I think I remember him about taxing the rich a little more. But the pubs seem fine with all the money staying at the top.
Yes, that is his plan. But you, and many like you on the left, are too enamored with your dear leader to understand the ramifications of what will occur by "taxing the rich". So please, help me understand a few things. 1. How does taxing the rich more make the poor richer? 2. How is taxing the rich effective when the rich have so many loopholes to exploit? Should Obama be for closing loopholes? Why isn't he? 3. What do corporations do when they are taxed more? Hint, it's in the aforementioned "profit" discussions above regarding labor. I'm interested in your wisdom on the above three points. Please, share it.
cities rot from the inside when dems take control and ramp up the giveaways. the free loaders move in. the productive people who made the city thrive move out. the tax base erodes as the the productive people and productive employers move to avoid the theft by taxation economically stupid ideas and spending. There is room for workfare, not welfare. There is room police fire fighters and unions... but not golden retirements. This is no room for empty buses in north county san diego and trains from oceanside to vista?? Its massive waste.
Back to the topic of the thread, the pattern is most are in CA and FL. It's probably the gods way of punishing those who like to live in the sun and fun by the ocean. Fact: the real redistribution of wealth is from the middle class to the wealthy. This is hurting the middle class and working poor and I have no idea how to fix this.
Part of the way is to bring justice back into the system, and end the crony government/financial industry revolving door. Close loopholes, rid or seriously limit lobbyist behavior, institute a fair, flat tax. Tell companies if they want to do business in the US, they need to employ US citizens, domestically. Get government out of the way, let states do more. Pass a balanced budget act. Drastically cut military spending and waste.
^ That isn't corporate raiding. And let's go over what employment is. A producer of goods or services (aka an employer) often needs help providing said goods or services to consumers. To fill this necessity they offer jobs to potential employees. This job is essentially a contract between employee and employer which provides specific tasks to the employee in return for specific compensation from the employer. This is in no way exploitation, it's a deal between two willing parties, and as long as both sides need eachother and fulfill their obligations, the deal will continue. If that job is no longer necessary, or can be done for less cost, then it will be cut as the employer no longer requires the services of it's employee. If the employee finds another job which offers them more desirable compensation, then they will take the new job. If you expect an employer to cost itself more by paying higher wages than its competitors for similar employment, or for them to sink the whole company (of which they may be personally liable) out of loyalty to their workforce, you're a fool, because that is in no way beneficial to the employer. No one is entitled to their job, they should be grateful for the opportunity. If they feel mistreated they should seek employment elsewhere. If they ARE being mistreated (ie. the employer is not living up to their end of the deal) they can bring the employer to court.
I missed this excellent part of the equation, but the PigMeister is absolutely correct. Labor can choose to work elsewhere if it feels it is getting the short end of the stick, and this pressure will - if appropriate - apply pressure on companies to correct that. If inappropriate, labor will lose as it is the market that determines what is fair.