Did you Vote?

First off, I have never been hired by a poor person. In this modern day and age it is far too easy to move money around the world, so if you make it too costly to have money in this country it will simply move to another country. There are more and more countries that will welcome wealthy people and their money. What needs to happen is corporate tax rates need to be lowered. make it more attractive to invest in u.s. based corporations, instead of just buying u.s. stocks.

Second, I just came back to the U.S. after spending a year in thailand. it is insulting to call people here poor. I know families in thailand that can only afford to eat two bowls of rice a day, and the family has to share what ever fish they catch that day. maybe 2-3 small fish for 5 people. As long as our poor are eating 3x a day, sleeping in a bed with clean sheets, have air conditioning/heat, color t.v. with cable, running water in their house, a car in the driveway, anything but dirt for a floor, and screens and glass to keep the elements out of their house. Our poor are rich by almost any standard you can think of.

Just consider yourself lucky to live in a country that has food stamps, unemployment insurance, welfare, free schools, honest police, knowledgeable doctors and only 6% unemployment. Not to mention, being able to talk bad about the president. The rich pay too much in taxes and the poor ask for too much free stuff. this is a negative to our great form of government. the poor vastly out number the rich and that is all you need to pass laws to take from the few and give to the many.

comparisons can be made with america now and the roman empire around 400 a.d. right before the empire collapsed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Tsunami',index.php?page=Thread&postID=150864#post 150864

First off, I have never been hired by a poor person.

---

Neither have I. Does that make them less deserving of my compassion and respect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Tsunami',index.php?page=Thread&postID=150864#post 150864

In this modern day and age it is far too easy to move money around the world, so if you make it too costly to have money in this country it will simply move to another country.

---

That's one rather fatalist way of looking at it, sure. Or it could be that those countries have no labor laws, minimum wage requirements, or mandated health insurance, so corporations have found they can make exorbitant profits by offshoring these 'cheap workers'. Until we get rid of private health insurance, minimum wage laws, or labor laws (ie., no children should work in the coal mines), we're always going to fall behind those countries without ethical working standards. So what? Aren't we better than that? Are our principles so much for sale in these mercenary times that we're willing to tailor our economic and trade policy around excusing unfettered greed?

Quote:

---

There are more and more countries that will welcome wealthy people and their money. What needs to happen is corporate tax rates need to be lowered. make it more attractive to invest in u.s. based corporations, instead of just buying u.s. stocks.

---

No, no, no. What needs to happen less than anything is another freaking useless tax cut. Seriously! We have a 10 trillion dollar deficit. We need to cut spending AND raise taxes, and make a few sacrifices if we're going to pay it back. That means that the wealthy might have to only have 4 sushi dinners a week, instead of 5. Our economy is a joke partly because we are completely irresponsible with our wealth. Our currency backs oil, you know. The only reason we're allowed to have such egregious deficit spending is because OPEC mandated back in the 1970s that every barrel of oil in the world /must/ be purchased in American dollars. That means other countries have to buy our currency in order to buy oil, and as long as OPEC does this, the American dollar is a magic dollar. However, as soon as OPEC decides to use another currency (say the Euro) for the sale of oil, suddenly our entire economy becomes worthless, and entities begin demanding that we repay the trillions of dollars to them, and our economy goes into freefall, and the Great Depression ends up looking like the Mild Bummer by comparison.

Quote:

---

Second, I just came back to the U.S. after spending a year in thailand. it is insulting to call people here poor.

---

No, it's not insulting. It's insulting to ignore people that are struggling, homeless, and in poverty in our own country. This is a common deflection among many conservatives, I've noted. You can't stand the concept of criticism of our own country, so we go on to talking about the horrible conditions in Rwanda, or Haiti, or Thailand to show everyone just how great we've got it in this country, and how everyone should just shut up and be thankful for what we've got. The thing is, it's our job to think of ways to improve our own country, just as it is the responsibility of people in Thailand to think of ways to improve theirs. Suggesting ways that things could improve doesn't make you selfish or ungrateful or even unaware of the hardships of others--just optimistic.

