Siemens DX is far from ending its employee layoff schedule and it's rumored most sites will once again be hit before end of 2012.
USA-Sacramento was just hit and we in the UK were told pending layoffs will start here by next week.
The madness continues.

"Whomever you are please do

"Whomever you are please do not leave this battle! " Look at a teachers parking lot and see what cars they drive ...mainly NOT from the big 3. So much for standing with their union buddies.

"Whomever you are please do

"Whomever you are please do not leave this battle! "

No I am still here. How could the big 3 expect a guy making $20/hr to be able to afford a car being made by a guy making $75/hr. ? Sooner or later it was bound to end.

Maybe if the unions would have quit fighting the productivity improvements they could have lasted. But when they wouldn't let a person on the line change a light bulb, but required an Union Electrician change a light bulb, that was a good indication that the unions had gone too far.

How many union teachers are in the NYC "rubber rooms" collection full salary while their case for dismissal wait for a hearing (2-4-,,, years.)

Hell in Poughkeepsie NY, one teacher stabs another teacher in full view, and gets a "package". Try that at Siemens and I bet your will be fired that day.

soooooooooo ... how is

soooooooooo ... how is everyone enjoying the NHL season this year?

I also had a Kodak Brownie

I also had a Kodak Brownie and a Kodak Retina at one time.

Kodak failed in diagnostics as well. They had a great product, but their technology ulitimately limited it's versatility. They sold it out to Ortho and they are hardly leaders today. They are lower than Siemens, just to maintain some link to the basic theme of this thread.

I liked my Kodak 104 camera

I liked my Kodak 104 camera but they don't make the film anymore.
Kodak went bust anyway.

So politico retards vs "DX"

So politico retards vs "DX" nuts. I'll pick the camera guy.

At least I can learn some fun facts about my Nikon D90 and my future D600. Keep posting, my friend.



btw, I like cameras too. In

btw, I like cameras too. In addition to my current camera, I also own two c.1940 Rolleiflex classics and a Leica IIIc, an old rangefinder camera that doesn't even have a built-in light meter. While not a professional, I find it to be a great hobby and every once in a while manage to get a few really great shots.

I just don't get obsessive over details; I'm not that good that they matter.

Fascinating. Another tangent

Fascinating. Another tangent relative to Siemens and clinical diagonstoics. Unlike politics, it is irrelevant to almost everyone. Still, a fun diversion.

I rate it one smiley face with the caveat that these posts will probably grow old very quickly. Advice from a former stand-up comic: don't overplay your good material.

I used Google to search for

I used Google to search for current information (as of 15 October 2012) on the Nikon D400. Given that Nikon Rumors has bought the first maybe couple dozen hits on Google, I thought perhaps I should stop by here to give NR its money's worth for trying to dominate the Not-Nikon Nikon sites.

Here's the thing: I am a professional landscape photographer. I also do corporate contract work: mostly promo shots of agricultural structures and heavy equipment. My work sells. More importantly, it receives lots of praise. My camera is a Nikon D7000. My workhorse lens is the Tamron 17-50mm SP /2.8. The Nikon equivalent, the 17-55mm, is more than twice as expensive, and it delivers nothing more in terms of visual quality in prints. To the best of my knowledge, neither Nikon nor Tamron has an equivalent lens in its FX line-up, which is one good reason I am disinterested in going to FX. I might be wrong about this, but it looks like I'd have to own two FX lenses to cover the range my one, lowly Tamron does like a boss.

I print my own photographs to display and sell: 17"x11" and smaller on a Canon Pro 9000 MkII; 24"x16" and big, beautiful 36"x12" pans on my Epson Stylus Pro 4900. I make money with the equipment I own, which is a second reason I am disinterested in going to FX. While the elitists can look down their noses at my photography ("pedantic," "overpriced," "uninspired," and "gaudy," to list some of the praise I've received in competitions and commentary), I can look with no small amusement at their vast arrays of ludicrously expensive camera bodies, lenses, light meters, and grips, taking special pleasure in those telescopes masquerading as lenses pros sling like over-compensation advertisements.

If Nikon is under the impression that it can simply starve me out as a DX user with an ageing camera body, I have this caution concerning their calculus: If I am forced to go to full frame, my lenses are no good. That means I am free to look anywhere I want for the next camera I own, since I'll have to buy the camera and the lenses, starting from scratch.

I have first-hand evidence that Nikon's decision making hierarchy has become top-down rigid, unlike Canon, which distributes decision-making far down the chain of command. While Nikon's managerial structure can foster some good, it can also replace real evidence of consumer base desires with the management's detached perception of what that consumer base needs.

I'm giving Nikon six months to bring a strong, new, pro-level DX to market. After that, Nikon will lose a DX customer. If it loses too many, any later release of a DX will be met with formerly loyal Nikon users who have moved on, and who will never return.

I think DX is not dead but

I think DX is not dead but the questions with manufacturer is how to market these DX at pros and semi-pros level. The last top model DX was D300s back in 07 (sorry if I got the date wrong). Take D3200 and D5100 and D7000 for example, they are the three DX machines that Nikon markets today, D3200 even did not come with built in motor, its sensor is 24mps, a staggering improvements for entry level machine compare when these entry DX first came up in the market. D5100 is due to renew but compare to D3100 (introduce similar time) it have more buttons and easier to use for experience user. D7000 is built with magnesium alloy minus water proof, it have enough keys even for pros use, most of all I think it size and weight marks an significant improvements in DSLR market.
People might argue that DX still have a market when it comes to wildlife and specialty shooting but I can say most of these shootings are done in a FX simply because it have faster reaction time, speedy frames (over 7 fps) and better coverage owing to larger sensor. I doubt shooting distance is much of a problem unless you want to shoot Prince Williams. Yes you can get almost double the distance in DX but can you ever get good enough pictures when you use over 600mm?
What more good about Nikon is its DX lens is 100% mountable to FX it is just you need to get the setting right for use properly unlike Canon. With pixels is boosting up like D800/800E, it is always pretty tough for the old lens to get good stuff, and I can say 36mps isn't the ceiling yet, we might be over 50mps in few years time. Serious photographers or pros prob need to save up for future now. For amature, there are always 3 to 4 options from Nikon, semi-pros I am afraid FX is the way to go now, but I am sure there will be more affordable lens available from Nikon or Tamron or Sigma, I think we are pretty well covered.
DX is not dead and will not dead but against all these EVILs out in the market and DCs, Nikon might not be all that wrong to focus more on FX.

