If I can chime in here, the main problem with Obama's plan, and your misunderstanding of economics and human nature, is that if you make companies pay more to produce their products and services, they will pass it on to the consumer. Maybe not immediately but as soon as they are able it happens. So your argument that if we tax companies that do not hire American workers and by default, companies that do hire Americans end up paying more for their labor (tax credits withstanding), you will increase inflation. It's a basic formula and one that anyone who has owned their own business knows. The other alternative is to close the doors which obviously does the opposite of what you think will be accomplished. I and others have always made the contention that corporate income taxes are a joke. Corporations do not pay income taxes; their customers do. That's me and you. The difference is the Pols make the uninformed think they are sticking it to the corporations when instead it is just a way for them to increase your taxes without you understanding that's what they've done.

I am not saying that all companies should look outside the US for their labor forces and supply sources, but in your example, it allows the customers of Walmart, who need it most, the ability to buy their goods at the lowest cost, there is a substantial benefit there. When you get the government involved in the labor and materials markets in a big way there is only one thing that will happen...they will screw it up. Were you alive in the 70's? Double digit inflation, double digit unemployment and double digit interst rates because the government attempted to control prices and labor.

I find it interesting that people who tend to lean towards government control of any aspect of our lives, are unable to see the example government puts forth in any of its endeavors. I challenge you to name any agency that works....even moderately competent and efficient.

__________________
American by birth.
Conservative by the grace of God.

The latest Bloomberg poll shows the race a statistical dead heat. Democrats are gaga for Obama. White America is being politically correct when they talk about him. I'm not one to put my bet on polls but just like everyone thought it was a lock for Hillary...things change.

__________________
American by birth.
Conservative by the grace of God.

I think you've got it. As a now closet republican, I plan on voting for Obama this year.

Being small business owners, we are disgusted that we cannot afford medical insurance for our employees. So we have to opt for private single care plans, that are extremely exclusive with very high deductibles along with out of pocket expenses. The cost for these plans are through the roof. Then in order to just help out, we donate cash back to our employees so they can purchase their own private policies.

Small business is the largest employer in the United States. It's no wonder we have 47 million "working" Americans without health coverage. The republican party has ignored this issue. Except with the medical savings plan, which costs also are extremely expensive, high deductibles, etc. etc.

This coming year, domestic policies are much more important to Americans. Your right, McCain really doesn't address these concerns. Add to that, that the republicans in congress during six years of this adminstration, looked more like democrats in their spending habits. Hey, why not vote for a democrat.

On the other hand, Obama is going to lose the war with John McCain over Iraq. Barack is not going to be able to run an effective campaign against McCain, while citing a speech he gave against the war over 5 years ago, & or "Al Queda wasn't in Iraq, when we invaded."--Obama's statement of yesterday.

The fact is: We are in Iraq, & so is Al Queda. Obama is going to have to address the issue of his early departure plans, in a meaningful, knowledgable, common sense way. To do so otherwise, would give Al Queda an unimaginable victory in Iraq. Americans will not tolerate that.

I was around in the 70's & remember very well what you're referring too. Government should not try & control prices, it always backfires. The 70's was evidence of that.

However, I feel that Obama's plan to give tax breaks to corporations that employ Americans, is a very good idea. This versus sending jobs overseas for cheap labor.

I also understand your theory of higher prices from higher labor costs, but certainly the tax base would increase from payroll contributions. As we have seen over & over again, lower taxes for corporations & individuals puts Americans to work.

Since most of the items bought at Walmart are made in Mexico or China, I see no real inflationary problems with Obamas plan.

What is a closet republican? I've never heard that expression before. What exactly do you mean?

As for the rest of your post - I own a business that employs around 100 people. I have no problem affording health care for my employees. I pay 100% of the premium for the employee and 50% for the dependents. Well actually, I don't really pay for it, our customers do. I don't pay taxes either - it is all passed on to our customers. If your business is unable to afford Health care you should either get out of it or raise your prices. Government is not the answer.

__________________
I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat . . . I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money."
-- Barney Frank, October 20, 2008

This isnt an argument against Obama's plan. Corporations that don't have to pay the tax penalties will offer lower prices in order to get a greater share of the market. No one is suggesting price fixing. That is what failed in the 70s. And might I add, part of whats gone so wrong since the sixties is the dismantling of anti-trust law leaving fewer and fewer sources of competition. What the tax break for domestic employers does is give business that have a smaller market, but employ Americans a market advantage over the Targets and Walmarts of the world. It encourages more, not less American entrepeneurship. Just on a smaller scare and that's a good thing.

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

the downside is it will open up other lines of thought regards; IF you require community service in exchange for government services or a benefit, then why not ask the same from welfare recipients?

Add to that that once the college system sniffs an increase in students ability to accrue more funds etc., they will as they have almost lock step in the past, just raise tuition rendering the benefit moot.

__________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)

Are you familiar with welfare law at all? What "welfare" do you mean. Do you mean food stamps? Do you mean Aid to Dependent Families and Children? Do you mean subsidized housing? In terms of subsidized housing and food stamps you have to be gainfully employed in order to receive them. Normal you also need to have kids. These families do not have time to do community service, most of them work incredibly long hours.

College age students on the other hand have a little more free time, especially if the credit allows more to not take a part time job. As for tuition raises. I doubt that every university would raise their tuition by 4,000 automatically.

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

Though I think a lot of welfare recipients are already working more hours than most of them can handle, the idea of asking unemployed welfare recipients to do community service in order to receive larger benefits may not be such a terrible idea.

But won't other colleges then lower costs in order to compete with the rest of the market? I'm no economics expert, but I thought that was how the free market worked (in a nutshell). What is the opposing solution? Just tell kids not to go to college because they can't afford it when they're willing to do community service to obtain extra money? Just tell them that, despite all their hard work from elementary school to high school, some kids aren't going to be able to go? I can't support that.

__________________
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.”
- George Will

RFK you've hit exactly on why the Republicans are going to have trouble beating Obama in the general. No one wants to hear "but wait a minute someone, somewhere might get 15 bucks they aren't supposed to, but please ignore the billions that our corporate friends make". That little moment in American politics is over and done with.

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

Also, wouldn't that logic work for almost any system that puts more money into people's pockets? Let's assume the government implemented a tremendous tax cut for every single taxpayer. What is to keep businesses from just inflating their prices because they know that people are now capable of paying? The only incentive I can think of that would keep businesses from doing this would be the fact that opposing businesses would then lower their prices in an attempt to corner a portion of the market. I don't see why the same process wouldn't work for colleges.

__________________
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.”
- George Will

thx for getting the point....and frankly I agree..


you would think so, but the past indicators has not shown that ...I'll look for the article in the economist, they did some checking ( us news and world report did as well) that shows a clear correlation between government increases in educational largesse and college tuition increases....

I am not going to go off topic, just a quick comment- its my opinion that removing some of the old mechanisms we had in place and that are prevalent in Europe regards vocational training etc. with the push for everyone to attend college by making it fantastically easy, has not exactly helped us or the intended recipients.

__________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)

and people are equally tired of being taxed to death and yet every cycle, being told, through the old class warfare platform which it appears you understand very well, the system has rendered "so many" without hope....and ipso facto, we need more money.

__________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)

That is a good point. I think that many people (and the country) would be far better off with vocational training that gives them tangible skills, rather than going to college.

__________________
I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat . . . I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money."
-- Barney Frank, October 20, 2008

I agree that there should be a stronger emphasis on vocational training for individuals, but I think this emphasis should focus on individuals that (a) can't afford to go to college and don't want to do community service, or (b) just aren't cut out for higher education. I'm not ready to start telling young people that college might not be the best option for them when most high-paying jobs are reserved for college graduates.

__________________
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.”
- George Will