Good Lord

[bbsam]

No I'm repeating what USAToday reported Monday, that Obama has offered to drop the corporate tax rate to 28% as long as it covers both domestic and foreign income. That would actually increase taxes for multinationals and they quoted some think tank guy as saying it would drive corporations to move their headquarters overseas.

What I saw was a proposal similar to Romney's of a cap of 28% of income for deductions.

 

[vantexan]

What I saw was a proposal similar to Romney's of a cap of 28% of income for deductions.

Are you talking personal income tax? USAToday had a very extensive article about the current business environment and what it will take to improve conditions to increase hiring. One of the things discussed was the corporate tax rate, which was disputed here that it's truly not as high as claimed. Apparently Obama hadn't heard that, because he made the offer to drop it to 28%, as long as all business income is taxed, whether derived here or overseas.

 

[vantexan]

Many do.

Apparently you missed the joke...check out your spelling...

 

[vantexan]

Overseas has other expenses.

I'm neither defending or attacking his proposal. I'm just telling you what the article said.

 

[overflowed]

Hey, maybe all these sources on the internet are biased. How many of you would vote to make fedex in the top 100 to work for? Where is Fortune getting their info? This makes it sound like it comes directly from employees. So how does it get in there every year? Just saying! Where does this info you all trust or believe really come from? Not targeting anyone in particular. I voted how I voted and that's private.

 

[DontThrowPackages]

It doesn't matter to these republicans how low a tax rate the rich are paying. Because in their minds 1% is too much. They will always have an excuse as to wealthy and big business are hurting and they want to create jobs but big bad Obama is preventing them. The bull**** is so high in their party that's its up to their necks. The majority of working class citizens see right through it and that is why a overwhelming majority voted for Obama.

Somehow Fox Limbaugh has convinced their followers to Worship Millionaires. Its like watching a 12 year old girl gush over Justin Bieber." Look dear, he's has 5 homes and his own golf course in his back yard". "I'm almost 50, but we'll be wealthier than him one day". So they vote against their own interest in order to help millionaires who don't need helping. Any tax of any type on millionaires and the 50k, or less, earners take to the streets with their "Obama is a Socialist" signs (Heath ledger RIP). And when you ask them," Why are you against millionaire taxes?" They regurgitate the same line about how the "Job creators" won't create jobs. During Clinton's era, the wealthy were taxed little over 40 pct. The economy was doing very well. About 23 million new jobs created. Taxes are at their lowest for millionaires and the economy is in the tank. Stop sending jobs overseas, hire Americans and raise revenues! So what if a company won't have enough to pay 9 CEOs 330 million dollars in bonuses for the year (APPLE). At least you'll have more American customers working and able to buy your products. Middle classes all over the world must thrive in order for Capitalism to work.

 

[Goldilocks]

Cavuto: John McCain is a war hero, not a wimp | Common Sense | Your World with Cavuto

 

[vantexan]

Somehow Fox Limbaugh has convinced their followers to Worship Millionaires. Its like watching a 12 year old girl gush over Justin Bieber." Look dear, he's has 5 homes and his own golf course in his back yard". "I'm almost 50, but we'll be wealthier than him one day". So they vote against their own interest in order to help millionaires who don't need helping. Any tax of any type on millionaires and the 50k, or less, earners take to the streets with their "Obama is a Socialist" signs (Heath ledger RIP). And when you ask them," Why are you against millionaire taxes?" They regurgitate the same line about how the "Job creators" won't create jobs. During Clinton's era, the wealthy were taxed little over 40 pct. The economy was doing very well. About 23 million new jobs created. Taxes are at their lowest for millionaires and the economy is in the tank. Stop sending jobs overseas, hire Americans and raise revenues! So what if a company won't have enough to pay 9 CEOs 330 million dollars in bonuses for the year (APPLE). At least you'll have more American customers working and able to buy your products. Middle classes all over the world must thrive in order for Capitalism to work.

