backtop


Print 108 comment(s) - last by jconan.. on Jun 17 at 9:38 PM

The Chinese plan to increase the brand's international presence

DailyTech reported yesterday on GM's announcement that it had found a buyer for the Hummer brand of heavy utility vehicles.  The mystery buyer promised to take on the brand and help expand its international presence.  In the process it saved a number of jobs at Hummer plants and helped GM complete a major step toward moving out of bankruptcy.

Now the identity of the mystery buyer has been revealed.  Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Company Ltd., a Chinese industrial firm, will be purchasing the brand and attempting to revive it.

States Yang Yi, chief executive of Tengzhong, "We plan to ... allow Hummer to innovate and grow in exciting new ways under the leadership and continuity of its current management team."

He did, however, hint at changes stating that the deal "will allow Hummer to better meet demand for new products such as more fuel-efficient vehicles in the U.S."

The companies hope to have the deal finalized by September.  The deal does not concern the military Hummer technology owned by defense contractor AM General, which licensed the brand name to GM for civilian vehicle purposes.  AM General will now, in turn, license the name to Sichuan Tengzhong, which will continue the civilian Hummer development.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Sad.
By reader1 on 6/3/2009 9:34:38 AM , Rating: -1
America selling off its luxury items is like a junkie pawning off its TV.

America needs to move towards socialism if it wants to compete in the global market. We will probably learn this the hard way.




RE: Sad.
By invidious on 6/3/2009 9:39:08 AM , Rating: 5
This is about the dumbest thing I have ever read. I would say that you should list some reason for your rediculous conclusion but I am sure they would be equally illogical.


RE: Sad.
By mcnabney on 6/3/2009 10:20:10 PM , Rating: 1
Actually anyone in business will tell you this.

Our companies have to compete against others that do not have to pay any health benefits. If the US follows the Canadian model and switches to single-payer all of the US companies will lose one of their biggest and most rapidly explanding costs.


RE: Sad.
By geekfool on 6/4/2009 5:40:05 AM , Rating: 2
I'd say that asserting that one '-ism' is better than another '-ism' is always foolish. There is no single paradigm that handles every possible case optimally, and a successful approach will blend ideas from multiple different philosophies as the situation warrants in order to reach the best possible result. Getting bogged down in the semantics of whether a certain approach should be labeled as "capitalism" or "socialism" or some other kind of thing or suggesting that it is necessary to switch completely to a new '-ism' may make for an interesting debate, but from a practical standpoint it's useless.

Just do whatever makes the most sense, and stop worrying about whether or not it should be labeled '-ism1' or '-ism2'. The label is just that, a label, and it really makes no difference in the real world.


RE: Sad.
By SleepyGreg on 6/4/2009 8:16:09 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Before too long the ownership of companies will be so globally interwoven that you won't be able to claim anything is of a specific country with any certainty anyway. I'd imagine Chinese Hummers is a hard one to swallow for the more patriotic amongst us though.


RE: Sad.
By codeThug on 6/3/2009 9:39:36 AM , Rating: 3
The latest hummer is nothing more than a GM truck frame with a stupid fake looking military top on it. It shares none of the technology that made the HumVee what it is.


RE: Sad.
By mdogs444 on 6/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: Sad.
By lagomorpha on 6/3/2009 11:38:46 AM , Rating: 5
I think he was referring to the independent suspension with portal axles all around that gives the H1 its legendary ground clearance and possibly the diesel engine that makes it feasible to drive without spending more time at the pump than on the street. The live axle on the H2 and H3 tends to get caught up on things when off-road. Oh what's that no one has ever taken an H2 or H3 on anything more challenging than a gravel driveway? Useless garbage desired only by people that want to advertise "hey everyone I must have lots of money because I just spend $75k on a truck that should be worth <$30k".


RE: Sad.
By sgw2n5 on 6/3/2009 11:42:40 AM , Rating: 5
Well... to be fair, if a person has more dollars than sense coupled with a tragically small penis... the H2 might be worthwhile.


RE: Sad.
By Spuke on 6/3/2009 1:59:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Well... to be fair, if a person has more dollars than sense coupled with a tragically small penis... the H2 might be worthwhile.
Those with heads made of glass should not throw stones.


RE: Sad.
By mdogs444 on 6/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: Sad.
By grandpope on 6/3/2009 12:05:43 PM , Rating: 5
No GM Hummer can compare with the A-Team van.


RE: Sad.
By magreen on 6/4/2009 6:50:49 AM , Rating: 2
I love it when a plan comes together.


RE: Sad.
By nafhan on 6/3/2009 11:23:20 AM , Rating: 2
I think the H1 is the pretty much the same as the military humvee.
You're correct about the H2 and H3, though (where the majority of sales have probably been).


RE: Sad.
By 67STANG on 6/3/2009 4:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the H1 is a GMC Yukon with different body panels...

In all honesty, I scooped this article yesterday by "revealing who the mystery buyer" was in the previous Hummer thread. Was a new article really needed for this?


RE: Sad.
By Hiawa23 on 6/3/2009 9:53:40 AM , Rating: 3
The Chinese are financing our debt, not surprised by this. I think I just saw that a Chinese firm bought a part of the Cleveland Cavs too, LOL....Well, maybe not funny at all, actually quite sad.


RE: Sad.
By reader1 on 6/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: Sad.
By Ringold on 6/3/2009 4:00:36 PM , Rating: 2
I hadn't read that in the news, but who cares? If you missed the bulk of the news for the past several years, we built tons of homes of all sizes, too many for ourselves. If the Chinese people are happy to buy excess inventory that we don't want and thereby speed the recovery of our housing market then what is wrong with this?

Socialist and blindly protectionist, sounds like the "economics" taught only outside business departments.

Quick history note, because liberals can't remember anything prior to the year 2000: This isn't the first time there's been FUD about "<Insert foreign country> is buying America!" It won't be the last. Because we ignore your advice and have maintained a mixed but largely capitalist economy, we've always bounced back before. We can again. It's a little silly to be concerned about who owns what in non-defense multinational companies, if you'd studied any econ either in college or on your own you'd know that. It's not like Honda imports all the cars it sells here.


