Easy on the eyes no doubt....

[BigAl]

S. E. Had a dog named SE, you can figure it out no doubt.

AL

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Bill specifically "quoted" the thinking of the Right and said that "just because I do well, doesn't force you not to do well" and then raised his voice and slowly stated "Y E S   I T   D O E S  ! ! ! ".    This is how libs think.  It's not fair that some do well and others don't, regardless of choices made during life, it's just not fair!  And,....it's their job to make it fair.

I don't remember this specific show, but I would venture to guess he was referring to corporate executives who make a ton of money by outsourcing and moving manufacturing to third world countries.  That affects the ability of working class people to make a living.

Unfortunately the main reason for this are policies put into place over the last few decades that make it difficult and expensive to hire Americans and build products here.
 

Actually, I didn't see this episode since I don't get HBO, but here is the economics behind this thinking. There is only so much money to go around in any economy.  And the more you accumulate for yourself, that is less money for someone else to have.  Not since before the Great Depression has the disparity of wealth in America been as bad as it is today, and it is steadily getting worse at an increasing pace.  When wealthy people and large corporations amass large sums of money, most of that money is essentially removed from the economy.  With this growing disparity of wealth, with fewer and fewer people holding a larger and larger piece of the pie, there is less and less for the rest of us to have an opportunity to prosper and build our own wealth.  Not only that, but wealth buys influence in the legislative process, thereby making it even easier to accumulate even more wealth.  So, in that context, then yes, when the already extremely wealthy use that wealth to increase their successes and build that wealth even greater, that comes at the expense of opportunity of others to also succeed...unless/until the wealthy person spends his wealth back into the economy, thereby reducing his overall wealth.  

This isn't even about rich vs poor.  I'm not poor.  But my success comes at the expense of my employer.  He could choose to not employ me and save himself the cost of my salary and benefits. It also comes at the expense of anyone else who would like to hold my job.  Or my employer could choose to pay me half as much, then hire another person and we could share the workload.  Everything is a tradeoff.

You're right, everything is a trade off. Frequently what influences that trade off is the tax structure. Case in point.

My wife and I met at Pillsbury where we both worked. We were on the first vacation we had ever taken driving the only new car we have ever owned when my Mom called us and said "they just announced on the news they are closing your plant".

When we got back we found out a corporate executive with body guards in tow had shown up at the plant and called a meeting. What he said basically was "your plant runs efficiently and makes lots of money". "Last week we decided we can make even more money by shutting you down". And that's what they did. They had recently invested millions in our plant. So, how did they make more money by shutting us down?

For one, we had many employees who were within a few months or years of retirement. They would have received lifetime medical benefits if the plant had stayed open long enough for them to reach full retirement. By closing early they knocked them out of their full retirement and medical benefits. There had been asbestos exposure to some employees there. The company employees were told they could not receive their severance packages unless they signed a release of liability concerning asbestos exposure. A lot of money potentially saved there I'm sure.

It was my understanding that the money they had recently spent on the plant along with all expenses associated with moving the operations would become a tax write-off. On top of that they moved into an area which desperately needed jobs, hence, lots of property tax write-offs in their new location I'm sure plus, I think the government paid 50% of new employees wages at the new location for 6 months.

On top of that, the company was much more attractive to buyers by shedding the burdens of those retired employees, their medical benefits and the asbestos exposure issue.

In my view, the whole damn thing was caused by our government's tax laws. Many of which were written with the best of intentions but with no one thinking out the possible consequences as usual.

Those same tax laws could have been written to reward employers who allowed their employees to draw their retirements. They could have been written to reward employers who were loyal to their long-term employes.

Instead, we have a bunch of pie-in-the-sky morons writing tax policy to try and re-engineer society without realizing how their policy's will play out in corporate boardrooms where profit is the only directive. And thanks to those morons my wife and I lost our jobs. We couldn't send our two oldest kids to collage because we had made too much in the preceding years for the kids to qualify for educational aid and having lost our jobs, we couldn't afford to do it without help. However, our friends in the same boat who were part of recognized minority groups were able to get education aid. Ah, government, thanks again.

Now, American jobs are being shipped overseas or being taken by illegals here in the heartland. And, as always, one way or another our tax policy's are, if not causing it, at least encouraging it. How hard would it be to drop a big tax penalty on companies who move manufacturing overseas? And another one on companies who don't verify the citizenship of their employees? And another on companies who move their tech support overseas? They do it to make more money, if they made more money by keeping our jobs here they would do that.

