Originally Posted By vbdad55 <School teachers? Here come the H1-B visa holders. There is no end to the number of people who would happily do our jobs for 1/10 of our pay< the standard of living is going to take a major hit without some kind of action. yet is protectionalism going to work ? With our current trade deficit since we make so little here any more, could it even be enforced ? many factors at work here -- corporate greed, loss of manufacturing, immigration issues, work visa issues, the concept of a global economy and that standard being below what we are used to or our economy is set up for, many foreign students here being trained in college for good paying careers while here on full ride athletic and academic scholarships, un bridled rule over employees by corporations with lobbyists covering their trails with politicians, and a stock market controlled by analysts whims as opposed to actual profits.
Originally Posted By jonvn "yet is protectionalism going to work ?" It hasn't worked too well in the past, but things were different then, perhaps. Take Nike shoes, for example. They are offshoring all their manufacture overseas in order to save money. They also don't pay taxes to the government here, either, as these employees are contrators or workers who don't get Social Security, and don't get income for income taxes. So, I think the government should then raise taxes on this company (and others like it) such that they not only pay what the equivalent of taxes would be for what a worker in this country makes, plus an offshoring tax as well. The offshoring tax would be about the difference in what they were paying the slave labor as opposed to what they'd be paying someone here. That would make it economically unfeasabile to offshore jobs like that. I'd also put in a tax incentive, for employers who have workers here. They should get a tax break. Making it economically unworkable to offshore jobs is the only way to do it, and do it via the taxes these companies are avoiding to pay at the moment. These companies are sucking this country dry, and need to be responsible. It'll never happen.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <They also don't pay taxes to the government here, either, as these employees are contrators or workers who don't get Social Security, and don't get income for income taxes. < if no one has taken me up yet on the recommendation - please read a source book on 'Shared 'Service' which is the fany name for off shoring. the final step of off- shoring for the corporations after they move operations to Brazil / Thailand / India or wherever is to make sure it is running well, then sell off the entire division ( retaining an approximate 20% stake as a shareholder to have some leverage) - and then buy back the services from the new company that belongs lock , stock and barrel to another country. gone are pension issues, raises, overtime or benefits...they negotiate with the 'new' companny for rates to get their services. The 'new' company is now responsible for keeping costs low by ousting people after a few years - training new/cheaper people. bess book to date Essentials of Shared Services by Bryan Bergeron
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <So, I think the government should then raise taxes on this company (and others like it) such that they not only pay what the equivalent of taxes would be for what a worker in this country makes, plus an offshoring tax as well. The offshoring tax would be about the difference in what they were paying the slave labor as opposed to what they'd be paying someone here. That would make it economically unfeasabile to offshore jobs like that. I'd also put in a tax incentive, for employers who have workers here. They should get a tax break. Making it economically unworkable to offshore jobs is the only way to do it, and do it via the taxes these companies are avoiding to pay at the moment. These companies are sucking this country dry, and need to be responsible. It'll never happen. < couldn't agree more both with the plan and the fact our sold out politicians will ensure it never happens
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>the standard of living is going to take a major hit without some kind of action.<< Its really up to us, the people. In the end, we are the ones who buy all the sweatshop junk at WalMart. But its an uphill battle. Few people are willing to go the extra mile, and maybe pay $3 more for a pair of generic sneakers that are made in the US. I try to buy American whenever I can, but it takes time and effort sometimes to even find a lousy pair of socks that are still made here. It seems that the only thing will still make in the US are houses (which of course is a non tradeable good). I'm wonder how long until we see cheap chinese prefab houses on the market?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <If they actually really did go after the rich instead of killing the middle class with their plans in '08 -- they would walk away with the election...because the moderate middle class would be all over that...but they won't it appears. If they run on a platform to roll back the current tax breaks they will lose.> But of course, when a Democrat merely proposes raising taxes back to the 90's level on ONLY people making over, say, $200,000 a year - even then the GOP is quick to scream "class warfare." As if they didn't practice it too, albeit in a slightly different way. That said, the comments by vbdad and jonvn lately have been right on the money. Neither party is doing anything about the forces that are eroding the middle class, and it SHOULD be the natural issue for the Democrats - but they're either too clueless or too beholden to big business themselves to take it up. <The thing is that this is just the exact sort of issue that the democrats SHOULD be going after. They are in a position now to become a populist party that shows itself willing to deal with the average person's issues. Are they doing that? No. Why? BECAUSE THEY'RE USELESS IDIOTS. The Republicans may be venal, craven, and unable to properly govern, but at least they know how to stir up people to get them to vote for them. > Sad, but true. I'm still hopeful we can find a Democrat (I'd also take a moderate GOP'er) who is willing to take this on in '08. How do you feel about your neighbors Bayh and Vilsack, vbdad?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I like Bayh but would like to see him 'live' more, as I want to see him perform under the pressure of the media andhis peers. I like the concept of a fiscally conservative Democrat.. from his web site...the concept of scrapping trying to work thru the Kennedy,Pelosi, Rove type entrenchment if he can pull it off would be a huge feather...but I want to see how he deals with big business as 98% of Indiana's employment comes from small business... he is one I have my eye on though "At a time when partisanship is threatening progress on the nation's most pressing issues, Bayh is spearheading the creation of the Third Way, an organization designed to build consensus around legislation that would otherwise remain bogged down in political turf wars. Bayh also served for more than four years as Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a national group that offers support for Democratic elected officials and community leaders with a progressive approach on issues. He helped establish the New Democrat Coalition, a new and growing group of senators who are committed to sensible bipartisan progress. Bayh also serves on the Board of Directors of the National Endowment for Democracy, a non-partisan group that works to promote and strengthen democratic institutions worldwide."
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I like Minnesota's Governor Tim Pawlenty. He's a Republican but he's a MODERATE Republican. I will be voting for him in November. I would be pretty willing to bet that sooner or later he WILL be President of the US. He is moderate, good looking and wonderfully at ease when talking with people. The perfect candidate. <a href="http://www.timpawlenty.com/" target="_blank">http://www.timpawlenty.com/</a>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy When are you people going to learn something very basic. Anything the Republicns do that you don't like such as spending, border security, taxes, anything.... the democrats are going to be much worse. If you think the dems are going to cut spending or create more jobs by keeping taxes low, you must have missed the last 40 years of these people in action. There is simply no reason to vote for todays Democrat. "We hate Bush" , or "We need a change" is not good enough for anyone who actually thinks about it. The dems want to be elected to power for one reason. To be in power. They bring no ideas or plans to the table for America. Deep down even THEY know it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Exactly the kind of black/white uber-partisan dross several of us have been talking about.
Originally Posted By jonvn Just ignore him. Really. He has nothing of value to contribute. I think Clinton was a fiscally conservative democrat. I would also like to see someone who is a socially liberal republican, as well. I would vote republican if I didn't think the guy I was voting for wanted to legislate my sex life, or try to run down science. The issues with Republicans is that. They have cloaked themselves in false issues like flag burning and gay marriage which are of no use. They then go and do nothing about enhancing business in this country and are doing nothing about job losses to foreign countries. They never really have been all that interested in the working man, though. That is historically what they've been about, and really they have not changed their ideaology, merely their tactics. The Democrats are sitting there worried about making absolutely everyone happy, as if they are the adult child of an alcoholic. They have lost their bearings. They were the ones who the average guy were counting on as to someone in government keeping an eye out for them. Right now, there is no political party in power that really is looking out for the average person. The Republicans think the average person is a millionaire, and the democrats think the average person only makes less than $35,000 a year. Also, the few third party candidates we have either come across as eccentrics, such as Jesse Ventura, or are so blocked by the two major parties working together that they can not get anything done.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Right now, there is no political party in power that really is looking out for the average person. The Republicans think the average person is a millionaire, and the democrats think the average person only makes less than $35,000 a year.< hard to argue with this in general....
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^This reminds me of an old John Elway story. The NFL was on strike and John boy was chatting (not an interview) with a member of the Denver sports press. John expressed dismay at how the fans thought the players were overpaid. The reporter asked Elway how much he thought he was paid. Elway guessed that he made 150 to 200K. When the reporter told him that he only made 50K Elway was shocked. He thought everyone with a degree made at least 100K.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd I really do not see any problems here. Weve been through the computer age. We've been through the pc age. We are still geting used to a purely digital age. Money has become meaningless now that it is digital. Like our cd's, and dvd's, papers, information, books, are all cyber, so is money. Bye bye money, meaningless. The factories that make our computers and wifi are made by computers. Some will have jobs, but most people will not need them. The time now is to stop the combustion engine, and develop hydrogen/oxygen seperation techniques on micro and macro levels. Our food sources must be improved. Animals and fish will be phased out for fruits and vegetables. Sugar will be used less and less. Coca cola will settle for it's fruit juice, and bottled water profits. Population controls will have to be implemented. One child per family.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Money has become meaningless now that it is digital. Like our cd's, and dvd's, papers, information, books, are all cyber, so is money. Bye bye money, meaningless.<< Well, in that case, send me any money you might have left. I'ld like to keep it for old times sake.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Some will have jobs, but most people will not need them.<< As long as people are people, money will not go away.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Money is disappearing in importance, i don't think people understand that part of the digital age yet. An example. My old 8track tascam recorder i broke. I looked and found a new digital harddrive 16track fostex recorder, for $350 on ebay. The 16 track normally went for $1,499 new, then it dropped to $899 or something, i got mine for $350. I got it through a little it of knowledge and the internet. The item was delivered to my house for me, so i used no gas of my own. I didn't have to deal with the dangerous types that want to hold the post office door open for me. The trees are even saved, cause the money is cyber and hasn't had to physically exchange hands. Everything is more real, if thought of by a things escence, instead of it's material aspect. Sure, the republicans are only using their computers to materialize women in the middle of the night at their bachelor pads, but there is so much more that can be done, and is being explored by everyone. A think a debate with iran would be a great world event. America has nothing to lose and all to gain.
Originally Posted By fkurucz I think that you are confusing money with currency. The two are not synonymous. Money supply and currency in circulation are two different beasts. And price drops are not directly tied to the "digital age". Your little toy dropped in price for many reasons. For all you know, the unit you purchased on EBay "fell out of a truck".