Quote:

---

Just consider yourself lucky to live in a country that has food stamps, unemployment insurance, welfare, free schools, honest police, knowledgeable doctors and only 6% unemployment. Not to mention, being able to talk bad about the president. The rich pay too much in taxes and the poor ask for too much free stuff. this is a negative to our great form of government. the poor vastly out number the rich and that is all you need to pass laws to take from the few and give to the many.

---

Yes, things are awesome in this country. But since we're already talking about this country, and things that should be improved in this country, I thought I could maybe say a few things about THIS country, without it devolving into a chest-thumping parade about how awesome the USA is, and how we're the best country ever, and how other countries aren't allowed to criticize the government, etc. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, other than to say "Everyone who doesn't think things are awesome is wrong, and as proof of that I'm going to compare the United States to a third-world country."

Quote:

---

comparisons can be made with america now and the roman empire around 400 a.d. right before the empire collapsed.

---

Oh really? The Roman Empire? You mean the same Roman empire in which the corrupt Senate bankrupted the government which led to its demise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaden',index.php?page=Thread&postID=150823#post15 0823]I fail to see what it has to do with Bill Gates, Warren Buffet or George Soros, actually.[/quote]So you don't think the multinational conglomerates owned outright, in part or by proxy of those folks fall under your corporate largesse paradigm? Especially where profiteering by the nominal CEOs/owners is concerned? Or is there something that excludes them from being effectively considered modern-day robber barons?

[quote='Shaden

Quote:

---

http://www.dual-boxing.com/forums/.....con/quoteS.png Quoted from "Tsunami"

In this modern day and age it is far too easy to move money around the world, so if you make it too costly to have money in this country it will simply move to another country.

---

That's one rather fatalist way of looking at it, sure. Or it could be that those countries have no labor laws, minimum wage requirements, or mandated health insurance, so corporations have found they can make exorbitant profits by offshoring these 'cheap workers'. Until we get rid of private health insurance, minimum wage laws, or labor laws (ie., no children should work in the coal mines), we're always going to fall behind those countries without ethical working standards. So what? Aren't we better than that? Are our principles so much for sale in these mercenary times that we're willing to tailor our economic and trade policy around excusing unfettered greed?

---

How does India figure in your considerations? Some would have said the same thing (and still do) about the massive off-shoring to India that my current company, HP, Dell and others have been doing there for years. I just got through having dinner with a group of Indians (from Bangalore) that are, interestingly enough, picking up the jobs my team and I just got laid off from and they (carefully, obviously) regaled us with tales of their economic successes of the last decade or two. India has poor but the guys that just got my job aren't poor any more -- they're now middle-class Indians. With benefits packages. And don't exactly think of themselves as having been exploited. /shrug

Quote:

---

No, it's not insulting. It's insulting to ignore people that are struggling, homeless, and in poverty in our own country. This is a common deflection among many conservatives, I've noted. You can't stand the concept of criticism of our own country, so we go on to talking about the horrible conditions in Rwanda, or Haiti, or Thailand to show everyone just how great we've got it in this country, and how everyone should just shut up and be thankful for what we've got. The thing is, it's our job to think of ways to improve our own country, just as it is the responsibility of people in Thailand to think of ways to improve theirs. Suggesting ways that things could improve doesn't make you selfish or ungrateful or even unaware of the hardships of others--just optimistic.

---

Now now. If I'm not allowed to use the straw man of the Evil Rich(tm), you're not allowed to use the straw man of conservativism being mean-spirited and not caring about the poor. Nobody's saying things don't need to improve. We just differ on whether we think things aren't improving fast enough and government should force it by fiat via wealth redistribution or whether we think society, given the freedom to self-correct (with obvious caveats about exploitation that's already covered by laws), will improve all on its own.

On a related note, you speak of insults. What about poor (usually minorities) who are insulted by the government telling them they're poor, pitiable and deserve government handouts because they apparently can't succeed on their own? I've worked with a few of those that had a rather vehement dislike for handouts of any color, government or otherwise.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

comparisons can be made with america now and the roman empire around 400 a.d. right before the empire collapsed.

---

Oh really? The Roman Empire? You mean the same Roman empire in which the corrupt Senate bankrupted the government which led to its demise?

---

Hoo, boy. This thread could reach epic proportions if we start discussing the collapse of Rome. It is interesting, though, that you chose to focus on the senate bankrupting it and don't mention the treasury looting by the barbarian invasions or the mass hoarding of currency by Roman citizens. One would hope neither of you are being prophetic. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Ughmahedhurtz',index.php?page=Thread&postID=15092 2#post150922

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Shaden',index.php?page=Thread&postID=150823#post1 50823

I fail to see what it has to do with Bill Gates, Warren Buffet or George Soros, actually.

---

So you don't think the multinational conglomerates owned outright, in part or by proxy of those folks fall under your corporate largesse paradigm? Especially where profiteering by the nominal CEOs/owners is concerned? Or is there something that excludes them from being effectively considered modern-day robber barons?

---

I'm not saying they don't play in the very ethically murky waters of finance and corporate ownership. I'm not even claiming that any of them are model human beings. I just meant that I don't think they are great exemplars of Lincoln's quote, as they generally are not good examples of corporations that use their 'money power' to promote policies advantageous to the concentration of wealth. Soros, for example, is very liberal and we all know that liberals want to spread the wealth, not concentrate it. :)

Quote:

---

How does India figure in your considerations? Some would have said the same thing (and still do) about the massive off-shoring to India that my current company, HP, Dell and others have been doing there for years. I just got through having dinner with a group of Indians (from Bangalore) that are, interestingly enough, picking up the jobs my team and I just got laid off from and they (carefully, obviously) regaled us with tales of their economic successes of the last decade or two. India has poor but the guys that just got my job aren't poor any more -- they're now middle-class Indians. With benefits packages. And don't exactly think of themselves as having been exploited. /shrug

---

That's kind of my point, though. I consider myself a patriot. I have nothing against people in India, but I don't think that it should be so easy or so desirable for American companies to outsource work to other countries, unless they truly have no other options available. Tsunami is arguing tax cuts and giveaways to the wealthy, when 60% of corporations in this country don't pay any taxes, anyway, and find it beneficial to outsource jobs because we demand certain compensation for our own workers. Among these is health insurance, as it turns out--an expense that would be completely eliminated by universal state-run healthcare--and we wouldn't have to put that burden on employers if it was provided, gratis, by virtue of being an American. So long as we have SOME standards for the treatment of workers, and expect employers in this country to abide by those rules, we'll always find another country in the world with more lax standards of employment--so what do we do? Reduce our own expectations to the world's lowest common denominator in order to compete?

Quote:

---

Now now. If I'm not allowed to use the straw man of the Evil Rich(tm), you're not allowed to use the straw man of conservativism being mean-spirited and not caring about the poor.

---

Yet you're using another straw man. :) I didn't say that conservatives are mean-spirited and don't care about the poor. Instead there seems to be a common tactic (and you've done it yourself in this thread) of suddenly bringing up the plight of a completely different country as a way of saying, "This country is doing fine." And it's also pretty easy to justify a lack of consideration for the poor (of this country) when you claim "there aren't really any poor in this country".

Quote:

---

Nobody's saying things don't need to improve. We just differ on whether we think things aren't improving fast enough and government should force it by fiat via wealth redistribution or whether we think society, given the freedom to self-correct (with obvious caveats about exploitation that's already covered by laws), will improve all on its own.

---

Like Bush claiming that private industry would be better left to regulate itself, without government interference? Yes, that worked out very well, since clearly the corporate class really cares about the community and is motivated all on its own to provide higher wages, safety standards, and salaries that increase relative to inflation. They also do a great job keeping their word about pensions, I've heard, too. Or respecting the prohibitions against insider trading. Why have laws against insider trading at all? I'm sure the industry would just regulate itself, and we'd all be fine. Right?

Quote:

---

On a related note, you speak of insults. What about poor (usually minorities) who are insulted by the government telling them they're poor, pitiable and deserve government handouts because they apparently can't succeed on their own? I've worked with a few of those that had a rather vehement dislike for handouts of any color, government or otherwise.

---

I guess if the government told me that, I'd feel that way too. But I don't think the government really tells them that. The 'handouts' are a direct outgrowth of the Great Depression, when our society recognized the need for a safety net for its citizens. We didn't want our elderly to be living in poverty, hence there was social security. We wanted to provide for the welfare of our citizens, so we adopted an unemployment program to provide government benefits for the unemployed to help them stay afloat. I'm sure back then in the Great Depression there were several very notable sorts who harrumphed all of this federal largesse and how all of those struggling people just needed to "work harder", and how they didn't see why they should be sharing any of THEIR money with people "less successful" than they.

