SIEMENS DX CONTINUES LAYOFF SCHEDULE

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.

Donuts from the left? I

Donuts from the left? I thought the donut was a Bush idea for medicine. When you reach a certain level, stop taking your medication and reach for a donut. Another feature of ACA; the donut hole got smaller for seniors. I'm sure they want that repealed.

You say people on the left are intelligent. You are right. You know why ACA will stay? It has something for just about everyone and once they start getting it, they won't want to give it up. The only people who oppose it are the freeloaders who refuse to buy insurance (even when they can afford it or might have to buy a Chevy instead of a Cadillac) and then when they need care, pass it off on the taxpayer; and the very rich who can well afford to kick in a bit more and do with one less yacht or one fewer homes with a elevator for their cars. They would much rather spend their wealth on a propaganda campaign to oppose and repeal ACA and stir up people with a whole bunch of nasty slogans and lies. Death panels indeed !!!

Wow. Is anyone reading all of

Wow. Is anyone reading all of this?

Well, your record is intact.

Well, your record is intact. I'm not a lawyer and I probably like lawyers alot less than you do and almost certainly have more data to back up my dislike than the farce that was known as the OJ trial. Remember, Marsha Clark, the prosecutor was a lawyer too and it was more her incompetance than OJ's lawyer team that was responsible for his acquittal. (Yeah, I followed the trial in detail and remember more than 'if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit'). Nonetheless, I don't condemn the entire profession, easy at that might be. I recognize that there are many excellent, honest, and dedicated lawyers in this country, but most of them never make the front page headlines. If you had just guessed that I'm a detail person, you would have been right. As for logic, I don't know how one can even start to deal with things logically, if they are unwilling to deal with facts and data and just go with platitudes and statements like 'I know'.

It would be nice if you could conduct a civil conversation without phrases like 'you people on the left' and 'species'. It is one thing to say bad things about an idea or a philosophy and quite another to say that anyone who disagrees with you is, by definition, and label of your choice, an evil person. That's how things started in places like the Soviet Union and the Third Reich. If you are different, you are evil. If you are evil you need to be isolated from society, etc. The witch hunts in Salem were like that as was the McCarthy era. I am sure that you don't wish to be associated with their tactics.

I'm still waiting for your reference to that Congressional poll. Maybe it's just me exploring my QA side; I like documentation. I should also say in advance that a single poll, like a single piece of data is somewhat meaningless. If you can also cite polls relating to other legislation and how much of it is actually read by members of Congress in contrast to having their LAs read it and summarize it, the poll you cite might have some meaning. Most congressmen won't admit in public that they rarely read entire pieces of legislation that are more than just a few pages long. They simply don't have the time given all of their other duties, but if you have ever talked to one or more in private, you find out that alot of them rely on executive summary.

I have managed to support many of my statements with data or references. I have tried to use references that are as non-political as possible. I don't information from the Huffington Post and I will assume that you won't use information from Drudge given the bias of both. So get some data to support your position and we will have something real to discuss.

"A million page document? No,

"A million page document? No, it was more like 2000 pages "

Ever heard of the word sarcasm? There is NO document anywhere that is a million pages, get real! The entire IRS tax code and the Encyclopedia Britanica together isn't close to a million pages, geeeese loosen up.

I take it you are a lawyer right? Lawyers can spit out reams of data, facts and numbers and spin you dizzy so even intelligent people get duped by them; witness the O. J. Simpson case. Not that I would consider anyone on that jury remotely intelligent, but you get my point, don't you? I have to admit, if you are spitting out this stuff of the top of your head it is pretty impressive. The trouble is all the logic is senseless and the beliefs tragic. How some of you on the left can be so apparently intelligent and come up with donuts fascinates me and for those wondering, that is why I read and post hear. I'm hoping to better understand the Liberal species, but I gotta admit, it is a bigger tangle than figuring out how Einstein could come up with his theory of relativity, given what was known in 1908-1913. Perhaps when you are a bit older and hopefully wiser, we will still be in contact after the Dems win executive re-election, and we can converse together in the soup line.

Do you have a reference for

Do you have a reference for the poll? Based on your previous record, it is hard to trust your undocumented assertions. A reference would immeasurably add to your credibility.