Let me show you how to post a

Let me show you how to post a relevant DX comment.

Despite what BrettA claims, Nikon never meant DX format to be some sort of temporary fix until something better can be had. Quite the contrary, Nikon tried early on to establish DX format as the defacto sensor size in the digital realm. (some would consider it arrogance on the part of Nikon, imagine that ...)

While Nikon, Pentax, Minolta went with crop factor of roughly 1.5x, Canon was d*cking around with crop factor of 1.6 (Canon's APS-C) and 1.3 (APS-H). Olympus on the other hand went smaller from get go with 2x crop factor (4/3) since the calling card of their film camera was smaller form factor without compromising functionality. Soon after finding out 4/3 sensor could not compete with bigger sensors in DSLR market, they with Panasonic went smaller with m4/3 format ILC/EVIL/mirrorless cameras in establishing that niche market.

No doubt back then, even not too far in the past (2007), producing FF sensor was commercially not very viable for mass production until the technical and manufacturing issues can be scaled up and costs brought down. That's why all the early Nikon flagship DSLRs were DX formats from D1 to D2X/H/S.

When Canon to their credit went full steam ahead and started producing FF sensor DSLRs first (1Ds and 5D MK 1), showing the photographic community the benefits of larger sensor, only then did Nikon eat crow and do a turn-about and started producing FX sensor bodies (D3) in response. While Nikon beat Canon to the punch with enthusiast model D90 in implementing the video feature 1st, Canon one-upped Nikon with 5D MKII having superior video implementation. Despite the crappy AF carried over from MK1, 5D MKII was a huge success for Canon, not to mention 21mp was the secret envy of many Nikon shooters. All the while Nikon's mantra was we're fu*king NIKON, we tell you 12mp is all you need. Of course, they ate crow yet again and responded if a bit late with 36mp D800 and better video implementation in D4, D800/600 and D3200. Therefore, historically, it's Canon (motor in the lens, IS, both before Nikon), who has pushed Nikon to innovate and we Nikon shooters are the benficiary of this intense, ongoing competition.

Only recently, do I believe Canon has been or seem to be a bit complacent or maybe even a bit misguided but have no doubt that they will counter with 40+mp sensor DSLR, maybe even with improved DR. If Nikon/Sony can do it, Canon will surely figure it out soon or later, if not already.

You do know that all this pontificating by the fanboys from either camp has absolutely no sway on what Canon or Nikon thinks or does becaue they think they are smarter and know better than everybody on the planet ...

Best guess is that if Canon does not kill crop format by bringing out an update to 7D, Nikon for sure will not acquiesce that market segment to Canon ... therefore, DX shooters, have hope, keep faith (in the unwavering arrogance of Nikon) and don't listen to the gloom and doom of the FX snobs ... (by the way, I do shoot both DX and FX; for my style, both have its place ... )

There you go again, you

There you go again, you self-centered old troll. You are too so self-centered that you don't even see your own sense of entitlement and privilege. Anyone and everyone, except you and your kind, should give something up, live with a bit lower standard of living, just as long as you protect yourself. You claim of conservative principles is a pure sham since you cannot explain them and how they work to benefit others. I don't even think you are a conservative or anything else politically; you are simply an opportunist who uses principles you don't even understand because they can be used as your shield. Your anger and bitterness and nastiness shows through in just about every post you make here. Why in the world should anyone care about you and your self pity? There's a new world coming, baby, and it's going to run right over you and leave you in the dust to count your money like the Scrooge that you appear to be.

Too boring for even a baby yawn.

"Unions were necessary 100

"Unions were necessary 100 years ago, but power corrupts, and now the UAW is about as corrupt as they can get. All the states which have lost businesses, are those which are union friendly. Michigan, NY, Illinois, California"

Whomever you are please do not leave this battle! I am admittedly exhausted, this guy is admirable for his very misplaced energy, and it is good to know that another person is out there who has the ability to see thru the BS. We in the USA have cultivated an incredibly entitled and misled generation. To think that an employee in this country currently feels that the company OWES IT To HIM for just showing up each day and producing minimally is depressing. The thought that so many feel the employer has no right to decide wwho he wants to consider to continue to employ and pay, and even whom he has a right to employ is surrealistic. Where have we gone so wrong to produce so many wrong headed youngsters? We have people whom are able bodied and able minded who consider it a viable lifestyle to recieve welfare forever, and peole like this fella are not far behind in a relative way.

Screaming about level or lower pay in the future and also screaming about jobs leaving for third world labor, is purely idiotic. Does he really think if I make a widget, that I OWE it to him to pay him 3-5 times as much as some guy in Viet Nam, just so he can pay for his car loan? What planet does he think I am from? Of course I will go overseas if he keeps backing me up to the wall. It isn't pleasant for widget makers to make these decisions but we live in the real world, and the real world of business is very tough, and does not allow for charity to the American worker. Things have changed, and this guy has not kept up. The proof is the number of jobs already lost, and w/ people like him more will go. Th reality is we all have to brace for lower salaries. I am not happy about this, this is just fact, excepting for those with specific talents. I would try very hard to be one of these talented types because they are the ones that will get the good paying jobs until third world talent catches up to them, so the talent level will have to remain upwaards for US workers.

