ThatGuy85 wrote:At least he's removing tax cuts for companies moving jobs overseas. You CANNOT argue that this is a bad move.
J03Y Esquire wrote:Forcing a company to utilise overpriced labor
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:What is your objective by posting every day about Obama? Dude, you are obsessed with this man! Is your tin-foil hat that tight on you?
spoiler wrote:J03Y Esquire wrote:Forcing a company to utilise overpriced labor
Company's move over seas to get cheap labor and to get a tax cut DUHHH!!!
I'm sorry is called "Greed"
J03Y Esquire wrote:ThatGuy85 wrote:At least he's removing tax cuts for companies moving jobs overseas. You CANNOT argue that this is a bad move.
I certainly can. You do realise the companies that receive those tax breaks will now move somewhere else where they can get the tax breaks they need. Forcing a company to utilise overpriced labor will just push them away, thus resulting in even fewer jobs.
And I can speak to this personally, as I work in Global Resourcing for the largest financial institution in the world....that didn't take bailout money. Sorry, but why pay someone $30k + a year to do data input that a monkey on a typewriter can do, when you can utilise labor in other countries to do the same work for almost 1/3 the cost?
Trust me when I tell you, companies such as my employer are not based in the US, and will have no problem pulling out of the US all together.
So ya, that would result in thousands if not hundreds of thousands more jobs lost in the US.
Explain to me how forcing this upon companies will help? I would really like to hear your position on a subject you clearly are not thinking thru.
Quiklilcav wrote:they are looking to cut costs because they are trying to be competitive.
spoiler wrote:Quiklilcav wrote:they are looking to cut costs because they are trying to be competitive.
they have cheaper labor, what part of CHEAPER LABOR don't you understand? that's the bottom line. cheap damn labor and that is it!
spoiler wrote:god you're so annoying!!!
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
At first I was not to crazy for him and it took me awhile to consider him, but after his work he has surpassed expectations, so far- no regrets.
IMO you should pose this question 4 years from now.
Quiklilcav wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:What is your objective by posting every day about Obama? Dude, you are obsessed with this man! Is your tin-foil hat that tight on you?
Because he, unlike any president we have had, is doing the most damage to this country, and every day he does, or says he's going to do, something worse. People need to open their eyes. You are one of the completely blind sheep out there, being lead around by the rhetoric and charisma of our liar-in-chief, and the drooling MSM's who hang on his every word. You are completely dilusional if you think he's doing good so far. Why do I post so often about it? Because this happens to be a communtiy I frequent, and I try to help people here see what is really going on. I have been paying attention to what's going on in politics for the past 20+ years, but no one has enfuriated me more than the current administration and congress, who are completely trying to turn our country upside down into a socialist nation.
Exactly what do you think would prove to people like me (who are getting more and more pissed off at what him, Pelosi, and Reid are doing to this country) that he's actually done a good thing? I would really like to know what statistics you would believe prove their plan is working. When (and I am 100% sure that they will) the unemployment rates continue to increase, into double digits, and GDP continues to tank, what excuses are you going to be spouting? My guess would be whatever BS is coming from the administration and the MSM's.
As for him lowering taxes on anyone, forget it. He says he is doing it, but it's all smoke and mirrors. Call your local H&R block, CPA of choice, or knowledgeable tax establishment of your choice, and ask them about the new "tax cuts" he's written. They're phony. They're a loan. What the hell do you think "refundable tax credit" is? It means you have to pay it back. He has not lowered a single tax bracket, and he is eliminating deductions. This equals a net tax increase, without a rate change. Again, don't believe me, go ask someone who does it for a living, and who has actually read up on the changes.
And Harrington, you obviously don't get it, either. If you find it stupid to say that statistics don't lie, obviously rhetoric is all that you believe in, so an intelligent debate with you is pointless. Statistics given in a poll may be manipulated, because the poll can be configured to get the answers the poller wants, but cold hard statistics in the public records can't be argued with, in spite of Goodwrench's attempts in other threads.
