Corporations didn't pass a 35% corporate income tax, second largest in the
world. That high tax contributed to the decision to move jobs to a foreign
subsidiary where there's a much more friendly tax structure.
Corporations didn't make the rules, and, in my view, it's not fair to
criticize corporations for playing by them.
As for them spending all they want on an election because they're chartered
in some US state, think of it as a way of getting that foreign money back
into the US economy. After all, an "Elect Dudley Dooright" commercial
doesn't work too well on Ukranian television.
There were so many things that have driven corporations to move jobs
that the corporate income tax would rank as one of the lowest. Just
consider that for the cost of a minimum wage employee in the US with
little more than basic benefits a corporation can hire two experienced
engineers or systems people in India or China. And it's not a slave
wage to them, they are making a wage that is the equilivent in
standard of living to a middle class person in the states. This will
change over time as it has changed with Japan but in the mean time,
the corporations benefit by being able to produce and sell products in
a very competitive market while at the same time creating new markets
for their products.
And if you penalize them, they will either leave or be put out of
business by others.
As you mention in your opening statement, apparently without a clue as
to what it ment, most large corporations are multinational in scope.
They are not trying to screw America by being interested in their
bottom line, they are trying to survive in a world full of
competition. They can either move the jobs where they can obtain the
best return on every dollar spent in production or see their
corportion pushed aside by others who will. They can also take the
long term view that by moving jobs overseas and to other developing
countries they are in fact producing consumers that will buy their
products in the future. The time when any company can ignore 6.5
billion people for the 300 million (buy at the cheapest price) US
consumers has long since past. What WE, the American public must do
is realize that in order to survive in a global economy we must start
to find a world market for what we have to offer and we must learn to
compete in that world market...or...get a job at McDonalds.
It was apparent that the public wanted change when they elected Obama,
the only real problem is they don't know what change is and don't seem
to recognize that the change is already here and they must learn to
adapt to it or get left behind.
Not when the situation is that the TWO biggest liars get even more
money and the small players continue to be left in the lurch with
their message downed out by the big money guys. They ONLY people who
are going to get the big money are people who support the interests of
that big money. Any candidate who truly wants to be a representative
of the "common man" is left standing at the gate because if you
represent the common man none of the people who can give you big money
are going to do so, it's not in their interests. As long as the
system revolves around BIG MONEY we are going to keep getting shit for
To go back to your
We aren't really getting "more" speech in any meaningful way, we are
just getting the same old crap in larger quantities. To get MORE
speech in terms of viewpoints we need to get big money OUT of the
picture so there is a playing feed dominated by competing ideas, not
a playing field dominated by just those people who can contribute big
money on either side.
Without money the IS no playing field.
What would you have, volunteers drawing yard signs with poster board and
crayons? If so, did the crayons appear by magic? Are volunteers to stuff
hand-written missives in the daily paper before it's delivered? Do legions
of volunteers call in to radio talk programs as a substitute for a paid
commercial? Are you going to have a crew to "tag" your candidate's name on a
bus or taxi because you can't afford the traveling sign? And how do you
propose to remind 75,000 of your identified voters to go to the polls on
election day? By clairvoyance? (Imagine what it costs to install 1,000
One 30-second TV commercial in an urban market can reach 100,000 people. It
would take 10,000 people to do that and there probably aren't 10,000
highly-motivated supporters willing to make ten telephone calls in that same
Unless you've worked at a fairly high-level in a political campaign or run
for political office (I have), you probably have no conception of the
logistics and expenses involved.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.