IBM Hides the Bodies, Eyes US Government Billions

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Hides the Bodies, Eyes US Government Billions

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Saturday January 31, 2009 @10:49PM from the what-layoffs dept.

theodp writes "As his company was striving to hide the bodies of its laid-off North American workers, IBM CEO Sam Palmisano stood beside President Barack Obama and waxed patriotic: 'We need to reignite growth in our country,' Palmisano said. 'We need to undertake projects that actually will create jobs.' While Sam positions IBM to get a slice of the $825 billion stimulus pie, Big Blue is quietly cutting thousands of jobs and refusing to release the numbers or locations, arguing that SEC disclosure rules don't apply since the US job cuts are immaterial in its big global picture. The layoffs included hundreds in East Fishkill, coming early in the year after NY taxpayers paid IBM $45 million not to cut additional jobs in East Fishkill in 2008. Some are questioning whether IBM incentives are worth the cost."

410 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What a scoop! by QuantumG · 2009-01-31 22:52 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Ya think theodp might be one of those people who were just laid off? He seems a little bit biased.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.
1. Re:What a scoop! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 01:05 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  You're an asshole.
2. Re:What a scoop! by ShieldW0lf · 2009-02-01 02:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Man, the way they keep printing that money, I'm not really sure if I want to work for it any more. I mean, what's it going to be worth in 5 years? Why bother?
  I'm going to make a still and go back to bartering. This money stuff is a total rip off.
  
  --
  -1 Uncomfortable Truth
3. Re:What a scoop! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 03:09 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The money bubble hasn't hit us yet. But although it will, it's probably a few months out. It really depends on how much synergy the president can get from his former friends.
  Anyway, the point is that the solution is not to not earn money, but simply to not hold it. Buy lots of stuff that's cheap now. Like land, and stocks.
4. Re:What a scoop! by XcepticZP · 2009-02-01 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  The percentage of physical money (notes and coins) in circulation, is actually quite small compared to the amount of money existing as loans on countless accounting records of companies and banks. Banks create money on a grand scale, and contrary to what people would expect, it doesn't cause rampant inflation.
  
  Have a look at this video series.
5. Re:What a scoop! by timeOday · 2009-02-01 03:43 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Banks create money on a grand scale, and contrary to what people would expect, it doesn't cause rampant inflation.
  Credit can appear and disappear relatively quickly without causing rampant inflation. That doesn't mean the total money supply can simply increase forever without doing so. Be very careful overgeneralising from the last decade. I think there's a specific reason we've gotten away with it for so long, which is China. They willingly hoarded ever more of our dollars and tied their currency to ours. Part of the reason is because they hold so many US dollars, if they tried to circulate them they'd become almost worthless. If they ever call in our debts by spending those dollars, we are in big trouble.
6. Re:What a scoop! by Jorophose · 2009-02-01 03:58 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Last I checked, the Japanese had the highest amount of US dollar holdings. Or did the PRC suddenly gobble up the extra few hundred billion that were desperately necessary?
  Printing money is not a smart idea, but at least it's an improvement. I know my money has some value, unlike batering, where you're never quite sure what you'll end up with.
7. Re:What a scoop! by diamondsw · 2009-02-01 04:28 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I'll tell you what - you give me a few suitcases of that soon to be worthless money, I'll give you some worthless goods in exchange (perhaps some brightly colored beads?), and we'll call it even.
  
  --
  I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
8. Re:What a scoop! by timeOday · 2009-02-01 04:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You're right: "Japan, whose foreign exchange reserves topped US$1 trillion last month, is the largest foreign holder of US paper, sitting atop US$586.9 billion worth in January. China was close behind with US$492.6 billion, way ahead of No. 3 Britain which held US$160 billion worth."
  So it's not just China, rather Japan and China.
  Nobody is proposing to abolish money and go back to bartering. I'm not even sure this stimulus is such a terrible idea, maybe it will work (though we'll never really known either way). What worries me is we've been doing this since the 80's (Reagan), long enough to know that even in good times, we never quite get around to repaying the debt we rationalize in the bad times. Where will it end?
9. Re:What a scoop! by mabhatter654 · 2009-02-01 04:58 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  That's what the parent is saying. China keeps their take from sales of cheap stuff mostly in US banks... the same ones that turn around and put the money back into loans for high interest credit cards and ARM home loans.
  In a sense it was their money that fueled the housing boom... People borrowed to buy more stuff. Which increased Chinese profits and they make the money available to borrow so interest stays low. It works well until the bankers screw it up by fixing the books.. because they are "competing" to turn sub-prime 5% loans into 20% plus returns to investors.. take a guess how long that lasted?
10. Re:What a scoop! by ShieldW0lf · 2009-02-01 05:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Banks create money on a grand scale, and contrary to what people would expect, it doesn't cause rampant inflation.
  
  You mean, US banks print money on a grand scale, and trade that money for real goods from foreign nations who never redeem them for American made goods because they'd rather trade them back and forth for oil, so the devaluation effects are never felt in the US?
  
  Sorry, that was last millennium. This is the new millennium. The money is starting to come home. Those greenbacks are now bad cheques that MUST bounce, and so protectionism is the new order of the day.
  
  --
  -1 Uncomfortable Truth
11. Re:What a scoop! by ShieldW0lf · 2009-02-01 06:10 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I'll tell you what - you give me a few suitcases of that soon to be worthless money, I'll give you some worthless goods in exchange (perhaps some brightly colored beads?), and we'll call it even.
  
  Replace the beads with rare earth magnets and spools of copper wire for my turbines and motors, throw in a cow, some chickens and some tempered glass to expand my aquaponic setup and you've got a deal.
  
  --
  -1 Uncomfortable Truth
12. Re:What a scoop! by XcepticZP · 2009-02-01 07:11 · Score: 0
  
  That's not what I was talking about. The video I provided explains what I was talking about. Banks can and are not allowed to "print money". Only the US government can print notes and create coins. The way in which banks manufacture money is by granting loans.
  Just watch the video I linked to in my earlier post, it's really quite an eye opener.
13. Re:What a scoop! by b4upoo · 2009-02-01 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Actually we are in a period of deflation in which a dollar becomes more and more valuable. It can get so carried away that all of us may pray one day to be able to afford a dollar! Printing more money could well help all of us out.
  As for the IBM lay offs some employees get really great severance packages. All of us should be so lucky as to be laid off from IBM.
14. Re:What a scoop! by lordSaurontheGreat · 2009-02-01 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  Where will it end?
  Where congress ends.
  
  --
  Consider yourself spoken to.
15. Re:What a scoop! by BOFHelsinki · 2009-02-01 09:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I want an aquapony too.
16. Re:What a scoop! by hey! · 2009-02-01 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  Well, you've got it backwards.
  When they are printing money like mad, you want to work because inflation is eating away at your savings. The money you're being paid isn't worth as much, but balancing that is that you're getting a lot more of it.
  When you have disinflation (which we're seeing signs of), you may be less inclined to work if you have savings, because those savings will go farther. On the other hand, nobody is spending their money because they expect that money to farther tomorrow. This may sound like a good thing, until you take the currency glasses off for a second and take a good look at what's happening: people have stopped making things. As in every economic situation, some folks do better than others and a few people do very well, but overall the economy stops creating value.
  Of course, that's an extreme and simplistic scenario, but the bottom line is disinflation is really, really bad. I suppose 0 inflation would be ideal, but as a practical matter low but positive inflation is the safest and best state for things to be in.
  It is because disinflation is so bad that stimulus package is so huge. It needs to be huge and swift and (this is overlooked) sustained. The idea it should only include short term stimulus is, in my opinion flawed. People need to factor the inflationary effect of spending into their plans for the next two years at least.
  Of course, we'll pay in the end, but it's rather like worrying about whether you can afford the surgeon who's taking out the bullet lodged next to your spine.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
17. Re:What a scoop! by glittalogik · 2009-02-01 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  Not a problem.
18. Re:What a scoop! by Lord+Flipper · 2009-02-01 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  If they ever call in our debts by spending those dollars, we are in big trouble.
  You're right, but their world-leading rate of growth for all 30 of the last 30 years wasn't based on bankrupting countries that represented 20% of their exports, then, either, was it? Besides, if they fucked us, like that, they'd also be fucking the Japanese, big time, and then they can kiss 35% of their export market bye-bye.
  Ironically, given the brilliance of the Chicago school and all the right-wing wage slaves that vote Republican, economists, almost unanimously, cite China's huge government investments in their own economy as the primo genitur of that entire 30 years of growth. That investment, on average? 40%. And foreign investment? 2.5% at the most. Of course, any "smart" American knows that investing in your own economy is for sissies, because the only problem with our Economy is that the super-rich don't have enough money yet.
  Seriously? If we really wanted to destroy them we should have sent them Reagan, Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan, and one or two others. Oh well, better luck next time ... oh wait.
19. Re:What a scoop! by Lord+Ender · 2009-02-01 15:42 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Hate to break it to you, but the commodities bubble has already gone bust. Dollars and Yen are the only things going up in value these days.
  
  --
  A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
20. Re:What a scoop! by FiloEleven · 2009-02-01 17:15 · Score: 1
  
  Your last line shows that you've misdiagnosed the problem. This isn't a gunshot wound, it's an illness that has been building for a long time due to the poison of fiat money, the most obvious effects of it being the bubbles we've experienced for decades. The housing bubble is by far the most damaging to date, and if we keep it up it won't be the last unless we destroy the currency while trying to "fix" it.
  The way to counteract the effects of mismanaged fiat currency is absolutely NOT to inject more of it into the system. Rather, the Federal Reserve needs to be regulated (most of you love regulation, now's your chance to make some good ones) or abolished entirely. I think the former far more likely, but I hear nobody talking about it except for Ron Paul's camp. Thankfully they're getting some credit for the accurate prediction of the current crisis, but it's apparently still not enough to warrant listening to the guy.
  
  --
  Your brain is not a computer.
21. Re:What a scoop! by FiloEleven · 2009-02-01 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  Printing money is an improvement on what? On bartering? Perhaps, if you print money responsibly. I don't think any closed, private organization (like the Federal Reserve) can do that. I'm skeptical that a public one could.
  We used to have a nice middle-ground in the gold standard, or any standard where paper scrip is backed by something physical. Gold is nice because it has traditionally been a very stable store of value: it's a hell of a lot harder to get more than just by turning on the press. You're right that bartering, while a nice alternative option for small communities, makes for a poor system of trade. Money is pretty necessary. I guess I'm just a little pickier about how sound I'd like it to be than most people.
  
  --
  Your brain is not a computer.
22. Re:What a scoop! by demachina · 2009-02-01 17:29 · Score: 1
  
  "I'll give you some worthless goods in exchange (perhaps some brightly colored beads?"
  If your beads are metallic gold, silver and platinum colored.... you've got yourself a deal.
  The grandparent does have a point. If we do pull out of this recession/depression in a couple years, chances are high hyperinflation is going to destroy the dollar. You simply can't print and borrow trillions of dollars without the consequences coming home to roost some day. Only thing allowing it right now is the dollar is still considered the global reserve currency and its the safest place to be at the moment after the yen.
  America simply can't continue to run huge current account deficits forever. It has to A) stop borrowing money B) stop buying more goods than it produces. dot.com, housing and banking bubbles have allowed us to put off the crash but I'm thinking we are pretty much out of bubbles at this point and we are soon going to start seeing how really destitute the U.S. economy really is. Its increasingly a bunch of service jobs that produce very little real economic value. The Obama plan to strengthen labor unions is going to make it even worse. Unionizing manufacturing jobs will just hasten their flight overseas. You can unionize service jobs that can't be moved but it will just make healthcare, teaching, civil service, fire and police and all the other heavily unionized service jobs more expensive and they will suck even more life out of the rest of the economy.
  
  --
  @de_machina
23. Re:What a scoop! by HanzoSpam · 2009-02-01 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  If we really wanted to destroy them we should have sent them Reagan, Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan, and one or two others.
  I hate to break this to you, but we did send them Milton Friedman, and the Chinese are largely taking his advise. We, on the other hand, are not, which is probably the reason China is on the ascendant, and we are in decline.
  
  --
  
  Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
24. Re:What a scoop! by Lord+Flipper · 2009-02-01 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  I hate to break this to you, but we did send them Milton Friedman [nybooks.com], and the Chinese are largely taking his advise. We, on the other hand, are not, which is probably the reason China is on the ascendant, and we are in decline.
  You know, there really ought to be a prize for getting something perfectly backwards. [You must have meant "advice", I take it, but it's still backwards]
  Tell me something; how much of their growth is due to tax cuts? Take a wild guess. I'll assume you aren't going to walk off a cliff and try to maintain that they latched on to his laissez-faire deregulated greedy classes will work it all out theory, are you? Because that's foolishness, if that's your "case." Reagan was Friedman's boy. He had to be, I mean do you think Ronnie did the family bookkeeping? That was Nancy. Reagan was senile, he was what stock brokers refer to as "told and sold." And no, it isn't usually a compliment.
  You can stretch your hyper-elastic misread of clearly logged history all the way to Beijing and back, but the fact is laissez-faire approaches and "letting the banks regulate themselves" has the World teetering on the abyss. Totally discredited. That's your boy, Friedman, in a nutshell. He had a lot of good ideas, too. I don't see him as being stupid, at all, but wrong? That's another kettle of fish. I'm sure it looked better on paper than it played out over the last 8 years, what do you think?
  Now, explain the Chinese dynamo, versus the volatile and, for the last 8 years, disastrous American economy, in terms that show Friedman impacting Chinese economics, rather than his theoretical support of American policy, and it's destructive impact on our economy over here.
  The Americans bitch about China manipulating a bit of currency (really a vastly overblown "excuse" for poor American theory and economic health), and the Chinese intervene bigtime, as in nationalization, and if you're going to sit there and pretend that China is anything except intensely-regulated (The name Keynes ring any bells?), and that we aren't, well, come up with some real citations, or head back to the ivory tower, and don't worry, you guys will no doubt have another chance to ruin the world's economy, in a generation or two. Just have to be patient.
  Milton Friedman, for whatever the flaws that were accentuated by an unbalnced (as in "mentally") application of his theory, definitely did not ever say that the biggest banks should devise ways to pacage "risk" in a format that nobody could evaluate with certainty, AND that regulators should overlook the fact that none of the banks had near enough capital to cover the risks in case of some systemic default. He wasn'[t fucking crazy, in other words, or greedy. But Wall Street exists for greed, and the laissez-faire dismantling of oversight, under Clinton, following Reagan, with Bush upping the ante on both of them, was, indeed, crazy, if long term health means anything to a thinking person anymore.
25. Re:What a scoop! by Hognoxious · 2009-02-01 20:29 · Score: 1
  
  He posts rather a lot of anti-corporate shit, doesn't he?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
26. Re:What a scoop! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 20:44 · Score: 0
  
  The video is shit. No doubt the clowns who are into "intrinsic value" think it's great.
27. Re:What a scoop! by hey! · 2009-02-01 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  Your first line shows that you take analogies too seriously.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
28. Re:What a scoop! by saintlupus · 2009-02-02 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  You can unionize service jobs that can't be moved but it will just make healthcare, teaching, civil service, fire and police and all the other heavily unionized service jobs more expensive and they will suck even more life out of the rest of the economy.
  The State of New York currently has fifty billion dollars in union public employee retiree health care obligations. Completely unfunded.
  Looks like it's free nose jobs for retired cops and poverty for the rest of us saps.
  --saint
29. Re:What a scoop! by FiloEleven · 2009-02-02 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Your analogy says that this crisis was a sudden, unexpected, unpredictable scenario and that drastic action needs to be taken to save the economy. My analogy says that this crisis has been predictably gestating for decades, and that the drastic action you are calling for will kill the economy or the currency. I decided that the contrast in analogies lent insight to the differences in our proposed methods for handling the crisis, which is why I opened with it. My point still stands if you omit them.
  Since I'm commenting again, I may as well mention that you seem to have confused "disinflation" with "deflation," as the spending cuts etc. you mentioned are a sign of the latter.
  
  Disinflation is lower inflation. Prices are still rising during disinflation, but at a lower rate. The general price level still rises, but, at a slower rate resulting in a continued, but, lower rate of real value destruction in money and other monetary items. A lowering of inflation is not deflation but disinflation.
  Deflation means the general price level is not increasing at all, but, actually decreasing continuously and the internal functional currency â" money - and other monetary items are worth more all the time. Deflation causes an increase in the real value of money and other monetary items.
  Inflation destroys real value in money. Disinflation destroys real value in money more slowly. Deflation creates real value in money. ...
  Countries have little experience of deflation. Deflation is generally regarded as a very serious economic problem that everyone is trying to avoid at all costs especially after what happened during the Great Depression.
  (source)
  
  --
  Your brain is not a computer.
30. Re:What a scoop! by hey! · 2009-02-02 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  No, my analogy actually says none of those things, because I'd expected the economic policies of the prior administration to end in disaster, and I was aware that there was a housing bubble, although I'd be lying if I said I'd been perspicacious enough to connect the two.
  The salient point of the analogy is that swift action is needed to stabilize the patient.
  Yes, I agree, the correct term is deflation.
  In any case, we agree the problem has been built up over the last several decades. It's not just Bush's fault; I wouldn't even say it's primarily his fault, although he made it worse. Aside from moving the country towards fiscal insolvency, the reaction to the growing crisis was ineffectual. Don't get me wrong, I think Hank Paulson is a decent guy, but he was trying to be agile and flexible, but what Wall Street really needed was stability.
  In a way it's ironic that John Snow left, in part, because his brokers had invested some of his money in Fannie and Freddie's securities (like everybody else did, directly or indirectly). I don't think that was a substantive ethical violation, although the rule is sound and divesting should be sufficient. The problem is that I think that was a really bad time to switch leadership at Treasury. A few lonely analysts were sounding the alarm as early as 2004, and 2007 was when the leading edge of the crisis was obvious for everyone to see, which means 2006 was a bad time for a new secretary to be learning the ropes. In part that may account the way Paulson always seemed to be a step behind developments.
  That's why I don't like the politics of political vendetta. As long as Bush was president, I wasn't going to get policies I approved of, although Paul O'Neill might have made a difference if he hadn't stuck his hand in the Iraq meat grinder. But as long as the policies were going to be Bush policies, it doesn't really help the country to have a secretary who's still learning the names on the organization chart.
  Where we really disagree is the treatment (a cure is not to be hoped for). If we were talking in 1998, I'd agree completely with you. Right now we're very obviously past a tipping point. There's nothing in my opinion, that government can do to to stop things from getting worse. The question is how much worse and for how long? That's the only thing we can affect.
  Keeping on our highly misleading metaphor, it is often said that the difference between medicine and poison is dosage... But it should also be said that the difference is timing. Stimulus packages are inflationary in their effect. In an economy with full employment, inflation under control, and steady growth you need it like a healthy person needs a shot of (to mix a medical metaphor) digitalis. Austerity measures are more like a shot of curare -- just the stuff for poisoned arrows or treating severe tetanus.
  It's the context that makes it a poison on one hand or a medicine on the other. Belt tightening would have been the best possible thing when the private sector was producing full employment, regular growth with modest inflation. Unfortunately that's not how the politics of budgeting works: when growth is strong we feel easy about spending, even though it pushes the economy in an inflationary direction. When times are tough, the government sector contracts (stimulus notwithstanding; state government is about 6% of GDP, smaller than Federal spending, but larger than Federal discretionary spending).
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
31. Re:What a scoop! by FiloEleven · 2009-02-02 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the substantial response. I was surprised by your terseness before, as I had befriended you, and I tend only to befriend people who I deem insightful or clear thinkers. I am now reassured that I was justified in doing so.
  
  There's nothing in my opinion, that government can do to to stop things from getting worse. The question is how much worse and for how long? That's the only thing we can affect.
  On this point we are in full agreement, and you are also correct that we disagree on what actions to take and, possibly, which situation is worse: a short, sharp, painful depression or a milder prolonged one. Government stimulus will result in the latter, but the root problems (see below) are still not dealt with. They aren't necessarily dealt with if no stimulus is given either, but IMO we would be in a more stable position once we recover.
  
  I'd expected the economic policies of the prior administration to end in disaster, and I was aware that there was a housing bubble, although I'd be lying if I said I'd been perspicacious enough to connect the two.
  I will refrain (this time!) from assuming I know which policies you're referencing, and simply say again that I believe this crisis has been building for a long time, and the housing bubble happens to be the one that tipped the scales. In my view, it is the loose monetary policies of the Federal Reserve that are the root cause of our financial bubbles, and that the business cycle accepted as normal is one byproduct of it. This is likely a big reason we disagree on what actions should be taken. (Another less-than-useful medical metaphor, just for kicks: the bubbles are infections and colds, while fiat money is the HIV that exacerbates their effects.)
  To close on a bizarre note, it appears that Vladimir Putin agrees with me...
  
  --
  Your brain is not a computer.
32. Re:What a scoop! by Jorophose · 2009-02-02 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  Blegh, gold standard? The same one that has to deflate?
  No thank you sir. I like printed money better. The current situation is not the ultimate one, but it's better than the alternatives.
33. Re:What a scoop! by Dataknife · 2009-02-02 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  In 5 years, assuming the current rate of inflation, $1 will be worth about $0.80 of today's money.
34. Re:What a scoop! by FiloEleven · 2009-02-03 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  It is true that the gold standard has to deflate in the same way that fiat currency must inflate: that is how the system is designed. It is not a problem in either case as long as the rate stays within a couple percentage points of zero. With fiat currency the rate of inflation can be pretty easily manipulated by whoever controls the money supply, in our case the Fed. If the Fed could be trusted to maintain a low, positive rate of inflation then we would probably be okay, but that has not been the case:
  
  Celent calculates that the M0 money supply [currency in circulation and bank reserves held at the Federal Reserve] "has recently increased at a pace never seen before in US history," and has increased as much in the last 90 days as it has in the last 83 years.
  By the week of 3 December 2008, the money supply was a staggering $630 billion, or 74% higher than it was during the week of 3 September 2008. An increase of this size in the past took on the order of a decade.
  (source, Dec 2008)
  In addition, inflation at any positive rate devalues the currency over time. As long as you have a decent income you won't be racing the inflation rate, but any uninvested savings will steadily lose value. Contrast this with the deflation of a gold-backed currency (or one backed by any physical store of value): the rate is low, so you won't notice much day-to-day, but your long-term uninvested savings steadily gain value. As the economy grows, everything gets cheaper.
  This is all a little simplistic, of course, but one important item keeps being forgotten in the mostly unheard debate about our currency: the US was on the gold standard (with a few deviations here and there when government moved to fiat currency to fund wars) for 300 years, and the dollar remained very stable throughout that period. We have been on a fully fiat currency for 38 years and now the Fed is using all the tricks of its trade to try and restore the semblance of stability.
  
  --
  Your brain is not a computer.
Nobody... by darinfp · 2009-01-31 22:52 · Score: 5, Funny

Ever got fired for workign for IBM...
1. Re:Nobody... by machine321 · 2009-02-01 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'm confused though... I thought I was supposed to like IBM because they liked Linux and filed lots of patents but promised to never abuse them. Which big, faceless mega-corporation am I supposed to root for now?
2. Re:Nobody... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 04:27 · Score: 0
  
  Ever got fired for workign for IBM...
  They got fired for typos instead.
  Zing!
3. Re:Nobody... by TreyGeek · 2009-02-01 04:44 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I'm not going to say nobody gets fired from IBM. However, from the perspective of a non-IBMer who has friends and contacts with IBMers around the country getting told your position is being cut isn't the same as turn in your badge on the way out. You usually get a couple weeks to a month to slide into a different job. The project you may be working on now may not be important enough to keep it staffed the way it is. But go find another project to work on and you can do a lateral move and keep on working. That's why (IMHO) IBM doesn't want to talk about how many jobs they are cutting because not that many people may really be out of a job.
4. Re:Nobody... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 07:14 · Score: 0
  
  where are my mod points... this deserves an insightful.
5. Re:Nobody... by davester666 · 2009-02-01 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Apple! Oh, wait, it's not faceless... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_jobs
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
6. Re:Nobody... by Mad+Merlin · 2009-02-01 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  They're also quite evil.
  
  --
  Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
7. Re:Nobody... by Hognoxious · 2009-02-01 20:48 · Score: 1
  
  Missing a joke is insightful?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
8. Re:Nobody... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 22:36 · Score: 0
  
  Here's the number 14000, gone through layoffs and another 2,000 or so gone from forced retirement. That is no single area but across the board. Look for March to be a banner month with about another 20,000 North Americans gone.
9. Re:Nobody... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  Specially if you hold an H1B visa.
10. Re:Nobody... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  WRONG!!! IBM is actually transitioning the jobs offshore. You get a month to train your replacement AND look for a (nonexistent) job.
Time to tighten our belts by BadAnalogyGuy · 2009-01-31 22:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

It is far better to cut off a dying limb than to have the infection seep back into the whole body.
If the division was in such a pathetic state that the state had to beg IBM not to cut it in good times, is it any surprise that IBM decided to cut it in the bad times?
Business isn't charity, no matter what those enlightened European countries may believe.
1. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Kokuyo · 2009-01-31 23:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, no it really isn't.
  But I really don't see the point of the government giving international corporations like IBM money. I'd wager a bet that with those 45 million they could have helped the laid off workers for more and longer than giving it to IBM.
  Same with GM. I have no idea how much your government spent on... 'that', but I just know that with one billion dollars you can give 20'000 people 50'000 dollars, each. I'm just asking myself whether rerouting such money directly into the pockets of those laid off wouldn't make more sense. Give them the opportunity to not worry too much for a year, get some additional education and try elsewhere.
2. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 23:36 · Score: 0
  
  Business isn't charity, no matter what those enlightened European countries may believe.
  In other news, us Europeans also plotted (for centuries, i might add) to bail out your car industry.
3. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Xiroth · 2009-01-31 23:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Uh, wait, you're calling Italy enlightened, even in sarcasm? The country with a government so far-right nationalistic that it's flirting with a return to fascism?
  I mean, I'm not sure where you're from, exactly, but seems beyond belief that you'd lump them in with the mid-left 'enlightened' northerners. Perhaps you should consider breaking the continent down into slightly smaller slices.
4. Re:Time to tighten our belts by giorgiofr · 2009-02-01 00:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yah, it's so far right nationalistic that the communist party was in charge until a year ago, illegal aliens are seeping anywhere and everywhere, healthcare is a free for all mess, and some parts of the country actually want to seceed - nationalistic all right.
  
  --
  Global warming is a cube.
5. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 00:44 · Score: 0
  
  The point is that Italy sure ain't France.
6. Re:Time to tighten our belts by penix1 · 2009-02-01 00:58 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The automotive "bailout" (it wasn't only GM) was in the form of $18 Bn low interest loans that have to be repaid unlike the bank's $700 Bn or this $850 Bn pork barrel. This country has a fucked up sense of priorities that way.
  
  --
  This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
7. Re:Time to tighten our belts by cheftw · 2009-02-01 01:05 · Score: 2
  
  But that would be socialism! It did happen in America you know.
  
  --
  Always back up, never back down. ---- Think you're cool 'cos your uid is prime? Take mine, modulo the one digit integers
8. Re:Time to tighten our belts by TapeCutter · 2009-02-01 01:09 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  "Uh, wait, you're calling Italy enlightened, even in sarcasm? The country with a government so far-right nationalistic that it's flirting with a return to fascism?".
  
  Italy has averaged one government per year since WW2. They flirt with everyone, they're kinda famous for it.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
9. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Samschnooks · 2009-02-01 01:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I have no idea how much your government spent on... 'that', but I just know that with one billion dollars you can give 20'000 people 50'000 dollars, each. I'm just asking myself whether rerouting such money directly into the pockets of those laid off wouldn't make more sense.
  Because big screen TVs and beer sales would go through the roof?
10. Re:Time to tighten our belts by aurispector · 2009-02-01 01:44 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  ...but I just know that with one billion dollars you can give 20'000 people 50'000 dollars, each. I'm just asking myself whether rerouting such money directly into the pockets of those laid off wouldn't make more sense. Give them the opportunity to not worry too much for a year, get some additional education and try elsewhere.
  Wouldn't it be better if the government didn't to take half of people's money in the first place? Your average homeowner gets about a third of his income lopped off in withholding, then another chunk in sales taxes and property taxes take the rest. How great would it be if everyone's earnings were suddenly doubled?
  Even when they have the best of intentions you can't rely on government to do the right thing - look at both of the trillion dollar bailout packages: pure pork and waste. The process of government is inevitably biased by the actions of special interests, self interest of the politicians and plain old human stupidity.
  
  --
  I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
11. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  Business isn't charity, no matter what those enlightened European countries may believe.
  If it's not charity, what was the bailout fund they got for? I'm having some trouble sustaining my family, why am I not getting any bailout funds? Even better, if I got it, I could still throw my family in the streets because you know, these are tough times...
12. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 02:18 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  *ding ding ding*
  
  I work at IBM - trust me when I say it is in fact a soulless corp. Not evil, just soulless. We don't even need money - we had a good year in 2008, even in the 4th quarter. Hell, I'm even getting a bonus from last year we did so well! We sure as hell don't need taxpayer money.
13. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  Yah, it's so far right nationalistic that the communist party was in charge until a year ago
  The GP said the *government* are far-right and nationalistic.
  And the Italian communist parties were a *tiny* part of a centre-left coalition government. To say the communists were 'in charge until a year ago' is like saying Storm Thurmond was 'in charge of the Senate until 2003'.
14. Re:Time to tighten our belts by athlon02 · 2009-02-01 02:53 · Score: 2
  
  I had that thought too. If we're going to give money to individuals at all, it should be to their debts (homes, student loans, etc.). And it should go to those who have a track record of working hard, but just ran into tough times beyond their abilities. It still helps them, without the temptation to waste money on non-essentials. If we're going to spend our grand-children and great grand-children's tax dollars, we owe it to them to at least do something intelligent with the money.
15. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Skreems · 2009-02-01 02:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Wouldn't it be better if the government didn't to take half of people's money in the first place? Your average homeowner gets about a third of his income lopped off in withholding, then another chunk in sales taxes and property taxes take the rest. How great would it be if everyone's earnings were suddenly doubled?
  Pretty great for a while. Less great when the roads start falling apart, criminals realize the police can't afford bullets, the jails have to release all the inmates at once, the number of under-educated people around you starts increasing because the schools have shut down, and half your family dies from tainted food because the agencies that impose quality controls have disappeared.
  
  It's not like bailouts are the only thing we fund with taxes, you know. There are actually a hell of a lot of services that benefit you directly on a daily basis. Eliminate taxes and you'll end up either losing those services entirely, or else paying for them out of pocket anyway.
  
  --
  Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
  The Urban Hippie
16. Re:Time to tighten our belts by mooreti1 · 2009-02-01 02:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I agree with you completely; business isn't a charity. At the same time, though, the business has a social responsibility and IBM is ignoring that by asking for tax payer money while trimming their costs by laying off workers. If this is the IBM strategy then the fed's need to make it a mandate that executive bonuses and perks are frozen until the stockholders begin seeing ongoing, positive returns for a specific number of years. After all, business isn't a charity.
  
  --
  Oh, for the days when sig's didn't have to be cute...hey, wait a sec.
17. Re:Time to tighten our belts by rho · 2009-02-01 03:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yeah, 'cause our roads are in such great shape now, the cops are doing a bang-up job, we're producing public-school Einsteins at the rate of E=mc^2, and by golly were going to eat to the bottom of this jar of salmonella-laced peanut butter if it kills us.
  
  --
  Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
18. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  Everyone knows in a few months they will pass another bill forgiving the bailout loans to the automakers. The only reason they call it a "loan" is to make people less angry. When they pass a bill in a few months forgiving the loan nobody will hear about it and nobody will lose any votes over it.
19. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 03:14 · Score: 0
  
  Business isn't charity, no matter what those enlightened European countries may believe.
  You are right. It is a license to print money with no personal accountability.
20. Re:Time to tighten our belts by commodore64_love · 2009-02-01 03:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The New York Legislature never should have given that 24 million dollars to IBM. (Or the Pennsylvania Legislature give 10 million to save Boscovs.) The jobs "saved" do not earn 24 million dollars, so it's a lossy investment. Only an idiot would invest 24 million to get back only 1-2 million dollars worth of wage taxes.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
21. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  They need to pass a bill that tells China they are forgiving the loans we've taken from them. Then when the snap, we can say you shouldn't have killed our dogs and poisoned our children. That is the best way to reduce the national debt.
22. Re:Time to tighten our belts by DavidShor · 2009-02-01 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  "Wouldn't it be better if the government didn't to take half of people's money in the first place? Your average homeowner gets about a third of his income lopped off in withholding, then another chunk in sales taxes and property taxes take the rest. How great would it be if everyone's earnings were suddenly doubled?"
  As it is now, taxes are too low to pay for the government programs that the public seems to really want. Remember: Health Care, Defense, Social Security, and interest on our debt make up literally 90% of the federal budget. Unless someone is to propose deep cuts in these programs, any populist moaning on taxes strikes me as a bit annoying.
  "Even when they have the best of intentions you can't rely on government to do the right thing - look at both of the trillion dollar bailout packages: pure pork and waste. The process of government is inevitably biased by the actions of special interests, self interest of the politicians and plain old human stupidity."
  That strikes me as a strong statement. From what I can tell, the TARP program was pretty efficient in what it aimed to do: Injecting capital into banks in exchange for equity. Judging by the TED spread, it seemed to do a pretty good job at stabilizing our financial system.
  And the stimulus package, while it hasn't gone through congress yet, seems to be pretty clean. Looking through the big ticket line items, everything in it seems to do what it's supposed to: Raise aggregate demand by utilizing under-utilized resources in the economy.
  Unless you have a very odd definition of pork, I don't see your justification here.
23. Re:Time to tighten our belts by commodore64_love · 2009-02-01 03:21 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Roads are funded by gasoline taxes, so a cut in income tax would not affect them at all.
  Police waste a lot of time chasing non-violent criminals. If they stopped bothering people smoking marijuana while watching the Superbowl (a "crime" that harms absolutely no one except the smoker), they'd have LOTS of resources to go after the actual thieves and murderers.
  Schools are funded by school taxes, and therefore a cut in income tax would not affect them at all.
  And finally:
  Most government agencies, in my own government experience at the FAA, have 60-65% of workers who sit-around doing nothing all day long, except surfing the net. They could easily layoff those persons (same way a corporation trims the fat), and still get the same amount of work done.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
24. Re:Time to tighten our belts by marco.antonio.costa · 2009-02-01 03:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
  Definitely for your post there it does.
  So tell me, how did the US do without income tax until 1913? Was the family death rate at 50% due to a lack of FDA to make sure they didn't buy poisoned food? Was the prison population more than half its capacity composed of non-violent drug offenders there due to Federal minimum sentencing laws? Was private education non-existent or worse than the complete fail of the 'Hold-all-children-behind' public monopoly?
  Basically only the posting of roads is the non-foolish part of your post, and a 1% uniform non-protective tariff would be more than enough for the Federal gov't to cover the US in tarmac, if they could restrict their spending to their strictly limited and enumerated powers under the US Constitution.
  
  --
  Send your spendthrift head of state this
25. Re:Time to tighten our belts by c · 2009-02-01 03:25 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  > Because big screen TVs and beer sales would go through the roof?
  Now that's an economic stimulus plan the average Joe can understand and support.
  c.
  
  --
  Log in or piss off.
26. Re:Time to tighten our belts by marco.antonio.costa · 2009-02-01 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry but authoritarian != far or any, for that matter, right. Fascist and Nazi governments were far left. National SOCIALISM, anyone?
  I mean, interventionist Italy has just prohibited their citizens of eating foreign food in Rome.
  Not exactly my idea of laissez-faire bunch.
  
  --
  Send your spendthrift head of state this
27. Re:Time to tighten our belts by DavidShor · 2009-02-01 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  The bailout fund was to keep the financial system from destroying the world economy. It wasn't to be "nice".
28. Re:Time to tighten our belts by DavidShor · 2009-02-01 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  You still have to cover health care, social security, and defense. That's 90% of our budget.
  Keep in mind, any health care reforms you make to save money must take information asymmetry into account, as well as the public's refusal to see people die from lack of health care. Any social security reform must take into account that the public is not going to let large numbers of old people live in poverty(Forcing a program of either outright government pensions or forced savings programs like social security), and that any politician who cuts defense will be skewered after a terror attack.
  Once these constraints are taken into account, any program you make will resemble the status quo. There's a reason that you won't find any first world countries that are libertarian paradises.
  "Most government agencies, in my own government experience at the FAA, have 60-65% of workers who sit-around doing nothing all day long, except surfing the net. They could easily layoff those persons (same way a corporation trims the fat), and still get the same amount of work done."
  Sorry, this talking point is quite annoying. I could easily say "Based on my experience of corporations, most have them have 60-65% of workers who sit around doing nothing all day long". Running a large organization is very difficult, and the challenges apply equally to the public and private sector. If anything, the public sector might have an easier job, since public sector workers are not allowed to strike.
  And in terms of data, the TVA was more efficient than neighboring companies, and Medicaire has *much* lower administrative fee's than insurance companies who cover the same group.
29. Re:Time to tighten our belts by PotatoSan · 2009-02-01 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  "School taxes"? Where do you pay "school taxes"? Money for schools comes from state (and to a lesser and more indirect extent, federal) income taxes.
30. Re:Time to tighten our belts by DavidShor · 2009-02-01 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  From what I understand, the TARP program mostly involved capital injections in exchange for equity in the companies. Presumably, we could sell the equity at a later date when/if the market recovers.
  Other than that, most of the fed's actions have been loans, and at pretty high interest rates! Our deal with AIG involved a loan at Libor+450, which is a higher rate then most credit cards.
31. Re:Time to tighten our belts by powerlord · 2009-02-01 03:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Only an idiot would invest 24 million to get back only 1-2 million dollars worth of wage taxes.
  I think you meant:
  
  Only an idiot politician would invest 24 million to get back only 1-2 million dollars worth of wage taxes and enough votes to make his re-election a shoe in despite his idiot decision.
  Remember, the money the politician spent on keeping the company in the area doesn't just translate into increased taxes from wages.
  It doesn't just translate into increased taxes on materials spent, and other service and supply industries feeding into that company.
  The money spent translates into a situation the politician can point to and say "I just saved your job, vote for me!".
  
  --
  This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
32. Re:Time to tighten our belts by DavidShor · 2009-02-01 04:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That really is the opposite of what we'd want. If the financial sector was working, then saving would equal investment, which boosts aggregate demand. The idea being that someone pays his debt down, the bank gives it to a business, and the business buys things, and everything works out well.
  But since the financial sector isn't working, so if someone saves, the bank just sits on the money and it disappears. Because of that, a large increase in savings would cause a rather large decrease in aggregate demand, which would causes businesses to close, which causes further decreases in aggregate demand... that process ends at the great depression.
  To prevent that, we want the government to spend their money boosting aggregate demand to compensate. Government spending is one way to do it, but there are limits to how many roads you can build within a couple months. So some money will be given to individuals.
  But the key point, is that the money given to individuals needs to be *spent*, not saved!
33. Re:Time to tighten our belts by chill · 2009-02-01 04:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The average Joe *did* support it and got behind it when the Bush Administration sent everyone a $600-$1,200 "tax rebate" last year. There was a measurable spike in electronics purchases. So much so it was named as a reason there isn't going to be another such direct payment in Obama's stimulus package. All those precious electronic gadgets are made overseas, mostly in China. The money barely slowed down as it exited the country. The gov't was hoping people would purchase things like durable consumer goods made in the U.S., or put it towards a down-payment on a car, etc.
  Suckers.
  For my part I purchased a new American-made deluxe Weber grill and bought it at a local, independent shop. Both factors (local purchase, American-made) *were* important factors in my purchase. Lots of local farms in the Midwest to purchase grill supplies like ribs, steaks, burgers, bratwurst, etc. Mmmmmmm...I gotta brush the snow off later today and fire that puppy up!
  
  --
  Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
34. Re:Time to tighten our belts by davolfman · 2009-02-01 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  At lower income levels withholding's closer to 5-10% and you'd still get a refund on that.
35. Re:Time to tighten our belts by rpillala · 2009-02-01 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Beer sales are increasing now without any special bonuses for workers facing hard times. There was a story on the radio about this a couple of days ago. There was the owner of a liquor store saying that business was booming, and some other dude talking about how instead of going to a game, he was more likely to buy a case of beer and watch it at home.
  
  --
  When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
36. Re:Time to tighten our belts by DavidShor · 2009-02-01 04:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "So tell me, how did the US do without income tax until 1913?"
  90% of the federal budget is spent on Health Care, Pensions, and Defense. Before 1913, the government(state, local, or federal) spent money on all of these things, and there was a national consensus that these things were a public priority.
  The thing is, that all of these things have gotten *a lot more expensive* relative to the rest of the economy, since the price of labor has skyrocketed. This is a rather textbook case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease/ . It's why the British army was able to fund an army of a couple million a century ago for a fraction of the cost that they now spend to maintain an army of 200,000.
  "Was private education non-existent or worse than the complete fail of the 'Hold-all-children-behind' public monopoly? "
  Private education was essentially non-existent, and probably less prevalent then it is now. Wide-scale compulsory public education became widespread way before 1914.
  The reason costs have exploded, is that the productivity of labor in teaching doesn't increase very much over time, while the productivity of labor in the general economy has skyrocketed. Once again, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease/.
37. Re:Time to tighten our belts by aurispector · 2009-02-01 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  The bulk of public school money comes from local property taxes. That's why inner city schools suck.
  
  --
  I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
38. Re:Time to tighten our belts by commodore64_love · 2009-02-01 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  No I meant exactly what I said, because it also applies to the common citizen. "Only an idiot would invest 24 million to get back only 1-2 million dollars worth of wage taxes."
  That would be (roughly) equivalent of me saying to IBM, I will give you 24 million if you hire me for a ten-year-long job as a $100,000/year engineer. I would rightly be called an idiot.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
39. Re:Time to tighten our belts by commodore64_love · 2009-02-01 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  >>>You still have to cover health care, social security, and defense. That's 90% of our budget.
  Health - not income tax; it's a separate tax called Medicare
  SS - not income tax; it's a separate tax
  War Department - yes they need to end all wars and have their budget slashed, so we can give the American people some relief.
  But of course, no matter how much we debate this point, you'll never agree to cutting taxes because you think the government is "underfunded" according to your "government should run near-everything" world view. You see the solution to our problems as government and believe more government is better. I see government AS the problem, mostly because it's a monopoly, and I am anti-monopoly (pro-choice).
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
40. Re:Time to tighten our belts by commodore64_love · 2009-02-01 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  In Pennsylvania we have a separate tax called "school tax" that is collected once a year (fall if I recall correctly). We also have "property tax" that is collected in the spring.
  So don't act all surprised. I really DO have a separate tax that supports the PA schools, and no, a U.S. income tax reduction would not affect my schools at all. They operate out of a separate tax regime.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
41. Re:Time to tighten our belts by flosofl · 2009-02-01 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know where you live, but where I live (just outside of Chicago proper) a large chunk of school district funding comes from local property taxes, which is really a county tax. It's also supplemented by state Lottery sales. I don't know what portion of the income tax is used for education. It may be different in Chicago itself, but it was that way where I grew up as well (about 40 miles NW of Chi-town).
  
  In fact, because a large amount comes from local property taxes, increases are are usually part of a referendum during local elections. As a result, most of the childless assholes reject any increase for education year after year. So, then music is cut, extracurricular activities are cut, art is cut, any sport other than football/basketball is cut, and so on until school resembles nothing so much as a junior version of a job to kids but with no pay. Then these assholes turn around bitch about the gradual decline of property values (which means even less flowing into the schools) because no one wants to move a family into an area serviced by an underfunded school district.
  
  I myself am childless, but I always (well almost always, sometimes fiscal mismanagement needs to be discouraged) vote yes on education referendums. I had a fantastic education growing up filled with rich and diverse activities, and I would like to see the current generation have the same experiences and opportunities.
  
  --
  "This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
42. Re:Time to tighten our belts by c · 2009-02-01 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  > The money barely slowed down as it exited the country.
  Notice I said nothing about whether or not such a economic stimulus plan would actually work...
  c.
  
  --
  Log in or piss off.
43. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Miseph · 2009-02-01 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  So what?
  That's actually not a problem. Stupid people would blow their stack of money and be right back where they started, except that along the way they've provided a HUGE boost to consumer spending that allows all of the smart people to actually make a ton of money and get way ahead. This is precisely the effect we're looking to get with these bailouts, but this way no corporate execs get to take multi-million dollar personal bonuses without even having to work for them.
  
  --
  Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
44. Re:Time to tighten our belts by DavidShor · 2009-02-01 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  "Health - not income tax; it's a separate tax called Medicare"
  That's...not true. Medicaire is partially covered by FICA taxes, but government health programs are far more expansive than medicaire. You have Medicaid, the VA, public health programs like the CDC, etc. Just the non-medicaire component of our health-care spending makes up 58% of the money raised by general income taxes, with defense making up nearly all of the remainder.
45. Re:Time to tighten our belts by ColdWetDog · 2009-02-01 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Remember folks, when things seem as bad as they possibly can...
  
  They usually get considerably worse.
  
  RAH
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
46. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 05:07 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, but why would the politicians outside his district make such an idiot decision?
  Are there people in their districts who think you can buy jobs, and that it's worth it to try to do so?
47. Re:Time to tighten our belts by EllisDees · 2009-02-01 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  You can have authoritarianism on both the far right and far left, and having the word 'socialism' in the name doesn't make it socialist any more than North Korea having the word 'democratic' in their name makes them a democracy.
  
  --
  -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
48. Re:Time to tighten our belts by wellingj · 2009-02-01 05:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Back you Keynesianism, Back I say! Back to the hell that broth you!
  
  Really do you want our corrupt government to decide more loosers and winners? I'd rather decide the loosers and winners with my dollars than having the government take them and decide for me. I know more about the companies I like than they do.
  
  --
  Money is the root of all evil?
49. Re:Time to tighten our belts by PotatoSan · 2009-02-01 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  I hadn't thought about property taxes. I stand corrected.
50. Re:Time to tighten our belts by wellingj · 2009-02-01 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  I like to read books at the local coffee shop. $600 was a lot of coffee to drink in one day. I still can't sleep.
  
  --
  Money is the root of all evil?
51. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  On the economic end, no, but on the social end, authoritarianism is very much a right-wing ideal.
52. Re:Time to tighten our belts by wellingj · 2009-02-01 05:26 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  We doesn't the government just not take the money from joe six-pack in the first place? It's not like he would save the extra 10-15%.
  
  --
  Money is the root of all evil?
53. Re:Time to tighten our belts by ryanw430 · 2009-02-01 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Give the money to laid off workers instead? Why don't we give the money to the people that actually work because their jobs are truly necessary for society to function?
54. Re:Time to tighten our belts by DavidShor · 2009-02-01 05:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "Really do you want our corrupt government to decide more loosers and winners? I'd rather decide the loosers and winners with my dollars than having the government take them and decide for me."
  Eh, that sound-byte breaks down when under the second scenario, you don't have any dollars to decide with. You need some sort of policy measure that addresses the breakdown in aggregate demand. Otherwise, you've got nothing but old slogans.
55. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  roads start falling apart, criminals realize the police can't afford bullets ...
  If the US government were 1/10 the size it is today, measured both in revenue and power over the people, they would still have more than enough to fund every one of your considerations.
  I don't think you quite grasp the sheer enormity of the US government. We are talking about the largest, most powerful superpower government in history, and yet that government is still failing to live up to the age-old promise of centralized power on multiple levels.
  Clearly, lack of revenue is not the problem.
56. Re:Time to tighten our belts by plasmacutter · 2009-02-01 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  I had that thought too. If we're going to give money to individuals at all, it should be to their debts (homes, student loans, etc.). And it should go to those who have a track record of working hard, but just ran into tough times beyond their abilities. It still helps them, without the temptation to waste money on non-essentials. If we're going to spend our grand-children and great grand-children's tax dollars, we owe it to them to at least do something intelligent with the money.
  you mean like engaging in massive military spending, creating whole new departments of the government double the size of existing departments to do the exact same job, only much worse, waging endless wars in the middle east, and, give huge tax cuts to the wealthy?
  How about we close the DHS, cut military spending by 10%, and use that money to introduce a universal healthcare solution (that does NOT have to mean putting private insurance out of business either)
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
57. Re:Time to tighten our belts by wellingj · 2009-02-01 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  So this disease is nothing more than the cost meeting the supply and demand function of classical economics. Don't you think exploding prices is more an effect of inflation?
  
  --
  Money is the root of all evil?
58. Re:Time to tighten our belts by plasmacutter · 2009-02-01 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  That really is the opposite of what we'd want. If the financial sector was working, then saving would equal investment, which boosts aggregate demand. The idea being that someone pays his debt down, the bank gives it to a business, and the business buys things, and everything works out well.
  But since the financial sector isn't working, so if someone saves, the bank just sits on the money and it disappears. Because of that, a large increase in savings would cause a rather large decrease in aggregate demand, which would causes businesses to close, which causes further decreases in aggregate demand... that process ends at the great depression.
  To prevent that, we want the government to spend their money boosting aggregate demand to compensate. Government spending is one way to do it, but there are limits to how many roads you can build within a couple months. So some money will be given to individuals.
  But the key point, is that the money given to individuals needs to be *spent*, not saved!
  This argument doesn't make sense.
  If you distributed the cash directly to individuals, they would pay down their debts. This would remove the debts from the books of financial institutions, reducing the perception of risk and boosting their reserves. The direct injections into the top are not working because people at the bottom are still in debt and nobody knows how many will default in the deteriorating situation.
  Additionally, injecting cash at the bottom and relieving peoples' debts will help open consumer wallets and free people to re-train or even--if they were smart or lucky before and have little debt--start new enterprises.
  Giving money to huge corporations does nothing to quell uncertainty about consumer demand or credit risk, but does a great job of funding corporate bonuses.
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
59. Re:Time to tighten our belts by wellingj · 2009-02-01 05:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  As it is now, taxes are too low to pay for the government programs that the non-tax paying public seems to really want.
  Fixed that for you.
  
  --
  Money is the root of all evil?
60. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2009-02-01 05:51 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  When I drank 100 coffees in one day, I was able to save all my friends from a fire caused by a cigar.
  
  --
  Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
61. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 05:51 · Score: 0
  
  So tell me, how did the US do without income tax until 1913? Was the family death rate at 50% due to a lack of FDA to make sure they didn't buy poisoned food? Was the prison population more than half its capacity composed of non-violent drug offenders there due to Federal minimum sentencing laws? Was private education non-existent or worse than the complete fail of the 'Hold-all-children-behind' public monopoly?
  By taxing the fuck out of imports/exports, and property/income taxes on a state level -- you do realize that 1913 was only a shift to a Federal level, not something completely new, right?
  
