Corporate taxes: If corporate taxes are too high it sends jobs overseas. When I worked at Compaq the company shipped tons of jobs to Singapore, and it wasn’t for the lower wages. They would have been offset by the logistics costs (freight, handling and timing).
We moved the jobs because the corporate tax rate in the U.S. was 35% and Singapore gave us an extended tax holiday – a rate of 0%. Even with the added freight and duty costs it was a no-brainer. The tax break was like getting free labor and overhead (buildings, equipment, etc.).
The U.S. added duties to the notebook computers we built there, but it took about 30 minutes to get around that. We just assembled the maximum amount we could and added a couple parts once they got to the U.S. or Europe. That avoided most of the duties.
All this took place when I was managing the factory finances for our Houston plants. We cut costs where we could but it was impossible to compete with the Singapore model. Lots of jobs went overseas.
Later, when I was the controller for the Notebook Division, my favorite meeting of the year was with the Singapore Economic Development Board. They always had all sorts of incentives for us – training grants, tax breaks, help with partnerships and more.
Taxes affect behavior. You get less of what you tax. More tax on investments = less investments. More tax on businesses = less businesses to tax (and less employees to pay taxes and more people needing welfare).
Keep this in mind when you want to soak those big, bad corporations. I’m not saying they should pay zero taxes. But it is a fact that higher tax rates send jobs overseas. Obama either doesn’t know that or doesn’t think it would be a popular campaign idea. Either way it is bad.
Free trade: Free trade hurts some people, though usually temporarily, and is very visible. Free trade helps most people, and for a longer period, but the benefits aren’t as visible. Free trade is always best in the long run. Avoid politicians who oppose it.
Estate taxes: Death taxes are ghoulish. You do not want the government to profit from your death. Just sayin’.
Eternity Matters 
I agree completely. That is what is wrong with the Dems entire plan of class warfare. The poor need the rich, and vice versa. It’s good to think of both sectors, or all three if you throw in the middle class. They can’t do that since their entire policy is anti-capitalism and soaking the rich.
LikeLike
When you tax something you get less of it, when you subsidize something you get more of it. Our government has been taxing income and subdizing poverty for years. The results speak for themselves.
LikeLike
Alas, so does the typing.
LikeLike
Andrew Carnegie made a point (if my memory serves me well) that – the poor didn’t know how to manage their wealth. Thus – Andrew preferred creating funds and trusts for them.
I kind of like this approach. We just have to be careful to set up check and balances to control abuse, slavery, and fraud.
Human dignity and love for our brothers and sisters have to still be the greatest goal in mind.
LikeLike
Edgar,
There’s a difference, however, between charity to those in dire need, and charity to those who could be doing more on their own. What raises human dignity more than people doing for themselves? You fall, I’ll pick you up. If you just wanna lie there, I’ll just have to step over you.
Neil,
Don’t know what brought on this post, but I agree with every word.
LikeLike
The best help for the poor is to teach them about God, and then to teach them God’s plan for handling money. I favor Crown Financial Ministries.
I admit this is a tough job, but I have seen it happen a few times. The problem of not accepting God and his gifts, is not limited to the poor of couse. (I don’t mean to imply that God will make you rich, either)
“I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity…I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.” (Philippians 4:11-13)
LikeLike
I disagree, its a pay to play situation, and in my opinion, any company that doesn’t want to pay taxes (which they get out of in many cases by virtue of the Reagonistic tax loopholes), then they should NOT be allowed to sell products in OUR market.
LikeLike
Neil, the Liberal ideology is this, in a nutshell:
People are too stupid and/or irresponsible to take care of themselves, so we must take care of them for them. And we must take their money to finance our efforts.
LikeLike
@sunday School teacher:
You wrote: “The best help for the poor is to teach them about God, and then to teach them God’s plan for handling money.”
Actually, the best help for the poor is for people not to allow them to be exploited and victimized. That is above and aside from whatever faith the choose if they choose one at all.
LikeLike
@Mark:
You wrote: “People are too stupid and/or irresponsible to take care of themselves, so we must take care of them for them. And we must take their money to finance our efforts”
First, I take exception to the flase dichotomy that you are forwarding. There is a middle ground between right and left on the issue.
Fact is, the right wants people to take care of themselves, however feels we should spend 700 Billion to take care of the greedy coroporations that made millions on the bad choices that the “people” are supposed to be responsible for soley.
Fact is, corporate greed must be checked by proper regulation, and the government should at least represent its people to the same degree it represents the corproate interest that be.
LikeLike
I haven’t heard many people on the right who are for this bailout. Just saying.
LikeLike
Great post Neil. For what it’s worth, it seems like many Republicans in WY are against free trade though I’m not exactly sure why that it is. Something about it hurting WY. Any ideas on your end as to why this might be?
LikeLike
@Sunflower desert
“I haven’t heard many people on the right who are for this bailout. Just saying.”
Really, so Paulson, Bernake, Bush, Cheney are all of a sudden NOT the right? Sorry, I must have missed their hammer and sickle lapel pin…
LikeLike
“Really, so Paulson, Bernake, Bush, Cheney are all of a sudden NOT the right?”
I don’t believe you can put Paulson in there, and I don’t know enough about Bernanke, but even so, they don’t constitute “many”. So SD’s statement stands.
It’s helpful to remember that the tax code was set up by people who make money and it was originally designed to encourage the type of activity that brings prosperity. But those filled with envy speak of “loopholes”. One needn’t have a 50,000 sq ft warehouse and a half billion in annual sales to take advantage of “loopholes” in the tax code. It basically works this way: The more productive an entity, the more “loopholes”. This is just due to the money flowing as a result of the productive activity and things like jobs being created. It’s a good process, though I’d prefer a flat tax across the board.
Now, as far as this bailout, the feeling amongst those on the right who support it is that they don’t necessarily like the concept, but feel that to do nothing is far worse.
I take exception to the concept of the greedy Wall St people. There are greedy amongst them, but what I distain is the automatic accusation. To the lefty, anyone seeking to build wealth is greedy. And the notion that those people are automatically exploiting someone to get wealthy is a crass generalization. I dont have a problem when a specific wrongdoer is called greedy for doing those things of which all ambitious folk are accused. I just wish accusers would realize that the “exploited” are often those who have fallen prey to their own greed. Greed does not manifest by income level. As the truly wealthy comprise such a small percentage of the total population, it’s a safe wager that DJ knows far more greedy people making under six figures, yet likely no seven figure Scrooges.
LikeLike
@Marshall:
I wrote:
“Really, so Paulson, Bernake, Bush, Cheney are all of a sudden NOT the right?”
You replied:
“I don’t believe you can put Paulson in there, and I don’t know enough about Bernanke, but even so, they don’t constitute “many”. So SD’s statement stands.”
Sorry, no dice, this is the right’s bail out for the right’s mistakes beginning with REAGAN, the logical end to over derugulation and supply side economics.
Now YOUR RIGHT WING PRESIDENT wants 700 billion to fix the problem.
Since you all voted for HIM, he represents YOU, the RIGHT.
LikeLike
“Fact is, corporate greed must be checked by proper regulation . . .”
And greed of individuals needs to be checked then. The greed to borrow too much money because one can’t afford things now. The “greedy” lenders certainly did some dumb things, but they had “encouragement” from the gov’t. The gov’t got involved so it makes sense for the gov’t to be involved in the bail-out (keeping in mind that I’m not giving a blanket endorsement to whatever bail-out they come up with).
My point is that the gov’t should stay out from the beginning.
LikeLike
DJ BA,
Nice try. This began with the desire to see everyone own a home. It began with Carter, and between he and Clinton, pressure was put on lenders to relax their standards and make more loans to people of lesser means. Lenders are not keen on lending money to those less likely to repay. They wouldn’t have started without being threatened by the Dems, who have blocked every attempt to apply regulation to prevent that through which we are now going. In addition, if you understood supply side economics, you’d know it’s a good plan that reflects how the world, and more importantly, the people in it, works.
LikeLike
A few thoughts.
