kapkomet

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 25, 2009 -> 12:48 PM) To tell you the truth Kap I actually expected a lot of Vindal. I'd heard he was a charismatic version of pawlenty who at one point I'd found reasonable, but he was just awful, brutally awful. If this is the face of the GOP I'm feeling pretty good If I was Obama, but poor for the US. Luckily, I think the Utah gov. is smart, intelligent, and especially not an idiot. But when Fox news, david brooks, the entire right wing concluded that Jindal sucked, do you come to the conclusion that Jindal was good? You are such an independent thinker, always thinking the republican response was great in the face of everyone saying it was terrible, here's a cookie. Like I said in the beginning, I didn't express my opinion. On purpose. Yes, he sucked. Obama did a good job. My problem with Obama's speech is like every other "SOTU" speech - it's all promises about nothing.

Like two other posters we have around here, eh? They wouldn't post here this year, or something.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 25, 2009 -> 12:15 PM) Sure it would... VP debates, case in point. "OMG SARAH PALIN WAS AN AWESOME DEBATER SHE SCHOOLED JOE BIDEN LOL" From the 30% groupings on either end of the spectrum there is no objectivity in there. Thank God I'm not a Republican then. Seriously.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 25, 2009 -> 11:44 AM) And the REP reaction would also be the same. No, it wouldn't. I've seen it here. I've heard it elsewhere. That's the difference.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 25, 2009 -> 11:29 AM) This is how the media responds to everything, and usually it's laughably biased and wrong. But last night, I think this is about what happened. Obama gave what I thought was a very good speech (and this is only the 2nd speech of all the many speeches I've watched him give that I actually thought was very good contentwise,) and Jindal gave a very poorly delivered speech with hot plate points and no new ideas. I ripped Obama throughout the campaign because his speeches had very little content, and what content they had has just hot plate points. Last night, I thought Obama gave a speech with some actual interesting ideas, and Jindal didn't really have any new ideas or anything resembling that at all. I voted 80 percent Republican in the voting booth last November, but I can't just lie about what I saw last night. That's why I prefaced my post with note: I have not stated my opinion. Truthfully, if the roles were reversed, and Obama gave a suck speech and Jindal rocked the house, the reaction would be the same, and that's more my point.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 25, 2009 -> 08:47 AM) You just said in so many words that people can/should just go bankrupt every time they need urgent care. No, I didn't say they should, I said they do. And they don't care. What people do and what they should do are two different things.

Now of course, Obama's speech is the second coming of the almighty, and the response is a turd GOP response. It's always that way, isn't it? *yawn* Note: I'm not stating my opinion, I'm stating the responses to both.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 25, 2009 -> 08:01 AM) We're only talking about urgent care here too so far, the people who have conditions that need regular treatment or have to get prescriptions and pay for them out of pocket are basically out to dry. edit: And it's not free if you have like 60k in debt afterwards... According to our government, they'll pay for it. That's BS. Who cares? These people don't use credit anyway, and if they get hurt again, they go to the same place. The hospitals write it off, and they go on. In seven years, they're made whole again.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 25, 2009 -> 07:54 AM) Well, they were. I get the impression from a pilot I know, that many of the senior captains retired or took cuts, and other pilots the same. I think at this point, six figures for a pilot is probably rare. No, it's not. Not for "captains". Even F/O's still make six figures, considering most of them have a lot of years of experience.

Having spent time in the Domincan Republic, baseball IS the pasttime of the DR, not just lip service like we see here. Those kids play it all the time with whatever they can get their hands on (broomsticks, rocks, and some trash for bases). Here, we just slap on the playstation and go play. These kids play and play - and then in the secondary schools, they are "discovered" and "taught" how to play, then the circus begins, so to speak.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2009 -> 06:01 PM) On a different subject, this makes me proud to be an American. Greedy workers, always thinking they deserve more than they get. America; where unless you're already rich, you can land a plane in the Hudson and still have to work 2 jobs to get by. Do you know what pilots make? They're still "rich" according to Barack Obama.

The measurement of taxes as a percentage of GDP is the biggest pile of s*** that I've ever seen. Let's talk real money. Re: individual versus corporate tax rates being a stimulus. I understand your point, but I'm not looking at it for a "multiplier" effect like you are, per se. Because consumer spending is a s***ton of the GDP, then of course more money in the pockets of the consumer is going to have a bigger effect. However, when looking at the job market as a whole, if you want to put people back to work, lower the corporate tax rate and you will see dramatic hiring, and then you will see that money traverse over to individual spending, and now you have a two fold expansion on the consumer AND the capital front - which then (yes, I know you think it's crap, but I don't) all that money will translate into higher government spending capability. Where else can you get three sectors of GDP growing besides the corporate tax rates?

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 24, 2009 -> 02:52 PM) Thanks. NSS about sums it up. We have a broken, costly, system. Why hasn't the private system solved the problems?? Private industry is perfect! They always find the best, most cost effective solution that makes American grrrrrrrrreat! LOL just trying to give Kap a target I gotta run. Y'all have fun As I said in the other thread, there is a middle ground. Of course it's broken. No one gets to fix it because of lobby money to prevent it. Funny how that works, huh?

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 24, 2009 -> 02:49 PM) I am truly missing your point(s) Roads are not a valid project for government to be involved in? All education should be privatized and parents pay? Damn, I wish I was in a mood for fighting with you I just can't dance today, too busy. The FEDERAL government has a place in this stuff, but not all. We are shifting more and more responsibility to the federal government, and at what cost? No one care, because they will "just take care of (insert X) for us". At best, it's better served for state governments to do a lot of this. But you have to let the markets work, and our current elected officials think that they are more capable of doing things at the federal government level then the market is. That's what socialism is. Not to mention, taxes are high here for a reason - and some of them I agree with. This ain't Mexico.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 24, 2009 -> 02:37 PM) yes sir. and there is also the uninsured who are basically getting services for free. Yup! And guess what? They still get the service! So what is everyone b****ing about?

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 24, 2009 -> 02:33 PM) We could make the US look more like Mexico or (insert cheap manufacturing place here), but do we really want to drive on those roads? We could save on our military. We could encourage our seniors to lose weight by only eating rice once a day. We could cut waaaaay back on our education system. There are all sorts of things we could do to make this as attractive as (insert 3rd world country here). Once again, the only thing big enough to save us from anything and everything, is the government. They have to control all the money and redistribute it to roads, education, health care, senior citizens (read: old people retirement). They are also incentivized to do everything the right way! They are all-knowing, elected officials elected to take care of us! Thanks, government! You do it all for us so that no one has to do anything for themselves! Utopia, baby! /counter argument awaits that "free market" destroys everything by greed, yea anarchy! The middle, more toward self correcting market with some oversight is the right way.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 24, 2009 -> 02:23 PM) And in their case, again, its other things: labor costs, regulation avoidance, cheaper access to raw materials. Um. No. I'll give you an example... (GENERAL, NOT TAX ADVICE, pharmaceutical lawyers, don't sue me, you f***tards!) US company sells Drug A for $200.00 per Rx. Cost of Goods = 2% (30.00) Gross Margin = 98% 170.00 SG & A (includes marketing, selling, general and administrative (inc healthcare, salary, etc) 25% (that's typical - might even be overshooting) (50.00) Operating Profit 120.00 ===== Now what happens? XYZ SA owns the product, bears the risk, and gets paid a "dividend" back to Switzerland. It's all cash. (110.00) Profit shown in USA $10.00 (and that's the normal return according to IRS). Woot! Tax avoidance! Perfectly legal. And I get to live high off that hog by sending all that cash over to 12.5% tax rate in Switzerland. Now I have more to pay my employees over here and cover that 25% SG & A. Happens all the time. Note: That cost of goods being 2% is the real cost of production passed back from the Swiss Co.! It's true and it works. The part of the $110 of dividends sent back from US covers R&D and those types of things, but it's a lot more money taxed at 12.5% then 35%.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 24, 2009 -> 02:14 PM) There is a whole lotta truth in that. Almost everyone agrees, until it happens to them. Then it is why shouldn't I get mine? There is one thing about a true medical mistake and pain and suffering punitive damages. Then there's outrageous bulls***... and that's the problem.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 24, 2009 -> 02:20 PM) Also Technology, and other areas as well. Lots of industries. Lots of business. The only area of business I know of, where the prime motivation for going overseas is for tax sheltering, is finance/banking. Pharmacueticals is a huge one. Huge.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 24, 2009 -> 02:16 PM) Well, give an Indian engineer 85k a year and see how he lives in India... he probably would live like a prince off of that. Of course. Why do you think, by the way, that they are starting the reversal of the visa programs now? They are sending our people over there. Why is that? (slightly off topic but in the same general point I'm making).

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 24, 2009 -> 02:13 PM) I oversimplified it in that post yes, but I think for all the screaming that's done about US corporate tax rates, my point was that there are other factors that are just as big if not bigger. You can't sit there and say that "2nd biggest tax rate" doesn't mean anything... you cannot diminish that fact. If they cut corporate tax rates, it would stimulate the s*** out of this economy. It's a fact. Tax cuts on individuals doesn't have the stimuls effect that corporate taxes do. But there is no way they will adjust that. They need to money too bad and companies will continue "tax avoidance". Hello, Company XYZ SA. (SA being Switzerland).

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 24, 2009 -> 02:10 PM) Its much more than a small part, its usually the biggest part. Labor costs moved overseas are almost always far lower than here. I guess I'm coming at it from a less manual intensive type of company. For manufacturing, that's true. But that's about the only industry that's true. It's ended up costing companies more in service industry to outsource.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 24, 2009 -> 02:02 PM) Corporate tax rates are not what drives them out of the US. That is and always has been a red herring. What drives them out is either (take your pick, or take both) compensation levels for American workers or healthcare costs. That's not entirely true. Partly (a very small part), but not entirely. There are so many MNE's set up for tax purposes only it's crazy. Compensation levels are NOT a part of it. Healthcare costs are a small consideration because they get a write off for that.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 24, 2009 -> 02:02 PM) But health CARE should be. Insurance was invented mostly for a profit for a few. Health care is the actual act of giving people help when its needed. Ok, then people shouldn't sue for getting the CARE because they didn't like the look of the doctor that day and people could then maybe afford it.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Feb 24, 2009 -> 11:57 AM) What's sad is that those are the people that need the most help and aren't going to get it. *waves*