|
Scotty's mistake
Was buying a supposed American toaster when infact he bought a Mexican
toaster. Just got a recent issue of Fine Steel Crafting. In there is an old story about Black & Decker closing plants and moving production to Mexico. This is rather pathetic and thought such informaiton would be of interest to this group. The goal is to put 1300 workers out of work and to eliminate another choice for the consumer. That choice being the ability to find and purchase American produced hardware. The thought is that they will save $100 Million also. I think it is high time we as consumers make sure that Black and Decker never sees that $100 million. By that I'm suggesting that each end everyone one of us commit to not purchasing Black & Decker manufactured equipment in any form. Yes I realize that it is hard or in some cases impossible to find American made tools in certain catagories. But this is a corporate attack on the long standing American workers and a product line that has years of history in this country. Special effort in this case, that is to boycott all products from Black and Decker, seems to be the least we can do. So how about it - Do you think that we as a community can act to prevent Black & Decker from making a profit for the forseeable future? Thanks Joe |
Scotty's mistake
I look at it like this. 1. You can buy an inferior toaster, made in the USA, at an inflated price. 2. You can buy an inferior toaster, made overseas, at an appropriate price. 3. You can buy a quality toaster, made anywhere, at an appropriate price. Why should you pick option 1, if you have half a brain? Why can't your domestic manufacturers provide option 3? PDW In article .com, Joe wrote: Was buying a supposed American toaster when infact he bought a Mexican toaster. Just got a recent issue of Fine Steel Crafting. In there is an old story about Black & Decker closing plants and moving production to Mexico. This is rather pathetic and thought such informaiton would be of interest to this group. The goal is to put 1300 workers out of work and to eliminate another choice for the consumer. That choice being the ability to find and purchase American produced hardware. The thought is that they will save $100 Million also. I think it is high time we as consumers make sure that Black and Decker never sees that $100 million. By that I'm suggesting that each end everyone one of us commit to not purchasing Black & Decker manufactured equipment in any form. Yes I realize that it is hard or in some cases impossible to find American made tools in certain catagories. But this is a corporate attack on the long standing American workers and a product line that has years of history in this country. Special effort in this case, that is to boycott all products from Black and Decker, seems to be the least we can do. So how about it - Do you think that we as a community can act to prevent Black & Decker from making a profit for the forseeable future? Thanks Joe |
Scotty's mistake
I have always avoided B&D products.
They tend to be junk. Buy a Ryobi or Makita product, it will last much longer. Amen! "Joe" wrote in message oups.com... Was buying a supposed American toaster when infact he bought a Mexican toaster. Just got a recent issue of Fine Steel Crafting. In there is an old story about Black & Decker closing plants and moving production to Mexico. This is rather pathetic and thought such informaiton would be of interest to this group. The goal is to put 1300 workers out of work and to eliminate another choice for the consumer. That choice being the ability to find and purchase American produced hardware. The thought is that they will save $100 Million also. I think it is high time we as consumers make sure that Black and Decker never sees that $100 million. By that I'm suggesting that each end everyone one of us commit to not purchasing Black & Decker manufactured equipment in any form. Yes I realize that it is hard or in some cases impossible to find American made tools in certain catagories. But this is a corporate attack on the long standing American workers and a product line that has years of history in this country. Special effort in this case, that is to boycott all products from Black and Decker, seems to be the least we can do. So how about it - Do you think that we as a community can act to prevent Black & Decker from making a profit for the forseeable future? Thanks Joe |
Scotty's mistake
Porter Gable, Craftsman, Mac, are all good tools.
If you ever break or find a broken Craftsman hand tool take it to any Sears store for a free new re-placement! Joe |
Scotty's mistake
"Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. I look at it like this. 1. You can buy an inferior toaster, made in the USA, at an inflated price. 2. You can buy an inferior toaster, made overseas, at an appropriate price. 3. You can buy a quality toaster, made anywhere, at an appropriate price. Why should you pick option 1, if you have half a brain? Why can't your domestic manufacturers provide option 3? PDW Shareholders. Read the book. http://tinylink.com/?TaVIek6con John Cairns |
Scotty's mistake
In article . com, Joe
wrote: because option 3 may involve child slave labor in China and latino sweat shops in S. America that pay labor 35 cents a day, and have no rules and regulations that protect workers and the enviroment. True, but now you're dealing with the cheap end of the market. The really good stuff rarely - I hesitate to say never - comes from those places. More likely Europe with at least as high oncosts as the USA. As for China, I think you're *badly* underestimating the sophistication of their manufacturing plant. Sure labour is still cheap, but they're importing their raw materials and paying world prices for them. Their energy costs are pretty close to international, certainly WRT oil. They take those materials, put them through a magic process called a 'factory' and goods people want to buy emerge from the other end. As for labour pay rates, I heard this back in the 70's and 80's about Japan. Guess what Japan's pay scales are like these days? Compare Toyota's car manufacturing quality and volume with GM or Ford. Why is Toyota so successful these days, despite having a lot worse energy budget and raw materials situation? The unpalatable answer, for you guys, is that they can make better cars, cheaper. China is doing the same thing. How are we suppose to compete with that? Umm, Joe, it's called 'investment of capital'. You don't try to compete on a labourer for labourer basis because you're going to lose, either economically or standard of living. You leverage your brains and technology and automate