Sorry for the rant. We had some pretty tough years after that plant closing and it still #####'s me off.

[Bob E.]

Well, Mr. Valker, Roadkill and Al...if you guys are such the economists, tell me where I'm wrong.  

There is no disputing that when one acquires wealth, that wealth comes from someone else, either through wages from and employer or by selling a product or service to that person (or robbing them).

There is no disputing the fact that there is a rapidly growing disparity in wealth in this country (and as a result, a growing rate of poverty) arguably created by 30+ years of supply-side economics.  

There is no disputing the fact that the last time this disparity was at the level it is now was immediately before the Great Depression.

There is no disputing the fact that wealth, held unused by an individual or corporation, does nothing for the economy.

And there is no disputing the fact that when the economy falters as it has the past few years, it is those at the bottom of the economic ladder that are most affected.

[Bob E.]

You're right, everything is a trade off. Frequently what influences that trade off is the tax structure. Case in point.

My wife and I met at Pillsbury where we both worked. We were on the first vacation we had ever taken driving the only new car we have ever owned when my Mom called us and said "they just announced on the news they are closing your plant".

When we got back we found out a corporate executive with body guards in tow had shown up at the plant and called a meeting. What he said basically was "your plant runs efficiently and makes lots of money". "Last week we decided we can make even more money by shutting you down". And that's what they did. They had recently invested millions in our plant. So, how did they make more money by shutting us down?

For one, we had many employees who were within a few months or years of retirement. They would have received lifetime medical benefits if the plant had stayed open long enough for them to reach full retirement. By closing early they knocked them out of their full retirement and medical benefits. There had been asbestos exposure to some employees there. The company employees were told they could not receive their severance packages unless they signed a release of liability concerning asbestos exposure. A lot of money potentially saved there I'm sure.

It was my understanding that the money they had recently spent on the plant along with all expenses associated with moving the operations would become a tax write-off. On top of that they moved into an area which desperately needed jobs, hence, lots of property tax write-offs in their new location I'm sure plus, I think the government paid 50% of new employees wages at the new location for 6 months.

On top of that, the company was much more attractive to buyers by shedding the burdens of those retired employees, their medical benefits and the asbestos exposure issue.

In my view, the whole damn thing was caused by our government's tax laws. Many of which were written with the best of intentions but with no one thinking out the possible consequences as usual.

Those same tax laws could have been written to reward employers who allowed their employees to draw their retirements. They could have been written to reward employers who were loyal to their long-term employes.

Instead, we have a bunch of pie-in-the-sky morons writing tax policy to try and re-engineer society without realizing how their policy's will play out in corporate boardrooms where profit is the only directive. And thanks to those morons my wife and I lost our jobs. We couldn't send our two oldest kids to collage because we had made too much in the preceding years for the kids to qualify for educational aid and having lost our jobs, we couldn't afford to do it without help. However, our friends in the same boat who were part of recognized minority groups were able to get education aid. Ah, government, thanks again.

Now, American jobs are being shipped overseas or being taken by illegals here in the heartland. And, as always, one way or another our tax policy's are, if not causing it, at least encouraging it. How hard would it be to drop a big tax penalty on companies who move manufacturing overseas? And another one on companies who don't verify the citizenship of their employees? And another on companies who move their tech support overseas? They do it to make more money, if they made more money by keeping our jobs here they would do that.

Sorry for the rant. We had some pretty tough years after that plant closing and it still #####'s me off.

I agree with the fact that tax structure is important.  But in many cases, we are in a race to the bottom in that we often are willing to give so much to corporations in order to attract them to our location to create jobs, that the costs of attracting those jobs may outweigh the benefits.  Keep in mind that businesses are in business to create a profit.  That means taking out more than they put into a community.  Sure, you might create a few hundred jobs, but starting new, those jobs will be lower wage with less benefits, therefore generating less tax revenues.  Also, having an asset in the community also attracts criminals looking to exploit that asset.  So there are increased costs to police and fire depts.  Also, the increased traffic takes a toll on infrastructure when roads and bridges are damaged, and creates a need for bigger roads...often at the expense of the local tax payers.  We here in PA have recently seen this happen with legalized casinos moving in, and are now starting to see these effects from the Marcellus Shale Gas industry.  And lots of times, as soon as those tax and wage holidays that we offered to the corp run out, they just take the next low bid offer from the neighboring town/state/country, and they close up, fire everyone, and move, and so on, and so on.  This appears to be what happened to your company.