The 90's were the Dot.com boom. And then it tanked at the end of Clinton's 2nd term when many of those companies went bust because most of them didn't amount to anything, were just trying to cash in. Nobody on this board is gushing over millionaires. I, for one, am just trying to explain to you that jobs don't come from the job fairy. For some reason there seems to be a disconnect as to how jobs are created. Businesses hire as needed, not because they are swell guys. If the government reduces it's tax burden on people, economic activity increases, and people are hired to do the work to meet the demand. Romney pointed out rightly that the wealthy will do ok no matter the economy, it's the middle class that needs help. What's happening right now? The wealthy are doing well. Why? They've shed jobs in the bad economy so that their workforce is just big enough to meet poor demand, thus maintaining their profit margins. Furthermore they've invested heavily in automation in many companies, allowing machines to do work that people used to do. Further increasing profits. But if the unemployment rate is to be reduced you'll have to give them incentives to hire. The number one incentive is to make more money, and being able to keep a higher percentage of that money. If you are going to put the brakes on that with higher taxes then get used to high unemployment. The wealthy "job creators" aren't going to hire them out of the goodness of their hearts, only hire them if they are needed. I would think anyone who's worked at FedEx would realize how cutthroat the guys at the top are. Delivering pkgs is labor intensive. You can't replace us with machines. But you can invest in technology that will make a courier more productive, enabling him to do more deliveries in a day than before. You can also take away benefits and slow pay progression down. And invest in new planes that are more economical and will further reduce labor costs with 2 man crews instead of three. Actually courier work is resistant to downturns because you have to have X amount of employees to get the work done, and as it can be a grind there's plenty of turnover. So FedEx can't just layoff 30,000 employees like some companies can. But they sure try to trim costs associated with labor as much as possible. And for those of us who've stuck with them it feels like abuse at times. And their increasing profits while not giving us much of anything should tell you where their, and most every other company's of any size, priorities are. They are in it for the money, period. Take away their ability to make money, or take away a higher percentage of their income in taxes, and they are going to do everything possible to maintain their profits including layoffs and pay freezes and reduced benefits.

And the sad truth is that because so many jobs have been shipped overseas the companies have caused the higher rate of poverty as there just haven't been enough jobs created to replace those better paid manufacturing jobs. And the ones we do have in many companies just don't pay enough to live a decent middle class life. We need to give those companies incentives to bring back those jobs, not take away their profits so that we can just pass around money in welfare. There has been a failure in leadership at both the government and corporate levels, and we are suffering for it. The real estate bubble is an example of EVERYONE(or a very large % of the population) trying to make money fast because there are too few avenues to sustained prosperity these days for most of us. The big crash was inevitable with so many not using common sense and putting themselves in highly vulnerable financial positions. Any future prosperity needs to be predicated on the tried and true "slow and steady wins the race" written by Ben Franklin in the mid-1700's.

 

[MAKAVELI]

I'm sorry but that logic just doesn't make sense. Most of these companies that have shipped jobs over seas are reaping huge profits ie Apple. They don't need incentives just willing to accept a lower profit margin. If most working class Americans have to accept lower wages and benefits as a result of a down economy including ourselves , then why not corporate America? What makes them immune from a little sacrifice for the better of our country? Just think how many jobs would be created if American companies would actually produce American products in the US for American citizens. What a novel concept.

 

[vantexan]

I'm sorry but that logic just doesn't make sense. Most of these companies that have shipped jobs over seas are reaping huge profits ie Apple. They don't need incentives just willing to accept a lower profit margin. If most working class Americans have to accept lower wages and benefits as a result of a down economy including ourselves , then why not corporate America? What makes them immune from a little sacrifice for the better of our country? Just think how many jobs would be created if American companies would actually produce American products in the US for American citizens. What a novel concept.

But they aren't willing to accept a lower profit margin, thus they sent those factories overseas. Did I not point out how cutthroat corporate America is? I'm not praising them for this, just pointing out what they are actually doing. If producing goods for Americans in America with American employees costs them a lot more they aren't going to do it if they can't maintain profits. They aren't willing to sacrifice and you really can't make them settle for less. Look at Hostess. The union wasn't willing to concede anything so they shut it down. Not a strategy to get around the union, they're out of business. They weren't going to lose money to make the union happy and I guess products that go stale aren't a candidate for moving overseas, as in Wonder Bread. So they quit. That's something to consider with FedEx. If a union had got in and the company was losing money with no concessions from the union, they'd have to shut it down. I think we need a union to protect us from mgmt but I've seen here the idea that we should be getting everything UPS gets. If FedEx had been put into that position in the late 90's I'm certain we wouldn't be arguing here now because FedEx would've gone down in flames in 2009. But people want what they want and never consider the unintended consequences until it's too late.

