Paul Gigot: Interview on Fox News about America tax avoidance. (Very anti-American in my view.)

I won’t do it to feed the government beast, I’ll do it because this is my country.

“I won’t do it to feed the government beast, I’ll do it because this is my country.”

You’ll feed tyranny and pretend you are being a patriot.

Nope.

“Nope.”

Of course you will. You have the freedom to pay more and feed the beast if you wish to do so. If it were your business trying to deliver product, you’d understand a bit better.

Your employees would have to be paid less, and you’d have fewer of them, and nobody would be interested in helping you expand your business.

Now, if we lowered taxes significantly it would actually result in fewer companies (using their own freedom of choice) choosing to leave the US - the investment environment would be decidedly better and you could have more employees and pay them more. The beast would get MORE money -but it would be through increasing freedoms not restricting them so the “beast” would be less of a beast.

So what’s better? More Americans working for more money or fewer working for less money?

You think you are for the former, but the reality you wish for is actually the latter.

Government regulation (EPA, OSHA, NLRB, Executive orders, fees, permits, audits...)

Cringing Negativism Network; GeronL: I am pinging you because of your interest in the subject.

RFEngineer; Toddsterpatriot; GreyFriar; StraightVermonter and anyone else sharing their opinions:

Assuming the validity of three reasonable arguments made above:

1. That high taxes are driving American businesses to relocate elsewhere;

2. That lowering those high taxes will effectively provide the incentive to bring the corporations and the their headquarters back to the United States and possibly even their foreign profits; and

3. That corporations are organized to make profits for the investors and have a fiduciary obligation to maximize those profits and that the corporation does not have any moral obligation to increase employment in the United States:

Is it not true that manufacturing jobs will continue to be outsourced to places like Bangladesh where children will be employed at miniscule rates of compensation without workers' compensation, pensions, decent living standards, etc., to the maximum extent consistent with maximizing profits?

Is it not true that the portion of the American former middle class which has left the barren American workplace as the factories closed because corporate directors were busily sending every possible job abroad will continue to be economically abandoned by big business, big government and the increasingly non-existent private sector version of big labor?

Is it not true that the big business sector so conducting itself is what finances the Mitt Romneys, the John McCains, the George Bushes (both of them), the Bob Doles, etc., and the Thad Cochranes, Lamar Alexanders, Bob Corkers, Susan Collins, John Cornyns and other despicable marionettes of USCofC to purchase Republican nominations to create a coalition between radical left Demonrats and brainless unprincipled excuses for Republicans to guarantee the further abandonment of the interests of rank and file Americans?

Is it not true that the corporate big shots of Wall Street and K Street and the US Chamber of Crony Commerce are getting the government they designed and paid for and are then complaining that the politicians still pay some vestigial attention to the interests of the mere peasants who do the voting?

Is it not true that since the corporate directors of big businesses have that obligation to maximize profit for the investor but that many corporate boards have not concentrated much effort on minimizing the compensation packages of CEOs, CFOs, and the like as another component of that obligation anywhere bear as enthusiastically as they have transferred the jobs of the American former middle class to Third World hellholes?

Do you prefer smaller government, lower corporate taxes, lower taxes on the quite comfortable or any combination thereof?

What, if any, part of the price of lowering corporate taxes should be paid by reducing: Social Security benefits? Medicare benefits? Medicaid benefits? Deductability of mortgage interest on primary homes? Other specific programs?

We send jobs abroad, we then support our own people who lose jobs, and the bring the stuff back here….We are ruining our very own country. …. We need businesses. Right here….. But we are not helping things, by sending our industry to China.

You are either woefully ignorant of how the real world works or deliberately deceitful in this single issue crusade you wage on this board.

First of all - NO ONE IS SENDING JOBS ABROAD as if they received directives by the government to relocate. Industry has decided that in order to SURVIVE and stay profitable, moving overseas is their only option.