production. That's the *only* way you're gonna build better, cheaper. Now we have a billion people in India going after the white collar design jobs. How can corporate America resist a degreed engineer at 1/16th of the cost who can do the same job via the internet? Shrug. Those guys in India are going after jobs in my areas of expertise. I don't care, why should you? Fact is, it'll free up resources to be used in other areas. Those areas may not be in the USA, and they may not do your economy any good, but so sad, too bad, those Indians need to spend money on something. Might be good for us. And I'm all for fair trade, but if it's not dollar for dollar with the trader then we need to fix the in-balance. Riiiiight. Tell me how you're going to insist that China and India buy overpriced American manufactures, then. Even software development is going to India and anyone with half a brain would at least be looking at Microsoft losing its near monopoly on operating systems and the leverage it gives them to sell MS Office etc. About the only stuff foreigners might be willing to buy are your sophisticated military gear, at typical military prices. However, Europe makes good stuff too, and there's a real strategic problem selling huge and state of the art arms to potential enemies. A real good start might be by fixing your own massive debt problem. The fact is, you guys can't run a closed economy, it isn't an option for you in the 21C. Therefore you can't run a real protectionist regime and keep imports out, because if you do, so will other people do it to you, and with the growth of China and India, I can't think offhand of anything the USA actually makes that can't be sourced elsewhere quite easily. You have little international economic leverage and what you have, you're losing. I'd care a lot more about your problems if they weren't almost 100% of your own making. Every time I hear someone talking about fair trade, I know I'm hearing someone who can't compete. Barring a real and sustained environmental crash, China and India *are* going to industrialise and their population's std of living *is* going to rise. That means they'll have disposable income over what's needed for subsistence. You can see this as a threat, as you do, or an opportunity, as I do, but it's gonna happen. I really don't care if you guys want to sit it out, but we're not going to. BTW I use a premium priced computer from Apple Corp. Got nothing to do with price, it's got the best o/s currently available, runs the s/ware I need to use, is highly reliable as well as pretty, and is well made. I used to despise Apple Corp because they had a POS of an o/s with a nice GUI layered over it. Why don't I use a made in China (or Malaysia etc etc) clone running Linux or Windows? Got nothing to do with the price..... PDW |
Scotty's mistake
On 6 Mar 2006 10:34:25 -0800, "Joe" wrote:
Was buying a supposed American toaster when infact he bought a Mexican toaster. Just got a recent issue of Fine Steel Crafting. In there is an old story about Black & Decker closing plants and moving production to Mexico. This is rather pathetic and thought such informaiton would be of interest to this group. The goal is to put 1300 workers out of work and to eliminate another choice for the consumer. That choice being the ability to find and purchase American produced hardware. The thought is that they will save $100 Million also. I think it is high time we as consumers make sure that Black and Decker never sees that $100 million. By that I'm suggesting that each end everyone one of us commit to not purchasing Black & Decker manufactured equipment in any form. Yes I realize that it is hard or in some cases impossible to find American made tools in certain catagories. But this is a corporate attack on the long standing American workers and a product line that has years of history in this country. Special effort in this case, that is to boycott all products from Black and Decker, seems to be the least we can do. So how about it - Do you think that we as a community can act to prevent Black & Decker from making a profit for the forseeable future? Thanks Joe Two points: The company that I used to work for is now owned by B & D. They bought the company in Octoberof 2004. Prior to B & D buying the company the prior owners (Pentair) were trying to move everything to China as fast as they possibly could. They didn't care if what they peddled was junk as long as they could make a bigger profit. B & D is trying to reverse some of that. They like to keep the machining operations in the U.S. and just assemble in Mexico. By doing so they can offer the best of both worlds, a higher quality product with the cost structure of lower cost assembly labor. Which do you think is worse, importing junk from china (pretty much all my old competitors) or leaving the high paying machining jobs in the U. S. and assembling good product in Mexico. I for one will keep buying B & D products. Point two. The last toaster I bought, I went with the intention of starting with the lowest cost toaster and working my way up to the first american made toaster which I planned to buy. I never got there. Out of about fifteen models at Lowes, none were American made. Some things you will just have to do without if you want to buy American. |
Scotty's mistake
Real men buy Snap On Tools.
Just so they can get the calendars. AAMEN! "Joe" wrote in message oups.com... Porter Gable, Craftsman, Mac, are all good tools. If you ever break or find a broken Craftsman hand tool take it to any Sears store for a free new re-placement! Joe |
Scotty's mistake
|
Scotty's mistake
"Joe" wrote in message oups.com... Porter Gable, Craftsman, Mac, are all good tools. If you ever break or find a broken Craftsman hand tool take it to any Sears store for a free new re-placement! Joe Joe, B&D has owned Porter Cable since 2004. John Cairns |
Scotty's mistake
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... Joe, http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...craftsman.html They've been doing that for years. I have Craftsmen hand tools, wrenches, for example, that are made in Japan, and clearly marked as such. John Cairns |
Scotty's mistake
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 01:28:59 GMT, "John Cairns"
wrote: "Joe" wrote in message roups.com... Porter Gable, Craftsman, Mac, are all good tools. If you ever break or find a broken Craftsman hand tool take it to any Sears store for a free new re-placement! Joe Joe, B&D has owned Porter Cable since 2004. John Cairns You are correct. See my post this thread. Frank |
Scotty's mistake
All my Porter Cable tools are pre B&D. They suck now.