A corporate tax is really a tax on consumers. That cost gets passed on to consumers, and it’s something I don’t think alot of people realize. This is not an endorsement to raise the income tax, but I really think tax should be focused on individuals, and just taken away from the corporation.
Bush 2 also had the idea that everyone should own a home. I don’t know if he passed any laws along this idea, but he did encourage the idea that everyone “should” own a home. All sorts of people are to blame.
I was going to talk about the bailout, but I really need to get to work.
LikeLike
Neil and Marshal:
Gentlemen, I have worked in banking as a Commercial Real Estate Lender since I got honorably discharged from the Marine Corps, going on 14 years, and I am licensed Realtor dealing with commercial and residential real estate so I have seen the drama first hand, over the last few years I have had I watched what your god Reagan hath wrought.
Let’s take a look at your statements under a bit of scrutiny:
I had written:
“Fact is, corporate greed must be checked by proper regulation . . .”
Neil replied:
“And greed of individuals needs to be checked then. The greed to borrow too much money because one can’t afford things now. The “greedy” lenders certainly did some dumb things, but they had “encouragement” from the gov’t. The gov’t got involved so it makes sense for the gov’t to be involved in the bail-out (keeping in mind that I’m not giving a blanket endorsement to whatever bail-out they come up with). ”
Following your logic tha banks should bail out the borrowers, because the borrowers were “encouraged” to get loans they couldn’t afford by a LENDER who knew better. Like I said, I work IN banking.
The government encouraged banks to lend how they did, by allowing them to skirt regulation put in place for common sense lending. Loan programs by bank owned mortgage companies (allowed because of Reagan deregulation of the banking and financial services industry) allowed for these dubious business relationships between banks and mortgage companies.
Banks did stupid loans because they were making RECORD PROFITS off of these stupid loans: i.e. No Income verification loan, No doc loans, etc., because they felt the worse case scenario is that they’d foreclose on a $200,000 house loan to have a house now worth $250,000.00. When the market went south, that solution was no longer viable.
Corporate Greed created loan programs that benefited from the greed of the individual. Now, Since you all seem to agree that the individual should be responsible solely for their poor credit decisions, with your right wing congress tightening bankruptcy code to assure that these “dead beats” pay. Would that we see similar tightening that corporations and their investors pay for their greed.
BUT alas, your right wing president will make sure THAT doesn’t happen. You see, the fundamental flaw in all that stupid deregulation that was done, is that it doesn’t take into account the greed of corporations, however; you all seem very eager to point out the greed in the consumer.
Marshal wrote:
“Nice try. This began with the desire to see everyone own a home. It began with Carter, and between he and Clinton, pressure was put on lenders to relax their standards and make more loans to people of lesser means.”
Balderdash Marshal, pure and simple, Lenders didn’t relax anything, at least banks didn’t, banks purchased and created mortgage companies to capitalize on what I stated earlier: “Banks did stupid loans because they were making REECORD PROFITS off of these stupid loans: i.e. No Income verification loan, No doc loans, etc., because they felt the worse case scenario is that they’d foreclose on a $200,000 house loan to have a house now worth $250,000.00. When the market went south, that solution was no longer viable. NONE OF THIS HAPPENS WITHOUT LAX STANDARDS IN BANK REGULATIONS that lead to banks being able to have these arraingments.
Making loans to poor people is rather simple if one wants to do it responsibly. 1, you need affordable houses, 2, you need to do the loan based on ACTUAL INCOME (what a concept), many poor people had decent credit scores, but to allow a program that approves people with decent credit scores (620 and above) that DOES NOT VERIFY INCOME, is criminally negligent at the least.
Statistically speaking, if a person shows that they pay their rent, they generally pay their mortgage; affordable housing makes affordable mortgages, simple as that.
I’m just saying…
LikeLike
DJ,
I’m typically for free market, but I may be for certain type of regulations if they address the core problem. My guess is that they won’t. Politicians will say, “oh, the market is not regulated enough, so let’s pass any regulations we want.” I’m for lenders not lending more than what a person can afford to pay. I’m surprised that banks actually don’t look at incomes, and find it hard to believe, but if you actually work in that area, I guess you know. That boggles my mind however. In my experience, the bank looked at my income for a home loan, and gave me a figure for which I would have had no business buying a home for.