RE: Sad.
By Nfarce on 6/3/2009 6:02:06 PM , Rating: 2
A bif FUD fallacy is that "China Owns Our Debt." That's a huge crock of sheeiot. Two thirds of the National Debt is owned by the Federal Government and US Citizens. This pie chart is two years old, but it gets the idea across:

http://www.optimist123.com/.shared/image.html?/pho...

The other third is owned by all foreign nations, with China just leading Japan last year for the first time at 23% of the overall foreign ownership of US debt (23% of 33% in my minds comes to 7.5% - FAR from owning "ALL US DEBT"):

http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

Do your duty and fact find. Try not to ever let the little mindless troglodytes on this forum get away with FUD.


RE: Sad.
By TSS on 6/4/2009 8:49:27 AM , Rating: 2
that chart is horribly outdated. january 2007 was more then 2 years ago and america has piled on ALOT more debt since then.not even including the new obama budget with the largest deficit ever, but also not including how you guys are gonna finance future medicare/medicaid/social security. that's more debt, and who'll pay for it? probably the chinese.

also that .txt file paints a even darker picture. mainland china had 490 billion in security's in march 2008 and 767 billion in march 2009 . +277 billion in a year! if china doesn't own your debt now their gonna very soon.

here's a link of my own. something i came across recently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo

watch it completly and then say if foreign debt is still a FUD fallacy. or any debt for that matter. and instead of looking into the past, look into the future on this one. as for the present, well, china's already getting twitchy.


RE: Sad.
By Nfarce on 6/4/2009 10:04:22 AM , Rating: 2
1) I already said the chart was two years old, can't you read?

"This pie chart is two years old, but it gets the idea across:"

2) Even comparing numbers from two years ago, when you are dealing with such large numbers as the National Debt, the difference between percentages of CHINA ownership (the POINT) is negligible in the larger picture. That chart from over two years ago shows China's ownership at 7.4%. My March of 2009 data shows China's ownership at 7.5%.

Besides, you can always do the lazy thing and Wiki it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_...

Now those are the FACTS. I know FUD is out there on China, but the data is also out there to learn the TRUTH. And the TRUTH, I will provide. Every single time.


RE: Sad.
By Nfarce on 6/4/2009 10:14:54 AM , Rating: 2
And another thing:

quote:
also that .txt file paints a even darker picture. mainland china had 490 billion in security's in march 2008 and 767 billion in march 2009 . +277 billion in a year! if china doesn't own your debt now their gonna very soon.


If you look at that link, you'll see that ALL nations have increased their dollars spent on US debt investment. The only thing BIG there is that China surpassed Japan as the leading spender. And they way China laughed at our Treasury Secretary last week when asked if the US would continue to be stable enough to invest in, everyone over there laughed at him.

So to your point, I AM looking at the future under the way this government is running itself - and I don't like what I see. It makes the Bush years look fiscally responsible, and that is saying A LOT .


RE: Sad.
By guacamojo on 6/3/2009 10:27:56 AM , Rating: 2
No, it's not too surprising.
Maybe Americans will wake up and try supporting their local industries for a change.

Oh, hell with that. I'm going to Walmart to buy some cheap stuff. What could be more American?


RE: Sad.
By gamerk2 on 6/3/2009 11:06:19 AM , Rating: 1
Forcing Americans to buy American would be Communist. Let the free market decide what products we buy.

If you want a competitive GM, just repeal the last 100 years of labor laws: Minimum Wage, Overtime, Sick Leave, etc. This will result in cheaper products that will offset the loss in wages/benifits.


RE: Sad.
By mdogs444 on 6/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: Sad.
By Spacecomber on 6/3/2009 11:42:11 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
But why won't the current government do this? Because they are afraid that what people really want is not in line with their agenda of catastrophe, fear mongering, global warming, and social belt tightening.


Spoken like a true paranoid.

But maybe it takes one to know one. Oh wait, that would make me paranoid, too. ;)


RE: Sad.
By fic2 on 6/3/2009 2:32:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
In a free market, let the automakers produce 5mpg, 10mpg, 15mpg, 20mpg.....55mpg cars without regulation. Let the people decide what to buy. The sales figures will tell the automaker what people want and don't want.


Your kidding right? If the U.S. automakers were allowed to produce whatever they wanted they would have gone down faster than a cheap hooker after being offered $200 for a blow job when gas hit $4/gallon.

The only reason that the U.S. automakers have survived the last 2 years is because the gov't had forced them to make some fuel efficient cars to make up for the gas guzzlers the were pushing out.


RE: Sad.
By mdogs444 on 6/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: Sad.
By mdogs444 on 6/3/2009 2:59:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I know you're yelling purely on emotion as most anti-oil drilling liberals do

Mean to add in ANTI


RE: Sad.
By fic2 on 6/3/2009 4:08:39 PM , Rating: 2
And your post isn't pure opinion? Since you posted your opinion first I'll let you show me proof that the automakers would have had a mix of cars and survived without a gov't bailout if CAFE wouldn't have existed.

I don't know why you think I am yelling - no caps except for where called for.

BTW, I am not a liberal and definitely not anti-oil.


RE: Sad.
By Keeir on 6/3/2009 2:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your kidding right? If the U.S. automakers were allowed to produce whatever they wanted they would have gone down faster than a cheap hooker after being offered $200 for a blow job when gas hit $4/gallon.


Ummm.... no

They would have actually had a compeditive product profile based on long-term customer desires rather than being forced to produce (and sell) large quanities of cars that #1 not many people wanted (over a Civic/Accord type anyway) and #2 they couldn't make money building. This was a short-sighted stradegy maybe, but it can't be denied that a major factor in them adapting this stradegy was the forcing of CAFE to balance out the profitable and popular cars people actually wanted to buy...

When gas went up and people started to really buy these products, American Car companies were stuck selling things that didn't really make them money.

If CAFE didn't exist, maybe American car companies would have made and sold fewer -small- cars. But the cars would have been higher quality and better designed. They probably would have been in better shape.


RE: Sad.
By fic2 on 6/3/2009 3:23:19 PM , Rating: 2
If CAFE didn't exist I doubt any of the American car companies would have even been making cars (as opposed to truck/SUVs), much less small cars. Any cars they made would have been Caddy/Lincoln luxuries.

Then when gas hit $4/gallon their gas guzzler sales would have dried up (like it did), but they wouldn't have had anything to fall back on. Only at $3+/gallon gas did any U.S. consumers actually think about how much gas they were using to drive the behemoth around.


RE: Sad.
By mdogs444 on 6/3/2009 3:31:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If CAFE didn't exist I doubt any of the American car companies would have even been making cars (as opposed to truck/SUVs), much less small cars.

Stuff and nonsense. You fail to realize that not everyone is on the same budget. Not everyone can afford an suv, truck, large car, midsize car. Economy cars/small cars are the cheapest to produce, however they have the smallest profit margin. They have always made a few of them, but due to it not being profitable and the low sales figures, they didn't expand on it...what business would have?

You make the claim that Toyota and Honda always made these cars. Sure, they did, I agree with that. However, their original target market was NOT the US. And it wasn't until gas was over $2.25 a gallon creeping up to $4.00 a gallon that these companies starting rolling out their trucks and suv's in massive quantities (Pilot, Ridgeline, Tundra, Armada, Titan). They too saw the profitability and previous sales figures of the US consumer.
quote:
Only at $3+/gallon gas did any U.S. consumers actually think about how much gas they were using to drive the behemoth around.

You see - this is the big difference in your thinking. You try to justify getting rid of big cars and trucks because we are using too much oil, and that the price of it is what made people aware. But you couldn't be further from the truth. The price of gasoline makes people think about their fiscal responsibility, not their actual oil consumption for the good of mankind. People WANT the government to expand oil, make it cheaper, reduce taxes on it so that they can afford to drive the types of cars, trucks, and suv's that they like. The masses do not want to get rid of their cars to get something economical - that would assume they actually want the price of gasoline to stay as is.


RE: Sad.
By fic2 on 6/3/2009 5:27:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You make the claim that Toyota and Honda always made these cars.


As far as I can tell you are the first and only one to bring up Toyota and Honda. It seems that you like to read a lot between the lines - that I am liberal (not), that I am anti-oil (again, not), that I believe in global warming (juries still out, but I doubt it is majority man made), etc.

My claim was that U.S. car companies wouldn't be producing small cars if not for CAFE. My proof is that they didn't before CAFE.


RE: Sad.
By croc on 6/3/2009 6:36:31 PM , Rating: 1
It always amazes me how few Americans really know their recent history, let alone their past history. CAFE standards were put in place in 1975 in response to the 1973 oil embargo imposed by OPEC. It has not really moved all that much higher in the ensuing 32 years, compared to the rest of the fuel standards in the rest of the world. You yanks always come back with 'yes, but we need our big cars / trucks to travel the vast distances in the US...' Please bring one of your yank tanks down here to AUS, and go outback. Try going from Brisbane to Perth via Alice Springs. Hint: Bring your sand tires, several spares as well, several jerry cans of fuel and several more of water.


RE: Sad.
By Nfarce on 6/3/2009 8:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please bring one of your yank tanks down here to AUS, and go outback. Try going from Brisbane to Perth via Alice Springs. Hint: Bring your sand tires, several spares as well, several jerry cans of fuel and several more of water.


Okay, I'll see your call and raise you: throw in towing a boat or camping trailer that we "yanks" like to haul around in our "tanks." Of course, I won't go into the need to haul around a lawnmower in said "Yank tank" to make a living cutting grass or chopping trees down and selling firewood from the back of a pickup. Guess that wouldn't work down in your land very well either, eh bloke?


RE: Sad.
By jconan on 6/3/2009 10:41:09 PM , Rating: 2
if everyone studied history Apple would not have a group of evangelist claiming that everyone is copying Apple iPod and iPhone...


RE: Sad.
By Keeir on 6/3/2009 3:46:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then when gas hit $4/gallon their gas guzzler sales would have dried up (like it did), but they wouldn't have had anything to fall back on.


Execpt that with CAFE, they had nothing to fall back on...

Maybe you are unaware how CAFE works?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAFE
It makes Automakers to SELL cars such that -harmonic- average fleet MPG reachs an arbitrary target.

I repeat, SELL. Not Design or research, but SELL.

If they fail to reach the target, then penalties start accuring.

In the 1990s, US Automakers faced the situation were they made thosands on SUVs and just couldn't make a small car that was compeditive enough with imports to sell the required number. The solution? Slash quality and price to enable the required number of sales of small cars to allow more sales of the large cars that people A wanted and B made profit. They didn't have the option to drop unprofitable models, or produce high quality cars at profitable prices.

Since gas first rose past 3 dollars a gallon, NA car companies have been making great cars. The Fusion, the Malibu, importing the G8 and Astra, Escape Hybrid...

This was not the result of CAFE, but shifting consumer demands... that NA auto producers might have been able to shift to sooner if they were Allowed to have gone through some lean years selling high quality, high profit cars...

CAFE is a failure, a joke, a menance to people's freedom, ridicolusly complicated, inefficient, perversion of the intended goal.

If the intended goal is for car makers to be artifically forced to build more efficient cars than people want. Tax gas like crazy. Distrabute the gas tax total at the end of the year evenly to all taxpayers/citizens. That would have worked much better than CAFE.


RE: Sad.
By mdogs444 on 6/3/2009 3:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tax gas like crazy. Distrabute the gas tax total at the end of the year evenly to all taxpayers/citizens. That would have worked much better than CAFE.

I like much of what you wrote in your entire post. Except for the quote above. Never, ever give your money to the government in hopes of actually getting it back. We already give them such a huge percentage of our income tax, that they now want to spend 10x more than we did last year, and add a 25% VAT tax to our bottom line.

They are out of control.


RE: Sad.
By Keeir on 6/3/2009 4:06:21 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say I liked it or wanted it.

I guess as an engineer, I like to see a problem effectively solved. Even if I don't agree that the problem exists in the first place. If the nation is going to do something, lets actually do it.

quote:
They are out of control.


100% agree that US's (mine) current system of government is out of control and has been out of control since at least Reagon, no Carter, no Nixon...could go on a while took over (Not that I am blaming either party as each party has been in power for extended periods of time).


RE: Sad.
By mdogs444 on 6/3/2009 4:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
guess as an engineer, I like to see a problem effectively solved.

I'm a former systems analyst, so I know where you're coming from.
quote:
100% agree that US's (mine) current system of government is out of control

That is mine too (US Citizen)
quote:
since at least Reagon, no Carter, no Nixon.

Reagan was the best president of the last few decades. Carter was complete waste - 20% mortgage rates, hyperinflation, high unemployment. Clinton was nothing more than lying & cheater appeaser. The first Bush was so-so,at least he kicked some ass and did it quickly. The second Bush was a great leader for a time being, but got too consumed and in over his head recommending bailouts, wasteful spending, privacy acts, etc. And Obama...well, lets just say that I'd rather vote GW Bush in for a third term over Obama.


RE: Sad.
By Keeir on 6/3/2009 4:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm... Most of his (Reagan) policies were good, but in the long term, he borrowed way too much to cover the shortfalls. Maybe overall this was a good policy, but it still hurts. In fact Reagan was the first president from the end of WWII to increase the nations debt/GDP ratio. Even at times when GDP was skyrocketing, he borrowed and borrowed money.


RE: Sad.
By Oregonian2 on 6/3/2009 6:53:34 PM , Rating: 2
But in retrospect, with the current Federal borrowing rate, Reagan's was peanuts at most.


RE: Sad.
By fic2 on 6/3/2009 7:42:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The second Bush was a great leader


I think that says worlds about your intelligence level.


RE: Sad.
By fic2 on 6/3/2009 5:32:20 PM , Rating: 2
What I would like to see is a tax on vehicle weight and the tax go directly to road upkeep. At least they don't have that here in CO.


RE: Sad.
By mdogs444 on 6/3/2009 5:57:22 PM , Rating: 3
What I would like to see is no additional taxes at all. Enough is enough. Get rid of these social welfare and entitlement programs, stop paying for pork barrel projects like $400,000 to study gay sex in Latin America and how alcohol affects hookers in China.

Viola, look at all this money we have to benefit people who are actually PAYING INCOME TAXES


RE: Sad.
By Keeir on 6/3/2009 6:17:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I would like to see is a tax on vehicle weight and the tax go directly to road upkeep. At least they don't have that here in CO.


Well most states have a tax on gasoline to nominally pay for road maintainence. A heavier vehicle uses more gas and thus pays more tax. Most states also tax diesel more than gasoline, thus accounting for the higher energy content (and thus more road abuse) of a gallon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax#North_Americ...

If you are talking about the State of Colorado, the Vehicle registration is actually affected by wieght requirements. Future increases (in registration fees) are also proposed based on vehicle wieght and going to road construction.

On top of that, for cars that wieght excessively there is already a gas guzzler tax.

What more do you need? The unfortunate truth is that many Americans find the utility of the largers cars/trucks/SUVs to be worth the already potentially punative measures taken against them. It seems you want to keep increasing the punative measures units larger cars/trucks/SUVs are not built or purchased... but since this will be acchieved through punative measures overall its negative for the society to reduce people's utility/happiness without solid and rationed reasoning.... I am all for applying the correct taxes/fees based on rational examination of measurable externailities, but I am not for just acting because there is a belief there is some great problem which no reasonable cost can be placed on.


RE: Sad.
By fic2 on 6/3/2009 7:39:54 PM , Rating: 2
But the fuel tax goes into the general tax fund and doesn't go into a road maintenance fund. In Colorado every two years the politicos bring up the "fact" that the road systems are deteriorating and there isn't enough money to pay for them. This even though every two years the voters get suckered into upping a tax or fee or something to "bridge the gap". It is like the school funding crap. Never enough money even though funding goes up at least 2x cost of living every year.

Colorado registration is based more on the price and age of the car than on weight.

About two months back Colorado passed a flat fee increase on all car registrations. Not based on weight, fuel consumption, color, height, anything except is it a vehicle.

Higher fuel tax was mentioned, but was quickly shot down even though Colorado has one of the lowest fuel taxes in the U.S.

The only other type of increase that was mentioned in all the material I read on the increase discussion was taxing the number of miles you drive per year. Got to be up there for all time stupid idea award. But, the Dems are in control and they just love to create more gov't bureaucracy and that would be up there since it would probably involve at least another 1,000 people tracking the mileage of all the cars.


RE: Sad.
By Moishe on 6/4/2009 1:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
Ridiculous.
Look at the past 20+ years and you can see that American auto makers have been making smaller cars while also making larger cars and trucks. I believe in the free market. In a free market, the companies would have learned to offer what people want. If they didn't learn then they'd simply go bankrupt and disappear (a good thing).

Maybe they would have been caught with their pants partially down when gas prices rose. That would be a great learning opportunity. It would be a test of which business has the ability to innovate and adapt.

Instead, we reward failure and we fail to hold business or government accountable for taxpayer money. We force auto companies to build cars that lawmakers or special interests want. *Reward* no longer becomes the primary goal of decision makers and those people who own the business who are actually interested in ROE are now hobbled by excessive regulation. This all happens because U.S. lawmakers essentially take over the decision making for businesses *because they can* (because we let them). Now we have lawmakers running cars companies... The uneducated, corrupt idiots are running the joint and making the decisions. I cannot think of a worse situation. The sad thing is, they will place the blame on everyone else when their decisions utterly fail.

We should just let the market decide what products to sell, and let the failures die. It works, but it requires us to keep our grubby hands off of the process.


RE: Sad.
By sgw2n5 on 6/3/2009 11:31:36 AM , Rating: 3
You can't be serious? Repeal 100 years of labor laws??? Jesus tap dancing christ. Hey!!! I know!!! Lets out compete China by turning into China!!!


RE: Sad.
By mdogs444 on 6/3/2009 12:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ou can't be serious? Repeal 100 years of labor laws???

No, but we should repeal affirmative action. It has its time and purpose during the civil rights period. Now int he present day it serves as nothing but reverse discrimination - just look at the Sotomayor verdict on the fireman. Many people took the same test, physical and written, for the fire department...several whites and hispanics passed. No blacks passed. That means no one can get promoted. Yeah thats great - nothing I want more than the person I'm paying to save my life to be a bottom tier worker who only got the job because of his race.
quote:
Lets out compete China by turning into China!!!

I think you have it backwards. We used to out compete China. Now, its China out competing the US because they are turning in to the US, and the US is turning into France.


