>On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:03:08 -0700, 4095 Dead
>finestplanet.com> wrote:
>

>>On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:19:56 GMT, bw@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:
>>

>>>On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 08:52:56 -0700, 4095 Dead
>>>finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>>McCain to boost and cut Pentagon spending at the same time

>>>
>>> Wow ... THAT should be interesting to watch :-)
>>>

>>>>http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/13/mccain-to-boost-and-cut-pentagon-spending.../
>>>>
>>>>It may seem hard to believe, but John McCain is actually intent on
>>>>making Still-President Bush look fiscally responsible. Given that Bush
>>>>has added trillions to the debt, run the largest deficits in U.S.
>>>>history, and is the first president to ever put the costs of a war on
>>>>the national charge card, thatÂ’s no small feat.
>>>>
>>>>But McCain is giving it a shot anyway, most notably when it comes to
>>>>tax cuts. He wants to take the Bush tax cuts (which McCain originally
>>>>voted against) and make them permanent, on top of slashing the
>>>>corporate income-tax rate from 35%% to 25%%.

>>>
>>> While most "liberals" hate "corporations", they ARE the
>>> economic engines that keeps the country running. There
>>> has been a LOT of damage to our engine over the past
>>> couple of decades as our industries disappeared overseas.
>>> While a 10%% tax cut won't save the remainder, we DO need
>>> some ways to preserve, and advance, American industry.

>>
>>Actually, it depends on the behavior of the corporation. Some are
>>intent on forming a fascist goernment in America where they can
>>control their customers. Others don't.

>
> "Fascism" ? Sounds less profitible than a "do what you want"
> kind of society.

>

>>The main reason for jobs going overseas isn't taxes; it's the desire
>>for cheap, cheap labor that only is available in impoverished
>>societies, and the lack of accountability for safety and environment.

>
> Maybe we've safetied ourselves out of business ?

>
> That will lead to social collapse, followed by the
> rebirth of 'pirate capitalism' with zero sense of
> responsibility to either workers or environment.
>

>>You'll note that Europe and Canada, where corporations are taxed
>>higher than the US, have little or no trouble keeping them and don't
>>have to sacrifice environmental or worker standards to do so.

>
> Um ... I think you'll find that a LOT of goods
> in europe now come from China - and that all
> those taxes are doing enough damage to euro
> corporations and citizens to make them increasingly
> uncompetitive and unprofitible. France is slipping
> down the hole right now ... others will follow.
>

>>They don't make the suicidal promise to keep on defending the
>>interests of corporations that have moved overseas.

>
> PART of our problem is that government and banking
> have gone out of their way to HELP our corporations
> reestablish themseives overseas - make the flow of
> money and goods WAY too easy.
>

> Capitalism is always interested in the bottom line.
> In theory, a good capitalist will do whatever he
> must to make a single penny more profit. Makes sense
> in a shortsighted way ... but unless they make money
> TODAY there IS NO tomorrow to worry about.
>
> Our expanding markets during most of the 20th century
> more than compensated for operations that drifted
> overseas. Alas, the "tomorrow" they weren't looking
> at HAS arrived ... the USA isn't getting new markets
> anymore, we're losing them. There aren't five new and
> profitible domestic manufacturers popping up for every
> one that moves overseas either - we're in the red on
> that accounting as well.
>
> Which is why we can't trust "market forces" alone to
> deal with the problems. Those "market forces" would
> turn the USA into one of those cheap-labor societies,
> eventually (in 50+ years) to be the bane of China and
> India ... the people stealing THEIR jobs. 'Pure'
> capitalism thus creates a "poverty merry-go-round"
> that cycles through a series of nations.
>
> But to have a STRONG nation, we can't allow that. We
> have to aim for a relatively constant, stable, equation
> so neither we, or anyone else, gets TOO poor, TOO easy
> to exploit.
>
> But how to do it without killing the proverbial golden
> goose ? The Peter Principle guarentees that govt regulators
> will know so little about the bits and pieces of industry
> and the economy they're regulating that ...
>
> A light touch - but one at just the right places - will
> yeild the best results. But where to apply the vulcan
> neck pinch ... ? We could tax 'outsourced' labor and/or
> merchandise, but that might just drive lots of businesses
> entirely out of the US sphere, to reincorporate under
> someone elses flag.

>

>>The reason we
>>spend so much on the military is to maintain a credible deterent to
>>any country that wants to mess with American corporations operating
>>abroad. In short, were spending all that money to help undermine our
>>own production base.

>
> Um ... that's a bit too simplistic. The military is SOMETIMES
> used in that role, but not very often nowdays (and Iraq is NOT
> such a case). A lot of military spending is actually 'corporate
> welfare' in disguise - a way for Cheneys buddies in the military
> industrial complex to make untold billions all under the banner
> of 'national security' and whitewashed with a thick coat of
> 'patriotism'.
>
> On the plus side, the MiC does employ a LOT of people - so the
> 'welfare' money comes 'round ... some of it.
>

>>> Pssst ... no companies = no jobs = nothing to tax =
>>> no welfare-state programs.
>>>
>>> Obama is also pushing for tax cuts ... but only for what he
>>> says is the "middle class". In truth, if you're earning the
>>> minimum wage, you too will wind up included in his definition.
>>> He'd also like to tax "business" more ... but he'll just wind
>>> up destroying a lot of businesses - meaning YOU will have to
>>> make up for the lost revenues (assuming it wasn't YOUR job
>>> that died along with your company).
>>>

>>>>In all, according to the
>>>>McCain campaign and the Congressional Budget Office, McCainÂ’s plan
>>>>would cost an additional $400 billion a year (at a time of already
>>>>huge budget deficits), and at the same time, the senator has also
>>>>vowed to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term.

>>>
>>> The REAL problem here is that we've been digging ourselves
>>> into a huge deep hole ever since the early 1960s. We've
>>> borrowed and borrowed ... yet the RETURNS from the borrowed
>>> money never quite seemed to pay off, so we borrowed even
>>> more to cover the difference .....
>>>
>>> Now we've hit bedrock - can't dig the hole any deeper. No
>>> more loans to cover our loans - or build profit-generating
>>> infrastructure.
>>>
>>> I think the ranking pols *understand* this - and are DESPERATE
>>> to keep We The People from grasping the full horror of it all
>>> for as long as possible lest we hang 'em from the cherry trees
>>> in the capitol mall.
>>>
>>> So, they keep shuffling and re-shuffling what we've got, and
>>> TELL us they're implementing clever new plans and policies.

>>--
>>
>>What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

>
>
> A true conservative.