new matter discovered at cern color-glass condensate.

Why are costs associated with bribing customers considered to be acceptable, whereas paying workers a fair wage is not?

Examples of bribing customers include, but are not limited to:

Buying the gifts
Giving them so-called freebies
Taking them out to lunch or dinner
Buying them alcohol (to loosen the up, perhaps?)
Procuring sexual favors
Giving cash 'rebates' under the table

Add to that the 'special rewards' that are given to select employees such as free trips (take your spouse if you'd like), extravegant sales meetings in sun-n-fun locations that are nowhere near headquarters, etc.

All of the above are considered costs of doing business. It doesn't seem to matter to companies because they can just pass the costs onto consumers. And on top of it all, many of these so-called 'necessary' expenses are tax deductible.

No one here has said that unions are pure and clean and 100 % good. Quite to the contrary, even union supporters will acknowledge that some are corrupt, some leaders live as high off the hog as big time corporate CEOs, and some are more in bed with management than they are with their own members. Yes, all of this is wrong, but if you want to have a decent discussion of 'unnecessary' expenses (like paying workers), then you have to talk about it all including all the money companies waste at their own discretion. One of the worst examples would have been the Bayer Advia IMS. Bayer spent close to a billion dollars on that turkey and knew all along that it was never going to fly. (Anyone who knows Arthur Carlson knows that turkeys can't fly). So if you want to start throwing darts randomly, expect to have some thrown back at Amerian businessmen.

Once again, you seem to miss the point that this is not a black and white situation. There is plenty of guilt for all to share.

"Worked hard in college? No these are the students who took the easy "Liberal Arts" route in school. Funny how a science student has to take some Liberal Art classes to make them more "well rounded" but; the Liberal art students are not required to take a semester or two of calculus. That I am sure would change their view of engineers and scientists."

Statements like the above show just how out of contact with reality you are and how much you are biased.

How in the world will learning calculus change someone's world? I took 3 semesters of it in college along with plenty of liberal arts course as well as the many required to complete my degree in science. And I gotta tell you that if there were ever 3 wasted courses, they were calculus.

The more you post here, the more it becomes obvious how small your world it and how much your life is governed by your own internally generated ideas and biases and how little contact with the real world, outside of your business, you really have. No wonder facts and data scare you so much.

Liberal art students are not required to take a semester or two of calculus. That I am sure would change their view of engineers and scientists.

Now that is an idea!

A persons pay should be simply based on:

If you can do something that no one else wants to do, or can do, then your pay should be high. But if you have 100s of people who can do that job, then the pay should be low.

What you want does not equate to what your value is to an employer.

Why is it that union heavy privately owned companies are the ones going broke and asking for bailouts? Simple, they had to add the labor cost to their products, and eventually priced themselves out of the market.

MicroSoft, IBM, Apple, and other high tech companies are all non-union, and are not asking for bailouts

Now if there is not competition, like fire, police, teachers, power companies, then one is held hostage by the unions.

50 years ago a company would make widgets at $$ and add 5% on and tell the customer this is what it costs. Times have changed, customer now says I am willing to pay $ for your widget or I will go elsewhere. So you better figure out how to make that widget for $ and still make a profit. Or go out of business.

Just what is so wrong for an employer to say to an employee; I am paying $20.00 an hr no more, no less and if you don't like it I of course cannot force you to work for me.

Nothing wrong with it. You, as an employer, are totally free to take this approach in entering into contracts with you employees. Just as you are free to come to me, as a partial owner of Microsoft, and offer to pay $2 for 1000 copies of Windows. I, as a partial owner of Microsoft, would inform you that I employ an agent to handle those negotiations for me, rather than trying to gather all the other owners together and vote on each individual contract we as owners of a company, might enter into. Our agent would probably reject your offer, as you cannot force us to enter into a contract to sell you Windows at that price. As an employer, you might find that your employees have chosen to have an agent handle their employment contracts. If that agent happens to be a union representative, there is nothing, other than existing contracts you may have entered into in the past, that forces you to negotiate with them.

"Just look around you at all of the kids who went to college, worked hard, and expected to find a decent job upon graduation only to find themselves working checkout at Wal-Mart or Target. "

Worked hard in college? No these are the students who took the easy "Liberal Arts" route in school. Funny how a science student has to take some Liberal Art classes to make them more "well rounded" but; the Liberal art students are not required to take a semester or two of calculus. That I am sure would change their view of engineers and scientists.

I now understand your 'facilities' issue. It is not a government regulation issue so it is irrelevant to your complaint about government interference and regulation.

As for the minimum wage, I could put the shoe on the other foot and talk about employers feeling entitled to have labor for the lowest possible wages (the obvious extreme is slavery, indentured servitude, etc.) There are always two sides to every issue. As for young people having 'attitude' when it comes to working, I find it difficult to blame the government for this one; if anything I blame parents and a pervasive entertainment industry that do far more to foster a culture of ease, comfort, getting around the system, etc. .... anything but glorifying the positive aspects of self-motivation, hard work, etc. I could also make a few esoteric points about the motivation issue and on this point, I would simply submit that going from rags to riches was alot easier 100 years ago than it is now. How motivated can one get if they believe they will never get their heads above water? Just look around you at all of the kids who went to college, worked hard, and expected to find a decent job upon graduation only to find themselves working checkout at Wal-Mart or Target. This one is a very complex issue and cannot be simplified by saying it is all the fault of the government. It is far more of a socialogical than a political problem.

"Just what is so wrong for an employer to say to an employee; I am paying $20.00 an hr no more, no less and if you don't like it I of course cannot force you to work for me."

