Conservative VS Liberal

[ariscus99 1]

What about employees at Eldredge Inc., a West Chester, Pa., waste-transport company?

Chief financial officer Alice Egan does the math:

"We have 55 employees, and we currently pay more than $600,000" to cover them and their families. She multiplies 55 by $2,000. "The fine would cost me $110,000, so I’d save nearly a half-million dollars." Actually, she would save more.

The legislation gives employers a pass on the first 30, so her fine would be $50,000 for 25 staffers.

That would mean her company would no longer be covering employees’ families — an unattractive option to current employees and potential hires.

"We want to do the best we can to recruit the best employees we can afford," she said. Egan expects Eldredge to continue to offer coverage.

But, she said, if other companies could lower their costs by skipping coverage, "it would make it awfully enticing for someone whose profitability is suffering."

As an employee, Egan said, she would want her company to provide health benefits. "As an employer," she quickly adds, "it would be an interesting decision."

Why would the employees, especially in this example where they are talking about it to increase profitability, expect more money? The owner is doing it to make more money because of short coming that other companies are creating, not to make more money in her pocket, but to remain at the status quo, giving more to the employees doesn't facilitate that.

[tdslf1 0]

thanks for the update.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Why would the employees, especially in this example where they are talking about it to increase profitability, expect more money? The owner is doing it to make more money because of short coming that other companies are creating, not to make more money in her pocket, but to remain at the status quo, giving more to the employees doesn't facilitate that.

When the employees took the job the part of their healthcare paid for by the employer was a benefit, just like sick days, vacation days, etc.. And the benefit of healthcare has a dollar value. If the employer just wanted to make more profit to begin with, then he wouldn't offer healthcare at all and save that $600,000 per year. If he drops healthcare for his employees, then they lose a benefit with a dollar value. And in addition, they would have to purchase health insurance from the exchange. And you really think they're going to do all this and not expect an increase in salary? I don't think so.

Especially not if they're union and have a negotiated contract.

[BJean 16]

I'm cheerfully hoping that everyone gets their taxes paid on time today.

[LeighaMason 19]

I saw this on the factcheck.org website and it really reflects my opinions.

I just wanted to say how much I enjoy your site. I am so sick and tired of all the misquotes, distortions, and outright lies that masquerade as news today. Critical thinking and rigorous examination have been replaced with entertainment and emotional content.

At the end of the day, I want to know that I have accurate and truthful information with which to base my decisions on and not just talking points that confirm my preconceived ideas or biases.

Keep up the good work.

Jerry Salyer

Jacksonville, Ill.

[LarraineM 6]

There is nothing Christian about deneying health care to ALL AMERICANS..................... Thank you Jesus for a new breed of leadership that directs us to your will............

[Cleo's Mom 257]

It's no wonder so many americans are woefully misinformed about things considering where they get their news. The following comes as no suprise to me about the nut-tea party:

Poll: Tea partiers fear socialism, but love Social Security and Medicare

by Jed Lewison

Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:50:03 AM PDT

According to a new poll from CBS and the New York Times, 92% of tea partiers are scared that America is moving towards socialism -- but in a strange twist, most of them seem to like it.

Despite the fear that socialism is coming to America, 62% of tea party supporters also support Social Security and Medicare. In fact, nearly half of them either benefit from Social Security or Medicare or have somebody in their immediate family who does. And about one-third are directly beneficiaries at least one of the programs, compared to about one-fifth of the population at large.

Some other highlights from the poll (NYT, CBS):

• 18% of Americans say they are tea party supporters.
  
• 66% of tea party supporters say they usually or always vote Republican. (Just 5% vote Democratic.)
  
• 73% say they are conservative.
  
• 41% believe Barack Obama was born in the United States.
  
• While 65% believe the Obama Administration treats blacks and whites equally, 56% believe it favors poor people over the middle-class and rich.
  
• 89% are white and 52% believe too much attention is paid to the problems facing African-Americans.
  
• 59% have a favorable view of Glenn Beck compared to 6% who view him unfavorably. (Among all Americans, the numbers are 18% and 17%.)
  
• 63% say they get most of their political news from Fox News Channel.
  
• 66% have a favorable view of Sarah Palin, compared to 12% who view her unfavorably. (Among all Americans, the numbers are 30% and 45%.)
  