Can't you post anything

Can't you post anything without exaggerating, distorting, or lying? A million page document? No, it was more like 2000 pages and if you bothered to look at them you would have seen how they are put up in very large type. The poll, or pole as you call it, says more about how our congressmen do their jobs than the bill itself. Even in draft form there were print copies available. It was the major issue of the day and not keeping tabs on it is not the fault of the size; it is the fault of our representatives on both sides of the aisle.

You also keep talking about Obama as if he is a member of Congress which he is not. You have no idea of how much or little he was in contact with Congress during the ACA debates; nor do I. I think that Obama takes the constitutional separation of powers a bit too seriously in that he tends to be too hands off when it comes to influencing Congress rather than the LBJ approach which really did ram things down their throats (with a little 'friendly' arm twisting and proably a bit of extortion -- 'Come, let us reason together' was the LBJ euphemism for 'would you like me to tell your wife where you were last night?'). But I do know that it is not possible to negotiate with people who's prime goal is to make you fail. Republicans made it clear on day 1 that their job was to subvert the US government (look the word up because it is completely accurate ... they wanted to bring a duly elected government of the United States to ruin, if necessary). Only recently are we finding out about the meetings that the Republicans had in 2009 to find ways to destroy Obama. As I recall, when the shoe was on the other foot, Democrats accepted the election of 2000 (and you must remember how contraversial that one was) and gave the new President a chance. They worked with him on No Child Left Behind, on Medicare Part D (even though they had to yield on any ability of our government to negotiate drug prices as other countries do and to not fund the program which, while it did help seniors, resulted in billions of new profits for the drug companies), and the first Bush tax cut.

Republicans never wanted to give Obama a chance; they were out to get him from day 1 and you know that. They seem to have this attitude that Republicans have a special right to rule, also a divine right and simply won't accept losing an election. We could even compare the behavior of the two parties after attacks on America. After 9/11, Bush was given pretty much free reign. He was given the power to go after Al Quaeda, he was given the Patriot Act, and he was given the power to attack Iraq. All of Congress, Republican and Democrat, united to support the President. In contrast, after an attack on a Consulate in Libya, the Republicans rush to hold hearings that are designed to humiliate the leader of the free world for purely political reasons. Can anyone imagine the Democrats demanding hearings to find out why Bush ignored so many warning signs (whether such a hearing was justified or not)? Did they go after Reagan that way after the attack in Lebanon? I know this is old history, but I only bring it up to make a basic point that the Republicans never had any intention of trying to work with Obama; their sole goal was to destroy him, and the country be damned in the process. Many of the ideas in ACA were initiated by Republicans and were certainly not the first choice of many Democrats. If I have to find one major fault with the Democrats (among many that they have) it is they roll over and play dead too often in an attempt to work with Republicans and then wind up getting stabbed in the back. Remember the national debt ceiling deal from last year that Obama and Boehner reached only to be destroyed by House majority leader Cantor and his Tea Party people? These guys don't want to compromise at all.

This may surprise you, but my cynical side hopes that Romney wins the election and the Republicans keep the House and gain the Senate. Give them just two years and it will be the end of the Republican Party. The reason Romney won't tell us what he really wants to is that he knows he would lose by a landslide. And if he does half of what he and his Tea Party cohorts want, you will see a revolution in this country that makes the riots of the 60s look like high tea at Buckingham Palace. I will now come down to your level and provide an old old socialist line: It has to get worse before it can get better and I can think of nothing worse than a Republican government in this country.

(As a matter of history, the Socialists and Communists won almost a million votes in 1932 and many of them believed they would be in the White House by 1936. The truth is that we were saved from that kind of disaster by FDR who brought things back enough to keep people from pursuing a new, revolutionary course for this country). How do you like that interpretation of history?)