You, like so many republicans, are amazingly out of touch with what is going on in our country. There is a very large number of employed (and unemployed) that would think they've died and gone to heaven if they were paid $20/hr. They are toiling at near minimum wage and trying to raise a family and pay bills.
Thanks for your input though, it just makes the rest of us realize more and more why your party will be a thing of the past soon. And we will not look back at you with fond memories. Widespread unemployment, near ruin of the financial system, an unfunded war...
Thanks for the memories!

If you don't want a dead end career, consider being a mortician.

Employees want lockers, upgraded restrooms, break rooms w/ appliances, parties, bonuses, birthday cake celebrations, and lots of other perks. Not required by regulations mind you except for the bathrooms, but you can see how much stuff we have to deal with and it all takes from the bottom line. Owner's dont have to do most of this stuff, but we all learn morale takes a dive when comparisons to other peoples job perks brings up shortcomings and discontent follows. We all soon learn this, so market forces force business owners in the right direction w/o government agencies/ policies for everythnig like this. Obviously some things must be inforced to lift safety levels up to minimums, but all non essential stuff should be self regulated as much as possible. If you don't like the job, you don't have to work there in this country......we are a free nation, ya know. Even min. wage regs are not really such a great idea and it's not for the reasons you suspect. High min. wage limits allow so many less ambitious youngsters to feel entitled to a livable wage for flipping burgers. A market rate wage for fipping burgers would quickly get these young folk to seek better paying jobs; I know because I used to fip burgers when the min. wage was really pathetic even coonsidering the time frame. It didn't take me long to figure out I was wasting my time doing this. Todays min wage fools kids into thinking they are working hard and once again, it is the rich, mean owners of the business that is "cheating" them of a decent livelihood. This is just preposterous if one is flipping burgers. There is no way one should even begin to think of a life in the real world with a career as a fast food cook.....unless you own the joint of course. You see, we who have run businesses see things in a far different light than the kid who thinks working at Wendy's should allow him to have his own apartment, a car, and a girlfriend to spend money on. We have educated too well a bunch of citizens that expect too much from a world that is nearly evil in it's competitiveness. The rest of the world is fighting a serious fight while we flip burgers and expect to live better than the Chinaman. Just where do you think we will end up with all this entitlement mentality and liberal empathy?

PS: Note that I didn't have to google anything for that one and I didn't bother you with much in the way of data and facts.

Note also the well organized and thoughtful response. I am not blind to the impact of regulations. As one of your old whipping boys used to say: I feel your pain. The difference is that I don't have sex in my office!

Handicapped parking, wheelchair acessability: I agree that each employer should be allowed to deal with the special needs of employees on a case by case basis. This would extend beyond the two special needs issues you cite.

fire escape route planning, regional industrial codes, fire alarms, fire extinguishers, fire escape equipment, city codes for exterior decor/ signs, energy efficient lighting: These are often local issues. In many cases regulations were instituted on a completely non-political basis. See below for any that originate in Washington.

Osha, epa: In many cases, regulations need to be scaled. Smaller companies should not have to document and report on issues to the extent that large companies do. The potential impact of violating a regulation should be evaluated and only those areas where risk is high should be monitored. I certainly would not want to go back to the pre-EPA and pre-OSHA days when companies could dump anything and everything pretty much anywhere they wanted and have unsafe working conditions led to employee deaths (look up the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire sometime). Most ethical companies would comply with the regulations even if they didn't exist. It's all the associated paperwork that needs to be reduced for many small business people.

employee tax forms: I am not sure what the issue is here, but under a simplified tax system such as the one I favor, employers would report pay, taxes withheld, and social security/medicare withheld. No W-4's to deal with and a very simple W2.

unemployment insurance, liability insurance: I have never seen any reason that insurance of any sort including medical, dental, AD&D, etc should involve an employer. This is an area where a divorce sounds appropriate. That does not mean that an employer would not be wise to carry his own liability insurance. I also believe there should be some form of unemployment insurance, although I am not sure why it should involve individual employers unless there should be an exception for when an employee is fired for cause.

equal opportunity employment requirements, employee discipline records: My general comments about OSHA and EPA apply here as well. Simplify all the paperwork for the smaller guys and hold them responsible for understanding and complying with the law. Little or no paperwork should be required here assuming there is no abuse.

employee facilities: I am not sure what this one is about.

min wage: I disagree with you on this one.

So only one where we completely disagree. For the others, I would just not simply throw out all regulations blindly. I would get rid of ones that are not needed and modify many of the others with the goal of minimizing the burden on small business while still maintaining general compliance with the intent. Remember I believe in subtle shades of gray.

Handicapped parking

wheelchair acessability

fire escape route planning

Osha

epa

min wage

regional industrial codes

employee tax forms

unemployment insurance

liability insurance

equal opportunity employment requirements

employee discipline records

energy efficient lighting

fire alarms, fire extinguishers, fire escape equipment

city codes for exterior decor/ signs

employee facilities

Now before you start screaming, some of these are not necessarily regulations but are done by businesses to protect themselves against lawsuits and discrimination allegations, and yes they are off the top of my head so I'm sure I missed a few good ones. Some of them I actually agree with but they still add to the headache and burden. Just try setting up a business young man, and your tune will change very, very quickly about taxes and regulations or you are a sucker for inevidable failure.

Here is an ethical question for you. You have a small business. You have a good employee who, on a 1-5 scale (1=best), is a consistent 2, sometimes a 1. He comes to you one day and tells you he finds one of your directives to be unethical. He explains his reasoning. You understand why he believes what he believes, even though you look at things differently. What do you do?

pompous a holes

agree, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The things you keep whining about. All the fault is with others. You live and breathe for a scapegoat. You just don't realize that Bob Zimmermann got it right: The times they are a-changin.