Joe |
Scotty's mistake
On China........... today Jones introduces bill to raise tariff on
Chinese-made cars (Sun Journal (New Bern, NC)(KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) Mar. 3--The Chinese government slapped a 28 percent tariff on American-made cars, but the U.S tariff on Chinese-made cars is only 2.5 percent. The disparity in the tariff prompted Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-3rd District, to introduce a bill in Congress Wednesday aimed at leveling the playing field for domestic auto manufacturers. The bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., would prevent imports of passenger cars from China until U.S. and Chinese tariffs are equal. "China has enough trade advantages already," Jones said Thursday in a press release that cited examples including currency manipulation, intellectual property rights violations, heavy government subsidies, and lower worker pay and environmental standards. "The tariff disparity just gives China another unfair advantage -- an advantage that threatens the job of every worker in the U.S. auto industry," he said. Two Chinese manufacturers -- Chery and Geely -- have announced plans to begin exporting low-priced, Chinese-made cars to the United States as soon as next year with plans to eventually sell 250,000 cars annually in this country. Geely reportedly plans to enter the U.S. market by 2008, and anticipates sales of 100,000 by 2012, and other manufacturers already exporting vehicles from China to Europe and elsewhere may also soon export Chinese-made vehicles to America. "U.S. auto workers deserve nothing less than the opportunity to compete on a level playing field," Jones said. "This legislation would help give U.S. auto workers a fighting chance." The legislation does not require U.S. tariffs on passenger cars be raised or Chinese tariffs be lowered, rather it states that until tariff rates are equal, no Chinese-made cars may be imported into America. Thats just a little step forward. Lookout we are mad as hell and were not going to take it anymore! Joe |
Scotty's mistake
If Government really wanted to level the playing field they would reduce
taxes and regulations here in the US. The current logic used is the same as cutting off everyone's left foot so the handicapped won't be at a disadvantage. Amen! "Joe" wrote in message oups.com... On China........... today Jones introduces bill to raise tariff on Chinese-made cars (Sun Journal (New Bern, NC)(KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) Mar. 3--The Chinese government slapped a 28 percent tariff on American-made cars, but the U.S tariff on Chinese-made cars is only 2.5 percent. The disparity in the tariff prompted Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-3rd District, to introduce a bill in Congress Wednesday aimed at leveling the playing field for domestic auto manufacturers. The bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., would prevent imports of passenger cars from China until U.S. and Chinese tariffs are equal. "China has enough trade advantages already," Jones said Thursday in a press release that cited examples including currency manipulation, intellectual property rights violations, heavy government subsidies, and lower worker pay and environmental standards. "The tariff disparity just gives China another unfair advantage -- an advantage that threatens the job of every worker in the U.S. auto industry," he said. Two Chinese manufacturers -- Chery and Geely -- have announced plans to begin exporting low-priced, Chinese-made cars to the United States as soon as next year with plans to eventually sell 250,000 cars annually in this country. Geely reportedly plans to enter the U.S. market by 2008, and anticipates sales of 100,000 by 2012, and other manufacturers already exporting vehicles from China to Europe and elsewhere may also soon export Chinese-made vehicles to America. "U.S. auto workers deserve nothing less than the opportunity to compete on a level playing field," Jones said. "This legislation would help give U.S. auto workers a fighting chance." The legislation does not require U.S. tariffs on passenger cars be raised or Chinese tariffs be lowered, rather it states that until tariff rates are equal, no Chinese-made cars may be imported into America. Thats just a little step forward. Lookout we are mad as hell and were not going to take it anymore! Joe |
Scotty's mistake
I think that's completely stupid at this point.
Lowering taxes and decreasing regs at this point will serve no purpose except ruining what's left of the environment and increasing the wealth of the already obscenely wealthy. Many valuable and effective programs have been cut, all in the name of the war in Iraq. It would be far smarter to figure out a better way to deal with that problem. Of course, that idiot and his buddies in the White House don't have a clue. Bush should be impeached for his fiscal irresponsibility alone. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Bob Crantz" wrote in message ink.net... If Government really wanted to level the playing field they would reduce taxes and regulations here in the US. The current logic used is the same as cutting off everyone's left foot so the handicapped won't be at a disadvantage. Amen! "Joe" wrote in message oups.com... On China........... today Jones introduces bill to raise tariff on Chinese-made cars (Sun Journal (New Bern, NC)(KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) Mar. 3--The Chinese government slapped a 28 percent tariff on American-made cars, but the U.S tariff on Chinese-made cars is only 2.5 percent. The disparity in the tariff prompted Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-3rd District, to introduce a bill in Congress Wednesday aimed at leveling the playing field for domestic auto manufacturers. The bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., would prevent imports of passenger cars from China until U.S. and Chinese tariffs are equal. "China has enough trade advantages already," Jones said Thursday in a press release that cited examples including currency manipulation, intellectual property rights violations, heavy government subsidies, and lower worker pay and environmental standards. "The tariff disparity just gives China another unfair advantage -- an advantage that threatens the job of every worker in the U.S. auto industry," he said. Two Chinese manufacturers -- Chery and Geely -- have announced plans to begin exporting low-priced, Chinese-made cars to the United States as soon as next year with plans to eventually sell 250,000 cars annually in this country. Geely reportedly plans to enter the U.S. market by 2008, and anticipates sales of 100,000 by 2012, and other manufacturers already exporting vehicles from China to Europe and elsewhere may also soon export Chinese-made vehicles to America. "U.S. auto workers deserve nothing less than the opportunity to compete on a level playing field," Jones said. "This legislation would help give U.S. auto workers a fighting chance." The legislation does not require U.S. tariffs on passenger cars be raised or Chinese tariffs be lowered, rather it states that until tariff rates are equal, no Chinese-made cars may be imported into America. Thats just a little step forward. Lookout we are mad as hell and were not going to take it anymore! Joe |
Scotty's mistake
Whatcha reading a podunk newspaper like the Sun Journal for?
New Bern isn't exactly the center of any kind of political or economic sphere. |
Scotty's mistake
Bob Crantz wrote:
If Government really wanted to level the playing field they would reduce taxes and regulations here in the US. The current logic used is the same as cutting off everyone's left foot so the handicapped won't be at a disadvantage. Amen! "Joe" wrote in message oups.com... On China........... today Jones introduces bill to raise tariff on Chinese-made cars (Sun Journal (New Bern, NC)(KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) Mar. 3--The Chinese government slapped a 28 percent tariff on American-made cars, but the U.S tariff on Chinese-made cars is only 2.5 percent. The disparity in the tariff prompted Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-3rd District, to introduce a bill in Congress Wednesday aimed at leveling the playing field for domestic auto manufacturers. The bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., would prevent imports of passenger cars from China until U.S. and Chinese tariffs are equal. "China has enough trade advantages already," Jones said Thursday in a press release that cited examples including currency manipulation, intellectual property rights violations, heavy government subsidies, and lower worker pay and environmental standards. "The tariff disparity just gives China another unfair advantage -- an advantage that threatens the job of every worker in the U.S. auto industry," he said. Two Chinese manufacturers -- Chery and Geely -- have announced plans to begin exporting low-priced, Chinese-made cars to the United States as soon as next year with plans to eventually sell 250,000 cars annually in this country. Geely reportedly plans to enter the U.S. market by 2008, and anticipates sales of 100,000 by 2012, and other manufacturers already exporting vehicles from China to Europe and elsewhere may also soon export Chinese-made vehicles to America. "U.S. auto workers deserve nothing less than the opportunity to compete on a level playing field," Jones said. "This legislation would help give U.S. auto workers a fighting chance." The legislation does not require U.S. tariffs on passenger cars be raised or Chinese tariffs be lowered, rather it states that until tariff rates are equal, no Chinese-made cars may be imported into America. Thats just a little step forward. Lookout we are mad as hell and were not going to take it anymore! Joe That's how we run our educational system.... |
Scotty's mistake
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... I think that's completely stupid at this point. Only if you want to become less competitive in the world marketplace. Lowering taxes and decreasing regs at this point will serve no purpose except ruining what's left of the environment and increasing the wealth of the already obscenely wealthy. There's plenty left of the environment. China is the world's largest polluter. Many valuable and effective programs have been cut, all in the name of the war in Iraq. A good number of the government programs are unconstitutional, perhaps even the war in Iraq. It would be far smarter to figure out a better way to deal with that problem. It always is. Of course, that idiot and his buddies in the White House don't have a clue. I think they have a clue and are quite smart. They are doing a great job of looking out for their best interests. Bush should be impeached for his fiscal irresponsibility alone. I prefer public hangings myself. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Bob Crantz" wrote in message ink.net... If Government really wanted to level the playing field they would reduce taxes and regulations here in the US. The current logic used is the same as cutting off everyone's left foot so the handicapped won't be at a disadvantage. Amen! "Joe" wrote in message oups.com... On China........... today Jones introduces bill to raise tariff on Chinese-made cars (Sun Journal (New Bern, NC)(KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) Mar. 3--The Chinese government slapped a 28 percent tariff on American-made cars, but the U.S tariff on Chinese-made cars is only 2.5 percent. The disparity in the tariff prompted Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-3rd District, to introduce a bill in Congress Wednesday aimed at leveling the playing field for domestic auto manufacturers. The bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., would prevent imports of passenger cars from China until U.S. and Chinese tariffs are equal. "China has enough trade advantages already," Jones said Thursday in a press release that cited examples including currency manipulation, intellectual property rights violations, heavy government subsidies, and lower worker pay and environmental standards. "The tariff disparity just gives China another unfair advantage -- an advantage that threatens the job of every worker in the U.S. auto industry," he said. Two Chinese manufacturers -- Chery and Geely -- have announced plans to begin exporting low-priced, Chinese-made cars to the United States as soon as next year with plans to eventually sell 250,000 cars annually in this country. Geely reportedly plans to enter the U.S. market by 2008, and anticipates sales of 100,000 by 2012, and other manufacturers already exporting vehicles from China to Europe and elsewhere may also soon export Chinese-made vehicles to America. "U.S. auto workers deserve nothing less than the opportunity to compete on a level playing field," Jones said. "This legislation would help give U.S. auto workers a fighting chance." The legislation does not require U.S. tariffs on passenger cars be raised or Chinese tariffs be lowered, rather it states that until tariff rates are equal, no Chinese-made cars may be imported into America. Thats just a little step forward. Lookout we are mad as hell and were not going to take it anymore! Joe |
Scotty's mistake
"katy" wrote in message ... : The current logic used is the same as cutting off everyone's left foot so the handicapped won't be at a disadvantage. That's how we run our educational system.... Get the federal government and labor unions out of public education. |
Scotty's mistake
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... I think that's completely stupid at this point. Only if you want to become less competitive in the world marketplace. Huh? This makes no sense. Lowering taxes and decreasing regs at this point will serve no purpose except ruining what's left of the environment and increasing the wealth of the already obscenely wealthy. There's plenty left of the environment. China is the world's largest polluter. Again, this makes no sense. Just because another country has a bad record does not mean we can just igore the situation. Many valuable and effective programs have been cut, all in the name of the war in Iraq. A good number of the government programs are unconstitutional, perhaps even the war in Iraq. Who says? You? Of course, that idiot and his buddies in the White House don't have a clue. I think they have a clue and are quite smart. They are doing a great job of looking out for their best interests. Not with poll number of 34%. Even their right wingnut buddies in Congress are running for cover. |
Scotty's mistake
In article .com, Joe
wrote: On China........... today Jones introduces bill to raise tariff on Chinese-made cars (Sun Journal (New Bern, NC)(KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) Mar. 3--The Chinese government slapped a 28 percent tariff on American-made cars, but the U.S tariff on Chinese-made cars is only 2.5 percent. Yep, in that case, they're asking for it. Mind you I seem to recall something similar WRT American cars sold into Japan. The sales were abysmally low because the quality, compared to the domestic product, was so inferior. But that's a different issue. PDW |