We have a room. Who invited

We have a room. Who invited you in? No one forces you to come here and prevents you from leaving. So as far as I'm concerned, you have no valid complaint. There are plenty of other Siemens threads for you to go to.

why don't you 2 get a room?

why don't you 2 get a room? we are all tired of watching you to f each other in public

" Lower salaries and benefits

" Lower salaries and benefits may not be easily avoidable in the future. "

The real agenda starts to show. Lower wages for most Americans. Eliminate minimum wage which some conservatives advocate. But ask them to dig into their pockets a bit for something they can well afford and they go crazy. It's all part of the arrogant mentality of entitlement and superiority that the wealthy have.

Your are still avoiding my basic question and I suspect more and more that you have no answer; just a few generally irrelevant examples (Nike in Oregon is not a small business owner with 5-25 employees who has a taxable income of $250K to $1MM. For those who make more and, especially those who have income from something other than real work, your case gets even weaker. I have repeatedly said that I am talking about individual taxes and not corporate taxes which is a whole other can of worms.

You have no answer. Just anger, bitterness, and hatred. It shows in every post of yours. Responding to the details of your posts is useless. You just don't get it and, from what polls are shows, neither does the Republican Party. They are seen as mean, nasty, old white men who are out of touch with the American people. Those aren't my words, those are what current polls show. And they now live in a fantasy world in which they believe that their message is right but the delivery was poor. Just wait and see what happens when they run a real right wing conservative (not like McCain or Romney). A look at generally red states like Missouri, Indiana, North Dakota and Montana might just give you a hint. You say you're afraid of socialism; I would say you are afraid of democracy.

I would also say that since you really offer nothing new, you are still as boring as ever.

"..........Unless we actually

"..........Unless we actually end up as communists."

YAWN !!!!!

Do you realize at all, that

Do you realize at all, that by working for someone else and squeesing for every raise, bonuses, overtime, etc., that you will never become independently wealthy unless your salary at a very young age was way above average and you continued to get raises to keep you well ahead of the real inflation figure? And you would have had to save a significant amount every single year starting from day one? Otherwise the math does not work out to a healthy retirement by age 66 or so. What you are arguing for is decent salaries and benefits that are totally out of your control except for performing well on the job. And we all know how poor the correllation often is between performance and pay. What I am getting at, is that I am pretty sure you are barking up the wrong tree. Lower salaries and benefits may not be easily avoidable in the future. Those things will be controlled by factors mostly outside of the USA; i.e. lower third world compensation. So striking, threatening, unionizing, boycotting, etc. won't control will just force more work overseas. It will be easier to self employ/ self invest for potentially huge wwealth accumulation because at least you will have control. Check with the wealthy you know, most will not have attained it strictly by working and saving from a typical middleclass income. It just is mathematically impossible. This is why investing/ business endeavors ar so important and they do not even have to be a full time venture. Part time will make it less frightening to undertake. But getting just a little success is hugely rewarding because all of it goes into your pocket, not to the people you work for when you earn a salary. I am truly giving you sound advice, assuming your salary is not something like $200K.

Old amnd boring. Your

Old amnd boring.

Your solution can only lead to lower wages and/or benefits. Go ahead and try to sell that to the American people. That will be alot more entertaining than your inane posts. You worry about some vague notion of socialism. I worry that the increasing disparity between rich and the working class will cause far greater problems. NYC Mayor Bloomberg, who is hardly a liberal when it comes to fiscal policy, has warned about this. That 99% movement a year or so ago was another warning. Remember that the first anti-Viet Nam war and civil rights demonstrations started with a handful of people. And remember how they grew and how ugly things eventually got. The numbers don't lie. There is a growing economic gulf in America and that will have consequences. Americans don't react well to any concentration of either wealth or power or both. And Americans are not, by nature, a patient people.

I would say 'think about that', but askng you to think is a waste of my time and yours.


"I have mine, now you get

"I have mine, now you get yours...."

If this is the Republican motto, then this must be the Democrats motto;

"You have more, so I deserve some of it...."

Actually I sympathize with your position, I really do. And that is why I worry a bit for you youngsters. You have been edjumicated by leftist professor's and pounded by the liberal media, very much what the NAACP has done to Black Americans. Did you know that Jamaican Blacks in America as a group, had a higher average household income than Whites? This was true at least, 20 years ago, as I read this statistic from Newsweek in the 1990's. You know what the Jamaicans in the article said about Black Americans? They could not understand how American Blacks did not just self employ if they felt so dicriminated against. That is how most of them became successful. They were so grateful to be in a country that was prosperous enough to have so many people wanting their services, whether is was common labor, food services, cleaning businesses, handyman work, whatever. They had no concept of entitlement, so they just buried themselves in hard work and made sure they controlled the money/expenses enough to make a living. Seems to me they have to be greatly admired because being Black, does make everything a bit more difficult in this country; even I will admit to that obvious factor. But hard, honest work while maintaing an understanding of what it takes to run a business saw them achieve remarkable success. If their average household incomes were just a bit below the average for Whites I would have been very impressed. But they had EXCEEDED the average income for Whites at that time frame! And I don't know, maybe they still are above average today.

If you first get rid of that chip on your shoulder against the wealthy, you may just find that getting there becomes much easier. In fact my position is, that it is much easier to get it yourself rather than to try and sneek wealth away from those that have it, because you will never get enough from them tomake a big enough difference in your life. Unless we actually end up as communists.

For those who think that

For those who think that companies do not vote -- I have news for you, they do. Simply by closing their doors and moving to some other place which is more business friendly. Like a "right to work" state for one. Do you think the Japanese auto factories were set up down South because of the warm weather? ,,, think again. A car being manufactured in Alabama is going to cost less to manufacture then one in Michigan. Therefor, "Big 3" cars had to cost more or be of lower quality. Unions were necessary 100 years ago, but power corrupts, and now the UAW is about as corrupt as they can get. All the states which have lost businesses, are those which are union friendly. Michigan, NY, Illinois, California.

I thought Israelis are

I thought Israelis are smarter than Americans.