I wonder if you had been born a horse whether you would have whined and whined and whined endlessly about the advent of the automobile. Didn't your mommy ever teach you not to fight mother nature or progress?

(And now back to the non-comedic portion of our show).

Don't hold back now. Go all the way and don't wimp out on us. We know you want to repeal the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, and minimum hourly wages. And we know that if America agrees, you will stop threatening us all with shipping jobs to China and India. You will have all the slave labor right here in the good ol' USA.

Too bad there is a flaw in your thoughts and the crack in your 'logic' is starting to show already. Have you been watching how the cost of labor has been rising in China? Have you noticed that workers there actually have the audacity to begin to ask for things and talk about workers rights? The cheap labor market there wil be, at most, a temporary thing since, believe it or not, people in those terrible foreign countries want the same thing that American workers want.... a fair shar of the pie. And that is what this is all about. How much reward does a person deserve for starting up a business and taking risks? How much value does a CEO add to a company compared to a good worker? Who is more important to you? The Governor of your state or the people who pick up your garbage a few times a week and make it disappear? I don't know about you, but I can sure do without my Governor. And it's about working together in a society and recognizing that the whole thing doesn't work when some of the parts aren't part of things.

We have seen how things work with little or no regulation and it should surprise no one. Human beings are greedy. Human beings are competitive (beyond reason at time). Some people are downright mean and nasty. Some will do anything for a buck .. cheat, lie, steal, and conspire with others to defraud, etc. You just don't want to see that and you yearn for a time when everything was good and nice. My guess that you probably want things pretty much as they were when you were a kid. Guess what? Things were just as bad then, but you were sheltered from it all and actually believe that America was once all about families like the Cleavers, the Andersons (Father Knows Best), and Ozzie and Harriet (Ozzie was so go he didn't even have to work .. he just benefitted from the mythical America with streets paved with gold).

Since you can't tell us any specifics on what you would do about the budget deficits and national debt, and I think you claim to run a small business, perhaps you could give us a list of the top 10 regulations you would like to see repealed or modified and why. Now that should be simple enough for you and you won't even need a google search to do it. This stuff should be right at your fingertips.

"You are forgetting the reason there is a UAW or any union at all"

They were needed when the canaries were dying in the coal mines.

But when management is "forced" into paying line workers the equivalent compensation of $70.00 per hr to put parts on cars, the foxes are running the chicken coupe.

Just what is so wrong for an employer to say to an employee; I am paying $20.00 an hr no more, no less and if you don't like it I of course cannot force you to work for me.

If life is so great as a business owner or at least anyone who hires workers for a salary, then you guy's should go ahead and start something where YOU become the guy doing the hiring!!!

Ahhhhh yes, you are forgetting that it takes immense effort to start a company, so you prefer to have someone else start it and then squeeze for more pay once you get unionized. A little like the pot calling the kettle black here.

The trouble with our president (and all of them before him, to tell the truth) is that he believes more regulation, not less is better for the average American. Nothing could be further from the truth. While some regulations obviously have purpose, the more regulations we can lift from the burden the business owners already carry, the more competitive we become. It is really either increase regulations/ taxation and lose jobs, or decrease them and increase jobs here in the USA. This is indeed an ugly choice, but it really is one we have to make and we also have to accept the consequences of that choice. It's a choice or one or the other, as I do not believe there any good alternatives.

The truth is, when American workers expect and demand > $30.00 an hr for unskilled labor, you will have China or India getting the jobs. This is not to say we do not deserve a better salary than the Indian guy, it is just that the reality is that, that job will go overseas if at all possible. I can see an America where flipping burgers will be a $20.00 an hr job, but virtually no other jobs being available because anything that can be done overseas is being done overseas. Every time American workers squeeze more salary from a factory job than they are actually worth being paid for in the real world of global economies, they push jobs overseas. And I'm not even saying that this is right or wrong, it's just how globalization has changed the business model. You can also blame the internet for contributing highly to this massive change. So the reality is that when Honda pays their workers (in the USA) <<<< $70.00 an hr and GM pays >>>> $70.00 an hr, which workers are actually better off in the long run? My point is, that the Honda guy having job security for as long as Honda stays profitable, is in much better shape than the GM guy. This is of course pre-government take over, as this situation is not the real world since Obama cannot bail out every company that goes bankrupt in the US. I know this sounds un-American, it is not. I am merely bringing into focus how far behind the times the American worker is in the global market we have today. The proof is in all the jobs/ industries we have already lost. Do we really think that this movement is over?

You are forgetting the reason there is a UAW or any union at all.
The rich will always try to squeeze every last nickel out of the worker. Why do you think they send jobs overseas?
They know they can pay $0.10/hr and get away with it.

Yep. It was ALL the UAW's fault. It's always the workers fault. Management made all the right decisions about what cars to design and produce. Detroit executives knew what the American car buyer wanted: Cars that only last two years so everyone can have the ego trip of always driving a new car, cars that guzzle gas, but give every American male a macho-rush as they try to go from 0-60 in 5 seconds in the midst of a bumper-to-bumper traffic, SUVs and Hummers that are needed to get through the rough conditions of rush hour traffic, etc. Management was completely victimized by the evil workers and forced (at gunpoint, although this was not widely reported in the liberal press) to sign a contract which represented a death warrant for American car makers.

The world is black and white. The UAW were 100 % the bad guys and management always wore those nice clean white hats. If government had only been responsive and rounded up all those evil union leaders and had them shot (while, perhaps offering a Congeressional Medal of Freedom as compensation for victimized management) .... the American auto industry would still be ruling the world and the Japanese would all be driving large American vehicles ... and driving on the right side of the road like civilized people since Detroit would have given them no alternative.

See what happens when the country gets run by the low class majority? We simply need to trust the elite rich people to run things. They always have the right answers for everything.

Down with the workers !!! Let's hear it for America, Inc. !!!

" General Motors paid its unionized workers $70.51 an hour in wages and benefits. Chrysler paid $75.86 an hour"

You are 100% correct, Detroit got mugged in the alley by the UAW. The world's auto makers were actually starting to equal or surpass their cars in quality decades ago and their reaction was to incease quality only AFTER sales began to suffer. They were always behind the curve--look at what happened with hybrids. Yet they continually caved in to the UAW and their strikes to the point where UAW's pay and the quality gap was laughable. It wasn't unfair competition or even a lack of quality in Detroits cars as they finally closed the gap on quality for the most part, but the excessive pay for their UAW worker's made their business model broken.

The UAW was a significant factor in the automakers’ decline: It had raised Detroit’s labor costs 50 percent to 80 percent above other automakers, such as Toyota and Nissan. In 2006, General Motors paid its unionized workers $70.51 an hour in wages and benefits. Chrysler paid $75.86 an hour.

The overall labor costs for union auto workers was ~~ $80/hr as reported many times on the news ... yes, even liberal ABC. This included the very generous benefit packages, health, retirement, vacation, ,,,,

I think we both agree that borrowing more is not the answer. At issue is how we borrow less and ultimately pay off what we have already borrowed. I do disagree when you say the specifics of the cuts don't matter. For one thing, the cuts can't simply be things that get transferred to the various states who will have to raise taxes to cover the new costs. It isn't just about how many Federal employees get laid off or how many programs that employ non-government workers might raise unemployment more (as a simple example, all of the contractors that work with NASA). It is also about services upon which many people, rightly or wrongly, depend upon now and simply pulling the plug will probably not have an happy ending. I will leave it to your imagination some of the more negative consequences and (as you said so well, reactions to the action of program cancellations). Moreover, the spending cuts need to make a big dent in the next budget and greatly reduce or, preferably, eliminate the deficit. Right now I just don't see where that much can be cut without increasing unemployment as a result in government cutbacks and the elimination of many programs without a strong negative reaction. And if you take defense and national security off the table, I just don't see how you can make the numbers. Hey, if you or anyone else can do it without creating some of the problems I've alluded to, please tell us how. I'd be your first fan. I'm talking about at least 800 billion to a trillion in spending cuts that won't just be transferred elsewhere and won't cause considerable chaos to our economy.

This isn't the same thing as running a business since everything that the government could or might do will have significant ripple effects throughout the American and, perhaps, international economy. If only it were the same as running a business we probably wouldn't be having this debate at all.

Yes, the problems have much to do with moving tax rates or other policies costing businesses profits (regulations). That is why increasing tax rates for the higher wage earners are very difficult to assess. They are like Newton's laws, for every action there will be a reaction and in business its very difficult to tabulate the actual effect. There is also the issue of when data is selected (timing) as many effects could lag by several years and are hard to measure. As far as specifics on what should be cut or where to get incresed revenue, it can be ugly and the problem is cutting federal spending will also take money away from the economy. But no matter the cost, not heading towards austerity only pushes the load down the road. It does matter of course what is cut but the reality is that someone gets hurt no matter what, but carrying excess load only worsens the problem in the long run. We have to accept tougher times ahead just for any hope of reducing our deficit, and who in the hell could win with that platform for the presidency? This is why I am not enamored by either politcal party, but looking at general policy tendancies definitely pushes the liberal side on the heavier spending mode, at least in terms of national economic budget. Republicans have a reputation for greater military outlay, and with our current deficit issue I am even against increases in this area. I just think long and continual reductions in most entitlement programs are a must, and those recieving these streams need to learn to survive w/o them. Getting to the point where we all know government will not support able bodied citizens forever can only be a good thing. People will hurt but what if we as a country go into default? The poor will surely be going down with the rest of us anyway. We just have to greatly reduce spending EVERYWHERE in government as a priority and increasing revenue secondarily as this would force us into self sufficiency and austerity. All of this is bad news but is the only real solution. It's no different than a family budget, you simply cannot borrow your way to a stronger financial situation forever......the math doesn't work.

If you are a small business owner, then I can sympathize with many of the ways that the government has made your life more complicated and more difficult to make a satisfactory profit. Some of the problem is with regulations that are not appropriately scaled for small and large corporations. In many cases, these regulations need to be modified to lessen the burden on smaller companies, but not completely eliminated. Another problem that hits smaller businesses harder is the general amount of uncertainty in future government tax policy. Right now the debate centers around tax rates and changes to tax preferences. When I think about our tax code, one of the reasons for all of the uncertainty is the overall complexity of our tax code. Imagine how much easier it would be for Congress to simply have to look at the rates if we had taxes that asked how much money did you make last year and then say 'here is what you have to pay'. One of the Republican candidates for President last year called it his postcard sized tax plan. Complete simplification leaves nothing for Congress to tinker with and no one will have to worry about what Congress will change. It will only be about how much and under such a system, I suspect that tax rates would change far less frequently. The biggest problem with this idea is that I haven't a clue about what to do with all of the unemployed CPAs.