 

[MAKAVELI]

I'm sorry but that logic just doesn't make sense. Most of these companies that have shipped jobs over seas are reaping huge profits ie Apple. They don't need incentives just willing to accept a lower profit margin. If most working class Americans have to accept lower wages and benefits as a result of a down economy including ourselves , then why not corporate America? What makes them immune from a little sacrifice for the better of our country? Just think how many jobs would be created if American companies would actually produce American products in the US for American citizens. What a novel concept.

But they aren't willing to accept a lower profit margin, thus they sent those factories overseas. Did I not point out how cutthroat corporate America is? I'm not praising them for this, just pointing out what they are actually doing. If producing goods for Americans in America with American employees costs them a lot more they aren't going to do it if they can't maintain profits. They aren't willing to sacrifice and you really can't make them settle for less. Look at Hostess. The union wasn't willing to concede anything so they shut it down. Not a strategy to get around the union, they're out of business. They weren't going to lose money to make the union happy and I guess products that go stale aren't a candidate for moving overseas, as in Wonder Bread. So they quit. That's something to consider with FedEx. If a union had got in and the company was losing money with no concessions from the union, they'd have to shut it down. I think we need a union to protect us from mgmt but I've seen here the idea that we should be getting everything UPS gets. If FedEx had been put into that position in the late 90's I'm certain we wouldn't be arguing here now because FedEx would've gone down in flames in 2009. But people want what they want and never consider the unintended consequences until it's too late.

What most anti union people don't realize is that they wouldn't have the wages, benefits, and protections that they now have if unions did not exist. What do you think FedEx would be paying us if they didn't have to somewhat compete with UPS union wages? Probably min wage. What Hostess did was the a form of union busting. Their workers weren't asking for more in wages and benefits just to keep it the same. The company was asking for deep cuts to wages and benefits. I doubt these workers were making very much in the first place. The company then disregarded their bargaining rights and went to the courts to force these cuts. The sad thing is the executives of Hostess will be ok. They will shut down this company and then probably open another in the future and hire a non union workforce to pay low wages and increase profits. What's the point of having a union if they are not going to fight for the little guys? There are plenty of successful companies with union workers. UPS and FedEx with its pilots who are some of the highest paid in the industry are both doing just fine with their union workers. I really think most of us FedEx workers would be content with faster top out pay , not cutting our benefits every year and maybe some changes to some work rules. I don't think that's too much to ask.

 

[vantexan]

What most anti union people don't realize is that they wouldn't have the wages, benefits, and protections that they now have if unions did not exist. What do you think FedEx would be paying us if they didn't have to somewhat compete with UPS union wages? Probably min wage. What Hostess did was the a form of union busting. Their workers weren't asking for more in wages and benefits just to keep it the same. The company was asking for deep cuts to wages and benefits. I doubt these workers were making very much in the first place. The company then disregarded their bargaining rights and went to the courts to force these cuts. The sad thing is the executives of Hostess will be ok. They will shut down this company and then probably open another in the future and hire a non union workforce to pay low wages and increase profits. What's the point of having a union if they are not going to fight for the little guys? There are plenty of successful companies with union workers. UPS and FedEx with its pilots who are some of the highest paid in the industry are both doing just fine with their union workers. I really think most of us FedEx workers would be content with faster top out pay , not cutting our benefits every year and maybe some changes to some work rules. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Doesn't really matter what I think. FedEx with it's low paid Ground force has both UPS mgmt and the Teamsters worried enough that just from what I've read here future UPS drivers will have to settle for less. Those were unionized workers at Hostess so I bet they had a better deal than what we have at FedEx. If the economic reality is people are buying less sugary snack foods due to the economy and widely reported health issues then it could very well be that Hostess had no choice but to shut it down if they couldn't get concessions. It's not as cut and dried as mgmt is just greedy and doesn't want them to have decent pay. And unions are extremely weak these days. Constant demands for more pay and better benefits drove a lot of companies to move overseas. It's not alway the evil corporations, the unions bear a lot of responsibility for where we are at too.