A pole was taken after the

A pole was taken after the Health Care Overhaul vote was completed and as long as they were assured of anonymity, the congressmen almost to a man admitted not reading the final version. The first drafts WERE NOT POSTED on line as was promised by the president and only after much wrangling were they indeed posted (after no one cared to read a million page document they knew was still to be amended soon). By the time the final version to be voted on was on line, it was not read by a significant percentage of the congressmen, but nooooo I can not give you the names of each that admitted not reading it or if they were Dems or Republicans. But I guess to you several days of openness was enough to read a tremendously long and complex document and to then vote on the bill that would affect billions of dollars worth of the national economy, and also effect every American citizen. To you it was enough that the anointed one put his stamp on the bill. By the way Obama himself admitted that he was not familiar with most of the details of what was actually in the bill.

Seems to me that if this was his signature accomplishment as president he would have been insistent on knowing the great majority of what was actually written in the bill.

What kind of legislator in such a high position would not be completely aware of the full ramifications of his signature accomplishment, before putting it up for vote? You want to scream at Mitt and Republicans for your appraisal that they lack details/ facts/ numbers in their positions, yet you adore a president that admits to not knowing all the fine details (nor even reading it) of the single most significant legislation that he passes! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, sheeeeeseh.

Once again more lies and

Once again more lies and distortions. ACA took close to a year to develop, so saying a day or a few days is just another one of those Republican talking points.

With a minor exception, it's constitutional
Polls on specific provisions of ACA show high levels of support.
The world hasn't come to an end as a result of ACA.
The claims of higher taxes are completely misleading unless you want to consider the middle class to extend to the upper few percent of income people (no, my friend, $250,000 is hardly middle class in most people's eyes).

You lost. The majority of Americans do not support repeal. Part to the polls showing dissatisfaction with ACA include those lefties you hate and disparage who wanted even more in the bill, like a true public option.

Get over it already.

The "next day comment" was

The "next day comment" was not litteral, obviously nothing in government gets done in a day, but the jamming it down your throats comment was serious, but I guess a rabid lefty cannot have a little fun with the sarcasim.

Wrong again on the facts.

Wrong again on the facts. The entire healthcare bill was available online for days, if not weeks prior to any votes. Obviously you forgot that little detail which was highly publicized at the time. There were also many many changes made in the bill during the Senate part of the process and virtually all of them were done to include Republican ideas in an effort to gain some level of bipartisanship. What fools the Democrats were. Didn't they hear Mitch Mcconnell say that the Republican goal was to make Obama a one-term President and to do all they could to help him fail. Maybe you can explain how one goes about doing that without making America fail at the same time. Another case of politics over patriotism.

You also forget that the President of the United States is not a member of Congress. Perhaps you have a European (socialist?) view and think we have a parliamentary system here. We do not. You will note that I have not said anything positive about Nancy Pelosi. But I will remind you that since the Republicans have retaken the House, most key legislation has been presented under a closed rule. For those of you who don't know, a closed rule means no amendments can even be proposed on the floor of the House. Since Republicans and their Tea Party cohorts control all of the committees, the House has been operating on a take it or leave it basis for the past two years now. So please, Mr. Pot, stop calling the kettle black. This is also the same House that decided to hold hearings on birth control and refused to allow a single woman to testify. No wonder Republicans are so far behind when it comes to the women's vote this year.

When will you say something that can be supported with facts? Is every Republican a clone of Romney now where the truth is either verboten, or just a tool to be used selectively to gain power? Since when has political philosophy been put ahead of honesty and intellectual integrity?

To quote Joseph Welch in his lecture to another former Republican hero, Josephy McCarthy:

"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

Oops, I think it's

Oops, I think it's pittance...

"So I will make you a deal

"So I will make you a deal (it's behind door #1). You let me take away your car and I will replace it with something (but you have to wait to see if it is a better car, a bicycle, or a new pair of running shoes). If you accept the deal, then I will accept and trust Romney. Anyone care to take a $10,000 bet on what the response will be to this offer?"

Obama several years ago;

"I sent Pelosi and Reid to write up all the details for my health care overhaul, and I want you guys to sign it tomorrow and I don't care if you do not have enough time to read it. I promise you what is in it is better than what we have now, but I can't tell you exactly how that is because I have not read it myself. Just sign it before we ram it down your throats anyway".