One of the things that has always puzzled me is why the Bush tax cuts were only made for 10 years. I just don't know what the thinking was back then. But for the past 4 years or so we have been living with uncertainty with regard to future taxes which hasn't been helped at all by the 2 year extension. Congress needs to get out of the mode of kicking the can down the road and come together and figure it out. Each side will have to give in a bit but we need a longer term plan to first get the annual deficit under control and then have a payback plan to pay down the national debt. Assuming that can be accomplished, which I unfortunately doubt, we should plan for another discussion of tax rates when the debt is paid off and we have a reasonable surplus for a rainy day (sort of a strategic money reserve much like our strategic oil reserve). Hard decisions will need to be made and alot of people will have to swallow alot of crow. I don't know about you, but I am more interested in a practical solution than hearing more philosophical, theoretical rhetoric. If someone has a plan that keeps tax rates where they are and has a combination of spending cuts and tax preference eliminations that move us towards a balanced and then positive annual budget, I am more than happy to listen. And in this case, numbers matter just as they do when you run your business and have to make all sorts of decisions of how and where to spend money and how to maximize your income. I just don't see any other way. Even Congress has the CBO to evaluate budgets and proposed programs. It is just impossible for me to present some ideas and then have to argue for or against any other proposal.

I hope you can understand my position.

"Taxes went down in the 2000s as did overall job creation. Taxes went up in the 1990s as did job creation. Does this represent cause and effect"

First, your comment about this thread turning into a political debate for those of us inclined to let off some steam was spot on correct. See, I do agree with you at times; yes, let the others concern themselves w/ DX rumors at other threads, we have taken this one over.

As far as your previous example, yes it makes sense to look for more income streams to balance ones budget, but that is not a parrallel example with the Bush tax cut debate. I know you will argue the point but getting a second job is simply added income but ending the Bush tax cuts puts pressure on those getting increased taxes to make adjustments to accommodate them. I know you simply pencil in the added revenue, but I would factor in less investment, less employment and less business budgets, which in effect slows the economy down incrementally for each tax payer (investors/ employers). I don't want to argue this point because we simply believe differently. I know as a business owner if I am now facing X amount more intaxes, I'll find a way to cut about the same amount from ny bedget. That could be less structural updates, one less employee or less shares in the stock market. With any of these cuts, less goes into the US economy. Multiplied by hundreds of thousands, this effect would not be minor.

As for the tax cuts/ jobs picture for the 1990's and 2000's, that is another long winded argument that leans heavily on interpretation of hard data. But once again we can both make the numbers "lie", and so it is always a debate about "pure data and facts", while at the same time it is not! It actually requires significant interpretation of the hard data to come up with a correlation, and that is why economists/ politicians can never get it straight........it depends on how you select your data and how you relate it to the real world economy and political climate. That is why I am always wary of an argument full of numbers and facts......you have to really get into it and relate all the other factors in to reach a conclusion that in the end will be yours only, and everyone else may disagree with you. Can you see why I do not like debating numbers? Its lke the global warming argument; any number of scientists will argue different theories and they are all using the same data base. I don't even know who is correct because I have not spent the energy to get my own theory down. But I do feel confident on my business accumen even in the face of enourmous opposition because I lived thru the business climate struggle........and government has made it very difficult for us in this area.

This has nothing to do with pre-election issue. We have a problem called the national debt. We have a shorter term problem with annual budget deficits. It matters far more that we find solutions where the numbers add up than who won the election. The problem is still there and it needs to be solved. That simple practicality.

I've made some proposals that involve large chunks of money. You have declined to make yours. I have presented a simplified analogy to which you have not responded. I really don't see any point in arguing about this anymore since I'm arguing with someone who is just against things and who likes to make vague dire predictions about the future.

As for those who want us to shut up, I ask you to recognize that this thread no longer contains much in the way of information about Siemens DX and layoffs. There are several others that do and I suggest you look there. In the rare event that something relevant is posted here, you will find the same information at the other threads. It should be obvious by now that there are several people who post here who enjoy the political debates and probably find this place to be a good outlet for their frustrations and a soapbox for their points of view.

both of you are boring,overbearing windbags. We are sick of both of you. SHUTUP!@#$

"Republican political or economic ideology that precludes civility on your part?"

My lack of civility has nothing to do with being a Republican or a conservative for that matter, it has more to do w/ my frustrations with liberals. There are many on both sides much more civil than I am in debates, both on threads and in person, so political affiliation has little to do with it. I am just an asshole to big time liberals because liberalism (financial that is, socially I think I am far more liberal) is just plain foolish in general in my highly biased opinion. I just do not see things like you guy's do. In fact I cannot imagine how you guy's tic! By the way, you are being debated by several people, many of whose comments you are attributing to me, but that's OK iguess, they think much more like me anyways. The guy with the constitutional comments are not mine.

As for specifics, there are many, but why even bother? We are not in debates to get re-elected so that stuff is basically fluff. I know you like #'s and details because that is how you think. You let data and facts only drive your though process. I like to think in real time in real world realities, like running a business. This teaches you much, much more real knowlege than Google pounding. That is why we will never see eye to eye. What is obvious to me is not to you because you like to bury yourself w/ facts and numbers. You see you feel that real data backs up your position, while I believe that you can get facts and numbers to lie to you if you interpret them incorrectly. Need proof? Talk to any financial planner to plot your IRA investment strategy and chk back with me when you retire. Sometimes it works but just as often it will not, even if all the money managers styudy numbers like crazy, just like you. And why is that? Because interpretation and intuition (timing) plays a huge part in investing and most people are just not good at this even if they can grind #'s like crazy. See what I mean? The numbers can lie to you depending on how you use them to your advantage. I know you will come back w/ another fact requesting post, but all of us already know enough facts for the most part. It is how you manage the facts that is important, very similar to how a financial guy manages his portfolio. Warren Buffet's IQ and knowlege level is not that much greater than other investor's, I can assure you of that. He just knows what numbers to believe in and what numbers to ignor. I happen to believe I am pretty good at picking what data makes sense to me also, because I have been very successful while starting out with far less than any others who are not doing so well currently. I guess that's why I come off as an asshole at times, but at least I know this about myself. I just lack patience because I am getting older and I'm seeing more and more differently than the liberal crowd that seems to be taking hold. Once again that is what worries me going forward for this country.