It used to be that there was some loyalty between companies and employees, and between companies and the local communities.  But now, with corporations basically operating under the guise of maximizing profits over all else, that loyaty no longer exists. It is unfortunate, but your company basically made an economic decision to screw all of their employees for the sake of profit.  For you, the timing was especially unfortunate given the ages of your kids.

[RoadKill]

Well, Mr. Valker, Roadkill and Al...if you guys are such the economists, tell me where I'm wrong.  

There is no disputing that when one acquires wealth, that wealth comes from someone else, either through wages from and employer or by selling a product or service to that person (or robbing them).

There is no disputing the fact that there is a rapidly growing disparity in wealth in this country (and as a result, a growing rate of poverty) arguably created by 30+ years of supply-side economics.  

There is no disputing the fact that the last time this disparity was at the level it is now was immediately before the Great Depression.

There is no disputing the fact that wealth, held unused by an individual or corporation, does nothing for the economy.

And there is no disputing the fact that when the economy falters as it has the past few years, it is those at the bottom of the economic ladder that are most affected.

HOLY delusional accounting,BatMan !!!  This guy actually thinks his boss keeps him around because he costs the business money and that rich people dont spend money !!!  Apparently only poor people spend money and the rich should give it to them. That is 1 hellova nice boss man by keeping on an employee that costs the business money and benefits. Crazy that he doesnt hire 2 more like that! Maybe his boss has a guilty conscious for keeping the employees from collecting welfare and is getting ready to give them his money so they can get rich too and become the competition. What else is he gonna do with all that money seeing how he doesnt buy anything with it.

90% of the money printed in the USA must be in a few fat guys pockets and that makes it OK for Bob to buy China products and all the dollars being sent back home by the illegal immigrants aint real money.      Hmmmm?  What IS real money ?      

[Valker]

Well, Bob, the thoughts you expressed are so off, I really did think you were kidding. The correct answers are very long, but easy to understand. I think this website( http://mises.org/ ) would be one of the better places to start.

[RoadKill]

Well, Mr. Valker, Roadkill and Al...if you guys are such the economists, tell me where I'm wrong.  

[/quote]There is no disputing that when one acquires wealth, that wealth comes from someone else, either through wages from and employer or by selling a product or service to that person (or robbing them).[/quote]
                           or TAXING THEM! !  
 Wealth comes from Obama! He gives it to us out of his stash,he gonna make gas a dollah and pay my rent too

[/quote]There is no disputing the fact that there is a rapidly growing disparity in wealth in this country (and as a result, a growing rate of poverty) arguably created by 30+ years of supply-side economics. [/quote]  
Or created by the LAZY,The ENTITLED,or the STOOPID

[/quote]There is no disputing the fact that the last time this disparity was at the level it is now was immediately before the Great Depression.[/quote]
 Because we are gonna FALL and fall harder this time

[/quote]There is no disputing the fact that wealth, held unused by an individual or corporation, does nothing for the economy.[/quote]
 All the unused money is the problem ?  How much is in your savings acct. ?  Hopefully enough to pay the cable T.V. and cell phone bill for a couple months. PRIORITYS ,ya know !

[/quote]And there is no disputing the fact that when the economy falters as it has the past few years, it is those at the bottom of the economic ladder that are most affected.
[/quote]  
Then get yer ass higher up that ladder and qwitcherbishin !

[Bob E.]

HOLY delusional accounting,BatMan !!!  This guy actually thinks his boss keeps him around because he costs the business money and that rich people dont spend money !!!  Apparently only poor people spend money and the rich should give it to them. That is 1 hellova nice boss man by keeping on an employee that costs the business money and benefits. Crazy that he doesnt hire 2 more like that! Maybe his boss has a guilty conscious for keeping the employees from collecting welfare and is getting ready to give them his money so they can get rich too and become the competition. What else is he gonna do with all that money seeing how he doesnt buy anything with it.

90% of the money printed in the USA must be in a few fat guys pockets and that makes it OK for Bob to buy China products and all the dollars being sent back home by the illegal immigrants aint real money.      Hmmmm?  What IS real money ?      

No, that's not what I said.  My boss also benefits from my services because he earns a profit by essentially pimping me out to our clients and paying me less than he collects from them.  But he could also benefit more if he paid me less.  Then again, I might not work for him if he didn't pay me enough.  But someone else might.  So its a delicate balance.  But my wealth comes from my boss (and at the expense of the guy I beat out for my job).  My boss's wealth comes from our clients., etc.