Scotty's mistake
In article , Capt. JG
wrote: I think that's completely stupid at this point. Lowering taxes and decreasing regs at this point will serve no purpose except ruining what's left of the environment How? why? and increasing the wealth of the already obscenely wealthy. Riiiight. I hear this all the time from the local left wing whackos too. They'd rather have high theoretical tax rates on the 1% of rich people, all of whom employ accountants to get out of paying it, than give up their politics of envy and stop attempting futile confiscatory tax rates. All that ends up happening is the salaried middle class gets hit with the high tax rates, not the rich - unless you define 'rich' as anyone earning more than you do. Many valuable and effective programs have been cut, all in the name of the war in Iraq. It would be far smarter to figure out a better way to deal with that problem. Yep. However California is a wonderful example of how not to go about it, from where I sit. Energy in particular, you guys have some of the most spectacular screwups around. You want your cake - abundant energy - but you want someone else to pick up the environmental cost. There's a word for that, starts with h........ Of course, that idiot and his buddies in the White House don't have a clue. Bush should be impeached for his fiscal irresponsibility alone. Always easy to blame someone else. Even when true, as in this case, it doesn't actually address the problems, Jon. Might make you feel better, but it doesn't address the problems. Repeat as needed. Now, do you want to feel better because you have someone to blame, or do you want to attempt to deal with the issues? PDW |
Scotty's mistake
"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. .. In article , Capt. JG wrote: I think that's completely stupid at this point. Lowering taxes and decreasing regs at this point will serve no purpose except ruining what's left of the environment How? why? For example, fewer dollars for environmental cleanup, prevention, etc. and increasing the wealth of the already obscenely wealthy. Riiiight. I hear this all the time from the local left wing whackos too. They'd rather have high theoretical tax rates on the 1% of rich people, all of whom employ accountants to get out of paying it, than give up their politics of envy and stop attempting futile confiscatory tax rates. All that ends up happening is the salaried middle class gets hit with the high tax rates, not the rich - unless you define 'rich' as anyone earning more than you do. Huh? Are you saying that the middle and lower classes should be taxed at a higher rate then the richies? You need to stop ranting against liberals and start thinking. Many valuable and effective programs have been cut, all in the name of the war in Iraq. It would be far smarter to figure out a better way to deal with that problem. Yep. However California is a wonderful example of how not to go about it, from where I sit. Energy in particular, you guys have some of the most spectacular screwups around. You want your cake - abundant energy - but you want someone else to pick up the environmental cost. There's a word for that, starts with h........ Never claimed Cal was. What's your point? I have a very nice solar panel system that insulates us from huge electic costs now and in the future. Of course, that idiot and his buddies in the White House don't have a clue. Bush should be impeached for his fiscal irresponsibility alone. Always easy to blame someone else. Even when true, as in this case, it doesn't actually address the problems, Jon. Might make you feel better, but it doesn't address the problems. Repeat as needed. Bushco is totally to blame for the current fiscal nightmare. Getting rid of him and his bunk buddies would be a good first step. In fact, it's one of the first essential steps. Now, do you want to feel better because you have someone to blame, or do you want to attempt to deal with the issues? See previous. Impeach Bush, get us back on fiscally responsible behavior. |
Scotty's mistake
"Joe" wrote in message oups.com... Porter Gable, Craftsman, Mac, are all good tools. If you ever break or find a broken Craftsman hand tool take it to any Sears store for a free new re-placement! Remove the word "new" between the words "free" and "replacement" and you've got it right. Most of the tools given as replacements are reconditioned, seldom new. Max |
Scotty's mistake
In article , Capt. JG
wrote: "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. In article , Capt. JG wrote: I think that's completely stupid at this point. Lowering taxes and decreasing regs at this point will serve no purpose except ruining what's left of the environment How? why? For example, fewer dollars for environmental cleanup, prevention, etc. and increasing the wealth of the already obscenely wealthy. Riiiight. I hear this all the time from the local left wing whackos too. They'd rather have high theoretical tax rates on the 1% of rich people, all of whom employ accountants to get out of paying it, than give up their politics of envy and stop attempting futile confiscatory tax rates. All that ends up happening is the salaried middle class gets hit with the high tax rates, not the rich - unless you define 'rich' as anyone earning more than you do. Huh? Are you saying that the middle and lower classes should be taxed at a higher rate then the richies? You need to stop ranting against liberals and start thinking. I'm saying that the middle & lower classes *are* taxed at a higher rate than the richies. The tax scales might not show it, but the rich employ accountants to reduce their taxable income in ways that the salaried middle class simply can't manage. That's reality. You need to look at the real world, not theory. PDW |
Scotty's mistake
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... I think that's completely stupid at this point. Only if you want to become less competitive in the world marketplace. Huh? This makes no sense. If taxes and regulation are reduced, the US becomes more competitive in the world marketplace for labor and products. Lowering taxes and decreasing regs at this point will serve no purpose except ruining what's left of the environment and increasing the wealth of the already obscenely wealthy. There's plenty left of the environment. China is the world's largest polluter. Again, this makes no sense. Just because another country has a bad record does not mean we can just igore the situation. Ever read the Kyoto Treaty? China is exempt, yet pollutes the most. The Kyoto Treaty increases regulation on US business, giving China a greater economic advantage and incentive to pollute more. Many valuable and effective programs have been cut, all in the name of the war in Iraq. A good number of the government programs are unconstitutional, perhaps even the war in Iraq. Who says? You? I say so because I can read and understand the Constitution. Do you think outlawing abortion at the Federal level is Constitutional? Congress only has the power to declare war. We are at war in Iraq. When was it declared? Of course, that idiot and his buddies in the White House don't have a clue. I think they have a clue and are quite smart. They are doing a great job of looking out for their best interests. Not with poll number of 34%. Even their right wingnut buddies in Congress are running for cover. What has poll numbers to do with getting rich off of favors and funneled government contracts? Have you checked Halliburton stock lately? Defense contractor stocks? The poll numbers can be 0%, he's a lame duck anyway. |
Scotty's mistake
"Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. In article , Capt. JG wrote: "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. In article , Capt. JG wrote: I think that's completely stupid at this point. Lowering taxes and decreasing regs at this point will serve no purpose except ruining what's left of the environment How? why? For example, fewer dollars for environmental cleanup, prevention, etc. and increasing the wealth of the already obscenely wealthy. Riiiight. I hear this all the time from the local left wing whackos too. They'd rather have high theoretical tax rates on the 1% of rich people, all of whom employ accountants to get out of paying it, than give up their politics of envy and stop attempting futile confiscatory tax rates. All that ends up happening is the salaried middle class gets hit with the high tax rates, not the rich - unless you define 'rich' as anyone earning more than you do. Huh? Are you saying that the middle and lower classes should be taxed at a higher rate then the richies? You need to stop ranting against liberals and start thinking. I'm saying that the middle & lower classes *are* taxed at a higher rate than the richies. The tax scales might not show it, but the rich employ accountants to reduce their taxable income in ways that the salaried middle class simply can't manage. That's reality. You need to look at the real world, not theory. It's in the theory too. Read the tax code and apply your brain. PDW |
Scotty's mistake
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... I think that's completely stupid at this point. Only if you want to become less competitive in the world marketplace. Huh? This makes no sense. If taxes and regulation are reduced, the US becomes more competitive in the world marketplace for labor and products. We're already competitive. The only people who will be helped by lowering taxes will be rich people and large corporations. Lowering taxes and decreasing regs at this point will serve no purpose except ruining what's left of the environment and increasing the wealth of the already obscenely wealthy. There's plenty left of the environment. China is the world's largest polluter. Again, this makes no sense. Just because another country has a bad record does not mean we can just igore the situation. Ever read the Kyoto Treaty? China is exempt, yet pollutes the most. The Kyoto Treaty increases regulation on US business, giving China a greater economic advantage and incentive to pollute more. What's your point? The Kyoto agreement was flawed. Many valuable and effective programs have been cut, all in the name of the war in Iraq. A good number of the government programs are unconstitutional, perhaps even the war in Iraq. Who says? You? I say so because I can read and understand the Constitution. Fortunately, for the rest of us, yours is not the final word. Do you think outlawing abortion at the Federal level is Constitutional? Depends on the wording of the law I would imagine. Congress only has the power to declare war. We are at war in Iraq. When was it declared? What does this have to do with lowering taxes? Of course, that idiot and his buddies in the White House don't have a clue. I think they have a clue and are quite smart. They are doing a great job of looking out for their best interests. Not with poll number of 34%. Even their right wingnut buddies in Congress are running for cover. What has poll numbers to do with getting rich off of favors and funneled government contracts? Have you checked Halliburton stock lately? Defense contractor stocks? The poll numbers can be 0%, he's a lame duck anyway. Again, you're not making much sense. |
Scotty's mistake
The real world is that the rich are disportionally not taxed as much as the
rest. Their taxes need to be raised and the loopholes closed. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. In article , Capt. JG wrote: "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. In article , Capt. JG wrote: I think that's completely stupid at this point. Lowering taxes and decreasing regs at this point will serve no purpose except ruining what's left of the environment How? why? For example, fewer dollars for environmental cleanup, prevention, etc. and increasing the wealth of the already obscenely wealthy. Riiiight. I hear this all the time from the local left wing whackos too. They'd rather have high theoretical tax rates on the 1% of rich people, all of whom employ accountants to get out of paying it, than give up their politics of envy and stop attempting futile confiscatory tax rates. All that ends up happening is the salaried middle class gets hit with the high tax rates, not the rich - unless you define 'rich' as anyone earning more than you do. Huh? Are you saying that the middle and lower classes should be taxed at a higher rate then the richies? You need to stop ranting against liberals and start thinking. I'm saying that the middle & lower classes *are* taxed at a higher rate than the richies. The tax scales might not show it, but the rich employ accountants to reduce their taxable income in ways that the salaried middle class simply can't manage. That's reality. You need to look at the real world, not theory. PDW |
Scotty's mistake
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... I think that's completely stupid at this point. Only if you want to become less competitive in the world marketplace. Huh? This makes no sense. If taxes and regulation are reduced, the US becomes more competitive in the world marketplace for labor and products. We're already competitive. The only people who will be helped by lowering taxes will be rich people and large corporations. Will lowering taxes hurt poor people and small companies? Lowering taxes and decreasing regs at this point will serve no purpose except ruining what's left of the environment and increasing the wealth of the already obscenely wealthy. There's plenty left of the environment. China is the world's largest polluter. Again, this makes no sense. Just because another country has a bad record does not mean we can just igore the situation. Ever read the Kyoto Treaty? China is exempt, yet pollutes the most. The Kyoto Treaty increases regulation on US business, giving China a greater economic advantage and incentive to pollute more. What's your point? The Kyoto agreement was flawed. The point of diminishing returns. Why should the US take extraordinary measures to decrease net world pollution by 1% when China, by taking much lesser measures can reduce net world pollution by 5%? Many valuable and effective programs have been cut, all in the name of the war in Iraq. A good number of the government programs are unconstitutional, perhaps even the war in Iraq. Who says? You? I say so because I can read and understand the Constitution. Fortunately, for the rest of us, yours is not the final word. Do you think outlawing abortion at the Federal level is Constitutional? Depends on the wording of the law I would imagine. No, it depends on the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Is abortion interstate commerce? Congress only has the power to declare war. We are at war in Iraq. When was it declared? What does this have to do with lowering taxes? Ever wonder what pays for a war? Of course, that idiot and his buddies in the White House don't have a clue. I think they have a clue and are quite smart. They are doing a great job of looking out for their best interests. Not with poll number of 34%. Even their right wingnut buddies in Congress are running for cover. What has poll numbers to do with getting rich off of favors and funneled government contracts? Have you checked Halliburton stock lately? Defense contractor stocks? The poll numbers can be 0%, he's a lame duck anyway. Again, you're not making much sense. There's many thing to some people that don't make sense. That is not sufficient to make it untrue. |
Scotty's mistake
Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate?
No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product. How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same? The poor should pay more in taxes. The consume more government services and individually contribute less to society. The poor should pay their fair share too! Amen! "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... The real world is that the rich are disportionally not taxed as much as the rest. Their taxes need to be raised and the loopholes closed. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. In article , Capt. JG wrote: "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. In article , Capt. JG wrote: I think that's completely stupid at this point. Lowering taxes and decreasing regs at this point will serve no purpose except ruining what's left of the environment How? why? For example, fewer dollars for environmental cleanup, prevention, etc. and increasing the wealth of the already obscenely wealthy. Riiiight. I hear this all the time from the local left wing whackos too. They'd rather have high theoretical tax rates on the 1% of rich people, all of whom employ accountants to get out of paying it, than give up their politics of envy and stop attempting futile confiscatory tax rates. All that ends up happening is the salaried middle class gets hit with the high tax rates, not the rich - unless you define 'rich' as anyone earning more than you do. Huh? Are you saying that the middle and lower classes should be taxed at a higher rate then the richies? You need to stop ranting against liberals and start thinking. I'm saying that the middle & lower classes *are* taxed at a higher rate than the richies. The tax scales might not show it, but the rich employ accountants to reduce their taxable income in ways that the salaried middle class simply can't manage. That's reality. You need to look at the real world, not theory. PDW |
Scotty's mistake
I agree with Bob. Why should the rich be taxed more heavily? I don't mean in absolute dollar terms, in percentage terms. If the tax rate is 10% for those 'deserving poor', why should it be higher for the '******* rich'? As for closing loopholes, really Jon, have you no knowledge of history, or is this yet another manifestation of your determination to see the world as you wish it was, rather than as it is? Show me *one* place or country where closing loopholes etc has achieved what you want. At most you get get richer middle class accountants, an increased tax burden on the few people who can't find a way around the new rules, more complex enforcement procedures and at last resort a flight of capital and emigration of the rich. In short, it doesn't work. It never has worked. Absent a worldwide agreement on tax regimes and treatments, it never will work. It is a waste of time. Show me one country where your policy has been successfully implemented. AFAIK there isn't one. OTOH Ireland has gotten a lot more wealthy by reducing its tax rates. PDW In article , Capt. JG wrote: The real world is that the rich are disportionally not taxed as much as the rest. Their taxes need to be raised and the loopholes closed. |
Scotty's mistake
In article , Capt. JG
wrote: "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... I think that's completely stupid at this point. Only if you want to become less competitive in the world marketplace. Huh? This makes no sense. If taxes and regulation are reduced, the US becomes more competitive in the world marketplace for labor and products. We're already competitive. Oh yes? You're not competitive on production of foodstuffs or you wouldn't have tariffs & quotas to keep foreign producion out. You're not competitive on production of energy or you wouldn't be importing oil & gas. You're not competitive on most manufactured goods or you'd be exporting them, not importing them from China, Korea, Japan, Mexico etc etc. You're not competitive in space because you've let a sclerotic organisation **** away resources & money. You're marginal at best in pharmaceuticals; ditto with biotechnology. So - tell me just what *are* you competitive in? Other than production of sophisticated armaments, which work wonderfully well for winning conventional wars, but are useless against popular insurrection? PDW |
Scotty's mistake
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... I think that's completely stupid at this point. Only if you want to become less competitive in the world marketplace. Huh? This makes no sense. If taxes and regulation are reduced, the US becomes more competitive in the world marketplace for labor and products. We're already competitive. The only people who will be helped by lowering taxes will be rich people and large corporations. Will lowering taxes hurt poor people and small companies? Of course not, but the poor already pay minimally, and small companies have other expenses that are a much greater problem.. e.g., medical insurance. What's your point? The Kyoto agreement was flawed. The point of diminishing returns. Why should the US take extraordinary measures to decrease net world pollution by 1% when China, by taking much lesser measures can reduce net world pollution by 5%? Huh? What does population have to do with the Kyoto Accords, which you cited as your example? Do you think outlawing abortion at the Federal level is Constitutional? Depends on the wording of the law I would imagine. No, it depends on the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Is abortion interstate commerce? You asked me what I thought. I told you. I'm not a constitutional scholar and neither are you. Congress only has the power to declare war. We are at war in Iraq. When was it declared? What does this have to do with lowering taxes? Ever wonder what pays for a war? Young men and women with their lives. Again, you're not making much sense. There's many thing to some people that don't make sense. That is not sufficient to make it untrue. Again, you're not making any sense. I'm amazed. Usually, you can sustain an argument a bit better. |
Scotty's mistake
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net... Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate? A lot of them say it themselves. No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product. They certainly do! They buy the best. I haven't seen too many billionaires driving 1962 Chevys. How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same? ?? The poor should pay more in taxes. The consume more government services and individually contribute less to society. The poor should pay their fair share too! You should pay more. You require more mental health services. |
Scotty's mistake
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate? Democrats, generally. No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product. Right, which makes a federal sales tax more equitable than an income tax. How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same? An odd question. Most people, poor or otherwise, would love the opportunity to pay less in taxes. But to continue the discussion, the impoverished and working poor probably should pay a lesser proportion of their meager income in taxes. There could be exemptions or reductions in a federal sales tax for the poor. However the rich should not pay a proportionately greater percentage of their income in taxes. Once again a federal sales tax would solve this issue. If a rich dude wishes to buy a Bentley Continental, he'll pay more in sales tax than a dude of modest means purchasing a Ford Focus. But if they both buy Ford Focuses, they pay the same. That's fair. The poor should pay more in taxes. They consume more government services and individually contribute less to society. The poor should pay their fair share too! Quintessential Rush Limbaugh--right from his book, "The Way Things Ought to Be." You might also have noticed that this proclamation was in jest; that he really didn't advocate taxing the poor proportionately more than others. His point was that the poor consume more of the federal budget than the rich, but that simply isn't true. Corporate welfare, roads, bridges, and other infrastructure built to accommodate big business, tax abatement, forgiven federal grants and loans to businesses, inflated/bloated federal contracts to big business, and so on ad nauseum, make individual welfare (includes Medicare and Medicaid) seem small by comparison. Of course it's difficult to assess the final cost of such things because they *generally* contribute to increased production, more jobs, and those jobs pay income taxes. Then, of course, you have defunct retirement plans, such as GMs, which will dig even deeper into the federal coffers. Go easy on the poor, Bob. I'm unaware of any of them who would not rather be wealthy. Max |
Scotty's mistake
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate? A lot of them say it themselves. Only Democrats, Jon. And then they were referring to *other* rich people, not themselves. You know, like Republicans. :-) No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product. They certainly do! They buy the best. I haven't seen too many billionaires driving 1962 Chevys. Are you kidding? Didn't you see the Jackson-Barrett auto auction on TV? I believe a '62 Chevy went for over $100K. Not too many poor can own those babies. Now, talk about 1984 Honda Accords and Ford Taruses and you're getting closer, but your point is still not valid. Most of the "poor folk" coming to my office are driving newer sport utes and such. Their kids have X-Box, Play Station, and such, and they all have computers with high-speed Internet, HD TVs, and DVD players. The point is, for the same car, rich and poor pay the same. How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same? ?? The poor should pay more in taxes. The consume more government services and individually contribute less to society. The poor should pay their fair share too! You should pay more. You require more mental health services. A federal sales tax is far and away the most equitable tax, especially if some compromise is made for the truly poor in the form of sales tax reduction. Buy more, contribute more tax, spend less, contribute less. Obviously the rich spend more than the poor, so they would contribute more to the fed coffers, but their contributions would not be mandatory nor confiscatory, as they are now. Max |
Scotty's mistake
"Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. I agree with Bob. Why should the rich be taxed more heavily? I don't mean in absolute dollar terms, in percentage terms. If the tax rate is 10% for those 'deserving poor', why should it be higher for the '******* rich'? As for closing loopholes, really Jon, have you no knowledge of history, or is this yet another manifestation of your determination to see the world as you wish it was, rather than as it is? Show me *one* place or country where closing loopholes etc has achieved what you want. At most you get get richer middle class accountants, an increased tax burden on the few people who can't find a way around the new rules, more complex enforcement procedures and at last resort a flight of capital and emigration of the rich. In short, it doesn't work. It never has worked. Absent a worldwide agreement on tax regimes and treatments, it never will work. It is a waste of time. Show me one country where your policy has been successfully implemented. AFAIK there isn't one. OTOH Ireland has gotten a lot more wealthy by reducing its tax rates. So has the USA, or at least the revenues to the IRS have increased following tax cuts. Richer is a relative term here, considering that we always tend to spend considerably more than we accrue. A federal sales tax is the only equitable method of taxing individuals. Compensations would have to be made for the poor, but at least everyone else has the option of paying more or less tax by virtue of his/her buying habits. And no one is taxed at a higher rate than any other, the poor notwithstanding. Max |
Scotty's mistake
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... Yes, we know. "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. I agree with Bob. Why should the rich be taxed more heavily? I don't mean in absolute dollar terms, in percentage terms. If the tax rate is 10% for those 'deserving poor', why should it be higher for the '******* rich'? According to you. Got it. Happy to. We've closed the loophole that said it was ok to lie about a blow job in sworn testimony. Loophole? I don't recall it was ever ok to lie about anything in *sworn testimony.* For the rest of your "argument," we'll have to leave it at that. Ranting doesn't make it true, but you're very good at it. I didn't see Pete's post as a rant. He raised some valid points, to which you've been reluctant or unable to adequately respond Simply dismissing an argument as a rant does not further your argument, Jon. Your silence is an admission that his argument cannot be countered. Max |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com