On the bailout as a whole, I think I’m against it. The ideal is that the bailout wouldn’t pass, but gov’t would look at whether or not their regulations did indeed contribute to the problem.
LikeLike
Dj,
You left out one other part of the problem. The fact that there was for all intents and purposes a government guarantee that Fannie/Freddie would buy/guarantee these loans. It’s a whole lot eaiser to justify a no doc loan if you know you aren’t on the hook if it goes bad. We can also just ignore the “creative accounting (read Enronesque)” that happened with F/F so that Raines, Goerelik et all could pull down the big bonuses.
I do agree that the root of this is giving loans to people who are unlikely to be able to repay them, as well as 125% of value loans.
LikeLike
Hey Craig:
You wrote:
“You left out one other part of the problem. The fact that there was for all intents and purposes a government guarantee that Fannie/Freddie would buy/guarantee these loans.”
Actually, that was only in some cases. Most of the mortgage brokers I know offered this kind of loan, regular conventional 80% 1st mortgage, 20% 2nd mortgage (form the same lender) to pay for down payment, no government insurance or PMI, so now you got a real problem when this home with no equity, all of a sudden ain’t even worth what the mortgage on it is.
But like I said, the lenders figured, hey we made our money, brokers with their fees, appraisers got paid and realtors got paid. Worse case, we kick the dead beats out and do the same ole thing again, but this time the 180,000 home is now $200,000 so every body makes MORE money. Problem came into play when the value went for $180,000 to $160,000.
I tell you, it is damn near criminal.
LikeLike
DJ,
It would be silly to believe that lenders, under pressure from Dems, as well as some penalty as I understand it, would not seek to benefit from the hand they were dealt. You want to point the finger at them so I ask you, why would they take the risk in the first place, when under previous standards, they made the money without the risk? (relatively speaking)
LikeLike
Marshal:
Lenders under pressure from Democrats? lolololololololololololololololololololololololololol
I’m sorry man, that was too rich. You ask:
“why would they take the risk in the first place, when under previous standards, they made the money without the risk”
Becuase their GREED overweighed thier RISK. Like I said, if they really wanted to make loans to “poor” people to meet some type of democrat induced “quota” there are alot of SMARTER, EASIER and LESS RISKY ways to do it. Like I said before Making loans to poor people is rather simple if one wants to do it responsibly. 1, you need affordable houses, 2, you need to do the loan based on ACTUAL INCOME (what a concept).
Peron comes in, their income is $40,000 (combined income), they should qualify for a home that can be financed for $100,000. at 6% interst thats a $600.00 payment, more than likely (i.e. in a metropolitan area like Chicago) that is lower than the average rent for an apartment.
There are alos savings account programs to save towards down payments, some banks have matching one up to $500.
Each of those things makes money JUST NOT AS MUCH MONEY as the ripoff that has been going on.
The difference from a 20 overdraft fee (which more than pays your expenses for an overdraft) to average 35 dollar overdraft fees with 5-7 dollar a day overdraft fee. MORE MONEY.
Again, human greed is often ignored when talking about Coroporate America or the free market, human greed is always spoken about, so maybe if we remember that Corporations are run and owned by alot of humans, we might grasp the concept that they cannot run unchecked, as they have under Reagan’s derugulation, President Bush, Bill Clinton and the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, the current President and HIS Republican congress….
LikeLike
Amazingly, the NYT summarized it properly almost 10 years ago – http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
“Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.
”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”
By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.”
LikeLike
DJ,
It is also easier to justify risky behavior when there is no risk. Once the Govt/Fannie/Freddie gave an implicit guarantee they took the lenders off the hook. I haven’t heard you take the F/F folks to task for their greed in manipulating their books to provide massive “performance” bonuses for executives. You also let slide the fact that due to the dems who recieved contributions from F/F attempts to increase their capitalization were blocked in congress. If the cause is greed then the politicians who enabled this for contributions bear a significant portion of the blame. The unescapable problem is the primary recpients of F/F contributions were democrats.
LikeLike
Sorry for repeating myself
LikeLike
@Neil:
You folks really want to let corporations and by mutual implication the supply side economics and extreme deregulation of the banking industry perpetrated by the RIGHT off the hook don’t you?
You quoted this:
“…increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people”
Low and moderate income borrowers doesn’t translate to borrowers with bad credit, it translates to assistance with down payments and mortgage guarantees, perhaps if Fannie Mae hadn’t been lazy and actually thought out ways to give loans to people predicated on ACTUAL INCOME, they may have tried for better loan programs to guarantee.
However, how does any of this really deal with bundleling and selling sub-prime mortgages (rated as risky loans) into SECURITIES (not rated as risky) which is what got Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch and others in trouble?
Fact is, perhaps dealing with an earnest request to assist poor people in buying homes by making common sense loan programs as opposed to taking maximum risk for maximum profits and in turn making securities with risky predicates would have been the better route?
AT any case, if the borrower is responsible, the investor is responsible for not researching his or her or their risky investment.
Again, if banks and financial services industries had not been so deregulated by Reagan and his successors, maybe those companies would have had to work for a less profitable and more stable solution to the Clinton administrations request? Perhaps even, helping to facilitate the building of more affordable housing as well as common sense income based loan programs?
@Craig:
“If the cause is greed then the politicians who enabled this for contributions bear a significant portion of the blame.”
Oh don’t get me wrong, there is ample blame to go around for not stopping the criminal deregulation and lack of oversight of not just Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but also the financial services industry in general that started WITH REAGAN.
I am no democrat, and have no qualms about criticizing their stupid mistakes also, however, at the heart of this problem is deregulation (or lack of regulation) in the financial services industry, and the RIGHT, is generally the chief proponent of that, so it is beyond hypocrisy to come asking for a socialistic bail out because these investors placed the wrong bet, aren’t you on the right always talking about people being responsible for their choices, why shouldn’t the investment banks and their investors be held accountable and responsible for their own choices?
LikeLike
DJ,
Laugh all you want. Below is only one recent presentation of the history behind this mess.
I agree there may have been less risky ways to get things done. But could they have been done in fashion that would still satsify government pressure?
I don’t buy the greed angle as the bottom line explanation unless you are looking at those who initiated the whole thing. Money is not the only motivation behind greed. There’s also a lust for power, which the Dems hoped to solidfy by bribing the less fortunate by the pressure they put on lenders. Personally, I would have hoped that the lenders would have stood up to the pressure. I doubt they wanted to deal with risk at all, especially when motivated by outside forces. This is not to exonerate the lenders at all, but merely to focus on who’s ultimately responsible.
LikeLike
@Marshall:
“I agree there may have been less risky ways to get things done. But could they have been done in fashion that would still satsify government pressure?”
Government pressure? You really think that “government pressure” is the primary predicate for banks doing these risky and stupid loans? NOTHING makes a bank do a bad loan except for: 1. A favor to a high ranking banking officer, 2. Possibility of higher profits. Let’s take a look at this mess. Been going on for years, here is how it went.
1. Bank does stupid sup-prime loan with “no income verification for $300,000 house
2. Bank puts loan in pool of loans and sells as marketable security
3. Investors make big money off of the dividends supported by the mortgage rates
4. Buyer pays Mortgage for 12 -24 months, all of a sudden loan adjusts, buyer can’t pay, buyer gets foreclosed on.
5. House now has a balance of $298,000 BUT low and behold house is now worth $330,000
6. Bank does another stupid sub-prime loan with “no income verification”
7. Bank puts loan in pool of loans and sells as marketable security
8. Investors make big money off of the dividends supported by the mortgage rates
And it goes on and on UNTIL:
9. Buyer pays Mortgage for 12 -24 months, all of a sudden loan adjusts, buyer can’t pay, buyer gets foreclosed on.
10. House now has a balance of $328,000 BUT low and behold house is now worth $295,000
11. UH OH!!!
See what we have here? Corporate greed and now, the Chickens have come home to roost.
“This is not to exonerate the lenders at all, but merely to focus on who’s ultimately responsible.?”