Our system and government makes running a business in America a LOSING and confiscatory proposition. Business exists TO MAKE A PROFIT. When that incentive is removed, there is no reason for a business to stay open in America.

Understand that fact of life yet or no? I assume you never owned your own business or created a start-up because if you did - this silly crusade of yours would have some substance besides Union-esque talking points being flung about like monkey poo.

No one works for free. No one invests in order to lose money.

But that is EXACTLY what America now offers businesses who operate in this country.

No business - no jobs. Capiche?

Business is looking to survive and make a profit ELSEWHERE thanks to a punitive government and tax system that INTERFERES with the free market. People BUY ON PRICE - always have, always will. FACT OF LIFE I think you would rather ignore.

Your solution seems to be a Fascist model of protectionism and cronyism. We already HAVE THAT.

America seems to have suffered a (major) disconnect with it’s own businesses.

Actually, it's people like you who have a MAJOR disconnect with how business exists, runs and operates. The thing that has CHANGED in America is that there is NO INCENTIVE for a business to exist and operate in America due to punitive government regulations and taxation.

You get that yet or are you stuck in a world of Union talking points?

You are in serious need of a Business and Marketing 101 course. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

If I had moved my business overseas instead of simply closing it - I tell you now, I see no reason whatsoever to bring that business 'home'. NONE.

This nation has been taught to hate business and the "rich". Government reflects that meme and punishes both business and the rich.

You have a poisoned country that bought into Marxist Socialism. There is no reason whatsoever for any business or wealthy industrialist to do business in this country just to be shaken down by government and his profits confiscated for larger government.

1. That high taxes are driving American businesses to relocate elsewhere;

We have the highest corporate tax rates on Earth and we are one of the few countries tax foreign revenue/profits too.

That lowering those high taxes will effectively provide the incentive to bring the corporations and the their headquarters back to the United States and possibly even their foreign profits

Yes.

That corporations are organized to make profits for the investors and have a fiduciary obligation to maximize those profits and that the corporation does not have any moral obligation to increase employment in the United States:

Is that a statement or a question?

Is it not true that manufacturing jobs will continue to be outsourced to places like Bangladesh where children will be employed at miniscule rates of compensation without workers' compensation, pensions, decent living standards, etc., to the maximum extent consistent with maximizing profits?

Not necessarily. Automation in many sectors means that it doesn't really matter where something is. How would a child compete against a machine that can churn out product by the thousand an hour?

Is it not true that the portion of the American former middle class which has left the barren American workplace as the factories closed because corporate directors were busily sending every possible job abroad will continue to be economically abandoned by big business, big government and the increasingly non-existent private sector version of big labor?

Actually we are importing the third world laborers now, called the H1B visa. This has to be ended, they are using it for everything now.

Government regulations allow that while making it harder and harder to do business in this country. Makes no sense.

Is it not true that the big business sector so conducting itself is what finances the Mitt Romneys, the John McCains, the George Bushes (both of them), the Bob Doles, etc., and the Thad Cochranes, Lamar Alexanders, Bob Corkers, Susan Collins, John Cornyns and other despicable marionettes of USCofC to purchase Republican nominations to create a coalition between radical left Demonrats and brainless unprincipled excuses for Republicans to guarantee the further abandonment of the interests of rank and file Americans?

Many corporations seek government favors, it is called "rent-seeking", they wish to suppress the competition and raise barriers of entry. They become almost part of the system and they seek to defend this system. The Chamber of Commerce has shown it's hand by supporting open borders and amnesty. They will skip moving to the third world by bringing the third world here.

Is it not true that the corporate big shots of Wall Street and K Street and the US Chamber of Crony Commerce are getting the government they designed and paid for and are then complaining that the politicians still pay some vestigial attention to the interests of the mere peasants who do the voting?

So the corporate big shots are the ones who wanted the highest corporate tax rate on Earth? They wanted the government to have regulations that end up fining them for billions and billions of dollars? Corporations have a lot of influence, no doubt, but the politicians are the ones who designed this government. The "vestigial interest of mere peasants" are all they need to bother with to buy votes of those peasants.

