in protest against the same chronic abuses: corruption, land grabbing, low wages, food prices and an ever increasing resentment toward the Chinese Ruling Class and their extravagant lifestyle.

    As with all totalitarian regimes and organizations in history the Communist Chinese are no different, instead of looking to expand freedom and become more inclusive as way of combating future problems, they have embarked on new repressive measures and a massive surveillance and intimidation program.

    It is apparent that the leadership of China is not confident in the future and secure in the Communist Party’s ability to maintain an iron-fisted control of the 1.3 Billion people that make up modern day China. The current paranoia reveals many cracks in the image they portray to the world and as with so many despotic regimes before them; time is not on their side.

    That same paranoia is sweeping the Left in the United States. The hegemony of the media they enjoyed for decades is crumbling around them. The rise of the Tea Party movement, the myriad of conservative web sites, the dominance of right-wing talk radio and Fox News combined with the public’s awareness of the imminent financial disaster facing the country and the need to cut-off spending to special interest groups has inspired panic among the die-hards on the Left.

    As so much of their power is derived directly from spending on government programs and indirectly from government workers union dues, many on the Left will see a major erosion in their lifestyle if the conservatives fully take over the levers of government in Washington D.C.

    The Left is no longer confident in their ability to maintain control of the message and the political class. Thus, they turn to the only weapons they have: intimidation by causing chaos (see: unions and Wisconsin et al) and blackmail. These tactics will used with greater frequency and the war of words will become more vitriolic; but it is a certain sign they are losing because by reverting to these actions they reveal their true nature and goals to the public which now has the alternative media the Left so despises.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/panic_sets_in_onthe_left.html

  27. Back on Topic

    Are Corporate Taxes to high?

    I say YES they are. So are ALL income taxes.

    What I thought one of the best moves of the Bush tax cuts was that the upper Corporate rate was made equal to the upper personal rate. Prior to that the Corporate rate was actually “lower” for higher income levels.

    The result was a gaming of the system by setting up corporations that had no real business purpose. Many go wealthy selling books and holding seminars on how to make all this happen in a “legal” way.

    So without eliminating Corporations it seems a good idea to me to have the rates the same. Then incorporation can be done for purely business reasons and not tax avoidance.

    As evidence of marginal rates being to high I offer you the Tax Code and the historical Effective Rates paid by the wealthy.

    If the Corp rate were simply an inconvenience we would not see thousands of lobbyists and millions spent getting congress to write special tax loop holes.

    Going back to the depression era the effective tax rate for the upper income earners has been around 20%. I have not seen the “corporate tax” numbers but would guess it is between 20% and the 15% Cap Gains rate.

    So I vote for reducing the tax rate and then eliminating all the loopholes, exceptions, special breaks, etc.

    Sorry Buck but your expendable for the greater good.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      My guess is the effective corporate tax rate on average (at least for large corporations, not small closely-held corps) is significantly lower than the cap gains rate.

      And I agree, this needs to be addressed, just not to the point of getting rid of my job!

      • TexasChem says:

        Don’t worry Buck…
        I can get you a job breaking horses and tending cattle if ya’ get too down on your luck… 🙂

      • Buck

        Older data but based on this it looks like my guess was better than yours……..na na na na na!

        By Robert McIntyre and T.D. Coo Nguyen
        First published by the Multinational Monitor, Vol 25, No. 11

        Ostensibly, the U.S. federal tax code requires corporations to pay 35 percent of their profits in income taxes.

        But of the 275 Fortune 500 companies that made a profit each year from 2001 to 2003 and for which adequate information to draw conclusions is publicly available, only a small proportion paid federal income taxes anywhere near that statutory 35 percent tax rate. The vast majority paid considerably less.

        In fact, in 2002 and 2003, the average effective tax rate for all of these 275 companies was less than half the statutory 35 percent rate. Over the 2001-2003 period, effective tax rates ranged from a low of -59.6 percent for Pepco Holdings to a high of 34.5 percent for CVS.

        Over the three-year period, the average effective rate for all 275 companies dropped by a fifth, from 21.4 percent in 2001 to 17.2 percent in 2002-2003.

        JAC footnote. The problem with this report and others like it is that they only look at the Big Boys. They don’t include ALL corporations.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Can’t include all corporations — small closely held corps don’t have the ability (and for those that do, it doesn’t always make sense) to play with all the offshore holding companies and all that crazy stuff.

          I’m a bit surprised that the average was as high as 17.2. But this was back in 2002-2003. I’d like to believe I am still more correct than you if we look at 2009 or 2010. So there!

          • Buck

            small closely held corps don’t have the ability

            (
            Bull.
            The ability to utilize offshore structures is not limited to size.

            and for those that do, it doesn’t always make sense)

            Perhaps true.
            It costs money.

            You have to save at least the cost in taxes to make such a strategy worthwhile. It makes little sense to pay some Bermuda chap $10,000 a year to save $4,000 in taxes (unless your hate of government is $6,000 a year).

            … and all that crazy stuff.

            And that is why most don’t even try.

            They have been trained to believe its all crazy stuff or illegal or immoral

            That education is important, because the big guys do it, they made it legal, and they think its the right thing to do …for them.

            To keep the game going for them is to make the game look sick to you.

            What would happen if even 1/3 of the companies did this? Gasp! The government would go bankrupt over night….and the government would have to invoke new rules to stop it, destroying the big boys game.

            So, keep it up, Buck.

            Keep telling people how “crazy” the game is to make sure the game works only for the big boys…..

  28. Charlie

    That inconsistency I mentioned earlier … now we aren’t a free market so the bailouts don’t count.

    There is no inconsistency.

    You are moving your complaint about System B to apply to System A, but System A is not System B.

    If you have a complain about this system in the USA – mercantilism and fascism – then you’ve got a lot of it right.

    But that complaint about them does not make the Free market and Voluntary choice wrong.

    Dictators came to control so-called communist nation states. I call it revisionism gone wild. Semantics.

    Of course it is not Semantics.

    It is a part of the core requirements as I’ve already posted.

    It is you who is trying to revise it into something else by denying is core.

    If the free market was so moral and winning a concept, why hasn’t it produced what you claim it can — this total freedom.

    Because you have it backwards

    The Free market does NOT make men free.

    Free men acting in voluntary association make a free market.

    Why do people feel the need to shackle it from time to time (labor laws, etc.)?

    Because men have learned it is sometimes easier to steal wealth then earn it.

    Theft is incredibly profitable.

    The grasshopper need only wait all summer until fall to steal the goods and effort of the ant made during all those months. A few minutes of terror and *poof* and entire years worth of effort now owned by the grasshopper.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Loving the back and forth on this issue between you and Charlie. But I gotta say, its getting pretty annoying to keep reading the same thing over and over.

      Your views on capitalism and the free market are absolutely utopian. It just does not work like this, and you know it. While I agree with you that we do not have a truly free market economy (for one CANNOT exist), our system is much closer to a free market than to socialism or communism. Yet all the problems we face you attribute solely to government intervention, that the free market, if it existed, would immediately rectify these problems and there would be no such problems. That is utter hogwash. Why do you insist that the free market would automatically solve all of these problems? Both systems – free market and communism – in their truest forms are equally idealistic and impossible to ever have.

      Ok, I’m done with my rant for the day. I hope it made sense, but I’m in desparate need of coffee and a nap, so no promises on that front. Off to the umpteenth meeting of the day…

      • Buck

        oving the back and forth on this issue between you and Charlie. But I gotta say, its getting pretty annoying to keep reading the same thing over and over.

        Errors being repeated need the truth to be repeated.

        Your views on capitalism and the free market are absolutely utopian.

        Not one little bit.
        It is praxeological.

        It just does not work like this, and you know it.

        You deny this:
        Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit.

        If you deny this, you are an idiōtēs, a private person one who lacks professional knowledge.

        Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit.

        Yet all the problems we face you attribute solely to government intervention,

        True.

        that the free market, if it existed, would immediately rectify these problems and there would be no such problems.

        You lie.

        I never said this.

        In fact, I have said that you can never solve all the suffering of man. In fact, I have said there would still be an infinite number of problems because every action creates new consequences.

        What I have said, and you better write it down this time:

        Free men in voluntary association and trade is the optimum economic and social system for mankind

        That is utter hogwash.

        Yes, your straw man is utter hogwash.

        Why do you insist that the free market would automatically solve all of these problems?

        What are “these” un-described problems you are referring to?