RE: Sad.
By guacamojo on 6/3/2009 12:48:37 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say anything about forcing Americans to do anything.

It's really quite simple. You vote for what you want with the dollars you spend. If you want more Chinese goods, then buy them. More will come.

If Americans really cared about keeping jobs onshore, they'd accept the fact that (in the case of most consumer goods) it costs more to produce goods here and pay the price. But they don't. Cheaper is better.

Too bad all those "legacy costs" were built in from the start. And not just by the unions. Dumb Henry Ford, paying workers enough to afford the products they were making. What was he thinking?


RE: Sad.
By mydogfarted on 6/3/2009 10:35:52 AM , Rating: 2
Remember, back in the early 90's the Japanese were doing the same thing. Eventually the economy righted itself (although it was not nearly as screwed as it is now), and we ended up buying a lot of it back for cents on the dollar.


RE: Sad.
By reader1 on 6/3/2009 10:58:27 AM , Rating: 1
Actually, the economy isn't screwed up now. It was screwed up before when people were racking up massive amounts of debt.


RE: Sad.
By mdogs444 on 6/3/2009 11:04:46 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Actually, the economy isn't screwed up now.

I have GDP, national debt, unemployment, inflation, and wholesale figures that say it is.
quote:
It was screwed up before when people were racking up massive amounts of debt.

And why is that? Political social engineering, plain and simple.
Tax and spend, borrow and spend, and regulation.

When the free market sets rules on lending out money only to people who they feel will pay them back - its probably not a good thing to force them to lend money to people unqualified, yes you Barney Frank.

When tax revenue just decreased 34% because of unemployment, wage reductions, foreclosures, bankruptcies, businesses closing....you don't go out and hire 66,000 federal employees. Now our taxes will have to go up permanently to pay those employees.

When will people learn that the government is not a business. They don't make money, they don't profit, they don't invest. To act like a business with everyone else's money, and then force the citizens to pony up more when you screw up...well, I prefer not to think of that as "Change you can believe in"...Amtrack Motors, I mean General Motors, is proof of that.


RE: Sad.
By Spuke on 6/3/2009 12:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Amtrack Motors, I mean Government Motors , is proof of that.
Fixed that.


RE: Sad.
By mdogs444 on 6/3/2009 10:36:02 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
America needs to move towards socialism if it wants to compete in the global market. We will probably learn this the hard way.

Actually, what we are learning the hard way, is a direct result of our migration TO socialism over the past few decades. Increasing national debts to pay for social policies, increased taxation to pay for medicare,medicaid,welfare,food stamps,section 8 housing, subsidies, sin taxes, and outrageous "pork barrel" and "stimulus" projects. You see, all these things that Obama claims we need to "fix" are socialistic policies that are damaging the country by reducing our disposable income, increasing costs on employers, increasing our national debt. All of them are things that are not inlcuded in a pure capitalistic society - and for good reason. They start to reduce peoples motivation to better themselves when things are given out for free. They start to hurt the person who is actually trying to increase output and increase wealth by taking more and more away in a progressive tax system. On top of that, we have politicians using pure emotion to make fiscal and economic policy like not allowing us to drill our own oil, affirmative action, illegal immigration, and a host of other things that effect our economy in negative ways.

You say we need to move to socialism...I say its the steady migration to socialism that got us here. You want to see our economy get better and our GDP increase year after year while each person in society gets a large dose of motivation and an increase in our disposable income?

1. Eliminate the progressive tax system. Migrate to a fair tax/flat tax system. There will no longer be an upper, middle, and lower class. There will be one single class with everyone responsible for the same percentage.

2. Eliminate all policy based on emotion - that means we start drilling for oil in massive quantities. We build new nuclear plants. We get rid of welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, affirmative action. No longer will be there handouts of empathy, but rather you learn to mature and motivate your self like when your parents cut the chains.

3. Eliminate social security. A government who has never done anything successful with money should not be in charge of your retirement. You get to keep your own money and invest it yourself. If you lose, thats your fault.

4. Government will not own any business, or part of any business. Lobbying will be illegal, as will donations to compaigns from any organization - including non profit and other entities.

5. All subisidies of all kinds are eliminated - farming, clean energy...everything. If the product was truly worth the cost, then we wouldnt need any hidden methods to bring them down by really using tax dollars to pay more.

6. Immigration policy must be enforced and hard. Work visa's will still be issued, but the task force will be raiding employers and homes, and deporting any and everyone here illegally. You say mexicans are only doing the jobs americans WONT do? I say wrong. Once you cutoff the welfare, food stamp, and section 8 system....you'll suddenly see people who had no motivation to work due to lack of skills lining up by the masses to take those jobs and be contributing members of society.


RE: Sad.
By Mathos on 6/3/2009 11:28:19 AM , Rating: 2
1. I agree on this, everyone should be responsible to the same percentage of income, regardless of class. As it is right now, the lower class to upper middle class are responsible for the vast majority of tax dollars in the country. Some people think they rich are but a majority of the time they have access to so many tax write offs they're paying close to nothing.

2. I agree that there are quite a few policies that need to be removed. I don't know about drilling for more oil, that will always be cornered by greedy corporations that will charge whatever they please regardless of actual supply. Nuclear power needs to be expanded, and I'm hoping this new laser thing I'm hearing about on the news will allow them to implement fusion reactors. Welfare, food stamps, section 8 are all handled on a local and state level, they aren't ran by the federal government. Affirmative action is and always has been a double edged sword, sadly it is still needed in some area's to make finding work fair, racism, sexism whatever ism are still big problems in some industries.

3. I can safely say that more of my check goes towards social security tax than to actual federal income taxes. About 2-3 times more in fact. I'm ok with the eliminating future and continued social security for the current and future working generations as long as they give me the money back that I've already paid into the system that I'll never see again.

5. You've obviously never participated in any large scale farming. Where do you think large portions of the nations food comes from? Part of the problem right now though is the cost of planting and replanting due to inflated seed grain prices from bio ethanol production using corn. This one also shows some major ignorance of what happened in the past with this, which is why farming subsidies were introduced. Unfortunately for farmer, nature is a fickle beast.


RE: Sad.
By Keeir on 6/3/2009 1:38:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
1. I agree on this, everyone should be responsible to the same percentage of income, regardless of class. As it is right now, the lower class to upper middle class are responsible for the vast majority of tax dollars in the country. Some people think they rich are but a majority of the time they have access to so many tax write offs they're paying close to nothing.


While your are partially correct in that many Super Rich don't pay thier fair share, the vast majority of tax dollars are paid by people making between 100,000 and 200,000 for singles and 200,000 to 300,000 for married/families. These are certainly upper middle class to rich.

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/

The Highest 20% pay close to 80% of the income tax dollars in 1999
Off all Federal Taxes, the Highest 20% typically pay 60-70% and that has no really cahnged.

Persons earning $65 thousand and over pay 86.27 % of income tax.... this corrosponds to around the upper 25%.

Personally, I think that requirement for people earning under 50,000 to even file a tax return is ludicious. They pay such a small percentage of the nations income tax (less than 3%) a balance that could easily be made up by increasing the top bracket by a few percentage. And giving the average person earning 50,000 dollars a 6,000 dollar tax rebate goes a long way to providing health care privately (IE no public health care) and allowing simplification of the tax system, thereby eliminating waste. I repeat, I am only in favour of such a system if it is used to reduce expected government services for people.

quote:
3. I can safely say that more of my check goes towards social security tax than to actual federal income taxes. About 2-3 times more in fact. I'm ok with the eliminating future and continued social security for the current and future working generations as long as they give me the money back that I've already paid into the system that I'll never see again.


Since Social Security taxes are 12.5% for individuals and less than 7% out of a paycheck, your really only paying 3% of your income in income taxes?!? And you have the nerve to think your paying too much?


RE: Sad.
By mdogs444 on 6/3/2009 1:45:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Super Rich don't pay thier fair share

What is their fair share? How much would you like to steal from them? Please, tell me. How much more of their success would you like to penalize so that you don't have to pay any taxes?
quote:
I think that requirement for people earning under 50,000 to even file a tax return is ludicious. They pay such a small percentage of the nations income tax (less than 3%) a balance that could easily be made up by increasing the top bracket by a few percentage.

See, what is it about this that you morons don't understand? Why is everyone else's money fair game for you to use as you please? Why is it that they somehow owe their country more than you do becuase they applied themselves, got a good education, and become successful? Shit, maybe they won the lottery. That all the sudden means they "owe" a bigger "fair share" than you do because you want to take from them to give to someone else?

You're blaming the wrong people Keeir. Instead of milking the rich, why don't you to go down to the ghetto, and tell those poor people to quit expecting a handout of money, food, and house payments...and go get a F*cking job. Oh, and then tell them that they will pay just as much in taxes as everyone else.

In fact, if you feel obliged, you may as well tell them how good they have it only paying the same "fair tax" percentage as everyone else...seeing as how they haven't paid shit and have been living off everyone else for so long.


RE: Sad.
By Keeir on 6/3/2009 3:00:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What is their fair share? How much would you like to steal from them? Please, tell me. How much more of their success would you like to penalize so that you don't have to pay any taxes?


Someone who makes the majority of thier income and activitly manages as thier full time job thier stocks/dividends/etc business should pay income taxes on these gains. Many of the "Super Rich" do so and reap large tax benifits from having primary income taxed at 10 and 15% rather than the much more sensical 33 and 36% like someone who actually earns the money working.

quote:
You're blaming the wrong people Keeir. Instead of milking the rich, why don't you to go down to the ghetto, and tell those poor people to quit expecting a handout of money, food, and house payments...and go get a F*cking job. Oh, and then tell them that they will pay just as much in taxes as everyone else.


I am not blaming the wrong people. I am pointing out that no matter how much the bottom 75% pay in taxes (less than 15%) the truth is that they will consume 75-80% of the services. Starving them of income only makes the government pay them more through additional services. In the long term, I would rather we all pay less taxes than provide free health care. I would rather not take the money and not provide the services. Period.

Income and taxation is wealth redistrabution. No other way around it. Lets make it as small and sensical as possible. Taxing the poor, to then create compicated tax codes, free give-aways, and provide bonus government services seems inheritently inefficient.


RE: Sad.
By Keeir on 6/3/2009 3:03:12 PM , Rating: 2
To clarify, I would rather pay 15% tax because I am not supporting a terrible inefficient give-away government even if some people pay nothing at all than be taxed 20% same as everyone else and have a inefficient give-away government.


RE: Sad.
By gamerk2 on 6/3/2009 11:28:15 AM , Rating: 3
Wrong: The average american pays 33% of income for income taxes and 21% of income for health care, which totals 54%, close to what Socalist europe pays in taxes up front. The difference is they get more bang for their buck.

Now, pork barrel spending does need fixing, as does government as a whole. But your argument about disposable income is flawed, as when you factor in the benifits Europeans get up front versus how much we pay in the "free market", Europeans actually have more disposable income, as they get more for less.

Debating your individual points:

1: Flat tax won't work, because you would have to set it too low in order to spare the poor, and government revenue would plummet. I would also point out: The Supreme Court initially called an income tax unconstitutional, and the 17th(?) ammendment was passed to overturn that ruling. The problem is the ammendment clearly states that a PROGRESSIVE income tax was allowed, and says nothing on other forms of a Income Tax. As such, any other form of Income Tax is still unconstitutional per the previous Supreme Court ruling.

A sales tax, or Value Added Tax (per Europe) would be a much fairer system. You spend, and you get taxed accordingly. Exempt food and clothing from taxation, and remove Income Tax entirely. Plus, its up the businesses, and not the individual, to sort through the numbers, saving the rest of us time and effort.

2a: Great plan: Drill for oil. Never mind the billions in contracts, setting up equipment, building new refinaries, all for a resource we won't need in 10 years. Plus if you "for oil in massive quantities", you would drive down the price so much, the oil companies would go under. Yep, great plan.

2b: Your plans to remove all welfare will cause an economic disaster. In short: You want to return to 1900, where all the wealth was in the hands of the wealthy, workers were exploited, no controls were in place, and the middle class did not exist. Plus, you also forget to factor in the positive economic impact said programs produce, as they give the poor more disposable income, which has a positive effect on the economy.

3: Without SS, you would currently have millions more living in poverty. Everyone should be thanking people like me who fought to keep SS from being privatised, because people like you would have blown their SS accounts when the bubble burst.

4: Government has the right to take any action that results in the well-being of the country (The necessary and proper clause of the US constitution). We have a "Free Market" system, so let government be free to compete, just like any other business. If the product is good, people will buy. If not, they government gets out of the industry. At the very least, government run health care, for example, would remove the insurance companies from the equation.

The GM situtation is an odd case, as they directly or indirectly control a large portion of the economy. Steel, Plastics, Electronics, Manufacturing, etc. And with all the competition gone, there would be no one able to quickly step in and keep the business going as usual. I would argue the situations we had in the banking and auto industries show why Coorporations have killed the free market system, and the danger having a few large coorporations is to the rest of the economy as a whole.

5: Who would farm without the farming subsidies? Its expensive, subject to outside factors, and a single bad year can wipe the business out.

Due to less people farming, you would have overall higher prices for food, and occasional food shortages...Hence the subsidies.

I don't care how its done, I just care food is avaliable and affordable. Same goes with education and health care.

6: Of course, your immigration policy fails to address WHY immigrants come here (the economy compared to their home countries, and a poor legal immigration policy). Maybe spending some money to help these states grow would help with the problem (while giving the US more trade partners)? If all you do is bring them back to their countries, they will cross again. And no matter what you do, as long as they are impoverished, they will continue to come. In short: You policy fails to address the root of the problem.


RE: Sad.
By lagomorpha on 6/3/2009 11:43:16 AM , Rating: 2
"all for a resource we won't need in 10 years"

Is there some kind of deuterium-deuterium fusion and energy storage technology I don't know about or are you being a little optimistic here?


RE: Sad.
By gamerk2 on 6/3/2009 11:52:05 AM , Rating: 2
The reason we need so much oil is because of our 18MPG...oh right, we're mandating 30 something now...plus hydrogen power will likely be on its feet by that point.

And regardless of how much oil lay under Alsaka, it will take decades to set up the rigs, refinaries, and oil lines to produce any meaningful amounts of oil. (Remember, its not how much, its how many barrels per day you can get)

Assuming the mainstream 50 Billion barrels in Alaska, then you see why we need to get off the stuff. The US imports 50Million+ barrels per day. Thats 1 billion barrels every 20 days, and 50 billion every 100 days. No offense, but what we have in Alaska couldn't run the US for a year.


RE: Sad.
By borismkv on 6/3/2009 12:14:31 PM , Rating: 2
So do you suggest that the government immediately force each individual in the US to purchase a Hydrogen vehicle when they are finally viable? Cause unless you do that, Gasoline vehicles will be around for a *very* long time.


RE: Sad.
By lagomorpha on 6/4/2009 12:43:35 AM , Rating: 2
1) Given the economic expansion of China it's unlikely getting 300 million Americans to drive more efficient vehicles will offset the increasing global demand for oil.

2) Hydrogen is an energy storage technology, NOT an energy production technology. It takes more energy to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen than you get by burning it or hydrogen can be produced from natural gas. You cannot get energy for free, that is the first law of thermodynamics. The only way to get a net positive energy from hydrogen is to crack it from water and then fuse it into helium, something we do not yet know how to do effectively.


RE: Sad.
By borismkv on 6/3/2009 12:11:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to see the evidence you have to support your taxation claims there, buddy. As for your points,

1. Flat tax would result in a dramatic streamlining of the IRS, which would save the government a considerable amount of money. It would cost some jobs, but the government is already providing far too many jobs as it is. Government jobs don't add anything to the economy. They are more of a drain than an assistance as the money to pay for it is taken away from the free market. And it's not like we couldn't add an amendment to make flat taxes legal according to your argument (which I'm not entirely convinced is correct).

2. Oil will be necessary in high amounts for a minimum of 30 years, even if hydrogen fuel cell vehicles become a viable option at the end of this year. Look around you. How many 30, 40, 50 year old cars do you see on the road? The majority of the US population can't afford to replace their cars every time a new fuel efficient technology comes out. And even when they do, they still have to get rid of their old car, which typically goes to someone less financially affluent. ICE vehicles will be running around en mass until the end of this century no matter what you think.

3. I refuse to thank you for stopping the privatization of SS. It's arguable that if social security had been shut down less than a year ago, the bubble never would have burst. Each individual pays 6% of their paycheck to SS. In *addition* each employer is forced to match that amount. Cutting social security (or giving the option to do so) would result in an immediate raise of between 6 and 12 percent for each and every working individual in America. In contrast, contributing 3 percent of my money to a 401k will result in me retiring a millionaire. I can use that money as leverage on a home loan or for a business loan. I cannot use the money I have contributed to Social Security until I'm 65 or unless I end up with a severe disability. Period. With the number of health issues I have inherited, I'll be lucky to make 55. I don't want to contribute to social security. I should be given the option not to. I feel that the current social security system is tantamount to slavery.

6. (Don't care about the others), Poverty is insane in South America because of out of control corruption. Throwing money at that problem will only make it worse, not better.

What you seem to ignore is the simple fact that if I had all the money that I theoretically earn, I would be able to *afford* assisting the poor more effectively. If more than a third of my money goes into a bureaucrat's pocket, how does it help the guy down the street from me? Or more importantly my sister who is stuck in social security/medicare assisted living. She should be in a mental institution that could take care of her (she has severe brain damage) but guess what, there are so many bureaucrats taking all of my money that nothing was actually spent on things like mental health institutions, which resulted in the only state run facility within 500 miles being closed down.

Do not even pretend that the government is a preferable steward of the public interest. Social programs would be much better served if they were run by private entities instead of a bloated and bureaucracy ridden government like ours.


RE: Sad.
By mdogs444 on 6/3/2009 12:58:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The average american pays 33% of income for income taxes and 21% of income for health care, which totals 54%

You see, no one has a problem with what the average American pays. We have a problem with the people that pay nothing, and we have a problem with those same people thinking they deserve a piece of the person who pays 50%+ of their income in income tax.
quote:
which totals 54%, close to what Socalist europe pays in taxes up front.

Oh well I guess I should be glad that I can at least have a say in what 18 of my 40 hours a week can buy me. Is that what you're advocating?
quote:
The difference is they get more bang for their buck.