I'm not necessarily a Republican nut swinger. I'm a conservative. I believe the Republican party has been making one blunder after another, and it needs to stop, and get it's sh!t together, which it seems might actually start happening now that they're up against the wall. However, when you get down to the real issues, they would never be doing what we are seeing now if they had the control. The problem is that when they had control, many of them were trying to be "moderate", but in reality, were simply not sticking by the principles that the party once stood for. There are some Democrats out there that I've been impressed with, because of their conservative principles. However, when the majority of the Democrats are pushing for more and more government, and even those conservative ones are voting party lines, it becomes a party issue again. I gave kudos to the ones who voted against the stimulus bill. I will also slam Republicans, such as my own two Senators, who give BS reasons for siding with their opposition. While I would still vote the same way in my state elections given the choices I had this past year, I am looking for someone to oppose them next round.
spoiler wrote:J03Y Esquire wrote:Forcing a company to utilise overpriced labor
Company's move over seas to get cheap labor and to get a tax cut DUHHH!!!
I'm sorry is called "Greed"
Another foolish post proving you don't know a damned thing about the way the economy really works with these things. Companies don't just move jobs because they are greedy. They move jobs because the economics of whatever product or service they provide mandates a cutting of costs. In most cases, they are looking to cut costs because they are trying to be competitive. When they can not cut other costs to lower their price and be competitive, they look at outsourcing, building overseas facilities, etc., to cut costs that way. It is far more advantageous from the standpoint of management and other factors, such as lack of shipping products from overseas, for a company to have their entire operation in the country they are based. It costs companies vast amounts of money to set up an overseas operation. If they could continue to be profitable without moving jobs. Don't speak about that which you have no knowledge in.
Quiklilcav wrote:James (ROLN19S) (JuicyJ) wrote:It is WAY too early to ask this now anyway...
Just out of curiosity, how many trillions more does he have to spend on wasteful programs, and increasing entitlement programs, before it's enough time to make a judgement call on him? Personally, the way the "stimulus" plan was rammed through was bad enough, but on top of that, already increasing this year's budget, and submitting by far the largest budget ever for next year, which there is absolutely ZERO hope to ever pay for, the only way I could possibly be convinced he's not destroying everything that makes this country great would be if he came out one day and announced that he had made a huge mistake, and he's going to push for the repealing of all the bullsh!t spending that's been going on. But that will never happen. He just wants more and more and more, with absolutely no care of ever paying for it.
Now they're already putting through tax increases. Get ready for the unemployment rate to double and quite possibly worse within the next couple of years. I can only hope that 2010 is the turnaround we had in 94, and that the Republicans actually get their sh!t together, and blow the tax increases out of the water before they take effect.
NewAmericanTeaParty.com is a good place to start for anyone looking to oppose this massive trend of screwing the American people.
Quiklilcav wrote:Why don't you try answering the question?
Quiklilcav wrote:I know what's going to happen
Quiklilcav wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote: What is your objective by posting every day about Obama? Dude, you are obsessed with this man! Is your tin-foil hat that tight on you?
Because he, unlike any president we have had, is doing the most damage to this country, and every day he does, or says he's going to do, something worse. People need to open their eyes. You are one of the completely blind sheep out there, being lead around by the rhetoric and charisma of our liar-in-chief, and the drooling MSM's who hang on his every word. You are completely dilusional if you think he's doing good so far. Why do I post so often about it? Because this happens to be a communtiy I frequent, and I try to help people here see what is really going on. I have been paying attention to what's going on in politics for the past 20+ years, but no one has enfuriated me more than the current administration and congress, who are completely trying to turn our country upside down into a socialist nation.
Exactly what do you think would prove to people like me (who are getting more and more pissed off at what him, Pelosi, and Reid are doing to this country) that he's actually done a good thing? I would really like to know what statistics you would believe prove their plan is working. When (and I am 100% sure that they will) the unemployment rates continue to increase, into double digits, and GDP continues to tank, what excuses are you going to be spouting? My guess would be whatever BS is coming from the administration and the MSM's.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Quiklilcav wrote:Why don't you try answering the question?Heh, I answered yours, yet no answer from mine. But that is typical from you.
spoiler wrote:No you don't,
you think you know what's going to happen.
if you do know what's going to happen, then tell us what do you think is going to happen 2 years from now. Are things going to get better or worst?
A. Better
B. worst
C. The same
2 years from now. okay?
I think:
A. Better
I think things are going to get better.
What do you know Mr.Quick?
ThatGuy85 wrote:J03Y Esquire wrote:ThatGuy85 wrote:At least he's removing tax cuts for companies moving jobs overseas. You CANNOT argue that this is a bad move.
I certainly can. You do realise the companies that receive those tax breaks will now move somewhere else where they can get the tax breaks they need. Forcing a company to utilise overpriced labor will just push them away, thus resulting in even fewer jobs.
And I can speak to this personally, as I work in Global Resourcing for the largest financial institution in the world....that didn't take bailout money. Sorry, but why pay someone $30k + a year to do data input that a monkey on a typewriter can do, when you can utilise labor in other countries to do the same work for almost 1/3 the cost?
Trust me when I tell you, companies such as my employer are not based in the US, and will have no problem pulling out of the US all together.
So ya, that would result in thousands if not hundreds of thousands more jobs lost in the US.
Explain to me how forcing this upon companies will help? I would really like to hear your position on a subject you clearly are not thinking thru.
So, letting companies move jobs overseas is GOOD for the economy, right?
Look I'm not trying to say Obama is the golden prophet that America has been waiting for, but you cannot tell me that giving companies money to un-employ American's is a good plan! Removing the incentive for this plan would at least discourage companies from outsourcing their helpdesk and call centers to groups of people who can barely speak English. I would much rather companies lower pay rates for these "monkey on a typewriter" jobs rather than lose them altogether.
Quote:
Clearly you didn't, and if you're talking about me not answering your Reagan question, it's because we've been through that argument in another thread, you can't seem to understand facts (particularly how they are tied to the policies of the times), and this thread it not for another Reagan argument, it's about the current administration.
Quote:
So I'll try this again, for you and for James: What statistics will you look to over the next couple of years to prove that these massive spending plans and tax increases are working, and where do you think those statistics should be at that time? What will be your answer when unemployment is up in the teens next year?
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Yep that is exactly what I asking and they are all found on the first page. And yet.... YOU STILL DID NOT ANSWER THE F-ING QUESTIONS. Nothing new on your behalf. That for sure we went through.
See... it looks like you are here to start $hit instead to hide all the F.uck-ups that Bush did the last 8 years (AS IF WE ARE TO FORGET) instead coming to a solution and being constructive.
--But why Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. do you say that???
Well, You are bitching on the mass spending that Obama will do... Yet you fail to recognize, No... Bitch at what Nixon, Reagan or Bush Jr did? It is ok that they sky rocketed the debt up your ass and you make NO announcement or history reference on that (AND if you did, you would look like a total hypocrite... haha), yet Obama does it, and here you are like sensationalist FOX news reporter with 20 threads of it. Heh, and the man has only been in office for less then two months and you are crucifying him from left to right and how much of failure he will be. Hmmm that sound astoundly familiar? Oh that's right, that's what Rush Limbaugh preaches daily, what coincidence? Wait, stop, yhea.. I forgot who I'm dealing here.
You mention NO to tax hikes... and in 1986 Reagan hiked it nicely for the average middle class society and lowered tremendously on the highest tax bracket. Where are you talking about that? Where is that sensationalist reporter "Quicklittlecav" making history reference on that? (Wait..you did know he did that right? I forgot who I'm dealing here with) If so, why so one sided? If Reagan did it: it is ok. Nixon, the start of mass spending with the war in Vietnam is a mirror image to the occupation in Iraq today in terms of expense of uselessness. Why don't you criticize that?
Do you see where I am going with this? Much like the thread on intelligence and knowledge, you and your republican party have no room to talk.
Quote:
So I'll try this again, for you and for James: What statistics will you look to over the next couple of years to prove that these massive spending plans and tax increases are working, and where do you think those statistics should be at that time? What will be your answer when unemployment is up in the teens next year?
Heh... Buddy, unemployment will not get as high as in the Reagan era. Whoooooops! That is taboo when it comes to you and your threads.
Quote:
"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."
spoiler wrote:might as well
ThatGuy85 wrote:So, letting companies move jobs overseas is GOOD for the economy, right?
Look I'm not trying to say Obama is the golden prophet that America has been waiting for, but you cannot tell me that giving companies money to un-employ American's is a good plan! Removing the incentive for this plan would at least discourage companies from outsourcing their helpdesk and call centers to groups of people who can barely speak English. I would much rather companies lower pay rates for these "monkey on a typewriter" jobs rather than lose them altogether.
Quote:
I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.