The second crazy person we've

The second crazy person we've seen today. Why not hand out guns to every airline passenger as well? That would put an end to hijackings.

Boring, insensitive idiot.

If teachers were allowed to

If teachers were allowed to carry semi-auto weapons in school like in Israel, this could have all been avoided.

"Nike wants Oregon to

"Nike wants Oregon to guarantee its future tax rate before agreeing to expand in the state. Fair deal?"

I'd call this extortion. This has nothing to do with individual income taxes and tax preferences for those who make a living by not working.

Tas rates were increased under Clinton. 20-plus million new jobs were created.

Tax rates were lowered under Bush. Net employment was fairly constant during his administration.

One could conclude from the above one-rat experiment that higher taxes are good for employment. However, two events that happen simultaneously are not necessarily connected. The key to good analysis is the ability to distinguish among coincidence, trends, and true relationships. Remember that for any theory to be true, it has to account for all of the data. When conflicting data exist, one does not have a valid theory.

Anyone can take a subset of all the data to prove anything they want. Such approaches are meaningless. Note that your headline suggests a desire for a constant tax rate over time (probably for planning purposes) and did not say that Nike demanded a low or lower tax rate. At best you have added information to the conflicting data base; you have proved nothing.

It is little wonder that the

It is little wonder that the Republican Party is in severe decline.

The basic party agenda is: I have mine, now you get yours. I have enough to give to my children and grandchildren so they will never have to work for a living. Tough luck for the rest of you.

The basic attitidue is: We are rich and therefore better than everyone else. Our wealth entitles us to rule. We know better than everyone else. We don't even need to explain ourselves. Our wealth proves the correctness of our views. All of the others who are not wealthy are just evil liberals, socialists, and mental defectives.

Is anyone surprised that the Republican Party is going the way of the dodo, typewriters, horses and buggies, and Blockbuster Video and has become a party of bitter, angry old white men, who like the things listed above, are becoming extinct.

Circle the wagons, Republicans. Just sit down at the bottom of the valley while Chief Sitting Bull and all of the Indians in the world ride down on you. For those of you who don't know history, General Custer got what he deserved as a mass murderer and epitome of American ethnic cleansing. Harsh, but the truth hurts.

"Nike wants Oregon to

"Nike wants Oregon to guarantee its future tax rate before agreeing to expand in the state. Fair deal?"

And this is not a good example for a link between taxes and employment? Remember this is Nike, of which I am sure 80%+ of their employess and management would be liberals. What you want is "proff" that is non existant because it is is so the other way around, also. You cannot proove that it does not hurt. So what do you want me to do, gice you a unicorn?

According to many posts on

According to many posts on the other Siemens threads, pay raises have been delayed until June. Bonuses for last year will still be paid out this month. I have seen nothing to dispute this rumor, so it is very likely to be true.

Does this disparity surprise you?

Yes, it's true. A punishment

Yes, it's true.
A punishment for FDA letters and payment to outside QA people for fixing the problem.
Basically, hard working employees got screwed out of 6months merit raise.
Happy Holidays from Siemens

I heard rumor that raises are

I heard rumor that raises are delayed for Siemens employees from January to July -- any truth to that?

"Once again liberal lean is a

"Once again liberal lean is a disease..... "

This says it all. There is no reason to continue a discussion with anyone who has your holier-than-thou attitude.

Governments and private organizations try new things all the time. Some are successful and some fail. Neither has an exclusive in this area. We tried an experiment under Bush and the Republicans in 2001 and 2003. Guess what? It failed and until people on the right wake up to that reality, there is no reason to discuss things further. Quite frankly, I'd rather go over the so-called financial cliff than to waste my time arguing with people who, when faced with facts they can't deal with such as many that I have raised and receive no response, turn to insults.

I have asked repeatedly for an explanation of the link between tax rates and employment. No answer, just diversions and insults.

I have proposed specific cuts, with no acknowledgement.

I have proposed mechanisms to evaulate programs in order to eliminate those that are unnecessary, alter those that are still needed but are not working according to plan, and, yes, increase funding for those that require it. Again, no response.

You have an agenda from which you refuse to deviate an inch. Give me a single reason for talking to you anymore. You can just huddle with your old troll friend here.

Congratulations ... you have earned your first YAWN.

"....trying to discuss this

"....trying to discuss this issue when one side will only deal with spending and not revenue...."

Look, we can have higher taxes on the rich if the Dem's would agree to even greater cuts, I'd go for that! We just need to get more aggressive. Obama himself said in proposing the stimulus package, that at that time, any tax increses would further hurt the very shaky economy, so he was against incresing taxes at that time.....go look it up. So if increaseed tax rates would hurt then, why would that dynamic change because the economy is a bit better? It will still put a drag on it, right? So that means since it is a bit stronger we can tap some of that momentum? Very stupid logic. If anything lessening burden will put the economy in a higher gear, and isn't that better for everyone?

I've heard so many naive arguments that government is not overspending compared to historical numbers, etc. Who the hell cares about past numbers!!!!! The only number they should care about is the one trillion deficit for every year till Obama is out of there! How in the world these idiots (who are "experts" selected by the news channels) can come up with their conclusions is just stunning. Once again liberal lean is a disease that is powerful enough for very inteligent people to make numbers lie.
If we borrow one trillion a year, WE ARE OVERSPENDING. I can see why Obama could give a rats ass, he only wants to win politically and the burden gets transferred to the next fool. But these so called experts, wow. How in the hell do you look at one trillion+ a year in deficits (as an average for 8 full years) as acceptable is simply ,simply stunning. And these are your "experts". God help us.

"Nike wants Oregon to

"Nike wants Oregon to guarantee its future tax rate before agreeing to expand in the state. Fair deal?"

From a Yahoo! poll this mourning. Nike has to be one of the most liberal minded companies in the USA, and what do they ask for before hiring neww people?