        Both systems – free market and communism – in their truest forms are equally idealistic and impossible to ever have.

        Free market exists everyday – so much so, you are fish who cannot recognize the water you swim in.

        Every time you trade with another man – your money or goods for his money or goods – without violence and voluntary, you are invoking a Free Market.

        You have done it ten of thousands of times, and because it is so natural, you cannot even see it.

  29. Charlie,

    The problem is the corporation was created by capitalists who don’t like losing; now they can’t lose.

    Corporations are created by government for a means to benefit the government.

    There is a cost in using government force to deflect negative consequences.

    Corporations are not a Capitalist phenomenathey have existed since Roman Times.

    They are a means to mitigate loss while enjoying all the benefits. Such a desire exists in all endeavors of man – and where there is government, such laws are often created.

    You will never get this government to overrule itself since it exists for the sole purpose of big business.

    Backwards again.
    Corporations do not create Government.

    Government creates Corporations. Government sees massive benefit in selling its violence to those that will use it to profit the government.

    So what’s wrong with taking it back?

    The use of Evil Means to defeat Evil only guarantees that Evil remains in place

    • Flip flopping? The government is owned by money, BF. There’s no denying it. It isn’t owned by the greater good, that’s for sure. What entitlements exist now exist only because you’d have open revolution (armed) tomorrow if you took them all away. They were necessary bones tossed about by those who figured out there’s more profit to be made if the masses remain somewhat dormant. Big business runs this government so spin it however you want. Corporations were not written into the constitution. Corporations (no matter where they existed before) were written into law here to protect capitalists. I don’t mind your arguments against corporations (i’m with you there) but I don’t for a second believe it was the state who created them for the sake of the greater good; they were created to protect the monied, which they do.

      • Charlie

        Flip flopping?

        You are the pancake in the pan, believing it is not you who is flipping, but the pan.

        The government is owned by money, BF.

        I wouldn’t argue against that perception.

        Government has something to sell – its violence.
        It goes to the highest bidder.

        There’s no denying it. It isn’t owned by the greater good, that’s for sure.

        To own a tool of great evil is not a very wise or moral goal.

        What entitlements exist now exist only because you’d have open revolution (armed) tomorrow if you took them all away.

        Yep.

        They were necessary bones tossed about by those who figured out there’s more profit to be made if the masses remain somewhat dormant.

        Yep.

        Big business runs this government so spin it however you want.

        Didn’t say otherwise.
        Your conclusions may be correct. Your reasoning is faulty.

        Corporations were not written into the constitution.

        Nope.
        Weren’t excluded either.

        Corporations (no matter where they existed before) were written into law here to protect capitalists.

        Nope. There are many capitalists who do not use corporations – called “self proprietorships”.

        Again, you are confused about capitalism.

        I don’t mind your arguments against corporations (i’m with you there) but I don’t for a second believe it was the state who created them for the sake of the greater good;

        I never said the State created them for the greater good – for one, the latter does not exist.

        I said the existence of the Corporation is to mitigate loss and place it on the innocent. There is a fee to government for this service – and it is paid by lobbyists, kickbacks, bribes, fees, licenses, taxes, etc.

        they were created to protect the monied, which they do.

        …or who ever does not want to face consequences of their action.

  30. Charlie,

    You should post the next paragraph, which explains the why of it, BF. At least be honest. And it doesn’t change the fact that your first post was a summary (a subjective one).

    No.

    Nothing in the next paragraph contradicts the statement – the next paragraph attempts to justify the use of violence – it does not deny it.

    It is no different than a man shooting another and claiming “well, he deserved it”.

    What makes capitalism so moral? And who is it moral for?

    Capitalism is no more or less moral than the man.

    Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit.

    Capitalism, as a consequence of a Free Market, is moral for the means is moral – earned.

    If such a system underlying Capitalism also glorifies and justifies theft and violence, then it is the underlying system that pollutes Capitalism.

    Thus, one must pierce to the essence of a system – is it moral or immoral.

    Socialism is immoral for it glorifies theft.
    Mercantilism is immoral for it glorifies theft. Capitalism arising from Mercantilism is merely the cloth covering the elephant.

  31. Charlie,

    Your analysis always fails here. You cannot obtain profit without a sale. The People will only buy products which solves their problem. They People will buy the products that best solves their problem. You cannot make a profit unless you are good at solving People’s problems

    And I think it’s spot on analysis. The people will buy what the need to survive (as well as that which they may not need).