Seems to me like Obama has already done this game, and with far, far greater impact to all Americans, so lets just let Mitt have this one, right Mr. Left Wing? After all, your hero owes us on the Right at least one pass because he actually did ram his Obamacare plan down our throats w/o ever reading the freeeking thing himself! Really sounds like a together President doesn't it? The jackass would probably buy a house in the Florida swamp w/o reading the purchase contract either.....after all it would only be a pettence compared to Obamacare, and he didn't read that one either.

God help us all, we are currently sooooooo f#$&'d up in this country.

Let's not forget that TARP

Let's not forget that TARP was a Bush thing as was the initial bailout to the auto industry .... something the right now tries to pin entirely on Obama. And they keep hammering ACA by mis-stating the facts as their candidate did repeatedly last night. The have kept with the lie that that $716 B was taken from patient service when, in fact, it was taken from the excess profits of the insurance companies. NO, repeart, NO changes in patient services occurred as a result. And before you start to defend the insurance companies, would you please detail for all of us exactly what service they provide other than paperwork? What essential function do they have that, if we didn't have it, would affect healthcare in the US? What they do, however, is to put limits on various kinds of treatments, caps on payments, rejection of claims as unnecessary treatment,etc. ... and you guys talk about death panels? Give me a break!! Let's not forget the Romney promise for a 5 trillion dollar tax cut, which he completely disowned last night. Now the 5 trillion gets offset by cutting preferences and, thus revenues and what we pay, remains unchanged.

All Romney keeps telling us is that he will get rid of this, that, and the other on Day 1. First of all, he won't do any of those things without the consent of Congress. He will be President, if elected, and not CEO and he doesn't appear to understand the difference. He keeps saying he will replace it with his own ideas, but won't tell us what they are.

So I will make you a deal (it's behind door #1). You let me take away your car and I will replace it with something (but you have to wait to see if it is a better car, a bicycle, or a new pair of running shoes). If you accept the deal, then I will accept and trust Romney. Anyone care to take a $10,000 bet on what the response will be to this offer?

Don't want this deal? How about the one behind door #2. I will lower your tax rate by 20 % and then remove some, unspecified tax breaks...maybe your home mortgage interest deduction, maybe your property tax deduction, maybe your charitable contribution deduction or your medical car deduction. Will you trust me on that one? The last time we tried this, it just didn't work and blew a hole in the national debt that you have spent the last 4 years trying to shift to Obama. You call him the 'food stamp' President, but you don't want to talk about who was in power and what they did to put all those people on food stamps in the first place.

Won't you take responsibility for anything bad? Are you that narrow that you can only blame one side? Do you have to resort to small-ball with the name calling and personal insults? Why are you and the Republicans and Romney so afraid to lay out your plans? The obvious answer is that they will show the American people your true colors and you will lose in a landslide as Barry Goldwater did in 1964 when he laid out in great detail what his plans were for America. Notice how silent the Republicans were during the 2010 election about their real agenda. They did not campaign on enacting voter suppression regulations or anti-abortion legislation, or forced medical procedures like ultrasound (talk about government control of medical care), or loosening child labor laws as they did in Maine, or busting unions as they tried in Ohio and Wisconsin. Hey, if you believe in this stuff, lay it out for the American people. Don't hide it during the campaign only to bring it up after you are elected.

So let me get as childish as you so maybe you can understand it:

Liar, Liar, pants on fire!!!

"Listen to the fact

"Listen to the fact checkers.
romney was talking a lot of crap.
Do the math.
His math doesn't work."

And you think Obama's math works? Like how Obamacare will self fund? Or how Solyndra was a wise investment for the government?
Or how a continual $1+ trillion a year deficit is necessary?

You guys on the left are just too much. You criticize Mitt's #'s while Odumbo's #'s are off the charts. Are you guys really that dumb or is that liberal lean just so enticing?

By the way "dumb old Bush" looked at Solyndra too, but found it was too risky for the taxpayer's dollars, so he passed; and you call HIM stupid?

You don't get people to think

You don't get people to think by arguing with them, nor are you effective by doing it on this site.

You're much better addressing this in a political forum where the people looking for answers and open to change would be looking.

I think you are just blowing off steam and possibly a little lonely, for which you have my sympathy.

However this forum is for people who want to follow industry rumors, not listen to your political opinions.