In a timely article on the fiscal cliff, I noted the statement that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts (for all) will add $600 billion a year to revenues. Any way you look at it, that's an huge portion of the so-called Obama budget deficits.

Here is something for you to contemplate.

You are an individual. You have alot of personal debt. Your debt increases every year. After much effort, you find a combination of increased income and decreased spending gives you a surplus at the end of the year. (Sounds a bit like the 90s.) So what do you do? Do you use the surplus to pay down your remaining debt or quit one of your jobs or lower your income by some other means (Bush tax cuts) and hope that you can find more ways to spend less? And what do you do when you find your expenses go way up, perhaps by some factors beyond your control? Let's say you had some major hospital expenses that weren't covered by insurance (9/11), but also let's say that you bought a new house with a big mortgage you can't afford (Mediare Part D). Wouldn't you do everything reasonable to increase your income as you looked for ways to cut back on the spending side? Can you understand this simple analogy? Taxes went down in the 2000s as did overall job creation. Taxes went up in the 1990s as did job creation. Does this represent cause and effect? Not necessarily and not on sure sparse data. But it sure doesn't support the notion that lower personal tax rates on the upper 2-5 % is a creator of jobs.

Can you give a simple response to the above without going into 'Obama did this or that' or 'what about what the Democrats did' or 'you liberals', etc. I am trying to remain civil despite some of my sarcasm. Is there something about the Republican political or economic ideology that precludes civility on your part?

"I have no problem with a fair wage, but how do you expect a guy making $20/hr to be able to purchase a car made by some person making $80/hr?"

Where do you come up with $80/hour? Let's see ... 40 hours a week, roughly 50 weeks a year.... $80x40x50 = $160K a year. Are you suggesting that rank and file union workers make that much? Or is something wrong with my math?

btw -- If I believed all the 'facts' that you seem to believe, I'd probably have similar political and economic views. Trouble is, your 'facts' are all too often in error. You really need to get over your fear of facts and data if you wish to have any credibility. On the other hand, according to the old adage, at least you have bliss.

1. How did I know you would respond that way? I gave you some of my details and you don't respond in kind.

2. While the Democrats 'controlled' Congress and the WH for two years, the Republicans in the Senate were able to limit what Obama and the Democrats could do by using the filibuster beyond all reason and to a far greater extent than has ever been used in American history. Obama wanted to eliminate the Bush tax cuts in 2009, the Republicans held 95% plus of the country hostage by refusing to allow the tax cuts on the rich to expire while maintaining the cuts for the middle class. Obama promised that that will not happen again. I assume you saw how the election turned out and what all polls are saying on this issue.

3. For the umpteenth time, I agree that unions, like all those who have too much power, have problems. There are ways to fix the problems without destroying unions. Unions provide balance and right now, you claim, the balance is too much in their favor. And when that is truly the case, the goal should be to re-balance and not to throw the balance completely to management. All powerful unions are a problem and ultimately down work. The exact same is true about management being all powerful.

4. Do you acknowledge the existence of the color gray?

Ryan's plans didn't have any details ? Please show me any details from the Democratic party.

Quit complaining about Bush. The 1st 2 years of the Obama presidency the Democrats had both houses and the presidency. They could have changed anything they wanted.

When was the last time the country saw a budget ?

The reason Scott Walker abolished them was the reason FDR foresaw. Unions and management were on the same side ... against the taxpayers. They were bleeding the taxpayers dry and that was the only way to stop them. Companies vote, by moving to a place where they can do business and make a profit.

Notice the states with the worse financial problems are those where the unions ( and democrats) have control. California, Illinois, NY, Michigan.

Some states you HAVE to join the union, whether you want to or not.

And, the unions want their own elections to NOT be secret. No that is democratic, isn't it?

I have no problem with a fair wage, but how do you expect a guy making $20/hr to be able to purchase a car made by some person making $80/hr?

Funny; Take a look at a teachers parking lot, Toyoda's, Nissan's,,,,,,. Unions are OK when it comes to getting $$$, but when it comes to spending their $$$ they go to the cars made by non-union workers :-)

Please learn to read. I acknowledged that, in some cases, unions have gone overboard and, like any organization that gains some power, they need to have limits. Where I don't agree is that they should be abolished or limited in the Scott Walker style (Wisconsin). Take away unions and you wind up with China where workers are completely at the mercy of employers. Take away 'union pay' and who will have enough money to buy all of the products and services that drive our economy

Right now unions are fading, primarily due to the change from being a blue collor workforce to a white collar one. It is just speculation on my part and not worth arguing. Just something to add to your decade-at-a-glance calendar and we can see how good my crystal ball is.

Yes, you gave me some numbers and there is no reason for me to challenge them. My point is that much of the annual shortfalls come from legislation promoted and passed by Republicans during the Bush adminstration.

Bush started off with a budget surplus and Republican control of Congress. Rather than use the surplus to reduce the existing national debt, Bush and his colleagues decided to institute a tax cut which has been passed on to Obama and the current Congress. This same group added billions to each years' budget deficit with the unfunded Medicare Part D and two unfunded wars which are just now starting to end.

I agree with your numbers, but I fail to see how you have made a case against Obama when, in fact, much of the deficit and annual budget shortfall is the responsibility of Republicans. Why is it that Republicans refuse to take responsibility for their past actions? Why won't they present a plan that details how they would fix the problem. Note that the Ryan budget was extremely thin when it came to specific things to cut and that it also didn't really change the deficit situation for more than a decade. Most experts have suggested that, barring cuts to Defense, there are simply not enough other things to cut to meet the Ryan budget goals. The same is true for those who propose to raise revenue simply by eliminating deductions. There just aren't enough deductions to make up the revenue they say they need.

So my proposal to you and your Republican colleagues to to start a list of what you/they specifically want to cut and how much each will save and another list of things to increase revenue and how much each will contribute to the balance sheet. Republicans just lost a big election because they could not do either of the above. Perhaps you can start a new trend by being specific. Please note that popular Republican ideas such as de-funding Public Radio and TV or de-funding Planned Parenthood would make only a tiny dent in the budget. If you want to start to cut, start with the big stuff and not nickel-and-dime items.

I completely agree that we have a debt problem. Where we disagree is on how to solve it. For one, I support the end of the Bush era tax cuts for the rich which would add something in the range of $500 billion a year to revenue. I would deal with social security by starting out by dropping the cap on payroll deductions (for employees only, but not for employers so as not to raise business costs), and I would do the same for Medicare payroll deductions and, perhaps raise the rate from 1.65% to 2%. Finally, I would treat all forms of income in the manner in which wages are treated. This means taxing capital gains, rents, royalties, and everything else the same as we tax wages, salaries and tips. It is completely illogical to tax income that comes from actual work at a much higher rate than income that basically is the result of the work of others such as investing in stocks. Also note that they buying and selling of stock has zero impact on a company's balance expect for the IPO.

So I have given you a number of specifics, most of which would only affect a tiny portion of Americans. It adds up to alot of money though. I would also demand of our government that each program be reviewed annually to ensure that the needs are still there, that the program is addressing the needs in an effective manner (e.g., against annual goals and objectives which are part of the review) and that programs that are no longer needed be eliminated and the ones that are still needed be modified appropriately to make them more effective. This is nothing more or less than any company does with their own internal investments, be they in personnel or projects.

My challenge for you is to present an alternative and not just give a bunch of generallized talking points about what you don't like with my proposals. I am open to anything reasonable that you suggest to get us out of this mess, but I don't need a rehashing of your animosity towards Obama or liberals or Democrats, etc. It is completely non-productive to say the other side is wrong, but having nothing to offer up yourself.

Look my friend, It was a slip when I referred to the Constitution verses the Declaration of In dependance.

I agree that unions were very necessary; 100 years ago. But with all the government agencies watching out for employee safety ( OSHA ? for one )the unions have accomplished what they were looking for as far as safety,working hours, etc. Now they are mainly fighting for $$$$$.

The problem, especially with unions for the public service employees is that when wage & benefit negotiations come up, they are on the same side of the table as management. ( you give me the $$ and I give you the votes. Even the great FDR was against that. It was JFK I believe who decided to allow that. You are the scholar, check on that please.

How about the Yonkers fireman who retired at $100,000/year at about 45 years old and is able to start collecting his retirement immediately!
What private sector job can you do that?

Interesting, the only government employees who cannot be unionized are the military. Of course, you know which group is going to have their benefits cut first.

"This is purely an assertion. As usual, you have zero in the way of specifics."

By his own staff's estimations (made awhile back before he was elected, on assumption that he would get his second term), the debt to be absorbed during the next four years of Obama's second tenure was on average about a trillion a year. That means we will have a debt of 20 trillion+ by the end of the Obama years, as it stands at ~$16 trillion today.

I don't think the debt was ever more than about 9 trillion for any other president for any year! This is an appoximation as I didn't Google it, but I am sure you will.

At 20 trillion in debt, we will be close to being beyond the point of return. At best it will anchor the US economy into a slow growth model llike Japan.

So there I gave you numbers, Obama's own numbers so you cannot argue about them except that these are obviously best case scenario numbers since they came from his staff. The situation is very likely to be even more dire.

If I were a liberal and voted for him, I would watch what happens to Greece so you can see how the "Hope and Change" mantra will affect you and you heirs future.

Dear colleagues in LA, see you around in 2013. What an achievement!

I'm sorry that I don't live in the same black and white world that you do. Unions have done both positive and negative things as have most organizations, be they government, unions, or public or privately held companies. Unlike you, I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water. You keep using the term 'productivty' which also has both a bad and good connotation. Paying low wages increases productivity as we measure it. Speeding up an assembly line increases productivity. Increasing working hours by having salaried personnel work overtime (for free) increases productivity. New technology such as computers and robots increase productivity. Our current 'standard' of the 40 hour work week and overtime regulations arose from unions. Perhaps you wish to eliminate these regulations as well as child labor laws and minimum wage laws, all of which could be claimed to decrease productivity.

Yes, I agree, that in some cases, unions have obtained too much power and often fight for self-serving purposes that might not benefit the nation in general. Does that mean I want all unions eliminated? Of course not. Do some or many companies do things that are not in the public interest? Of course they do and I don't want private companies eliminated either. But when things go bad, I do support appropriate adjustments (not an all or nothing approach). Just keep in mind that virtually every governmental regulation, from the Federal level down to local speed limits on roads arose from a specific need and/or abuse of existing law. Most government regulation of business arose out of abuses by large corporations. For the most part, many of these regulations become minor annoyances and cost for large corporations, but kill small businesses who can't deal with the 'economy of scale'. Your solution is to eliminate regulations altogether; mine is to adjust regulations to lessen the burdens they impose on small business while still retaining the ability to curb excesses and abuses. You seem to look at the world in black and white terms (and white is your obvious preference), whereas I see the world as a continuum of subtle shades of gray.

And for what it is worth, the Preamble to the Constution includes the phrase: "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and Posterity". One interpretation of these phrases give the Federal government a large leeway in terms of legislation, especially when one accepts that the government gets its power from the people (not corporations or only the elite), and the government's function is to carry out the will of the majority while balancing the rights of minorities. In case you didn't notice, this past election, plus a large number of polls, has indicated that right now a clear majority American people support eliminating the Bush era tax cuts for the rich (only on income that exceeds $250K). I guess the majority realizes that our economy during the 1990's was pretty good, even when the rich were paying at a 39.5% marginal tax rate and that millions of new jobs were created during that era of 'higher' taxes. They also noted what happened to job creation after top tax rates were lower. Note that this does not prove cause and effect, nor do any of your claims. It is simply that data today strongly suggest that Americans do not accept the Republican 'job creator' (euphemism for rich people, I guess) theory of the wealth trickling down. Your problem is that you just can't accept being a part of the minority and believe that your eliteness makes your opinion count more or that you are somehow better than everyone else.

Guess what? You are not better, smarter, or more correct about your theories. But at least you are learning a bit about our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. You could at least have the grace to thank me for the history lessons and providing you with some facts and data to fold into your theories.

You are correct -- "pursuit of happiness" is not in the constitution but the declaration of independence. I acknowledge my mistake. It was the the concept that our country was not founded on the ideals that government is responsible for everyone's happiness. The individual is.

Now, how about you admiting that unions are not entirely responsible for the gains made by America's working class. Unions that fight against productivity increases will eventually drive a company out of business ----

Hostess for a recent example. Would not let the bread truck drivers deliver the Twinkies (the truck drivers did get the message) ... Well 18,000 people are now out of a job because the bakers didn't. When the jobs come back wages will be at 1/2, instead of 90%.

And yes -- some venture capitalist (like Bain) invested millions to try and save the company -- and they lost it all.

"Try the constitution saying "pursuit of happiness". No guarantees."

Once again, you show that you know no nothing. The phrase to which you refer is a part of the Declaration of Independece, which as NO legal status in the United States. It was simply a letter to King George which explained, in excrutiating detail, the reasons why America was leaving the British Empire. The 'pursuit of happiness' phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution.

No wonder you have so many problems with your point of view. You don't even know what most 6th graders know. Perhaps you are a victim of an home-based education? Whatever the case, it makes little sense to argue with those who make up whatever 'facts' they want to 'prove' their point.

"Obama is rapidly turning us into, what Europe has become; broken ultra left leaning countries too far gone to adapt to necessary austerity measures."

This is purely an assertion. As usual, you have zero in the way of specifics. What specifically has Obama done that is causing the alleged problems you claim. And then, what specific consequences can you tie to anything that Obama has done? Just like the Republicans who got clobbered in the recent election, you like to talk in vague generalities and offer no detail or specifics. And before you raise any issue about the national debt, remember that Obama was saddled with a ton of debt from his predecessor in the form of billions each and every year for tax cuts for the rich (by far, the largest contributor to the overall nsational debt and annual budget deficits), the two wars we are still paying for (at least Obama ended the one in Iraq which was never justified), and the unfunded Medicare Part D. Yes, the numbers from these Bush era financial blunders show up on Obama's watch, but you have no basis for giving him 'credit' for this part of the national debt or annual deficit. So before you start blaming Obama and giving specifics (not that you ever do), make sure you have the facts straight. You also need not repeat the irrelevant comments about LBJ and social security (unless, of course, you can magically find a way to show relevance) or FDR and Pearl Harbor.

You repeatedly claim that Obama is ruining this country. How about explaining yourself for a change? The other choice you have is to continue with you current tactics of assertions and unexplained theories of how capitalism is supposed to work (in your mind) and be like the 2012 Republicans. Choose the latter and you will continue to become a smaller and smaller party in American politics and you will continue to lose elections. You just don't get it ... all of you screaming and threats about the future (with no data to support your claims) is simply not working with the American public. MY data and evidence for that last statement are the 2012 election votes that Republicans lost on virtually every level including the House where they got more total seats, but fewer total votes than Democratic candidates (I bet you didn't know that last fact, did you?).

I await eagerly your next blah blah blah, yadda-yadda-yadda group of meaningless assertions.

"....not a shred of evidence that your doomsday forecasts are coming true...."

I did not even get into Japan, because this is not a third world country, but clearly first world. Europe is cooked over the long haul which hopefully is decades away rather than in my lifetime excepting Greece of course. This a surely a "dead man walking" country, limping along naively rioting and clamoring for livable living conditions. And for what single reason do the citizens of that country think they deserve this? Just because they are Greeks and not third world citizens like Haiti? The sad truth is Greece is way beyound not being a first world country because they owe more money than the country is worth in terms of real world economics.......when was the last time you bought something made in Greece? The liberal wage/entitlement mentality of the citizendry has voted themselves (the country) into insolvency. Japan is different because their salaries are actually higher than the US for equivalent jobs and they have a society much more capable of saving and enduring true austerity. Unfortunately this is only stringing them along into a very slow death spiral, and once again debt is killing another country abd in Japan's case unpayable levels of debt so their economy cannot recover.
Precisely the senario I fear for the US. If not for their debt,I truly believe Japan would have been booming since their big recession20+ years ago. The trouble is the debt drags thm down and even an effective zero or even negative interest rate has not recovered their economy. I believe they are cooked also in the long run, and this is a country with a population far more capable of working together and coping. But for them I think it is too late. We would be wise to look at this country and ask ourselves if we are headed there, and if we are, do we have the right guy in the big house? My answer is a resounding no.