I also didn't say that rich people don't spend money.  My point is that any money that is just saved by anyone, sitting in an account is not doing anything for the economy.  This is one reason our economy in the 90's and early 2000's was booming is because nobody was saving anything...infact, they were going beyond and extending lines of credit to the point that people started defaulting and that started the house of cards falling.  So now, the reaction is to start saving and paying down some debts.  The problem is that this actually hurts the economy.That wealth has been removed from the economy until it is eventually reintroduced and spent.  Rich people just happen to hold most of that wealth in savings or investments...which brings me to the next point...

As for the 90% of the money being in a few fat guys pockets, it's not 90% (yet).  But it is true that the top 1% holds about 35% of all wealth in America, and the top 10% holds 73% of the wealth, while the bottom 90% hold only 27%.

I'm not sure how outsourcing our jobs to China and illegal immigrants got introduced into this topic, but since you bring up China, you tell me how to buy American products.  I want to buy an ipod, or a car, or a pair of jeans and a t-shirt.  There are American companies that make all of these products...just not in USA.  Why is that?  Why is it that the US Chamber of Commerce has promoted outsourcing for corportations to maximize profits?  They don't give a crap about America or Americans.  All they care about is maximizing profits...even if that means exploiting underage workers for minimal wages in terrible working conditions while they destroy the environment of a country that is equally dis-interested in their citizen's well-being.

[Bob E.]

Well, Mr. Valker, Roadkill and Al...if you guys are such the economists, tell me where I'm wrong.  

There is no disputing that when one acquires wealth, that wealth comes from someone else, either through wages from and employer or by selling a product or service to that person (or robbing them).[/quote]
                           or TAXING THEM! !  
 Wealth comes from Obama! He gives it to us out of his stash,he gonna make gas a dollah and pay my rent too

[/quote]There is no disputing the fact that there is a rapidly growing disparity in wealth in this country (and as a result, a growing rate of poverty) arguably created by 30+ years of supply-side economics. [/quote]  
Or created by the LAZY,The ENTITLED,or the STOOPID

[/quote]There is no disputing the fact that the last time this disparity was at the level it is now was immediately before the Great Depression.[/quote]
 Because we are gonna FALL and fall harder this time

[/quote]There is no disputing the fact that wealth, held unused by an individual or corporation, does nothing for the economy.[/quote]
 All the unused money is the problem ?  How much is in your savings acct. ?  Hopefully enough to pay the cable T.V. and cell phone bill for a couple months. PRIORITYS ,ya know !

[/quote]And there is no disputing the fact that when the economy falters as it has the past few years, it is those at the bottom of the economic ladder that are most affected.
[/quote]  
Then get yer ass higher up that ladder and qwitcherbishin !
[/quote]

And now you are just being ridiculous...I'm done.

[Bob E.]

Well, Bob, the thoughts you expressed are so off, I really did think you were kidding. The correct answers are very long, but easy to understand. I think this website( http://mises.org/ ) would be one of the better places to start.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute?  Really? OK....

[musclehead]

Well, Mr. Valker, Roadkill and Al...if you guys are such the economists, tell me where I'm wrong.  

There is no disputing that when one acquires wealth, that wealth comes from someone else, either through wages from and employer or by selling a product or service to that person (or robbing them).

There is no disputing the fact that there is a rapidly growing disparity in wealth in this country (and as a result, a growing rate of poverty) arguably created by 30+ years of supply-side economics.  

There is no disputing the fact that the last time this disparity was at the level it is now was immediately before the Great Depression.

There is no disputing the fact that wealth, held unused by an individual or corporation, does nothing for the economy.

And there is no disputing the fact that when the economy falters as it has the past few years, it is those at the bottom of the economic ladder that are most affected.

well first of all one doesn't "acquire" wealth, one earns it, works for it. this is a myth that the rich (all the rich) only got where they are by ripping off someone.  I won't argue there are some that don't play by the golden rule.

the growing disparity of wealth in this country? so is Obama robin hood?  the poverty rate from the day they started welfare through last year remained a steady 13% until last year it WENT UP to 14%.
nice job Mr Prez.

money held unused is not helping the economy, do you want to confiscate it? I would rather give business a measure of reassurance that their investments won't be met with more regulation and confiscatory taxes. they might actually start hiring again.

those at the bottom do suffer, if we could get the government to stop propping up the economy unnaturally and let the economy find the natural bottom we'd be truely coming around. instead of flopping around like a fish out of water.