If you wish to stay, it would be appropriate and considerate to start your own thread, correctly titled, and argue with each other there.

Back atcha ... Do you really

Back atcha ...

Do you really think I'm trying to fool anyone, period?

If trying to get people to think and look at facts and data is fooling people, then I plead guilty. If getting people involved in an election, rather than just going to vote using the eeny-meeny-miny-moe method, then I plead guilty again.

If you think I'm trying to fool people with facts, then it seems to me that you are the one who has been fooled.

Do you really believe you're

Do you really believe you're fooling anyone with what your doing?

Is anyone holding a gun to

Is anyone holding a gun to your head and making you come here to read comments you don't think are appropriate for this thread?

What is it that qualifies you or anyone else to determine what should or should not be posted here?

Do you really believe that the election is completely irrelevant to the topic of layoffs at Siemens or the good possibility that they plan to relocate facilities to Asia as part of their long term strategy?

If the Siemens layoffs are so important, why aren't more people posting about them and just drowning out the politicos?

Finally, may I refer you to that little red box on the upper right of your screen with an 'x' in it? It's a good cure for the agita that this thread seems to be causing. Just take one click, and call me in the morning.

How do you know the previous

How do you know the previous poster buries his head in the sand regarding politics? perhaps they just choose to comment in a more appropriate forum.

Not like some people.

Sick? Inappropriate

Sick? Inappropriate perhaps, but sick? Oh, I think not.

Sick is burying your head in the sand and closing your ears to things that will affect your life alot more than how many people get laid off (we already know the total number anyway, don't we?). Rumours or guesses as to where and when is a waste of time, generally pure speculation, and, one could even say, morbid.

So now we can debate which sickness is worse. The politicos or the vultures?

We're here to check rumors on

We're here to check rumors on DX layoff. It makes sense to let it tank if no news. Like LA Deuce, it's still searchable. Nobody expects this thread floating by these nonsense irrelevant posts.

Work for Siemens or not, that's just sick to write post after post about politics in Siemens DX thread on biotech forum. You guys need to find other way to lift up your egos.

I have to congratulate Mitt.

I have to congratulate Mitt. He is a genius and I may have to change who I will vote for. Look at what he said last night:

He will lower tax rates from 35 to 28 % for the top marginal income. And to stay revenue neutral, he will eliminate many deductions or tax preferences. The math is just wonderful:

Let us look at $200 of marginal income today vs. under Romney and assume that there are $40 worth of deductions today that Romney will eliminate:

Today you start with $200, subtract the $40 and have $160 taxed at 28%. So you pay $56.

Under Romney, in contrast, you only pay 28%, but with no deduction. So you pay $56.

Ummmmmmmmmmm... wait a second. Am I just stupid and missing something here? What happened to all that extra money that the so-called 'job creators' (a unique species of rich human benefactors) will have to hire new workers?

Remember how much he emphasized that his tax plan would be revenue neutral (in contrast to budget neutral). So either he redistributes who pays what and lets the 'job creators' pay less and the middle class pay more, or he has massive cuts in spending. But massive spending cuts are not part of 'revenue neutral' they are only part of 'budget neutral'. And I still haven't heard what programs he will cut or by how much to make up for the revenue shortfall.

Oh, no. I'm right back to square one.

Did I miss something last night or and I just stupid or is Romney peddling economic snake oil?

Someone please help me out here. I am sooooo confused.

If it hadn't been robbed by

If it hadn't been robbed by previous congresses it would be in great shape.
Blame your elected officials.
Stay away from any voucher programs.
YOU lose in that ponzi scheme.

In fact, previous generations

In fact, previous generations got a much better bargain — sometimes getting back seven times more in benefits than they paid into Social Security through their payroll taxes. That great deal is over. Now, our federal leaders must enact changes to ensure the program stays viable, especially when you consider Social Security is the main source of income for millions of retirees.

Listen to the fact

Listen to the fact checkers.
romney was talking a lot of crap.
Do the math.
His math doesn't work.

Romney mopped the floor with

Romney mopped the floor with Obama.
Might be hope for us yet!

Obama looked tired and worn

Obama looked tired and worn tonight. Go get him Mitt!!!