Look, it is as simple as 2+2. As long as everything else is equal, less taxes mean less profit which means less mony to spend. Simple right? And you see, if you have less to spend what possible outcome could that be for salary allotment? If you then say no effect, I give up.

I know what you are doing, never having to actually budget a business before. You read and listen to all the left leaning pundits that heve pHD's but never operated a business themselves in the real world successfully. You take confidence in them because they have vast knowledge of financial details that they learned from the left leaning professors. Some even advise the president and mutual fund managers. The trouble is many, many, many, most?, of these guy's are just clueless. If you need proof, these were the same guy's that said in 1999 that if you were not heavily investing in NASDAQ (unlike Buffet at the time) you were a backwards thinking old troll. Thigs were different they said this time because high tech was not going to follow the rules. Well it worked for another 6 months or so but reality brought the market down to earth, while making Buffet look like a genius. In this case, I fully disagree; he was simply applying good logic and business sense, and stuck to his guns.........hardly genius stuff.
The same foks were saying in 2006, that in 10 years the average price of a house in the USA would exceed $300K, and that RE was the surest thing besides the sun coming up every morning. We know how this turned out too. Another bubble will soon brew, regardless of the overall economy, because that is hoe it works. Most people are clueless about financial matters and get cought up in the frenzy and follow like lemmings over the cliff, because it is easier to follow than to think independantly. I am trying to be sincere here when I say you are following the wrong group, theliberals mostly have economic matters wrong. In terms of social and military aspects liberals are on much firmer ground and I am actually on their side quite a bit. But economic matters are far, far more important for politicians to handle correctly, because if we fail here, who cares about the rest? We would care less about these things if we hungry and cold, trust me.

Still nothing on the revenue

Still nothing on the revenue side and no explanation of the link between tax rates and employment. The simplest conclusion I can make is that there is no cogent explanation since I have ask, nay begged, for one and have yet to hear anything logical to enlighten me. Even if we were to take all of the cuts in the Ryan budget, we will be running deficits for at least another decade and that leaves aside the discussion of his proposal to eliminate Medicare which, as I have said, and all polls indicate just won't fly with the American people. I am getting tired of trying to discuss this issue when one side will only deal with spending and not revenue, whereas my approach deals with both. As I have indicated, my approach does deal with so-called entitlements as well as the biggest expenditure, the military. The fact that my approach is somewhat of an anathema to both extremes, suggests to me that I am on the right track. An approach that does not involve revenues to me is like a company that only has an accounts payable department, but not accounts receivable (or vice versa).

Simply put, I am no longer interested in discussing or arguing for half a plan. I know all of the arguments on the right and do not need to hear them again. Nor do I need to hear all of the nasty adjectives that get applied to things with which you do not agree or any personal attacks on the integrity of those who hold views different from yours.

It is all getting old and more and more boring.

By the way my list of

By the way my list of specific cuts would be many, many billions of dollars and is in no way complete. I could list stuff until the servers get backed up if I spend the time to research the enless places where we can cut. The point is, every one entails someone losing money, grants, salaries, benefits, entitlements, etc. We all know this, but so what? We should borrow, borrow, borrow to keep everthing above water? Borrowing does not work that way. If you borrow, you always owe someone back more money because of interest. So when do we pay the piper?

The one caviot is that we as a country can print more fiat money because we countrol the dollar presses. Of course this is cheating because we are diluting the value of our currency to pay back with dollars of less and less value. It could work up to a point, and that point would be when we have finally debased our currency to the level where our creditors want their money back. If you want to see armaggedon, this is when you will see it. We want to prevent at all costs, the USA getting to this point, but that point is now clearly visible on the near horizon.

That should be "credit

That should be "credit default swaps".

"Obamacare would have not

"Obamacare would have not passed the Senate had it not been revenue neutral, so that isn't an issue"

Fannie and Freddie have to go!! Certainly not all at once but as soon as is feasible. They are one of the primary reasons RE bubbled. You cannot have a legers full of predominantly unqualified mortagges funded by government and not have trouble. These loans still are being funded w/ less than 20% down (as little as 3%)and every private sector lender is currently requiring 20%. I know it hurts the RE market, but so what? A true correction is needed to truly stabilize the market parameters. Look, they are still inflating the RE market to try and stem the defaults. This will be a slow dying beast that will back fire again if any stress hits the market. I'm not saying close it down tommorrow, we would all lose. But the eventual abolishment of these goverment lenders will lead to a stable market. These huge #'s of essentially subprime to near subprime loans is what spawned all the mortgage selling to secondary lenders. Banks KNEW they were risky and sold them off inbundles to get them off the hook. Then funding more and more lloans to get the fees, then unloading them. What the hell did we expect was going to happen? It was actually a Ponzi scheme where eventually whoever was holding the most in mortgage backed securities was going to eat it big time. Even more damamge was fostered by investor's betting huge on credit fault swaps. This was actually the biggie; its complex but essentially speculative investor's bet that the value of RE backed funds would not fall below a certain value by a certain date. If they were right they leveraged big gains on a "smart, low risk mortgage backed security, that everbody back then knew would be safe". Well we all know how that turned out. If they were wrong, they leveraged themselves by a factor of something like 5x-20x for loses!!! The estimates were 35-75 TRILLION dollars were at risk for the investers to pay if the RE mortgage funds continued to fall in value........that is what scared the hell out of Wall Street and Bush. I don't think there is 75 trillion dollars worth of currency in the entrire world even if you add up every country. So you see it had virtually nothing to do w/ Bush; he was in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong message ("free market w/ decreased regulations"). He was blind sided and probably ignorant of understanding the entire situation.......but ANY president previous or since would have been just as ignorant. Inly the insiders on Wall Street ffully understood what was going on a up to the bubble bursting. This is why it is so frustrating to hear the public rant that Bush ran the banking system into the ground. It didn't matter if Clinton was in office; he would have been equally blind sided.

By the way Obama care is not fully funded, I almost forgot to post this.

