With the possible merger of GM and Chrysler or bankruptcy and Obama leading in the polls, I think the worlds going to pot, sometimes I just want to get off. And I think of the socializing of the banks and wall street, and then I start worrying about Harry Ried, Nancy Polsi and Barrak Obama running the country I think were really heading for a socialist era, Ive been around a long time but this time I'm really scared.


NO PLUG, NO SALE, NO WAY, =D----$00.00

. . . And I think of the socializing of the banks and wall street, and then I start worrying about Harry Ried, Nancy Polsi and Barrak Obama running the country I think were really heading for a socialist era, Ive been around a long time but this time I'm really scared.

NO PLUG, NO SALE, NO WAY, =D----$00.00

What I'm scared of is that most people seem to want it this way - and I don't get it.

I've heard this fear from people and I really want to understand what specifically is the origin of the fear. I look at McCain and Obama's platforms they have on their websites and I really can't see anything that significantly different.

With regard to the efforts to bailout the financial industry, it was a republican president who proposed it and is now implementing it (in a very different way than proposed) and McCain who is proposing to have the government get into the mortgage business.

What specifically might happen if Obama is elected that we need to fear that wouldn't happen with McCain?

If you appreciate a opinion of a foreigner...

I don't see Obama as a socialist. The USA is spending too much, the war, the stimulus bill, uncontrolled lending and should redirect money to investments. Roads, rails, renewable energy etc.

And Obama is just doing that.

With Clinton there was a balance of the budget and the republicans with Bush made a huge mess of it. It is now comparable with the Italian situation.

Also, I consider Troopergate much more severe than the Lewinsky affair. I think this is enough reason for McCain to dump her.

Lucas

pdt, The problem is not so much about just Obama, you have Harry Ried in the senate and Nancy Pelosi in the house of rep, and probably more Democrats in both houses because of the hatred of Bush, now with the Presidency and Congress completely unchecked with no way stopping all the social agendas. Drilling for oil, Pelosi said she only went with not reestablishing the ban on off shore drilling, was to wait until after the elections, so when Obama was in they could go back to no drilling. And with no opposition they could socialize the markets and these are some of the things I'm scared about, and it seems the people just don't care. NPNS =D----

pdt, The problem is not so much about just Obama, you have Harry Ried in the senate and Nancy Pelosi in the house of rep, and probably more Democrats in both houses because of the hatred of Bush, now with the Presidency and Congress completely unchecked with no way stopping all the social agendas. Drilling for oil, Pelosi said she only went with not reestablishing the ban on off shore drilling, was to wait until after the elections, so when Obama was in they could go back to no drilling. And with no opposition they could socialize the markets and these are some of the things I'm scared about, and it seems the people just don't care. NPNS =D----

I still don't know what specific actions towards socializing markets you think unchecked democrats will take that will be so scary. Could you give some examples? What social agendas are scary?

I find the domestic drilling topic very interesting. I actually think the best arguments for domestic drilling are ethical and economic (but not in terms of fuel prices). The ethical argument is that we are currently taking advantage of other countries' cheaply accessible oil reserves without consideration for the ecological consequences where the drilling occurs (not to mention the security issues), rather than using our own more difficult to extract resources, taking the ecological risks on our own territory (probably with much more oversight). The economic argument is that drilling in the United States would create jobs in the United States and more profits for U.S. companies. The argument that domestic drilling would have any impact on gas prices doesn't hold water, especially in the short term (<5-10 years). Even in the long term, it's just not a reasonable argument. It's a global oil market and the United States just doesn't have a large fraction of proven reserves.

mikeandmerle2, if it makes you feel any better the left wing of the Democratic party don't have much use for Harry Reid and no use for Pelosi. They aren't even especially happy with Obama since they see him as more to the right of the party. They are all three far, far from being a "socialist".