These are interesting facts,

These are interesting facts, but I do question the comment about taking time away from "your busy Schedule".

Why would you bother?? Writing all that here is esentially unproductive, I hope you didn't neglect anything important to do this.

I suggest the only good reason you contribute is that you enjoy the argument and so have not sacrificed anything. That and the fact that your comment makes you feel important.

There is no need to start a

There is no need to start a new thread. First of all, the same people will go there too. The political discussion is just some filler until someone can post some real information about Siemens or at least some juicy rumours that we can all feast on. In the meantime, you can just pass by the political stuff, twiddle your thumbs, or play with yourself (which is basically the same as much of the political stuff here .... just a little more self-gratifying).

If nothing else, the political stuff keeps the thread current and easy to find if and when people have relevant stuff to post.

If you have something to say

If you have something to say about Siemens DX and its layoff, I suggest you open up another post. This one has been occupied by political trolls for a while.

And again, LA 2013! (I feel like a troll too)

If they expected to

If they expected to completely fail, then they did quite well vs. plan.

So how did Siemens do for

So how did Siemens do for their just ended fiscal year? As good as expected? Did everyone hit their goals?

There's another thread about Siemens divesting itself of its versant line, is this what was being moved/ consolidated in Berkley? can anyone confirm or deny?

"As I recall, taxes went up

"As I recall, taxes went up during the Clinton administration and the budget was actually balanced."

As I recall Clinton gutted the military, Remember; he was the guy who loathed the military ...

You Liberals need to stop

You Liberals need to stop worrying about how mitt spends his money and worry about how OBama is spending OUR taxes

I read the Huffington Post &

I read the Huffington Post & Daily KOS for my political fix. Others choose Drudge or Roll Call for theirs. Fivethirtyeight for polling data.
I come here for biotech news and only that - I really don't feel like wading through all this irrelevancy.

How about a truce today while

How about a truce today while they hold the master-debate in Denver?

Obama supporters should promise to hug Romney's elephant if ...

Romney supporters promise to kiss Obama's (jack)a$$.

A little political humor never hurts. Don't blame me. I didn't pick the symbols.

I think we should put the

I think we should put the blame all the way back to our founding fathers. Without them, William and Kate will be our king and queen, the Indians are still roaming around grand west, and people will have thanksgiving everyday. No America, no mess, the world will thank us.

That is the BRIC and the

That is the BRIC and the Asian third world developing economies.

Please, for God's sake, stop

Please, for God's sake, stop all this political discussion. It only affects our lives.

The American aversion to discussing politics and the crude manner in which they do is the major reason our political leaders are so poor and why most of them have been bought by lobbyists on both sides of the aisle. Give up the discussion, stay home and don't even vote and you get the garbage we have now and deserve.

So go ahead and boycott this thread. Stick your heads in the sand until November 7th. Then wake up and throw up when you see what you have as a government and run around blaming everyone else for your own indifference.

fING WINDBAGS!

fING WINDBAGS!

As long as all this political

As long as all this political blah blah continues let's boycott this thread until we get back to Siemens DX.

I forgot to make another

I forgot to make another point. Because the game has changed so much, lowering taxes may indeed not actually create a significant growth in jobs, but an increase in taxes definitely will lower the available job market and slow growth. We are currently not in a job growth pattern and may not be for quite awhile. One of the biggest reasons is that overall US productivity has gone upwards despite the moribound economy, and businesses have become much leaner and more efficient because of all the job cuts, while productivity continued to go up. Why would they hire a lot more? They are getting more production from employees than ever before and they will want to keep it that way. This will put us in a slow emploment growth pattern for the near future, and those employed will be very busy bees.

Let me see. You need proof of

Let me see. You need proof of identity to get on a plane -- but not to vote ---

Social Security is a far

Social Security is a far bigger Ponzi scheme then Madoff's . In the 1920 most of the men on death row were ---- Italians I believe.

Left wing Republicans now that is a true oxymoron.

Yes -- wonderful FDR ,,, imprisoned American citizens because they were Japanese, let our defenses go down, and started the biggest Ponzi scheme the world has ever known.

Republicans hate a clean environment -- but the EPA was started under the Nixon administration. Oh yes, wasn't it LBJ who increased the troops in Viet-Nam from 10-20,000 to 500,000+

Only left wing Republicans

Only left wing Republicans want to take the country back 30 years.

The rest of them want to take us back to before the New Deal and that would be more like 80 years. Even during the Bush administration there was an attempt to kill social security or to privatize it. The Republicans went through several iterations of what they called their plan, but Americans were not stupid enough to fall for the name game thing. There have been proposals to soften child labor laws (already done by Republicans in Maine in the past two years), eliminate the minimum wage, and even repeal the civil rights legislation of the 60s (Rand Paul is on record favoring this in part). Even now, there has been a clear attempt to restrict voting rights of Americans which hits the old, the poor, and the minorities the hardest. Alot of talk about voter fraud, but, once again, no data to support the claim.

The Republican Party is no longer a party of conservatives. A political conservative is one who wants to move ahead, but very slowly and cautiously. The word to describe one who wants to move backwards is not conservative; such people are called reactionaries and that is what the Republican Party is nowadays. They even say they want to take the country back (it's a great double entendre), but they won't tell us how far back in time they want to go.

For anyone who can operate a motor vehicle American politics is very simple to remember:

When you want to go forward, you move the gear shift to D.
When you want to go in reverse, you move the gear shift to R.

The above message has been brought to you by Democrats: cleaning up Republican messes since 1933.

Over 50% of black fathers

Over 50% of black fathers leave their children. Almost half of the U.S prison population is black...and they only comprise some 13% of America. I must be racist because I know that right? You religious nutters always want to go backwards. America cannot go backwards and must remain competitive in education, technology, science and remaining progressive. Take America back 30 years and the world will control us.

"If products are imported by

"If products are imported by an American firm from China and sold here NAFTA agreements passed by Clinton aloows for no special tariffs so the profits would be taxed much like if it was made in the USA. But the full manufacturing penalty must be considered for manufacturing in the USA (OSHA, EPA, FDA, FICA, unions,etc.....and yes taxes) as these things add up to far more impact than any one tax. Ask any manufactuer what they have to put up with and they will roll their eyes. And this is not even considering the much higher pay rate that American workers arrogantly expect. Then you have the fear of law suits especially if you are in the health care field. We are literally pricing ourselves out of the international marketplace so its not just taxes, thats just the subject that was brought up here, it is far more complicated than that. So when people say a small tax increse has no real affect on jobs it is like saying increasing my bath water temperature 20 degrees won't matter much; unless the temperature is already at 140 degrees."

Very interesting. So product profitability is taxed the same whether a product is made in China or the US. Since you raised the issue of corporate taxes when I was trying to talk about personal taxes, I will attempt to work on that level as well. So, let me see how this would work in reality:

I make a widget that I sell for $10.00

To make it in the US will cost me $5.00 in labor and $1.00 in materials and other fixed costs.

To make the product in China, labor costs me $1.00, extra transportation is also $1.00 plus materials and other fixed costs of $1.00

When I make the product in the US, I have a profit of $4.00 per widget. Made in China, my profit is $7.00 per widget. In reality, I pay more total tax per widget when I make it in China, but I also make more profit. If the tax rate is 10%, my overall profit is $3.60 in the US and $6.30 in China. If taxes change to 25%, my overall profit in the US is $3.00 and in China it's $5.25. Either way, it is still alot cheaper to make the product in China and the higher tax rate would not change my decision to outsource to China one bit. In fact, in this specific case, the ratio of profit between China and the US remains the same at 1.75.

Now either I am totally screwed up with my calculations and approach, or the tax rate on corporations has little to do with a decision to outsource.

It kinda sucks when you actually look at real numbers that are completely contrary to your claim. But, once again, since I am not an accountant or a business major, I may have missed something here in my calculations. Perhaps you can enlighten me, but without changing the subject or obfuscating any more. Just look at this as a single variable experiment first; other interactions with other factors will only serve to confuse the facts.

Yeah, I heard of 9/11. Care

Yeah, I heard of 9/11. Care to relate 9/11 to the housing bubble that, like many ideas, started off well-intentioned in the 1970s and got completely out of hand during the 2000s when we had a President who had his head buried in the sand.