    The purpose people act does not change anything.

    No one can have everything.
    Therefore, everyone needs to make choices.
    Choices manage trade offs – picking “this” does not allow you to have “that”.

    Your subjective values are yours and yours alone. They care no merit onto anyone else.

    You believing you can judge other people’s choice is your repeated error.

    If a monopoly exists that offers what they need, they are forced to buy.

    Monopolies can only exist by government law.

    They can not exist in a Free Market.

    Profit, the motive, will always seek a highest level (sooner or later) and then your profit is maximized and the only problem solving was how to create more profit (i.e., corporations).

    You deny that to make a profit requires a sale.

    Because of this error, the rest of your argument collapses.

  32. Capitalism, as a consequence of a Free Market, is moral for the means is moral – earned.

    “Earned” is where you lose me. We have different definitions of what “earned” means. It isn’t a black and white issue (as you’ll no doubt argue). Some can earn; some can’t (for reasons beyond their control). Can one earn more than one needs? Is it moral to do so? That’s where we differ at heart. I don’t see anyone “needing” extravagant amounts of money while others suffer. I don’t think accumulated wealth (over time–America’s past to now) was done so morally (and in some cases legally). Letting it continue is perpetuating evil (in my book). Have to pick up the wife … my only job these days.

    • Charlie

      “Earned” is where you lose me. We have different definitions of what “earned” means.

      Provide it, then.

      If you define earned = steal, then obviously we have a serious disconnect.

      Some can earn; some can’t (for reasons beyond their control).

      Everyone can earn, unless they are a vegetable.

      Even if you are a vegatable, it is still immoral to steal.

      There exists a means for everyone to obtain the resources they need without a recourse to theft

      Just because the means maybe difficult does not change this.

      Can one earn more than one needs?

      All progress and prosperity depends on this.

      Is it moral to do so?

      The means determines the morality, not the goal.

      The means justifies the ends

      That’s where we differ at heart. I don’t see anyone “needing” extravagant amounts of money while others suffer.

      I do not have the right nor the knowledge to judge other men’s wants or needs.

      You do not know about any man enough to judge “how much” or “how little” of anything he should have – except yourself.

      And as you are qualified in judging only yourself, other men are equally qualified in judging themselves.

      Do not confuse your disgust of another man’s lifestyle to be the justification for you to impose yourself on that man

      Have to pick up the wife … my only job these days.

      Lucky begger! 😉

      • I am lucky (even I admit that) 🙂

        “Do not confuse your disgust of another man’s lifestyle to be the justification for you to impose yourself on that man”

        not while a greater society suffers so one man can enjoy riches he a) didn’t earn and/or b) doesn’t need.

        • Charlie,

          Society suffers infinitely worse consequences by your attempts -using force- to correct what you believe may be injustice.

          When you attack non-violent men – just because they disgust you – you begin the unraveling of civilization.

  33. TexasChem says:

    Off topic, but what the hell it’s an interesting read and insight into the mind of our POTUS …

    Obama says too much testing makes education boring…

    WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama said Monday that students should take fewer standardized tests and school performance should be measured in other ways. Too much testing makes education boring for kids, he said.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110328/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_education_2

    Yup…we must continue to insure the chattel are dumbed down.

  34. 😐 for comments

  35. Off topic warning!

    Ok, anyone see the CBS version of Obama’s speech? Please, if anyone who frequents SUFA thinks we do not have a main stream media bias, explain the anchor’s comments at the end of Obama’s speech.

    “He is speaking to a military audience and being a politician.”

    “He said it would cost a lot more to not intervene.”

    “He set the bar really high for interfearing, we are not talking about ‘regime change’.”

    These are the comments of a political commentator, not a reporter. Tell me what the hell sets CBS news apart from any other political commentator.

    • USWeapon says:

      Ohhh if you think that was bad you should have watched MSNBC, where they cut from the speech and went directly to a concert of Kid Rock singing “Born Free” to several of the past Presidents. How Patriotic….

    • So now we can attack another country without need for regime change.

      Isn’t that setting the bar LOWER instead of higher??????

      47% of the USA agrees with him this morning.