 

[MAKAVELI]

What most anti union people don't realize is that they wouldn't have the wages, benefits, and protections that they now have if unions did not exist. What do you think FedEx would be paying us if they didn't have to somewhat compete with UPS union wages? Probably min wage. What Hostess did was the a form of union busting. Their workers weren't asking for more in wages and benefits just to keep it the same. The company was asking for deep cuts to wages and benefits. I doubt these workers were making very much in the first place. The company then disregarded their bargaining rights and went to the courts to force these cuts. The sad thing is the executives of Hostess will be ok. They will shut down this company and then probably open another in the future and hire a non union workforce to pay low wages and increase profits. What's the point of having a union if they are not going to fight for the little guys? There are plenty of successful companies with union workers. UPS and FedEx with its pilots who are some of the highest paid in the industry are both doing just fine with their union workers. I really think most of us FedEx workers would be content with faster top out pay , not cutting our benefits every year and maybe some changes to some work rules. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Doesn't really matter what I think. FedEx with it's low paid Ground force has both UPS mgmt and the Teamsters worried enough that just from what I've read here future UPS drivers will have to settle for less. Those were unionized workers at Hostess so I bet they had a better deal than what we have at FedEx. If the economic reality is people are buying less sugary snack foods due to the economy and widely reported health issues then it could very well be that Hostess had no choice but to shut it down if they couldn't get concessions. It's not as cut and dried as mgmt is just greedy and doesn't want them to have decent pay. And unions are extremely weak these days. Constant demands for more pay and better benefits drove a lot of companies to move overseas. It's not alway the evil corporations, the unions bear a lot of responsibility for where we are at too.

Yea overseas for $5 day wages and no benefits. If that's what you are willing to work for than these companies need a lot more workers like you. And it sounds like Hostess really went out of business because they didn't know how to change their products with the change in demand from the consumer. Not the workers fault. Do you really think these were high paying jobs with a fat contract. No, these were mostly unskilled food production line work. You can make excuses for these corporations all you want or blame these big bad unions. But the truth is these companies go out of business because of poor management and business practices. It's so easy to blame labor instead of taking responsibility.

 

[vantexan]

Yea overseas for $5 day wages and no benefits. If that's what you are willing to work for than these companies need a lot more workers like you. And it sounds like Hostess really went out of business because they didn't know how to change their products with the change in demand from the consumer. Not the workers fault. Do you really think these were high paying jobs with a fat contract. No, these were mostly unskilled food production line work. You can make excuses for these corporations all you want or blame these big bad unions. But the truth is these companies go out of business because of poor management and business practices. It's so easy to blame labor instead of taking responsibility.

It was the Bakers Union that refused to make concessions. The Teamsters who represented their drivers agreed to the concessions. And it's not about taking sides, it's trying to take an honest look at what happened and at what has happened elsewhere. You want to say this side good, that side bad, and hear nothing else. Try intellectual honesty. Hostess upper management made very good money so asking bakers making an average $16.77hr to take an 8% pay cut, albeit with 3% raises over next 3 years and 1% in final year of 5 year contract must have felt like a slap in the face. The Teamster drivers averaged $41k a year. So the 5000 strong bakers union balked and more than 18,000 lost their jobs. The other side of the story is that the company filed for bankruptcy twice since 2000. You say develop new products. Are there baked goods not being brought to market that would have saved them? Do you think just maybe they brainstormed over every possible idea that might change the outcome? Again, you want what you want without consideration to all the facts. You and I aren't privy to all the facts, but it's a lot more complicated than we are always right, they are always wrong.

 

[vantexan]

Yea overseas for $5 day wages and no benefits. If that's what you are willing to work for than these companies need a lot more workers like you. And it sounds like Hostess really went out of business because they didn't know how to change their products with the change in demand from the consumer. Not the workers fault. Do you really think these were high paying jobs with a fat contract. No, these were mostly unskilled food production line work. You can make excuses for these corporations all you want or blame these big bad unions. But the truth is these companies go out of business because of poor management and business practices. It's so easy to blame labor instead of taking responsibility.

And if you take the time to read a little you'd know that in China, for example, there's been a lot of upward pressure on wages. Plus the huge amount of oil and natural gas brought online here in the States recently has suddenly made the States much more competitive. If manufacturers have cheap fuel and transportation costs here while wage increases overseas cut into the bottom line, then many industries will return. Of course if the administration isn't friendly to low fuel costs due to environmentalist pressure don't count on reshoring happening.

 

[MAKAVELI]

Yea overseas for $5 day wages and no benefits. If that's what you are willing to work for than these companies need a lot more workers like you. And it sounds like Hostess really went out of business because they didn't know how to change their products with the change in demand from the consumer. Not the workers fault. Do you really think these were high paying jobs with a fat contract. No, these were mostly unskilled food production line work. You can make excuses for these corporations all you want or blame these big bad unions. But the truth is these companies go out of business because of poor management and business practices. It's so easy to blame labor instead of taking responsibility.

And if you take the time to read a little you'd know that in China, for example, there's been a lot of upward pressure on wages. Plus the huge amount of oil and natural gas brought online here in the States recently has suddenly made the States much more competitive. If manufacturers have cheap fuel and transportation costs here while wage increases overseas cut into the bottom line, then many industries will return. Of course if the administration isn't friendly to low fuel costs due to environmentalist pressure don't count on reshoring happening.

Government doesn't set fuel prices, umm big oil does. Last I heard they were making money hand over fist, record profits. And did you know we are one of the largest oil producing countries in the world and will become the largest by 2020. So try again buddy. As far as the bakers $16.00 an hour is far from being a high wage. I'm sure that's not where they start at either. So 8% of someones wage at that level is a lot harder to take than some executive making 6 figures. Corporations need to cut the fat at the top before they even look at cutting the bottom. If Hostess filed for bankruptcy twice what does that tell you about their management? So keep defending these corporations from the big bad unions and labor.

 

[vantexan]

Government doesn't set fuel prices, umm big oil does. Last I heard they were making money hand over fist, record profits. And did you know we are one of the largest oil producing countries in the world and will become the largest by 2020. So try again buddy. As far as the bakers $16.00 an hour is far from being a high wage. I'm sure that's not where they start at either. So 8% of someones wage at that level is a lot harder to take than some executive making 6 figures. Corporations need to cut the fat at the top before they even look at cutting the bottom. If Hostess filed for bankruptcy twice what does that tell you about their management? So keep defending these corporations from the big bad unions and labor.

See, if I say anything different than what you want to hear then I'm pro-business, anti-union, etc. There can't be an honest discussion with you. Big Oil doesn't set the prices, futures contracts traded at the New York Mercantile Exchange as well as exchanges in London and Tokyo set the prices. And we aren't discussing Big Oil. I said with all the oil and natural gas coming online recently it makes America much more competitive. We aren't dependent as much and soon will be independent of Middle East oil. But if our current administration, or any future one, puts the brakes on exploration and production it will keep prices high. It's a consideration for manufacturers. And certainly you know that the profit made on a gallon of gas is less than the taxes collected on that gallon, don't you? And if Hostess filed for bankruptcy twice then obviously they are having trouble making enough to meet their obligations in this economy as well as less people eating their particular products for health reasons.

 

[59 Dano]

It sure would be on Obama's shoulders if the economy would tank in the next 4 year's. But Bush didn't have anything to do with the economic downturn even though he was in office for 8 years right? What hypocrisy.

Obama gets blamed for the current economy because the bulk of his 2008 (and 2012) campaign was that he'd assume responsibility for the economy and fix it. When you assume responsibility for something, you get to be responsible for the results.

 

[59 Dano]

And everybody was working and nobody was on welfare nobody was receiving any kind of help when a Republican was in office right? The BS just continues.

I don't think we're asking too much from Obama. I'd be delighted if the unemployment rate was as low as it was under Bush. Wouldn't you?

 

[59 Dano]

Yea and the end of the world is coming its 2012! Man you republicans are depressing nothing positive. Than tell me why one of the wealthiest individuals in the world, Warren Buffet , backs Obama's plan? I guess he doesn't know anything. Lol. Since the recession began the rich are still rich and many are actually doing better in this economy. Again the plan is not just to tax but cut as well. Got it?

The same Warren Buffet who purposefully structures his compensation to purposefully keep his tax rate as low as he can? He must REALLY believe in Obama's plan! LOL!!!