If you want to blame 9/11 on the lack of any job growth during the 2000's you will have to do better than a simple assertion. How about some real facts and data. Isn't there anyone on the conservative side nowadays who can provide more that platitudes, vauge generalities, and simple non-supported assertions? There must be some data and facts to back up what you say, but for some reason they are never provided. Romney won't give us any details on what tax preferences he will close to make his tax cuts revenue neutral; Ryan says the math would take too long to explain (almost every independent analysis says the plan simply cannot work without violating the laws of mathematics). The same goes for foreign policy about which neither Romney nor Ryan have any real experience, nor have they displayed anything other than a shoot-from-the-hip approach. Once again, they claim to have a plan, but no details behind it.

The approach of generalities and assetions is consistent with one of two models. The first is that rich elite concept of paternalism that once existed in the 19th century. We are rich; we are successful; we are superior; so just trust us. The other is more cynical: these people are just Manchurian candidates. They are really agents of Josef Stalin who learned from him that a lie told often enough becomes the truth.

I don't know about you, but I want a bit more than just 'trust me -- I have a plan' from a candidate. Can you do any better on your 9/11 excuse than you did by making it appear that NAFTA applied to China or that it was a Clinton idea? You may think I'm wrong on everything; you probably think I'm a commie dupe; but don't make the mistake of assuming I'm stupid. You still have the outstanding request to explain how lowering PERSONAL taxes will create jobs. Please do not continue to obfuscate by changing the subject to corporate taxes because that is not what my question is about. Just for once, try to stick to the subject and deal with facts that can be tied to the issue by some form of logic.

Since you brought up 9/11 and I brought up diverting attention from issues, let me also ask you who diverted our anti-terrorist war to Iraq and who got the guys who were responsible for 9/11?

I have also noticed that whenever I present facts here, you conveniently seem to hybernate and not ever deal with them. It sounds like you might be a member of the Siemens DX management team. (Just to bring a bit of relevance back to the thread).
__________________________

[And since this is supposed to be a rumour mill, the latest rumor is that Romney will have two extra debates: Romney then vs. Romney now. Will the REAL Willard Romney please stand up? Can anyone really be sure where he really stands on anything or is he just an opportunist who drifts with whichever way the wind seems to be blowing?]

"And all the noise for a test

"And all the noise for a test that can only be a small percentage of most companies' total DX revenues." END QUOTE

I agree the rock star effect on Vitamin D. It may be more of a breakthrough on scientific side, but definitely not on sales. What if Siemens passes all the R&D resources from Vitamin D to the upgrades of other popular assays with mass market? Whoever did the cost/benefits analysis and greenlight this project should let go in the very next layoff (or maybe he/she already realized it and jumped the ship).

Opps, you caught me alright,

Opps, you caught me alright, writing off the top of my head w/o using Google like you are. I didn't even take a clue from the "North American" part! But at any rate there is no significant tax structure difference in manufacturing country except for local governments giving special tax breaks/ bonds etc. to lure companies to build facilities in American states ( much like the Honda, Volkswagon factories). Yes NAFTA was a basically Republican focus that took years to get signed, but it was Clinton who actually penned it and remember Ross Pero's quote about "that giant sucking sound you will hear when NAFTA is signed". THat was in my head when you referenced China. It was not a good deal for American workers for the "short" run, but in actuality it jump started what was going to happen regardless; the slow drop in American salaries and the movement of jobs overseas. Perot was correct about jobs leaving but even he missed the bigger point; protecting USA jobs by not signing such an agreement only would artificially keep jobs here temporarily, because cheaper labor overseas would eventually bring cheaper goods here, putting US companies out of business anyway. Tariffs? that only is a temp. fix that any smart economist will tell you does not work in the long run. It just insures that your tariff protected country becomes less an less competitive over time, with the bottom eventually falling out. Guy's you have to focus on what is out there, not what American workers deserve for all the hard work, because many others are doing the same ork for far less wages. It cannot be this way forever with a constantly bolstered artificial economy protecting the "Ameriac way of life". The competition IS GOING TO CHANGE things one way or the other.

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.