pdt, You make a good argument, your right about jobs and drilling, but what scares me the democrats have a new agenda environmentalist (the green people) and they are taking over the party, its not the labor movement anymore, Nancy says she wants to save the planet, well I'm for that ok, but they will take down this country doing it. If we don't start drilling and using nuke power, and using wind and well your know what I'm saying, I know it sounds like talking points but all of the above will create jobs. But there's a lot more, I worry about taxes if Obama gets in (looks like he's going to) when he taxes the over $250,000 crowd it will run more jobs out of the country, my theory is the lower class don't create many jobs, but the rich do. There is a lot of money (according to some pundents) off shore and with higher taxes that will send even more money out of the country. Don't get me wrong I still want to get off foreign oil dependency I think the security of our country depends on it I'm just not sure how to achieve it.

#7 Drivin98, But the left are voting them in anyway

#7 Drivin98, But the left are voting them in anyway

But their agendas are not in any way being pushed by these candidates so what it your point?

This poorly thought out theory that taxing the rich will destroy the economy is hilarious. The US was doing just fine when Bush came into office and then he made a MASSIVE tax cut for the super wealthy, ruining the budget.

You need to get more sophisticated. All I see here is a vague fear of "socialism" with nothing to back it up. And your grand economic theory consists of nothing but tax cuts for the wealthy and futilely drilling the outer continental shelf. This is time for America to get serious and these outdated and simplistic Reagan-era ideas have to go.

I guess we'll see

@mikeandmerle2

As a foreigner again.

Many policies will work. You can do A or B, everything will have its advantages and disadvantages. Don't be too scared.

However, a leader has to take the consequences. If Bush wants a war, he has to raise taxes. Such things cost money, and has a price. Now, the next President is confronted with this.

In the financial crisis there is no action of cleaning up the huge trade deficit and the budget. They are only trying to "fix it". Like Nick Leeson once tried.

Lucas

If you appreciate a opinion of a foreigner...

I don't see Obama as a socialist. The USA is spending too much, the war, the stimulus bill, uncontrolled lending and should redirect money to investments. Roads, rails, renewable energy etc.

Also, I consider Troopergate much more severe than the Lewinsky affair. I think this is enough reason for McCain to dump her.

Lucas

In Sweden, they have national health care, free university education, generous benefits if you lose your job. They pay higher taxes yet if you talk to most Swedes, they think they have it pretty good. For those of you that have never been to this "socialist" country, the Swedish people are a delight and their country is beautiful and prosperous.

With the possible merger of GM and Chrysler or bankruptcy and Obama leading in the polls, I think the worlds going to pot, sometimes I just want to get off. And I think of the socializing of the banks and wall street, and then I start worrying about Harry Ried, Nancy Polsi and Barrak Obama running the country I think were really heading for a socialist era, Ive been around a long time but this time I'm really scared.


If you have been around so long, are you really comfortable with the last 8 years of the Bush debacle with most of those years having a Republican controlled Congress?

Fearmongering and hatemongering is what Republicans do best. Welcome to Germany in the 1930s.

Troopergate reminds me of Royalities. If you don't like a person, you fire him.

Sarah Palin, Queen of USA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgc4zm3XrBc

Her pie analogy is the most blatant explanation of socialism I've heard. And the second quote about not being permitted to be uninvolved is blatant totalitarianism.

Of course, both candidates suck IMHO. I intend to vote for neither of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgc4zm3XrBc

Her pie analogy is the most blatant explanation of socialism I've heard. And the second quote about not being permitted to be uninvolved is blatant totalitarianism.

Of course, both candidates suck IMHO. I intend to vote for neither of them.

Please, kubel. You can do better than Glenn Beck. That guy is one of the biggest morons to have his own show. CNN noticed that Fox was getting great ratings with Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly so they got their own idiotic blowhard to compete.

Please, kubel. You can do better than Glenn Beck. That guy is one of the biggest morons to have his own show. CNN noticed that Fox was getting great ratings with Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly so they got their own idiotic blowhard to compete.

I couldn't agree more about Glenn Beck.

I work for a company that employs around 100 people. I do not believe there has been a year that the company made over 250,000 profit. The main reason for not that large a profits in the company I work for is that the owner is constantly making improvements in equipment and by doing so always has plenty to write off.

From what I understand the taxes on the rich will go up to the same rate they were when Clinton was president; you know when we used to have a surplus and the dollar was stronger.

Getting rid of the deficit is sure a scary thought.

From what I've read the $250,000 is personal income not business income. Most corporations in the USA don't pay any federal income tax because there are so many loopholes in the law and it is easy to hide income. I'm not worried about the small business owner paying more taxes. Just make sure your income stays below $250k. Lease your volt through your business.

Also I really don't see the trickle down theory working. The rich get richer and when they get government breaks they just use them to make themselves richer and richer while the middle class wages stay stagnant or go down. Capitalism is the best option we have but human nature is GREED and it is obvious that left unchecked it will continue to spiral out of control.

We need a balance of goverment intervention and free market capitalism. On the other hand there are a lot of Americans who are only out for a free ride. Every good idea America has ever had ends up being abused. Welfare, unions, health insurance, etc. These are not going to be easy problems to fix and I don't envy the job our next President is going to have cleaning up the mess.

As to the rich and corporations not paying any taxes or their fair share; read this article from the US Chamber of Commerce http://www.uschamber.com/content/0704_10a.htm

And then this publication from the Congressional Budget Office that the first article is based on. Particularly pages 6 and 8. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-HistoricalTaxRates.pdf

Hate to dampen the "Down with the rich!" "Screw the Corporations!" Obama love fest, but the top 20% of Americans pays more than 60% of all the taxes the government takes in. The middle 60% pays about 30%. I have a corporation. Trust me. We pay taxes.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/the_numbskull_vote.html

A resource for those who do not wish to remain ignorant:

http://themachoresponse.blogspot.com/

Please, kubel. You can do better than Glenn Beck. That guy is one of the biggest morons to have his own show. CNN noticed that Fox was getting great ratings with Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly so they got their own idiotic blowhard to compete.

Logical fallacy. Address the quote, not the show host. You don't see socialism in what she's saying?

To the OP.

I am worried to. Why? Because I live in a city, county that have been solidly Democrat for decades, generations. I also live in a state that has been Democrat for a while too. Net result? My home town of Oakland, CA is a joke. Stagnant cesspool of crime and hopelessness. Decades of mismanagement and corruption. Not a single Republican to blame for ages. Sure lots of laws and regulations, new taxes for all kinds of new solutions to old problems, but same ol' same ol' year after year.

We're always in the top ten for Murder Capital of the country and the city management is currently being investigated by the FBI for corruption charges. No real new business or decent employment opportunities on the horizon (other than city government) or any reason to expect any. One of the best geographical locations in one of the best areas of California and it pretty much sucks.

How could this happen? Well, every election year the democrats run unopposed. It's a forgone conclusion that the Democrat will win by a large margin. Whenever one party controls it all and doesn't have to worry about being thrown out, they get lazy, complacent and corrupt. It's also a great sample of how just simply raising taxes,
implementing regulations, laws and new bans do nothing to really get at the problems.

I have seen first hand the Democrats have their way for the last eighteen years I've lived here. I'm not impressed. I really pray the country fairs better.

I would be more scared of electing old-man McCain and having him die shortly there after and the having a hockey-mom run the country.

To the OP.

I am worried to. Why? Because I live in a city, county that have been solidly Democrat for decades, generations. I also live in a state that has been Democrat for a while too. Net result? My home town of Oakland, CA is a joke. Stagnant cesspool of crime and hopelessness. Decades of mismanagement and corruption. Not a single Republican to blame for ages. Sure lots of laws and regulations, new taxes for all kinds of new solutions to old problems, but same ol' same ol' year after year.

We're always in the top ten for Murder Capital of the country and the city management is currently being investigated by the FBI for corruption charges. No real new business or decent employment opportunities on the horizon (other than city government) or any reason to expect any. One of the best geographical locations in one of the best areas of California and it pretty much sucks.

How could this happen? Well, every election year the democrats run unopposed. It's a forgone conclusion that the Democrat will win by a large margin. Whenever one party controls it all and doesn't have to worry about being thrown out, they get lazy, complacent and corrupt. It's also a great sample of how just simply raising taxes,
implementing regulations, laws and new bans do nothing to really get at the problems.

I have seen first hand the Democrats have their way for the last eighteen years I've lived here. I'm not impressed. I really pray the country fairs better.

Why on earth would petty local politics weigh in on your decision for the federal election at all? Get involved locally where you can if you're unhappy with the way things are going, and vote federally based on issues that are actually relevant.

To the OP.

I am worried to. Why? Because I live in a city, county that have been solidly Democrat for decades, generations. I also live in a state that has been Democrat for a while too. Net result? My home town of Oakland, CA is a joke. Stagnant cesspool of crime and hopelessness. Decades of mismanagement and corruption. Not a single Republican to blame for ages. Sure lots of laws and regulations, new taxes for all kinds of new solutions to old problems, but same ol' same ol' year after year.

We're always in the top ten for Murder Capital of the country and the city management is currently being investigated by the FBI for corruption charges. No real new business or decent employment opportunities on the horizon (other than city government) or any reason to expect any. One of the best geographical locations in one of the best areas of California and it pretty much sucks.

How could this happen? Well, every election year the democrats run unopposed. It's a forgone conclusion that the Democrat will win by a large margin. Whenever one party controls it all and doesn't have to worry about being thrown out, they get lazy, complacent and corrupt. It's also a great sample of how just simply raising taxes,
implementing regulations, laws and new bans do nothing to really get at the problems.

I have seen first hand the Democrats have their way for the last eighteen years I've lived here. I'm not impressed. I really pray the country fairs better.
The situation you describe seems bad enough to transcend partisan politics. However, the majority of the population must be pleased with the way things are going . . . Otherwise, how can you explain that the same do-nothing pols keep getting elected?

Another great post from TMR:

http://themachoresponse.blogspot.com/2008/10/hiding-behind-bigotry-wont-lead-us-to.html

Did anyone else think McCain looked foolish during the final debate? I almost laughed out loud after the question that asked if the Vice Presidential candidate would be a good choice to run the country.

Here we are and the wheels are clearly falling off our financial wagon and McCain is talking about hockey Moms and children with autism. WTF? It was embarrassing.

I almost think he is intentionally tanking the election. The thinking could be that Obama gets in and can't do a damn thing. Then the Republicans come back and say, "See, we told you he couldn't do anything." They can then win back the presidency in only 4 years with a much stronger ticket. No soccer Moms, no old war heroes.

Yeah, the entire Republican party has given up on McCain's campaign. Even Fox news pundits can barely bring themselves to spin for him now, it's hilarious.

My favourite moment was when McCain blurted out something about letting returning soldiers become teachers without passing any certification. Yes, fast-tracking unstable PTSD suffering veterans into teaching positions is clearly the best way to fix education.

Also the part where Obama had the audacity to come out against assassinations of labour leaders in Columbia. McCain rolled his eyes and made all kinds of faces like Obama was talking crazy.

Yup, this election looks pretty well decided to me. Pretty soon we'll be able to forget about all the campaign rhetoric and posturing and take a serious look at the specifics of Obama's energy policies. I would far prefer that to all the hand-wringing over Obama's extremely anemic socialist leanings and dubious personal connections.

"Pretty soon we'll be able to forget about all the campaign rhetoric and posturing and take a serious look at the specifics of Obama's energy policies."

Perhaps we should revise the Constitution to rename the President to "Engineer in Chief".

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/mccains_war_story.html

Sorry, I forgot; we like to learn things the hard way.

I almost think he is intentionally tanking the election. The thinking could be that Obama gets in and can't do a damn thing. Then the Republicans come back and say, "See, we told you he couldn't do anything." They can then win back the presidency in only 4 years with a much stronger ticket. No soccer Moms, no old war heroes.

I thought that was why McCain was able to be nominated at all. Better Republican candidates just figured they would wait until a more opportune time.

Why on earth would petty local politics weigh in on your decision for the federal election at all?

Because it's a model of what happens when there is complete Democratic control. Like I said, the Democrats here have complete control and run unopposed. They have it all their own way. Just like is being proposed for the country now.

Here the city is perpetually broke, stagnant and corrupt. The best jobs here are working for the government. Every election cycle there is whole host of the usual problems facing the city like crime, underfunded programs to help the poor, the children, the elderly, as well as rotting infrastructure and collapsing city services. Every election they propose bonds and tax increases to solve all these problems. The voters here aren't that well educated and seem to think that a bond is "free government money" so those propositions always pass and the city goes further into debt. The taxes are usually put on property owners or employers. Occasionally an increase in sales tax, fuel tax or utility tax.

The money gets spent on "administration" and more government positions to manage the money. Sweetheart contracts are awarded to the same crooked contractors that are in bed with the politicians who then rip off the tax payer. Net result? Nothing really changes and the same issues come up every election asking the voters for more money.

There is always some silly distraction on the ballot that gets all the attention and keeps people from focusing on the real problems. This year it's "Should there be a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage?" So debate goes on about that and mean while all those little letter propositions don't even get discussed and when the folks look at them for the first time in the ballot box and they are confronted with; Do you want clean water?, Do you want after school programs for the kids?, Do you want better roads?, Do you want parks and libraries? Do you want safer neighborhoods? and of course followed by the plea "Do it for the children!" with "bond" and property tax attached and they pass every time.

Nobody ever seems to ask what happened to the money approved last time. Since there is no one but Democrats in the local government, they have to blame the governor or president Bush or something for their problems. It's not just Oakland, it's Chicago, it's Washington DC, Los Angeles and whole host of cities across America trapped in this one party cycle. It's really sad.

The situation you describe seems bad enough to transcend partisan politics. However, the majority of the population must be pleased with the way things are going . . . Otherwise, how can you explain that the same do-nothing pols keep getting elected?

One word: ignorance. There are no partisan politics here. There is only one party with an occasional annoying Green Party member. The majority of the city is with a high school diploma or less, with high unemployment and large immigrant populations. Another sizable component are the well educated but liberal folks from Berkeley and San Francisco who are looking for cheap housing. We have a very colorful and diverse city, except when it comes to politics.

To say you are a Republican here is social suicide. That title means that you hate poor people and want to lock them up or exploit them, you love rich CEOs and are part of the Old Boy network, you are a white collar criminal, you are racist, you shoot puppyies in your back yard and you'll lynch anybody that wants an abortion or disagrees with you. Or that you have a Confederate Battle Flag on your pick up and are just too stupid to see the correct path. Net result is, most all of the Republicans have moved away and so have all the industries. The Republican party doesn't waste any money on elections here, so while there are Republicans on the ticket, they are simply place holders and no one even has a clue who they are.

The demographic of the city has evolved to be exactly the folks that the Democratic party panders to. Promise these people everything they ever wanted and when it doesn't turn out, somehow blame Bush and the governator. Works every time. Trust me I piss in the wind on November the 2nd a lot, but it's always a forgone conclusion.

I bring all this up because I hear a great call going out for the Democrats to gain complete control of both the legislative branch and the executive branch, and with those they can eventually control the judicial branch. This is a very real possibility. Have it all their way.

I believe our country works best when there are checks and balances. We saw what happened when the Republicans had it all their way, they created a mess. I believe that with complete Democratic control this mess will just get even bigger. Power needs to be shared, a sort of back and forth balance. Instead we're going to get payback time and lots of pet social engineering projects. As we become further and further polarized with silly ideologies the country slides down the slope to destruction.:(

As we become further and further polarized with silly ideologies the country slides down the slope to destruction.:(

This is my main concern too. Silly ideologies have basically ruined the country over the last few decades. But in this election you should take a close look at each candidate and what they stand for. What you'll see is one VERY silly ideologue and one man who seems willing to think things through and find practical solutions, a self professed pragmatist. Given everything you just said this should be an easy decision for you. And I can understand your reluctance to give one party complete control of congress, but the way I see it those people who've been there for 8 years have done such a terrible job that they just have to go. Replacing them with competent and trustworthy politicians is the hard part and should obviously be cause for concern.

. . . competent and trustworthy politicians . . .

Please show me one of these. I think this is an oxymoron.

I hope none of you libs want to keep your guns, or send your kids to a charted school, or need a good job, or want to be free. or taxes going so high, and government being in every aspect of your lives, or even abortion in every trimester phase even late term.

With Pelosi, Reid, Obama and a house and senate controlled by Democrats with no check on them, and with them and Barney Frank they will control the banks, and when they control the banks they will control the free market and with control of the free market they will control the stocks, bonds and treasury. this is not socialism?

I was not scared when Clinton got in I was just mad, but I'm scared this time with Obama and nothing to stop Pelosi. NPNS =D----

Darthvader, You final said something that I think came from your heart and not talking points, you are right with picking the right people for office and it is the hardest thing to do, none of us are particularly happy with Bush's policies but don't think a complete Dem. gov. is the answer either. NPNS

mikeandmerle, please grow up. All Obama's tax plan is doing is putting us a little closer to where we were 10 years ago. It's hilarious when you accuse me of spouting talking points and then you go off with this right wing garbage about big government and the END OF THE WORLD through liberal taxation. You don't know what you're talking about my friend!

Darthvader, I watch as many of the stump speeches on both candidates that are available on tv, I watch the house and senate on Cspan when there in session, I know what they are saying and I know what I'm talking about, this is not government in action as usual, this one is different, I'm not talking gloom and doom, just that I can see whats happening, this guy calls himself the messiah, the one we have all been waiting for, I've seen and heard him say it, its not talking points, and you know, I hope your right, but I don't think you are.

What about all the times George Bush said that god was on his side? That god wanted him to win? For someone who pays so much attention you're worried for all the wrong reasons.

Farrakhan Refers To Obama As "Messiah".

Obama is not the same as Farrakhan.

For the Glen Beck fans: I just heard that he's moving to Fox. He will be among friends.

As to the rich and corporations not paying any taxes or their fair share; read this article from the US Chamber of Commerce http://www.uschamber.com/content/0704_10a.htm

And then this publication from the Congressional Budget Office that the first article is based on. Particularly pages 6 and 8. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-HistoricalTaxRates.pdf

Hate to dampen the "Down with the rich!" "Screw the Corporations!" Obama love fest, but the top 20% of Americans pays more than 60% of all the taxes the government takes in. The middle 60% pays about 30%. I have a corporation. Trust me. We pay taxes.

Yep, I really feel for you guys. NOT My Aunt and I got into a fight about this a while back. Her husband makes 5 million a year and let's just say they had two houses when Clinton was in office. Once Bush awarded the wealthy they purchased and built 10 new homes. They visit two of them like, twice per year for about two days. They have a car at each home. I'm sorry, but I really don't feel for all the Mercedes, Lexi, and Hummers I see around here with McCaine stickers. Maybe if these corporations, and their administrators shared their wealth instead of getting 100+ times what the people working for them made then you guys wouldn't have to pay higher taxes.

Yep, I really feel for you guys. NOT My Aunt and I got into a fight about this a while back. Her husband makes 5 million a year and let's just say they had two houses when Clinton was in office. Once Bush awarded the wealthy they purchased and built 10 new homes. They visit two of them like, twice per year for about two days. They have a car at each home. I'm sorry, but I really don't feel for all the Mercedes, Lexi, and Hummers I see around here with McCaine stickers. Maybe if these corporations, and their administrators shared their wealth instead of getting 100+ times what the people working for them made then you guys wouldn't have to pay higher taxes.
So, if I have a business (which I do, a small one) and it is successful (it is - reasonably so), and I have lots of employees (I have none, but pretend I do), how much of the wealth am I supposed to "share" with them? The responsibilities are mine, the risks are mine - you get the idea. Once you get past the point where an employee is making a reasonably competitive wage for a specific position, what purpose is served in giving them more than the market demands?

Rest assured about this one point - I don't pay my business taxes - my customers pay them for me. If I did have employees, and my business taxes went up, the first thing I'd look at is a reduction in force, since you can't just raise prices to the point they are not competitive. End result: fewer jobs, employees working harder and more stressed . . . Are you getting the picture, tax-boy?

Big corporations barely pay any tax because there are so many loopholes and ways to write-off expenses. It's all just a bunch of creative accounting, shifting money around through subsidiaries, sometimes overseas, to escape tax liability. Meanwhile CEO pay has shot up insanely fast the last few decades while everyone else's pay has been stagnant.

^^ The employees come dead last on the list of priorities of the biggest corporations anyway. Ever notice the huge amount of outsourcing of labour to countries without labour laws?

You sound like Joe the plumber the way you talk about hypotheticals. What IF I was in a higher tax bracket? Damn you Obama, threatening to increase taxes on my imaginary income by 3%! Your small business, even if it did have your imaginary employees, would not see any tax increases. Something like 97% of small businesses make under 250,000 a year, plus small businesses are getting all kinds of special tax breaks and incentives under Obama's plan.

"the first thing I'd look at is a reduction in force, since you can't just raise prices to the point they are not competitive."
Think this one through again. What's so unique about your particular company that you wouldn't be able to compete anymore? It's not like only your company will see tax increases while everyone else continues on as usual. And lets not forget that in the real world your business is getting a tax-break, tax-boy.

Big corporations barely pay any tax because there are so many loopholes and ways to write-off expenses. It's all just a bunch of creative accounting, shifting money around through subsidiaries, sometimes overseas, to escape tax liability. Meanwhile CEO pay has shot up insanely fast the last few decades while everyone else's pay has been stagnant.

^^ The employees come dead last on the list of priorities of the biggest corporations anyway. Ever notice the huge amount of outsourcing of labour to countries without labour laws?

You sound like Joe the plumber the way you talk about hypotheticals. What IF I was in a higher tax bracket? Damn you Obama, threatening to increase taxes on my imaginary income by 3%! Your small business, even if it did have your imaginary employees, would not see any tax increases. Something like 97% of small businesses make under 250,000 a year, plus small businesses are getting all kinds of special tax breaks and incentives under Obama's plan.

"the first thing I'd look at is a reduction in force, since you can't just raise prices to the point they are not competitive."
Think this one through again. What's so unique about your particular company that you wouldn't be able to compete anymore? It's not like only your company will see tax increases while everyone else continues on as usual. And lets not forget that in the real world your business is getting a tax-break, tax-boy.
You don't own a business, do you? Didn't think so . . .

The big corporations' responsibilities are toward their shareholders, not their employees - like it or not.

The big corporations' responsibilities are toward their shareholders, not their employees - like it or not.

I don't like it! It's a deadly flaw in the system we call capitalism today.

Here's one of the turning points that lead to this shareholders-first rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company

I don't like it! It's a deadly flaw in the system we call capitalism today.

Here's one of the turning points that lead to this shareholders-first rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company

Very early in my career, I had a company president ask me what the purpose of our company was. We manufactured building automation equipment, which I designed. I told him something along the lines of "build high-quality, reliable products that meet our customer's needs, and sell them at a reasonable price." The president, a Harvard business school graduate, proceeded to tell me how wrong I was. That's when I learned about shareholders . . . I can't say I enjoyed hearing what he said, but I have never forgotten it.

Once Bush awarded the wealthy they purchased and built 10 new homes. They visit two of them like, twice per year for about two days. They have a car at each home.

Ten new houses and ten new cars. No doubt with new furniture, appliances and play toys to go with them. Not bad. Not bad at all. Now, how much did you contribute to the economy? How many jobs did you support or create? Just because they didn't send you a check doesn't mean the money doesn't come back. These folks directly and indirectly employ lots of people.


Maybe if these corporations, and their administrators shared their wealth instead of getting 100+ times what the people working for them made then you guys wouldn't have to pay higher taxes.

When corporations make billions of dollars, everybody wants them to share some, but when corporations are losing billions of dollars how many people want to share with them? GM could use the check right about now if you feel generous.

GM could use the check right about now if you feel generous.

If they give us the Volt, they will have lots of checks!

(You listening, GM? Volt sooner = money sooner)

So, if I have a business (which I do, a small one) and it is successful (it is - reasonably so), and I have lots of employees (I have none, but pretend I do), how much of the wealth am I supposed to "share" with them? The responsibilities are mine, the risks are mine - you get the idea. Once you get past the point where an employee is making a reasonably competitive wage for a specific position, what purpose is served in giving them more than the market demands?

Rest assured about this one point - I don't pay my business taxes - my customers pay them for me. If I did have employees, and my business taxes went up, the first thing I'd look at is a reduction in force, since you can't just raise prices to the point they are not competitive. End result: fewer jobs, employees working harder and more stressed . . . Are you getting the picture, tax-boy?

It's nice that you can be successful in business without understanding how markets work. Assuming most of your competitors are also American companies, if federal business taxes go up, their cost structure will go up as well... you'll ALL raise your prices.

You'd need to be NETTING about 650k for the difference in your taxes under Obama's evil plan to raise the marginal rate on income over $250k to pay for a single $6/hour employee who receives no benefits.

Why do you think the media has put news crews in front of Joe the Plumbers home and have started to ruin his life, but no news crews are in front of Bill Ayers house and no one is even asking him questions?



NO PLUG, NO SALE, NOBAMA, NO WAY =D---$999,099,099.00taxes

It's nice that you can be successful in business without understanding how markets work. Assuming most of your competitors are also American companies, if federal business taxes go up, their cost structure will go up as well... you'll ALL raise your prices.

So we ALL raise our prices . . and you, the consumer, just keep paying and paying . . . With less "disposable" income left in your pockets, there is less to spend and save, and therefore less economic growth.

Why do you think the media has put news crews in front of Joe the Plumbers home and have started to ruin his life, but no news crews are in front of Bill Ayers house and no one is even asking him questions?



NO PLUG, NO SALE, NOBAMA, NO WAY =D---$999,099,099.00taxes

Yes, I wonder why Hannity has not asked Ayers any questions?

Ten new houses and ten new cars. No doubt with new furniture, appliances and play toys to go with them. Not bad. Not bad at all. Now, how much did you contribute to the economy? How many jobs did you support or create? Just because they didn't send you a check doesn't mean the money doesn't come back. These folks directly and indirectly employ lots of people.



When corporations make billions of dollars, everybody wants them to share some, but when corporations are losing billions of dollars how many people want to share with them? GM could use the check right about now if you feel generous.

Doesn't it make it so easy when we can measure the health of an economy in terms of GDP? How silly of us to think that ten unused houses is a waste when it makes numbers go up.

Pdt, if you ever watched Hannity and Colms you would see they have invited Ayers to their program many times and you would see their reporters with mics on his door step, even one with Ayers walking up the stairs and the reporters asking him questions and Ayers just ignored them

Pdt, if you ever watched Hannity and Colms you would see they have invited Ayers to their program many times and you would see their reporters with mics on his door step, even one with Ayers walking up the stairs and the reporters asking him questions and Ayers just ignored them

You may be stunned to learn that this is a relatively free country, and private citizens bear no responsibility to talk to representatives of Fox News.

Pdt, if you ever watched Hannity and Colms you would see they have invited Ayers to their program many times and you would see their reporters with mics on his door step, even one with Ayers walking up the stairs and the reporters asking him questions and Ayers just ignored them

That's exactly my point. The media can't be blamed for Ayers not talking to them.