• 24% believe citizens can be justified in taking violent action against the government.
  
• 52% believe the federal income taxes they pay are fair.
  
• 84% of the tea partiers believe their views reflect those of most Americans, but only 25% of all Americans agree (remember: 18% are tea partiers).
  
• from: dailykos
  

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Those on the right are always defending and praising the glories of the private sector. This is where the REAL jobs are created, they say. Well, the following shows how the Fortune 500's profits are way up for 2009, so WHERE ARE THE JOBS? Well, my answer to that is - the reason their profits are up is because they have laid off so much of their workforce - forcing the remainder to do more work for the same money or they've sent the jobs overseas:

Amazingly, as consumers struggle, U.S. corporations are staging a nearly unprecedented comeback that's largely escaping notice. The gargantuan, dispiriting job cuts that seem to dominate the news have also been the spur for an epic resurgence in profits. For 2009, the Fortune 500 lifted earnings 335%, to $391 billion, a $301 billion jump that's the second largest in the list's 56-year history, approaching the increase in the robust recovery of 2003. For last year the 500 raised their return on sales from less than 1% to 4%. That's close to the list's 4.7% historical average.

from: CNN

[BJean 16]

We find people for companies who need to fill jobs. Many companies are now trying to hire one person for a job that would normally be done by two people. The people we place are working as much as 16 hour days sometimes and aren't going to last very long at the pace their employers are demanding.

These are either high tech jobs, engineers or management to upper management jobs where we're seeing the problem. And the companies aren't paying higher salaries - they're paying as little as they can possibly get away with. And they don't want to cover all relocation expenses these days - only a percentage of the costs and they want to cut vacation time.

So somebody is making some money - and it sure doesn't look like it's the employees.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Here's corporate welfare - why aren't the nut-teas yapping about this?

HOUSTON -- As you work on your taxes this month, here's something to raise your hackles: Some of the world's biggest, most profitable corporations enjoy a far lower tax rate than you do--that is, if they pay taxes at all.

The most egregious example is General Electric ( GE - news - people ). Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.

Avoiding taxes is nothing new for General Electric. In 2008 its effective tax rate was 5.3%; in 2007 it was 15%. The marginal U.S. corporate rate is 35%.

How did this happen? It's complicated. GE's tax return is the largest the IRS deals with each year--some 24,000 pages if printed out. Its annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission weighs in at more than 700 pages.

Inside you'll find that GE in effect consists of two divisions: General Electric Capital and everything else. The everything else--maker of engines, power plants, TV shows and the like--would have paid a 22% tax rate if it was a standalone company.

It's GE Capital that keeps the overall tax bill so low. Over the last two years, GE Capital has displayed an uncanny ability to lose lots of money in the U.S. (posting a $6.5 billion loss in 2009), and make lots of money overseas (a $4.3 billion gain). Not only do the U.S. losses balance out the overseas gains, but GE can defer taxes on that overseas income indefinitely. The timing of big deductions for depreciation in GE Capital's equipment leasing business also provides a tax benefit, as will loan losses left over from the credit crunch.

But it's the tax benefit of overseas operations that is the biggest reason why multinationals end up with lower tax rates than the rest of us. It only makes sense that multinationals "put costs in high-tax countries and profits in low-tax countries," says Scott Hodge, president of the Tax Foundation. Those low-tax countries are almost anywhere but the U.S. "When you add in state taxes, the U.S. has the highest tax burden among industrialized countries," says Hodge. In contrast, China's rate is just 25%; Ireland's is 12.5%.

Corporations are getting smarter, not just about doing more business in low-tax countries, but in moving their more valuable assets there as well. That means setting up overseas subsidiaries, then transferring to them ownership of long-lived, often intangible but highly profitable assets, like patents and software.

As a result, figures tax economist Martin Sullivan, companies are keeping some $28 billion a year out of the clutches of the U.S. Treasury by engaging in so-called transfer pricing arrangements, where, say, Microsoft's ( MSFT - news - people ) overseas subsidiaries license software to its U.S. parent company in return for handsome royalties (that get taxed at those lower overseas rates).

All of this lost revenue (taxes) amounts to corporate welfare and it costs every one of us.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[BJean 16]

And the tea bags just keep defending our subsidizing huge conglomerates like GE. All the while, if they are middle income folks, they're carrying the tax burden for GE.