[Valker]

     
[/quote]

you tell me how to buy American products.  I want to buy an ipod, or a car, or a pair of jeans and a t-shirt.  There are American companies that make all of these products...just not in USA.  Why is that?  
[/quote]
Here ya go: http://www.duluthtrading.com/store/clothes-workwear/mens/mens-pants/mens-denim-ballroom-jeans/84011.aspx

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

You're right, everything is a trade off. Frequently what influences that trade off is the tax structure. Case in point.

My wife and I met at Pillsbury where we both worked. We were on the first vacation we had ever taken driving the only new car we have ever owned when my Mom called us and said "they just announced on the news they are closing your plant".

When we got back we found out a corporate executive with body guards in tow had shown up at the plant and called a meeting. What he said basically was "your plant runs efficiently and makes lots of money". "Last week we decided we can make even more money by shutting you down". And that's what they did. They had recently invested millions in our plant. So, how did they make more money by shutting us down?

For one, we had many employees who were within a few months or years of retirement. They would have received lifetime medical benefits if the plant had stayed open long enough for them to reach full retirement. By closing early they knocked them out of their full retirement and medical benefits. There had been asbestos exposure to some employees there. The company employees were told they could not receive their severance packages unless they signed a release of liability concerning asbestos exposure. A lot of money potentially saved there I'm sure.

It was my understanding that the money they had recently spent on the plant along with all expenses associated with moving the operations would become a tax write-off. On top of that they moved into an area which desperately needed jobs, hence, lots of property tax write-offs in their new location I'm sure plus, I think the government paid 50% of new employees wages at the new location for 6 months.

On top of that, the company was much more attractive to buyers by shedding the burdens of those retired employees, their medical benefits and the asbestos exposure issue.

In my view, the whole damn thing was caused by our government's tax laws. Many of which were written with the best of intentions but with no one thinking out the possible consequences as usual.

Those same tax laws could have been written to reward employers who allowed their employees to draw their retirements. They could have been written to reward employers who were loyal to their long-term employes.

Instead, we have a bunch of pie-in-the-sky morons writing tax policy to try and re-engineer society without realizing how their policy's will play out in corporate boardrooms where profit is the only directive. And thanks to those morons my wife and I lost our jobs. We couldn't send our two oldest kids to collage because we had made too much in the preceding years for the kids to qualify for educational aid and having lost our jobs, we couldn't afford to do it without help. However, our friends in the same boat who were part of recognized minority groups were able to get education aid. Ah, government, thanks again.

Now, American jobs are being shipped overseas or being taken by illegals here in the heartland. And, as always, one way or another our tax policy's are, if not causing it, at least encouraging it. How hard would it be to drop a big tax penalty on companies who move manufacturing overseas? And another one on companies who don't verify the citizenship of their employees? And another on companies who move their tech support overseas? They do it to make more money, if they made more money by keeping our jobs here they would do that.

Sorry for the rant. We had some pretty tough years after that plant closing and it still #####'s me off.

I agree with the fact that tax structure is important.  But in many cases, we are in a race to the bottom in that we often are willing to give so much to corporations in order to attract them to our location to create jobs, that the costs of attracting those jobs may outweigh the benefits.  Keep in mind that businesses are in business to create a profit.  That means taking out more than they put into a community.  Sure, you might create a few hundred jobs, but starting new, those jobs will be lower wage with less benefits, therefore generating less tax revenues.  Also, having an asset in the community also attracts criminals looking to exploit that asset.  So there are increased costs to police and fire depts.  Also, the increased traffic takes a toll on infrastructure when roads and bridges are damaged, and creates a need for bigger roads...often at the expense of the local tax payers.  We here in PA have recently seen this happen with legalized casinos moving in, and are now starting to see these effects from the Marcellus Shale Gas industry.  And lots of times, as soon as those tax and wage holidays that we offered to the corp run out, they just take the next low bid offer from the neighboring town/state/country, and they close up, fire everyone, and move, and so on, and so on.  This appears to be what happened to your company.

It used to be that there was some loyalty between companies and employees, and between companies and the local communities.  But now, with corporations basically operating under the guise of maximizing profits over all else, that loyaty no longer exists. It is unfortunate, but your company basically made an economic decision to screw all of their employees for the sake of profit.  For you, the timing was especially unfortunate given the ages of your kids.

You missed my point and you made my point.

My point was that they closed that plant and many others to make more money. If the tax structure was such that they didn't make more money by moving plants it wouldn't happen unless the plant had a productivity problem. If the tax structure was such that they didn't make more money by moving our jobs overseas or hiring illegals then they wouldn't do those things because it would cost them money. And when local governments do as you mentioned it only causes more people to lose their jobs in the long run. More problems caused by short sighted government.

And just so you know, there are still companies who have loyalty towards their employees, my wife currently works for one.

But for the big corporations, sure most would intentionally destroy their employees in order to make an extra buck if they could do it without getting bad PR. You can't legislate morality, in particular not to a corporation. But you can make it so they make more money by doing the right thing. Then they will do what makes them money and run an add campaign about what good citizens they are.

And just so you know, I doubt that many of the wealthy are burying their money in mason jars in the back yard. When their money is in banks, stocks, companies or whatever, we are all still getting use out of it. Banks loan it to us, stocks finance our industry. Bonds finance our government.

[Bob E.]

well first of all one doesn't "acquire" wealth, one earns it, works for it. this is a myth that the rich (all the rich) only got where they are by ripping off someone.  I won't argue there are some that don't play by the golden rule.

Semantics...I made no distinction of how wealth was acquired, whether it was earned, stolen, inherited, or whatever.

the growing disparity of wealth in this country? so is Obama robin hood?  the poverty rate from the day they started welfare through last year remained a steady 13% until last year it WENT UP to 14%.
nice job Mr Prez.

I made no recommendations as to what should happen.  I merely stated an opinion, backed up by many economists, that the growing disparity of wealth is not good for the economy as a whole.  And the fact that poverty has risen during a time when the stock market has grown over 50% in the last 2 years, nearly recovering to  pre-recession levels and while CEO pay is at all-time highs only illustrates my point.

money held unused is not helping the economy, do you want to confiscate it? I would rather give business a measure of reassurance that their investments won't be met with more regulation and confiscatory taxes. they might actually start hiring again.

I never suggested confiscating the money.  I only stated the fact that it is not helping the economy or the country just sitting there.  Businesses have had their breaks over the last 10 years of Bush and Obama...in fact we've been supporting the idea of supply-side economic theory since Reagan.  And that is why we are in the boat that we are in.

those at the bottom do suffer, if we could get the government to stop propping up the economy unnaturally and let the economy find the natural bottom we'd be truely coming around. instead of flopping around like a fish out of water.

Would you have let the banks and stock market fail resulting in loss of even greater wealth in the country?  Would you have let GM and Chrysler go under resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of manufactuaing jobs?  Would you have not invested in the stimulus program resulting in the states being in even more dire financial straits with police, firemen, teachers, DOT workers, nurses, etc. losing jobs and our infrastructure falling into even more disrepair?  The fact is that TARP, passed under Bush has worked....evidence DOW up 50% and nearly recovered.  The Stimulus helped...evidence is that we are seeing a slow down in the economic recovery now that the stimulus funds are running out.  And the Auto Bailout worked...evidence is that GM and Chrysler are still around and recording profits again, and the taxpayers have actually made money on the deal.

[Bob E.]

You missed my point and you made my point.

No...actually, for the most part, I was agreeing with you.

[Bob E.]

   
Here ya go: http://www.duluthtrading.com/store/clothes-workwear/mens/mens-pants/mens-denim-ballroom-jeans/84011.aspx

I was actually thinking of Levi's and Wrangler (nationally known brands) when making my point.  But yeah, I actually have a Duluth Trading Catalog here on my end table right now.  One thing I wonder about those jeans...does it actually cost $80 a pair to make them in the USA?  Are they twice as good as the $40 imported jeans listed on the same page?  Or are they $80 just because they are made in the USA?  We are, as a country, addicted to cheap imported goods...so much so, that now almost all goods are imported.  I believe this can be somewhat rectified through our trade agreements and/or with tariffs and things to try and even out the playing field.  But then we will need to get used to paying alot more for those products...like $80 jeans.  

[RoadKill]

With out the trillions in bail outs I'll bet those same jeans would have become available for 1/2 of what the imported ones cost.In reality they probably would have become not available at all.... but some poor,skilled worker with enough drive to succeed would have an opportunity to step up and make them ,by hand,in America and sell them for just enough to cover costs and put food on the table with out paying some greedy CEO and a network of marketing analysts,import taxes,tax lawyers etc. 

But then that hard working entrepreneur would become the rich upperclassman and have to pay more in taxes because the out of work CEO , lawyers, marketing analysts etc.need welfare 

[sugerbear]

i'll post one time on this.

i want Palin for president because.  "every" news organization, smooth talking politician,, etc. dislike her.

it makes me wonder what their afraid of.......

and don't bother to tell me she's an idiot. name calling doesn't work, just make you look small and vindictive.

i'm done

[junior]

ok we need alittle religion on this post................... i heard that JESUS was running for president, and he uses wall-mart brand oil in his harley with a fram filter  he als runs a bias ply darkside tire, and plays a goat guitar................

[thumper]

ok we need alittle religion on this post................... i heard that JESUS was running for president, and he uses wall-mart brand oil in his harley with a fram filter  he als runs a bias ply darkside tire, and plays a goat guitar................

Jesus can't run....he wasn't born here.

[rodeo1]

i think we should look at lindsey lohan for pres. or better yet paris hilton. niether has a clue, both are sleazes, both spend money like there was no tomarrow, both are dumber than a rock, oh damn, we already got that -- neve mind !

[bigfeet]

At least she knows what its like to be the working Man/Woman. thats a hell of a lot better than an a## hole that has never been a laborer !!!!!

[rodeo1]

well, just hide and watch what happens if palin runs. the same thing that happened when ross perot ran, she will split the republican vote, or worse many won't vote because they can't see a woman with her finger on the button (and i personally like her) that will sway the vote to obama bin laden, or howdy bin doody, whatever ! and we will have him back for another 4 years. no, unfortunetly we better find a rich, handsome, smooth talking white guy.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

well, just hide and watch what happens if palin runs. the same thing that happened when ross perot ran, she will split the republican vote, or worse many won't vote because they can't see a woman with her finger on the button (and i personally like her) that will sway the vote to obama bin laden, or howdy bin doody, whatever ! and we will have him back for another 4 years. no, unfortunetly we better find a rich, handsome, smooth talking white guy.

You could be right.

[musclehead]

well first of all one doesn't "acquire" wealth, one earns it, works for it. this is a myth that the rich (all the rich) only got where they are by ripping off someone.  I won't argue there are some that don't play by the golden rule.

Semantics...I made no distinction of how wealth was acquired, whether it was earned, stolen, inherited, or whatever.

the growing disparity of wealth in this country? so is Obama robin hood?  the poverty rate from the day they started welfare through last year remained a steady 13% until last year it WENT UP to 14%.
nice job Mr Prez.

I made no recommendations as to what should happen.  I merely stated an opinion, backed up by many economists, that the growing disparity of wealth is not good for the economy as a whole.  And the fact that poverty has risen during a time when the stock market has grown over 50% in the last 2 years, nearly recovering to  pre-recession levels and while CEO pay is at all-time highs only illustrates my point.

money held unused is not helping the economy, do you want to confiscate it? I would rather give business a measure of reassurance that their investments won't be met with more regulation and confiscatory taxes. they might actually start hiring again.

I never suggested confiscating the money.  I only stated the fact that it is not helping the economy or the country just sitting there.  Businesses have had their breaks over the last 10 years of Bush and Obama...in fact we've been supporting the idea of supply-side economic theory since Reagan.  And that is why we are in the boat that we are in.

those at the bottom do suffer, if we could get the government to stop propping up the economy unnaturally and let the economy find the natural bottom we'd be truely coming around. instead of flopping around like a fish out of water.

Would you have let the banks and stock market fail resulting in loss of even greater wealth in the country?  Would you have let GM and Chrysler go under resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of manufactuaing jobs?  Would you have not invested in the stimulus program resulting in the states being in even more dire financial straits with police, firemen, teachers, DOT workers, nurses, etc. losing jobs and our infrastructure falling into even more disrepair?  The fact is that TARP, passed under Bush has worked....evidence DOW up 50% and nearly recovered.  The Stimulus helped...evidence is that we are seeing a slow down in the economic recovery now that the stimulus funds are running out.  And the Auto Bailout worked...evidence is that GM and Chrysler are still around and recording profits again, and the taxpayers have actually made money on the deal.

semantics indeed, we'll never met in the middle

[Skinhead]

Jesus can't run....he wasn't born here.

Since when has that stopped any one???

[Brad]

Dear President Obama:

 

I am writing today with a somewhat unusual request. First and foremost, I will be asking that you return America to its August 20th, 1959 borders so that Hawaii is no longer a state and you are no longer a citizen.


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

[BigAl]

Palin had a Clam Bake today.

I wish I could have been a fly on the wall.

Clam Bake is what I am talking about.

Clams

Breakfast of Champions.

[Jess from VA]

I thought beer was the breakfast of champions.   

Clams and beer are good too.

[BigAl]

Beer just leads to more beer.

Palin just leads to more Palin.(Voice Coach and little surgery on said voice box to soft and sultry, she woudl not lose)

She gets better looking every time I see her.

Clams on the other hand lead to more frickin Clams.

So where does it all end.???????????????????

