US tea party

[JerrySeinfeld]

And how many manufacturing jobs are they creating? Within the United States that is!

The largest employer in the US is by far small business. You're probably taking the example of, say, an article about Nike in indonesia you read in some left wing rag and extrapolating if over vast swaths of the economy you know nothing about.

So, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, and resuming the tax rate on income OVER 250,000 is going to kill small business? Anyone else believe this besides you and Joe the unlicensed plumber?

It doesn't have to "kill" small business. But if you bump up the taxes on an already suffering small plastics manufacturer in suburban Detriot, the owner's gotta cut a few jobs to stay afloat (so that the rest of the people who work there will still have somewhere to go in the morning).

Now multiply that 2-3 jobs across the already suffering small business sector across america's 4 million small businesses and all of a sudden you're talking about 8-12 million unemployed.

Of course if you have more left wing simplified view of the world, then the "richest two percent" aren't the reality of economic drivers and job creators I have just described, but rather just a bunch of scrooge mcducks ploughing their gold coins back and forth with a tractor behind the walls of their estate.

The sad part is, that fantastic view of the world is held by far too many and will end up destroying what is great about America to begin with.

[punked]

It doesn't have to "kill" small business. But if you bump up the taxes on an already suffering small plastics manufacturer in suburban Detriot, the owner's gotta cut a few jobs to stay afloat (so that the rest of the people who work there will still have somewhere to go in the morning).

Now multiply that 2-3 jobs across the already suffering small business sector across america's 4 million small businesses and all of a sudden you're talking about 8-12 million unemployed.

Of course if you have more left wing simplified view of the world, then the "richest two percent" aren't the reality of economic drivers and job creators I have just described, but rather just a bunch of scrooge mcducks ploughing their gold coins back and forth with a tractor behind the walls of their estate.

The sad part is, that fantastic view of the world is held by far too many and will end up destroying what is great about America to begin with.

I know this makes sense in "crazy right wing land" but it doesn't make sense in the real world. I understand supply side you give people more money so they go out and hire people, but that doesn't make sense in the real world. If I am running a business I hire the right amount of people to maximize profits, now you give me 10,000 dollars back in a tax cut, and you think I look at that money and say "great even though it wont increase my profits I am going to hire someone with this money" Nope I put that money in the bank. That is how the real world works outside of crazy right wing land, I don't hire people or keep people just becuase I have the money I do it to make the most profit and if my business isn't run like this then it will probably fail.

As G. H. Bush said that is Voodoo economics. It don't make no sense.

Maybe we should put taxes back to the time when the greatest growth happened America under FDR and Eisenhower, top rate 92% and a sliding scale from there.

[JerrySeinfeld]

If I am running a business I hire the right amount of people to maximize profits, now you give me 10,000 dollars back in a tax cut, and you think I look at that money and say "great even though it wont increase my profits I am going to hire someone with this money" Nope I put that money in the bank.

Wow. this is actually a very revealing (and actually a bit unbelievable) view of the world and I can tell you from my experience of working with small business owners for a living that it is complete and utter bullshit.

Business owners, unlike burauetcrats, welfare moms and unionized pencil pushers (to name a few), understand that to become more successful, you don't take government cheques and put them under your mattress. They invest.

If you own a parts manufacturer in, say Missouri and have a sales force of five people that covers the state, and have always wanted to expand to Kansas, a tax cut could allow you to add one or two additional salespeople in Kansas might work for you (depending of course upon your capital structure, current debt load, financing rates, equity position, current cashflow and many other factors). Of couse, adding a salesforce in Kansas increases order flow, which in turn increases production demands, which requires additional personel which means more jobs for people on the production floor.

And of course, more profit for the business owner.

If this principle didn't exist, neither would Microsoft or Apple (nor would any large company that exists today), both of which were started in someone's garage.

In your dreamworld, Gates would have just taken the tax cut for small business and put it under his mattress and we'd all still be working on the commodore 64.

Your perception of the world is uncanny. It's actually scary that people believe the world works the way you think it does.

[punked]

Wow. this is actually a very revealing (and actually a bit unbelievable) view of the world and I can tell you from my experience of working with small business owners for a living that it is complete and utter bullshit.

Business owners, unlike burauetcrats, welfare moms and unionized pencil pushers (to name a few), understand that to become more successful, you don't take government cheques and put them under your mattress. They invest.

If you own a parts manufacturer in, say Missouri and have a sales force of five people that covers the state, and have always wanted to expand to Kansas, a tax cut could allow you to add one or two additional salespeople in Kansas might work for you (depending of course upon your capital structure, current debt load, financing rates, equity position, current cashflow and many other factors). Of couse, adding a salesforce in Kansas increases order flow, which in turn increases production demands, which requires additional personel which means more jobs for people on the production floor.

And of course, more profit for the business owner.

If this principle didn't exist, neither would Microsoft or Apple (nor would any large company that exists today), both of which were started in someone's garage.

In your dreamworld, Gates would have just taken the tax cut for small business and put it under his mattress and we'd all still be working on the commodore 64.

Your perception of the world is uncanny. It's actually scary that people believe the world works the way you think it does.

Ohhhh really then tell me when business testified in front of Yvon Godin and he asked if they were to get a tax would they hire more workers why did they they said no? BECAUSE THEY ARE OUT TO MAKE A PROFIT. I can't believe the right wing pretends that business runs off the goodness of their hearts it is the dumbest arguement in the world. That is socialism in business and the only time this happens is when a government props up failing businesses so they don't leave their area.

If you own a parts manufacturer in, say Missouri and have a sales force of five people that covers the state, and have always wanted to expand to Kansas, know what you do? You take out a loan and do it if it is going to make you more money. Look to the banks the government gave them billions of dollars and they stuffed in their mattress. You know why? Becuase they are making the profits they can now.

Yes more money means more profit but that is all it means and to argue otherwise is silly.

Remind me again did apple and Microsoft start under the Bush tax cuts?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Ohhhh really then tell me when business testified in front of Yvon Godin and he asked if they were to get a tax would they hire more workers why did they they said no? BECAUSE THEY ARE OUT TO MAKE A PROFIT. I can't believe the right wing pretends that business runs off the goodness of their hearts it is the dumbest arguement in the world. That is socialism in business and the only time this happens is when a government props up failing businesses so they don't leave their area.

If you own a parts manufacturer in, say Missouri and have a sales force of five people that covers the state, and have always wanted to expand to Kansas, know what you do? You take out a loan and do it if it is going to make you more money. Look to the banks the government gave them billions of dollars and they stuffed in their mattress. You know why? Becuase they are making the profits they can now.

Yes more money means more profit but that is all it means and to argue otherwise is silly.

Remind me again did apple and Microsoft start under the Bush tax cuts?

Business doesn't run off goodness of hearts. It runs off of tries to get bigger and more profitable.

The Gates point is just one of millions of examples of small businessmen who invested their excess capital to become bigger and more profitable - not out of the goodness of their hearts but because they wanted to become bigger and more profitable.

When companies get more profitable, they get bigger and grow, which means more jobs.

Taking more debt onto your company's balance sheet is only one of many ways to expand a business my naive little friend.

If the cost of capital is too high (as it is right now) or credit markets are unwilling to lend to overleveraged companies that are struggling to survive, then a tax increase is a VERY bad idea, and the best way to get that company hiring and expaning is to leave more money in their pockets.

Private, efficient, profitable entities that invest their excess capital are the best place to allocate money.

Taking it away (ie. increasing their taxes) then using the confiscated money to create a black hole government buraeucracy which will suck tax dollars out of the dynamic portions of the economy (Obama's plan) is a complete waste.

Why don't you take a look out the window of your mother's basement long enough to look around and see all the businesses where people are working right now.

How do you think they ended up with jobs? Did Obama give them a job? DId Jack layton hire them? No. A businessman did. Out of the "goodness of his heart"? Absolutely not.

Because he wanted to make more profits? yes. That's where jobs come from: greedy business owners.

Edited April 21, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld

[punked]

Business doesn't run off goodness of hearts. It runs off of tries to get bigger and more profitable.

The Gates point is just one of millions of examples of small businessmen who invested their excess capital to become bigger and more profitable - not out of the goodness of their hearts but because they wanted to become bigger and more profitable.

When companies get more profitable, they get bigger and grow, which means more jobs.

Taking more debt onto your company's balance sheet is only one of many ways to expand a business my naive little friend.

If the cost of capital is too high (as it is right now) or credit markets are unwilling to lend to overleveraged companies that are struggling to survive, then a tax increase is a VERY bad idea, and the best way to get that company hiring and expaning is to leave more money in their pockets.

Private, efficient, profitable entities that invest their excess capital are the best place to allocate money.

Taking it away (ie. increasing their taxes) then using the confiscated money to create a black hole government buraeucracy which will suck tax dollars out of the dynamic portions of the economy (Obama's plan) is a complete waste.

Why don't you take a look out the window of your mother's basement long enough to look around and see all the businesses where people are working right now.

How do you think they ended up with jobs? Did Obama give them a job? DId Jack layton hire them? No. A businessman did. Out of the "goodness of his heart"? Absolutely not.

Because he wanted to make more profits? yes. That's where jobs come from: greedy business owners.

When was the largest unemployment rate? The 1930's? What was the top tax rate that lead up to the 1930's? 20-25% why didn't this create a huge amount of jobs and amazing growth? Becuase if you move all the money upwards the people who actually spend the money, the middle class disappear. That is a simple fact.

I am not attacking business I am saying if they aren't out to make profits they are going to fail they are not going to give a guy a job becuase they got a tax cut that is silly. Supply side economics is stuipd, it has never worked ever, give me a not made up example of it working. You seem to think the best tax rate is no taxes but then you get no regulation, and no schools, no roads and so fourth. Business has to pay taxes just like workers do deal with it, the lower tax arguement when it is already historically one of the lowest ever is silly.

BTW I never said business owners were greedy, I said it is in their self interest to maximize profits, and if you think otherwise you are a dirty socialist.

[JerrySeinfeld]

When was the largest unemployment rate? The 1930's? What was the top tax rate that lead up to the 1930's? 20-25% why didn't this create a huge amount of jobs and amazing growth? Becuase if you move all the money upwards the people who actually spend the money, the middle class disappear. That is a simple fact.

I am not attacking business I am saying if they aren't out to make profits they are going to fail they are not going to give a guy a job becuase they got a tax cut that is silly. Supply side economics is stuipd, it has never worked ever, give me a not made up example of it working. You seem to think the best tax rate is no taxes but then you get no regulation, and no schools, no roads and so fourth. Business has to pay taxes just like workers do deal with it, the lower tax arguement when it is already historically one of the lowest ever is silly.

BTW I never said business owners were greedy, I said it is in their self interest to maximize profits, and if you think otherwise you are a dirty socialist.

Real world example: Precision drilling.

It is an oil drilling company based in Alberta with approximately 7,500 employees working for it.

In the late 1980's the Alberta oil patch experienced a massive recession, partly because of a drop in oil prices, but extended for many years because the western Canacidna sedimentary basin was becomeing depleted by world standards (ie. the Major oil producers left town for greener, more profitable pastures in the British North Sea, Sudan, and other places). To encourage new drilling activity (an hence, jobs) the government implemented a tax credit scheme called the Exploration Tax Credit designed to provide investors with a tax incentive to invest in junior oil companies drilling for oil in Canada.

As a result, many new investment funds were created which provided for two results:

1. A 100% tax write down for investors in oil and gas tax flow through shares

2. Investment dollars for oil companies driling for oil in Canada.

When oil companies drill for oil they wouldn't otherwise have drilled for, because a favorable tax regime (ie. a big tax cut), they need to hire a drilling contractor to punch the hole in the ground.

Enter Precision drilling, which employs 7,500 Canadian citizens and pays them handsomely, I would add.

WIthout the CEE exploration tax deduction, many (and arguably MOST) of the drilling projects wouldn't have commenced and these people wouldn't have jobs.

Now certainly in the age of $150 oil which we saw briefly last year, some of these projects would still have been economically feasible. But there is no question of denying that the exploration tax credit has provided for LOTS of jobs in mining and oil& gas throughout the past couple of decades.

And if you want, you could ad Trinidad Drilling, Noble Drilling, Akita Drilling, Beaver Drilling, NABORS DRILLING and many others and their employees to the list of beneficiaries from lower taxes.

Would you like another real world example? Would be happy to provide as many as you'd like.

[punked]

Real world example: Precision drilling.

It is an oil drilling company based in Alberta with approximately 7,500 employees working for it.

In the late 1980's the Alberta oil patch experienced a massive recession, partly because of a drop in oil prices, but extended for many years because the western Canacidna sedimentary basin was becomeing depleted by world standards (ie. the Major oil producers left town for greener, more profitable pastures in the British North Sea, Sudan, and other places). To encourage new drilling activity (an hence, jobs) the government implemented a tax credit scheme called the Exploration Tax Credit designed to provide investors with a tax incentive to invest in junior oil companies drilling for oil in Canada.

As a result, many new investment funds were created which provided for two results:

1. A 100% tax write down for investors in oil and gas tax flow through shares

2. Investment dollars for oil companies driling for oil in Canada.

When oil companies drill for oil they wouldn't otherwise have drilled for, because a favorable tax regime (ie. a big tax cut), they need to hire a drilling contractor to punch the hole in the ground.

Enter Precision drilling, which employs 7,500 Canadian citizens and pays them handsomely, I would add.

WIthout the CEE exploration tax deduction, many (and arguably MOST) of the drilling projects wouldn't have commenced and these people wouldn't have jobs.

Now certainly in the age of $150 oil which we saw briefly last year, some of these projects would still have been economically feasible. But there is no question of denying that the exploration tax credit has provided for LOTS of jobs in mining and oil& gas throughout the past couple of decades.

And if you want, you could ad Trinidad Drilling, Noble Drilling, Akita Drilling, Beaver Drilling, NABORS DRILLING and many others and their employees to the list of beneficiaries from lower taxes.

Would you like another real world example? Would be happy to provide as many as you'd like.

Great example of what we aren't talking about. I agree when the government does things like move taxes off pay roll, or says "we will give you a tax cut to create jobs" this can help. This however has nothing to do with the Bushroll back. Right now that tax cut isn't regulated, it isn't an incentive to do work or create jobs. It is just extra money. What your example says is that work is created when incentives for work is given, fine I will agree that sometimes works. However if I say I am giving you a tax break for being you, you put that money in the bank and say "this is profit."

So maybe Obama can at his extra 3% and say those of you who create work and jobs can have your 3% back would you agree this is what should be done?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Great example of what we aren't talking about. I agree when the government does things like move taxes off pay roll, or says "we will give you a tax cut to create jobs" this can help. This however has nothing to do with the Bushroll back. Right now that tax cut isn't regulated, it isn't an incentive to do work or create jobs. It is just extra money. What your example says is that work is created when incentives for work is given, fine I will agree that sometimes works. However if I say I am giving you a tax break for being you, you put that money in the bank and say "this is profit."

So maybe Obama can at his extra 3% and say those of you who create work and jobs can have your 3% back would you agree this is what should be done?

No I wouldn't because

1. By and large, excess capital held by the rich is used to invest - which creates employment and stimulates the economy and

2. There has never...EVER been evidence provided that says the government knows how to handle money better than private citizens. In fact, the evidence is largely to the contrary - namely that governments create wasteful, bloated bureaucracies of little of no value - unlike the private sector.

[punked]

No I wouldn't because

1. By and large, excess capital held by the rich is used to invest - which creates employment and stimulates the economy and

2. There has never...EVER been evidence provided that says the government knows how to handle money better than private citizens. In fact, the evidence is largely to the contrary - namely that governments create wasteful, bloated bureaucracies of little of no value - unlike the private sector.

Yet the two times the US had the lowest top tax rates in modern history, Under Hover with a 20%, and under Bush with a 35% the econmey collapsed. Unemployment grew the fastest it ever has. Hmmmmmmmm I wonder why? Time of highest job creation in modern history top tax rate 90%.

The thing is the poor and middle class are the people who by enlarge spend. When their is movement of money upward they get squeezed and you can be sure the rich fallow when they stop spending the money they no longer have.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Yet the two times the US had the lowest top tax rates in modern history, Under Hover with a 20%, and under Bush with a 35% the econmey collapsed. Unemployment grew the fastest it ever has. Hmmmmmmmm I wonder why? Time of highest job creation in modern history top tax rate 90%.

The thing is the poor and middle class are the people who by enlarge spend. When their is movement of money upward they get squeezed and you can be sure the rich fallow when they stop spending the money they no longer have.

First of all, people only spend money if they have money, and hey only have money if they have jobs - which they get by working for people who invest capital and create businesses.

Second, the economy in the US never "collapsed" as the alrmists would say. It went into recession and conracted about 5% because of an overheated US housing market, not because free born citizens were allowed to keep more of their own money.

The growth of the US economy over the century has come from free born citizens keeping and investing their hard earned capital. If you're going to argue that confiscating 90% of people's income would have done a better job of growing the economy over the past century, then you're not worth talking to. Move to cuba - where I'm sure you'll be glad to see your system operating while driving cars that were made in the 1950's.

Edited April 22, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld

[lictor616]

Yet the two times the US had the lowest top tax rates in modern history, Under Hover with a 20%, and under Bush with a 35% the econmey collapsed. Unemployment grew the fastest it ever has. Hmmmmmmmm I wonder why? Time of highest job creation in modern history top tax rate 90%.

The thing is the poor and middle class are the people who by enlarge spend. When their is movement of money upward they get squeezed and you can be sure the rich fallow when they stop spending the money they no longer have.

under Hoover, and his Revenue Act of 1932- taxes were INCREASED- and business taxes soared to 13.75%, also the national debt in the US back then was still at ZERO despite the Depression created by banks and Internationalists.

also Bush was certainly no real republican... and his spendthrift gang of criminals was far more Clintonian then anything else... and what about the no child left behind act ... the tax to repair the roofs of churches, amnesty and welfare to 13 million illegal workers..

nothing of what bush did was "conservative" "small government" or even "republican"... he was a neo con liberal internationalists....

[BubberMiley]

2. There has never...EVER been evidence provided that says the government knows how to handle money better than private citizens. In fact, the evidence is largely to the contrary - namely that governments create wasteful, bloated bureaucracies of little of no value - unlike the private sector.

Not trying to change the topic, but that's a highly exaggerated myth. Many, many private companies are extremely wasteful. One need only look at the obscene rise in CEO stalaries to see that. That is something you could never get away with in the public sector.

The private sector, with its fundamental need for profit, could never provide, at a better price, all the services you get from government (i.e., education, health, roads and other infrastructure, legislation, police, justice, fire, disaster assistance, defence, social services, business development funding, research, blah, blah, blah.). Right this moment, Winnipeg would be under 10 feet of water if not for incredibly (cost-)effective flood diversion efforts that only government could provide.

Edited April 22, 2009 by BubberMiley

[punked]

l. If you're going to argue that confiscating 90% of people's income would have done a better job of growing the economy over the past century, then you're not worth talking to. Move to cuba

I know you think Eisenhower to be a communist but he wasn't.

I advocate for a sliding scale I don't think everyone should pay a flat rate is that what you are talking about?

[ironstone]

The man she was trying to interview shouted her down and would not answer her question about the fact that Americans are now eligible to receive a $400 rebate. They were protesting tax laws implemented by the Republicans. Doh!

Shouting everybody down is the Republican way, unless they are being interviewed on Fox News because nobody there asks the tough questions. Desperadoes!

You have clearly never watched anything on the FOX news channel.As for shouting everybody down being the Republican way,you have no idea what you are talking about.Politics is probably the dirtiest game around and there are nasty things done by all sides.The worst offenses come from the left,witness the dirty campaign against Sarah Palin and her FAMILY.Compare the treatment given to Sarah Palin's daughter to the recent non-coverage of Joe Biden's daughter.There is a reason for that,the media has an overwhelming left wing bias.Merely reporting the facts just won't do,they have to put their own spin into the story.It's the same old story from the left.They overreact when their ideology is challenged in any way.It reaches all the way from censorship on campuses to almost complete domination of the mass media.This does not come from the "right" but from the left.

[punked]

You have clearly never watched anything on the FOX news channel.As for shouting everybody down being the Republican way,you have no idea what you are talking about.Politics is probably the dirtiest game around and there are nasty things done by all sides.The worst offenses come from the left,witness the dirty campaign against Sarah Palin and her FAMILY.Compare the treatment given to Sarah Palin's daughter to the recent non-coverage of Joe Biden's daughter.There is a reason for that,the media has an overwhelming left wing bias.Merely reporting the facts just won't do,they have to put their own spin into the story.It's the same old story from the left.They overreact when their ideology is challenged in any way.It reaches all the way from censorship on campuses to almost complete domination of the mass media.This does not come from the "right" but from the left.

Wait please post a link to a story about Joe Bidens daughter? I don't mean a link to "someone who looks like Joe Bidens daughter" but some real proof.

Extra Extra "Girl who looks like Palin does porno" this is the type of news story that some how should make the news?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Not trying to change the topic, but that's a highly exaggerated myth. Many, many private companies are extremely wasteful. One need only look at the obscene rise in CEO stalaries to see that. That is something you could never get away with in the public sector.

I take issue with this point. There are a very select group of individuals on this planet who can run a major corporation with all that it entails (and trust me, if you think they're all hanging around playing golf and drinking scotch all day, then you've obviously never met one of these people).

Granted some of them have either 1. made incorrect decisions or 2. done poorly by the shareholders or 3. even worse - stolen or lied.

But this is BY FAR the exception, not the rule. Most CEOs are some of the most incredible people you'll ever meet. They handle more in a day than most people do in a year. Plus, CEOs earn what the market will bear. There is nothing wrong with earning what the market is willing to pay. Perhaps some unions should learn more about that concept while they're trying to run GM and Chrysler into the ground with crippling labour costs.

Contrary to popular opinion, it's not the millions the CEO of GM or Chrysler gets in stock that's crippling the company; it's the BILLIONS in pension liabilities to unions, exhorbanent wages being peid to uneducated screwdriver-wielders, health care costs of unions, benefits of unions etc. etc.

If the CEO agreed to take zero dollars as compensation for the ACTUAL WORK that he does, it still wouldn't save those companies from Chapter 11 being forced on them by greedy autowotrkers who think they deserv $80K a year to snap a brake light into place.

Edited April 23, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld

[BubberMiley]

I take issue with this point. There are a very select group of individuals on this planet who can run a major corporation with all that it entails (and trust me, if you think they're all hanging around playing golf and drinking scotch all day, then you've obviously never met one of these people).

Yeah, but tell me how paying them hundreds of millions of dollars a year is efficient and good for the economy, and I'll sell you some stock in AIG. Compare what private corporations pay to, say, what the CEO of Manitoba Hydro makes ($282,124). It is a very well-run, efficient public corporation (still going strong despite the current recession) that, for some reason, manages to get talented managers to work for them for a fraction of what the private sector would pay.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Yeah, but tell me how paying them hundreds of millions of dollars a year is efficient and good for the economy, and I'll sell you some stock in AIG. Compare what private corporations pay to, say, what the CEO of Manitoba Hydro makes ($282,124). It is a very well-run, efficient public corporation (still going strong despite the current recession) that, for some reason, manages to get talented managers to work for them for a fraction of what the private sector would pay.

If you ad up the TOP 20 CEOs' COMPENSATION (including stock options) in all of the United states it adds up to just over $1 billion. Now think of the jobs, and in some cases, entire CITIES these companies create.

Now take that $1 billion. It makes up the only HALF the cost of one teensy tiny government program - the gun registry in CANADA, which happens to be ten times smaller than the united states.

I think this makes the point loud and clear about the wastefulness of bloated government programs when stacked up against private enterprise corporations.

When Obama is done, we'll be taxing those efficient corporations and creating super-mega-sized versions of the gun registry for everything from education to STD transmission to the preservation of the arctic krill.

Look out america: you're about to get a super sized version of Pierre Trudeau stuffed right into your bum - all on the tab of your grandchilderen.

OUCH!

Edited April 23, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld

[BubberMiley]

If you ad up the TOP 20 CEOs' COMPENSATION (including stock options) in all of the United states it adds up to just over $1 billion. Now think of the jobs, and in some cases, entire CITIES these companies create.

The gun registry is an obscene example. If you consider all the services provided in that list, cherry-picking one historica instance of bad legislation is rather intellectually dishonest.

But your argument is based on the strawman that those CEOs create that wealth all by themselves, and that there is no choice but to pay them hundreds of millions of dollars to do it. Both of those are wrong. Manitoba Hydro is an example of how a corporation can be just as well run by someone making a reasonable salary. That's called public sector efficiency---something you rarely find in the private sector these days.

[JerrySeinfeld]

The gun registry is an obscene example. If you consider all the services provided in that list, cherry-picking one historica instance of bad legislation is rather intellectually dishonest.

But your argument is based on the strawman that those CEOs create that wealth all by themselves, and that there is no choice but to pay them hundreds of millions of dollars to do it. Both of those are wrong. Manitoba Hydro is an example of how a corporation can be just as well run by someone making a reasonable salary. That's called public sector efficiency---something you rarely find in the private sector these days.

Fine - I'll drop the gun registry if you'll drop the 20 highest paid CEOs in the countr, which as well isn't a good representation of the efficiency of capitalism, since it represents a fraction of a percenage of the revenues / jobs of capitlist america.

But at least when CEOs of corporations f*ck up and companies die, they don't go on and on ad infinitum.

Enron and Worldcom are dead.

Name me one government program that hasn't only lived on and on and on since it's creation, but in fac has grown throughout it's existence, constantly sucking more private citizens' dollars out of their own pockets.

Corporations don't confiscate your money. If you don't fell like giving it to them, you don't buy their product.

Government, on the other hand, confiscates your money, then creates these wasteful programs.

Edited April 23, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld

[BubberMiley]

Government, on the other hand, confiscates your money, then creates these wasteful programs.

What wasteful programs do you mean? Police, fire, ambulance, disaster management, education, health? Your position is simplistic to a remedial level. You deride all government programs as "wasteful" but, when provided with a list of countless essential services that are provided to you every day, you can't identify which of those you would get rid of. Under your model, as a Winnipegger, I would be swimming in my living room right now. I would have no electricity because it took government to make the capital expenditure to wire us up. I wouldn't be sure whether my Froot Loops are 1/3 rat feces because I wouldn't have government to effectively regulate the quality of our consumer products. I wouldn't even have an internet to argue with you, because that is derived from U.S. Government research and development.

And you'd be completely illiterate anyway, because even the private schools in Canada wouldn't be what they are without government funding.

[Metal Jam]

You mean all things Obama has promised? Good glade we cleared that up.

He promised a flat rate fair tax?

Perhaps he promised what he believes to be fair: raising corporate taxes, raising taxes on the wealthy (or at least what he perceives to be wealthy), and alowing the first-term Bush tax cuts to expire.

Has he promised to limit spending to sustainable levels?

Thats a promise he's already broken considering the trillions of dollars he is spending.

Maybe analysts throw around millions, billions, and trillions of dollars around like they're nothing, but in actuality, we're in debt to nations around the world, and will not be able to pay it back for decades.

Not to mention our own federal deficit is massive....

Did he not promise honesty, accountability, and transparency also?

The Obama presidency is an utter disaster.

[punked]

He promised a flat rate fair tax?

Perhaps he promised what he believes to be fair: raising corporate taxes, raising taxes on the wealthy (or at least what he perceives to be wealthy), and alowing the first-term Bush tax cuts to expire.

Has he promised to limit spending to sustainable levels?

Thats a promise he's already broken considering the trillions of dollars he is spending.

Maybe analysts throw around millions, billions, and trillions of dollars around like they're nothing, but in actuality, we're in debt to nations around the world, and will not be able to pay it back for decades.

Not to mention our own federal deficit is massive....

Did he not promise honesty, accountability, and transparency also?

The Obama presidency is an utter disaster.

You are being silly. I think you need to look at real numbers and not the "crazy right wing numbers" of top 400 income earners in the US guess what the percentage they pay is on average? 17%, and 31 of whom pay less then 10%. That is crazy the middle class is paying more then the top 400 income earners do. That is crazy. YOU HAVE TO FIX THE TAX CODE. People crying about 35-38% don't say these guys don't pay 35% they pay 17. It isn't raising their taxes becuase they aren't paying their taxes.

PS a flat tax or sales tax just moves the taxes to the poor. Don't worry though becuase when the poor starve to death their wont be rich becuase they will have no one to do all the work for them.

And on Obama he is doing better then the last guy so at least it is a step in the right direction. Give him sometime, I mean we gave Bush 8 years to prove himself.

Edited April 24, 2009 by punked

[ironstone]

I hate to find myself agreeing with "punked" but he is right,give Obama time to prove himself.To date,I don't think he's done anything noteworthy and he appears to be leading the US sharply to the left but he did win the election.I doubt that the 180 on foreign policy and his massive spending will benefit Americans and the rest of the world in any way.As for the tea parties they are just folks concerned with excessive spending and taxation.I just heard an extremely ignorant comment from one Janeane Garofalo,a no talent,liberal "celebrity" concerning the tea parties.She claims they are all racist bigots that don't like a black man in the White House.

.She can't intelligently make her point or even try to use reason so she resorts to the usual method of the left,attack,attack,attack.