I have alot of problems with

I have alot of problems with government pay raises and tenure and the lack of merit pay. I understand the rationale of avoiding politicizng government workers, but the way it's done now is absurd. I also have alot of problems with companies like banks and investment houses that don't make a profit in a given year, or who had to be bailed out by the government (whether that was right or wrong doesn't matter for this one), and yet pay their executives huge bonuses. All of those costs go into the cost of the products and services they provide which means you and I are paying for all those excesses as well. Why not also tell companies that travel expenese are not deductible if government workers shouldn't travel at all?

As for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and probably Sally Mae, have you considered the effect on the economy and the banking system and mortgage availability and the construction business, etc. if they were eliminated? There is no amount of Ex-lax in the world that could break the economic constipation that would occur. Yes, they have their faults, but, like it or not, making them disappear is not practical and, above all, I insist that solutions to our problems, whether they come from conservatives or liberals, be practical and have their consequences considered. The plan has to work; it is not about satisfying a particular economic or political philosophy. The philosophy should not dictate the plan if the plan isn't practical and that the cure doesn't become worse than the disease (e.g., consider the possible consequences, but do it without shouting and yelling and calling the other person evil ... there is no way that kind of behavior helps).

A tax structure that had more

A tax structure that had more high end brackets would be a big help. We could keep current rates for those under, lets say 500K, raise them a bit for up to 1MM, and then alot more for the 2-3 higher brackets. Eliminating the preference for capital gains over 500K-1MM would also be a big help as well.

Most of the programs you mentioned don't add up to that much and won't change overall tax burden. In many cases, the costs will just be transferred elsewhere. Obamacare would have not passed the Senate had it not been revenue neutral, so that isn't an issue. Cutting off state medicaid sounds nice, but what do you do with people who need medical care and simply can't afford it? Cutting Federal aid to states simply transfers the cost to state budgets. And strangely enough, the per capita amount of Federal dollars is higher in red states than it is in blue states. Cut Federal aid to education and property taxes have to go up.

You are certainly right about the military. Even I was suprised at the number (over 100 as I recall) of bases we have in foreign countries. I think it would be hard to justify most of them as 'providing for the common defence'. The entire military needs revamping for reasons other than budgetary. We need to find the right balance between maintaining a ground capability a la WW II, even though we really haven't seen much of that kind of warfare recently, and a military geared towards fighting the tactics used by our enemies today. Korea and Vietnam were the turning points between 'conventional' and 'guerilla' warfare and it requires far more intelligence, black ops, specific targeting, etc. which involves a very different skill set. Strangely, I have heard very little discussion of this issue. In terms of savings, I would add in allowing and encouraging the government to negotiate drug prices to help reduce the cost of the unfunded Medicare Part D with which we are still saddled. We pay twice what Europeans pay for the same drugs which means, in effect, we are subsidizing their medical care. Ironic that capitalistic America is providing socialistic help to Europe, eh. (Hey, you gotta have a sense of humor about some of this stuff).

The military is a biggie as are Medicare and Medicaid. Social security is self funding for now and is outside of the main budget. Some adjustments will probably be necessary for social security at some point, but it is not a real problem now. As for the other three, each is a sacred cow to one or more segments of population. Both sides react with complete rejection of any attempt to tamper with what exists today. Both sides want their program expanded. And it's time for that to stop. We are not getting rid of Medicare or Medicaid any more than we are shutting down DOD. Significant adjustments for all three are required and it is time for the posturing to stop on both sides and time to put aside political agendas (anti-social welfare or anti-war) and find practical and creative ways to work on all three. It should not be about horse trading or politics and it should be about compromise; we pay these guys to get the job done.

I will also add that I have yet to see any plan to come up with the required dollars that only involve cuts and that have been vetted by the CBO. The CBO could not even rate the Romney plan due to lack of details. The Ryan plan has the national debt increasing until something like 2030 and gets rid of Medicare and from a practical point of view, that just isn't going to happen. I don't know the review status of what Obama is proposing, nor do I care. I want them all to sit down and work it all out with numbers that add up and without potential damage to the economy that cuts in government programs might cause. When you cut programs, you cut jobs and I still haven't heard how cutting taxes creates jobs.

And just for a little fun, as far as that obnoxious term, job creators' is concerned: employers don't create jobs; customers do! Just smile and think of it as another perspective and respect individuality.

The trouble with the tax

The trouble with the tax increase is that it does not distinguish employers from high income idividuals who do not employ a significanyt workforce. So if it could be structured that those who employ >25 employees in the USA get a very slight tax decrease and those just earning a very high income getting a significant tax increase, I'd be on board! The trouble is I really do not think that this would increase significant revenue; I think the estimate was a couple billion dollars as it was proposed. hardly enough to offset the spending. That is why the tax increase is actually more symbolic than functional; it is far more important to cut spending. That I can list specific cuts really does not impress; what you think that there is not enough fat in government to cut? Boy if that is why you need specifics were are in different dimentions;

Nat'l endowment for the Arts

Fannie Mae both eliminated not just cut back!
Freddie Mac " "

Auto pay increases for all Federal employees for at least 5 years; they already far outpace the private sector if benies are factored in.

Stop all further stimulus nonsense!

Repeal all Medicaid state bailouts

Most endowments

Duplicated educational programs

Community developement funding

Federal travel budget

Dept Energy grants; mostly the wasteful weatherization program

Inter-city high speed rail; at 2.5 billion= now is not the right time, even though I like this one.

Economic Development Administration; do not get me started on this one!

US Agency for International Development

The fund for Obamacare administraton cost's; ~1 BILLION to fund this insolvent monster!......this is just to administer it from the get go!!!! will surely go up tp 2 billion.

And yes, cut PBS funding, and Big Bird should get the ax if private donations can't keep it going. Nice and educational but the world will not end if PBS shrinks by 50%.

Is that enough? All of this will hurt but so what? The hurt is even bigger if we BORROW MONEY WE DO NOT HAVE to keep all of this stuff going forever.

I hope you are happy now with some specifics, aand I'll tell you what........I could go for a thousand more if I spent the time.

All of it should not be done at once, I fully understand that the shock could deepen into a recession. But we better start ASAP, and get to some semblance of a functional Federal budget.

Oh, the military and defense spending/ support overseas should also be streamlined. Even military bases can be closed up. High tech wweaponry has already made military posts, a rather old world thinking white elephant.

Let me see if I can put my

Let me see if I can put my question in a more specific and practical way. Let us take a look at two Americans who are both quite rich and pay less than 15 % of their income in taxes. One would be Mitt Romney. (I chose him, because we know something about his personal finances, and not for any reason related to his recent run for President). The other is Warren Buffet. In Romney's case, he has not been employed for years and thus has no hiring or firing capability. His income is purely from investments, many of which, have no influence on the finances of the companies in which he invests (if you were to sell me 100 shares of Siemens stock which you bought 10 years ago, and you made a profit, or a loss for that matter, it would have no bearing on Siemens finances. When stocks are initially issued, the company gets money for the stock. After that, they are basically not involved. The money invested initially does affect the company's finances, but after a while, the reality is that the performance of the company drives the price of the stock). How would a change in the amount of tax that Romney pays affect employment? In the case of Buffet, much of his wealth is in his own stock. Being the shrewd businessman that he is, I doubt that his personal taxes would affect hiring policy. You hire people when you have work for them to do and can make a profit from their efforts. You lay people off in the reverse situation. So again, I fail to see how a change in tax rate would affect Warren Buffet's hiring or outsourcing, etc.

Another thought. Let's say that you make $10K in long term capital gains and pay 15 % tax leaving you with $8500. What if you had to pay 35 % tax and would only be left with $6500? Would you not invest? What would you do with your money other than put it under your mattress?

I apologize for going on like this, but I simply don't get how this lowering tax thing is supposed to work. It is not for lack of intelligence or trying to understand, so maybe you can be the one who finally gets through my mental block if that is all that is preventing me from understanding your approach. I really do want to learn and understand.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. You may have noticed that the trend to outsourcing jobs overseas has been actually reversing a bit recently. Nonetheless, a decision to move overseas is based on where you feel you can make the most profits and the basic decision is only minimally affected by taxes. My question, however, was not about how this works with business taxes, but how this works with personal taxes, and, in particular for people with higher taxable incomes, but do not own businesses and do not make decisions about how many people to hire in the company for which they work. How does a person who makes most of his income through investment rather than working influence hiring decisions? I sometimes wonder where this whole mantra comes from. Actually, I do know where it comes from. Do you? Just to save you the time, it comes from what happened after the 1929 market crash when the United States raised taxes and things got alot worse. However, the taxes that were raised were tariffs, import taxes, and that helped to freeze up international trade. Income taxes were actually at their highest during World War II and I am not aware than there was massive unemployment then. What there was, was a situation of dire danger and stress to America and, when push came to shove, America got the money it needed for the crisis from those who could best afford it. I happen to think that the current budget and debt problem is a similar crisis, although purely economic rather than military and economic. We have, once again, found ourselves in a situation in which the only way to increase revenue that makes sense is to ask those who can best afford it to help out. Note that these higher tax levels need not be permanent, but only until we can get the deficit under control. We actually had a chance to do that in 2000 when the government was running a surplus and had the ability to actually start to pay down the debt. Rather than do that, we decided to lower taxes and, simultaneously, increase spending (two wars, and Medicare Part D). Now it seems to me, that between 2000 and the present we have seen the greatest outsourcing of American jobs to foreign countries in our history. That does not seem to support your argument. We saw little job growth between 2000 and 2008 as well, so that argument doesn't seem to be supported by facts. I just wonder how much worse would it have really been had we not had the Bush tax cuts and had a surtax to support our war efforts and a mechanism to pay for the drug plan.

I am fully aware, as I said before, that our debtg and budget problems are now the result of a single party or economic philosophy. I am also aware that our economy goes in boom and bustg cycles which seem to be independent of who is in office. Politicians will never change the greed and disappointment cycle. I am more than willing to believe that there are government programs that can be trimmed or eliminated, but when I ask conservatives which ones they want to cut, I either hear about NPR, Big Bird and Planned Parenthood funding, none of which are significant enough to even make the list of top 50 or 100 programs to cut or eliminate. Those cuts are not about economics; they are part of a political and social agenda. As painful as it might be, a tax increase is, at least, easy to understand and quantitate. I have yet to hear from either side a plan to cut spending where the dollars really start to add up. There are just too many lobbyists on both sides in Washington for anyone to have the guts to stand up and demand significant cuts in major expenditures.

I have no interest in discussion personalites and no interest in putting labels on people since, at least I consider myself to be an individual. I see no value, when discussing these important issues to be calling one side the Tax and Spend Democrats or the Borrow and Spend Republicans. Let's talk about ideas on their merit. Let us respect the reality that there is more than one way to skin a cat (sorry about that PETA). Let us understand that economics is not an exact science and that trying to predict the impact of a particular policy in the future is close to an exercise in futility since unplanned events almost always change the predictions. And most important, let us accept that honest people can have different approaches to solving problems and that doesn't make one evil and one good. Let us accept the good intentions of all ideas and stop with this garbage about how one side intentionally wants to destroy America.

However, there is an old troll here who just doesn't get it. He is rude, arrogant, and ignorant, and what's more, actually brags about his lack of information. It's like his credo is: I don't know very much, but I just know what I know and I am right. I have made it clear that I will no longer respond to his comments other than to yawn and call him out for his childish behavior. I believe what America needs most is a calm, respectful discussion of how to get out of the mess we are in. Pointing fingers at who caused it is fruitless since there are simply not enough fingers to go around. Dwelling on the past never solves a problem. Discussing options, synthesizing solutions based on ideas from many viewpoints, and then deciding to work together rather than demanding to win on 100% of each issue is what works.