  And while I agree that our prisons are overcrowded with people who shouldn't be there and some aspects of our school system need to be revisited, the simple fact is that more people DID die from food poisoning and industrial contamination, and people really WERE less educated on average 100 years ago. Society and our way of doing things can actually improve from time to time, even if everything about our technology and the global society had stayed exactly the same for the past century, which it obviously hasn't.
62. Re:Time to tighten our belts by plasmacutter · 2009-02-01 05:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  We doesn't the government just not take the money from joe six-pack in the first place? It's not like he would save the extra 10-15%.
  Because you have no paychecks to cut taxes on when you've been laid off or have graduated into a recession and can't find a living wage.
  Tax cuts are just like health savings accounts: they're designed to quell the concerns of those who don't actually need the help while screwing everyone who actually does.
  tax cuts do nothing to restore quality of life to those truly disenfranchised by this economic disaster.
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
63. Re:Time to tighten our belts by blitzkrieg3 · 2009-02-01 05:52 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Why was it so important to give Wall Street $700B, even after it fucked up so badly?
  
  Oh that's right, because they're refusing to loan out money even to reputable companies like GM and Chrysler.
64. Re:Time to tighten our belts by dkleinsc · 2009-02-01 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what has the government ever done for us?
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
65. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Random+Destruction · 2009-02-01 06:01 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Yeah, 'cause our roads are in such great shape now,
  They're paved, aren't they?
  
  the cops are doing a bang-up job,
  At least you have cops
  
  we're producing public-school Einsteins at the rate of E=mc^2
  An energy is not a rate, though I guess you're proving your own point.
  
  and by golly were going to eat to the bottom of this jar of salmonella-laced peanut butter if it kills us.
  Good luck with that. In your world without any taxes you would probably be eating tainted food for real.
  
  --
  :x
66. Re:Time to tighten our belts by DavidShor · 2009-02-01 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't talking about nominal prices. I was talking about relative prices(As in, the amount of corn that needs to be sold in order to support the salary of a teacher). These are unaffected by inflation.
  The point, is that the cost of labor intensive public goods have risen relative dramatically relative to the rest of the economy, mainly due to Baumol's cost disease. And so, government needed to raise taxes in order to pay for them.
  It's not, as libertarians like to believe, that government's scope has increased. It's that the areas under the government scope have become much more expensive.
67. Re:Time to tighten our belts by plasmacutter · 2009-02-01 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  ...but I just know that with one billion dollars you can give 20'000 people 50'000 dollars, each. I'm just asking myself whether rerouting such money directly into the pockets of those laid off wouldn't make more sense. Give them the opportunity to not worry too much for a year, get some additional education and try elsewhere.
  Wouldn't it be better if the government didn't to take half of people's money in the first place?
  
  I happily accept your idea of preserving or restoring the quality of life being destroyed in this recession by making sure I receive 100% of the zero dollars a month I receive from my lost job (or in my case, my nonexistent job as a new college grad).
  
  Your average homeowner gets about a third of his income lopped off in withholding, then another chunk in sales taxes and property taxes take the rest. How great would it be if everyone's earnings were suddenly doubled?
  you mean the earnings of those who are not feeling the recession anyway? That's nice, what about the rest?
  
  Even when they have the best of intentions you can't rely on government to do the right thing
  Ah, but we can rely on corporations to restore the jobs they cut in the US without government intervention? It's been said elsewhere in this thread "business is not a charity". I recently read a report (ironically often cited by people claiming libertarian approaches of ignoring or allowing offshoring are good) which shows that only 1/3 of jobs created in times of growth are now created in the US. Does the phrase "Jobless Recovery" ring a bell?
  
  look at both of the trillion dollar bailout packages: pure pork and waste.
  This is your opinion, and a very ironic statement given your next few thoughts.
  
  The process of government is inevitably biased [see?] by the actions of special interests, self interest of the politicians and plain old human stupidity.
  There's a massive recession, and while the wealthy may control campaign funds they still only have one vote. Guess who holds more sway now, and guess which usual suspects are now firmly within the public ire.
  This does not guarantee a lack of corruption in the slightest, but the alternative is to just have more of "the market sorting it out".
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
68. Re:Time to tighten our belts by dwarg · 2009-02-01 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  You're mistaking the subject of the transaction. The politician isn't giving away his own money, he's giving away other people's money in the name of buying votes. The size of the loss in monetary terms is irrelevant because he can blame it on the company later if he has to.
  Not that I think it's really that calculated all the time. I try not to blame corruption or conspiracy when simple incompetence will suffice.
  That said, in your analogy you're using the subjects own money and they care about the monetary return on investment--which it isn't and they don't. And I say all this as a liberal.
69. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Skreems · 2009-02-01 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  There's plenty of efficiency to be gained, sure. But the OP was suggesting that we remove all taxes of any kind, effectively ending the government except as a system to generate rules that they would have no facility to enforce.
  
  These discussions always seem to come down to the same thing. Someone starts off with "the government should keep their hands off my money", completely ignoring the fact that a lot of the reason they're in a position to earn that money and have the lifestyle they have is based on the infrastructure maintained by the government. Other people point this out, it goes back and forth for a while, and in the end it turns out that not only does the libertarian in the conversation consider himself entirely self-made and beholden to nobody, but he really has no concept of the fact that government and society are one and the same. So what this kind of "government is useless" thing really means is "I don't want to cooperate because I'm convinced that I'm self-sufficient and better than everyone".
  
  --
  Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
  The Urban Hippie
70. Re:Time to tighten our belts by drsquare · 2009-02-01 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  How great would it be if everyone's earnings were suddenly doubled?
  Great, until five seconds later when the prices for everything double. Then you have to find money for education, a private protection racket to protect you, private fire insurance, and so on and so forth.
  Of course all this assumes you have a job at all, as the cuts in public transport spending mean the roads are grid-locked with cars so no-one can actually get anywhere. Even if you do get to work, your job will be have been taken by cheap immigrants as there's no-one to keep them out. Your garbage won't be collected, you most and likely wouldn't have very reliable or cheap electricity, plumbing or gas.
  And of course the resultant anarchy that comes from millions of people on welfare suddenly realising they have a choice between stealing or starving to death means crime will go through the roof, and your insurance premiums will sky-rocket. You could send all the criminals to jail, except all the jails have shut down through lack of funding, and there's no-one to catch them anyway.
  But at least the lower taxes mean you have more money to repair your house when it's looted and burnt to the ground.
  
  Even when they have the best of intentions you can't rely on government to do the right thing - look at both of the trillion dollar bailout packages: pure pork and waste.
  Even when they have the best of intentions you can't rely on people to do the right thing. Give them the money and they'd just spend it on Chinese-made crap, further increasing the trade deficit.
  Of course cancelling public education will mean that only the rich are educated and capable of getting a job in the first place, everyone else will just live on the streets or in sweatshops earning $2 a week making goods for the rich. Eventually there'll either be a violent revolution by the oppressed to overthrow the government, or some smart guy might say 'hey, why don't we use taxes to eradicate our crippling poverty and inequality' and given another fifty years or so we might be back where we are today.
71. Re:Time to tighten our belts by drsquare · 2009-02-01 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  I see government AS the problem, mostly because it's a monopoly, and I am anti-monopoly (pro-choice).
  Yeah, the free market usually knows best. That's why American health care is so cheap and provides so much coverage, as opposed to those socialist countries where health care costs twice as much and leaves millions with no coverage. We should apply that system to all other public services.
  Education for example, instead of funding it publicly, let everyone buy education insurance. Then if they get pregnant, the insurance company pays the school fees, as long as nothing in the small print lets them wriggle out of it. Of course if you have a kid at school and you lose your job, your can't get new education insurance as the child is a pre-existing condition. I can't think of any downsides to huge sections of the population having no access to education at all, none whatsoever...
72. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Ilgaz · 2009-02-01 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Average Joe will exactly do that. Instead of going out to Cinema, he will buy a big screen TV and buy 6 pack beer.
  I kept wondering how come eBay shares gone down because of economic trouble too. The economic crisis is the time you would look to second hand but working stuff at eBay instead of buying new stuff.
73. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Ilgaz · 2009-02-01 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  I have heard that 1929's financial crisis served to IBM as big companies needed to calculate their loans, finance etc. better. I had "citation" too but I forgot where I read it. Their sales went up instead of down.
74. Re:Time to tighten our belts by powerlord · 2009-02-01 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but why would the politicians outside his district make such an idiot decision?
  Because if the politicians outside his district vote for THIS, he'll vote for some bit of politics that affect their district that he couldn't care less about.
  
  --
  This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
75. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  Something that people sometimes forget is that it costs a significant amount of money to keep employees employed (beyond base salary). Numbers I've heard batted around are from $150,000 to $200,000 per employee, if you factor in salary, any bonuses, benefits, retirement contributions, real estate cost, IT costs, etc.
  If I divide that into $45M, I end up with being able to keep 225 and 300 employees for just one year.
76. Re:Time to tighten our belts by mrlibertarian · 2009-02-01 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  But since the financial sector isn't working, so if someone saves, the bank just sits on the money and it disappears.
  
  "Hoarding" is never a problem. Let me explain: When someone receives income, there are three ways he can allocate it: Consumption, investment, or addition to his cash balance. Of course, an addition to his cash balance usually means depositing the money in a bank, but that changes nothing; it merely means that the bank will be presented with those same three choices.
  
  Now, if everyone chooses to add more money to their cash balance, then that increases the demand for money, which causes wages and prices to go down. However, an increased demand for money has nothing to do with the consumption-to-investment ratio. An increased demand for money simply means that people are more willing to do without goods in exchange for money (because they want the protection against uncertainty that money provides). But the demand for money tells us nothing about how much people prefer consumption to investment, and that's what is really important.
  
  The more that people are willing to invest, the greater our productivity will be. However, the only way to increase investment is to decrease consumption. The last thing we want to do right now is to encourage consumption; that's why the government's stimulus plan is such a bad idea.
  
  I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. For some reason, they think that consumption drives the economy. Well, if you found yourself on a deserted island, what would you do? You'd invest as much as possible (e.g. spend time building a raft), and consume whatever fruit and fish you find as slowly as possible, so that your resources would last.
  
  But in the modern economy, people think we should just consume, consume, consume, so that no companies will go out of business. Well, guess what? Businesses are supposed to adapt to consumers, not the other way around! If there is less consumption in certain areas, then businesses should shift out of those areas and into the areas where they can prosper. And it's not as though a decrease in consumption means less people will be employed; businesses can always hire more people by expanding the stages of production (that's where the increased investment comes in). People think that decreased consumption means the end of the world! The reality is that a decrease in consumption is what allows the economy to grow.
77. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  Too bad that with the time-traveling involved, nobody realized you had saved them...
78. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  Q: How much of federal income tax money goes to support roads or schools?
  A: Practically none. That stuff is paid for by state and local taxes.
  Q: About 18% of federal taxes goes to the military, what happens to the rest of it?
  A: It is largely squandered on special interests.
79. Re:Time to tighten our belts by DavidShor · 2009-02-01 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone agrees that we need to transition from consumption to investment.
  But right now, the financial sector simply isn't functioning. There are a million reasons why, coordination issues are a big part of it. And so dumping money into the financial sector won't accomplish anything right now.
  The stimulus is meant to keep everything humming while we make the necessary transitions, so that dislocations don't end up causing too much collateral damage.
80. Re:Time to tighten our belts by couchslug · 2009-02-01 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  If you give a shitload of money to a corporation, it's an economic boost.
  If you give anything to the people, it's Socialism and and an express ticked on the hot rails to Hell.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
81. Re:Time to tighten our belts by salimma · 2009-02-01 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  A solution is obvious -- state governments could own some banks themselves, that can pick up the slack in lending.
  Anyone knows how the financial crisis is working out in Germany, where the Landers (states) have banks? Are there divergent lending patterns between public and private banks?
  
  --
  Michel
  Fedora Project Contribut
82. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  Police waste a lot of time chasing non-violent criminals. If they stopped bothering people smoking marijuana while watching the Superbowl (a "crime" that harms absolutely no one except the smoker), they'd have LOTS of resources to go after the actual thieves and murderers.
  Of which the worst and most dangerous disguise themselves in white collars and ties, further wrapped in sociopath corporations who are, basically, their bosses. How is that going to work? Go back to the blue pill my friend. It'll be much easier for us if we just cooperate.
83. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  The infrastructure and defense costs could be easily covered by import tariffs. Instead, we're spending all kinds of money on special interests, indoctrinating public school (there shouldn't even be public schools - home school your kids or choose a private school; your kids will be better off ANYHOW) students in islam, paying for free abortions for folks who either can't keep their legs closed or won't spring for a $1.00 (or are they $2.00? I dunno) condom, art grants, grants studying the mating rituals of armadillos, sending tax money to about 100 other countries to help bail them out of their problems while ignoring our own economic woes, fighting a futile battle against drugs, and so forth.
84. Re:Time to tighten our belts by lordSaurontheGreat · 2009-02-01 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  government giving international corporations like IBM money
  My home town used to be the international headquarters of PeopleSoft - before Oracle bought them out. Because they were in our town, they got our taxes.
  The fat did flow! The employment was high! It was good for us... I'm not sure how it worked out for PeopleSoft though.
  
  --
  Consider yourself spoken to.
85. Re:Time to tighten our belts by commodore64_love · 2009-02-01 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  >>>The politician isn't giving away his own money, he's giving away other people's money in the name of buying votes.
  So he's worse than an idiot.
  He's a thief. (Although I still think that's giving more intelligence than they actually have.)
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
86. Re:Time to tighten our belts by commodore64_love · 2009-02-01 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  >>>That's why American health care is so cheap and provides so much coverage, as opposed to those socialist countries where health care costs twice as much
  Hey we agree! :-) I also want to add that a lot of Canadian and EU patients are being turned away by Government Hospitals, because politicians have decided cutting expenses is more-important. They are false-calling it "universal" even though it clearly is not.
  Anyway...
  I just recently had a pacemaker installed; $8000 in cash (okay I used a Visa, but it will be paid immediately, so same difference). That's a heck of a lot cheaper than the cost of ~$10,000/year gov't health tax over fifty years time. It's almost-always cheaper to just pay your bills with cash as the expenses occur, rather than rely on insurance companies (greedy) or government (corrupt; wasteful). Rely on yourself.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
87. Re:Time to tighten our belts by commodore64_love · 2009-02-01 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  >>>So, then music is cut, art is cut, any sport is cut.
  Yeah that's tragic. Because without government school, kids would not get ANY exposure to music, or art, or sports. (shrug). Excuse me. I and my kids are going to watch the Super Bowl halftime show; it's supposed to be really artistic this year with live music! But yeah I agree kids don't get enough exposure to sports, art, or music. /end sarcasm
  Here's a thought: Why don't we make schools about things kids DON'T see on television or the radio - like Reading, Writing, and Math. Gosh. What a concept. ;-)
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
88. Re:Time to tighten our belts by rho · 2009-02-01 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  You're very strange.
  Anyway, the point was that just because the government does it that does not mean that they are the best ones to do it. Nor does it mean that lacking the government's involvement that it won't get done. It does mean, however, that once the government starts doing it it's pretty hard to get them to stop--even if they're doing a shit job of it. So citizens would be wise to consider carefully before they turn things over to an unelected bureaucracy.
  Not that citizens ever do. I'm just saying they should.
  
  --
  Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
89. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 09:09 · Score: 0
  
  Don't give people cash. Give them coupons or vouchers good for a big discount on American-made products. A GM car, or a house. Put the person's name on the coupon and require ID to use it, so he can't sell it.
90. Re:Time to tighten our belts by MadMidnightBomber · 2009-02-01 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Silvio Berlusconi is a fuckwit - not "enlightened" by any stretch of the imagination.
  
  --
  "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
91. Re:Time to tighten our belts by penix1 · 2009-02-01 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Who ever said it was important to give any company a handout loan or otherwise? I sure didn't. Show me a company that is too big to fail and I'll show you a company that needs to be split up in a bankruptcy court. Had these companies, every one of them, been forced into bankruptcy court, we wouldn't see things like $18 Bn in executive bonuses or other company acquisitions. Most of the bailout money went to the acquisition of competing banks making a "too big to fail" company even bigger. I say a pox on all their houses...
  
  --
  This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
92. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Alinabi · 2009-02-01 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  Funny, the protectionist measures described in the article you point to were enacted by Northern League, a party of extreme right wing nut jobs, the complete opposite of the "socialist" image of Europe you like to paint in the US
  
  --
  "You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them." [Condoleezza Rice]
93. Re:Time to tighten our belts by plasmacutter · 2009-02-01 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  As it is now, taxes are too low to pay for the government programs that the corporations seem to really want.
  Fixed that for you.
  Fixed that for you
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
94. Re:Time to tighten our belts by dryeo · 2009-02-01 09:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Hey we agree! :-) I also want to add that a lot of Canadian and EU patients are being turned away by Government Hospitals, because politicians have decided cutting expenses is more-important. They are false-calling it "universal" even though it clearly is not.
  Where do you get this information? I haven't heard anything about patients getting turned away from hospitals and that is the kind of thing that would make the news here in Canada.
  Using your pacemaker example. Someone I know recently went to the doctor, was diagnosed that they need a pacemaker now. Less then 12 hours later he had a temporary pacemaker. Couple of weeks later he had a permanent pacemaker installed. Total cost to him, zero dollars.
  We also seem to have less taxes then Americans from what I read here.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
95. Re:Time to tighten our belts by BOFHelsinki · 2009-02-01 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  Just an anecdote in support of your post, back in the first oil crisis days when Chrysler went in deep financial trouble, Lee Iacocca had to fight tooth and nail for months to get Chrysler a Congress backing for a large consolidated loan that effectively saved them.
  
  They paid it back markedly ahead of the schedule.
  
  It's odd that good history like that doesn't count for the bankers. (But I don't know if something negative has happened since. I just read Iacocca's autobiography and actually ended up disliking him personally for his "making lots of money is everything" world view, but I can't help admiring many of his accomplishments at Ford and then Chrysler.)
96. Re:Time to tighten our belts by dryeo · 2009-02-01 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry but authoritarian != far or any, for that matter, right. Fascist and Nazi governments were far left. National SOCIALISM, anyone?
  If you actually looked into it, you would find that once Hitler took over the National Socialist party all the socialists were purged.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
97. Re:Time to tighten our belts by atraintocry · 2009-02-01 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  As opposed to an unelected private organization?
98. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Skreems · 2009-02-01 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  there shouldn't even be public schools - home school your kids or choose a private school; your kids will be better off ANYHOW
  Up to a certain age maybe. Once you hit about high school level, though, the material becomes specialized enough and the benefits of costly equipment to the process become strong enough that it's really not feasible for it to work anymore.
  
  And even that much assumes that you have at least one parent home all the time, and free to pay attention to the kids at least 4 or 5 hours a day which rules out any real job, even remote ones.
  
  I was home schooled until middle school, by the way. And aside from those problems, there really is a socialization benefit to spending those years (12-18) around other kids. The people I knew who home schooled through high school as well turned out apathetic and under-socialized.
  
  --
  Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
  The Urban Hippie
99. Re:Time to tighten our belts by jbengt · 2009-02-01 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  Roads are funded by gasoline taxes . . .
  Around here (Illinois, USA), roads are variously funded by combinations of property taxes, tolls, gas taxes, and income taxes.
  
  Police waste a lot of time chasing non-violent criminals.
  I agree that law enforcement can be wasted on minor vices, but a lot of laws which involve non-violence need to be enforced, such as traffic, fraud, corruption, health codes, etc.
  
  Schools are funded by school taxes, and therefore a cut in income tax would not affect them at all.
  Again, around here, schools are funded by combinations of township property taxes, state lottery, income, and other taxes.
  
  Most government agencies, in my own government experience at the FAA, have 60-65% of workers who sit-around doing nothing all day long, except surfing the net.
  In my limited experience, there is a lot of loafing at private jobs, too, but government is a little more hamstrung by (mostly necessary) laws that are supposed to ensure fairness and reduce corruption.
100. Re:Time to tighten our belts by RzUpAnmsCwrds · 2009-02-01 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  Bitching is easy. But let's examine what's going on.
  All of the roads around here are in drivable condition. I-25 North has seen better days, but it's in good enough shape to get where you need. Local streets are in excellent condition.
  The police did an excellent job responding to the traffic accident I was in. They also arrested a bunch of morons who were dragging their passed-out drunk friend around (and called EMTs to take the friend to the hospital).
  Food is by and large safe. You can buy pretty much any food at the supermarket and be more or less certain that it's safe. Out of 300 million people, how many have died in the last year due to tainted food?
  Our water is clean and flows consistently.
  Our trash is hauled away.
  Our sewage is sanitary and functioning properly.
  Everyone I know at my university went to public school.
101. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 13:30 · Score: 0
  
  So whats with your service and information industry?
  Nobody bought any "services"? And manufacturing was outsourced the last decades?
  Too bad. You had it coming but were to entranced by quick profits and retirement at 35. It was so blindingly obvious it almost hurt. Oh, hi there. The hurt has arrived at your doorstep.
  And sorry, american manufacturing and "durable"? It was you guys that invented and spread "planned obsolecence".
  Eat your own dogfood, land of the "free".
102. Re:Time to tighten our belts by dpilot · 2009-02-01 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  Another comment on tax cuts, but on business tax cuts...
  The point is to "give" (or not take away) business money so they will invest it. But in today's market, the problem is a lack of demand. So ANY business will see that they currently have excess capacity, and there is absolutely no point in investing in equipment - in fact they would generally be stupid to do so. In today's climate, if business got some extra money, the smart thing to do would be to sack it away, reduce debt, or go looking for mergers or acquisitions. Guess what - the "business improvements" of consolidations really mean eliminiating "redundancies", a fancy way of saying that they can cut staff.
  In other words, in the current market, cutting taxes for businesses will make the problem worse by putting more people out of jobs.
  
  --
  The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
103. Re:Time to tighten our belts by FatherOfONe · 2009-02-01 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  It was wrong for the government to decide to give any company OUR money. It was equally wrong for the government to setup a "Government Sponsored Entity" that guaranteed loans to low income people (read minorities). So Freddy and Fanny went along and basically forced other banks to do the same thing because they would be out of business if they didn't. The housing market collapsed and the rest is history. Fanny and Freddy are so large now that they have a scary control over a lot of Democrats and a few Republicans.
  Two main points here.
  1. We should NEVER have any government sponsored entities. We didn't and don't need oversight on these companies... We need them shut down. Bush and the majority of Democrats who voted for this bailout were idiots (majority of Republicans voted against it).
  2. If the government has less of "our" money they can do less stupid stuff like this. Imagine if you will a balanced budget amendment and a true flat tax. Things would change.... not the type of change the new "porkulous" bill that is close to passing will cause. I do find it a bit odd that the Democrats are all mad at the Republicans for not voting for this bill. Last time I checked it didn't matter what the Republicans did, the Democrats control everything. Weird... If this socialist bill is so freaking good then what is the problem. Just take up the vote and get it signed.
  Lastly, I personally wanted (and expect) GM and or Chrysler to file for bankruptcy soon. They need to, and it will take that to get the unions/upper management to actually hammer out a real deal. The ridiculous pension problem that all three American car companies are saddled with kills them. This will never be addressed if we keep giving them money. By most peoples simple math the pension problem of GM is costing them around $2,500 - $3,500 a car. If they could remove that problem and had the salary people take a serious pay cut along with the union being destroyed; the average GM car would be far more competitive against their competition. Please note that I never said that American cars are "junk" or bad in any way. I think the recent cars are great, but just overpriced for what they have to compete against.
  
  --
  The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
104. Re:Time to tighten our belts by wellingj · 2009-02-01 14:55 · Score: 1
  
  I think both are true, which is why I don't approve of big government. When government is large, I'm either ruled by the mob, or ruled by the large corporations. Either is an affront to my individual liberty.
  
  --
  Money is the root of all evil?
105. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Mad+Merlin · 2009-02-01 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, because government is 100% efficient.
  Having worked for a government institution before, I'd say the government could get just as much done with 10% of its current funding, and I'd certainly appreciate having 90% less of my income stolen from me in the form of taxes.
  
  --
  Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
106. Re:Time to tighten our belts by rtb61 · 2009-02-01 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  It is to cut off the downward spiral. As people buy less, companies need to produce less hence they lay off unneeded staff, those now out of work staff of course substantially cut back on their spending, which means that companies selling to them need to produce less and naturally enough sack more staff etc. Countries with a substantive and effective social welfare have a automatic brake upon that downward spiral to slow it down and keep the system ticking over until it recovers. With out a social welfare net, you either go the downward spiral, with major increases in crime and, destructive civil unrest or indulge in corporate welfare which turns out to be far more expensive, as it doesn't just have to supply the basic essentials upon a reasonable basis but actually has to still feed the greed and ego of corporate executives.
  So keeping a greater than $10,000,000.00 salary of a CEO propped up plus all the other associated costs of making possible, works out to be a whole lot of minimum wage salaries $6.55 per hour, or $13,624 per year, 734 of them and that is as an absolute minimum. Now add in all those other corporate executives all sucking up way more than the minimum wage and that pays for all the social welfare (the fundamental goals of which is to reduce crime and suffering and to help stabilise an economy) you will ever need.
  So social welfare is far cheaper than corporate welfare but there are a whole bunch of greedy corporate executives and thousands of lobbyists who will do everything they can top keep the system that strangely enough profits them personally at everybody else's expense, locked in place.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
107. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Skreems · 2009-02-01 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  Do you have, like, ANY numbers to back that up?
  
  --
  Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
  The Urban Hippie
108. Re:Time to tighten our belts by falconwolf · 2009-02-01 16:24 · Score: 1
  
  If the government has less of "our" money they can do less stupid stuff like this. Imagine if you will a balanced budget amendment and a true flat tax.
  I agree with smaller government, but disagree with a balanced budget. If by flat tax what is meant is an income tax, I disagree with that as well. Income shouldn't be taxed period. Instead user fees and taxes should be used instead. A fuel tax should pay for roads for instance. The more you drive and use the roads the more you pay.
  The ridiculous pension problem that all three American car companies are saddled with kills them.
  The auto companies signed contracts, and just as I would be required to honour a contract I signed so should they. If these businesses had went through bankruptcy then the union could have been forced to renegotiate the terms of their contracts.
  Please note that I never said that American cars are "junk" or bad in any way.
  I will say that they are not what people are willing to buy. This isn't the first tyme it happened. In the '70s US auto makers were told they had to build fuel efficient vehicles but they didn't so Japanese makers ate their lunch during and after the oil crisis.
  Falcon
  
  --
  Should there be a Law?
109. Re:Time to tighten our belts by falconwolf · 2009-02-01 16:47 · Score: 1
  
  How about we close the DHS, cut military spending by 10%, and use that money to introduce a universal healthcare solution (that does NOT have to mean putting private insurance out of business either)
  I agree except we already have universal healthcare through different programs. What we really need is a free market in health care, and no we do not have one, with a safety net for those who slip through.
  Falcon
  
  --
  Should there be a Law?
110. Re:Time to tighten our belts by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-02-01 17:05 · Score: 1
  
  We also seem to have less taxes then Americans from what I read here.
  Depends on where in America, and where in Canada. Sales tax is higher here in BC than it is across the border in WA, for example. But social taxes (healthcare etc) are lower. The overall effect obviously depends on how much you buy - I haven't tried to calculate the precise difference for myself, yet.
111. Re:Time to tighten our belts by falconwolf · 2009-02-01 17:12 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. For some reason, they think that consumption drives the economy
  Because in the modern world consumption does drive the economy. A subsistence farmer who grows enough of his or own food is considered poor even though there's shelter, food, and medical care. In economics only when said farmer has enough to sell and uses the money to consume things is he not considered poor.
  Falcon
  
  --
  Should there be a Law?
112. Re:Time to tighten our belts by demachina · 2009-02-01 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  "So Freddy and Fanny went along and basically forced other banks to do the same thing because they would be out of business if they didn't"
  As best I recall it was the other way around, CountryWide, Golden West, Ditech and WaMu are the ones that really pioneered sub prime lending. Fanny and Freddy didn't really get in to it until they saw everyone else doing it and their execs started to get get greedy for the profits the private mortgage companies were making on sub prime. I think your interpretation is revisionits. No one "forced" banks in to subprime lending. They all did it because it was very lucrative as long as housing prices always went up. The private brokers made a lot of money on sub prime lending, since they interest rates are inherently high, and they used a lot of unscrupulous teaser rates to sucker people in to taking ARM's that ballooned a couple years later. Those ballooning ARM's would have made the mortgage backed security holders very rich if only people could have afforded to pay them, and the housing market hadn't crashed.
  I was pretty dismayed to see a week or two ago the number two man at CountryWide, along with some other CountryWide execs, have created a new company called PennyMac and are buying up toxic mortgages for like 30 cents on the dollarsm, pennys on the dollar... get it, I think from a failed bank, and the guy could barely contain his glee with his new business. There is irony that execs that were at the center of creating toxic mortgages and destroying our economy are going to profit again buying the toxic assets they created at distressed prices and selling them later when they recover.
  
  --
  @de_machina
113. Re:Time to tighten our belts by falconwolf · 2009-02-01 18:11 · Score: 1
  
  "School taxes"? Where do you pay "school taxes"? Money for schools comes from state (and to a lesser and more indirect extent, federal) income taxes.
  Property tax pays for schools and education.
  Falcon
  
  --
  Should there be a Law?
114. Re:Time to tighten our belts by falconwolf · 2009-02-01 18:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, the free market usually knows best. That's why American health care is so cheap and provides so much coverage
  What freemarket? There is no freemarket in health care.
  Falcon
  
  --
  Should there be a Law?
115. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Narcogen · 2009-02-01 18:40 · Score: 1
  
  Oh that's right, because they're refusing to loan out money even to reputable companies like GM and Chrysler.
  Anyone familiar with Chrysler's reputation should be wary of giving them money. The real question is, why is the government giving money to companies that banks see as being bad risks?
116. Re:Time to tighten our belts by commodore64_love · 2009-02-01 19:35 · Score: 1
  
  >>>Where do you get this information? I haven't heard anything about patients getting turned away from hospitals and that is the kind of thing that would make the news here in Canada.
  Perhaps Canadian politicians are bribing corporations to keep quiet? (shrug). Canadian Tom Green was turned-away when he had testicular cancer, thereby forcing him to U.S. hospitals to get cured. And over in the UK and France, I've been reading multiple articles about patients being turned-away by government officials. Or, if they do get accepted, they are forced to leave the same-day before they have properly recovered from their surgery, in order to reduce costs.
  One advantage of paying cash in the U.S. is that YOU control your own healthcare and YOU decide when you want to leave the hospital, instead of some cold-hearted politician trying to trim his budget.
  Do some research. Educated yourself. Read the stories coming in from Europe's government hospitals. If the Canadian press is being censored, then read stories from the U.S. press about Canada. The negatives of politician-controlled healthcare (or retirement, aka social security) far outweigh the benefits.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
117. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 19:39 · Score: 0
  
  Money is fungible.
  If taxes are lower, people will drive a little more.
  Agree on the drug point. It is beyond stupid at this point.
  School taxes usually == property taxes in my state. So lower taxes means people buy bigger houses or bid up existing houses == more property taxes.
  Laying off 50% of 30% of the economy would probably be pretty terrible. Also, the surfing and any other wasted productivity may be a lot harder to get than you think. Your remaining workers burn out when faced with 8 hour a day no real break jobs where every crisis drives them to 50 hours a week until it is resolved. When you lose your slack, you lose the capacity to deal with anything out of the normal.
118. Re:Time to tighten our belts by commodore64_love · 2009-02-01 19:39 · Score: 1
  
  >>>Total cost to him, zero dollars.
  FALSE. Your friend pays taxes doesn't he? Yes. Then he paid the cost of the pacemaker via taxation, and he paid a LOT more than what I paid, once you add-up all the weekly contributions. Somewhere around 500,000 dollars over a lifetime of work. Whereas I only paid 8000.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
119. Re:Time to tighten our belts by falconwolf · 2009-02-01 19:43 · Score: 1
  
  Health Care, Defense, Social Security, and interest on our debt make up literally 90% of the federal budget. Unless someone is to propose deep cuts in these programs, any populist moaning on taxes strikes me as a bit annoying.
  I have before and will here and now propose it. Allow the freemarket operate in health care. Bring back almost if not all of the troops stationed overseas and close those bases. Stop griping about "illegal aliens" and let them legally work. Then deduce Social Security taxes from their pay, without a possibility to collect Social Security this will shore up SS. Allow citizens to put aside some of their pay into a investment portfolio. With a reduction in government, less will be spent, then the National Debt can reduced.
  From what I can tell, the TARP program was pretty efficient in what it aimed to do: Injecting capital into banks in exchange for equity.
  No, TARP, Troubled Assets Relief Program, which as it's name implies, was meant to buy up troubled assets so bank would start to lend money again. Instead most of the money was simply given to banks, those banks aren't lending money instead their using the money to buy other banks. If you think it was bad when the banks started failing wait until instead of a bunch of banks there's only a couple of humongous banks.
  And the stimulus package, while it hasn't gone through congress yet, seems to be pretty clean. Looking through the big ticket line items, everything in it seems to do what it's supposed to: Raise aggregate demand by utilizing under-utilized resources in the economy.
  Oh really? You had enough tyme to read the 647 pages in the House version?
  Falcon
  
  --
  Should there be a Law?
120. Re:Time to tighten our belts by commodore64_love · 2009-02-01 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  >>>Around here (Illinois, USA), roads are variously funded by combinations of property taxes, tolls, gas taxes, and income taxes.
  No. Last year Illinois collected 14 million in gasoline taxes. They spent 11.5 million on their roads department, therefore the roads were wholly-and-completely funded by the gasoline tax. (I don't know what they did with the surplus; perhaps it was used to subsidize subways, as is the case in Maryland.)
  In fact, Illinois is in the top 10 states with the highest gas tax.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
121. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 20:34 · Score: 0
  
  And over in the UK and France, I've been reading multiple articles about patients being turned-away by government officials. Or, if they do get accepted, they are forced to leave the same-day before they have properly recovered from their surgery, in order to reduce costs. One advantage of paying cash in the U.S. is that YOU control your own healthcare and YOU decide when you want to leave the hospital, instead of some cold-hearted politician trying to trim his budget.
  I don't know about UK but that never happens here in France, you might want to get your facts straight. Sure we have issues, mainly lack of personnel in the public health care sector, but not your story of "sorry sir we refuse to treat the disease you have" and neither the one about "leave the place before you have recovered". And I'm speaking as someone who lives in the damn place and has had his fair share of medical troubles over the years in one of the most crowded area.
  
  Also if you have the money nobody stops you to go to a private clinic.
122. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 20:37 · Score: 0
  
  http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=looser
123. Re:Time to tighten our belts by falconwolf · 2009-02-01 20:37 · Score: 1
  
  How great would it be if everyone's earnings were suddenly doubled?
  Great, until five seconds later when the prices for everything double. Then you have to find money for education, a private protection racket to protect you, private fire insurance, and so on and so forth.
  Education can and is paid for with property tax. So is police and the fire department. As for fire insurance, that's part of home owner's insurance and those who have a mortgage are required to pay for it.
  cuts in public transport spending mean the roads are grid-locked with cars so no-one can actually get anywhere.
  Road should be paid for with a tax on fuel, the more you drive the more you pay. Property tax can also help.
  your job will be have been taken by cheap immigrants as there's no-one to keep them out.
  Immigrants are more likely to start their own businesses and thus create jobs than native born people.
  Your garbage won't be collected
  Garbage collection is paid for by property tax not income tax.
  wouldn't have very reliable or cheap electricity
  I'd rather have my own PV generated power manufactured by those immigrants. One of those immigrants is Sergey Brin, a cofounder of Google. I bet Google created thousands of jobs.
  And of course the resultant anarchy that comes from millions of people on welfare
  Lower taxes will create more jobs thus reducing the number of people on welfare.
  You could send all the criminals to jail
  With the world's largest prison population about half of the people in prison in the US are there for nonviolent drug offenses because of the War on Drugs. If drugs were legal those people would not only not be locked up but they'd be working and paying taxes.
  cancelling public education
  As has been said a number of tymes, education is paid for with property tax. And more and more people are homeschooling their children.
  Falcon
  
  --
  Should there be a Law?
124. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Hognoxious · 2009-02-01 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  If the US isn't up to your standards, you could try Somalia. Or Zimbabwe.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
125. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Reservoir+Penguin · 2009-02-02 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  And the reason any of this cannot be offered by a private company?
  
  --
  US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
126. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 01:43 · Score: 0
  
  Are you sure the Weber was made in USA ? Weber recently came out with a 'budget' line made in China.
127. Re:Time to tighten our belts by flyingfsck · 2009-02-02 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  Why? Cause they didn't have enough money to pay out their bonuses.
  
  --
  Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
128. Re:Time to tighten our belts by EastCoastSurfer · 2009-02-02 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  My local coffee shop closed down you insensitive clod!
129. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 03:34 · Score: 0
  
  Since when were GM and Chrysler reputable?
130. Re:Time to tighten our belts by DavidShor · 2009-02-02 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  "Allow the freemarket operate in health care."
  There are a couple of reasons why I don't think you'll see a functioning free-market health-care system.
  1) The cost of catastrophic care is high enough that people will need insurance.
  2) Insurance doesn't work very well in the free market due to game theoretic reasons. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry .
  3) Doctors in certain specialties have essentially monopolies in their local areas, forcing their salaries to absurd levels. Without monospony power from a single payer, prices will always be above the social optimum.
  4) Most importantly, society is not going to let anyone die from lack of healthcare. And so, many people will free-ride off of this and not get health insurance.
  5) The demand functions really are pathological here. People are willing to pay anything not to die. I doubt the general welfare theorem holds.
  Those are some reasons why I think a France-style healthcare system would be cheaper and provide better heath-outcomes then a perfectly free-market one.
  "Instead most of the money was simply given to banks, those banks aren't lending money instead their using the money to buy other banks."
  No, it was given in exchange for equity, as I said...
  "Oh really? You had enough tyme to read the 647 pages in the House version?"
  No, that's why I said " Looking through the big ticket line items". If you've looked at it in greater detail and have any complaints, voice them...
131. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Shotgun · 2009-02-02 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  I think the proper term you're looking for is "looter".
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
132. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Andy+Dodd · 2009-02-02 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  We'll have to see on that... Keep in mind this isn't the first time a United States automaker has received a government bailout in the form of a loan.
  That said, I have somewhat less confidence that Ford, GM, and Chrysler will be able to use that loan wisely (as opposed to the amazing job Iacocca did at turning around Chrysler using a government loan - IIRC that loan was repaid by Chrysler far earlier than required/expected.)
  
  --
  retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
133. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Andy+Dodd · 2009-02-02 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm, I would have to read his book, and maybe the tone is different from reality, but Iacocca has donated a lot of money to diabetes research and has also convinced others to do the same.
  
  --
  retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
134. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  Are you retarded? Cut taxes and people have more money to spend. Businesses have more money to spend. So, people buy more products which helps business. Businesses have more money from increased sales and lower taxes, so they expand and hire more employees.
  Is it really that difficult?
  Or is it better to allow the government to take our money, and pick and choose who gets help and who doesn't? So, THEY decide which businesses fail and which one's succeed? What's to stop the government from stealing money from businesses that don't play ball, and giving it to those that do? How can you not see the problem with this??
135. Re:Time to tighten our belts by scot4875 · 2009-02-02 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  So, $10,000/yr over 50 years is $500k. Those are some scary numbers.
  However, they're also pulled out of your ass, unless you care to cite a source. So give a link so I can go "educated myself".
  (Also, do you *honestly* believe that everyone in Canada pays $10,000/yr in taxes JUST for healthcare? Surely even you can see how absurd that is.)
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
136. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2009-02-02 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  Informative? INFORMATIVE???? What non-Futurama watching person modded this informative?
  
  --
  Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
137. Re:Time to tighten our belts by Sean0michael · 2009-02-02 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  You need some sort of policy measure that addresses the breakdown in aggregate demand. Otherwise, you've got nothing but old slogans.
  You cannot address aggregate demand through government spending what the people don't have. It the money is simply printed to boost spending, this creates inflation and devalues the dollar. For every dollar that is created, every dollar buys less than it could before. Prices go up, but wages have not, so everything becomes less affordable -- except for those who receive the stimulus. Everyone else is just that much poorer collectively.
  
  If the banks are hoarding cash, then the problem isn't with aggregate demand, but liquidity and debt. The bank has every incentive to put that money to good use and make more money for the bank. If sitting on that cash is the best use they have for it, then the problem is debt and liquidity. Lets not make the debt problem worse by creating even more. We've tried Keynesian stimulus since WWII, and it has never fixed our problems (just look at the record deficits and national debt). Yet we always turn to it as a solution. Did we ever stop to think that this may actually be the problem?
  
  --
  Funtime Candy Wow! - my plan for eventually conquering Japan.
138. Re:Time to tighten our belts by againjj · 2009-02-02 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease
139. Re:Time to tighten our belts by plasmacutter · 2009-02-02 15:18 · Score: 1
  
  Are you retarded? Cut taxes and people have more money to spend. Businesses have more money to spend. So, people buy more products which helps business. Businesses have more money from increased sales and lower taxes, so they expand and hire more employees.
  someone didn't learn geography.
  People who live across the pacific are not americans.
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
140. Re:Time to tighten our belts by DavidShor · 2009-02-03 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  Good for you. But the US spends FAR more on health-care(Even when you wake away government spending), then literally every other country in the world. Meanwhile, the people in other countries seem to be quite a bit healthier...
Kinda makes you wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 22:54 · Score: 0

Kinda makes you wonder why Apple didn't stick with IBM. Tsk. Nobody ever accused Steve of the smart business decisions.
try reading the article from earlier this year by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 22:55 · Score: -1, Offtopic

What part of no lay offs in 2008 do you not understand? Fing douche bags on slashdot
sharks circling by timmarhy · 2009-01-31 22:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

this is why using tax payers money to solve private businesses problems is never right. at most issue low interest short term loans to ease cash flow issues. never just wholesale billion dollar give aways because it'll slide right into the CEO's and exec's pockets.

--
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
1. Re:sharks circling by giorgiofr · 2009-02-01 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  this is why using tax payers money to do anything is never right.
  Fixed that for you
  
  --
  Global warming is a cube.
2. Re:sharks circling by commodore64_love · 2009-02-01 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Bzzzz.
  Spending taxpayer dollars for tasks that benefit ALL the people are legitimate. For example, providing a navy to guard the shores from invasion benefits all citizens. Providing mail service benefits all citizens. (Hence the phrase "for the common welfare" meaning "everyone's welfare", not just a select few. Nobody is excluded.)
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
3. Re:sharks circling by DavidShor · 2009-02-01 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure that nearly everything we've done involved either loans or cash-equity swaps. I'm not aware of any cash giveaways.
4. Re:sharks circling by giorgiofr · 2009-02-01 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Bzzzz.
  Spending taxpayer dollars for tasks that benefit ALL the people are legitimate.
  Correct, except you left out that there exists no circumstance where ALL the people benefit from said spending. And if there were, the people would still be better served by private companies doing the gov't's job better, faster and cheaper. Finally, if what you say were true, then there would be no need to do any gov't regulated spending - people would still be able to pay for such oh-so-necessary and loved-by-all services by themselves. The very fact that you need to force people to do so, and in a very unequal way to boot, proves your concept wrong.
  
  --
  Global warming is a cube.
5. Re:sharks circling by drsquare · 2009-02-01 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  But then lending money is pretty pointless if you're not obligating them to benefit the people with it. Like bailing out the banks so they can keep lending, then watching healthy businesses with full order-books going under because they can't get the credit to fulfil their orders, as the banks would rather pocket the cash.
6. Re:sharks circling by commodore64_love · 2009-02-01 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  >>>there exists no circumstance where ALL the people benefit from said spending.
  I listed an obvious example: The Navy. When the British tried to invade our soil in 1812 to 1814, it wasn't just my ancestors' home or your ancestors' home the navy protected. They protected ALL American homes, regardless if the home was in Ohio, or Texas, or Maryland.
  So your statement "no" circumstance is incorrect.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
7. Re:sharks circling by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 13:03 · Score: 0
  
  WTF are you on about? In 1812, *AMERICA* invaded Canada. Not the other way around. Nice revisionist history there.
  You guys were the aggressors.
  That's why we had to come down there and burn the White House.
  Don't make us do it again.
8. Re:sharks circling by giorgiofr · 2009-02-02 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  What if I actually wanted invaders to succeed? Besides, you're skipping over the other points.
  
  --
  Global warming is a cube.
Sam steps up... by Goffee71 · 2009-01-31 22:56 · Score: 5, Funny

...to the pork barrel highboard, his company has been making billons for decades, but thinks it can screw some more in 'this time of need'.

He steps over the bodies of the fallen, leaps into the air and does a perfect belly flop into the barrel, with a belly laugh for effect - he'll get good style marks for that.

Sixes from five of the judges,only a 5.7 from China and billions for a wealthy corporation! Sam's gotta be pleased with that result.

--
If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
1. Re:Sam steps up... by commodore64_love · 2009-02-01 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately for Sam an angry citizen in L.A. has decided to exercise his second amendment rights and kill the tyrant who stole billions in taxpayer dollars.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
IBM has never been good at hiding the bodies by damburger · 2009-01-31 22:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

Last time they left bodies in their wake, the Allies found most of them...

--
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
1. Re:IBM has never been good at hiding the bodies by SolidAltar · 2009-01-31 23:02 · Score: 1
  
  One of the most hardcore insults I've ever read on Slashdot.
2. Re:IBM has never been good at hiding the bodies by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 23:22 · Score: 0
  
  +1 would read again
Some background on the parent comment by BadAnalogyGuy · 2009-01-31 23:07 · Score: 5, Informative

http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/
1. Re:Some background on the parent comment by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 23:10 · Score: 0
  
  Also worth mentioning
  IBM made weaponry
2. Re:Some background on the parent comment by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 00:18 · Score: 2
  
  But IBM supports Linux, so all is forgiven.
3. Re:Some background on the parent comment by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  Is this discussion long enough to say "Hitler"?
4. Re:Some background on the parent comment by yttrstein · 2009-02-01 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  You know, just about every company that did business in europe during WWII (IBM, Leica, Volkswagen, etc) has the same history. So really you're talking about any international company that existed before 1945 and still exists now. I fail to see how it's relevant.
5. Re:Some background on the parent comment by rolnhgr · 2009-02-01 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  But IBM supports Linux, so all is forgiven.
  I've worked with IBM hardware for over 25 years. It's kept a roof over my head and food in my belly, but involvement in the Holocaust can not be forgiven. While I've not read the book (it's on my list now), all companies and people supplying goods, services, or "just following orders" carry the guilt. We are talking about 6 million people here. What was their crime? Being Jewish? Consider what was stolen from the world. What medical discoveries are still decades away? How much more and better technology could we have had? The world can never forget.
6. Re:Some background on the parent comment by gtbritishskull · 2009-02-01 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  It seems easy for you to be magnanimous about the holocaust. But, did you live through it? What about other atrocities you did live through? Let us look at recent events. All those people dying in gaza by Israelis. Should all companies that do any business with Israel be blamed as well? Should countries that give support (the Palestinians were probably killed with US weapons)? What about the Iraq war? How many people died there? Should any companies that did business with the United States be blamed? Are you American? If you are, you definitely are to blame for everything that your government does (because a representative government is representing you in all of their actions). I am an American and I feel very guilty. It seems easy for you to judge other people for things that happened a long time ago, but ignore the parallels with the world today.
7. Re:Some background on the parent comment by alfs+boner · 2009-02-01 09:16 · Score: -1
  
  I fail to see how it's relevant.
  That's because in addition to being an equivocating, amoral scumfuck, you're also a little dim.
  
  --
  Listen p*ssy. I'm sure your the same homo that posted earlier about alf's boner and you just want to remain anonymous fo
8. Re:Some background on the parent comment by rolnhgr · 2009-02-01 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  Let me answer this way. I'm not magnanimous in any way about the Holocaust. While I didn't live through it, I grew up with kids whose parents survived it. As for those dying in Gaza, stop firing rockets into Israel, and there would be no need to send in troops. How can this be compared to any companies involvement with the Holocaust? Last time I checked, it was defense, not genocide. Yes, I'm an American, and I feel no guilt. Nor have I judged anyone. For the record, I'm Jewish and support our troops in the war on terror. I agree parallels exist, but as always nothing is learned from history. Therefore, I firmly stand by my last sentence. The world can never forget.
9. Re:Some background on the parent comment by leoc · 2009-02-02 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  by any chance do you drive a Ford or Volkswagen? Do you live in the US (a country that did not join the fight against Hitler until it was attacked by Japan many years into the war). Do you own land in the USA? Land that was essentially stolen from the natives who inhabited it before your ancestors arrived? Have you PERSONALLY paid reparations to the native americans who have suffered for hundreds of years as a result of your ancestors actions?
  There is plenty of historical shit to go around if you really want to start flinging. I personally find it hypocritical of people on slashdot to hold IBM up to a standard that they themselves are not willing to live up to.
  
  --
  STFU about slashdot bias.
10. Re:Some background on the parent comment by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  This is totally irrelevant. As a Jew (who is orthodox) and who is happy to work for IBM, as I do, I don't believe IBM was in any way involved with the holocaust. Also IBM isn't hiding bodies - nobody has been laid off yet, people have 30 days to find a new job. People like me are helping them to do that. Better to help than complain about something we can't control.
11. Re:Some background on the parent comment by scot4875 · 2009-02-02 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Stop blockading Gaza and give them government representation, and they'll stop firing rockets.
  For the record, I'm not Jewish and don't give a crap what magic sky man people worship, and I believe the state of Israel's actions are absolutely inexcusable.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
12. Re:Some background on the parent comment by falconwolf · 2009-02-02 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  As for those dying in Gaza, stop firing rockets into Israel
  If Israel hadn't taken land from Palestinians then they wouldn't be firing rockets into Israel. I'm not saying it's all Israel's fault, there plenty of blame to spread around, but there will be no peace in Israel until there's justice.
  Falcon
  
  --
  Should there be a Law?
Mini Ask /. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 23:11 · Score: 1, Insightful

Rather than tell you my background etc. I'll leave this as a blank slate: /.'ers what are good jobs to be in at these times?
Or maybe I'll reword it ... What are good skills to have at these times?
1. Re:Mini Ask /. by BadAnalogyGuy · 2009-01-31 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  what are good jobs to be in at these times?
  Big business CEO. Venture capitalist. Bankruptcy lawyer.
  What are good skills to have at these times?
  Saving. Coupon clipping. Dumpster diving. Salesmanship.
2. Re:Mini Ask /. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 23:28 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  p> what are good jobs to be in at these times?
  Monks. State bureaucrat. End-of-the-world-sectist.
  What are good skills to have at these times?
  Lamenting. Brown-nosing. Blackmailing.
3. Re:Mini Ask /. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 23:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "what are good jobs to be in at these times?"
  In a good future (defined as long recession, possible, but liveable depression): property & business lawyers, accountants, small time tradesmen like electricians and plumbers, government workers in countries where governments are still working, nurses.
  In a bad future (defined as Mad Max-style Fallout 3 depression): outlaw motorcycle club sergeant-at-arms, Marine Corps platoon leader, gang leader.
  "What are good skills to have at these times?"
  In a good future: whatever skills are good now and have been in the past. This runs the gamut from liberal arts like history and philosophy to technical streams like programming, basic accounting, mathematics, etc.
  In a bad future: social skills, electrical engineering skills (electronics, electrical repair, solar and other home energy tech, communications), animal husbandry, combat shooting skills, gunsmithing/mech eng/chemistry or chem eng for both ammo production, but also other areas like water and sanitation, farming.
4. Re:Mini Ask /. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 23:52 · Score: 0
  
  "In a bad future: social skills, electrical engineering skills (electronics, electrical repair, solar and other home energy tech, communications), animal husbandry, combat shooting skills, gunsmithing/mech eng/chemistry or chem eng for both ammo production, but also other areas like water and sanitation, farming."
  So what you are saying is that in the future a mohawked Tina Turner will be singing about someone like MacGyver.
5. Re:Mini Ask /. by commodore64_love · 2009-02-01 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Also you want to become good friends with your Amish-American neighbors, since they don't need electricity, running water, et cetera. They are unlikely to be affected by the Second Depression, will have lots of food, and being generous will share it with their friends.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
6. Re:Mini Ask /. by Reservoir+Penguin · 2009-02-02 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  In your opinion - should I first research Fishing or Animal Husbandry?
  