Again, these loans could not have been done, even if we go with the false premise that the Democrats forced the Banks to do them, if the banks and financial services industry was not so heavily DEREGULATED by Reagan followed by Bush followed by Clinton WITH A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS that blocked anything THEY DIDN’T WANT.
Again, if banks and financial services industries had not been so deregulated by Reagan and his successors, maybe those companies would have had to work for a less profitable and more stable solution to the Clinton administrations request? Perhaps even, helping to facilitate the building of more affordable housing as well as common sense income based loan programs?
LikeLike
This is my view. I don’t think it’s any particular party’s fault. There may be some gov’t programs encouraging lending to people who don’t deserve it, but I don’t picture it being a large majority of the loans. Banks lent too much to people who couldn’t afford it. I’m fine with this, provided that the banks suffer the consequences of this. That’s why I don’t like the bailout.
DJBA, Can you demonstrate to us that the Democrats supported making it tougher for people to get loans, and that the Republicans made it easier? Otherwise, I don’t know if you can blame one party or the other. Yes, you may think the banks are not regulated enough, but it doesn’t seem fair to blame every problem with the banks on deregulation, and therefore, the Republican Party, if you can’t show that the absence of a particular regulation constributed to this problem (which I think maybe you’ve gone that far), AND, that one party especially contributed to the absence of said regulation.
Let me phrase it another way, you, a Democrat, probably support more civil liberties vs. the more overreaching protective measures against terrorism, and that’s fine ( I tend to be a little more liberal than Republicans here). But if a terrorist attack happened, is it fair to blame the Democrats, who generally favor more civil liberties vs. Patriot Act-type measures? I’m sure that would happen, but I don’t think that would be fair. The question would not be whether or not enough laws, survelliance measures, etc… were in place, but whether or not the right ones were in place, without comproming our overall freedoms. That’s the right way to approach it. But you don’t do it with this financial crisis. We should be asking ourselves if the regulations are in place, without compromising certain economic freedoms.
LikeLike
@Chance:
You asked: ”
“DJBA, Can you demonstrate to us that the Democrats supported making it tougher for people to get loans, and that the Republicans made it easier?”
I am not positing either proposition per se; unless, if you mean how under Ronald Reagan, there was banking deregulation (of post-depression era policy put in place partially to avoid what we have now) that allowed for banks to merge and acquire other banks across state lines. Making for these (too large to fail) institutions who were not required to have large reserves of capital but to borrow large sums to loan money to people for borderline loan sharking rates and fees? As well, these banks when asked to loan money to poor and moderate income people followed suit of low-life mortgage and finance companies not to “help” but to muscle in on an already lucrative business?
Now, some democrats came out early against this type of predatory lending (Barack Obama was one of them). Other than that I believe the Democrats bare some of the burden of responsibility by allowing this crap to go on for the years that it did.
Bottom line, allowing interstate banking as Regan and Co. initiated the change in a regulation change that allowed for the centralized banking scenarios we have of the “too large” to fail situations.
Now for the greater lack of oversight in the casino city known as Wall Street, all kinds of lapses were allowed there, because of the silly presupposition that the markets should regulate themselves. That type of inane drivel comes STRAIGHT from the RIGHT. That alone is criminal. After Enron, Tyco, MCI, the RIGHT was still hollering for “less regulation”, amazing..
It makes no sense whatsoever. No one wants a large oppressive government machine, but the RIGHT took it way too far, de-regulation does not solve every problem within a market, especially if that problem is basic HUMAN GREED. WHY is it, that when we are talking about Black Welfare Queens in the inner city like Reagan did we can understand greed, but when its Fortune 500 White Male CEO’s and CFO’s you all can’t quite grasp that concept?
LikeLike
BTW Chace you wrote:
“Let me phrase it another way, you, a Democrat, probably support more civil liberties”
Tovarisch, I am no Democrat. I am an independent, perosnally I could be classifed as a Captalistic realist. I love to make money just as much as the next guy or gal, I just don’t believe that corporations can be trusted anymore than the individual and that their has to be rule of law for both.
LikeLike