I think it was Ben Franklin who said it best: Gentlemen, we must now hang together, for surely, if we don't, we will all hang separately.

Shall we talk? Or continue to scream and yell and stick our tongues out at one another?

"Only the crazies on the left

"Only the crazies on the left would say Bush was responsible for all that chaos"

I finally gottcha. My list included, W. being responsible for this stuff, and when not confronted with some common sense you fully indicated that all of the stuff were FACTS and not talking points. So don't go easy on the list now, admit you really believed it! Anyways thats the way the talking points went and you know it did.....that "W. almost busted our banking system/ economy". Well I will take your latest response as a mitigating admision.

As for W. or Republicans not being responsible for anything, who said that? Maybe some crazies but not me. I have said that W. was terrible with his spending! Again talking to liberals is like speaking to a moving object, you don't hear us and adjust positions when caught in some silliness.

Another silly staement is how does increased taxes decrease jobs? I know you are backing this up because a lot of left leaning economists say this stuff all the time on the buiness sites.....Henry Bloget is literally one who foams at the mouth when exclaming this position. But these guys ARE WRONG......wrong headed. Its not that 1 or 2 Americans get laid off because of 3-8% greater tax burden. Of course that does not make sense up to a point. Take on another 4-10% over the next few years however and maybe a few do indeed get cut. The problem is that increasing tax/ regulation burden makes it easier to say "we are moving operations overseas". Now if that happenss, can you see that a huge # of jobs get lost? The only things that a slight tax increase will not change much are things that physically cannot move overseas; like flipping burgers or construction. But how well will our economy be if the only jobs left are the ones emplyer's physically cannot move overseas? You see this stuff is really just common sense.

Only the crazies on the left

Only the crazies on the left would say Bush was responsible for all that chaos. There is more than enough blame to go around including 5 or 6 Presidents, hundreds of members of Congress, business leaders (mainly in banking and investment), and the American people in general for allowing themselves to live way over their financial heads and build up huge amounts of unnecessary debt. My big complaint here is that the old troll refuses to acknowledge a single contribution to the mess on the part of Republicans. He will not acknowledge the contribution to our national debt of two unfunded wars (which are finally ending), an unpaid for Medicare drug program and two tax cuts (all of which contribution to the so-called Obama annual budget deficit). That's when he retreats into his name calling and other childish behavior which is the reason I will not respond to his nonsense anymore with anything other than a yawn.

He has also consistently refused or been unable to answer my very simple question: What are the mechanics of how higher taxes decrease employment and how does it work. In particular, when I calculate how much more an individual who has a taxable income of half a million dollars will pay when the Bush tax cuts expire ($10,000) would necessarily have been used to hire more workers. I know the line or talking point about higher taxes being job killers, but I have never heard a rational explanation of how or why that is. I have asked a number of my conservative friends to explain this to me and have never gotten anything close to a satisfactory answer. The general response tends to be something like, 'everyone knows that' or 'it's just a fact' which is far from sufficient to get me as a convert. Perhaps you could be so good as to explain this core principle to conservative thinking.

Still waiting with open ears and eyes and mind.

I'm the guy who made that

I'm the guy who made that list of liberal talking points. Maybe you should know that I didnot make the comments about Harvard. I agree it was silly because if anything Harvard may have better esteem in the ivy league. I don't want to bag on my fellow conservatives, but this one was silly. Come on guy's lets have the libby get a real good leason on all those talking points being liberal "facts". Especially the "Bush collapsed the entire economy/ banking system in 8 years in office with his policies".

Really liberals? Lets just do a "what if". Let us assume that in fact Bush was able in 8 years to break down the entire economic, banking, savings & loan, investing, insuring, mortgage, stock market, housing, FHA, Fannie, Freddie, Wall Street, mutual fund management co.'s, hedge fund co.'s, the Fed Reserve, Dow Jones, S&P 500, Nasdaq, (have I missed something?) etc., etc., of the biggest econmy in the world. You should also include the world wide economy also, because the entire world economy was reeling at the time. That is pretty damn impressive work for only 8 years, even considering that it was negative stuff. I mean if this was actually true, then W. Bush would have to be considered the most accomplished and brilliant of all leaders in the entire history of civilization. I mean, w/o even sweating, and passing a modicum of policies (yes, even the very ill advised Iraq war) he was able to bring the world down to its knees. Really unbelievable stuff W.

Even Hitler starting a world war was not able to demolish a world economy and scare the economists so badly, even as thw world was still in the midst of a generational depression when he came to power.

I do indeed, think that W. was a very poor president on many fronts but come on guy's, was he really that great at destroying the USA and world economies without even breaking a sweat? Get real.

I believe they are the 50

I believe they are the 50 cents from communist china.

So childish. YAWN !!

So childish.


"Dumb people don't make it

"Dumb people don't make it through Yale, even when they are legacies."

Correct. but really dumb ones make it through Harvard. TEDDY KENNEDY comes to mind. :-) I understand he got caught cheating but daddy paid his way back in.

"FOX News ..... hardly a

"FOX News ..... hardly a bastion of liberalism"

Yes, Fox news.

What about: CNN, NY times, LA Times, San Jose Mercury, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, Time, New Yorker, USA Today, every movie studio, (my fingers are getting sore) etc., etc.

See how liberals pick and chose your "facts". This is why I say facts in the hands of a liberal can lie. If you cannot agree that the general concensus is that the general media is indeed liberal leaning, we cannot talk sensibly. Even the liberal press will admit the bulk of the industry leans hard left. Go Google it and chk me out. You are spouting biased divel again w/o realizing it. It is no different that a liberal Johnny Cochran presenting the "facts" in the OJ trial. Surely you do not believe the outcome of the trial, reflected truth, do you? And I do not mean that Johnny did not win on merit, he possibly did in terms of legal parameters. I mean true guilt vs true innocence.

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.