Thankfully, back then, no one cared what those people had to say.

As for Rome, yeah....let's stay off of Rome. I had a schoolteacher who tried to explain to us that the fall of Rome was caused by the acceptance of homosexuality in the society and the erosion of the family unit. Everyone has a theory on that one, probably greatly oversimplified--but I don't think "giveaways to the poor who always want stuff for free" (as Tsunami claimed) were behind the fall of the Roman empire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Shaden',index.php?page=Thread&postID=151028#post1 51028

Among these is health insurance, as it turns out--an expense that would be completely eliminated by universal state-run healthcare--and we wouldn't have to put that burden on employers if it was provided, gratis, by virtue of being an American.

---

So, where is the money for said state-run healthcare coming from? Higher taxes? Somebody's gotta pay for it and, as the basic unit of wealth creation, individuals WILL be paying for it.

Quote:

---

Like Bush claiming that private industry would be better left to regulate itself, without government interference? Yes, that worked out very well, since clearly the corporate class really cares about the community and is motivated all on its own to provide higher wages, safety standards, and salaries that increase relative to inflation. They also do a great job keeping their word about pensions, I've heard, too. Or respecting the prohibitions against insider trading. Why have laws against insider trading at all? I'm sure the industry would just regulate itself, and we'd all be fine. Right?

---

In areas where the free market was actually allowed to punish mistakes, excess and bad judgement, yes, it absolutely has served as the fastest route to improved conditions, pay and tax income for the government. What happens when a company provides bad conditions, meager pay, etc.? In a free market with monopoly regulation, others create companies that DO offer decent working conditions/pay/etc. and employees leave the former for the latter. Company A realizes people are leaving because of it and they fix the problems to incentivize people to work for them, or they decline. Self-correction at its finest. Were I not under NDAs, I could give you some prime examples of this in the modern PC OEM, ODM and supplier industry.

Now, I'm sure you can find some examples of the "big xxxxxx" company driving out the "little guy" which, taken individually, may make things seem like the system is broken but I'd then ask you: how did any of those companies get where they are? Same system. Nobody is infallible or invincible assuming regulations are in place so they don't "game the system." And gaming the system, I might add, is made so much easier with government regulations like perpetual copyrights, frivolous/unscrutinized patents, Sorbaines-Oxley and a raft of other retarded legislation.

[quote='Ughmahedhurtz',index.php?page=Thread&postID =151625#post151625] So, where is the money for said state-run healthcare coming from? Higher taxes? Somebody's gotta pay for it and, as the basic unit of wealth creation, individuals WILL be paying for it. [/quote]
That's what I said in my post. We're ALREADY paying for it. If we're willing to pay pre-tax money to private insurance companies--why not have that money taken out as an increase to our taxes?

A Princeton economist wrote a [url='http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-i/']couple[/url] columns on why health care costs us so much, relative to other countries.

Right now, the United States health care spending is 40% in excess of what our G.D.P. would predict based on other nations of the world. Reinhardt provides 4 factors to explain this, offered by health-services researchers:

1. higher prices for the same health care goods and services than are paid in other countries for the same goods and services;
2. significantly higher administrative overhead costs than are incurred in other countries with simpler health-insurance systems;
3. more widespread use of high-cost, high-tech equipment and procedures than are used in other countries;
4. higher treatment costs triggered by our uniquely American tort laws, which in the context of medicine can lead to “defensive medicine” — that is, the application of tests and procedures mainly as a defense against possible malpractice litigation, rather than as a clinical imperative.

Okay, so how much is that in dollars?

Quote:

---

The United States spends nearly 40 percent more on health care per capita than its G.D.P. per capita would predict. Given the sheer magnitude of the estimated excess spending, it is fair to ask American health care providers what extra benefits the American people receive in return for this enormous extra spending. After all, translated into total dollar spending per year, this excess spending amounted to $570 billion in 2006 and about $650 billion in 2008. The latter figure is over five times the estimated $125 billion or so in additional health spending that would be needed to attain truly universal health insurance coverage in this country.

---

Yeah, sure, Reinhardt. Universal health care. But how are you going to pay for that kind of thing?

Quote:

---

One thing Americans do buy with this extra spending is an administrative overhead load that is huge by international standards. The McKinsey Global Institute estimated that excess spending on “health administration and insurance” accounted for as much as 21 percent of the estimated total excess spending ($477 billion in 2003). Brought forward, that 21 percent of excess spending on administration would amount to about $120 billion in 2006 and about $150 billion in 2008. It would have been more than enough to finance universal health insurance this year.

---

Oh. Well...I guess that explains it, then. We're already paying for it. It won't cost us any more than we're paying now, and probably less. It's just that right now we happen to be paying into a wasteful, broken system.

[quote='Ughmahedhurtz',index.php?page=Thread&postID =151625#post151625]In areas where the free market was actually allowed to punish mistakes, excess and bad judgement, yes, it absolutely has served as the fastest route to improved conditions, pay and tax income for the government. What happens when a company provides bad conditions, meager pay, etc.? In a free market with monopoly regulation, others create companies that DO offer decent working conditions/pay/etc. and employees leave the former for the latter. Company A realizes people are leaving because of it and they fix the problems to incentivize people to work for them, or they decline. Self-correction at its finest.[/quote]
Yes, AIG and Merril Lynch--working within the free market--never punished a single mistake, excess or bad judgment. And look at the quagmire we're in now. In fact, these groups (and other 'free-market' ecomonists) have repeatedly pushed for deregulation as the best way of managing the economy. Have we learned nothing? Without government controls on the worst excesses of corporate America, we're screwed.

As for self-correction: What about Wal-Mart? Since when have they been on a kick to improve conditions, provide health insurance to all employees, or [url='http://www.ctj.org/pdf/walmart041607.pdf']pay their share of taxes[/url]? Their business model is pretty much the emblem of unfettered corporate greed, yet it is lauded mostly because of the enormous profits it generates. To drive down prices (and maximize their profits) they use their considerable negotiating and buying power to set prices of their vendor's products. They are the only business in the world that can do this. Setting such low prices literally forces vendors to outsource jobs to countries that don't have to pay our exorbitantly overpriced health insurance, not coincidentally. This exports our workforce overseas, kills local economies, and is one more example of something that has to change. 'Profit over people' is a fine (albeit selfish) bottom line for corporations, but 'people before profit' needs to be the policy of our government. It is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, for the people, after all.

just to add my 2 cents about health care costs. Another factor that you didn't mention about why health care cost are so high in the u.s. is the cost of education. most good medical college cost about $50k a year. Harvard has an endowment worth $35 billion, why don't you mention about the greed of harvard and how they over charge their students. Harvard could provide more than 35 years of free education with that money.

How come nobody ever talks about the high salaries of professional athletes or how much money celebrities make. tom cruise made $65 million for mission impossible 2, and that movie sucked. all the cast members of friends made over $90 for the entire series. sandra bullock makes $20 million a movie, which takes less than 2 months to make.

And wal-mart passes those lower costs to it's customers. nobody is forcing the employees to work there, if they don't like it they can find work somewhere else. if customers don't care about low prices and where those products come from then they are free to shop somewhere else. you cannot apply american work standards and laws to third world countries. if you understood economics you would understand. first nobody is forcing those workers to work in those factories, those workers are happy to have a job that pays them money every month. second, those factories are not owned by american companies but contracted to manufacture products for american companies. most 3rd world countries have laws against foriegners owning land in their country or laws against foreign own or controlled companies operating in that country. Last, paying workers more than the market rate will cause inflation and hardship for the people not employed at that factory or cause family members to stop working at their job because they have someone making so much more money in the factory. please don't think you can take our system and copy it somewhere else, it won't work. My sister-in-law works in a factory outside bangkok, she makes 250 baht a day(less than $8 a day) and she is happy. that is enough money for her to have her own apartment, eat as much as she wants(a meal in thailand costs 25-30 baht) have money for beer, cell phone and disco on the weekends.

think of ways to lower prices in america not raise costs in other countries. the states with the highest unemployment in america also have the highest corperate taxes and union membership.

[quote='Tsunami',index.php?page=Thread&postID=15339 5#post153395]just to add my 2 cents about health care costs. Another factor that you didn't mention about why health care cost are so high in the u.s. is the cost of education. most good medical college cost about $50k a year. Harvard has an endowment worth $35 billion, why don't you mention about the greed of harvard and how they over charge their students. Harvard could provide more than 35 years of free education with that money.[/quote]
That's because Harvard is a private industry. Haven't I been railing about private industries? About how their first priority is profit versus people? What Harvard wants is lots of money (and prestige, which helps it make more money). Harvard's priority is not to create affordable education for everyone. In fact, that's what the PUBLIC university system is for. We're not regulating private businesses, and every time someone proposes that we do, suddenly we get shouted down about how it's a free market, and they should be able to do what they want, and if we don't like it we can "shop somewhere else". In any case, I didn't mention the cost of education because it really doesn't have anything to do with our health care costs. You fail to draw any correlation between the high cost of sending a child to med school and how that affects the cost of health care. A /direct/ correlation to the high cost of health care is the waste that the US spends on health care administration. From a [url='http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/8800.php']report[/url] released in the New England Journal of Medicine:

Quote:

---

The U.S. wastes more on health care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all of the uninsured. Administrative expenses will consume at least $399.4 billion out of total health expenditures of $1,660.5 billion in 2003. Streamlining administrative overhead to Canadian levels would save approximately $286.0 billion in 2003, $6,940 for each of the 41.2 million Americans who were uninsured as of 2001. This is substantially more than would be needed to provide full insurance coverage.

---

I think this is a far more relevant point to be discussing, since it actually relates--directly--to the cost of health care. Harvard's tuition doesn't, quite frankly.

Quote:

---

How come nobody ever talks about the high salaries of professional athletes or how much money celebrities make. tom cruise made $65 million for mission impossible 2, and that movie sucked. all the cast members of friends made over $90 for the entire series. sandra bullock makes $20 million a movie, which takes less than 2 months to make.

---

Why? I'll tell you what I tell everyone who rails about this--usually while they are complaining about the low salaries that teacher receive. And I think everyone can agree that teachers (and soldiers, while I'm on the topic) are far more admirable and necessary than Sandra Bullock or Tom Cruise (okay, especially Tom Cruise).

Entertainment industry salaries: sports, tv, movies, music, what have you, these are all paid AT WILL by consumers with after-tax income. If it were a tax, it would be a truly voluntary tax in which we only pay for it if we want to pay for it. This money isn't being taken away from your schools, your local economies, etc....at least not in lieu of taxpayer dollars or government spending dollars bestowed upon your state. Why don't we pay teachers a million dollar salary? Quite frankly, because corporate Washington has decided that money is better spent elsewhere. Largely on the military-industrial complex as a whole. We could raise salaries for teachers, but that would probably require us raising taxes, and we all know how reactionary people are when it comes time to raise taxes. So we'll just say "no" to raising taxes no matter what--because we've decided that deficit spending on credit works so well for so many Americans, that we might as well make it our national policy: Don't raise taxes--just borrow more.

Quote:

---

And wal-mart passes those lower costs to it's customers.

---

And in return, they are exporting those customers' jobs overseas. There's a great anecdote about a county, I think it was in North Carolina, who residents worked at a local factory that made socks. They bought socks at Wal-Mart (made in China) because it was cheaper...and their factory ended up having to export all of their jobs overseas. I'd provide a source for this, but since I'm not sure anyone is reading my sources, I guess you can take my word for it.

Quote:

---

nobody is forcing the employees to work there, if they don't like it they can find work somewhere else. if customers don't care about low prices and where those products come from then they are free to shop somewhere else.

---

My family lives in Kentucky, so I have a good idea of what small-town America is like. Gas costs money. You can take a 20 minute drive to go to Wal-Mart, and buy a bunch of cheap stuff that you probably need to survive--or on principle you can drive an hour or more away, to another county, and shop at a Target (although it's almost the same business model)...or if you can find one anymore, "Ralph and May's Store".

The same problem applies for small town America, with regards to employment. When the local hardware store closed, and the local bookstore closed, and the local grocery store closed, and the local toy store closed--as a direct result of the low, low prices of Wal-Mart--what are your options for employment? Where else are you going to go? I could just as easily have said to you, "If people in Thailand don't like how they are living, they can always move somewhere else."

Well why not? They can move, right? Nothing's stopping them, at least, somehow we still have Thai immigrants in this country. But if I were to say that (and actually mean it, which I don't) I'd be guilty of implying that people in Thailand need to stop complaining, or go somewhere else. And why is that always the option? "If you don't like it, leave"? How about, "If you don't like it, try to change it." If you do like it? If people in Thailand love their jobs? Great, I never said we should force people in Thailand to receive American salaries. But I'll bet they'd sure love to know that getting their hand mangled in some factory equipment entitles them to some form of social safety net.

Quote:

---

you cannot apply american work standards and laws to third world countries. if you understood economics you would understand.

---

Ignoring the ad hominem, I never claimed that. I am voicing support for a /baseline/ of conditions that American companies support. In other words, no slave labor. Can we at least agree that employing slaves to make goods is indefensible? Or am I going to get lectured about my American work standards? No? Okay? So slavery is wrong, and we should never support it? Okay, great. Then we have to draw a line somewhere. Remember back when the South argued that the end of slavery would lead to economic collapse for the South? There was also a lot of complaints about how the North didn't benefit from slavery as much as the South, and so it was unfair for the North to apply its "standards" to the South. Somehow we managed to apply that "standard", and say "to hell with the economics" for once--and miraculously, America survived. It did take the South awhile to recover from that, not to mention the dire cost in lives from the civil war, but in the end the nation made a hard choice, and the darkest chapter in American history was closed--but not without a lot of hand-wringing from slave profiteers. I'm not trying to change the subject, I'm just pointing out that everyone agrees there is a certain humanitarian standard that exists. So let's debate where we should draw the line, rather than whether we should have a line at all.

Quote:

---

think of ways to lower prices in america not raise costs in other countries. the states with the highest unemployment in america also have the highest corperate taxes and union membership.

---

Not true, sorry. Here's a breakdown of union membership by state. Here's a breakdown of the unemployment rates by state. Top states with union membership: New York, Hawaii, Michigan, Alaska, and New Jersey. States with the least union membership: North Carolina and South Carolina. (For comparison: New York has a 25.3% unionization rate. North Carolina has a 3.2% unionization rate.

Some things in the unemployment list match what you are saying: Michigan is tied for the highest unemployment rate in the nation: 9.3% with Rhode Island. I think, at least in Michigan, we could explain the high unemployment rate by considering the failing Detroit auto market, but for argument's sake let's not get tied up in explaining the data. Right after Michigan is California, with a 8.2% unemployment rate. Right after California, #48? South Carolina with an 8% unemployment rate. North Carolina is at 37 with a 7% unemployment rate. Then there's New York and Hawaii, boasting 5.7% and only 4.5% unemployment, respectively. Hawaii is #11 on the list, there are only 10 states ahead of Hawaii in terms of their low unemployment rates. Another is New Hampshire, which has a similar unionization rate as Kentucky does, yet New Hampshire is #6 on the unemployment list (4.1%) and Kentucky is #36 on the list (6.8%). Care to explain why the actual data is directly at odds with your made up statistic?

I say 'bubble up' instead of 'trickle down'. So much of the money gets swindled by CEOs and upper management. Planes, expensive trips, yachts. I am for being rich but when it comes to taxes give the people that pay for their services some money to use.

Better yet how about a 'flat tax'. I would be all for that. The average person would pay way less in taxes and the rich would no longer have the shelters they usually use. So I guess it is kind of the same thing in the long run.

Ive been trying to keep up on this post, a lot of good back and forth here. Has anybody provided a good reason why the rich should be paying more in taxes that I missed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'blast3r',index.php?page=Thread&postID=153895#post 153895

I say 'bubble up' instead of 'trickle down'. So much of the money gets swindled by CEOs and upper management. Planes, expensive trips, yachts. I am for being rich but when it comes to taxes give the people that pay for their services some money to use.

Better yet how about a 'flat tax'. I would be all for that. The average person would pay way less in taxes and the rich would no longer have the shelters they usually use. So I guess it is kind of the same thing in the long run.

---