      If it goes over 50% tomorrow then we won’t have anything to bitch about when the next attack on USA happens. Because……….

      We the PEOPLE have condoned and unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation. We will have picked sides in a civil war among Tribes of Libya and cheered.

      WHO’S NEXT????????????

      And He LIED……………. First he said we were not leading but then he admitted to “turning over control”.

      Then he said this is not about regime change, yet our plane and coalition planes, attacked Ghadaffi’s residential fortress. We attacked command and control and their military forces far from the cities we were supposedly protecting. Allowing rebel forces to march to Ghadaffi’s doorstep.

      Mr. President you are a LIAR.

    • P.S.

      WE THE PEOPLE will have once and for all ACCEPTED and CONDONED a direct violation of our Constitution with nothing more than a whimper.

      GGGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        NO SIR! I have been working very hard to hold him accountable. I wrote the Speaker of the House, I’ve pushed my impeach article as to set personnal records for reads on my blog, and I keep pushing it. I’m fighting, not whimpering! 👿

        • gman

          Good for you.

          But my point stands. If more than 50% continue to sit there STUPIFIED the rest of the world we view that as WE.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Your point is correct! I did what I did to pass time while the weather stunk. The HoR don’t have the balls to uphold the law, and I doubt they even care.

    • Just for fun

  36. The mainstream media is definitely a Democratic Party shill … the same as Fox is a shill for the GOP … and Glenn Beck is one incredibly bad actor (and/or insane) … all it means is you can trust none of them, pretty much ever. The fact nobody is harping on #3 for the Nobel Peace Prize Winning, didn’t walk the line in Wisconsin, bailed out Wall Street at the expense of workers President is pretty obvious. This guy should have been filleted by now … way too right wing for me.

  37. For those who may not have seen this. A scene from upcoming movie.

  38. Judy Sabatini says:

    General Electric Did Not Pay a Penny in Federal Tax Last Year

    Written by Raven Clabough
    Monday, 28 March 2011 17:31
    0

    While half of all Americans do not pay federal taxes, placing the entire tax burden on the other 50 percent of the nation, it may perturb those who do pay taxes to learn that one large multinational company is exempt from that tedious and expensive task as well: General Electric. Though GE, the largest corporation in America, reaped over $14 billion in profits last year, it did not pay a single penny in taxes in 2010. To boot, the company actually claimed $3.2 billion in tax benefits.

    The New York Times reports:

    The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.

    Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm. Indeed, the company’s slogan “Imagination at Work” fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.

    GE is one of the few entities with the ability to successfully lobby for tax breaks and then benefit from them.

    Perhaps the best example of the chummy relationship between the U.S. government and General Electric can be found in the following, as the Times continues:

    The head of [GE’s] tax team, Mr. Samuels, met with Representative Charles B. Rangel, then chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which would decide the fate of the tax break. As he sat with the committee’s staff members outside Mr. Rangel’s office, Mr. Samuels dropped to his knee and pretended to beg for the provision to be extended — a flourish made in jest, he said through a spokeswoman.

    Ironically, the tax system was overhauled in the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan, who learned that GE was among dozens of corporations that relied on “accounting gamesmanship” to avoid paying taxes. In response, Reagan advocated a change to the tax system that closed the loopholes used by General Electric, forcing them to pay a higher effective rate of over 30 percent.

    At the time, President Reagan told his Treasury Secretary, Donald T. Regan, “I didn’t realize things had gotten that far out of line.”

    By the time the 1990s rolled around, however, the New York Times indicates that GE and a number of other financial firms “won a change in law that would allow multinationals to avoid taxes on some kinds of banking and insurance income.”

    As it pertains to GE, the change allowed the company to do business out of the country and not have to pay American tax on the interest income as long as the profits remained offshore.

    Now that GE’s CEO Jeffrey Immelt serves in the Obama administration as the Chairman of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, one would expect the preferential treatment to continue. In fact, Obama and Immelt are set to discuss reforming the corporate tax code together.

    Exemption from federal taxes is just one of the many perks for GE. The company has reaped the benefits from the political clout of George Soros’ Center for American Progress with the Obama administration, as CAP encouraged the President to move California to smart grid technology, and he did. Guess who owns that smart grid?

    Apparently it pays to have friends in the White House.

