ZWICK 4 PREZ;1783725 wrote:Yes of course it's his polices (could you be anymore vague? no b/c that's what know-nothings thrive in) . To you, I guess it has nothing to do with the fact that we don't have the luxury of just putting people back to work now in well paying jobs. In 1930, coporations weren't manufacturing in China. Companies have other options than hiring Americans. Is this Obamas fault? You can give stimulus and job packages, none guarantee it will put Americans back to work now. We haven't replaced well paying jobs with more well paying jobs, we've replaced well paying jobs with cheaper service industry jobs. As a result, spending is way down and consumer confidence inherently is way down. Companies don't grow when people aren't buying. to compare a recovery in 2010 vs one in 1930 given the differences in global economies is beyond laughable.

Obamacare and high taxes have slowed down the economy. As BR explained to you a few times, there are jobs for those who are willing to get training for marketable skills and put in the work. It's laughable that you give Obama a free pass after 7 years of failed policies.

Al Bundy;1783726 wrote:Obamacare and high taxes have slowed down the economy. As BR explained to you a few times, there are jobs for those who are willing to get training for marketable skills and put in the work. It's laughable that you give Obama a free pass after 7 years of failed policies.

The financial industry collapsing and ruining themselves and the everyday joe caused, and has slowed, the recovery. We held the banks above water, and not the populous. Therefore, they recovered well, and we never did. Most people still never have. Hence why spending is down. Hence why recovery is so slow. It has nothing to do with Obamacare or taxes.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1783728 wrote:The financial industry collapsing and ruining themselves and the everyday joe caused, and has slowed, the recovery. We held the banks above water, and not the populous. Therefore, they recovered well, and we never did. Most people still never have. Hence why spending is down. Hence why recovery is so slow. It has nothing to do with Obamacare or taxes.

Companies are moving overseas for better tax rates. Can't you see how high tax rates hurt the companies?

Al Bundy;1783730 wrote:Companies are moving overseas for better tax rates. Can't you see how high tax rates hurt the companies?

Companies that are moving overseas aren't moving for better tax rates. Companies that are large enough to move overseas are the ones who are able to take advantage of the tax code and pay an effective rate lower than most people. If anything, it's the small business who is taxed to much, and he cant move to china. Companies are moving overseas for cheap labor and practically no restrictions. Unless you want to be paid nothing, and have no workplace safety, and allow companies to do whatever they want environmentally, you aren't keeping them here.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1783709 wrote:nope. Nothing that proves otherwise either, eh?

So it's like god. You can't prove he exists or doesn't exist.

You made the claim, he calls you out on the validity and then you backtrack by telling him to prove you wrong. Just admit you have nothing to back your claim and move on.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1783701 wrote:provide a source that says I'm wrong. you're disputing the claim.

I lol'd. Are you really this dumb?

like_that;1783733 wrote:So it's like god. You can't prove he exists or doesn't exist.

You made the claim, he calls you out on the validity and then you backtrack by telling him to prove you wrong. Just admit you have nothing to back your claim and move on.

Sure you could.. if you had the time to dig thru each companies records. I have as much to back my claim as he has that my claim is wrong.

sleeper;1783734 wrote:I lol'd. Are you really this dumb?

So you also dispute that most corporations employ less in America in 2016 than they did in 2006?

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1783738 wrote:So you also dispute that most corporations employ less in America in 2016 than they did in 2006?

I actually don't know/haven't researched. I was merely commenting on your broken line of logic which is very apparent.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1783735 wrote:Sure you could.. if you had the time to dig thru each companies records. I have as much to back my claim as he has that my claim is wrong.

I think you're missing the point. He originally asked for a citation and showed no indication of whether he agreed with you or not. Instead of providing him anything you asked him to prove you wrong, thus clearly demonstrating you were throwing shit on a wall to see if it sticks. I know the liberal media likes to teach you otherwise, but the person who makes the claim needs to be able to back it up. It's not on everyone else to validate the claim.

Again, just man up and say you claimed that without any real substance to back it up.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1783731 wrote:Companies that are moving overseas aren't moving for better tax rates. Companies that are large enough to move overseas are the ones who are able to take advantage of the tax code and pay an effective rate lower than most people. If anything, it's the small business who is taxed to much, and he cant move to china. Companies are moving overseas for cheap labor and practically no restrictions. Unless you want to be paid nothing, and have no workplace safety, and allow companies to do whatever they want environmentally, you aren't keeping them here.

You really don't have a clue on how the world works. No wonder you're voting for Sanders.

sleeper;1783745 wrote:I actually don't know/haven't researched. I was merely commenting on your broken line of logic which is very apparent.

My line of logic is knowledge of my the company I work for (30,000 in 2006, 16000 in 2016) and companies we sell to (GM 91,000 in 2006, 68,000 2016) and manufacturing in general is down since the market collapse and hasn't returned. The Walmarts and Targets and Grocery stores of America have done well creating jobs here. The companies that lost jobs ion 2007 haven't rebounded to their prior levels yet, specifically manufacturing and construction. It's not an outlandish thing to say they're smaller today than 10 years ago in America.

sleeper;1783747 wrote:You really don't have a clue on how the world works. No wonder you're voting for Sanders.

Ok.. the jobs that have moved overseas aren't for the reasons I listed and are for tax reasons.. you're right. you know the way of the world.

Dinosaurs still exist.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1783755 wrote:Ok.. the jobs that have moved overseas aren't for the reasons I listed and are for tax reasons.. you're right. you know the way of the world.

