QuakerOats;968072 wrote:"Stryker, the Kalamazoo-based maker of artificial hips and knees, will cut 5% of its global workforce by the end of next year to reduce costs in the face of new fees on device makers required by the U.S. health care law."

gut;968101 wrote:Taxes aren't normally a justifiable reason for cutting jobs. Companies are always looking for efficiencies and likely would make those cuts regardless of the tax increase or not. Where it has an impact is where companies have the ability they will pass the tax increase onto their customers. Now where taxes do hurt is in investment - it raised the ROI required vs investment alternatives that aren't impacted by that tax increase. And that's how the govt helps/hurts (rather ineptly) the flows of capital to different sectors via tax policy.

I Wear Pants;968738 wrote:https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/we-demand-vapid-condescending-meaningless-politically-safe-response-petition/gCZfn86x

Sign it, I did.

BGFalcons82;968124 wrote:Next thing ya know, these elitist wizards will find a way to tax Christmas trees....

BGFalcons82;970564 wrote:Huh....a major Obama campaign contributor gets an unbid contract for nearly a half billion US dollars - http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-smallpox-20111113,0,4293298.story

Now, I expect all of the folks whom chastised and berated Bush for giving unbid contracts to Haliburton to chime in here about how horrible this is for all of their all-too-familiar reasons. Type away...

believer;970709 wrote:Crickets so far....

gut;970796 wrote:What would we call this....crony socialism? Or is that redundant?

BoatShoes;972610 wrote:He's a man just like us and the liberals who put him up on a pedestal made the same mistake Penn State fans did with Paterno and I did with Jim Tressel.

BoatShoes;972610 wrote:Obama is going to campaign for President this year with a billion dollar war chest. It is naive to think that there's not going to be political favors even for the "annointed one." At least, as far as I can tell, even considering the seduction by Obama, liberals are aware of this and propose ways to try to stop it.

BoatShoes;972610 wrote:It's not like most liberals want it to be "Do as I say not as I do." It's more of a general awareness that the flawed nature of man kind leaves even our most virtuous susceptible to be corrupted by the enticements of vice. So, if a liberal comes along and says "we need to publicly fund elections so that way our public officials don't just give handouts to their cronies" and then that liberal raises a ton of special interest money in a world wherein public funding is miniscule, it should come as no surprise that this liberal succumbs to the threat he warns about.

BGFalcons82;972623 wrote:Not so fast, as Lee would say. He campaigned in 2008 that he was NOT like every other candidate. He would be the most transparent President ever elected. He would not succumb to cronyism and paying off donors. He said these things. The media got tingles up their legs. He even said he was the one we were waiting for. Now...he's just like everybody else and it's OK because...well...ummm...he IS just like every other President before him. Will we get an apology for his lying? Yeah...right. :rolleyes:

BoatShoes;972646 wrote:So let me get this straight. You want an apology from a politician (whom you knew all along was nothing special) for lying?

BGFalcons82;972751 wrote:My tongue is firmly in cheek...no "smiley" icon for that one. I KNEW he wasn't special, but the point is the American people drank the Obama KoolAid as if it was made in the heavens.

BGFalcons82;972623 wrote:Not so fast, as Lee would say. He campaigned in 2008 that he was NOT like every other candidate. He would be the most transparent President ever elected. :rolleyes:

gut;973122 wrote:I think he's been very transparent - now everybody knows he's a socialist and incompetent, not just the "racist haters" who were warning everyone about this before the election.