Why oh why aren't they demonstrating against that instead of bellyaching that they're paying too much in taxes??? They may be paying too much but as long as they support the way we tax (or don't tax) big business, they might as well shut their yappers for all the good it's going to do.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

And the tea bags just keep defending our subsidizing huge conglomerates like GE. All the while, if they are middle income folks, they're carrying the tax burden for GE.

Why oh why aren't they demonstrating against that instead of bellyaching that they're paying too much in taxes??? They may be paying too much but as long as they support the way we tax (or don't tax) big business, they might as well shut their yappers for all the good it's going to do.

Actually, they aren't paying more in taxes under Obama than bush unless they are in the 5% top wage earners who didn't get a tax cut. But I've been listening today to the news about the profile of the teabaggers: they're mostly white, mostly male, mostly republican, mostly middle aged, more educated than average american and making more money than the average american.

In other words, they're angry, white republican men who make a good income, have healthcare and don't want anyone else to have what they have. They benefited from taxes for schools, hospitals, roads, education but want to deny that to the next generation. But mostly, as I have said before- Ground zero for this group is their hatred of Pres. Obama and having a black man in the white house. Everything beyond that is just a smoke screen.

[BJean 16]

I sure didn't mean to insiniuate that middle class Americans are paying more in taxes than they used to. What I was trying to say is that the middle class is paying more than their fair share when they're compared to the conglomerates that get government subsidies and tax breaks. And when the extremely wealthy have enough loopholes and deductions that they don't pay much either, guess whose taxes have to pick up that slack?

As for the WASP members of the Tea Bagging party, I know there is some discrimination going about race. But I honestly think that the basis for the whole movement is that they enjoyed 8 years of Republican rule and they are delirious and frenzied because they are no longer in control. They're scared to death that they're going to wind up having to pay their fair share for a change either personally or through their businesses pocketbook.

And another faction that makes up the Tea Baggers is the anti-choice maniacs. They will wave the no more govenrment banner and hold up signs about "Obamacare" and the rest but their agenda is simply to give the current administration a hard time because they are sure that the president is not anti-choice and it's killing them.

[BJean 16]

I'm not down playing the racist faction of the tea baggers but I remember all too well the things that they did to candidate Bill Clinton and later to President Clinton and he's a WASP himself.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I sure didn't mean to insiniuate that middle class Americans are paying more in taxes than they used to. What I was trying to say is that the middle class is paying more than their fair share when they're compared to the conglomerates that get government subsidies and tax breaks. And when the extremely wealthy have enough loopholes and deductions that they don't pay much either, guess whose taxes have to pick up that slack?

As for the WASP members of the Tea Bagging party, I know there is some discrimination going about race. But I honestly think that the basis for the whole movement is that they enjoyed 8 years of Republican rule and they are delirious and frenzied because they are no longer in control. They're scared to death that they're going to wind up having to pay their fair share for a change either personally or through their businesses pocketbook.

And another faction that makes up the Tea Baggers is the anti-choice maniacs. They will wave the no more govenrment banner and hold up signs about "Obamacare" and the rest but their agenda is simply to give the current administration a hard time because they are sure that the president is not anti-choice and it's killing them.

You're right. As I've said in previous posts, the system under bush worked very well for these people. They are the defenders of the status quo. They got tax cuts, healthcare through their employer and had a president who talked tough, started wars, etc.

But I still believe they are just phonies. They talk about spending, the deficit and healthcare. The healthcare is paid for but they talk about repealing it. Why don't they talk about repealing medicare part D - a HUGE unfunded mandate costing about a trillion $$ over 10 years? If their protests are about deficits and spending then they would be addressing this, as well as the two unfunded wars and two unfunded tax cuts to the rich. But you don't see them addressing these issues, which is why I will continue to maintain that these issues are not the real reason for the impetus of this movement. It is their hatred of Pres. Obama and it started even before he was elected.

As I have posted many times before, corporate welfare is a huge drain on our economy and the middle class has to pay for what the corporations don't. But it's easier to pick on the poor because they don't have paid lobbyists like corporate america does to make sure that their gravy train stays that way. The poor don't have a voice. Yeah, it's all about the single mother on welfare and not the big bank CEO cheat who has 5 homes and a golden parachute. :thumbup: