Too bad he's going to win, then.
First give up warfare, then improve.
Thank you for being so transparent.

I agree. You are irrelevant to me.
Then why do you want me to provide facts for you?
Why even argue with or countenance me at all, Glen?
Why was your post directly after mine?
What do you want from me Glen?
Whatever it is, you're not getting it.

I don't have to prove anything I say.
I will only do so if I feel like it.
I am not running for office.
I say what I have to say in order to cause a certain effect.
Get used to it.

i'll take that deal as well.

socialism for the rich is what we have. . .

"I have seen examples where open door capitalism has left third world countries poorer rather than richer. China has a growing economy, but they accomplish this through slave labor and exploitation worse than you find in most other capitalist countries."


But it also has lead to an increasingly large middle class, which is paving the way to finally bringing democracy to the country


"You mean like Walmart? Cheap plastic crap from China sold cheaper than you can get them from independent stores? No thanks. I think Ill pass on Walmart prices if it means an overall increase in the quality of life for the majority of Americans via increased wages and more jobs. "

How many other people are willing to make the same decision, though? Also, it is interesting to note, that Walmart is responsible to forcing down the cost of generic prescriptions in America. When they adopted their 4/month prescription plan, they forced all the big retailers to follow suit

<Is there any reason why we couldnt produce most of our own goods?>

Are you serious?

Do you know how much it costs MORE to produce a loaf of bread HERE compared to China?

Everything is cheaper to produce in China. They have no labor and employment standards, they have no environmental standards, they have no this and none of that.

The items that make the goods cost less, the employees that make the goods cost less, the energy that make the goods that the employees make costs less so making the items costs less.

Where's the confusion there?

<<>The shitty part is that this means lowering taxes on American companies. This has been the ONLY way that we've been able to show a growth>>

<buzzt. wrong. tariffs on goods from nations with slave labor works.>

Bzzt! Wrong. Tariffs no longer work because there's a global economy, genius. No longer a) are tariffs legal in many situations, what with our trade agreements, and b) we need other countries goods MORE than they need ours at this point. China is making all sorts of shit, and any tariffs will just cause them to move faster to make the few things that they need from us.

So. Bzzt! Wrong.

<government owned enterprises is also an option.>

That's an option, but it's an impossible one. That'll never happen. No politician will ever suggest such a thing. We're a capitalistic society, remember? That's not saying that I'm against it, but I just recognize that it'll never happen within the society that we have today.

What you should be talking about is co-op enterprises, where there are no stock-holders besides the employees and the families of the employees. THAT would work. Not that they'd sell their goods for any serious measure less than any other company (there's certainly no incentive to do that), but at least that company's employees would be owners and profit-takers.

Want an immediate fix? Lower taxes. Sad but true.

But, one has to have some understanding of business and not be led by one's bias to recognize such a reality, even if that reality is an ugly one.

<When have government run entities ever been competitive?>

Or efficient or successful?

<"If it doesnt help US workers or raise the pay or quality of life for the working class, then I dont give a shit about whether it helps the corporations make even more money overseas.">

Sent - you know what helps the lower class the most? Having jobs......................

<Reagan talked about trickle down economics, and stated that if you let the corporations and very very wealthy keep more of their money, they will spend it and hire more help which in turn helps the poor. It didnt work. It was faulty logic. When the rich make more money, they hoard it or invest it.>

True, that's why I'm talking about tax breaks for companies, not the rich. I don't believe in Reagan's version of Trickle Down Economics, but I DO recognize that tax breaks to companies in a manner forced to help them hire more workers or forestall their leaving the country is one of the only short-term fixes that I have ever recognized.

<They dont fire help because of taxes, >

That just shows you what you don't know. You're wrong. You are 100% wrong. I can't tell you in any other words how wrong you are.

<So long as there is a demand, the help will absolutely be required.>

Depends on lots of things - demand is just one issue.

<The additional 10% to 15% tax in the US is not whats driving production overseas,>

Wrong again. I GUARANTEE you that an extra 10 - 15% in taxes has and will in the future drive businesses overseas. For a company with $100million in net income, you're talking about losing ANOTHER $15mil on top of all other taxes. You're wrong. Sorry - you're wrong. My uncle was CEO of a big ol' company, and he in the 80's had to make the tough decision to move overseas, and because it was a public company - he had to. The savings were so huge that it was ridiculous not to. He was not the only one.

<because even if you lowered taxes to 0% its still cheaper to hire somebody for $2 to $10 a day in the Asian or African continent than to pay $15 and hour on domestic labor.>

Yes, so why add the ADDED complication of higher taxes? What is a stock-holder that wants to stay in the country supposed to argue if not only could labor costs be so much lower, but taxes would also be lower - resulting in a HUGE increase in profits? Fuck. Give them SOMETHING to hold on to as an argument to staying in the country!

<Taxes are a minor consideration in comparison.>

Wrong wrong and wrong. You need some fundamental lessons in corporate economics.

<That is why I agree with taxing corporations who outsource labor more heavily, and giving tax breaks to those who pay extra to hire American labor.>

You said it wrong. You tax companies that hire American workers LESS - there's a difference. You don't charge them as much in employment tax, and give a special tax break for all workers hired. THAT would mean something. There's no easy way to tax companies MORE that outsource.

<<>The issue is creating an atmosphere that is conductive to business.>

<I disagree profoundly. >

Not surprising. When you look upon an issue from only one side, you'll only have one side of the issue from which to make decisions.

<Corporations, if they are given a license to operate, should contribute more to the public good than they take away, or they should get the corporate death penalty.>

HA!

<Look at Japan, they are the one country with a higher corporate tax rate then the US. But they stay because they do not need to cover health care costs and have an endless pool of well educated workers>

There are also massive internal pressures. Can you imagine the Japanese country that outsourced majorly to China, replacing well-paid Japanese workers with Chinese? There's a lot of social pressure to employ Japanese workers. It'll happen though when the purchase engine that is the US is no longer able to continue buying as many Japanese products.

<Gee Dustin, the answer seems embedded in your question. If you have nationalized health care and a good education system, your economy will do better!>

Fuck. You never think, cD. It's amazing.

We're a country of 300 million, compared to their 125 million. They've had their healthcare system in place for......well, forever as far as I know. We'd have to get it ramped up in ONE DAY? Come on. While I am for it, to suggest that we can just do it and then all will be well immediately? Come on. The costs of doing that are STAGGERING. Do you not even know how much it'd cost to do such a thing for the first 10 years? 20 years?

<You can create jobs through protectionism, for instance. The Japanese have their rice industry heavily protected from cheap (government-subsidized) American imported rice.>

Yes. Too bad that we need them more than they need us at this point, 'eh? There's nothing that we can do about it.

<You really are obedient to the system aren't you? Try to break out of the intellectual blinders you apparently have on.>

Read that sentence out loud to yourself, cD. Your bias is striking.

"Is there any reason why we couldnt produce most of our own goods?"


You cut off your access to out side innovations and goods, and restrict the need for internal modernization

Obama is starting to get bogged down with this issue. He should just point to the growth of the 90's when the right starts screaming about growth. It's not like the evidence is lacking.

"government owned enterprises is also an option. "


When have government run entities ever been competitive?