Is it not true that since the corporate directors of big businesses have that obligation to maximize profit for the investor but that many corporate boards have not concentrated much effort on minimizing the compensation packages of CEOs, CFOs, and the like as another component of that obligation anywhere bear as enthusiastically as they have transferred the jobs of the American former middle class to Third World hellholes?

The shareholders and boards are the ones who say how much their officers should be paid, it is not the governments business to do that. It almost never has any effect on the operations of the company anyways.

Do you prefer smaller government, lower corporate taxes, lower taxes on the quite comfortable or any combination thereof?

I prefer a government that is about 95% smaller, zero corporate taxes and almost non-existent taxes elsewhere.

What, if any, part of the price of lowering corporate taxes should be paid by reducing: Social Security benefits? Medicare benefits? Medicaid benefits?

Aren't all of those things supposed to be paid for through check withholdings? Cutting corporate taxes isn't "supposed" to have any effect on that, except to create more people getting a pay check.

But Yes. Entitlements need to be reduced. I would cut the budget for welfare in half, at least, and it can be done without even touching the benefits of the "poor". Gutting the bureaucracy and streamlining the welfare system, ending all the various crap like EBT, Section-8 and stuff, replacing it with a monthly cash dole- which is the same in every state. The states can add on top of it if they feel it isn't enough.

No entitlements for foreigners, especially illegals.

There is no reason for a taxpayer in Texas to be funding the overly generous welfare system of NY.

I agree with your #1 if you expand it to say: High taxes are encouraging American businesses to relocate their headquarters elsewhere, not affecting the taxes they pay in the US on profits from business in the US - but placing foreign profits in a lower-tax regime.

Your #2 seems obvious - lower taxes to something resembling the rest of the world and the incentive to relocate their headquarters elsewhere will disappear. So I agree.

Your #3 I do not agree with. In particular this part:
“ that the corporation does not have any moral obligation to increase employment in the United States: “

THe problem with your #3 is what most people are having trouble with.

SO I posit 3A: That businesses that have lower profits will not increase employment in the United states

I also posit 3B: That a business with lower profitability in a given business will attract investment and expansion (and more employment) to a lesser degree than a business with higher profitability.

If you ignore 3A and 3B, you are left with just an emotional argument and empty appeals to patriotism in order to keep confiscatory tax rates on business in place (until they go out of business).

Your points following your #3 aren’t all without some moral merit at some level - but I don’t think you can say a businessman should be unable to run his business, including relocating its headquarters overseas just because someone in Bangladesh doesn’t have a pension.

So study 3A and 3B and you’ll eventually see that lowering taxes on business is likely to INCREASE tax revenue to government.

SO what government programs do YOU want to eliminate, because you seem to be wishing for lower tax revenue (with a side order of tyranny)?

1. That high taxes are driving American businesses to relocate elsewhere;

I don't think high taxes are bringing businesses here. Do you?

2. That lowering those high taxes will effectively provide the incentive to bring the corporations and the their headquarters back to the United States and possibly even their foreign profits; and

Can't hurt, can it?

3. That corporations are organized to make profits for the investors and have a fiduciary obligation to maximize those profits and that the corporation does not have any moral obligation to increase employment in the United States:

If you had a business in Detroit, do you have a moral obligation to fund their municipal pension system, even if it drove you out of business?

Is it not true that manufacturing jobs will continue to be outsourced to places like Bangladesh

Only if it makes sense, when you take productivity into account.

Do you prefer smaller government,

Absolutely.

lower corporate taxes, lower taxes on the quite comfortable or any combination thereof?

All of the above and more.

What, if any, part of the price of lowering corporate taxes should be paid by reducing: Social Security benefits? Medicare benefits? Medicaid benefits?

Those benefits aren't funded by corporate taxes. Why would they be reduced?