Al

[BigAl]

That's a Good one Brad.

Al

[Gunslinger]

Make that three votes for Cain, and he can run and beat Obama. I really like Cain's presence and most of all his plan. He actually has one.

That's about all the votes Cain will get... three.  That won't beat Obama.  One more buffoon that fancies himself as presidential material.  Fact is, no one worthy of running for president in the Republican party will do so... too many yahoos to contend with in the primary race... and a sitting President who has been doing a damn good job, Republican obstructionism notwithstanding.  2016 is the earliest viable date that Republicans can take the Whitehouse but by then will have pissed off so many people, will lose Presidency and both houses.  My prediction.  Anyone want to bet me $500 that Democrats hold the Presidency, the House, and the Senate after 2012 elections?

First of all let me preface this with the fact that the two party sytem is broken and there isn't a person who is qualified IMHO that has a snowballs chance at POTUS. we have entirely too many entitlement oriented 'people' on one side and a corresponding number of single issue zombies on the other.

If I felt that the economy were doing as well as you seem to see it I would take your $500 bet. As it truly is (at least here in the midwest, which is doing better than most places from what I hear) I will meekly say I've got a $100 bill that says the democratic party will not end up with a majority in the house, senate and the white house as a result of the 2012 election.

I'm being optimistic as deep in my heart I feel there are entirely too many zombies on both sides of the fence for any truly desirable candidate to have a shot, but I figure that in the worst case scenario by that point in time a $100 loss for me will not matter at the rate the dollar seems to be dropping.

I'm game if you are, but only for $100. I have a family and bills and don't seem to be getting any Obama dollars so far.

[musclehead]

i'll post one time on this.

i want Palin for president because.  "every" news organization, smooth talking politician,, etc. dislike her.

it makes me wonder what their afraid of.......

and don't bother to tell me she's an idiot. name calling doesn't work, just make you look small and vindictive.

i'm done

they attack those they fear, hit the nail square on the head with that post

[valkmc]

i'll post one time on this.

i want Palin for president because.  "every" news organization, smooth talking politician,, etc. dislike her.

it makes me wonder what their afraid of.......

and don't bother to tell me she's an idiot. name calling doesn't work, just make you look small and vindictive.

i'm done

they attack those they fear, hit the nail square on the head with that post

She might be good because if the heat gets on and she screws up she can just resign like she did in Alaska. I prefer to have someone who will at least stick it out so we don't get stuck with the 2nd fiddle.

[Valker]

i'll post one time on this.

i want Palin for president because.  "every" news organization, smooth talking politician,, etc. dislike her.

it makes me wonder what their afraid of.......

and don't bother to tell me she's an idiot. name calling doesn't work, just make you look small and vindictive.

i'm done

they attack those they fear, hit the nail square on the head with that post

She might be good because if the heat gets on and she screws up she can just resign like she did in Alaska. I prefer to have someone who will at least stick it out so we don't get stuck with the 2nd fiddle.

You might check out her reasons for that decision. In Alaska, the governor is not excluded from lawsuits and the State is bound to defend the governor. It was costing the State millions of dollars for these frivilous and unending suits.

[Titan]

i'll post one time on this.

i want Palin for president because.  "every" news organization, smooth talking politician,, etc. dislike her.

it makes me wonder what their afraid of.......

and don't bother to tell me she's an idiot. name calling doesn't work, just make you look small and vindictive.

i'm done

they attack those they fear, hit the nail square on the head with that post

She might be good because if the heat gets on and she screws up she can just resign like she did in Alaska. I prefer to have someone who will at least stick it out so we don't get stuck with the 2nd fiddle.

Was this meant to be humorous or would you really base your vote for POTUS on something that you obviously didn't really look into?

[Titan]

Have you ever wondered what would happen if everybody had to pass an IQ test to be eligible to vote? 

I might fail that test myself but, judging from some of the posts here, I sure as heck would have plenty of company!

[Bobbo]

How about an IQ test to run for office?

Here's one of the thousands of reasons Palin isn't qualified:

Sarah Palin: Paul Revere Warned The British	powered by Aeva

[Titan]

How about an IQ test to run for office?

Here's one of the thousands of reasons Palin isn't qualified:

OMG! What?! 

[Steve K (IA)]

How about an IQ test to run for office?

Here's one of the thousands of reasons Palin isn't qualified:

Sarah Palin: Paul Revere Warned The British

 
You know when someone is so stupid that they don't know how stupid they are?  Prime example right there.

Also, beauty is only skin deep, ugly goes all the way to the bone!