    Naturally, the relationship between General Electric and the Obama administration is not simply one-way. When Obama’s preferred local bank, Shorebank — one that is heavily engaged in the financing of green projects and green jobs with a long list of ties to both the Obama and Clinton administrations — risked financial collapse and closure, Obama saw to it that the bank received TARP money, even though 10 other banks in the area were permitted to fail. However, the bank also required matching funds from private institutions in order to receive the government bailout money. Companies such as Goldman Sachs, Citigroup — and General Electric — came to both Obama’s and Shorebank’s aid.

  39. Congrats to the left. They finally accomplished something. Obama is the biggest and most prolific liar. Bush was a piker compared to the obama lies tonight. So…..get off it left. You have lost the Bush lied edge. THere is nothing left…..holy shit.

    • d13

      Good evening Colonel.

      Just got back from spending an hour yelling at the lefties over at HuffPo. Calling them out on their hypocrisy and rationalizations of using War at least gave me a chance to blow off some steam.

      Quite frankly I was feeling a little peeved if you know what I mean. Now I have to go sharpen my skinnin knife and tighten the wire on the fence.

  40. IDEA

    We need to get the Tea Party to organize a march on D.C. for April 20th.

    The Art of War: create the appearance of greater numbers.

    If we join this bunch it could overwhelm the media. And both sides could claim victory without hurting the others agenda.

    http://www.420indc.org/

    Bwahahahahahaha

  41. d13thecolonel and of course the rest of SUFA

    You are going to just love this regarding Libya:

    http://english.pravda.ru/world/africa/28-03-2011/117362-open_letter-0/

  42. Red Flag

    Our founding document gives the government the power to regulate commerce. Further, this argument about taxes = theft is just preposterous. Taxation is legal. Theft is illegal. Legal cannot equal illegal.

    “Legal” or not “legal” is not the question.

    Taxation is theft – the involuntary taking of someone else’s goods.

    Whether it is legal or not is moot. It is evil.

    In terms of what is “fair”?

    “Fair” is subjective to the individual, and irrelevant in creating policy.

    Go overseas. Let’s see some homegrown folks that want to serve the American consumer develop a better Cisco router. Heck, I’ll even incentive them to do so.

    How would you create an incentive?

    Put a gun to their head?

    As an example, I’d tax the bejesus out of Apple iPhones. You want to send jobs overseas mr jobs? Go for it. I’ll find or provide incentive fund for someone state-side to make the phone and it won’t cost as much.

    But if that all it needed was some funding, do you not believe that someone would build an iPhone right now?

    Why do you believe your funding would suddenly do this?

    As more and more jobs are pulled back to the U.S.

    No jobs would return.
    High tax, huge intrusive government, no economic sensibility…. the US under your program would react the same as all other Socialist economies such as Russia and China – massive unemployment, low productivity, massive shortages.

    I will lower the corporate tax burden. More employed Americans means more of a broader tax base which means we need less from each individual or business.

    But the tax base is already broad – yet, the government demands even more.

    How do you possibly believe that under your pogram – which massively increases government intrusions – requiring even more money then now – will lower government spending>

    As typical, the Socialist mind is completely devoid of any economic literacy.

    • As typical, the Socialist mind is completely devoid of any economic literacy.

      While the capitalist mind decides what is evil (taxing). Hording is okay, especially under the Ayn Rand guise (which precludes violence when its convenient); let people go hungry and homeless so long as there are a few who can accumulate wealth they can not possibly “need” … so the accumulation is for what? I say put those greedy SOB’s on an island (or let them fly off to Kuwait) … there are many more have nots in America than haves … and the haves couldn’t possibly do it without the have nots … so lets nationalize everything and let the former haves have at it … in Kuwait (or wherever else than want to horde) … bon voyage!

      • Charlie,

        Hording is okay

        So, to you, a man who makes a trade with another man where both are in voluntary agreement and both find such a trade favorable
        …are doing evil.

        let people go hungry and homeless so long as there are a few who can accumulate wealth they can not possibly “need”

        You are confusing two – different – issues.

        One, lack of capital – called “poverty”
        and
        Voluntary association and trade – called “Freedom”

        Because of your concern of one, you believe the latter is evil – and thus advocate evil means to destroy the latter believing it will fix the former – when the two are not at all inter-relational.

        You do understand my comment, right?

%d bloggers like this: