Guy, I too welcome back the Major, now onto your post. I shall ignore your rather long list of straw man arguments and center on personal experience. An organization hires when it has more profitable business than it can deal with, with the current staff. Demand for goods and services is the determinant not the cost of labor per se. The quality of the labor matters much more than the cost.
Most of the time the best deal is not the cheapest.

Ah, if that were the case. At least you are trying to see it, but it isn't the 1950's anymore.

Consider the Walmart customer. The Walmart customer cares not in the quality of the goods; his only care is the price tag. So having good skilled labor that produces quality goods is a determent to a company that wants to sell to Walmart consumers. Having cheap labor that makes low quality goods is an asset. And for another reason. The shorter something lasts the faster a replacement is needed and more profit can be generated in repeat sales.

Gary, that is where a good accurate salesperson or marketing adds value to the product. If the better item is no longer viewed as a commodity the user will pay a bit more for the perceived added value.

---

Guy, I too welcome back the Major, now onto your post. I shall ignore your rather long list of straw man arguments and center on personal experience. An organization hires when it has more profitable business than it can deal with, with the current staff. Demand for goods and services is the determinant not the cost of labor per se. The quality of the labor matters much more than the cost.
Most of the time the best deal is not the cheapest.

Ah, if that were the case. At least you are trying to see it, but it isn't the 1950's anymore.

Consider the Walmart customer. The Walmart customer cares not in the quality of the goods; his only care is the price tag. So having good skilled labor that produces quality goods is a determent to a company that wants to sell to Walmart consumers. Having cheap labor that makes low quality goods is an asset. And for another reason. The shorter something lasts the faster a replacement is needed and more profit can be generated in repeat sales.

Gary, that is where a good accurate salesperson or marketing adds value to the product. If the better item is no longer viewed as a commodity the user will pay a bit more for the perceived added value.

You don't understand the Walmart shopper. They know where to get name brands. They aren't interested in that. They are interested in commodities at the lowest possible price. That is the Walmart ethos. "Always low prices." It is their main sales point.

What you suggest might be the Costco way. Note however which is the bigger company.

---

Gary, you are incorrect, I do understand the Walmart ethos and a bit about the Walmart customer. The commodification of goods and services justifies the race to the bottom, which is a zero sum game.

---

For the record, Walwarts does have some name brands, and some selection of product quality. Even at wally's you can choose from low end to mid-end products. And the mid-end products offered are often NOT at the best prices... You can see this for yourself just by checking walmart.com vs Amazon, Newegg, etc... (obviously high end is out the window at Wally's, to that end I agree with Gary)

Anyways, I think it's ridiculous that Walmart and others knowingly keep their employees in an employment range that ensures their eligibility for benefits...

And in response to the statement that regulation causes this.... BAH!

Regulations could undo this!

---

#resist

Apros pos the Walmart discussion, it might be worth noting that the Walmart business is owned and run by the Walton family, one of the richest in the world. It doesn't have an elected board of directors and public shareholders. Therefore it is more like a private dictatorship.

Really?! http://corporate.walmart.com/
<ed>http://corporate.walmart.com/our-story/leadership/board-of-directors

Funny how it is a publicly traded stock on the NYSE.

---

For the record, Walwarts does have some name brands, and some selection of product quality. Even at wally's you can choose from low end to mid-end products. And the mid-end products offered are often NOT at the best prices... You can see this for yourself just by checking walmart.com vs Amazon, Newegg, etc...

What is on the web is a bit different than what is in a store.

As to price differences, drive the customer to the product that generates more revenue by the selection of price points. Basic marketing.

(obviously high end is out the window at Wally's, to that end I agree with Gary)

Yes, their supermarket obviously has national name brands. And you can find some other recognizable brand names in places. And they do at times offer two choices, the no name with 4x shelf space of the brand name. (So I was being a bit over the top.)

Anyways, I think it's ridiculous that Walmart and others knowingly keep their employees in an employment range that ensures their eligibility for benefits...

And in response to the statement that regulation causes this.... BAH!

Regulations could undo this!

Since it was regulations that created it, of course better written ones could undo it. At this point it has been policy far too long for the absence or regulations to get rid of it. That is the crying shame of fixing things with the hammer of regulation. Fix one thing and break ten others.

---

http://www.irs.gov/file_source/pub/irs-soi/09in11si.xls

... line 29... column L... $204,322,325,000.

Rows 4 & 5, multiple columns: "Adjusted gross income"

8,211--------------Returns GREATER than 10 MILLION dollars
$204,322,325,000---Total taxable income from them
$1,133,650,000,000--to try to shore up this deficit
$16,176,000,000,000--to try to eventually start lowering this debt

So, you tell me, what would happen if we had a 100% tax bracket for anyone making more than $10M?

My suggestion is also to nullify all exemptions on returns with gross income above $2 Million, not only to adjust the rate. As a former H&R Block worker, you know that the data you have provided is not applicable to my proposal. Using your data, questions about the effect of what I have actually proposed are not answerable.

What are you trying to pull?

A fast one.

---

(edited to make text URLs into clickable links)
Who are the real fiscal conservatives?

Romney has stated he wants to lower the tax rates across the board and ...reduce or remove some deductions and PLACE A CAP on total deductions. The house and senate must work out the details. The liberals are currently focusing on the "lower the tax rates for everybody" and calling it a $5T tax cut for the rich since the math doesn't work out and not mentioning anything at all about the second part of the statement. The liberals will soon claim Romney is trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor because we must also address some cuts to social programs. And again, keep in mind, these are 2009 numbers. The current numbers are worse, they just haven't been made public yet.

http://nationaljournal.com/columns/the-iron-triangle/do-the-brass-support-the-obama-defense-budget--20120413
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/opinion/sunday/how-mr-romney-would-force-feed-the-pentagon.html?_r=0
http://public.cq.com/docs/weeklyreport/weeklyreport-000004075880.html?ref=corg

Democrats are the true fiscal conservatives.

(Start at 9:18 if you're in a hurry, or just don't care how Rachel Maddow analyzes budget matters in the context of the presidential campaign.)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#49425000

I don't recommend single-issue voting, but if you sincerely believe that debt and deficit are the United States' biggest problems, you must never, ever vote Republican. Conversely, if you profess such interest but vote Republican anyway, you are either a dupe or a liar.

---

We've had it too good for too long. People have forgotten where we've come from. People growing up today think this is the way it's always been. Political correctness is preventing us from teaching the new generations the truth. Class warfare is being instigated by the likes of Rachel Madcow. It's time for us to crash.

Excellent comment. And, it also applies to other western countries as well.

---

So, you admit you cannot show me the math and you just want to try something EXTREME for no justifiable reason and with no idea what'll happen in the following years. It sure will FEEL good to finally STICK it to the rich for that first year, eh?

You're free to invent motives and pretending they're mine. If you decide to imagine that my motive is merely to "STICK it to the rich" that's just another indication of your inability to deal with the questions actually put to you, and of your lack of character. The fact remains that adjusted gross incomes over $2,000,000 do not pertain to my proposal, and you know it.

I've stated several times in the past if I were given the power to do it, I could easily cut the military budget by 20 or 30% with out hurting our military capability.

But you never will be given the power to do it. Your options are to either support candidates who take budgets and deficits seriously, or to support Republicans.

For example, why was Clinton successful at balancing the budget (if you didn't count everything) and why was Obama successful at lowering the deficit by a statistically insignificant amount? Clinton was DRAGGED to a balanced budget (if you didn't count everything) by a house and senate full of republicans (no filibuster proof senate, though).

That is not true.

"A major problem with the economy at the time was the issue of the massive deficit and the problem of government spending. In order to address these issues, in August 1993, Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 which passed Congress without a single Republican vote." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton)

As for your statement about not recommending being a single-issue voter and believing the debt/deficit is the biggest problem and therefore must never vote republican... Well, I guess this is an example of two people looking at the same thing and seeing two totally different things.

No. You're either not looking or you're lying about what you see.

If the debt/deficit is not our biggest problem, what is? We are on a path to hyperinflation.

No time soon. As a percent of GDP, our deficit is small. Japan's has been much higher as a percentage of GDP and the effect has not been good, but certainly not disastrous.

We now have president/vice president debates that are nothing more than BOTH SIDES CALLING THE OTHER SIDE A LIAR. How is that possible?

That's not true, either. There are substantive policy disagreements, but since they have no ideas, Romney and Ryan do lie a lot.

And I'll give you the benefit of doubt since you're relatively new here,

I don't need it.

... but I've stated multiple times I'm not a republican. But I'm definitely even more NOT a democrat.

I've already seen you voluntarily self-identify as "conservative" and I wonder how you feel about "libertarian" as a description of you. Do you think it's a fair alternative adjective, or do you insist that you're conservative and not libertarian? Why?

As a matter of fact, I've become so disenfranchised...

That's not what that word means, crybaby.

---

Romney and Ryan do lie a lot.

OBlahBlahBlah lips flap a lot. A lot of BlahBlahBlahBlahBlah. Blah = Lie. Yep, math is beautiful.

OBlabby and his Zombie Minions have Binders Full Of Lies. Many Many Thick Binders.

How tight is the budget? Tight? Loose? Wha?

One Trillion Plus spent on Welfare Programs in 2011.

I'd say Fat, with a very loose belt.

The DEMON...ella

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

maybe I should take a two week break. I'm tired.)

I'd rather you didn't. I may not agree with about 70% of what you say, and I may not like your long diatribes when you use 'stream of conscious' writing styles, I do enjoy seeing other people's perspectives. This forum would be boring if everyone agreed.

+1

---

The question I asked was, "show me the math." You couldn't even begin to show me the math.

I showed you in my first post all the numbers necessary to see that an adequate safety net would not be "too expensive" and I told you to ask specific questions when you want specific answers. You failed.

You let a lot people down in here.

Nobody else has said anything about being let down, liar.

I then showed you the math with the available data.

That's not true. You only offered irrelevant data.

Liberals want to stick it to the rich.

Conservative ideology is all about looting wealth from those who do the actual work of producing it, and then scapegoating the victims.

I noticed you skipped over the part of my post that says Romney wants to do what you suggest, only in a less extreme way.

If you want to discuss something specific, then ask a specific question. I have suggested nothing "extreme" and Romney's only sensible suggestion is eliminating all deductions and exemptions for the wealthy. Capping them for the middle class is unacceptable, and other than that all he seems to offer is unsubstantiated assertions about a plan that all economists agree is impossible. Either he would not balance the budget, or he would raise taxes that he claims he would not, and that's why he hasn't offered any specifics.

Or does Romney have an actual plan to discuss, today? His "five (talking) points" are just meaningless slogans, because not one detail has ever been attached to any of them -- last time I checked. And Romney has a research staff, or at least he has enough budget that he could (and should) hire a research staff of dozens of economists without noticing the expense, but all his campaign has actually done is commission Marty Feldstain to write op-eds, also with no details, asserting that Romney's math works out but offering no evidence of such. In my first post, I provided more detail than he has.

Liberals saying they want to cut the military, and then not cutting the military is part of the fraud and deceit they are playing on the less informed liberals. I know this. I was in the military.

And I know that the Obama campaign has received more direct contributions from currently serving soldiers than the Romney campaign. Do you suppose it has more to do with Romney's uninformed saber-rattling or with President Obama's successes where Bush failed, for example bin Laden?

So, you say our national debt is small. Then I guess almost 9% of our mandatory spending on servicing the debt is no big deal? More than $200B in interest payments alone is not a big deal? Ok then. Let's borrow more. Let's see where the limit is.

There you go again. The debt and deficit deserve serious attention, but not the hair-on-fire panic that you and Paul Ryan claim. That would be pants-on-fire panic, but neither of you has the first clue what you're talking about. We know from observation of other nations that a debt equal to 200% of GDP has not caused chaos in Japan, for example. Do you know why a 211% debt/GDP ratio is less serious there than 134% debt/GDP in Greece? Granted, it's tougher in Japan than in the 80s and early 90s, but it's obviously not the disaster Republicans claim is imminent here. And under current policies, by 2019 we'll still be less than halfway to 200%. So obviously, you debt & deficit Chicken Littles are either ignoramuses or liars.

Go take a pill, relax and stop trying to make everybody freak out about the debt. I'm sure Rush Limbaugh can hook you up with whatever it is you need to relax, you dishonest, psychotic papillon.

---

.....Liberals want to stick it to the rich. Accept this. It's true. Liberals think the rich should pay for everything. It's called Marxism/redistribution/share the wealth.

Is it really "sticking it to the rich" or wanting them to play by the same rules as everyone else ?

If I pay 30% of my income as tax (Oz tax rates). Am I wrong to expect a billionaire not to pay the same percentage ? If a person earning $10M pays $3M in tax they still have $7M to play with. The effect on them is much less than the 30% I pay, which does put a dent in my spending power.

We all know that the upper end have many lurks available to them for tax minimisation that while available to the average Joe, are too expensive to make it worthwhile for them. There is a "breakpoint" where the cost of setting up family companies, trusts etc. becomes worthwhile. (I've mentioned in other threads the Australian billionaire who filed a tax return claiming a taxable income of $17,000).

The undercurrent of resentment against the 1% at the minute I feel is more due to HOW they made their money rather than how much they actually have.

Rockefeller, Getty, and the other "Robber Barons" of the late 1800's may not have have been the most honest people on the planet but they produced things. They built railroads, drilled for oil, built factories and their efforts not only made them rich but the whole country benefited.

The modern "Robber Baron" however makes his billions by using other peoples money to gamble in the casino of the International Financial System. Shares, Currency Speculation and "derivatives" (which in reality have less "real" value than the paper they are printed on). All are fair game and, win or lose they still get their multi-million dollar bonuses and commissions but nobody benefits but them.

The Stock Exchange, which I have seen staunchly defended in various threads as "a place for companies to raise capital" has become totally bastardised, a place where shares are bought by a computer and then resold less than a second later. This is not what they were intended for !

As has been shown, when you have billions of dollars to play with, manipulating the "markets" is easy.

Welcome back demonella,

Yeppo (but I did prefer "Fourth Angel" :-> )

T.A.

Chris. there is no difference here between private and public. Anything disclosed to the IRS is zipped lips.

But that IRS info is shared with the SSA, as is My checking account, the SSA can see what's in My checking account.

Me I pay property taxes, sales and excise on whatever I buy in CA, anything from outside CA or the USA, I don't, but then I have no way to do so and I've asked the SSA and they said No, so paying any sales tax thru a CA income tax form is impossible.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

Romney and Ryan do lie a lot.

Of course. They are both politicians, therefore it's given.

For one politician to accuse another of lying is nothing but sheer, bare faced hypocrisy.

T.A.

Terror, your onto something, and by the way the Fourth was once Dull.

---