They hold cash overseas because they can pay a much lower rate by never repatriating dollars. They aren't moving jobs overseas because of that but they are moving cash. Pretty substantial difference.

Jobs have left this country because labor is too expensive here. It's not like we lost "good paying manufacturing jobs" because in reality manufacturing in today's age doesn't command a high wage. You can thank unions for that who don't live in reality and still expected $20/hr to run a conveyor belt. It's not the company's who want to do this; instead they have to do this to remain competitive in a global marketplace.

I do however agree with your analysis regarding the impact of high taxes and regulations to small business, who employ far more than corporations do. You can thank Obama for his ACA which added to their already tight burden, his push for $15/hr minimum wage, and his complete demonetization of wealthy people who run these small businesses that create jobs for the people of this country.

sleeper;1783761 wrote:They hold cash overseas because they can pay a much lower rate by never repatriating dollars. They aren't moving jobs overseas because of that but they are moving cash. Pretty substantial difference.

Jobs have left this country because labor is too expensive here. It's not like we lost "good paying manufacturing jobs" because in reality manufacturing in today's age doesn't command a high wage. You can thank unions for that who don't live in reality and still expected $20/hr to run a conveyor belt. It's not the company's who want to do this; instead they have to do this to remain competitive in a global marketplace.

I do however agree with your analysis regarding the impact of high taxes and regulations to small business, who employ far more than corporations do. You can thank Obama for his ACA which added to their already tight burden, his push for $15/hr minimum wage, and his complete demonetization of wealthy people who run these small businesses that create jobs for the people of this country.

that's what we're talking about though. Companies moving headquarters for tax reasons has little to do with a recovery. Putting people back to work has everything to do with a recovery. and companies aren't moving their jobs for tax reasons.

like_that;1783746 wrote:
Again, just man up and say you claimed that without any real substance to back it up.

Of course.. I made a claim off of evidence i've noticed personally, which is anecdotal, yes. IMO it's idiotic to ask for citation on a message board when you yourself have no intimate knowledge yourself that something isn't true. but that's just me I guess.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1783763 wrote:that's what we're talking about though. Companies moving headquarters for tax reasons has little to do with a recovery. Putting people back to work has everything to do with a recovery. and companies aren't moving their jobs for tax reasons.

Which companies have moved their headquarters? Apple, one of the biggest companies holding a lot of cash overseas, is still headquartered in Cupertino, CA.

It's complicated but its intelligently navigating the US corporate tax code and building a strategy around that. Maybe lower the corporate tax rate so companies stop spending money avoiding taxes and actually pay a fair and reasonable rate? No, can't do that because evil corporations are running the country into the ground. Thanks Obama(and Bernie!).

SportsAndLady;1783758 wrote:Dinosaurs still exist.

Depending on your definition of dinosaurs, you could argue that some still do exist.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1783772 wrote:Of course.. I made a claim off of evidence i've noticed personally, which is anecdotal, yes. IMO it's idiotic to ask for citation on a message board when you yourself have no intimate knowledge yourself that something isn't true. but that's just me I guess.

He simply just asked for a citation. What if he just wants to further educate himself? You automatically took it as a challenge to your argument.

like_that;1783796 wrote:He simply just asked for a citation. What if he just wants to further educate himself? You automatically took it as a challenge to your argument.

No, he asked for citation on something he knows would be impossible to cite. Which is why I asked him for citation proving otherwise, which would be impossible to cite.

sleeper;1783777 wrote:Depending on your definition of dinosaurs, you could argue that some still do exist.

Wait so who is supposed to prove me wrong or right? Me, the person who made the claim, or you?

Wonder if Zwick can chime in on this.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1783731 wrote:Companies that are moving overseas aren't moving for better tax rates. Companies that are large enough to move overseas are the ones who are able to take advantage of the tax code and pay an effective rate lower than most people. If anything, it's the small business who is taxed to much, and he cant move to china. Companies are moving overseas for cheap labor and practically no restrictions. Unless you want to be paid nothing, and have no workplace safety, and allow companies to do whatever they want environmentally, you aren't keeping them here.

Here are several companies that moved overseas for better tax rates. I even took the article from a liberal source for you. http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/07/news/economy/tax-advantage-inversion/

Al Bundy;1783818 wrote:Here are several companies that moved overseas for better tax rates. I even took the article from a liberal source for you. http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/07/news/economy/tax-advantage-inversion/

As I already stated... companies relocating headquarters by changing their address to save on taxes has nothing to do with companies who move jobs/production overseas, which has everything to do with a recovering economy. You're not making your point. Tax inversions have nothing to do with affecting a recovering economy. getting people back to work is.. which has nothing to do with a tax inversion.

Al Bundy;1783726 wrote:Obamacare and high taxes have slowed down the economy. As BR explained to you a few times, there are jobs for those who are willing to get training for marketable skills and put in the work. It's laughable that you give Obama a free pass after 7 years of failed policies.

We have just concluded the 8th straight year of sub-3% growth --- the worst stretch ever. You are absolutely correct that it is obama's policies that have crushed economic growth, investment and incentive. It started with obamaKare which has done nothing but pervert job creation along with wrecking insurance and starting to impact actual care. Then you look at his regulatory agencies and the job-destroying agenda that goes along with every executive fiat and appointment - from EPA to NLRB to OHSA to MSHA to banking and on down the line. It is practically a nightmare to be in manufacturing in this country anymore; it is no wonder that this once-formidable sector of our economy has largely moved offshore. His assault on capitalism and free enterprise will kill us if not reversed quickly.