Other specific programs?

Lots of other specific programs should be eliminated, whether or not corporate taxes are lowered.

Last time I checked employers pay half of each employee's social security and medicare taxes and medicaid is taken from general fund tax collections including, inter alia, federal and state corporate income taxes. And, in the federal personal income tax and personal income taxes levied in most states will be found the funding mechanism that pays for Medicaid for those too poor to pay for medical treatment. Those income taxes fall most heavily on those who can afford to pay either because of exemptions and minimum standard deductions or because of progressivity in the rate structure or a combination thereof. Remember Romney whining and bleating about how 47% of the public pay no income taxes? Poor Mittens, it's just not FAIR!!!! Why should Mittens as a megazillionaire have to, well, pay taxes? As the immortal Leona Helmsley said on her way to prison, "Taxes are for the little people!" Try and sell that to people of modest means (i.e. the voters) at election time. Should "our" politicians tell the truth about their plans on taxes or learn to even more efficiently lie like rugs?

As to your corporatist answers to 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8, maybe it is high time that the USA scrap all those "free trade" treaties that have fueled the flight of finance and business to various Third World tyrannies morally flexible enough to do what their corporate masters dictate and make their populations follow suit at the barrel of a gun. Then enact sensible tariff legislation to meet federal needs (not all those often elitist "wants" that make up so much of the federal budget). Thereby protect domestic business and if the dictators and the corporate porkocrats don't like it? TOOOO BADDDD! We get the big business albatross off the neck of the conservative movement and maybe expand our base to a lot more folks of moderate means but conservative morals and nationalistic attitudes in foreign policy. Maybe even blacks, Hispanics and other ethnics. In exchange we give the Demonrats the polo players, the Junior Leaguers, the yachting set and other elitists.

That leaves what OTHER specific taxes you want lowered and what specific programs should be eliminated (a selection of five or more identified significant programs should suffice for now.

If I had a business in Detroit, I would need to see a psychiatrist and I would feel no need whatsoever to fund municipal pensions. I would have moved my business to a more friendly environment. Unfortunately, even if I moved to another state from Michigan, Congressman Conyers, Senators Stabenow and whoever replaces Levin will see to it that you and I and everyone else in the US will wind up funding the Detroit pension shortfall. As it is, I now live in Northern Illinois where the same problem exists with Chicago municipal pensions and state employee pensions. The pensions in both are soooooo ridiculous that employees substantially INCREASE their incomes by retiring and the pensions are absolutely protected including fully state paid medical in the state constitution according to the state supremes. Everyone in America will also be charged for that. Connecticut, New York and California, among others, are close behind.

Finally, at least you have tried to answer and have mostly answered the questions posed. That is what civil discussion consists of. Thank you.

Last time I checked employers pay half of each employee's social security and medicare taxes and medicaid is taken from general fund tax collections including, inter alia, federal and state corporate income taxes. And, in the federal personal income tax and personal income taxes levied in most states will be found the funding mechanism that pays for Medicaid for those too poor to pay for medical treatment.

Last time I checked, those taxes are collected whether your employer is headquartered here or overseas.

Remember Romney whining and bleating about how 47% of the public pay no income taxes? Poor Mittens, it's just not FAIR!!!!

I agree, having a huge mass of voters receiving government benefits without paying the taxes to support them is a huge problem. Why are you okay with it?

Why should Mittens as a megazillionaire have to, well, pay taxes? As the immortal Leona Helmsley said on her way to prison, "Taxes are for the little people!"

I don't remember Mitt complaining about paying his taxes. If you have an example, please share.

As to your corporatist answers

What is a corporatist and why do you feel I am one? Be as specific as you can.

maybe it is high time that the USA scrap all those "free trade" treaties that have fueled the flight of finance and business to various Third World tyrannies

Of course, the government should be able to force you to do what they want with your business.

If I had a business in Detroit, I would need to see a psychiatrist and I would feel no need whatsoever to fund municipal pensions. I would have moved my business to a more friendly environment.