  --
  US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
No, they're not *really* questioning it by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 23:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

Some are questioning whether IBM incentives are worth the cost."
Even in the linked article, they're only questioning how much to pay IBM -- not whether to pay them. It amazes me that local officials do this so often, when there's no real proof these sorts of incentives are a net gain. Localities pay hundreds of millions of dollar for sports team's stadiums and get no direct profit sharing, cities offer multi-million dollar packages - or in Seattle's case, even build an egregious trolley line - for businesses and don't even pretend to have a measure of the monetary benefit to the community for the given initial outlay. I always wonder how much these pointless incentives come from honest incompetence versus corruption of the government officials.
1. Re:No, they're not *really* questioning it by calmofthestorm · 2009-02-01 00:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Are you honestly suggesting that duly-elected officials in this fine Christian nation would even consider putting corporate interests over the welfare of those they represent, should the two come into conflict?
  
  --
  93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
2. Re:No, they're not *really* questioning it by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2009-02-01 01:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Some are questioning whether IBM incentives are worth the cost."
  Even in the linked article, they're only questioning how much to pay IBM -- not whether to pay them. It amazes me that local officials do this so often, when there's no real proof these sorts of incentives are a net gain. Localities pay hundreds of millions of dollar for sports team's stadiums and get no direct profit sharing, cities offer multi-million dollar packages - or in Seattle's case, even build an egregious trolley line - for businesses and don't even pretend to have a measure of the monetary benefit to the community for the given initial outlay. I always wonder how much these pointless incentives come from honest incompetence versus corruption of the government officials.
  The fundamental issue is that these payments don't 'create jobs" but just decide *where* a company will locate. As a result, they are a net loss since most companies would locate somewhere and create the jobs; just not in *your* backyard.
  If localities would all stop paying them I'd bet that many companies would locate in the same areas as they do with payments. Why? Companies still want low taxes, people who can do the jobs, access to transportation routes, etc. The cash is just a sweetener.
  I've seen some economic "studies" done to support such payments and I wish I could sell whatever it is the localities are smoking cause they numbers have no relationship to reality.
  So why do they do it? Politicians like to tout how many *jobs* they created. Especially near elections. Cities want sports teams, even if they are a net loss and will probably bail when a better deal come along. So we continue to transfer wealth from taxpayers to private corporations and ell good about it because "we're creating jobs."
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
3. Re:No, they're not *really* questioning it by commodore64_love · 2009-02-01 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  >>>So why do they do it? Politicians like to tout how many *jobs* they created.
  "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury." - Author Unknown. Early 1900s.*
  This is why voting rights were originally restricted to those with land, because those without land would be trying to use their votes to steal money from the landed (i.e. parasitism). Not that I blame the voters; it's a logical strategy to steal when you have nothing. It's survival instinct.
  *
  * Sometimes attributed to Tytler, but he never said anything like that.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
4. Re:No, they're not *really* questioning it by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  It is not necessarily payment incentives. Come relocate your company here! No property taxes for 10 years. We'll build the building and roads! Company comes in, 10 years later they move on. Happens a lot around here. A few corporate buildings have been empty for 5 years. In the late nineties the cities made an effort to get companies to relocate here. They came, then they left after their incentives ran out.
5. Re:No, they're not *really* questioning it by ColdWetDog · 2009-02-01 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Are you honestly suggesting that duly-elected officials in this fine Christian nation would even consider putting corporate interests over the welfare of those they represent, should the two come into conflict?
  Why, yes. Now that you put it that way. Exactly...
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
6. Re:No, they're not *really* questioning it by saintlupus · 2009-02-02 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  This is why voting rights were originally restricted to those with land, because those without land would be trying to use their votes to steal money from the landed (i.e. parasitism).
  I was personally amazed at how my politics became more conservative as soon as I bought a house. Having a permanent stake in a community really does alter the way you look at things.
  At the very least, I would like to see school board elections restricted to property owners in the district; we're the ones who get stuck with the consequences in the long term.
  --saint
7. Re:No, they're not *really* questioning it by nyvalbanat · 2009-02-02 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Are you honestly suggesting that duly-elected officials in this fine Christian nation would even consider not putting corporate interests over the welfare of those they represent, should the two come into conflict?
  There, fixed that for ya
  
  --
  Ubuntu on primary work desktop since Dapper Drake (2006).
...and might I add: by WheelDweller · 2009-01-31 23:47 · Score: 0, Insightful

1. There is nothing evil about having made money. Ask George Soros who has billions.
2. IBM is a privately held company, not a government entitity. If they want to buy a jet or rework a division or two, that's (literally) their business, and not the business of Congress, or the president, no matter who he is.
3. Sending money to Washington: not a smart way to create jobs. History shows that.
But never mind that. We've been sane a long while, and change will be good!

--
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
1. Re:...and might I add: by Dunbal · 2009-02-01 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  Ask George Soros who has billions.
  HAD...
  OK, I admit it, he's still very rich and has much more money than you or me, but EVERYONE has taken a hit last year...
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
2. Re:...and might I add: by XcepticZP · 2009-02-01 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  As for point number 2. It is their business, yes. But there are countless regulations, rules and laws that a publicly owned company must adhere to. Just saying that it's "their business", is plain missing the point and doesn't make a very convincing argument.
3. Re:...and might I add: by DavidShor · 2009-02-01 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  "1. There is nothing evil about having made money. Ask George Soros who has billions."
  George Soros made his money by playing game theoretic tricks on the Bank of England. I wouldn't want to prosecute him or anything, but a simple phone call to the central banker saying "Hey, your exchange rate regime is idiotic, and if you don't change it some investor is going to fuck your country over" would have left the world a vastly better place than what actually happened: The British government collecting taxes, with heavy deadweight loss involved, in order to make a billionaire richer, all the while creating heavy exchange rate volatility.
  Point being, that sometimes, someone makes money at the expense of the public in a free market. Precisely when and why this happens has been the main subject of study in economics for years.
  "3. Sending money to Washington: not a smart way to create jobs. History shows that."
  Really? How would you like to show that? If you go ahead and plot "Unemployment" vs "Government spending as percent of GDP", you'll find an inverse relationship. That doesn't prove causation, but the correlations are against your side.
4. Re:...and might I add: by JoshHeitzman · 2009-02-01 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  Regarding #2, IBM is not a privately held company, it is a publicly traded corporation, and as such it has access to investment sources, such as state pension funds, that privately held entities do not. Additionally, even if it weren't publicly traded, its still a corporation and as such it provides the privilege of limited liability to its shareholders. If those same shareholders don't like the strings attached to that privilege, they can sell their stake and enter into a full liability venture.
  
  --
  Software Inventor
IBM sent thousands of jobs to India by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 23:53 · Score: 0

IBM has much to answer for. I don't really see why the government of the United States of America should do one dollar of business with IBM. IBM knowingly worked to sabotage the economy of the USA and pocketed the winnings.
1. Re:IBM sent thousands of jobs to India by Syrrh · 2009-02-02 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Aw, but it's okay! Ol' Sam recognizes there's a need to "reignite growth in our country." Isn't that charming? As I'm currently doing work for IBM and also training my replacements in India, it's very comforting that he's thinking of me.
stimulus? recovery? how about survival? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 00:02 · Score: 0

pandering to the felonious 'rich as nazis' crowd, & the disillusioned, disenfranchised, still under hypenosys 401Kaput population, will not help.
we're not thrilled with our 'role' yet until we see some transparency regarding the manufactured 'weather' we're living under, with disastrous results, i might add.
Hold on... by CrackedButter · 2009-02-01 00:04 · Score: 4, Funny

So is IBM the bad guy now I just need to know before I comment.

--
Jonathanjk.com
1. Re:Hold on... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 01:25 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. It has been so. It is the first Evil Empire - decades earlier than MS.
2. Re:Hold on... by Nerdfest · 2009-02-01 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  They always have been to a degree, but these days there are other equally evil companies to provide some competition. I'm sure you know who they are.
  
  I'm of the opinion that the only reason they're still around as a company is because of blind corporate fanboy-ism, coupled with tying people into proprietary solutions. I'm not saying they don't have some good stuff available, but there is much overpriced proprietary crap being pushed by their sales people and their purchasing department golf buddies.
  
  They're throwing a lot of money at open source, which is good, but make no mistake, there's good business reasons behind it.
3. Re:Hold on... by timeOday · 2009-02-01 03:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "Bad" as in "round up the villagers with pitchforks and torches," or "bad" as in "you know, maybe a big international corporation with no particular allegiance to the US doesn't need US taxpayer subsidies" bad? They're quite different. I can respect what they do without wanting to donate, can't I?
4. Re:Hold on... by commodore64_love · 2009-02-01 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  >>>So [corporations over 1 billion dollars in size] the bad guy now. I just need to know before I comment.
  There. Fixed that for you. ;-) In my view large corporations are Greed incarnate. They have no soul and therefore no morality. They don't care which bodies they squash, or which wallets they steal money from, and they have no obligation to the voters except to make stock prices rise as quickly as possible. Greed incarnate.
  "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies...If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the corporations that will grow up around [the banks]... will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. ...The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party, to his Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin.
  Off-topic but still worth reading:
  
  Greenspan went on to blame the crisis on "explosive demand by investors around the world" for what were (at one time) very profitable mortgage backed securities. To feed the great demand for these investment vehicles, mortgage lenders started giving mortgages to people who, under normal circumstances, would never have been able to get such loans. As a result, the securities being bought by investors all over the world were tainted with what is now known as "toxic assets."
  How could bad investments be rated as good investments? According to Greenspan: "The whole intellectual edifice... collapsed... because the data inputted into the risk management models generally covered only the past two decades, a period of euphoria."
  
  - http://thedeliberateagrarian.blogspot.com/2008/10/thomas-jefferson-vs-paul-krugman-alan.html
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
As an IBMer... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 00:10 · Score: 5, Informative

...they're so disorganized and flat-out dishonest with their employees that I say screw giving them any incentives, stimulus, or any other kind of special help. They need none.
All IBM has done since Gerstner is coast, layoff, reorg, and outsource. No significant new technology, major divestitures (heck, we sold off our entire networking arm to AT&T). The first thing Palmissano did in his video address after taking over as CEO is tell sales "don't let the engineers tell you no". Great idea - it led to vaprous announcements, selling technology we couldn't produce, and atrophied all of our internal systems, investment, and talent. Growth targets are consistently at bubble levels to ensure no one gets reasonable bonuses, and in the lead up to the firings in Fishkill managers were told to downrate employees on their PBC's to limit severance payments.
And no, I wasn't one of the ones laid off. If I had a better nest egg I might welcome it, freeing me from that blasted place. In the meantime, I have a family to support...
1. Re:As an IBMer... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  Back in the 90's the Global Services division used to be pretty good. Of course that was basically just a consulting service but the people I met were good and paid very well. Not a job I would want (lots of travel) but it seemed profitable and the drones seemed happy.
  Is that not the case any more?
2. Re:As an IBMer... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  As an ex-IBMer who worked mainly in the Gerstner era but retired under Palmissano, I knew there was something wrong at Blue when the letter announcing my retirement said "effective April 31" (I shit you not).
3. Re:As an IBMer... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  All IBM has done since Gerstner is coast, layoff, reorg, and outsource. No significant new technology, major divestitures (heck, we sold off our entire networking arm to AT&T).
  So Gerstner is a hybrid of McNealy and Schwartz?
4. Re:As an IBMer... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 16:42 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah I left the lab in Toronto (voluntarily I should add) nearly 2 years ago and couldn't be happier. IBM started as a great place to work but Sam has totally soured the place, he values nothing but the share price and his own share options... he is little better than a used car salesman. IBM is devoid of ideas and is basically a creative vacuum, relying upon acquisitions to replace real innovation. IBM's PBC system relies upon a dog eat dog idea and makes sure staff collaboration doesn't come naturally... this company is going down the tubes.. if you have stock I'd sell it now.
5. Re:As an IBMer... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 18:54 · Score: 0
  
  As another IBMer, I agree entirely. Except for microelectronics, they've bought all of their innovation, not produced it internally. I'd bail out myself, except that at my age I might as well ride it out to the bitter end. And if you look at most of their profitable quarters, their "growth" has largely been an illusion produced by a week dollar - they're earning a large part their money in foreign currencies, and reporting it in dollars. Sure, they've earned more in dollars - but dollars that are worth less relative to other currencies.
6. Re:As an IBMer... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  I'm an ex, I was there in the late 90's and studied every bit of financial material I could find on where IBM really made their money. The pat answer at the time was the global services was floating the company, except when looking at the numbers they didn't make sense.
  At the same time, Gerstner was the hero for turning the company around, but I couldn't figure out what exactly he had done. The wall street types said that he had increased efficiency, which only later did I understand.
  In the end my conclusion was that it was all a shell game. I started to look at it that way when I discovered that IBM had been selling off _HUGE_ tracts of very valuable land they owned and those numbers were impossible to find in the financial data. In fact, I didn't understand it at first, IBM would sell a piece of land/building everyone was working in but nothing would change. It turns out that they were all some kind of rent/sale deals where the land was sold to someone, and IBM would get some number of years of free rent as well as the cash infusion. This would in turn show up as lower overhead in the public financial data (aka the cost of maintaining, paying the taxes on the building were gone).
  Then I started to see similar patterns everywhere. IBM had been run for so long with a old school business mindset (invest for the long term health) that it was easy to leverage all that for medium turn services/rental mindset. At the same time I started seeing other things that bothered me. The pension plan was canned, suddenly H1B's where everywhere, many of which weren't skilled in the least. I started talking to them, and I got a picture that also bothered me. IBM would hire them at IBM India, where they would "work" (train) for 6 months, then they would be transferred here to preform exactly the same job. Basically, they solved two problems at once to lower salaries. First they could pay the person nothing in India when they were training, then that person had a very narrow set of skills that just happened to EXACTLY match something in the US. Bingo, instant H1B because the skills reqs were so tight no one in the US actually matched them.
  Then they started selling off core parts of the company. I left around this time, and then I saw even more ugly stuff about how they were dealing with contractors. From "across the board" pay cuts, to sourcing payments for work done in the US from outside the country. If I see this, I'm sure the big picture is even uglier.
7. Re:As an IBMer... by ciggieposeur · 2009-02-02 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'm an ex-IBMer too. Thanks for sharing this, it makes a lot more sense now.
8. Re:As an IBMer... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-03 18:44 · Score: 0
  
  I hear you! I haven't been a target yet but I no longer want to work here. Sucks that it's hard to get up and move in this environment.
More proof that executives don't do shit. by blind+biker · 2009-02-01 00:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Did you ever think that these huge corporations would perform just as well, or even better, if top executives didn't exist, or just never did anything? So, if the company has good products and the economy is good, it prospers. And if the economy is bad, or the products are bad, the company suffers. That's what a company without top brass with golden parachutes, would do. The absurdly overpaid executives should be the ones who can turn a company around, whose leadership actually makes a difference.
But, as we could see with the big 3 car manufacturers and basically every big publicly traded company (in private companies you can bet your sweet ass that there's an owner that will keep an eye on the managers), executives don't do a lick of a difference. When times are tough, these companies tank - and ask for bailouts.
It's a bailout for incompetence, and Obama's administration would be foolish to support them. But it's too late - from the way the big 3 car manufacturers have been bailed out, I see more incompetence being rewarded.

--
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
1. Re:More proof that executives don't do shit. by Culture20 · 2009-02-01 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  But it's too late - from the way the big 3 car manufacturers have been bailed out, I see more incompetence being rewarded.
  The biggest public employer in the U.S.? The Government. I foresee them asking for the biggest bailout of them all.
2. Re:More proof that executives don't do shit. by ROBOKATZ · 2009-02-01 02:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I can't find an online reference for this, but supposedly Warren Buffet once started out an earnings call with, "We would have done much better this year if I had never come in to work."
3. Re:More proof that executives don't do shit. by powerlord · 2009-02-01 04:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's a bailout for incompetence, and Obama's administration would be foolish to support them. But it's too late - from the way the big 3 car manufacturers have been bailed out, I see more incompetence being rewarded.
  One thing to remember, is that the car manufacturers, as opposed to ALL the other bailouts, asked for short term low interest loans to keep going, because the credit market had frozen, and they couldn't get the loans they needed.
  Every other bailout was a free handout to the company (including AIG TWICE!). While I'm not saying I supported the money paid to the car manufacturers, there is a world of difference between what they were asking for and got, and what other companies got almost without asking for it.
  
  --
  This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
4. Re:More proof that executives don't do shit. by DavidShor · 2009-02-01 04:54 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  "One thing to remember, is that the car manufacturers, as opposed to ALL the other bailouts, asked for short term low interest loans to keep going, because the credit market had frozen, and they couldn't get the loans they needed."
  Sorry, that isn't true. Most of the money we've given has been with the Cash-Equity formula, where we give them money in exchange for equity in their company. Either that, or we gave them high, not low, interest loans.
  "Every other bailout was a free handout to the company (including AIG TWICE!)"
  One, the Feds were given an 80% stake in AIG. In exchange for that 80% stake, we gave them the right to loan 85 billion dollars at a rate of Libor+850(which is higher than most credit cards). The second "bailout", was when we extended their credit line.
  The automakers never approached those terms.
5. Re:More proof that executives don't do shit. by blind+biker · 2009-02-01 05:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Buffet is about the only executive who actually has a clue about management, business and economics. I respect Warren Buffet a lot, and would not be surprised if that quote was true.
  He was livid at the groundless bonuses and golden parachutes handed out left and right in the US corporate world, and articulated his anger very clearly. He's one of the good guys.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
6. Re:More proof that executives don't do shit. by jcnnghm · 2009-02-01 05:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I hate to be the one to have to break it to you, but somebody has to steer the ship. The fact of the matter is that most people are not good at leading, and are not good at making correct business decisions. A company without people in a leadership position would quickly falter because resources would be unevenly applied.
  This is regularly seen in companies run by engineers. What generally happens is that the engineers believe that they can handle everything, after all they're certainly intelligent enough to handle any job in the office, so they don't hire a sales force or support staff. What ends up happening is that the very smart, very highly paid engineers spend a great deal of time on menial office tasks and sales, which results in the product being of excellent quality, but behind schedule and over budget with no public awareness.
  
  --
  You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
7. Re:More proof that executives don't do shit. by plasmacutter · 2009-02-01 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  The issue is not whether we should or should not, the issue is we HAVE to.
  These companies have been allowed to grow so large their failure would cause mass social unrest and considerable hardship for the citizens of the nation.
  What we should be demanding, more than anything else, is the splitting of these companies into financially independent subsidiaries.
  Ownership and management can remain in the same hands, but each subsidiary must be capable of operating independently, and be small enough to fail without dragging a state, nation, or world economy with it.
  Of course, nobody is bringing up these questions because the news organizations reporting on this are of an equally bloated size.
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
8. Re:More proof that executives don't do shit. by blind+biker · 2009-02-01 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, and I didn't say the companies don't need management, I said that the current state is such, that CEOs and the rest of the top executives are doing a perfectly random job of it - I am convinced that, to became a CEO of today's publicly traded companies you are better served by being a corporate psychopath that is good at back-room deals, manipulation and exuding (ultimately empty and useless) charisma, than to have an actual gift for management. THIS management has to go - but it won't, because it's supported by a network of old boys (boards of directors and top human resources managers), and at worst, when the total incapacity of a manager comes to light through the utter failures of the company he/she is "managing", he/she will just jump to another executive position, all the while being handsomely rewarded with a golden handshake.
  There are exceptions, like Buffet, but he himself has stated just what I wrote above. Except for him, and perhaps one or two more talented executives, the rest are utterly incapable and not deserving of their position. The only good job at managing a company, nowadays, I have seen in PRIVATE companies. In publicly traded companies, top executives serve exclusively for blood-letting (siphoning money out of) their company, without contributing shit.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
9. Re:More proof that executives don't do shit. by Insightfill · 2009-02-01 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  But, as we could see with the big 3 car manufacturers and basically every big publicly traded company (in private companies you can bet your sweet ass that there's an owner that will keep an eye on the managers), executives don't do a lick of a difference.
  Up until the 80s, the average CEO had been with their company well-on 20 years, and had a vested personal interest in the long-term health of the company. Tax laws also rewarded long-term holding of company stock. Up until that point, you had a culture of owners - the culture that believes in changing the oil and washing a car for long-term benefit.
  In the 80s, that changed. CEO tenure dropped to below 10 years, and most of the major disincentives for quick stock trading evaporated. Executive compensation got less and less tied to the long-term health of the company. Income tax rate on stock gains dropped below that of actually working for a living. We got a culture of 'renters' - those in it only for the short-term. When was the last time someone washed a rental car?
10. Re:More proof that executives don't do shit. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 14:03 · Score: 0
  
  The other bailouts were NOT just handouts. They were (at least the vast majority of them) either Fed loans (which need to be repayed) or purchases of preferred stock with rules attached such that it needed to be payed back soon or there would be a large dividend attached. The fact that it's not described as a "loan" doesn't mean it functions any differently.
11. Re:More proof that executives don't do shit. by againjj · 2009-02-02 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  The Development Abstraction Layer
Workers to power! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 00:41 · Score: 2, Funny

Forge a revolutionary Leninist-Trotskyist workers party! Sweep away capitalist anarchy and barbarism with international socialist revolution!
1. Re:Workers to power! by enemorales · 2009-02-01 04:20 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  But, won't my cities revolt if I do that?
2. Re:Workers to power! by Tolkien · 2009-02-02 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  That depends, did you turn the disasters option off?
  
  --
  how is babby formed?
this comes as quite a shock by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 00:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

IBM have a history of being so patriotic (to the almighty Reichsma^Wdollar).
Let's get this quite clear: any major corporation would happily have (by act or omission) you and your family die if (a) it assisted with profit-making; (b) they could get away with it. Anything less severe, such as shedding thousands of US jobs while demanding money collected at the point of a gun (that's "tax" to you and me), is not even on the radar of morally questionable.
That happened last November by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 01:06 · Score: 0

It's coming. Just you watch.
Selling to both sides? Brilliant! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2009-02-01 01:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

M1 Carbines for the US, and Holleriths for the Nazis? What a brilliant business strategy! European explosive manufacturers made tons of money supplying both Iran and Iraq during their war in the 1980's. But I guess you're not supposed to do this if your country is on one side of the conflict.
I suppose that IBM would claim that the Nazis had taken over the subsidiary, and that IBM in the US had no control over it. I believe that Ford and GM (Opel) had the same problem with their subsidiaries, and faced the same allegations after the war.
If the case in the book is so strong, why hasn't anyone sued IBM over it?
"Hey, Daryl McBride! Here's your chance to try to sue IBM again!"
Or maybe some militant animal rights groups can sue them over this: http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506VV2154.html

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
More Corporate Welfare by Wansu · 2009-02-01 01:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

The incentives don't appear to work as several states have already found out. Invariably, companies receiving these incentives do not hold up their end of the bargain. And yet this practice continues. This is a kind of socialism too. Where's the outrage?

--
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
1. Re:More Corporate Welfare by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 02:09 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I would argue it's closer to corporatism...
2. Re:More Corporate Welfare by Dan667 · 2009-02-01 03:55 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  it is corporate welfare and it has always been a no gain practice.
Stop The Leviathan by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 01:24 · Score: 0

All government intervention must stop. Anything that government touches is only made worse. It does not matter whether it is federal, state or local. The result is the same, the individual/community/nation suffers and the government becomes more powerful.
execs are stupid, so pass the control to gov't? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 01:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

Who is the most inefficient? Government workers! People who have no accountability, can steal money from taxpayers at a whim, and possess no real incentive to ever to a good job or improve themselves. So now that companies have gotten large enough to fail, the dumbest of all are taking them over. This will lead to greater failure because it is sucking in money from better people. Russia tried this approach, and the people starved... Americans are fat, but how long will we last when our bread lines run dry? Governemnt control of business has always failed, and will always fail. Obama is 100% wrong to "bail out" any company. Bush was no better since he did the same thing. We all knew W was a dummy the first time he opened his mouth, but Obama seemed a bit brighter.
Let the companies go under. Others are waiting to pick up the pieces and start fresh. If you are about to be laid off, sorry, but you are free to start your own business. If you had a brain you'd be working on it now instead of bitching. You don't need big college degrees to make a business. Get good at something and charge for your service.
1. Re:execs are stupid, so pass the control to gov't? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 02:32 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Let the companies go under. Others are waiting to pick up the pieces and start fresh. If you are about to be laid off, sorry, but you are free to start your own business. If you had a brain you'd be working on it now instead of bitching. You don't need big college degrees to make a business. Get good at something and charge for your service.
  
  But that would be work! No one wants to do that.
The formula by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 01:34 · Score: 0

So, they are getting rid of employees while asking for billions... Yeah, that's a great idea for business and reputation. It couldn't be that bad of an idea...
Unrestricted Welfare by DaMattster · 2009-02-01 02:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is the problem when government does not place restrictions on a bailout package. Our government wrote a blank check on us to bailout the results of extreme corporate greed and stupidity. It was incredibly assinine to think that trading mortgages like securities was a good idea. And, now, Uncle Sam turns around like the patient older parent and says, "Oh it's okay .... we forgive you .... here is an 820b allowance." This money should *not* have gone to corporations but should go towards keeping people in their homes. This is the key to beginning recovery. I must say that I am severely disappointed in Obama not seeing this fundamental fact. We should have let these greedy corporations fold under their own weight. We have set a dangerous precedence now for future troubled economic times wherein corporations can say, "Hey, you helped us before!", as an argument for more welfare.
1. Re:Unrestricted Welfare by Bj�rn · 2009-02-01 03:01 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  You can find historic examples of how to handle a financial like this one. In the early 90-ies Sweden experience a housing bubble similar to what has happened in the US. The state bailed out the banks, but unlike the US the state also took control over the banks. Here is NYT article about it. As a result the Swedish economy bounced back and most, if not all, of the money used to rescue the banks have been returned to the taxpayers. This was done by a right-wing government. This is in contrast to Japan where the Japanese government did nearly nothing in similar situation a few years before. Japans is still suffering the consequences of the resulting recession.
  
  --
  Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think. --Niels Bohr
2. Re:Unrestricted Welfare by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  Not that simple.
  The root of the problem has to do with irresponsible people who couldn't afford a 2-3% increase in their monthly payment without going into default. The media and government have in their typical fashion passed the blame onto mortgage lenders and wall street, but this just falls into the typical USA of blame somebody else for stupid individual behavior.
  "Keeping people in their homes" with government bailouts will cause much more longer term damage. In the short term you will artificially try to keep a market bubble alive and in the long term you will increase the percentage of irresponsible people since irresponsibility will always get bailed out.
3. Re:Unrestricted Welfare by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  "As a result the Swedish economy bounced back and most, if not all, of the money used to rescue the banks have been returned to the taxpayers"
  This is a huge leap of logic that, like any macroeconomic theory, isn't testable. The world economies were entirely different during those two time periods and the Swedish economy is anything but an island.
4. Re:Unrestricted Welfare by plasmacutter · 2009-02-01 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  "As a result the Swedish economy bounced back and most, if not all, of the money used to rescue the banks have been returned to the taxpayers"
  This is a huge leap of logic that, like any macroeconomic theory, isn't testable. The world economies were entirely different during those two time periods and the Swedish economy is anything but an island.
  what was fundamentally different about the world economy then?
  Were resources infinite? are they infinite now? The tools have changed but the processes now are the same as the processes then.
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
5. Re:Unrestricted Welfare by plasmacutter · 2009-02-01 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  The root of the problem has to do with irresponsible people who couldn't afford a 2-3% increase in their monthly payment without going into default.
  Yes, never mind the fact wages have been more or less frozen for the past 10 years while inflation has proceeded normally and energy has gone through the roof.
  It's those idiotic great unwashed who are at fault for the decreased purchasing power of the dollar. They should have just accepted their slide into the poverty lifestyle despite doing the same work and carrying hefty student debts. How DARE they try to maintain a lifestyle they worked so hard to achieve.
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
6. Re:Unrestricted Welfare by TheSync · 2009-02-01 08:38 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  This is in contrast to Japan where the Japanese government did nearly nothing in similar situation a few years before
  Regarding Japan's Lost Decade, I suggest you review the data. Here is what actually happened:
  1) Bad initial monetary policy, the Bank of Japan actually boosted the discount rate from 4.75 percent to 6 percent in August 1990 and held it at that level until June 1991. This was a similar mistake to the monetary contraction by the US Fed from 1929 to 1933.
  2) Japan engaged in large stimulus packages - outlays on big projects from 6.5% of GDP in 1990 to 8.3% in 1996. Most went towards largely toward unproductive public works projects and credits to small businesses that were no longer economically viable ("zombie companies"). Sound familiar? These did not do much to help the situation evidently.
  3) In 1997 the Japanese government raised its consumption tax from 3 to 5 percent, which lead to an increase in deflation in 1998.
  4) To end the "Lost Decade", the Bank of Japan switched during the spring of 2001 to a policy of quantitative easing and PM Junichiro Koizumi was undertook aggressive measures to recapitalize Japan's banks, which were still heavily burdened by nonperforming loans. (The latter is what TARP was supposed to do).
7. Re:Unrestricted Welfare by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  The whole mess started because people were buying 3, 4, 5 homes that they never intended to live in. They just wanted to wait a few weeks and resell them for 20-40% more.
8. Re:Unrestricted Welfare by Bob_Geldof · 2009-02-01 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  People who bought more home than they could afford because they are idiots and "didn't know better" deserve to have their homes foreclosed. This would allowing people like me, who have been waiting until they can afford to, buy a home at a reasonable price. If the US cannot support three auto companies then let them die. The whole point of this capitalism BS is that the private sector takes all the risk. To all you greedy middle-class wanks, thanks for thinking you could play in the same league as the wealthy. They will always crush us. Best to just mind your own damn business and not try to over stretch yourself.
  
  --
  887321 = 337*2633
9. Re:Unrestricted Welfare by Bj�rn · 2009-02-01 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the info. All that I was saying was that the main problem for Japan was that the government didn't seriously attempt to fix the bank-crisis for many years.
  
  --
  Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think. --Niels Bohr
A drop in the 400,000 worker bucket by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 02:21 · Score: 1, Informative

IBM is one of the largest corporations on earth. It employs around 400,000 workers world-wide (with about 40% in the US). IBM laying off 4,000 people is not the same as Microsoft laying off 5,000 people considering it's 1% of IBM's work force and close to 6% of Microsoft's (they have about 90,000 employees).
I can't remember a year I've been at IBM where there hasn't been layoffs to this degree. Furthermore, a strategic cost cutting plan was announced well over a year ago that aimed to raise the earnings-per-share by reducing overhead.
So a relatively small layoff like this was probably going to happen anyway regardless of the economic situation. That's why IBM is not reporting it specially.
With acquisitions and new hiring, unless your company is growing in size (and IBM isn't), you have to layoff people to make up the difference.
1. Re:A drop in the 400,000 worker bucket by hemp · 2009-02-01 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  You realize that the goal is 5% US based employees.
  Top management will be the only remaining ones in a couple of years.
  
  --
  Skip ------ See the latest from http://www.anArchyFortWorth.com
Nursing? by Ambiguous+Puzuma · 2009-02-01 02:24 · Score: 1

Apparently there has been a shortage of nurses in the US for quite a while, and it is expected to get worse. It's probably not what you were looking for, but it might be worth considering if you place a high value on job security.
Random news report on this, dated January 7 2009: http://cbs5.com/health/nursing.shortage.patient.2.901996.html

"We recently had a hiring event where, for experienced nurses to interview -- just to interview -- we gave them $50 gas cards," said Tom Zinda, the director of recruitment at Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare in the Milwaukee-area city of Glendale. "We really try to get as creative as we can. It's a tough position to fill."
1. Re:Nursing? by ducomputergeek · 2009-02-01 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Its true. I have a couple friends who have finished LPN and had hospitals fighting over them while they were working on their RN's. No matter where they go, they'll get their BSN or Nurse Practitioner schooling paid for by the hospital (with a 3 year work agreement after they finish). But getting paid to finish your education and have a job guaranteed at the end of it...
  
  --
  "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
2. Re:Nursing? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 03:22 · Score: 0
  
  I have a couple friends who have finished LPN and had hospitals fighting over them while they were working on their RN's.
  Such a pity that you decided to major in English and failed.
3. Re:Nursing? by powerlord · 2009-02-01 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Its true. I have a couple friends who have finished LPN and had hospitals fighting over them while they were working on their RN's. No matter where they go, they'll get their BSN or Nurse Practitioner schooling paid for by the hospital (with a 3 year work agreement after they finish). But getting paid to finish your education and have a job guaranteed at the end of it...
  Almost makes it sound like Nursing is a better profession than Doctor. :)
  
  --
  This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
4. Re:Nursing? by ColdWetDog · 2009-02-01 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Almost makes it sound like Nursing is a better profession than Doctor. :)
  Depends. Your entry into nursing (RN) can be a two year associate degree after high school. Entry level RNs don't make all that much, nor are they in incredibly high demand (nursing schools, like other academic institutions traditionally fail at teaching students lots of important and useful skills so on-the-job training helps loads). However, a couple of years under your belt, especially in some sort of specialty unit (ICU / oncology / psych) and you're golden. You may end up working in Newark, NJ or some other lovely place, but you can get a job. If you're willing to travel and don't have roots, you can work as a traveler nurse and make 70 - 120K per year. But you earn that - working new jobs in situations were the hospital couldn't figure out how to hire permanent employees on a regular basis. No such thing as a free lunch.
  
  The other way to pay off your student loans without the bedpans is radiology. Lots of tech positions are hard to fill. These, of course, are the skilled ones, ultrasound and MRI techs being the rarest. But again, two years of an associates degree and five years of OJT can lead one to a pretty good paycheck.
  
  The Med school route is a rather long one - four years undergrad, four years Med school, three to ten years of residency. Payback can be a bitch which is why there is an exodus to the higher paying professions (read specialists).
  
  But after all that - you're in charge! You too can spend endless hours rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
  
  No, not bitter at all today, just too many useless meetings.....
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Selling to both sides? Brilliant! by damburger · 2009-02-01 02:26 · Score: 3, Informative

The claim that their German subsidiary was taken over by the state is a little shaky; Not only were the same management left in place but they continued to report to Thomas Watson in New York throughout the war. Most importantly, after the war they recovered the profits made selling and maintaining punch card machines for the holocaust.

--
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Why would anyone want to work for IBM? by LordNimon · 2009-02-01 02:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

I just don't understand why any American wants to work for IBM. Granted, these days, any job is godsend. But in a year or so, this recession will be over and IBM will probably start growing again, like other tech companies. I have little respect for any American who accepts a job at IBM, given a choice. Years ago I used to work there, and I never got the sense that IBM appreciated its American workers.

--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
1. Re:Why would anyone want to work for IBM? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 02:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Well, it's gotta beat the security guard job I ended up with after being laid off from HP. Not much of a market in tech for us over-50 geezers these days. If IBM offered me a job remotely resembling what I was doing before this, I'd take it in a shot.
  This relentless pursuit of ever-fatter profits at the expense of the employees who helped get companies where they are is ruining our economy and our country. Sure, they may be helping their short-term bottom line and making the stockholders happy, but when every company is laying off massive chunks of their workforce, they're depriving each other of prospective customers. Somebody's gotta buy the stuff they sell for them to keep making money, but they're taking away people's ability to do that.
  (Posting anonymously, just in case someone where I work sees this and recognizes my user name. I may be bitter, but I'm not stupid....)
2. Re:Why would anyone want to work for IBM? by NeverVotedBush · 2009-02-01 04:22 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Your comment about taking away each other's customers by laying off big chunks of workers is true and if I had mod points, I'd mod your comment up.
  
  These layoffs are scaring everyone else and making them stop buying anything. The ones laid off certainly aren't spending except on absolute essentials until their money/retirement/savings run out, etc.
  
  It's the economic death spiral and is becoming its own self-fulfilling prophecy.
  
  It is getting scary out there. I hope it doesn't happen to me, but you never know...
3. Re:Why would anyone want to work for IBM? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  You said it yourself - "any job is godsend". Sometimes you take what you can get, and some of the fringe benefits (decent insurance and work at home, if you can get it) make it difficult to leave. Plus the people that are left tend to be great people, but the management structure is dysfunctional to the point of being malicious.
  Then again, is it really better in the majority of companies?
4. Re:Why would anyone want to work for IBM? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  You ask, "Why would anyone want to work for IBM?".
  You then make two statements relevant to your question or point (the rest was redundant or ad hominem):
  1) Reason to work for IBM:
  "But in a year or so, this recession will be over and IBM will probably start growing again, like other tech companies."
  2) Your personal experience, "Years ago...":
  "Years ago I used to work there, and I never got the sense that IBM appreciated its American workers."
  Is there any reason, anybody should listen to you ever again?
5. Re:Why would anyone want to work for IBM? by macshit · 2009-02-01 18:46 · Score: 1
  
  I just don't understand why any American wants to work for IBM.
  I think it depends greatly on where you work at IBM.
  I know a bunch of people that work there (in fairly high-level positions), and they seem to be treated quite well. The biggest effect for most of them seems to be the cutting of perks (e.g., a company-wide ban on business-class air travel).
  
  --
  We live, as we dream -- alone....
IBM is strange... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 02:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

First IBM manages to post a 'strong quarter' (though in depth analysis by some indicates serious problems underscoring the superficially nice summary).
Then, the CEO sends an email to the whole company saying while other companies are cutting back, IBM is going to be different because they think it is important to invest long term in its people because IBM can afford to.
The next day, they execute the first wave of layoffs.
As layoffs continue, they try to say things about 'accelerating workforce rebalancing through resource actions' to pretend it is somehow different from everyone else. Notably, they have architected the whole thing it so that they feel disclosing the details to the SEC is not required.
I guess it may be different, maybe IBM is trying to finally achieve a goal under the smokescreen of recession-induced lay-offs. They are ditching people in the US with high years of service as they reduce numbers to allow for future overseas growth *despite* relying chiefly upon the US market for revenue still.
I still work at IBM (for the moment), but this recent activity has really frustrated me. The BS is so transparent and yet they shovel it on us anyway. If IBM were at least forthcoming about it, I might retain some shred of respect, but they are being so slimy about it.
My conflict is lack of viable choice in my area and in the industry. Doing in-house IT for various companies has lacked the technical challenge I want, as well as a salary ceiling that goes with that level of expectation. Small business/startups are even less certain than IBM employment. Other healthy hardware providers don't tend to volunteer to help with complex application of the gear. I guess HP would be the other candidate, but they aren't any better and aren't where I live.
IBM just presented outsourcing to South America by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 03:25 · Score: 0

Just last week, a whole crew of IBM execs were in my office pitching moving my whole support organization to South America. On their charts, they have moved a huge percentage of their workforce to Asia (India included) and now South America. IBM is no longer a US Technology Company. They have no problems moving everything out of the US to make a buck.
Just substitute IBM for Schindler... by monktus · 2009-02-01 03:29 · Score: 1

[cmontgomeryburns]Schindler and I are like peas in a pod: we're both factory owners, we both made shells for the Nazis, but mine worked, dammit![/cmontgomeryburns]

--
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel."
Time for a new reality show! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 03:33 · Score: 0

A tree, some rope, some pissed off unemployed workers, and the executives that got a bonus while the workers were laid off...lets see what happens.
Re:Selling to both sides? Brilliant! by commodore64_love · 2009-02-01 03:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

What were the German IBM managers supposed to do? Say "no" to Hitler??? I don't think that would have worked.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
800 out of work, rochester MN by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 03:34 · Score: 0

800 laid off in rochester MN
Maybe for their Corporate Music Program? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2009-02-01 03:53 · Score: 1

"Ever Onward IBM": http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=L9oh3gqOEKU

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Balance the budget first... by Firethorn · 2009-02-01 04:07 · Score: 1

As it is now, taxes are too low to pay for the government programs that the public seems to really want. Remember: Health Care, Defense, Social Security, and interest on our debt make up literally 90% of the federal budget. Unless someone is to propose deep cuts in these programs, any populist moaning on taxes strikes me as a bit annoying.
I have to agree; task #1 would be to balance the budget first, long before you start lowering taxes.
Instead, I'd concentrate on fixing our tax structure so people aren't spending $50/year to figure out their taxes. Reducing pork - there's all sorts of incentive programs out there the feds run that state and local agencies chase to buy equipment and run programs that, if it was 'their own' money they wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole - See the bridge to nowhere(local airport), Alaska.
We have more federal employee jobs today than manufacturing ones. That's another one that needs fixing. Personally, I'd be lowering employee taxes, even offering incentives. Something like making employee wages of up to $50k per employee deductible to businesses at 115% instead of 100% - the extra 15% would make employees somewhat cheaper, reducing the benefit of outsourcing.
Or go whole hog and get rid of income taxes in favor of sales taxes.

--
I don't read AC A human right
1. Re:Balance the budget first... by DavidShor · 2009-02-01 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  "instead, I'd concentrate on fixing our tax structure so people aren't spending $50/year to figure out their taxes. "
  Definitely, that's an important one. As of now, it costs 1.8 dollars to the economy in order to raise 1 dollar of tax revenue. That's a lot of deadweight loss that just get's thrown away. Simplifying the tax code would be a great way to cut down on that.
  "Or go whole hog and get rid of income taxes in favor of sales taxes."
  I like the idea of consumption taxes too. Studies have shown though that Sales Taxes break down due to enforcement issues above 10% or so.
  My pet idea then, is that any money that is made needs to get deposited into some sort of generalized IRA-like savings account(It could contain stocks, commodities, bonds, whatever). And then, you only get taxed on your withdrawals(You could make taxation regressive if you want).
  Administratively, this is a lot easier than an income tax, because you don't need to define income. And it would be a great way to boost our savings rate. (Though, we'd want to wait until he financial system recovers before we implement such a thing).
2. Re:Balance the budget first... by Firethorn · 2009-02-01 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  I like the idea of consumption taxes too. Studies have shown though that Sales Taxes break down due to enforcement issues above 10% or so.
  
  Happens with income taxes as well. See 'working under the table'.
  Still, I'd make the challenge though, does the Fed.gov really need more than 10% of our income?
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
3. Re:Balance the budget first... by drsquare · 2009-02-01 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  Instead, I'd concentrate on fixing our tax structure so people aren't spending $50/year to figure out their taxes.
  Then introduce pay as you earn, where taxes are taken out of your paycheque before you get it. Take out all the deductions, rebates etc. This will make tax evasion harder to revenues will increase without taxes actually going up.
  
  Or go whole hog and get rid of income taxes in favor of sales taxes.
  Great, but before you do that, let me know so I can invest my entire net worth in companies that make safes. I can see a sudden mysterious upsurge in the use of cash.
4. Re:Balance the budget first... by falconwolf · 2009-02-01 19:55 · Score: 1
  
  Or go whole hog and get rid of income taxes in favor of sales taxes.
  Along with user fees or taxes I'm all for that. Because they get limited liability the only things that should pay income taxes are corporations. If you drive on the roads you pay a tax on the fuel.
  Falcon
  
  --
  Should there be a Law?
5. Re:Balance the budget first... by Firethorn · 2009-02-02 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Then introduce pay as you earn, where taxes are taken out of your paycheque before you get it. Take out all the deductions, rebates etc. This will make tax evasion harder to revenues will increase without taxes actually going up.
  We already have that in the form of withholding, it's just there's an annual 'make up' like balancing the checkbook. Or having estimated meter readings through the year, with once a year actual reading.
  The other option either means the government doesn't get to play social engineering with taxes as much, or 'correctly' apply progressive taxes on people with multiple jobs nearly as easily.
  
  Great, but before you do that, let me know so I can invest my entire net worth in companies that make safes. I can see a sudden mysterious upsurge in the use of cash.
  Audit the companies collecting sales tax; don't worry about Grandma and her hobby of making & selling doll clothes. Most business goes through retail channels. Don't sell goods to anybody without charging sales tax unless they have a business ID and are therefore subject to audit. In some ways you could go with VAT like in Europe, but I'm convinced there are better ways.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
6. Re:Balance the budget first... by Firethorn · 2009-02-02 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Along with user fees or taxes I'm all for that. Because they get limited liability the only things that should pay income taxes are corporations. If you drive on the roads you pay a tax on the fuel.
  I prefer the sales tax factor - makes it difficult for a compnay to hide income/claim extra deductions to decrease tax costs. It's simpler, basically.
  As for the roads - add in 'or built into the real estate taxes', IE the neighborhood pays to keep up the roads in the area. Though if we ever get electric cars up to a significant percentage, it's going to become more complicated. Right now we can just write that off as 'encouraging usage of alternate fuel vehicles'. We get double digit usage, we'll have to figure something out.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
7. Re:Balance the budget first... by falconwolf · 2009-02-02 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  I prefer the sales tax factor - makes it difficult for a compnay to hide income/claim extra deductions to decrease tax costs. It's simpler, basically.
  Buyer pay the sames tax though, an income tax the corporation will pay. Actually either way buyers pay.
  As for the roads - add in 'or built into the real estate taxes
  I didn't say in the post you replied to but I did in others that property taxes are also used for roads.
  Though if we ever get electric cars up to a significant percentage, it's going to become more complicated.
  It will at that. You could tax electricity and or tires but I don't know how that would work out. However it's done I see a problem, it more than likely will require a bureaucracy and bureaucracies tend to grow.
  Right now we can just write that off as 'encouraging usage of alternate fuel vehicles'.
  Some days ago someone posted a link to a news article about how this person was pulled over who had a biodiesel sticker on the car and ended up was required to pay a tax to the state. Ah good, it's still in my history: "Driver ticketed for using biofuel".
  Falcon
  
  --
  Should there be a Law?
8. Re:Balance the budget first... by Firethorn · 2009-02-02 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Buyer pay the sames tax though, an income tax the corporation will pay. Actually either way buyers pay.
  Agreed. At least with the 'sales tax' option the buyer sees what he's paying.
  
  It will at that. You could tax electricity and or tires but I don't know how that would work out. However it's done I see a problem, it more than likely will require a bureaucracy and bureaucracies tend to grow.
  Make it the same authority that licenses cars and taxes gasoline and tires. In my state they tax tire purchases to pay for disposal. Build a tire house and they'll even pay you money for recycling/disposing of them.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
9. Re:Balance the budget first... by drsquare · 2009-02-02 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  Audit the companies collecting sales tax; don't worry about Grandma and her hobby of making & selling doll clothes. Most business goes through retail channels. Don't sell goods to anybody without charging sales tax unless they have a business ID and are therefore subject to audit. In some ways you could go with VAT like in Europe, but I'm convinced there are better ways.
  You're very naive there.
  Auditing a company doesn't work when everything's done by cash. When you pay a plumber or electrician in cash, what makes you think he actually declares that income? When you buy some goods off market stall, do you think they write it all down and pay taxes? Do they fuck.
  Think about all that imported duty-free tobacco, now imagine that applied to all easily-traded goods. More will be sold under the counter than over it!
10. Re:Balance the budget first... by Firethorn · 2009-02-02 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  When you pay a plumber or electrician in cash, what makes you think he actually declares that income? When you buy some goods off market stall, do you think they write it all down and pay taxes? Do they fuck.
  As you say, this already happens, I've heard it called 'working under the table'. IE Electricians doing side jobs and not declaring it as income is effectively no different than not charging sales tax for the job.
  
  Think about all that imported duty-free tobacco, now imagine that applied to all easily-traded goods. More will be sold under the counter than over it!
  Why doesn't this happen now in all the states with sales taxes? Hell, going by the example of tobacco, the market must be huge because in many areas the 'sales tax' on them is over 100%!
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
Re:Selling to both sides? Brilliant! by damburger · 2009-02-01 04:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Frankly, yes. They did have a choice, even if none of the outcomes of that choice were particularly pleasant.

--
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Re:Selling to both sides? Brilliant! by theGreater · 2009-02-01 05:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

What were the German IBM managers supposed to do? Say "no" to Hitler???
Yes. Yes, they were.
Histroy will show Sam as horrible CEO by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 05:31 · Score: 0

Sam Palmisano is doing more to gut the long term future of IBM then anything else. His constant reorgs, layoff's, "global sourcing" and other questionable business practices to meet his single goal of stock earnings is nuts.
This year managers were delayed on giving PBC ratings because they had to match layoff goals. So the managers want to keep their people and hence their jobs so they rated people as high as they could.
I'm so tired of hearing Indian accents and seeing the poor work we get out of them. On one project out of 4 people hired in Indian one was fired a few days in for lying on his resume, another quit for no announced reason. It wouldn't be so bad if the Indian we were hiring were competent but IBM must be paying so little over there that we get crappy people. I still have people after 5 months that have trouble using Putty to login to AIX servers. Don't even get me started on the Indian System Administrators. They have no clue of security and happily ignore every security policy even when it has repeatedly been shown to them.
My resume will be going out very soon, I'm just using IBM to get one more certification then giving them the finger.
1. Re:Histroy will show Sam as horrible CEO by GomezAdams · 2009-02-02 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  These Indians have no UNIX experience for the most part but have lied about it to get the job. I tech'd a couple that told me they had 5 - 6 years experience when they had told another guy on the project a week earlier they had none and asked what books should they buy to give them the information on basic UNIX commands. I guess so they could pass the tech interview I gave them. They answered enough of the basic questions and seemed to know their around vi when in fact they had no experience at all in UNIX and had never written a shell script.
  I have a feeling they lie about the advanced degrees they list too. So when is the last time some HR department called the colleges in BF, India and confirmed their degrees? IBM also uses L1 visa holders meaning they are IBM India employees and do not have to be vetted or go through the H1B process. They just show up and go to work - so to speak. Any task given them takes far longer to get done and often has to be redone. I have had to redo a lot of their work on projects. And now IBM has many mid-level managers from India so problems are hidden or passed of to others.
  