More bang? Um...last I checked 3x as expensive gasoline and crappy health care doesn't account for more bang for your buck. Quite the opposite really.
quote:
Europeans actually have more disposable income, as they get more for less.

I hate to break it to you. But europeans pay higher taxes, have smaller homes, own less land, have longer waiting lines for healthcare, typically have higher unemployement numbers, and are crazier about entitlement programs than we are. I'm not sure what that extra money you think they have is buying them, but is nothing measurable.
quote:
Flat tax won't work, because you would have to set it too low in order to spare the poor

No, it removes class warfare. The poor will need to pay their same share, and work 2 or 3 jobs if need be. THAT is the penalty for not taking your education seriously, not planning for the future, and not having any self motivation or responsibility.
quote:
A sales tax, or Value Added Tax (per Europe) would be a much fairer system.

Thats what we are advocating, but at a value per person less than their typical income tax, and everyone pays the same rate. No ifs, ands, or buts. You want equality? THAT is equality.
quote:
Never mind the billions in contracts, setting up equipment, building new refinaries, all for a resource we won't need in 10 years.

I dont know where you get your numbers, but 5 years max is the turnaround time...longer if you make the rigs farther off shore. To me, there is no reason to prohibit rigs close to shore in the ICS, everywhere in ANWR, and at the same time, ramp up research into Oil Shale. We have enough of that to last us our lifetimes and then some.
quote:
In short: You want to return to 1900, where all the wealth was in the hands of the wealthy, workers were exploited, no controls were in place, and the middle class did not exist.

By advocating the fair tax, the middle class already does not exist. There is no class, no class warfare. And you have your working wrong. The wealth will not be in the hands of the wealthy....the wealth will be in the hands of the people who actually WORK!
quote:
Without SS, you would currently have millions more living in poverty.

So this is another way that I have to help prop up those unsuccessful in society? Isn't that against my freedom of liberty and prosperity for myself?
quote:
We have a "Free Market" system, so let government be free to compete, just like any other business. If the product is good, people will buy. If not, they government gets out of the industry.

Free market means the government doesn't compete in anything. Else, its no longer a free market. If the products are good and people are buying, then why are the left, liberals, and politicians doing everything in their power to ban those products? Yup, imposing their views on society. There is no such thing as freedom when it comes to liberals. There is only do as I say, and that's final.
quote:
Due to less people farming, you would have overall higher prices for food, and occasional food shortages...Hence the subsidies.

You do realize the government actually pays farms to NOT do any farming because they don't want overproduction of crops? Mandating biofuels and ethanol are against the free market, and if you got rid of that, good bye reason for subsidy!
quote:
Maybe spending some money to help these states grow would help with the problem (while giving the US more trade partners)?

Wow, you really are a pompous prick. We already give more money to the poor countries than ANY other country in the world. In fact, I believe we give more than all the others COMBINED. Poor countries are like the school system - money will not increase their lifestyle. They need to be taught how to do things on their own.

You people advocating throwing my money away on other people to help them not break our laws makes me sick.


RE: Sad.
By KIAman on 6/3/2009 1:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
^ Agree with all points. And no, I have never listened to Limbaugh nor a registered Republican.

Just to give some perspective, streamlining the tax system to reduce IRS burden would make a huge financial impact alone.

The IRS employs more than the FBI, CIA, ATF and NASA combined. We've got a tax code that is so complicated, it has to be defined in a huge document that is continually patched to remove the never ending loopholes.


RE: Sad.
By HotFoot on 6/3/2009 1:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
The reason the flat tax doesn't work out in the end is because no one is ever paid exactly what they're worth. Everyone who does a job must submit a portion of the value of their work to the owners of the business. In this way, wealth naturally concentrates to owners. Maybe this system would work if all owners were moderate owners, like the middle-class Joe who's smart about his savings and investments. However, the system naturally filters money to the top.

In the end, your choice is between an increasingly impoverished poorer portion of society and ever-increasing police/security budgets to contain them, or a taxation system that places a larger burden on the richest than it does on the poorest. Neither way seems great to me, but one seems far worse than the other.

The important function here is balance. Too steep of a graduation system in taxes removes the motivation - the whole socialism problem. None at all and the mechanism of wealth concentration will lead to massive disenfranchisement.

I agree with many points about the government being too involved in areas of my life. The social security business... well I think I would do a better job investing that on my own and my money belonging to me. At the same time, I don't believe in free handouts, and I think if we're going to, as a society through our governments, provide a security net to catch those in unfortunate circumstances (even talented folks lose their jobs from time to time), then it shouldn't just be a handout. It should be something where folks can be put to work to do something of use for society and get paid for it. The last I would add to that is that the pay through this program shouldn't be great. It should be very desirable to get out of that system and back into the private market.


RE: Sad.
By mdogs444 on 6/3/2009 2:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the end, your choice is between an increasingly impoverished poorer portion of society and ever-increasing police/security budgets to contain them

I believe something else would happen. I believe our workforce would grow, and less people would be poor because they would realize the only way to a sustainable lifestyle is themselves. I think their motivation and outlook would change drastically.
quote:
The last I would add to that is that the pay through this program shouldn't be great. It should be very desirable to get out of that system and back into the private market.

I agree. That's supposed to be how our entitlement programs are. But when you take someone who dropped out of college, went and had a kid with some girl who also dropped out, have no valuable skills....its easier and better for them personally to take welfare, food stamps, govt housing. And the more babies they have, the more money each month they get! I don't get it - not sure how this provides motivation to get up and get a job. Especially when the non skilled people on welfare have a better lifestyle and more money on welfare than they would getting a minimum wage job starting at the bottom and working their way up.

The democrats have succeeded in this method of securing votes by making people defendant on them. I find it so funny that this past election, how many bumper stickers I saw that said "Too poor to vote republican". Hmm, I wonder if these people ever stopped to think that they just might be poor because they keep voting in democrats? lol.


RE: Sad.
By sgw2n5 on 6/3/2009 11:39:34 AM , Rating: 1
You've been listening to way to much Limbaugh...


RE: Sad.
By myocardia on 6/3/2009 6:31:18 PM , Rating: 1
Yes he has, although around here, we call it "drinking the Kool-Aid".


“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki