BRILLIANT! I needed that laugh!

I hope they put this on the air, that's outstanding stuff right there.

Stellar. November 2 can't come soon enough!

Short, sweet, hilarious mocking. Excellent.

Loved it, maybe some one will call her Surely next :P

Who am I seeing here? Clint Howard, and is that the police chief from Dexter? Funny.

Nice.

Righteous! The world would be a MUCH better place if it had more Jack Scalia in it.

So true !

Retiree, because she worked so hard and listened so little to get that title

Fiorina over Boxer? Whoa.... Boxer doesn't do much, but Fiorina is going to do to California what she did to HP. Mark my words.

Could you call me American? God worked so hard to make me one...thank you!

Matthew, the job of Senator is not an executive position. Senators write legislation and vote. If Fiorina were running for President you'd have a point - but then again, she has more executive experience than our current President, and a better track record on jobs.

The Senate has zero input into whether a free corporation in a free nation outsources or not. They only get to vote on bills, and provide incentives. Are you truly trying to make the ridiculous suggestion that Carly Fiorina wants to send American jobs overseas?! And that because she ran a corporation that lost market share to Dell and less expensive Asian competitors?

Hi Matthew, I'd be glad to explain. Carly was not fired really at all, here's a quote "On a conference call with reporters, executives said Fiorina was not terminated for cause and that she would receive severance pay -- and a company spokesman said she'll get a payout of approximately $21 million, including stock options"

She disagreed with the board about which direction the company should go in, with regards to spliting up the company into printer and server spin off's or trying to maintain the entire thing, after the aquisition of Compaq.

It was actually Family members who (understandably) was reluctant to break up the company, that their Fathers had built from the ground up.

"Hewlett Packard (Research) had seriously considered breaking up the company on three separate occasions but each time decided against it. "

Most analysts agree, Her decision to send those jobs overseas actually saved HP, although it really only prolonged the inevitable.

Hope some "Facts" Help out.

~Jim~
The-American-Conservative.com

BTW, What makes this video sooooo funny, Is that it is *Spot on*! Anyone who knows anything about Barbara, knows that her narcissism is only over-ridden by her ego.

Hi Matthew, I can see you're apparently an ideologue. No since attempting to educate you with facts.

Go ahead and vote for Barbara again. What could it hurt?

Btw Matthew, for extra bonus points, can you tell us exactly how many Bills Barbara has sponsored in her 28 years?

Fiorina sent 30,000 jobs overseas.

And to answer your questions as to why Boxer continues to keep getting re-elected.

We are in on the "Left-Coast", there are more uber-lefties here then you can imagine. Some that would even make you look like a true American.

And as far as me being in the military explains things, if you mean, it explains why I'm patriotic, love my country and don't think all the troubles of the world are the fault of the U.S. ... Well, Yea ... That would be me. Thanks.

Let me ask you something Matt, Would you say that anyone who disagree's with any of the Presidents policies, automatically is a racist, bigoted, homophobe?

Just curious about how left you really are?

To those of you who watch with horror the pictures of riots in the streets in France ... Keep that in mind.

Within 5 years, you Will see the same thing in California, unless some fairly drastic changes are made to the public pay/pension programs.

The current system of 2.7 to 3.0 at 55, with many retiring at $100K+ at 55 years old is simply un-sustainable, and unwarranted.

Those unwarranted raises were given by politicians back in 1999, when California was enjoying double digit housing price increases, with accompanying increases in property taxes.

Now that we're back to "normal", it is obvious we should never have made such outrageous promises.

Remember Greese, Spain is close behind, and The UK has just implemented extreme austerity measures to prevent what is happening in France, from happening in the UK.

Does anyone really think it can not happen in California?

With our public employee unions, and 1/2 our legislatures bought and paid for, there will be no significant repair done in time to prevent a complete melt down.

Chapter 9 is only for Municipalities, there is no current laws on the books that allow a State to go bankrupt. Everyone assumes the Fed's will simply bail us out.

Is that fair to the tax payers of South Dakota? Or Ohio?
Or Kentucky, or Minnesota?

When our average high school teacher gets paid nearly $100K and the same qualified Teacher in south Carolina makes about $38K, Should the tax payers of South Carolina Help bail us out for our fiscal irresponsibility?

Think about it.

Night all, early tee time tomorrow.

Mr. Brown,

Without Fiorina's aquisition of Compaq, HP would not have become #1 technology company in the world that it is today.
Her decision was controversial at the time and may have caused her being laid off, but time proved she was right. Happens all the time to visionaries; they get laughed at, they get ridiculed and even fired only to be admired and hailed as people of great vision years later.

As for her sending printer and computer manufacturing jobs overseas...what a load of ignorant crap you spew.
I own an office machines dealership for the last 14 years. Take any HP printer you want starting with the grandfather of laser printers HP Laserjet II and look for the sticker in the back with the model and serial number. What you'll also see on the sticker is MADE IN JAPAN.
HP never, ever made printer engines; they were manufactured by Canon Corp. in Japan (and later China), and sent to America to be sold under the HP brand. All HP ever did from the beginning was to market Canon's manufactured printers under its own name.

Ask any copier or printer tech and he'll confirm this.

Keep it simple... "anybody but Boxer"

I wanted so bad for her to be 'bitch slapped' after her remarks about how she worked so hard for the title. Apparantly she doesn't realize how hard we in the military work to get our titles.

I love this video. Thanks.

Boxer like some other congress folks has been in DC too long and has lost touch with the rest of the world.

Hey everyone. :) If you feel inclined to message me more about this you are totally welcome. I just saw how much was written on this thread, so I'm going to stop the hijacking of this comment thread, hehe. Feel free to write me a message. But please, keep it respectful. :) And, if I don't here from you, take care! Happy voting. ;)

Here's a simple formula to remember, if it says any of the following on one side of the voting card: Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosie, Barak Obama

Always vote for whoever is on the other side, regardless of who it is, and you will have voted correctly.

really funny video.

Ridiculously funny. It shows indirectly she is power- and title-hungry, wrong priority! I'd put my bets on Fiorina.

Matthew,

Your ignorance about the real world is too funny. Just walk around your home and look on the back of every piece of electronic gear you own. You will see nothing but "Made in China" or Taiwan, or Singapore, or Malaysia. Surprise, no Made in America. If Fiorina hadn't moved the manufacturing jobs off shore HP would be out of business. Still think those EVIL corporations are killing American jobs? Look at the back of any product from the most liberal corporation in the world, APPLE, and you will see Assembled in China. I don't mean to sound offensive, Matthew. But maybe its time to grow up a little bit.

Brillant parody!!! Wish he would do a whole movie on the Obama administration!!!

Damn, is that Ed Ames, of Daneil Boone TV series fame?
He played Mingo, the Indian sidekick on the show, and is famous for his hatchet skillz on one of Johnny Carson's Tonight Show's most watched bits.

Wow! This video blew me away. Well done.

Matthew,

Your thinking is unbelievably obtuse. You are right, of course, that Fiorina outsourced 30,000 jobs. But so what. Not one single major U.S. electronics company manufactures in the U.S. None. Nor do the Europeans or the Japanese manufacture in Europe or in Japan or in the U.S. It all comes from China or the far east in general. Fiorina was merely doing what was necessary to keep HP solvent, her primary responsibility to the company's stockholders.

The fact is you and your liberal brethren are the ones responsible for the outsourcing of American jobs. In the 1980's and 90's Boxer and her cohorts in congress and the media insisted that it was unfair that the poor couldn't afford computers and other high-tech devices. Taxes were raised on U.S. manufacturers to pay for free give-aways from the Federal government. At the same time Democrats wrote new laws to benefit their Union buddies driving wages up. The result was that U.S. manufacturers were no longer competitive with foreign companies. As the price of electronics from the far east plummeted the only solution for U.S. manufacturers was to have their products made in the far east as well. So Matthew gets his iPhone, made with slave labor in China, for $199 instead of $5000, Apple's recent disclosure of what the iPhone would cost if made in the U.S. It sure is nice to know that you liberals are looking out for the little guy.

Hilarious! I'm just working so hard now to just be a Mister and retire from the titles. :>)

sig: Mike Barts, med-pro, alphabet soup+ DEA#

Boxer is egotistical beeyotch and an socialist left-wing extremist...

americanthinker.com/2010/10/the_extremism_of_barbara_boxer.html

Hi, Matthew,

I understand that your noble motivation for being so against Fiorina is that you so abhor the outsourcing of American jobs causing American jobs to be lost. The unfortunate fact, however, is that as much as we ( "we" meaning you, me, I'm sure Fiorina as well, and probably most of those on this site who are debating you ), we all hate the out-of-the-country outsourcing as well.

The problem is, however, that when trying to solve a complicated problem, almost everything in life is a compromise because often our only "real" choices are to select the better of two evils in order to achieve the "best" results possible. Very rarely in life, are any of our choices ideal. Just as with most medical problems, when a doctor takes out your pancreas because it has a malignant tumor, .. you can either focus on the fact that .. "because of that stupid a_ _ doctor you now have diabetes", .. or you could focus on the fact that the doctor just saved your life. Most prescription meds are also this way; they often have negative side effects, but there's a point where "forces beyond you" make you choose the lesser evil over the greater evil. If you can come up with a better choice between outsourcing jobs outside the country in order to stay competitive -- while at the same time keeping American corporations in business -- then I and everyone else who hates "outsourcing" would, I'm sure, be an eager audience.

It's important when considering the right or wrong of things, that both sides of a person's actions be considered fairly. That's why when a person argues from an ideological point of view, it's hard to directly counter their points even though their wonderful point of view is unfair because "the ideal" is rarely, if ever, a realistic choice when a person has to make a decision based on the only options that are in front of them.

It's unfortunate, but because of competition ( which ALL American businesses and CEOs would love to see just go away ), the choice today is not "Do we outsource or not?"; the choice is "How do we MAXIMIZE American jobs, which can ONLY happen if we stay in business by generating a profit?" Based on your ideological stand ( and as I said, I'm sure Fiorina and everyone debating you AGREES with your ideology ) that it's disgusting that American jobs are being lost to outsourcing, you keep throwing in our face that "30,000 HP jobs were outsourced". That's not fair .. because, yes, the need to outsource enflames all of us. But the reality is that if HP can't compete and it goes out of business .. how many American jobs will be lost, then?? Many more than 30,000.

After the HP / Electronic Data Systems merger, HP employed 320,000 workers. If she stood purely on ideology and refused to outsource and, because of that, the company became unprofitable and had to shut down, .. would you be discrediting her because of the 320,000 jobs that would have been lost as the result of the whole company going out of business? So, the question regarding Fiorina's ( or any corporate CEO's ) actions should be "Did she maximize the number of American jobs by keeping the company profitable and continuing to exist?" I hope you can see that, if YOU were the HP CEO, the ideal of "NOT outsourcing jobs AND, at the same time, keeping HP in business" wouldn't even be an option on your plate .. because, unfortunately, that option is not possible.

You stated earlier something about Fiorina being for the corporations and not for the little guy, but again that's unfair because the ONLY way the "little guy" is going to keep his/her job is if the corporation remains profitable and in business.

You also mentioned earlier that Fiorina is for lower taxes for the corporations; .. well, of course; that's consistent with a corporation being profitable and competitive. Money is money, and if a corporation is taxed too heavily, then that money comes right out of their profits, .. which causes their products to be more expensive, .. which causes them to be less competitive, .. which causes them to either have massive layoffs if not to close down completely. You make it sound as though promoting lower corporate taxes is simply to line the evil shareholders' pockets; .. well yeah, that's one aspect of it, but that just comes with the territory of keeping the company profitable and it's shareholders happy and keeping the company competitive .. which allows them to continue in business for another year, .. which maximizes the number of "little guys" who get to keep their jobs. High taxes on corporations contribute to the need for businesses to outsource out of the country; it's not JUST a matter of greed; it's critical to staying competitive and viable. AND high taxes on corporations gives no incentives to them to bring their foreign profits back into our country because of the whole silly "more taxes => less profits => higher product prices => less competitive => put yourself out of business" thing.

Also, you're making way too much of the semantics that Fiorina was "fired". If you've ever been in corporate management ( and likely, even if you haven't ), you know that politics is a major part of the corporate world. She could have been "fired" JUST as easily for taking a noble stand as for an ignoble one. It doesn't necessarily indicate one or the other, and since neither of us knows her well enough to know the truth about it, it creates the perfect neutral "bread" for you or me to spread whatever biased "jelly" we want to spread on it. I don't know her well enough to stand up for her in any specific way other than that I do believe it's a point in her favor that she at least has a pretty decent mind to have accomplished what she has in the corporate world, and until someone can show me actual evidence that she was "fired" for anything other than a stubborn difference of opinion with "corporate", she shouldn't be maligned for being "fired".

Who knows? She might have gotten "fired" because she agrees more with your ideology than the other HP executives do, .. ? And that's not just an "off the wall" possibility. When asked ( in a CNN interview by John King ) about Barbara Boxer's childish statement to Brig. General Michael Walsh, Fiorina responded, "Nothing symbolizes stale, entrenched incumbency more than a sitting senator dressing down a general for using the wrong title. ... People are tired of politicians who think that the point is THEIR job, when the point is EVERYONE ELSE's job." Her statement could indicate that, since she believes "the point is everyone else's job", she might have been willing to sacrifice her own HP job because she didn't outsource nearly as many jobs as the majority of the HP executives wanted. Who knows?, .. but that could also explain why she appears to wear her firing as a sort of "badge of honor" that she's not ashamed of.

From your well-written and cool-headed responses, I can tell you're an intelligent, rather well informed and respectful person, so I hope what I've written will give you pause to consider the difference between a person's "Ideology" and the choices they may be forced to make because NONE of the real-world options that are in front of them is ideal. If you have other reasons for why Fiorina shouldn't be considered as a worthy candidate, then I'm open, but it would have to be more than that she chose the better of the two evils that were on her plate.

Our fore fathers and the military have worked so hard so we could have the right to vote. I'm sure not voting for her.

Matthew,
when did the "little guy" create jobs? Hmmmm...

Richard Melrose,
Very well put. If liberals don't get it after that explanation, they never will.

Matthew,
I obviously mis-characterized you. I would have thought that after I showed the logic of how lower taxes on corporations DOES benefit the little guy .. and how "corporate profit" is not a bad word since it also benefits the little guy .. it seems you didn't even give it legitimate consideration. If it were complicated, I could understand why you might not get it, but I can tell from [ some of ] your writing that you aren't simple-minded, so it's not that. If you can't comprehend how action "A" can affect "B" which then can affect "C", then I don't hold that against you, but I don't believe that's the problem.

In my previous post, I didn't address your obvious miscomprehension of numbers from your repeated mention in your previous posts about the 20 million dollar thing as though that's a big thing in the world of highly responsible, highly critical, highly stressful, highly visible, and highly competitive jobs in the top echelons of the business world. Your attitude about that can only come from one or both of two things: 1) envy .. or 2) not realizing that everything is relative.

Maybe to your and my world, $20 million is ridiculously excessive, but to hold it against someone because they make that much is just envy, pure and simple. If you look at the world of CEOs of major corporations, $20 million isn't excessive, relatively speaking. You might be surprised to learn that many movie actors/actresses earn much more than that for doing just two or three films in a year. [ imdb.com/news/ni1524165/ ]

For those who don't want to link to another page, in 2009:

- Robert Downey Jr. -- two movies in 2009 -- $22 million
- Matt Damon -- two movies -- $22 million
- George Clooney -- three movies -- $22 million
- Rupert Grint -- 2 movies -- $30 million
- Emma Watson -- 2 movies -- $30 million
- Daniel Radcliffe -- 2 movies -- $40 million
- Ben Stiller -- ?? movies -- $40 million

Also, Ryan Seacrest who isn't even really an actor $15 million, .. news presenter Matt Lauer $16 million, ..Kobe Bryant -- $23 million, .. David Letterman made $31.5 in 2008, Judge Judy $45 million, .. Simon Cowell $50 million, .. Oprah Winfrey $350 MILLION.

Which job do you think is more important .. and more stressful? Which job requires more responsibility with respect to other people's livlihood? Which job contributes more to creating more American jobs? The CEO of Hewlett Packard or an acting job? Which job has more liability? I'm just trying to point out that it's all relative .. relative to the requirements of the position and relative to the salaries of others who live in the same "leader of the pack" world. Hey, I'll admit I'm jealous too .. in a way, .. but I'm not jealous of the responsibility and stress that comes with the territory. I'm not jealous enough to use their large incomes to write negatively about them without solid, objective evidence of misdoing.

And don't respond that I'm only showing acting jobs; I've just got other things to do than search the salaries of people in other jobs as well. Well, okay, here's a couple: In 2006, Steve Jobs earned a $1 "salary" from Apple but made $646 million in stock compensation. Jay Fishman -- CEO Travelers Co. -- $20.1 million; .. Randall Stephenson -- CEO AT&T -- $20.3 million; .. Miles White -- CEO Abbott Laboratories -- $29 million in 2008; .. William Weldon -- CEO Johnson & Johnson -- $22.8 million;, .. Ray Elliott -- CEO Boston Scientific -- $33.4 million.

Mark Hurd, as CEO for Hewlett Packard was paid $34 million in 2008 ( I know he got "fired" from HP as well, but I'm just trying to point out that the "big bucks" is the norm for top CEOs and not a necessary sign of ill doing).

If you compare the millions that top corporate CEOs make, it's a relative thing. They are responsible for keeping multi-BILLION-dollar companies in business and profitable. There's that bad word "profit" again, but I don't understand how you think a business can stay in business if it doesn't care about profit. And again, profit is a relative thing. If you have millions of stockholders as HP does, then you need to make BILLIONS of dollars in profit ( again if you use that calculator thing-a-majig, it will tell you that although BILLIONS seems like a big number, if you divide it up by millions of shareholders it's not really that big ). My word, just the end of last month, HP said that it was going to pay Leo Apotheker ( its brand new CEO ) $4.6 million dollars JUST to relocate!!

You said "the little guys get pummeled in the end of that while people like Fiorina jump ship with $20 million dollars. She sure helped the little guy in that one, right?" Matthew, I'm sure you have a calculator just like most people. What are you implying? ?That if she wouldn't have taken her $20 million when she left ( which by the way is usually determined as part of any mega-CEO's hiring contract in the event that they are let go for ANY reason, not just for negative reasons as you seem to believe without having any evidence to back it up ); .. but anyway, .. lets say that Fiorina decided to do the unnecessary but wonderful act of saying, "You know? Instead of taking the $20 million that is very commonly given to top CEOs like me, .. I'm going to donate that money to the 30,000 people who got laid off. If you hit the right buttons on the calculator, you'll see that $20 million divided by 30,000 people is only $667 per person. Yeah, I certainly wouldn't mind getting a check for $667 dollars, but for most people, it won't change their circumstances enough to where you're justified in trying to say Fiorina did something horrible by taking her "typical" CEO severance .. or that she's unqualified to make healthy business decisions or that she's undeserving .. at least based on that argument. If you want me to seriously consider anything you're saying, you'll have to come up with something legitimate.

This video is priceless! I was at HP before, during and after Fiorina. I was there when the merger with Compaq was manipulated and very high producing employees were randomly let go by the thousands. I was there when "I've got your back" became "watch your back". I was there when we couldn't order printer cartridges for our business computers while Carly hired a flight attendant for one of her fleet of jets. I was there when we took pay cuts while she threw parties on rooftops in Cannes. I was there when she was fired and employees literally danced in the aisles between their cubicles and sang "ding dong, the witch is dead". I equate her to Marie Antoinette. She has no concept of how her actions effect the little people and if she cares, it is not evident..... BUT...... if I lived in CA, as much as it would make my blood boil and my stomach turn, I would have to vote for her. She frightens me, but Boxer frightens me more.

Jim, Matt, Richard and John,

Thank you for this interesting exchange. Even though I'm not a Liberal, I think I can understand Matthew's angst. I understand "tax business too much and they'll outsource to other countries to survive" Completely makes sense to me (an non-business type)

But here's my question: I have read several stats on the upper level mgt salaries, especially the CEO. Today they make approx 300 TIMES the lowest paid worker in their company vs. 1970 when they made approx.30 times the lowest paid worker. The gap was much smaller.

What is the reason for this gigantic increase? Are these "liberal" stats?

Susan, that's easy - as Mr. Melrose pointed out, it's all relative to others who live in the same "leader of the pack" echelon of the world. Other highly successful people are getting paid this much and more, most visibly actors, professional sports players and other television and music superstars, but also including other successful businessmen as well such as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and others.

So the arguement today typically goes something like this - in order to attract the talent neccessary to make company A successful, company A must also pay amounts similar to other proven successful leaders in their area, or otherwise the talent you want will go work for someone else offering more.

Of course, this doesn't answer the fact the business world is the only one I'm aware of that offers golden parachutes for failing, and that's a practice that really should stop - but that doesn't mean all golden parachutes are bad (even if it does seem many of them are these days). Nor does it answer the more practical consideration of capitalism - which is that truly successful people like Gates and Jobs and Disney got where they are because they succeeded, not because they failed. Sorry the world can't seem to produce more folks like them to make every company as wildly profitable and successful, but that's capitalism for you.

No, in the post 80's world where mergers and layoffs became the new model for success, it seems true capitalism has taken a back seat to oligarchical cronyism. Rather than be paid what they're worth (for better or worse), they're paid what others *think* they should be worth - with the golden parachute ready and available to bail them out if those self-same others later decide otherwise. A little known fact (reported on by MSNBC) is that the same folks at Countrywide and AEG who took advantage of deregulation and got us all into financial trouble and worldwide economic depression, are now the same folks who were hired as consultants to help various corporations get back OUT of trouble. Where's the justice in that?!? And yet, they're the only ones who are familiar enough with exactly what's wrong to be able to help make it right again - and they're laughing all the way to the bank about it (again). Can anyone say "lesser of two evils"?

I understand Mathew's stance just as well as I understand Richard's stance. When unregulated, companies like Enron, Countrywide and others have lately proven themselves shameless at generating profit (often short term profit) at the expense of the little guy. And yet, the economic realities mentioned by Richard remain - that without profit, there are no jobs. The balancing act that we all must play as voters is in making sure companies are unrestricted enough to continue making profit and not stagnate, while still restricted enough to not let them get away with economic murder or ridiculous imbalances of wealth.

Where's that balance? It changes every day. I agree that without outsourcing, the cheap toys like iPhones we all take for granted wouldn't be anywhere near so cheap, and far fewer folks could afford them. And yet without keeping jobs local, there is no one available to buy those toys, cheap or otherwise.

All the above being said, I do think that the redistribution of wealth in America has become quite a bit more lopsided in the last 30 - 40 years. You never used to see such a vast gulf between the richest and the poorest - or in the (far fewer) cases where you did, it was because they truly earned it based on success, not because that's "what they're owed". Whether it's television superstars, movie actors, professional sports players, CEOs or otherwise. Is it success to have the Texas Rangers go bankrupt because they couldn't continue to afford to pay Alex Rodriguez's ridiculous salary after he turned out to be not what they'd hoped or expected? Is it success that a highly popular actor be paid $20 million for a movie based solely on that actor's reputation for past success, without any idea of whether the new movie will actually even be successful, let alone turn a profit? To me, it's all starting to have a sort of bread-and-circuses feel to it, as those who are rich get richer, while the rest of us end up being the ones to somehow pay for it all, whether its through housing prices that tank, stocks that go belly up, or just bread-like toys like iPhones that we all can't seem to live without anymore, even though they are increasingly difficult to afford (be it the phone itself or the strangling phone contract we're required to sign).

Lmao ;-)

Brand new to this forum. Nice to see respectful, intellegent bantor.
I will add that, In the past, I too had thought that the responsibility of the CEO was to create and keep jobs for us here in this country.
As an investor and business owner, I have since realized that the sole responsiblity of that CEO is to the shareholders. There is simply no way that our spoiled workforce, with all the bennies and entitlement attitude will ever again be competitive with countries where people are dropping dead in public from starvation. This is exactly why China is already looking over their shoulder at India.
On top of this, what do you do with the fact that if any company that has their headquarters stateside, bringing profits back home exposes that money to a 35% tax, when they can invest overseas with a typical tax of 0 to 4%. This not only allows much better bottom line profit, but much more opportunity for expansion or acquisition abroad.
What puzzles me is why any company keeps their headquarters within our borders when there are such tremendous advantages for relocating.
Ironically, while I am typing this, it is being announced on Bloomberg that if tax incentives in Prop. 24 are repealed, CA is likely to lose another 320,000 jobs that will be leaving to other states that are offering much friendlier business environments.
Matthew, I think that you may be misdirecting your frustration. It is my belief the target for it should be our rediculous tax law that not only encourages (practically Dictates) that these international companies (and entire industries) do what they have to do to shield the profits from being syphoned off by the taxman. Along with this action, unfortunately moves untold jobs offshore. We are not only talking about the immediate employees, but all of the associated ones such as construction of the required buildings, legal advisors, retailers, resturanters, and on and on. And I have to think there are far fewer regulations that apply offshore, resulting in countless hours saved, resulting in yet More Profits. The number that I have been hearing over the last few days is that if that 35% tax was repealed, the net result would be an ADDITIONAL 500 Billion dollars in tax revenue from all of the additional jobs created. I have no way of knowing if this is realistic, but I do know that every job not only brings in revenues, but also reduces the drain on the system from us not having to carry that person.
Furthermore reinforcing a point previously made: As a business owner, especially as times have tightened, if I want to continue to be profitable, choices have to be made. I just ordered some needed tooling. I can order similar quality tooling from overseas and make a profit, find buyers for my products, and employ people at a fair wage, or I can insist on buying only tooling that is made stateside, make no or insufficient profit to enable me to employ anyone. Of course the other option is to raise my prices, decreasing or eliminating sales, causing me to close my doors and put more people on the streets and inflicting a larger burden on society.
Ideology works much better in the classroom. Out in the field, reality sets in.

Great points, Mike. And a great overall summation of much that has gone wrong in this country over the past 50 years.

I can moan and whine all day about individuals from corporations lining their pockets at the expense of the common man, and yes it happens. A lot. Much more than we all would like. And goverment is about the only way the common man has to stop such injustices.

But the flipside of the coin is a government that by pandering to the voting power of the common man has slowly increased its socialistic tendencies over the past century, with new and creative ways to tax *everyone* (individuals and corporations alike) in order to pay for the bread-and-circuses the populace has slowly come to expect and even demand. Bread like Social Security (when we could simply be responsible for ourselves and save for our own retirement), unemployment benefits (again, be responsible for ourselves and save for those periods when we are out of work), and now "free" health care (which granted is much harder to pay for now that it was 40 years ago - but we have much higher expectations of health care now than we did 40 years ago too). Circuses like helping pay for professional sports stadiums (football, baseball or otherwise), selling the rights for toll roads to private organizations (Texas has been especially bad about that), prescription drug programs that we pay gobs of taxes for yet have so little oversight and are so easy to steal from they have become the number one method of theft in Florida (didja see the expose on 60 Minutes about a month ago?), or arts and other endowment programs which while laudable cannot ultimately pay for themselves with any coin other than public goodwill (which rightly should be the domain of charity, not government).

The simple fact is, that *everyone* wants a piece of the pie, be they rich or poor, and eveyone here in America has come to perhaps expect more than they should (we aren't called "the decadent west" for nothing). The rich leverage their wealth to create tax loopholes and other methods to retain or grow their wealth, while the poor leverage their power to vote themselves more bread and circuses at the expense of, well, pretty much everyone, but especially including the rich. Granted that unlike other countries, in America we have far fewer destitute folks, far fewer people "dropping dead in the street of starvation". And we collectively pay for it.

I can't help but wonder like Mike, if a solution much closer to the "ideal" would indeed be a government that interferes only where it must, taxes only what it must, and leaves capitalism alone enough to do what it does best - make profit. Certainly that's what our constitutional forefathers thought. And yet to do so is to also pretty much drop all the bread and circus programs which that 35% tax helps pays for - and that won't happen. Personally, I think going back to a flat sales tax much like we had 100+ years ago would be the most fair method; let those who buy a lot, or who buy expensive stuff, be the ones to shoulder the greatest burden. But if we did that (or even if we just dropped the 35% tax), we'd also have to seriously rework the whole financial industry, or at least the ability to purchase on credit portion, anyway - and honestly, extending credit to those who do not deserve it and are not responsible enough to pay it back has been perhaps the biggest cause of the world's various financial crisises over the past half century. So no, that won't happen either.

As Mr. Palmero said, ideology vs. reality.

OK, so, when are American companies going to start hiring again? 2011? ....2012? ........2018?!!!
I'm betting it's when they figure Obama administration is on it's way out the door. Or does it go deeper than even that?

Hey Matthew... it's the tax policies of your friend Barbara and her ilk who have produced such a rancid corporate tax structure in this country that it is better for the majority of companies, that can, to do business outside of America and sell TO us... The tax code in the country favors no one except for companies like Google (paying only 2.4%) who "cheat" the system or the non-producers, ie: leeches who get "refund" checks. This places a HUGE burden on the middle class, who don't have the luxury of skillfully evading taxes and usually end up OVERPAYING... this is one reason we need the Fairtax.org or something nearly IDENTICAL to it, because in the end ALL taxes get passed on to the end consumer anyways (almost EVERY product has at least 20% hidden taxes built in to the price), so why not abolish the IRS (ooooh crazy idea) and let every company doing business continue collecting the taxes like they ALREADY DO at the retail level (ie: local sales tax)... Fiorina is no DeVore (who I wish would have gotten the nod), but she's also no Boxer (thank God). I think if she wins, it will be a step in the right direction for California, a small one, but right now anything in that direction is better than that snobby bitch could ever do... that lady is just an effing cunt, I hate using that term, but pardon me, she's EARNED IT.