Bernie Sanders and Economics

[tp4tissue]

Look.

Kids.... and yes, I'm specifically addressing you guys..

The world doesn't work like you think it works..


Let me explain why Bernie doesn't actually represent what you think he represents.


The Bernie sanders that says He's going to stop corporations from stashing funds off shore.


What are the actual implications of that.  Ask Vladimir Putin...


Vladimir Putin routinely seize the funds of Big Capitalists in his country.


He's able to do that not because of power/politics/corruption.

He's able to do that BECAUSE that money is IN THE DAMN COUNTRY.. he doesn't need the person with the name to those funds, he can just kill him and the money floats.



THis is the same in ANY country..  In the united states, we have a better system, because we can't routinely kill people, and it's generally harder to kill people..

HOWEVER, even our most power capitalists are EASILY compelled and puppeted by Political Washington.

This is quite simply because regardless of how large and powerful a capitalist estate may seem, it is miniscule next to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INCORPORATED..


The only way an independent capitalist has any protection, is by hedging bets overseas.. Otherwise anyday, he can be bent over by big Government..



Everyday, I understand that the Capitalist leaders take most of the gains for YOUR labors.. you're right, your boss gets the big piece, you get crumbs..


BUT,  if you allow Bernie to have his way,    Believe me, You'll get even LESS than crumbs.

[fohat.digs]

You should go back to talking about toilet paper.

[tp4tissue]

The government is good..

Capitalism is good.

but the important part is balance of power..

When either systems have too much.. the populace suffers



Everything Bernie stands for is a MORE powerful government..

Money is everything..  health care.. etc,  all that is just lip-gloss, it sounds good, but the meat of all of his policies is capturing and strong arming capitalism..


There's a need to reign in capitalists, yes,  but not to such a degree..


If capitalists are not allowed to hedge bets.. they are then completely owned by the government..

This is major imbalance.

[tp4tissue]

I'm not saying anyone here is fundamentally a bad person.


Bernie, probably maybe even the best person ever..


HOWEVER,    the way in which he envisions control will not function properly in the long run..

[FLFisherman]

I'm not saying anyone here is fundamentally a bad person.


Bernie, probably maybe even the best person ever..


HOWEVER,    the way in which he envisions control will not function properly in the long run..

Please stop. Not even actual experts can make forecasts like that. 

[Bromono]

The government is good..

Capitalism is good.

but the important part is balance of power..

When either systems have too much.. the populace suffers

Capitalism without socialism is Fascism

Socialism without Capitalism is Communism

You need both of them to work with each other.

But I would personally take a capitalistic government with some socialist aspects than a socialist government with some capitalistic aspects.

[tp4tissue]

I'm not saying anyone here is fundamentally a bad person.


Bernie, probably maybe even the best person ever..


HOWEVER,    the way in which he envisions control will not function properly in the long run..

Please stop. Not even actual experts can make forecasts like that. 

I am giving a very general scope of what may happen.

I agree that it's crude..


But look at it this way..  the government is the largest corporation..

The capitalists, pay taxes, etc, to FUND the big boss.

but in THE VERY END,  BIG Government has the most power..


There is a point where this is harmful, because the government is so large, that it becomes economically inefficient.


This is why we need some independence in capitalism, because the smaller capitalist entities move faster and more efficiently..


No one here is at fault..   but Bernie's economics will make the government So incredibly unstoppable.. that it really will be ONE NATION under god..

[tp4tissue]

The government is good..

Capitalism is good.

but the important part is balance of power..

When either systems have too much.. the populace suffers

Capitalism without socialism is Fascism

Socialism without Capitalism is Communism

You need both of them to work with each other.

But I would personally take a capitalistic government with some socialist aspects than a socialist government with some capitalistic aspects.

Of course,

there are good ideas in every camp..

and fundamentally,  we've always functioned as a amalgam..



But, the issue I'm talking about isn't not respecting anyone's ideas..


I'm merely saying.. that there are Major implications to cutting off the capitalist's ability to have SOME leverage in play with Washington..


If bernie is allowed to bring ALL THE MONEY HOME..  where's the leverage.. the US government has all the money..

[berserkfan]

TP, you really need to talk about toilet paper or rice. Leave the social sciences to me. (I have just recently discovered the wonders of Deskauthority polls so I'm posting there.)

[appleonama]

heres how I see it

trump = racist fascist

hilary = lel money monger

bernie = socialist extremist

I still tilt to the left
we lose either way

[Waateva]

heres how I see it

trump = racist fascist

hilary = lel money monger

bernie = socialist extremist

I still tilt to the left

Only in America would Bernie be considered a "socialist extremist"

[nubbinator]

People still worship Reagan here, so you can't expect much.

[tp4tissue]

heres how I see it

trump = racist fascist

hilary = lel money monger

bernie = socialist extremist

I still tilt to the left

Only in America would Bernie be considered a "socialist extremist"

I wouldn't say social extremist..

Because ultimately social welfare has very little impact on society and the way it organizes.

Our pyramid system will always be in place as long as the people sitting in the chair remain human..


Humans do not have the processing capacity to be totally objective, especially with respect to large data sets, that of entire nations.

Therefore a human leader relies on short hand rules..  These rules are responsible for the necessary subjugation of the majority.. Otherwise there can be-not ubiquitous decision..



Now, what bernie is,  is a nice guy.. wants all the right things for people..


But he is an optimist to a fault,  and does not really care about balance of power.


He intends to RULE the capitalists. Thereby granting all the wishes of the populace.. That won't happen.. All he'll achieve with his economic policies which cripple capitalists is empower the current government so much, that politicians will make EVEN SLOWER progress in advancing society..


Big government is a problem, because it's BIG, not because the people in it are inherently bad..

In Large governments, NO ONE wants to take responsibility when something go south,  but if we step back,  in Every endeavor, there's that risk of failure.   SO the tried and true way of HOLDING the job,  is to sit and do nothing... poach credit where possible.. then finally Continue to sit and do nothing...

The capitalists don't have that option, because they can't collect taxes, and their survival depends on fulfilling desires of their clients, and the risk for them to do nothing is much too high..

We need them both, which is why there needs to be a balance in their ability to influence each other..

Under Bernie,  the reign is too tight.

[alexjd99]

heres how I see it

trump = racist fascist

hilary = lel money monger lel "let's just put really important **** on private servers lol"

bernie = socialist extremist

I still tilt to the left
we lose either way

FTFY 

[trenzafeeds]

Capitalism without socialism is Fascism

Socialism without Capitalism is Communism

I think when you're saying socialism you mean social democracy or social capitalism, which is like capitalism with a large number of social programs and public services (also called Scandinavian capitalism). Socialism and capitalism by nature cannot exist at the same time. Just because a select few of the means of production are owned by the government does not make a society a mix of socialism and capitalism, it's still capitalism, because that is how the economy is essentially functioning (with some degree of competition). Socialism is exclusively where all means of production are controlled by the government (which is in theory controlled by the workers), whereas communism is the end goal of socialism, where the government can be eliminated and control of production can be done solely by the workers.

[Melvang]

heres how I see it

trump = racist fascist

hilary = lel money monger

bernie = socialist extremist

I still tilt to the left

Only in America would Bernie be considered a "socialist extremist"

He intends to RULE the capitalists.

Where in the nine hells did you get this from.  All he wants to do is get corporations and the upper 1% to pay their fair share of taxes, close loopholes that allow these people to pay less tax dollars then the working class, and possibly penalize companies for moving jobs overseas. 

Please explain how this would be a bad thing.  With his plan in place, working class (~$100k and under house hold income) will see roughly 10% more money, and this is on top of another 13 million jobs generated.

Please explain how this would be bad for the economy.

[tp4tissue]

heres how I see it

trump = racist fascist

hilary = lel money monger

bernie = socialist extremist

I still tilt to the left

Only in America would Bernie be considered a "socialist extremist"

He intends to RULE the capitalists.

Where in the nine hells did you get this from.  All he wants to do is get corporations and the upper 1% to pay their fair share of taxes, close loopholes that allow these people to pay less tax dollars then the working class, and possibly penalize companies for moving jobs overseas. 

Please explain how this would be a bad thing.  With his plan in place, working class (~$100k and under house hold income) will see roughly 10% more money, and this is on top of another 13 million jobs generated.

Please explain how this would be bad for the economy.

Let's say you're an independent business owner.

Now, the government, some corrupt guy, or just some bad people come to you for a large donation..

Do you give it to them ?  You don't want to right ?

However,  if your money is IN THE UNITED STATES,  they can compel you to do so, because there are means for government to freeze those funds, and make it very difficult for you to operate.

I know as an individual, you probably can't fathom this ever happening,  but large corporations deal with this kind of strong-arming all the time.


What these tax loopholes allow corporations to do, is shift money around, such that the government isn't able to completely Dominate their war-chest.



That money won't help the economy.. its ultimate use to corporations is leverage and independence..



I think Bernie, may indeed mean well when he says he wants to bolster our economy..   But the way in which he intends to do it, by closing tax loopholes is not how it should be done.


 

[FLFisherman]

heres how I see it

trump = racist fascist

hilary = lel money monger

bernie = socialist extremist

I still tilt to the left

Only in America would Bernie be considered a "socialist extremist"

He intends to RULE the capitalists.

Where in the nine hells did you get this from.  All he wants to do is get corporations and the upper 1% to pay their fair share of taxes, close loopholes that allow these people to pay less tax dollars then the working class, and possibly penalize companies for moving jobs overseas. 

Please explain how this would be a bad thing.  With his plan in place, working class (~$100k and under house hold income) will see roughly 10% more money, and this is on top of another 13 million jobs generated.

Please explain how this would be bad for the economy.

Let's say you're an independent business owner.

Now, the government, some corrupt guy, or just some bad people come to you for a large donation..

Do you give it to them ?  You don't want to right ?

However,  if your money is IN THE UNITED STATES,  they can compel you to do so, because there are means for government to freeze those funds, and make it very difficult for you to operate.

I know as an individual, you probably can't fathom this ever happening,  but large corporations deal with this kind of strong-arming all the time.


What these tax loopholes allow corporations to do, is shift money around, such that the government isn't able to completely Dominate their war-chest.



That money won't help the economy.. its ultimate use to corporations is leverage and independence..



I think Bernie, may indeed mean well when he says he wants to bolster our economy..   But the way in which he intends to do it, by closing tax loopholes is not how it should be done.

Please stop. This is not how it works, at all. 

Corporations are not "independent business owners." They are multi-billion dollar organizations with more pull than you could even begin to fathom. They are not being strong-armed or being asked for "large donations." They actually give these donations on their own in order to "buy" politicians. It's actually one of the major points of this election cycle.

[Melvang]

heres how I see it

trump = racist fascist

hilary = lel money monger

bernie = socialist extremist

I still tilt to the left

Only in America would Bernie be considered a "socialist extremist"

He intends to RULE the capitalists.

Where in the nine hells did you get this from.  All he wants to do is get corporations and the upper 1% to pay their fair share of taxes, close loopholes that allow these people to pay less tax dollars then the working class, and possibly penalize companies for moving jobs overseas. 

Please explain how this would be a bad thing.  With his plan in place, working class (~$100k and under house hold income) will see roughly 10% more money, and this is on top of another 13 million jobs generated.

Please explain how this would be bad for the economy.

Let's say you're an independent business owner.

Now, the government, some corrupt guy, or just some bad people come to you for a large donation..

Do you give it to them ?  You don't want to right ?

However,  if your money is IN THE UNITED STATES,  they can compel you to do so, because there are means for government to freeze those funds, and make it very difficult for you to operate.

I know as an individual, you probably can't fathom this ever happening,  but large corporations deal with this kind of strong-arming all the time.


What these tax loopholes allow corporations to do, is shift money around, such that the government isn't able to completely Dominate their war-chest.



That money won't help the economy.. its ultimate use to corporations is leverage and independence..



I think Bernie, may indeed mean well when he says he wants to bolster our economy..   But the way in which he intends to do it, by closing tax loopholes is not how it should be done.

Please stop. This is not how it works, at all. 

Corporations are not "independent business owners." They are multi-billion dollar organizations with more pull than you could even begin to fathom. They are not being strong-armed or being asked for "large donations." They actually give these donations on their own in order to "buy" politicians. It's actually one of the major points of this election cycle.

Exactly.  This is a major reason I like Bernie.  Every large donation the Bernie has ever gotten from a major corporation, as a feeble attempt to "buy" him, gets donated to charity.

[Michael]

You should go back to talking about toilet paper.

[tp4tissue]

Please stop. This is not how it works, at all. 

Corporations are not "independent business owners." They are multi-billion dollar organizations with more pull than you could even begin to fathom. They are not being strong-armed or being asked for "large donations." They actually give these donations on their own in order to "buy" politicians. It's actually one of the major points of this election cycle.

There are corporations which are -that- powerful.

But consider the ones which are large enough to benefit from stashing funds off shores.. but not quite rich enough to actually control politics..

These corporations which are the startups and true generators of New ideas would be crushed by the system under Bernie.


That Interplay between corporation and politics is checks and balance..  but no off shore stashing gives the government too much..

[tp4tissue]

Exactly.  This is a major reason I like Bernie.  Every large donation the Bernie has ever gotten from a major corporation, as a feeble attempt to "buy" him, gets donated to charity.

Again.. I'm not saying Bernie is a bad guy..  But there will be serious repercussions to disallow off shore stashing of funds..

[Melvang]

Exactly.  This is a major reason I like Bernie.  Every large donation the Bernie has ever gotten from a major corporation, as a feeble attempt to "buy" him, gets donated to charity.

Again.. I'm not saying Bernie is a bad guy..  But there will be serious repercussions to disallow off shore stashing of funds..

So what is the downside of that?

Also, on companies and getting "strong armed", what say you about Carrier getting a $5.1million tax cut, and within weeks announcing that they are moving ALL production and distribution to Mexico.  Putting 7k plus people out of a job.

[appleonama]

lol what is tp talking about?

I highly doubt Bernie can force corps to stop evading taxes by operating overseas. Unless there is some federal law put into place it is going to continue. Also they need to audit corps every week non stop.. too many loop holes and people will always take advantage of them.

[tp4tissue]

Exactly.  This is a major reason I like Bernie.  Every large donation the Bernie has ever gotten from a major corporation, as a feeble attempt to "buy" him, gets donated to charity.

Again.. I'm not saying Bernie is a bad guy..  But there will be serious repercussions to disallow off shore stashing of funds..

So what is the downside of that?

Also, on companies and getting "strong armed", what say you about Carrier getting a $5.1million tax cut, and within weeks announcing that they are moving ALL production and distribution to Mexico.  Putting 7k plus people out of a job.

Carrier will do that regardless..


Strong armed,  is when the government wants 30%-50% of your earnings..  Maybe very large corporations, this is ok,   but for startups.. that is a major barrier.

[Bromono]

If Bernie becomes president he is going to need to battle the senate and congress (both republican and democrat) to get anything done.

None the less, this will be an interesting presidency

[appleonama]

Exactly.  This is a major reason I like Bernie.  Every large donation the Bernie has ever gotten from a major corporation, as a feeble attempt to "buy" him, gets donated to charity.

Again.. I'm not saying Bernie is a bad guy..  But there will be serious repercussions to disallow off shore stashing of funds..

So what is the downside of that?

Also, on companies and getting "strong armed", what say you about Carrier getting a $5.1million tax cut, and within weeks announcing that they are moving ALL production and distribution to Mexico.  Putting 7k plus people out of a job.

Carrier will do that regardless..


Strong armed,  is when the government wants 30%-50% of your earnings..  Maybe very large corporations, this is ok,   but for startups.. that is a major barrier.

he said that he'd give small business a bigger tax break

[Melvang]

Exactly.  This is a major reason I like Bernie.  Every large donation the Bernie has ever gotten from a major corporation, as a feeble attempt to "buy" him, gets donated to charity.

Again.. I'm not saying Bernie is a bad guy..  But there will be serious repercussions to disallow off shore stashing of funds..

So what is the downside of that?

Also, on companies and getting "strong armed", what say you about Carrier getting a $5.1million tax cut, and within weeks announcing that they are moving ALL production and distribution to Mexico.  Putting 7k plus people out of a job.

Carrier will do that regardless..


Strong armed,  is when the government wants 30%-50% of your earnings..  Maybe very large corporations, this is ok,   but for startups.. that is a major barrier.

Those percentages only apply to profits over a fairly large amount.  In the '30s and '40 it was ~$400,000 iirc.  Now move that to today's dollars, and startups have a long way to go before they need to worry about that.

[tp4tissue]

Exactly.  This is a major reason I like Bernie.  Every large donation the Bernie has ever gotten from a major corporation, as a feeble attempt to "buy" him, gets donated to charity.

Again.. I'm not saying Bernie is a bad guy..  But there will be serious repercussions to disallow off shore stashing of funds..

So what is the downside of that?

Also, on companies and getting "strong armed", what say you about Carrier getting a $5.1million tax cut, and within weeks announcing that they are moving ALL production and distribution to Mexico.  Putting 7k plus people out of a job.

Carrier will do that regardless..


Strong armed,  is when the government wants 30%-50% of your earnings..  Maybe very large corporations, this is ok,   but for startups.. that is a major barrier.

Those percentages only apply to profits over a fairly large amount.  In the '30s and '40 it was ~$400,000 iirc.  Now move that to today's dollars, and startups have a long way to go before they need to worry about that.

Startups as in someone's keycaps business. .no nothign to worry about,   but most startups that actually has a shot, are medium sized, and they can get near the million dollar barrier very quickly.. and that is when all their momentum becomes weakened if viable tax loopholes are not exploited..


The big established corporations are not the ones I'm worried about, even though in principle, I believe they should be allowed off shore stashing,   but they're going to find a way regardless of the rules..


But it is bad for everyone -in the middle-... where innovation is FASTEST... 

[Melvang]

Exactly.  This is a major reason I like Bernie.  Every large donation the Bernie has ever gotten from a major corporation, as a feeble attempt to "buy" him, gets donated to charity.

Again.. I'm not saying Bernie is a bad guy..  But there will be serious repercussions to disallow off shore stashing of funds..

So what is the downside of that?

Also, on companies and getting "strong armed", what say you about Carrier getting a $5.1million tax cut, and within weeks announcing that they are moving ALL production and distribution to Mexico.  Putting 7k plus people out of a job.

Carrier will do that regardless..


Strong armed,  is when the government wants 30%-50% of your earnings..  Maybe very large corporations, this is ok,   but for startups.. that is a major barrier.

Those percentages only apply to profits over a fairly large amount.  In the '30s and '40 it was ~$400,000 iirc.  Now move that to today's dollars, and startups have a long way to go before they need to worry about that.

Startups as in someone's keycaps business. .no nothign to worry about,   but most startups that actually has a shot, are medium sized, and they can get near the million dollar barrier very quickly.. and that is when all their momentum becomes weakened if viable tax loopholes are not exploited..


The big established corporations are not the ones I'm worried about, even though in principle, I believe they should be allowed off shore stashing,   but they're going to find a way regardless of the rules..


But it is bad for everyone -in the middle-... where innovation is FASTEST...

If your company is making a million in legit profits that is no longer a startup.  At that point the taxes barriers are incentive to pay employees a decent wage (reduces gross profits), expand the business (again reduces gross profits), or pay Uncle Sam.  The higher taxes are only paid on profits over that dollar amount, not on all profits.

[tp4tissue]

If your company is making a million in legit profits that is no longer a startup.  At that point the taxes barriers are incentive to pay employees a decent wage (reduces gross profits), expand the business (again reduces gross profits), or pay Uncle Sam.  The higher taxes are only paid on profits over that dollar amount, not on all profits.

It'd be easier, if you showed No profit.. see ?

[Waateva]

Exactly.  This is a major reason I like Bernie.  Every large donation the Bernie has ever gotten from a major corporation, as a feeble attempt to "buy" him, gets donated to charity.

Again.. I'm not saying Bernie is a bad guy..  But there will be serious repercussions to disallow off shore stashing of funds..

So what is the downside of that?

Also, on companies and getting "strong armed", what say you about Carrier getting a $5.1million tax cut, and within weeks announcing that they are moving ALL production and distribution to Mexico.  Putting 7k plus people out of a job.

Carrier will do that regardless..


Strong armed,  is when the government wants 30%-50% of your earnings..  Maybe very large corporations, this is ok,   but for startups.. that is a major barrier.

Those percentages only apply to profits over a fairly large amount.  In the '30s and '40 it was ~$400,000 iirc.  Now move that to today's dollars, and startups have a long way to go before they need to worry about that.

Startups as in someone's keycaps business. .no nothign to worry about,   but most startups that actually has a shot, are medium sized, and they can get near the million dollar barrier very quickly.. and that is when all their momentum becomes weakened if viable tax loopholes are not exploited..


The big established corporations are not the ones I'm worried about, even though in principle, I believe they should be allowed off shore stashing,   but they're going to find a way regardless of the rules..


But it is bad for everyone -in the middle-... where innovation is FASTEST...

If your company is making a million in legit profits that is no longer a startup.  At that point the taxes barriers are incentive to pay employees a decent wage (reduces gross profits), expand the business (again reduces gross profits), or pay Uncle Sam.  The higher taxes are only paid on profits over that dollar amount, not on all profits.

I'm not sure tp quite understands how corporate taxes work.

[munch]

I think tp is a dirty capitalist pig who works for big china corp and wants people to vote for capitalist pig leaders
(jk, sorta)

[xtrafrood]

So no one is thinking "aw, it's Bernie, let him have four years c'mon" ?

[fohat.digs]

So no one is thinking "aw, it's Bernie, let him have four years c'mon" ?

I am. It would be the first breath of fresh air we have had since Theodore Roosevelt, but that required the McKinley assassination.

[Melvang]

Exactly.  This is a major reason I like Bernie.  Every large donation the Bernie has ever gotten from a major corporation, as a feeble attempt to "buy" him, gets donated to charity.

Again.. I'm not saying Bernie is a bad guy..  But there will be serious repercussions to disallow off shore stashing of funds..

So what is the downside of that?

Also, on companies and getting "strong armed", what say you about Carrier getting a $5.1million tax cut, and within weeks announcing that they are moving ALL production and distribution to Mexico.  Putting 7k plus people out of a job.

Carrier will do that regardless..


Strong armed,  is when the government wants 30%-50% of your earnings..  Maybe very large corporations, this is ok,   but for startups.. that is a major barrier.

Those percentages only apply to profits over a fairly large amount.  In the '30s and '40 it was ~$400,000 iirc.  Now move that to today's dollars, and startups have a long way to go before they need to worry about that.

Startups as in someone's keycaps business. .no nothign to worry about,   but most startups that actually has a shot, are medium sized, and they can get near the million dollar barrier very quickly.. and that is when all their momentum becomes weakened if viable tax loopholes are not exploited..


The big established corporations are not the ones I'm worried about, even though in principle, I believe they should be allowed off shore stashing,   but they're going to find a way regardless of the rules..


But it is bad for everyone -in the middle-... where innovation is FASTEST...

If your company is making a million in legit profits that is no longer a startup.  At that point the taxes barriers are incentive to pay employees a decent wage (reduces gross profits), expand the business (again reduces gross profits), or pay Uncle Sam.  The higher taxes are only paid on profits over that dollar amount, not on all profits.

I'm not sure tp quite understands how corporate taxes work.

To be fair, I don't think the IRS understands corporate taxes.

[Melvang]

Exactly.  This is a major reason I like Bernie.  Every large donation the Bernie has ever gotten from a major corporation, as a feeble attempt to "buy" him, gets donated to charity.

Again.. I'm not saying Bernie is a bad guy..  But there will be serious repercussions to disallow off shore stashing of funds..

So what is the downside of that?

Also, on companies and getting "strong armed", what say you about Carrier getting a $5.1million tax cut, and within weeks announcing that they are moving ALL production and distribution to Mexico.  Putting 7k plus people out of a job.

Carrier will do that regardless..


Strong armed,  is when the government wants 30%-50% of your earnings..  Maybe very large corporations, this is ok,   but for startups.. that is a major barrier.

Those percentages only apply to profits over a fairly large amount.  In the '30s and '40 it was ~$400,000 iirc.  Now move that to today's dollars, and startups have a long way to go before they need to worry about that.

Startups as in someone's keycaps business. .no nothign to worry about,   but most startups that actually has a shot, are medium sized, and they can get near the million dollar barrier very quickly.. and that is when all their momentum becomes weakened if viable tax loopholes are not exploited..


The big established corporations are not the ones I'm worried about, even though in principle, I believe they should be allowed off shore stashing,   but they're going to find a way regardless of the rules..


But it is bad for everyone -in the middle-... where innovation is FASTEST...

Please explain how this is better than paying your workers a living wage, decent benefits, and a good retirement.  I pray you can come up with a good reason.

And I mean a good serious answer, not some bull**** TP politician say anything but answer the question type answer.

[tp4tissue]

Please explain how this is better than paying your workers a living wage, decent benefits, and a good retirement.  I pray you can come up with a good reason.

And I mean a good serious answer, not some bull**** TP politician say anything but answer the question type answer.

That has very little to do with the off shore tax offset I'm worried about.

But the goal will always be to pay workers as little as possible.

And jobs will naturally become too expensive in our native economy, and move overseas.



There's a very good reason for this..


If we kept all of our jobs in developed countries, our products can't possibly be competitive with Other nations who peg their currency so low.


The fact that we have this minimum wage problem today, has nothing to do with Our American businessmen not WANTING to pay Americans a decent wage.

From the corporate standpoint , they simply can't..


AGAIN,  this issue is apart from the Tax issue..

The overseas stash has many functions as I've already mentioned..

[fohat.digs]

Relentlessly shipping American jobs and money offshore with impunity is what "the system" has been all about since Reagan took office.

Until the public successfully identifies who is doing it, and why, and makes up its collective mind to stop it, nothing will change.

If 51% of the American public would wake up, they could immediately see that they have the power to stop it and even reverse it.
 

[Melvang]

Please explain how this is better than paying your workers a living wage, decent benefits, and a good retirement.  I pray you can come up with a good reason.

And I mean a good serious answer, not some bull**** TP politician say anything but answer the question type answer.

That has very little to do with the off shore tax offset I'm worried about.

But the goal will always be to pay workers as little as possible.

And jobs will naturally become too expensive in our native economy, and move overseas.



There's a very good reason for this..


If we kept all of our jobs in developed countries, our products can't possibly be competitive with Other nations who peg their currency so low.


The fact that we have this minimum wage problem today, has nothing to do with Our American businessmen not WANTING to pay Americans a decent wage.

From the corporate standpoint , they simply can't..


AGAIN,  this issue is apart from the Tax issue..

The overseas stash has many functions as I've already mentioned..

That is total bull**** and you know it.  If this was true, then how can John Deere pay custodians $20 an hour plus benefits, mechanics close to $26 an hour plus benefits.  That is just one company.  How can they afford to pay union contractors what they charge for my labor.  I get billed out at over $100 an hour.  If this is truly how you feel, then I feel sorry for anyone you try and do business with.  If a company is making that much money and can't afford decent wages and benefits, there are only two reasons that can account for this.  ****ty business practices, or corporate greed.

[tp4tissue]

Relentlessly shipping American jobs and money offshore with impunity is what "the system" has been all about since Reagan took office.

Until the public successfully identifies who is doing it, and why, and makes up its collective mind to stop it, nothing will change.

If 51% of the American public would wake up, they could immediately see that they have the power to stop it and even reverse it.
 

What don't you guys understand about the fact that this SHOULD happen.

Every developed economy has to do this, because internally costs are too high to remain competitive globally.

[fohat.digs]

the fact that this SHOULD happen.

Jesus, Toilet Paper for Tissue, I have tried to refrain from putting you back on my "ignore" list (by yourself, as usual) but you really need to go back to China with crap like that.

[tp4tissue]

That is total bull**** and you know it.  If this was true, then how can John Deere pay custodians $20 an hour plus benefits, mechanics close to $26 an hour plus benefits.  That is just one company.  How can they afford to pay union contractors what they charge for my labor.  I get billed out at over $100 an hour.  If this is truly how you feel, then I feel sorry for anyone you try and do business with.  If a company is making that much money and can't afford decent wages and benefits, there are only two reasons that can account for this.  ****ty business practices, or corporate greed.

They don't pay union contractors what's on the paper, my guess, much of that is states funding or some sort of laundering scheme..

Just like Insurance payments is not what's billed on paper. it's perhaps 1/10th

If you're uncertain why some payments don't make sense, odds are, fancy book-keeping.

[hwood34]

Relentlessly shipping American jobs and money offshore with impunity is what "the system" has been all about since Reagan took office.

Sucks that this is all zero-sum so we lose those jobs forever and no one will ever get jobs in new areas. I also hate when I get cheaper goods...

[tp4tissue]

Relentlessly shipping American jobs and money offshore with impunity is what "the system" has been all about since Reagan took office.

Sucks that this is all zero-sum so we lose those jobs forever and no one will ever get jobs in new areas. I also hate when I get cheaper goods...

The possibility of those jobs returning is there, but it's going to be quite distant, most likely past our lifetimes.

Labor cost, even in China is rising rapidly,  so the only left exploitable areas are India, south asia, then finally Africa..


The outsourcing will make its rounds until eventually we reach a world equilibrium.

[hwood34]

Relentlessly shipping American jobs and money offshore with impunity is what "the system" has been all about since Reagan took office.

Sucks that this is all zero-sum so we lose those jobs forever and no one will ever get jobs in new areas. I also hate when I get cheaper goods...

The possibility of those jobs returning is there, but it's going to be quite distant, most likely past our lifetimes.

Labor cost, even in China is rising rapidly,  so the only left exploitable areas are India, south asia, then finally Africa..


The outsourcing will make its rounds until eventually we reach a world equilibrium.

Not the same jobs, new ones most likely. It'll always be cheaper to do low-tech assembly stuff in developing countries. But it'll also be hard, or take a while, to unseat places like the US/Germany/Japan that have a hold of any higher-tech stuff like semiconductor manufacturing etc.

[tp4tissue]

Relentlessly shipping American jobs and money offshore with impunity is what "the system" has been all about since Reagan took office.

Sucks that this is all zero-sum so we lose those jobs forever and no one will ever get jobs in new areas. I also hate when I get cheaper goods...

The possibility of those jobs returning is there, but it's going to be quite distant, most likely past our lifetimes.

Labor cost, even in China is rising rapidly,  so the only left exploitable areas are India, south asia, then finally Africa..


The outsourcing will make its rounds until eventually we reach a world equilibrium.

Not the same jobs, new ones most likely. It'll always be cheaper to do low-tech assembly stuff in developing countries. But it'll also be hard, or take a while, to unseat places like the US/Germany/Japan that have a hold of any higher-tech stuff like semiconductor manufacturing etc.

Well, the fact that it costs 6 billion dollars to build a fab is the main barrier.. hahahahaha.

[fohat.digs]

Sucks that this is all zero-sum

It is not zero-sum at all.

Fortunately for Americans, those of us who shop at Wal-Mart get the cheap dish towels at the expense of 3rd world slave laborers, while the ultra-wealthy fork over no taxes to anyone on the money that they sock away in the secret hidey-holes of the never-never lands.

Maybe when Oklahoma City falls into a sinkhole or Miami disappears under the high tide people will finally start to take notice.

[hwood34]

Sucks that this is all zero-sum

It is not zero-sum at all.

See, I hate this trend of adding "/s" to sarcastic remarks, so I try to convey the irony as obviously as possible. I guess it just gets lost in text sometimes.

[Melvang]

Relentlessly shipping American jobs and money offshore with impunity is what "the system" has been all about since Reagan took office.

Sucks that this is all zero-sum so we lose those jobs forever and no one will ever get jobs in new areas. I also hate when I get cheaper goods...

Personally, with a lot of stuff, I would rather pay 3 times the price (especially hand tools) if it means it is US made and a quality product.  I refuse to buy any tools from sears without extenuating circumstances.  Even hand tools that stay at home and not for work.

That is total bull**** and you know it.  If this was true, then how can John Deere pay custodians $20 an hour plus benefits, mechanics close to $26 an hour plus benefits.  That is just one company.  How can they afford to pay union contractors what they charge for my labor.  I get billed out at over $100 an hour.  If this is truly how you feel, then I feel sorry for anyone you try and do business with.  If a company is making that much money and can't afford decent wages and benefits, there are only two reasons that can account for this.  ****ty business practices, or corporate greed.

They don't pay union contractors what's on the paper, my guess, much of that is states funding or some sort of laundering scheme..

Just like Insurance payments is not what's billed on paper. it's perhaps 1/10th

If you're uncertain why some payments don't make sense, odds are, fancy book-keeping.

I think you are confused on what I actually do and who my contractors work for.  I work as a union millwright, and currently work for Weitz Industiral.  Granted Weitz is an international company with both union and non union sides of the company, but they don't mix those sides.  For example, they don't bid a job as union, then send the non union side to do the job to get more profits.  It just doesn't work that way.  4

Plus, I have only ever worked ONE job that was government money since I started working as a millwright in '07.  That one job, was flood recovery from the Flood of 2008 here in the midwest, image from the bridge in the city I was working in at that time.  So yes, when companies get a bill for my $100 per hour, that is what they pay, not the state, not the federal government.  I work inside of manufacturing facilities replacing, fixing, and installing machinery for the companies that MAKE products.  I do NOT work on bridges, roads, highways, or any other form of infrastructure, so in your infinite wisdom, where the hell does this state money come from.  The only possible source is from corporate subsidies, but the companies where I work at, pay their employees enough they don't need these.  Look at General Mills.  They don't want the union in there so they pay their employees BETTER than local union wages, including benefits.  Last I heard, couple 5 years ago, general line production workers make close to $30 an hour on the check, plus excellent benefits.  This practice I have no problem with, if a union isn't needed for workers to get good wages, working conditions, and benefits, then no issue.  But tell me how they NEED to ship jobs overseas in order to make a profit.