Wait a minute. You want to prevent a US business from freely moving, why should you be able to move your business out of Detroit? What makes you so special, tovarish?

I lost a lengthy response in my capacity as Old Fumblefingers. This one will therefore be shorter. Then manners dictate that I respond to others.

1. If old Amalgamated Veeblefritzer Corporation funds the creation of an entirely new entity: let's say: Amalgamated Veeblefritzer Corporation of Outer Slobbovia, that new corporation will not be subject to US taxes for FICA or Medicare much less for income taxes (except on investment income of US shareholders, if any).

2. Would you address the terrible unfairness suffered by the Romney class by taxing more of that 47% such as: eliminating exemptions? eliminating minimum standard deductions? eliminating tax credits for raising children? flat taxing everyone from dollar one? eliminating favorable tax treatment for the elderly poor? the Alzheimer's patients? the totally disabled? the active duty military in the combat zones? The minimum wage kid flipping burgers at Mickey D's? Who? How much will your proposals help Mittens and his upper class compadres?

3. I am okay with taxing those who can afford to pay and exempting those who cannot because it is common sense, it works and it does not grossly favor the wealthy, spoiled brat trust fund set for probably the very first time in US history.

4. Remember Jimmuh Peanut's grandson sneaking into an elite Romney fundraiser and using his cell phone to catch Mittens whining about the 47% not paying taxes? I do.

5. Leona Helmsley in 2016! The world should be run by those who own it!

6. A corporatist is one who reflexively favors the interest of Wall Street, K Street and corporate directors over ordinary Americans. I think you a corporatist because of your answers here which exhibit nothing to favor folks of modest means.

7. Alexander Hamilton was the original ideologist of the short-lived Federalist Party, grandfather of the Whigs and great grandfather of the "GOP." I so dislike him that I have always thought that Aaron Burr's shot at Hamilton at Weehawken, NJ, was one of the very best in our history. However, EVEN the elitist Hamilton favored tariffs to fund the nation and it took Lincoln to impose an income tax with all of the evil it conveys using the excuse of the late unpleasantness among the states. Even Lincoln favored folks who worked with their hands for their living.

8. Tariffs do nothing to tell any American what to do with his business. Tariffs penalize foreign businesses, no matter who owns them, for what amounts to unfair competition with American businesses and for rendering destitute American workers. Tariffs PROTECT American manufacturers and laborers. Read up on your Hamilton.

9. Moving one's business WITHIN the US is not the moral or practical equivalent of taking the business out of our country and laying off American workers and even demanding from compliant bought off Senators and House members that the tax system subsidize such behavior. If Detroit citizens want favor as to jobs, they will have to behave accordingly as they have not.

1. The numbered paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, were not my theorizing but general statements that seem to have been accepted by many posters here. I have no problem with your formulation to amend #1.

2. I have no problem with your proposed modifications of 3A and 3B. I also fail to see their value but I am not demanding perfect agreement. 1, 2, and 3 are other folks' opinions and merely preliminary to the parts of my post nearer to my heart.

3. I am not at all interested in promoting tyranny.

4. What government programs would I scrap? How many years do I have to study this? Let me start with the obvious:

We can do without the Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, The Education Department, the Energy Department, the Labor Department, the Commerce Department, most of the State Department, those parts of the Defense Department that hand out "impacted aid" around bases, most foreign aid, the Export-Import Bank, the Agency for International Development, the Civil Rights Division of the "Justice" Department, much of the rest of the "Justice" Department, the incredible stockpiles of weapons and ammunition being maintained by every government department including the Social Security Administration, the Education Department, the Energy Department and just about every Tom, Dick and Harriet in DC leaving only weapons and ammo with the Department of Defense, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 90% of the Internal Revenue Service with a bias toward 100% (call it the Lois Lerner personnel reduction program), and everyone else feel free to add to that list.

Finally, if an American business investor chooses to avoid taxes and regulatory obligations, that investor should not expect to have his bacon saved by the American military made up largely not of his family or Mittens' family but of the families of those he abandoned frm the American workforce.

If old Amalgamated Veeblefritzer Corporation funds the creation of an entirely new entity: let's say: Amalgamated Veeblefritzer Corporation of Outer Slobbovia, that new corporation will not be subject to US taxes for FICA or Medicare

If you work here for the division in Outer Slobbovia, FICA taxes are still withheld from your paycheck. The corp still pays the other half of your FICA. The corp still pays taxes on their US earnings. Not sure what your point is here. Sounds like you're confused about how corporate taxes work.

Would you address the terrible unfairness suffered by the Romney class by taxing more of that 47% such as: eliminating exemptions?

You have no problem with the fact that 47% of voters can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury, while paying no taxes themselves?

How much will your proposals help Mittens and his upper class compadres?

My proposals, cutting everyone's taxes, sealing the border, booting millions of illegals and shrinking government should help all Americans.

Remember Jimmuh Peanut's grandson sneaking into an elite Romney fundraiser and using his cell phone to catch Mittens whining about the 47% not paying taxes?

Yeah, that pissed me off. Between that and millions of illegals, we'll soon be doomed.

A corporatist is one who reflexively favors the interest of Wall Street, K Street and corporate directors over ordinary Americans.

Thanks. Personally I reflexively favor the interests of ordinary Americans over big government.

Tariffs do nothing to tell any American what to do with his business.

They do raise the prices that ordinary Americans pay for goods.

Tariffs penalize foreign businesses

And domestic consumers.

Tariffs PROTECT American manufacturers and laborers.

The UAW thanks you for your support.

Moving one's business WITHIN the US is not the moral or practical equivalent of taking the business out of our country

Why is it moral for you to tell others where they can locate their business while you flee Detroit and their hard working, liberal, municipal employees depending on your taxes to fund their bloated pensions? How dare you flee with your filthy lucre, you un-American plutocrat!!!

1. I am somewhat surprised at how very much separates thee and me on these matters. I know we have some religious differences on which I try not to argue with you. Usually I am in great agreement with your social issue posts and political posts. Oh, well, there is nothing sacred about political or economics posts.

2. My first three propositions seemed to be the common opinions of others here. I merely restated what seemed to be a consensus.

3. I will worry about US corporate taxes when we have sharply reduced federal expenditures FIRST without increasing taxes on folks of modest means.

4. It matters very much where profits are generated even by robots since incorporating a new business in Islamofasciststan means paying Islamofaciststan's lower taxes. An Islamofasciststan company owes nothing whatever in corporate income taxes or payroll taxes to the USA. Instead, at that attractive lower rate, the new company gets to fund the Islamofascist mujahadin in place of the US military. Good luck being protected by the US when you are being tortured as an infidel who pollutes Islamofasciststan by setting your infidel boots on its land.

5. Of course, I would enthusiastically favor America's leading abortionists to move to Islamofasciststan and try to ply their "trade." I would chip in to help them advertise there. Buh-bye! Dr. Hearn, et al. Let the headless corpse rot in the blazing Islamofasciststan mid-summer sun!

6. I am not well enough informed on H1B visas. I will take your word for it.

7. End "rent-seeking" as you define it.

8. The BIG corporate big shots wanted those tax rates to keep new, small. innovative competitors at bay: We got ours and FU is the basic policy. Care to guess how much General Electric has paid in federal corporate income taxesin the years of Obozo? I would bet they paid no more in federal fines.

9. No question that it is the business of corporate directors to determine executive pay and perks. It is certainly not usually the business of the government to make such determinations. However, stockholders offended by what they deem to be excessive compensation of corporate officers, mat file stockholder derivative actions in the courts complaining that directors have breached their fiduciary obligations to the stockholders. Wise or not, there are also federal regulatory authorities in the executive departments who have such power.

10. If you literally want a government that is 95% smaller, bear in mind that the military gets a lowly 18% of the budget. Assuming you want to at least fund the military, there goes 13/18 of the military budget and we close out EVERYTHING ELSE. I suspect that is not actually intent. It certainly is not mine.

11. Social Security (FICA) and Medicare are funded by a payroll tax on employees and an equal tax on employers most f whom are corporate. Medicaid is paid for out of general revenues state and federal, including corporate income taxes as well as other taxes. As Christians, you and I admire the Good Samaritan, do we not? Shall we instead trip over the corpses of dead poor people in the streets for lack of care or societally emulate the Good Samaritan?

12. Except as to Medicaid, I agree generally with your last three paragraphs.

May God bless you and yours!

1. For starters, I take my moral advice not from economic libertarians but from my pastor, my bishop, my metropolitan archbishop, and from the Teaching Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. You see to your morality. I'll see to mine. IF you disagree with mine, I could care less.

2. You don't seem to get the point that Amalgamated Veeblefritzer of Outer Slobbovia would be an ENTIRELY NEW ENTITY (not a subdivision of ANYTHING) domiciled solely in the grand and glorious tax shelter known as Outer Slobbovia. If Americans are stockholders, they will be subject to US income taxes but, ummmm, catch me if you can! If Outer Slobbovia refuses to rat them out, fat chance that those taxes will ever be reported or paid. Especially if the glorious dictator of Outer Slobbovia gets a little personal vig to keep his and his government's yaps shut. None of the income need be paid to the US corporation or Delaware corporation Amalgamated Veeblefritzer (the original).

3. Mittens never served in the military. Neither did his daddy George nor each of Mittens' four sons. An awful lot of the 47% HAVE served but, if one's name is Romney, darn it, the outbreak of each war is youth missionary time. Much as they are sooooo anxious to serve, they just never seem to serve in the military. Plenty of Mormons do serve but the Romneys are just DIFFERENT. Has anyone in Romney's direct line EVER served? I did not think so. Nonetheless, Mittens like George Romney before him, wants to be Commander in Chief with no more experience or qualifications in military than Obozo. You have no problem with that? Did Mittens EVER work with his hands for a living? No problem with that?

4. How much will you cut the taxes of the 47% and specify how? "Cutting everyone's taxes" actually means cutting a lot more of the taxes of the upper crust than of those from the 48th percentile to the upper crust. Just more special interest goodies for the very comfortable and Republicanism as usual. Those goodies must be paid for by increasing taxes below the upper crust or slashing programs and that does not take eliminating deficits into consideration. Sealing the borders, booting millions of illegals and shrinking government sounds nice but your corporate buddies won't stand for any of those three.

5. The issue was not ordinary Americans vs. Big Government but ordinary Americans vs. BIG BUSINESS and its reflexive greed.

6. Interesting that Jimmuh Peanut's grandson catching Mittens in full elitist rant bothers you but not the rant itself or its content. Ever wonder why ordinary Americans vomit on candidacies like that of Mittens?

7. If tariffs favor domestic businesses at the expense of the American consumer and we are thanke by the UAW, I will take each and every UAW vote, IAM vote, Teamsters vote, Railroad Worker vote, Postal Worker vote, Steelworkers' vote, etc., that we can get by re-industrializing America at the expense of Wall Street, K Street and Mittens think alikes. If we add social conservatism and a serious pledge to extend middle class lifestyles to blacks, Hispanics, other ethnics and anyone willing to work, I'm all for that too and especially if it is financed out of Romney's corporate raiding. Time for Mittens and his ilk to pony up.

8. Your last point ignores the damage to our country by corporations abandoning (with politicians' connivance) this nation and its workers as opposed to the common sense of abandoning Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, New Orleans, Los Angeles, etc. For other American venues. That is no different than fleeing urban crime, urban taxes, urban decay, selling one's home while it still has value and relocating to safe areas where one's children may enjoy The American Dream. The dead as a doornail cities and their remaining residents can modify themselves and their behavior to attract former residents and businesses to their cities or not a they see fit. I see no parallel or moral equivalency for runaway corporations that abandon our entire country and I won't.

9. BS libertarianism of the privileged, by the privileged and for the privileged makes no sense as conservative policy. I say that as a former Libertarian Party state officer in my long ago misspent youth.

You don't seem to get the point that Amalgamated Veeblefritzer of Outer Slobbovia would be an ENTIRELY NEW ENTITY

If they have earnings in the US, they pay US taxes on them. If they have US employees, they pay US payroll taxes for them. If all their earnings and employees are non-US, you can't take their money to give to your 47%. Sorry.

Did Mittens EVER work with his hands for a living? No problem with that?

You see to your morality. Mitt will see to his.

Sealing the borders, booting millions of illegals and shrinking government sounds nice but your corporate buddies won't stand for any of those three.

I agree, your corporatist claim was moronic.

The issue was not ordinary Americans vs. Big Government but ordinary Americans vs. BIG BUSINESS and its reflexive greed.

So Big Government should stick it to Big Business and they should just take it? While you flee Detroit? LOL!

"Cutting everyone's taxes" actually means cutting a lot more of the taxes of the upper crust than of those from the 48th percentile to the upper crust.

Yeah, hard to cut Federal Income Taxes of those who pay none. I guess I still prefer to shrink government, even if that makes you sad.

Your last point ignores the damage to our country by corporations abandoning (with politicians' connivance) this nation

And yet you damage Detroit. What makes you so special, tovarish?

I see no parallel or moral equivalency for runaway corporations that abandon our entire country and I won't.

Yes, I've noticed your blindness.

You got it completely backwards.

At this point, your ravings deserve only a short response.

1. You have been invited to name at least five significant programs you would cut in order to shrink government. I have named more than five. Further evidence that you are a corporatist is your stonewall reluctance to name any specific cuts since the Romney ruling class "GOP" are the major beneficiaries of the bleeding of middle class folks to feed the never satisfied maw of big business.

2. You still don't get the point of creating an entirely NEW business entity which is not a subsidiary of a US corporation and provides an opportunity to strip wages and benefits to practically nothing with any income to any Americans on this NEW corporation's foreign operations shielded from American tax authorities via even greater governmental corruption than here. I won't let you change the terms of the hypothetical to set up phony moral equivalencies to favor corporatist vulture piggies like Romney.

3. Spoiled privileged Mittens has NO common experience in life to give him an idea of what the people he proposes to govern experience. The spoiled little rich brat avoided military service, avoided meaningful labor even in his youth, avoids his taxes to the extent possible by calling all income capital gains, and, like most of his class spends his life reflexively looking down his privileged nose at the rest of us. FUMR! Morality had nothing to do with it but, if you insist, Mittens lifelong commitment to babykilling, "gay""marriage" which is neither, "gay" everything else, gun grabbing, and including "sex change" operations and abortion as MANDATORY features of Romneycare making him the grandfather of Obozocare will suffice to disqualify Mittens on moral grounds. I will certainly see to my morality and I will judge despicable excuses for Republican candidates like Mittens as morally disqualified. If Wall Street and K Street keep buying nominations for trash like Romney, the GOP "base" will continue to guarantee the defeat of those candidates and the beauty part is that the GOP greedocrats will be punished by Demonrat socialism enthusiasts in Congress. We shall see whether Wall Street or the base blinks first.

4. Go back to your polo club where Muffie and Skipper will embarrass themselves by helping nurse your wounds as an apologist for the elites.

5. Detroit asked for it. Detroit got it. Detroit can turn around by changing its ways. It won't. Macomb County still has UAW successful skilled workers. Detroit has cultivated a culture of government loafers and welfare loafers who don't even want to pay their water bills since it might reduce their recreational narcotics budgets. Thus, F Detroit!