It seems to me (because, of course, I am a Republican) that a lot of people don't understand what it means when politicians say they only want to raise taxes on the rich.People, I think, tend to think this means, on rich 'people'.But it doesn't.The dirty little secret is, they really mean, corporations/big and small business in addition to rich individuals.But mainly they are going after businesses.$250,000 may sound like a lot when you look at it as an individual, but the income the government takes in off of this group is hardly a blip on the government accounting ledger.But corporate taxes, now that's a different matter.Now we're talking Billions and probably even Trillions. (Honestly, I don’t know how true these numbers are – who does really.)
People have to understand that corporations have never, do not, and will never pay taxes - ever. No matter how much 'talk' you get from the politicians, trying to foster class warfare and anti "big business" sentiments - they know full well that all taxes, every dime, the government puts on business is just passed on to the consumer.Prices go up and we - the people who buy 'things' pay the "Big Business" tax.Or we lose jobs and raises. Inflatiion rises and the poor always suffers the most. Naturally. But it's the poor they are always claiming to be helping. Maybe now we can understand why they never really do get helped.
Also, most of the jobs that are going overseas are NOT going there because of 'cheap labor'.That is what the Democrats in Washington tell you.Yes, the labor is cheaper and that is one of the benefits, but most business would much rather stay home in their own beloved USA, than to go overseas to third-world countries.The biggest reasons most businesses go overseas are, for the most part, twofold (there are other reasons, of course):
1) Too many government-imposed regulations that drive up the cost of production, and 2) ever-increasing corporate taxation.If they stay in America they will either go out of business because, 1) they cannot afford to pay employees because so much of the cost of doing business is tied up in these two areas, so they simply shut down, or, 2) they go out of business as they go up against competing overseas firms that don't have such mandates and pay lower wages anyway, and with other American firms that have already gone overseas.
It is my opinion, of course, since these two areas of burden on our American Firms are due to Democrat Party mandates - they are the ones we need to get rid of in order to fix this problem.
With their right hand, they fall all over themselves to help Union workers so they can cover up the fact that, with their left hand, they are largely responsible for their jobs going overseas.Then you hear them, time and time again, rail against Republicans, claiming it is somehow their fault; that they just want to help the rich; that they don't care about the poor or the working class.
This is an excellent article. It should be mandatory reading for every Democrat each night for the next ten years then maybe they would understand. They remind me of children: they do something then when it goes wrong,try to find someone to pin the blame on. I honestly believe they have to pass a dumb test to become a full fledged Democrat! I use Frank, Pelosi, Dodd, Shumer and Reid as prime examples of whom I speak.
You brought in an interesting point, even though a bit off topic. It may be interesting to observe the human heart a bit in all this â€śmoneyâ€ť talk. The US economy was not the main topic when we entered into a war with the Iraqi tyrant Sodom Hussein. At least it wasnâ€™t with me or any of my Republican friends, regardless of all the â€śNo war for oilâ€ť crap being bandied about by those who, I feel, care nothing for the oppressed. They care only for themselves and their beloved Democrat Party rising in the poles and the â€śMean old Republicansâ€ť lowered in the poles. The reason I and my friends were in favor of going to war in Iraq were several.
1) People forget that the war we are in (or were at the time, since anti-war people have changed it over time) was to get those weapons of mass destruction. Now I know that anti-war people kept screaming â€śBush Liedâ€ť and â€śThere were no weapons of mass destructionâ€ť, but they were just wrong. You really, to be fair, donâ€™t hear much of that anymore ever since we learned from eye witnesses that, while we were busy with one UN resolution after another (14 in all), to placate our unplactable left-leaning friends (you know the ones â€“ the ones who screamed â€śBush Liedâ€ť and â€śThere arenâ€™t anyâ€¦bla, bla, blaâ€ť), Sodom was busy shipping them out in truck-loads over the border to Syria.
2) We felt it was absolutely necessary to help those poor people; to deliver them from the rape-rooms, the tree mulching machines, from mass murder, and yes, from the chemical weapons that that Hitler of a dictator used on his own people. And when people say well why then Iraq and why not here or there where these things are also happening. The answer is a simple one. Iraq fit snuggly into number 3.
3) The war on terror, as defined by the President and adopted by all those in congress that voted for it (before some of them voted against it), was against not only the terrorists themselves, but against any government that gave aid and comfort to them. Enter Iraq. Not only did Al-Qaida have terrorist training camps in Northern Iraq, but Sodom Hussein was also paying $25,000 to any family who would strap a suicide bomb to their child and send them out to kill themselves along with innocent Israeli women and children. Andâ€¦
4) We thought and still think that bringing freedom to any people is a worthwhile thing to do. Especially for such a people as the Iraqis. They suffered much and had been pleading with us for years â€“ even during Bush 1â€™s term to â€śCome save us.â€ť
5) We think also that itâ€™s not such a bad idea to have another ally in the Middle East.
6) Before the President declared war on terror there was only one democracy in the Middle East. Now, only about seven years after 9/11, thanks to George W. Bush, we have three independent democracies in the Middle East. Quite a legacy, if you ask me and my Republican friends. They canâ€™t take that away from him and they (The Dems) canâ€™t claim it for themselves because they fought it every step of the way.
Yes this is all true. American firms are here in Asia because the labor costs are low and there aren't too many benefits burdened on companies. Add to that the incentives offered by other countries(low taxes/exemptions/low lease rates) to boost their own economies. The presence of these "outsourcing" companies make a lively market here in Asia, but create a vacuum in the US and causes job losses and lay-offs. Global competition also kills these companies with new technology (Japan/China/Australia/Korea)and sadly, America has fallen
behind due to its focus on Iraq. Maybe the next administration should fix the US house first before trying to fix its neighbor's
(Iraq & Israel) houses. The US has spent billions in Iraq which could have been used in your own country to help the economy grow side by side with the soaring Asian economy.