  --
  Too lazy to create a sig...
What a load of bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 05:37 · Score: 0

CEOs of American companies beg for fed money and H1B visas for foreign workers saying they can't hire enough qualified Americans. They bitch about the poor quality of US schools that don't prepare Americans adequately. These are the same assholes who work deals for tax breaks to relocate factories/offices. Those are the tax breaks that no longer pay for schools. This process is no accident, it is a planned, systematic gutting of the American education system to allow companies to import more H1B visa workers from foreign countries.
Why do they want H1B visa workers? Because they are little more than slaves. H1B workers can't get a job at a different company if they don't like the work conditions or compensation at their sponsor company. They either suck it up or go back where they came from.
Eat the rich!
Attention auditors: by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 05:38 · Score: 0

Especially PWC. Please, please start digging into the RCA's given to you on findings. For the last year and a half the so called Audit buddies and other middlemen between you and the people doing the work rewrite RCA's. If an RCA mentions that the problem is because of staffing it is unacceptable to turn that into an external auditor. IBM is deliberately lying to auditors and making up decent sounding reasons as to way an Audit Defect happened because there can be no stink attached to the layoffs and outsourcing to other countries.
So if any auditors are reading this get the word out to those auditing IBM and dig into the reasons. Unless we stop this practice of hiding layoffs being the failures IBM will not re-evaluate layoffs and outsourcing.
Re:Selling to both sides? Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 05:54 · Score: 0

The author of the book was Edwin Black. He sued IBM at exactly the same time that he released the book and the suit was dismissed. Unfortunately for some strange reason, the dismissal of the lawsuit did not get nearly the same amount of media coverage that the initial suit timed with the book release got.
An interesting and little known fact about Mr Black is that before writing this book, he was publisher of "OS/2 Professional" when it went out of business due to IBM's killing off of the doomed OS. He seemed to have no problem with IBM's past while he was making money from a financial association with them.
Also, at least one historian who specializes in the Holocaust has called into question many of his accusations.. Again, few people care to listen to the other side, and prefer to simply assume everything Mr Black says is true.
my company does trickle layoffs too by peter303 · 2009-02-01 06:05 · Score: 1

Somehow they avoid the mass layoff rule. 49 laid off here, another 49 another day, another city and you can do it.
Remember the bailout for the airlines after 9/11? by walterbyrd · 2009-02-01 07:12 · Score: 1

The bailouts were supposed to preserve jobs for US workers. But, the execs pocketed the money, and fired the employees anyway. I guess the US public never learns.
At least, that I what I learned from watching Southpark, which seems to be as reliable a source as the US pop-media.
Why are you Surprised? by cc_pirate · 2009-02-01 08:06 · Score: 1

This IS the same company after all that helped Hitler keep track of his concentration camp prisoners.
Expecting moral behavior from a corporation in general and IBM in particular is like expecting the sun to shine at night.
Until we change the things that make corporations amoral, we will never change their behavior.
It's no secret that our business schools teach our MBAs how to be absolute slime and justify it with the mantra of 'capitalism'.
An ideology of greed and selfishness breeds this, which is why the GOP is the party of the corporation... not that the Dems are much better, but at least they give lip service to something else.

--
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
Re:Selling to both sides? Brilliant! by commodore64_love · 2009-02-01 09:06 · Score: 1

Yeah I'm sure you would have sacrificed your life just to stop Hitler from getting IBM-produced punchcards. Not. I certainly wouldn't.
Instead I'd ask to transfer to a different nation, but if I was denied I'd just continue my routine. Somewhat akin to what Oskar Schindler did, albeit not that grandiose.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Selling to both sides? Brilliant! by commodore64_love · 2009-02-01 09:08 · Score: 1

You wouldn't. As soon as an SS officer pointed a gun at you, you'd cave and start punching those IBM cards again.
In fact right now, I bet you have a job with questionable output which is harming someone/somewhere. You should quit. But you don't.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Remember the bailout for the airlines after 9/1 by sethstorm · 2009-02-01 09:31 · Score: 1

The bailouts were supposed to preserve jobs for US workers. But, the execs pocketed the money, and fired the employees anyway. I guess the US public never learns.
Then get some means to put some real teeth to the bill. Make it near-impossible for them to do anything but preserve US work on the long-term.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
"UN-Fair Tax" by plasmacutter · 2009-02-01 09:32 · Score: 1

Or go whole hog and get rid of income taxes in favor of sales taxes.
The problem with this "fair tax" is that it's not really fair.
As a percentage of income, the wealthy spend much less than average americans.
Additionally, the lower your income, the more debt you're likely to incur as economic times get tougher, and the fair tax taxes debt, not income.
The "fair tax" will be much more painful to the unemployed and middle class, and will have the poor screaming for anesthesia.

--
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
1. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by Firethorn · 2009-02-01 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  1. Please don't try to analyze my proposal for a sales tax on one sentence. The actual system, just the barebones, would be a small paper, and address the concerns you just listed
  2. Shouldn't we punish being in debt? Besides, interest wouldn't be charged sales tax.
  3. New goods would be taxed, not used; that way we don't have to try to hit up yard sales for revenue.
  4. Look up the fairtax.org website and look at the rebate proposal
  5. The wealthy are some of the biggest tax-avoiders around. Trump pays less in income taxes than his secretary.
  6. You'd audit commercial companies for failing to collect the tax; not individuals for failing to pay it.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
2. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by plasmacutter · 2009-02-01 16:08 · Score: 1
  
  1. Please don't try to analyze my proposal for a sales tax on one sentence. The actual system, just the barebones, would be a small paper, and address the concerns you just listed
  you mean exempting "necessities?".
  sorry but modern western society is not defined by food shelter and water, and as soon as you start to expand it from there it becomes open to exploitation.
  
  2. Shouldn't we punish being in debt? Besides, interest wouldn't be charged sales tax.
  I dont know what sheltered life you live, but in the real world people maintain a specific lifestyle by assuming debt in harder times and paying it off in better times. Punishing the assumption of debt by increasing the principle 20+% will kick people financially when theyre down and will discourage economic growth overall by punishing spenders.
  
  3. New goods would be taxed, not used; that way we don't have to try to hit up yard sales for revenue.
  Except people have to buy and sell new goods for revenue to flow and salaries to be paid.
  
  4. Look up the fairtax.org website and look at the rebate proposal
  See my answer to number 1, add to that the fact that governmental policies never track properly with inflation or account for debt to income ratios, which are much more important than nominal income.
  
  5. The wealthy are some of the biggest tax-avoiders around. Trump pays less in income taxes than his secretary.
  And trump spends far less in comparison to his income than his secretary spends on her son's allowance. The "fair tax" would allow him to pay even less.
  
  6. You'd audit commercial companies for failing to collect the tax; not individuals for failing to pay it.
  no, you'd lose domestic companies because everyone would buy from online vendors across the border. Introduce tariffs and face economic sanctions from the WTO.
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
3. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by falconwolf · 2009-02-01 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  The "fair tax" will be much more painful to the unemployed and middle class, and will have the poor screaming for anesthesia.
  Not if essential items like clothes, food, and medicine are tax free. The poor spend a lot of money on them, if they were tax free then they'd pay less in tax. As they would if they grew some of their own food.
  Falcon
  
  --
  Should there be a Law?
4. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by plasmacutter · 2009-02-01 21:34 · Score: 1
  
  The "fair tax" will be much more painful to the unemployed and middle class, and will have the poor screaming for anesthesia.
  Not if essential items like clothes, food, and medicine are tax free. The poor spend a lot of money on them, if they were tax free then they'd pay less in tax. As they would if they grew some of their own food.
  Falcon
  Clothes tax free?
  Ok mr gates, let's go get that custom fit armani.
  Then there's the fact that food, water, and shelter are not the only portions of a first-world lifestyle. It would be quite a bit easier for these same poor people to just move to a developing nation if that's all they need.
  This, however, is the western hemisphere. Other modern conveniences are important to make up a modern lifestyle. As you can see from my example on clothing, the more in include in this exemption list the greater loopholes become for those who wish to evade it.
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
5. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by Firethorn · 2009-02-02 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  you mean exempting "necessities?".
  sorry but modern western society is not defined by food shelter and water, and as soon as you start to expand it from there it becomes open to exploitation.
  Agreed, which is why I'd only exempt medical care; maybe food/water.
  
  I dont know what sheltered life you live, but in the real world people maintain a specific lifestyle by assuming debt in harder times and paying it off in better times. Punishing the assumption of debt by increasing the principle 20+% will kick people financially when theyre down and will discourage economic growth overall by punishing spenders.
  Sheltered life? Raised by two accountants, maybe. Ideally people stay mostly out of debt; during good years they build a reserve to use during lean years. For example, I have 3 months income in a mutual fund. Used to be six, but *shrug*. Other tax sheltered investments stretch that to a couple years. Given my life I also have a far different idea of what minimum lifestyles are. Being to some of the poorest regions of the world can do that.
  Are you one of those that also complain about how those who need credit the most can't get it?
  
  Except people have to buy and sell new goods for revenue to flow and salaries to be paid.
  And the feds need money to run their operations, your point? Remember, under my scheme you'll also be keeping about 25% more of your pay.
  
  See my answer to number 1, add to that the fact that governmental policies never track properly with inflation or account for debt to income ratios, which are much more important than nominal income.
  Then they occasionally adjust the scales. Not actually a huge deal.
  
  And trump spends far less in comparison to his income than his secretary spends on her son's allowance. The "fair tax" would allow him to pay even less.
  He does? On the other hand, his income is generally reinvested in the economy resulting in increased economic infrastructure, which is a good thing.
  
  no, you'd lose domestic companies because everyone would buy from online vendors across the border. Introduce tariffs and face economic sanctions from the WTO.
  Suggest you read up more; European countries, Australia charge VAT on incoming goods all the time. You'll face no economic sanctions as long as you're even handed - If you're taxing goods regardless of their type and origion, there'll be no sanctions. IE you're not allowed to slap a $1/pound tax on beef from Australia but not Japan, but you are allowed to charge a 10% VAT/sales tax fee on everything, beef included, whether it comes from Australia or Japan.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
6. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by DavidShor · 2009-02-02 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  You could make consumption taxes progressive, see my post here. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1111355&cid=26684787
7. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by Firethorn · 2009-02-02 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Clothes tax free?
  Ok mr gates, let's go get that custom fit armani.
  Many proposals I see have exemptions for stuff under a dollar amount. I see that as leading to people buying 3 4 packs of underwear instead of a 12 pack*, so I'm opposed. The rich can still get their $25 shorts tax free, they just buy them individually instead of in a 3 pack or whatever.
  Regardless, clothing doesn't have to be a significant expense, the lowest tiers can shop at goodwill stores and such, underwear isn't that expensive, etc...
  Clothing - taxed.
  
  Then there's the fact that food, water, and shelter are not the only portions of a first-world lifestyle. It would be quite a bit easier for these same poor people to just move to a developing nation if that's all they need.
  "If they want first world lifestyle, they need to earn first world lifestyle!" /meanie with nose in air with oddly russian accent. ;)
  My list of 'necessities': Food, shelter, clothing, sanitation, medical care, and a bit of entertainment. I include water in along with food. Of all these, I'm fond of the midwestern tendency to tax restaurant food and not grocery food. Rich people DO tend to eat out a lot more than the poor... And when the poor eat out, it tends to be at unhealthy places like fast food joints.
  Regardless - of that list, all that I wouldn't tax would be some of the food and medical care.
  
  the more in include in this exemption list the greater loopholes become for those who wish to evade it.
  And the more you have to charge on other items to make up for the lost revenue, increasing the drive to avoid it.
  *I really dislike running out, and like getting all new occasionally.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
8. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by falconwolf · 2009-02-02 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Then there's the fact that food, water, and shelter are not the only portions of a first-world lifestyle. It would be quite a bit easier for these same poor people to just move to a developing nation if that's all they need.
  Other things can be made tax free as well. Not only that but there can also be a luxury tax. That Armani suit? It's a luxury, unless it's for business, and may be taxed. But to tell the truth, if government would stay within it's Constitutional limits taxes could be low. There is no authority for the Fatherland, er Motherland, er Homeland Security. If you want one then propose a constitutional amendment. The same with HUD and a number of government agencies and departments.
  Falcon
  
  --
  Should there be a Law?
9. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by scot4875 · 2009-02-02 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh yes, the poor should just grow some of their own food on their vast expanses of farmable land, that would certainly save them money.
  Or are you really suggesting that having a windowsill herb garden is going to feed someone? Or that it would save really them more than a few dollars a year even if they could grow things indoors?
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
10. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by falconwolf · 2009-02-02 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh yes, the poor should just grow some of their own food on their vast expanses of farmable land, that would certainly save them money.
  One, gardening was only one suggestion. And farmland is not needed to grow a garden.
  Or are you really suggesting that having a windowsill herb garden is going to feed someone? Or that it would save really them more than a few dollars a year even if they could grow things indoors?
  I live in a major city myself, I can ride my bike to downtown Minneapolis in 10 minutes. Though I started late last year I planted enough in my garden to eat a salad a day for more than a month, can enough for a jar of tomato sauce a week through winter, and twice that in tomatillos. I still have some zucchini squash as well. This coming spring besides these I'll also grow carrots, onions, and maybe potatoes. I should also get a bunch of rhubarb and blueberries, I only planted them last year and after the first year the following years bring more to harvest.
  Then there are city farms, city gardens, and other forms of city agriculture. CNN did a story last year that showed how this lady in a rough neighborhood of Chicago started a garden in her neighborhood and was able to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to children. Though I don't know where they are there are community gardens in Minneapolis, besides what I garden in my yard I may rent a plot at one or more of these gardens so I can grow more.
  Falcon
  
  --
  Should there be a Law?
11. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by plasmacutter · 2009-02-02 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed, which is why I'd only exempt medical care; maybe food/water.
  All hail the return of the third world. (explative deleted) the poor by making everything cost 25% more! they're "inferior" anyway, right?
  
  heltered life? Raised by two accountants, maybe.
  I'd call that sheltered. Two parents in the upper professional echelons means never facing hard times. You are in no position to be demanding everything cost 25% more.
  
  Are you one of those that also complain about how those who need credit the most can't get it?
  damn right! You only get extended a loan if you already have the money sitting in an account somewhere, and now since the credit crunch not even that. Heck, i can't even consolidate the citi private student loans despite the fact i can never, ever walk away from them in a bankruptcy!
  
  Except people have to buy and sell new goods for revenue to flow and salaries to be paid.
  And the feds need money to run their operations, your point?
  
  The POINT is a tax system which deliberately penalizes consumption will kill revenue streams to manufacturers, resulting in depressed wages or lost jobs while at the same time raising the cost of products by 25%.
  My, how very "fair" this tax is to the lower 50% of the income distribution.
  
  Remember, under my scheme you'll also be keeping about 25% more of your pay.
  and you'll be paying 25% more for everything when, currently, its already damn hard to get by, but the people who should be contributing proportionately more will be paying less. So where is the benefit again?
  
  He does?
  yes, he does, or are you a real accountant?
  
  st you read up more; European countries, Australia charge VAT on incoming goods all the time.
  
  good luck stopping the smuggling! Oh look i just found a big hole that can be used for tax evasion under this "fair tax" which will screw everyone below the median income!
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
12. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by plasmacutter · 2009-02-02 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  To see what happens when you impose a luxury tax, please look up the history of the US yacht industry.
  luxury providers have smaller clientele and end up having to eat the tax instead of passing it on.
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
13. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by plasmacutter · 2009-02-02 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  You could make consumption taxes progressive, see my post here. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1111355&cid=26684787
  
  This doesn't solve the problem of people being taxed when they have no income.
  Nothing kicks the unemployed or laid off in the balls like everything costing 25% more.
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
14. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by Firethorn · 2009-02-02 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  All hail the return of the third world. (explative deleted) the poor by making everything cost 25% more! they're "inferior" anyway, right?
  Did you miss the part about eliminating income taxes, making everybody about 25% richer?
  
  I'd call that sheltered. Two parents in the upper professional echelons means never facing hard times. You are in no position to be demanding everything cost 25% more.
  It also means that I bloody well know how to balance a budget and such.
  
  damn right! You only get extended a loan if you already have the money sitting in an account somewhere, and now since the credit crunch not even that. Heck, i can't even consolidate the citi private student loans despite the fact i can never, ever walk away from them in a bankruptcy!
  Lenders are in it to make money. It makes no sense for them to make dangerous loans where they can't even expect to get principal back; much less interest.
  
  The POINT is a tax system which deliberately penalizes consumption will kill revenue streams to manufacturers, resulting in depressed wages or lost jobs while at the same time raising the cost of products by 25%.
  My, how very "fair" this tax is to the lower 50% of the income distribution.
  As opposed to this one, in which saving was penalized and spending encouraged to the point that most people are more in hock than their income? To the point that we have this economy? Give me the steadyness of people investing in economic infrastructure(stocks, bonds, that stuff).
  Besides, look up the fairtax proposals - there's ways to make it progressive.
  
  yes, he does, or are you a real accountant?
  Didn't follow my parents into the accounting field.
  
  good luck stopping the smuggling! Oh look i just found a big hole that can be used for tax evasion under this "fair tax" which will screw everyone below the median income!
  Most states already have a sales tax, how much smuggling is going on? Well, otherwise than illegal drugs? Look at the huge ass cargo containers our shit is hauled in on. They couldn't smuggle that much stuff in. Unlike drugs, consumer goods tend to be bulky.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
15. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by falconwolf · 2009-02-02 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  luxury providers have smaller clientele and end up having to eat the tax instead of passing it on.
  The same can be said of any tax. The more tax a person has to pay the less they can spend.
  Falcon
  
  --
  Should there be a Law?
16. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by plasmacutter · 2009-02-02 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  luxury providers have smaller clientele and end up having to eat the tax instead of passing it on.
  The same can be said of any tax. The more tax a person has to pay the less they can spend.
  Falcon
  except when the tax is tied to income people with less money to spend get taxed less. That's why income tax is actually the fair tax.
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
17. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by plasmacutter · 2009-02-02 15:50 · Score: 1
  
  Did you miss the part about eliminating income taxes, making everybody about 25% richer?
  Income taxes are currently progressive. this means that under the "fair tax" people will get progressively poorer as you move further and further below the median income.
  
  It also means that I bloody well know how to balance a budget and such.
  let me know when balancing your budget involves weighing food vs heat, medication vs gas to get to work. I don't think you quite understand how limited funds are to those below the median income brackets.
  
  As opposed to this one, in which saving was penalized and spending encouraged to the point that most people are more in hock than their income? To the point that we have this economy? Give me the steadyness of people investing in economic infrastructure(stocks, bonds, that stuff).
  That has nothing to do with progressive taxes and everything to do with offshoring/h1b-ing and freezing people's wages for upwards of a decade while inflation continued at 3% a year, energy prices sky rocketed, and the price of an average home shot to 12x the median income.
  Don't blame the government, blame corporate greed.
  
  esides, look up the fairtax proposals - there's ways to make it progressive.
  remove taxes on products below a certain price cap? Mercedes will just sell their cars in small, separate parts, then the "service" of putting it together.
  Remove taxes on certain classes of products? now you have the government determining what other people can buy AND you are dependent on the government to update these things. Current medicaid income thresholds in my state are 3k/yr
  
  Most states already have a sales tax, how much smuggling is going on? Well, otherwise than illegal drugs? Look at the huge ass cargo containers our shit is hauled in on. They couldn't smuggle that much stuff in. Unlike drugs, consumer goods tend to be bulky.
  current sales taxes are not significant enough to outweigh the convenience of immediate receipt of product. Jack it up to "fair tax" levels and you will suddenly see a lot of orders made to online companies offshore and shipped in via normal post.
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
18. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by falconwolf · 2009-02-02 16:27 · Score: 1
  
  except when the tax is tied to income people with less money to spend get taxed less. That's why income tax is actually the fair tax.
  Except people work to earn the money which isn't fair.
  Falcon
  
  --
  Should there be a Law?
19. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by plasmacutter · 2009-02-02 17:06 · Score: 1
  
  except when the tax is tied to income people with less money to spend get taxed less. That's why income tax is actually the fair tax.
  Except people work to earn the money which isn't fair.
  Falcon
  Except the people who work to earn the money actually HAVE that job which those who don't lost out on or were laid off of, which is even MORE unfair.
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
20. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by Firethorn · 2009-02-03 00:01 · Score: 1
  
  Income taxes are currently progressive. this means that under the "fair tax" people will get progressively poorer as you move further and further below the median income.
  www.Fairtax.org
  
  let me know when balancing your budget involves weighing food vs heat, medication vs gas to get to work. I don't think you quite understand how limited funds are to those below the median income brackets.
  Didn't start life making $50k, started at less than $12k.
  
  Don't blame the government, blame corporate greed.
  Corporations are supposed to be greedy; government is supposed to reign them in a bit. Government policies encouraged that stuff. As for people's wages being static - well, we've had all that downward pressure because of the low costs of labor and other things in places like China and India. It's put downward pressure all over the first world countries. Frankly, I'm surprised we've done as well as we have.
  Honestly enough, I believe that the progress of technology has kept us more or less even, with the caveat that we can do a heck of a lot MORE with medicine, and that's expensive. If we were to restrict ourselves to things they could do back when my grandparents were young it'd be a whole lot cheaper. The 'poor' of today have televisions and frequently cable. The 'poor' of yesterday had to make do with a radio.
  I've seen my cousins grow up and make their own choices, some putting them in the income brackets you complain about. They manage to find ways to get food and medicine for their kids, and frequently (illegal)drugs for themselves. Would I have done things differently? Probably so. I honestly believe that the 'poor' are mostly that way due to spending habits, not income. I've known poor people, IE no assets, with $50k/year jobs. My mom, the CPA, has known people declaring bankruptcy with $250k+ incomes. Meanwhile, every so often you hear about the guy or gal with the low wage job passing on and leaving a million, saved up over the years, to charity.
  
  remove taxes on products below a certain price cap? Mercedes will just sell their cars in small, separate parts, then the "service" of putting it together.
  Remove taxes on certain classes of products? now you have the government determining what other people can buy AND you are dependent on the government to update these things. Current medicaid income thresholds in my state are 3k/yr
  Now I KNOW you didn't look it up. It involves rebating all US Citizens and legal resident aliens amounts equivalent to the tax on poverty line spending. Spend less? You get extra income, spend more? Your effective tax rate goes up as you spend more. One thing about the fairtax site I don't necessarily agree with would be taxing raw food/medical care, but I understand their point. It's not like it doesn't get exempted with the rebate.
  
  current sales taxes are not significant enough to outweigh the convenience of immediate receipt of product. Jack it up to "fair tax" levels and you will suddenly see a lot of orders made to online companies offshore and shipped in via normal post.
  And promptly be taxed at the border? Have you ever seen international shipping rates? It'll end up being MINOR. US bound goods already come on . Foreign shipping of individual packages would outweigh the tax.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
21. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by plasmacutter · 2009-02-03 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  Corporations are supposed to be greedy; government is supposed to reign them in a bit. Government policies encouraged that stuff
  You mean government lack of policy. The crisis happened because the laws which were put in place to prevent it after the last one were repealed under the reaganite/libertarian montra of "govt intervention = bad"
  
  It involves rebating all US Citizens and legal resident aliens amounts equivalent to the tax on poverty line spending.
  
  The median income isn't at the poverty line. For reference, these are the people who suffer most under the un-fair tax
  Ah, and the government gets to determine what "poverty" is.
  In my state that threshold is defined as 3k/yr. Notice the graph shows only those whose who will never know what a lightbulb is will benefit from the "prebate"
  
  Spend less? You get extra income, spend more? Your effective tax rate goes up as you spend more.
  Yay, a federal policy which is fundamentally contractionist! This will certainly keep our economy flying.. straight at the ground and into a colossal crater.
  
  And promptly be taxed at the border?
  not going to happen. I've shipped in from overseas thousands of times and been socked with a surcharge only once.
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
22. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by Firethorn · 2009-02-03 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  You mean government lack of policy. The crisis happened because the laws which were put in place to prevent it after the last one were repealed under the reaganite/libertarian montra of "govt intervention = bad"
  No, I mean encourage. They passed legislation that encouraged lending to minorities; despite their lower credit scores. Along with repealing/rewriting legislation that should have stayed in place.
  Gotta love the whole progressive/regressive thing. It's not even static; it's defined in terms of what it's compared to.
  It wasn't that many years ago that I was in the first couple brackets, and I certainly knew what a lightbulb was. Try again.
  
  This will certainly keep our economy flying.. straight at the ground and into a colossal crater.
  You mean a different crater than the one it's in now? I figure the sales tax system would help encourage evenness - we won't shoot quite as high, but we won't bottom out like this either.
  
  not going to happen. I've shipped in from overseas thousands of times and been socked with a surcharge only once.
  When there's only a very few things charged tariffs/import duties. This would change.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
23. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by plasmacutter · 2009-02-03 21:14 · Score: 1
  
  No, I mean encourage. They passed legislation that encouraged lending to minorities; despite their lower credit scores. Along with repealing/rewriting legislation that should have stayed in place.
  Bullcrap. The legislation was to stop red-lining, or denying people's loans because they lived in a specific area without even bothering to analyze them on their own credit-worthiness.
  Way to go listening to the hannity echo-chamber.
  
  You mean a different crater than the one it's in now? I figure the sales tax system would help encourage evenness - we won't shoot quite as high, but we won't bottom out like this either.
  encourage evenness? did you even look at the analysis I linked? Sales taxes are tilted stupidly toward the lower and middle class while the rich, who spend much smaller portions of their income, get off scott free.
  
  When there's only a very few things charged tariffs/import duties. This would change.
  And then you have a new department to replace the department of revenue, equally invasive, equally complicated, and this time it prevents the flow of the mail in addition to the contractionist policy which has people refusing to spend money.
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
24. Re:"UN-Fair Tax" by Firethorn · 2009-02-06 16:58 · Score: 1
  
  You know, it's almost like we speak different languages at times?
  I think I've heard Hannity once when he was a guest speaker. Rush a few times more, but he's way too bombastic for me. Here's a question for you: Can you guess my positions on abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, gun control, and illegal drugs? From your comments, I think you might be surprised at what my answers really are.
  
  Bullcrap. The legislation was to stop red-lining, or denying people's loans because they lived in a specific area without even bothering to analyze them on their own credit-worthiness.
  From what I've read, it went far beyond that - enabling the lending to people with far worse credit ratings and loans that the borrowers had no real ability to pay. While credit ratings certainly aren't perfect, they're far better than the probing people had to endure back before the ratings existed.
  
  encourage evenness? did you even look at the analysis I linked? Sales taxes are tilted stupidly toward the lower and middle class while the rich, who spend much smaller portions of their income, get off scott free.
  Swoosh and a miss! I was talking about the overall economy and the boom/bust cycle. We wouldn't boom as far, but then again, we wouldn't bust as far either.
  
  And then you have a new department to replace the department of revenue, equally invasive, equally complicated, and this time it prevents the flow of the mail in addition to the contractionist policy which has people refusing to spend money.
  1. Who said we'd ever close the IRS? Wishful thinking aside, I fully realize that the fed.gov needs money to run operations. I tend to think it runs a lot of operations both unforgivably inefficient and completely unnecessary, but that's something of a different topic.
  2. It'd only slow down mail on the border; Agencies already do this in the lands of the enlightened, IE Europe, England, and Australia. Haven't heard if Canada does it as regularly, but then I haven't checked.
  3. People will still spend money. They'll just spend a while longer before they buy that 60" Plasma, and actually act like ants over grasshoppers in saving up supplies for the winter. It'd take a while before our economy would adjust, but I believe that we'd end up better off in the future.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
Then close the loophole by sethstorm · 2009-02-01 09:33 · Score: 1

Close the loophole and ignore their protests.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Just plain wrong by patiodragon · 2009-02-01 09:47 · Score: 1

"Only the US government can print notes"
Bullshit. This hasn't happened since JFK printed United States Notes. The Federal Reserve Notes are printed by a PRIVATE bank. The shareholders of the bank are private individuals and not the government.
Pretty much sums it up... by RogueWarrior65 · 2009-02-01 10:26 · Score: 1

IBM, UBM, We all BM for IBM.
Globalisation... by MrKaos · 2009-02-01 11:45 · Score: 1

Privatize the profits and Socialize the losses.

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Think about the UK also.... by jotaeleemeese · 2009-02-01 12:09 · Score: 1

We are friends and all, but if our currency keeps tanking, releasing a few billions may help keep it stable against speculation....

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Yeah, great. by jotaeleemeese · 2009-02-01 12:14 · Score: 1

Let the wizz kids in Wall Street decide instead.
They are real clever and driven by greed and profit, which means we are insured because if we lose they lose.
That is going to work *real* well.
With politicians at least you have democratic accountability. What have your dollars decided if they are gambled or literally burned by people that should have known better?
A wise person should know when it is time to try new ideas. The geniuses at Wall Street had their chance and blew it, enter the politicians to try to clean up the mess.

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
1. Re:Yeah, great. by wellingj · 2009-02-01 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  What are you talking about? The Guys on Wall Street have none of my money. Zip-Zero. The government is the biggest drag on my financials because I recognized the inherent risk to my person at participating in that clap-trap or pseudo capitalism turned poker game. No one forced you to play on wall street and invest in companies that you had no first hand knowledge of.
  
  There is nothing wrong with investing in local businesses that you believe will do well.
  
  --
  Money is the root of all evil?
Patriotism and economics are bad bedfellows. by jotaeleemeese · 2009-02-01 12:19 · Score: 1

Patriotism is all well and good (not really, but I will humour you) but by buying first local and USian you are only deciding economical matters using non economics reasons.
That is great if that makes you feel happy, but if the businesses you are supporting are inefficient you are making yourself a disservice by paying too much for your goods and services, and thus supporting companies that are not getting more efficient....

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
1. Re:Patriotism and economics are bad bedfellows. by chill · 2009-02-01 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  There is no such thing as pure economic reason outside of a text book. There are *always* other factors involved. For example, quality and speed of service, or convenience.
  I said that those (locally owned & operated) were important considerations, but not the *only* ones. I'm willing to pay a premium of about 10-15% to locally owned and operated businesses as opposed to big box stores or foreign imports. But I'm not willing to buy crap or put up with poor service. My quality of life is directly affected by the economic success of my local economy. I live very near the downtown area of a small Chicago suburb, and having healthy and sustainable businesses within easy walking distance is an important factor that I'm willing to support with a small premium on cost.
  I also make a large meat purchase once a month from a local farm, mostly beef and pork in their many forms raised within 80-100 miles of where I live. The product quality is excellent and guaranteed fresh. There is a side benefit of reducing pollution and energy consumption by a (very) small fraction by limiting the distance the food travels to my plate. Finally, it employs that many more people in my local economic zone.
  In this case, I'm treating "patriotism" as "think globally, act locally" instead of a synonym for nationalism, which can be very bad.
  
  --
  Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Oh, it was very simple. by jotaeleemeese · 2009-02-01 12:24 · Score: 1

They kept descendants of former slaves and other minorities complete and utter poverty, denying them any services that were offered to other citizens.
If you think that those people hadmuch sanitation, education and general public services, well, I have a bridge in San Francisco I would like to sell you ....

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Oh please .... by jotaeleemeese · 2009-02-01 12:30 · Score: 1

What has your family have to do with finding a new job in a different place?
Lots of folks around here use their family to cover for lack of integrity and principles ...

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
1. Re:Oh please .... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 16:38 · Score: 0
  
  Generally, they like to eat, have a roof over their heads, and don't appreciate being uprooted lightly.
ibm is historically a hudson valley company by circletimessquare · 2009-02-01 14:16 · Score: 1

but the future of ibm is in bangalore. and we're not even talking about retaining top and middle management in new york either. ibm's future hudson river valley presence will be a token afterglow, and we're talking on the scale of 2-3 years, not 20-30. it's a long established trend btw, its not a sudden change. ibm has been pulling up its roots from the hudson valley: kingston, poughkeepsie, fishkill, westchester county, binghampton and endicott, for decades. they'll probably keep the big "art warehouse" on 57th and madison though, that's a nice gem
furthermore, i really don't know why anyone has a problem with this. if you can get a guy to do your job for 1/5th of what you are paid in bangalore, what do you want ibm to do? if they refuse to compete on those terms, then some other company will capitalize on that talent and beat ibm at its own game, and weaken the company, and result in american layoffs thataways. protectionism never works. it just delays the inevitable
if some guy in bangalore can do your job at 1/5th your payscale, you are going to suffer for that, on eway or another, no matter what the corporate or legal or political environment. simple economics prevails. go ahead and fight that. while you are at it, fight the tides and the rising and setting of the sun. just accept reality already
nothing in this world, no natural law, no morality, says you are priveledged to keep your job unchalleneged forever. move on, get into another industry, or don't: sit and whine and complain. that's all you are good at? that's the content of your character? you think you are priveledged and entitled, apparently

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:ibm is historically a hudson valley company by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-02-01 19:20 · Score: 1
  
  We'll see how well they can compete with US businesses with all-Bangalore stuff...
  (and I say that as a third-worlder myself)
2. Re:ibm is historically a hudson valley company by nervouscat · 2009-02-02 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  Meanwhile where are these laid off IBMers going to work? I grew up in the Mid-Hudson Valley. Poughkeepsie, Kingston and East Fishkill are historically one-company towns. This is not Silicon Valley where you can lose your job, walk across the street and get a job interview at another company. My Dad worked at IBM for 32 years until he retired, but I couldn't even last two years there (this is not your father's IBM anymore). There were no comparable jobs at comparable pay in the area, so I have to relocate to another state to find work.
  The local government officials were blind and took IBM for granted. One former county executive was fond of saying: "Sure, we have a one-horse town, but our horse is a thoroughbred." When the first IBM layoffs came in the 1990s, there was devastating effect on local communities. After the 1993 layoffs and the eventual closing of the Kingston plant, there was a mass exodus of technical professionals out of the area. Contractors and subcontractors that depended on IBM went out of business. Real estate prices took a nose dive. The only jobs left were in the growing big box retail and service industry along Route 9. Programmers and engineers who stayed in the area ended up underemployed and had to learn the phrase "Would you like fries with that?" at their new job.
  If IBM ever pulled up roots completely from the Mid-Hudson Valley, then the area would be nothing but a bedroom community for New York City (based on recent growth in Metro North commuter rail riders, that could become reality sooner than you think). I would love to see the area become more diversified in terms of jobs and companies, but I don't think the Mid-Hudson Valley will ever become a tech hub. I would encourage the laid off IBMers to not leave the area and try some good old fashioned entrepreurship. C'mon all you retired and laid off IBMers, why not get together and come up with a great idea for an invention and start your own company! That's the Silicon Valley way - Intel was founded by former employees of Fairchild Semiconductor. The best way to screw your former employer is to compete against them! And if your startup becomes successful, you'll generate new jobs for the local economy and eventually there will be less dependence on Big Blue for jobs.
Can you imagine?! by gillbates · 2009-02-01 14:56 · Score: 1

What would happen if you crossed an Ivy-league educated politician with a rapper? And elected him President?
I can hear it now:
Pres: Yo, Yo, Yo! Bailout hos listen up!
You ain't gettin' none of my money - you heeere me? None of it!
What? - your outsourcin', no good, H1-B hirin' firm is going into the toilet? Welcome to the free market, bitches!
Laissez faire muthafockers!
Peace out.

--
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Business isn't charity by falconwolf · 2009-02-01 15:57 · Score: 1

You're right it is, however it shouldn't getting taxpayer dollars either.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
TARP by falconwolf · 2009-02-01 16:03 · Score: 1

the TARP program mostly involved capital injections in exchange for equity in the companies
TARP, Troubled Assets Relief Program was originally supposed to buy troubled assets from banks but instead the money was given to banks without any strings. What did banks do with the money? They used to buy other banks.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
1. Re:TARP by DavidShor · 2009-02-02 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  As I said, the TARP program mostly involved capital injections in exchange for equity in the companies. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Purchase_Program
2. Re:TARP by falconwolf · 2009-02-02 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  As I said, the TARP program mostly involved capital injections in exchange for equity in the companies.
  But that was not the purpose of TARP. TARP was approved to buy troubled assets. Your wiki link even says that, "[TARP's] primary focus was expected to be the purchase of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and whole loans".
  Falcon
  
  --
  Should there be a Law?
Let the wizz kids in Wall Street decide instead. by falconwolf · 2009-02-01 16:57 · Score: 1

With politicians at least you have democratic accountability. What have your dollars decided if they are gambled or literally burned by people that should have known better?
With my own money I can decide who I will invest with, but when government takes my money I can't decide.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
Hmm... by FiloEleven · 2009-02-01 16:58 · Score: 1

Palmisano stood beside President Barack Obama and waxed patriotic
Did anyone else read that as "waxed pathetic?"

--
Your brain is not a computer.
cutting income taxes by falconwolf · 2009-02-01 17:48 · Score: 1

Pretty great for a while. Less great when the roads start falling apart, criminals realize the police can't afford bullets, the jails have to release all the inmates at once, the number of under-educated people around you starts increasing because the schools have shut down
Tax on fuel should pay for roads and property tax pay for law enforcement, the fire department, and schools. With people keeping more of the money they work to earn they can use it to pay for more higher education.
It's not like bailouts are the only thing we fund with taxes, you know. There are actually a hell of a lot of services that benefit you directly on a daily basis. Eliminate taxes and you'll end up either losing those services entirely, or else paying for them out of pocket anyway.
What are these services? A cut in defense spending can be paid for by a sales tax. Many of the other federal agencies and departments are not constitutionally authorized. Others like the Agricultural department can have their budgets cut, congress has given big businesses like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill billions of taxpayer dollars, in January 2008 congress passed a farm bill with about $200 billion in subsidies. Agricultural subsidies, which were supposed to be temporary, are nothing more than Corporate Welfare.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
As opposed to an unelected private organization? by falconwolf · 2009-02-01 17:57 · Score: 1

An unelected private organization you can decide not the do business with. You can't decide not to do business with the government, not unless you fancy jackbooted storm trooper thugs at your door.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
Police waste a lot of time chasing non-violent by falconwolf · 2009-02-01 18:07 · Score: 1

crinimials
I agree that law enforcement can be wasted on minor vices, but a lot of laws which involve non-violence need to be enforced, such as traffic, fraud, corruption, health codes, etc.
The US has one of if not the highest per capita prison populations and something like half of them are in prison for nonviolent drug offices. Just possession can mean years in gaol. On the other hand without these victim-less crimes on the books not only would the prison population be cut in half but they free would be paying taxes. And if these drugs were legal then they could be taxed as well.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
education by falconwolf · 2009-02-01 18:20 · Score: 1

Here's a thought: Why don't we make schools about things kids DON'T see on television or the radio - like Reading, Writing, and Math. Gosh. What a concept. ;-)
Another thought, let's cut funding for reading and writing too. Big Bird, Elmer, and a bunch of other TV characters teach those. I think there are shows that teach math too.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
1. Re:education by commodore64_love · 2009-02-01 19:52 · Score: 1
  
  True, but the simplistic alphabet and word games you learn watching Sesame Street is not going to get you a job with a major corporation. That's why the more-advanced topics need to be taught in schools.
  Furthermore the art, music, and sports, what I call "light entertainment", do NOT need to be taught since they are not necessary job skills, and kids are already exposed to that entertainment on television/radio. Where they are deficient are the reading and math skills, and schools need to make-up for that deficiency.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
2. Re:education by falconwolf · 2009-02-01 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  Furthermore the art, music, and sports, what I call "light entertainment", do NOT need to be taught since they are not necessary job skills
  To me they are necessary skills and do need to be taught. And no, I'm not an artist or entertainer, in college my major was Computer Engineering.
  Where they are deficient are the reading and math skills, and schools need to make-up for that deficiency.
  They are also deficient in the arts, of which music is one, and in sports.
  I think I see the problem, if it doesn't turn you into a robot it's not necessary.
  Falcon
  
  --
  Should there be a Law?
3. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 21:14 · Score: 0
  
  He means proper music, not niggers strutting about and shouting that they gonna pop a cap in yo ass.
4. Re:education by Skreems · 2009-02-02 19:49 · Score: 1
  
  It may be good to have a parent at home, but the number of households that have the option is in rapid decline.
  
  I do consider raising kids a real job, just not a very well-paying one, and again, the number of houses that don't have a choice... Anyway, I'd go absolutely insane if I had to stay home with kids all day instead of working with a group of peers, and if I feel that way I couldn't in good conscience ask my wife to give up the chance at a career outside the home. Especially after seeing how it turned out for my own parents.
  
  My hometown had a great support group for home schooling families, with tons of group activities. It still doesn't replace long-term interaction and dedicated facilities once you hit 12-14 years old. As under-funded as they are, there's still a number of things that high school provides that you just can't replicate in the home unless you're obscenely wealthy. Even with a group of parents chipping in.
  
  --
  Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
  The Urban Hippie
5. Re:education by falconwolf · 2009-02-02 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  It may be good to have a parent at home, but the number of households that have the option is in rapid decline.
  Part of the reason is because people live beyond their means.
  I do consider raising kids a real job, just not a very well-paying one
  It isn't well paying true, so instead parents just dump their children in daycare or leave to be latchkey kids.
  Anyway, I'd go absolutely insane if I had to stay home with kids all day instead of working with a group of peers, and if I feel that way I couldn't in good conscience ask my wife to give up the chance at a career outside the home.
  It may not be true in your case but some couples are able to work and take care of children. The parents can work different hours besides working from home. I can't now myself but I had wanted to work from home myself.
  As under-funded as they are, there's still a number of things that high school provides that you just can't replicate in the home unless you're obscenely wealthy.
  If not for an adviser in jr high I would have been able to do better in school. Though I took 3 1/2 years of science in HS when only 1 year was required the most I took for math was algebra. When I was going into 7th grade an adviser told me because I didn't know how to do square roots I couldn't take algebra. So I spent from then until 10th grade taking as advanced a math class as I could without taking algebra. Then in the 3rd month of 10th grade the teacher I had for math held the homework paper I just turned in out in front of class then ripped it up. I blew up and went to see my counselor. I told her I had to get out of that class and after she looked at my school records she said I should have taken algebra. When I said I couldn't because I didn't know how to do square roots she told me that you learn to do them in algebra. If my head had been a volcano it would have been erupting then. Because it was too late she put me into a pre-algebra class. That still burns me up, if I had been allowed to take algebra in 7th grade I would have been able to take calculus in high school.
  Falcon
  
  --
  Should there be a Law?
6. Re:education by Skreems · 2009-02-03 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, you obviously have a personal beef with the school system. And that's fine, there's a lot of fucked up stuff there. But that doesn't mean the answer is to tear down the system entirely. I've been through the Home Schooling system, and I'm telling you the benefits start to break down by the time you hit high school. Sure, you got screwed on math courses, but you said you took a bunch of science. Presumably you had lab equipment that helped that experience, as well as teachers who were relatively specialized in their field. Could your parents honestly have replicated either of those things, especially with a reduced income due to having one or both of them trying to work their time around the home schooling process?
  
  --
  Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
  The Urban Hippie
7. Re:education by falconwolf · 2009-02-03 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, you obviously have a personal beef with the school system. And that's fine, there's a lot of fucked up stuff there. But that doesn't mean the answer is to tear down the system entirely.
  The answer is to offer choices, and yes that means tearing down the walls of monopoly. I'll say though it's not everyone, for instance I liked how my second grade teacher held class. When I had her it was her first year teaching, she'd just graduated from college. She had all sorts of teaching aids in class and allowed the students to learn at their own paces in some subjects; math, reading, and vocabulary are the ones I recall. She encouraged the students who were ahead to help slower students. Two friends of mine and I were compeating with each other to see who was ahead, every week we took a quiz or test to see how we were doing. By the end of the year all three of us were at the 6th grade level in those subjects that were self paced. It was a real downer when we were stuck in "regular" classes in third grade, if only we could have kept going self paced.
  Sure, you got screwed on math courses, but you said you took a bunch of science. Presumably you had lab equipment that helped that experience, as well as teachers who were relatively specialized in their field.
  Some parents who homeschool their children will have their children in school for part of the day, then homeschool them as well. This way kids can get science education and socializing.
  Could your parents honestly have replicated either of those things, especially with a reduced income due to having one or both of them trying to work their time around the home schooling process?
  A group of families could do this, yes. I was even given a chemistry lab kit with 101 or 1001 experiments as a gift. I went through that in short order. However I have not seen any of them in stores since 911, and I've looked for them.
  Falcon
  
  --
  Should there be a Law?
So tell me, how did the US do without income tax by falconwolf · 2009-02-01 18:53 · Score: 1

until 1913?
Actually the US had an income tax before 1913. You must be thinking of the 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, which authorized an income tax. However there was an income tax that was used to pay for the Civil War. Between $600 and $10,000 the tax was 3%, above $10,000 it was 5%. In 1864 the income was lowered and tax raised, below $5,000 the tax was 5% and over $5000 it was 10%. This income tax was not repealed until 1872.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
government's scope by falconwolf · 2009-02-01 19:06 · Score: 1

It's not, as libertarians like to believe, that government's scope has increased. It's that the areas under the government scope have become much more expensive.
Oh but government's scope has increased. Before 1970 there was no Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA started operations on December 2, 1970. Before 1977 there was no Department of Energy. It was created on 4 August 1977. HUD, Housing and Urban Development was created on 9 September 1965. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is dated to 1 July 1946. And on 3 March 2003 United States Department of Homeland Security was created. The list can go on.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
1. Re:government's scope by DavidShor · 2009-02-02 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  That's a shallow way of looking at things.
  The government has had a mandate to take care of the environment for at least a century(with the national parks act). But as we learned more about pollutants and ecosystems, it became necessary for the government to create a separate agency to fulfill the government's perceived responsibility over the environment.
  With the Department of Energy, the government had been explicitly maintaining an oil cartel for a century, and had already launched several coups in oil rich countries. Obviously, the government has believed that energy was it's responsibility for quite a while.
  You could make similar arguments for the HUD, CDC, and DHS.
2. Re:government's scope by falconwolf · 2009-02-02 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  The government has had a mandate to take care of the environment for at least a century(with the national parks act). But as we learned more about pollutants and ecosystems, it became necessary for the government to create a separate agency to fulfill the government's perceived responsibility over the environment.
  Oh, I agree with having an EPA. Pollution doesn't know or respect lines on manmade maps. That is the one federal agency I would keep.
  With the Department of Energy, the government had been explicitly maintaining an oil cartel for a century, and had already launched several coups in oil rich countries. Obviously, the government has believed that energy was it's responsibility for quite a while.
  Yeap, the US has overthrown, helped to overthrow, or supported invasions of nations with democratically elected governments. That does not make it right. The 1953 Iranian coup d'état overthrew Iran's elected government and was supported by the UK and US. In 1975 then President Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger authorized Suharto's Indonesian invasion of East Timor. From the tyme of the invasion until 1999 when East Timorese voted for independence 200,000 people were massacred, 1/3 of the population. Also in the '70s Ford and Kissinger also supported General Pinochet's overthrow of the democratically elected government in Chile, after which tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands "disappeared".
  Yea, the US is such a big supporter of democracy and human rights, unless they get in the way of greed.
  You could make similar arguments for the HUD, CDC, and DHS.
  You may want them, if you do the Constitution provides a way the authorize them, it's called an amendment. Propose one and try to get it ratified, but if you have to go through back doors you must not be confident enough it will be ratified.
  Falcon
  
  --
  Should there be a Law?
education by falconwolf · 2009-02-01 19:20 · Score: 1

And even that much assumes that you have at least one parent home all the time, and free to pay attention to the kids at least 4 or 5 hours a day which rules out any real job, even remote ones.
So you don't think it's good the have a parent at home? They used to call kids like that latchkey kids. And no it doesn't mean no real job, but I guess you don't consider raising kids as a real job. I bet my brother-in-law would argue that with you. Home schooling children are getting more and more popular, and it doesn't even require a child's parent to stay home, instead a group of families may get together and they'll decide who teaches. With a groups of families the children will get their socializing.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
My body is in the pile by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 00:06 · Score: 0

At the first of January I was dropped by IBM from a project that is expected to run through the end of 2009 because of 'budget problems'. No Indians got cut off the project because of this budget problem. My contract was not renewed in favor of a couple of Indians. Indians that can not do the specialized work required. But they sure work cheap (they work with O'Reilly books open to crib examples from). So the bottom line is there is one lost income in the US but the job is still there. Just filled by someone who sends the bulk of their money out of the country.
Other contractors on the project were forced to take a large cut in rate, even after having a signed contract from IBM. Many found out about their new pay structure when paychecks showed up light. The pay rate for Indians were not cut. In my mind taking money from US workers this way puts IBM on the same level as the chain and purse snatchers at the local mall.
Then right after all this IBM posted a profit for the last quarter of 2008. But it was done on the backs of US workers. In the meantime with a nice fat year end profit I suppose Sam Palmasino and the Board of Directors got their bonus. I have no confirmation of this yet. But as a stock holder I will find out. But that is how it works in corporate USA these days. The top guys run the company into the ground while making it look good on paper so they get big bonuses, and now they line up for bailout money.
How can IBM need a bailout and still show a profit?
Re:So tell me, how did the US do without income ta by marco.antonio.costa · 2009-02-02 03:03 · Score: 1

Oh, thanks for filling up such a blank in my knowledge. Someone ought to slap a +1 Informative there.
But it is very different from the 1913 tax in that it was levied to fund a war, and although it was not repealed when that ended - what a surprise! - it DID get repealed AND later considered unconstitutional; which it was was, since it was not apportioned among the several states on the basis of population as the Constitution mandates for direct taxes.
Americans have been paying a sizable chunk of their earnings to the government for a good 96 years now with new taxes churned out like flavors of ice cream. If there is an unfair comparison, this is it.

--
Send your spendthrift head of state this
income tax by falconwolf · 2009-02-02 05:52 · Score: 1

Americans have been paying a sizable chunk of their earnings to the government for a good 96 years now with new taxes churned out like flavors of ice cream.
And for more than 100 years before then, except for the Civil War, there wasn't an income tax. And like all those flavors of ice cream, once politicians tried taxes they liked them.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
life expectancy went from 50 to 75 by curri · 2009-02-02 06:02 · Score: 1

Although modern antibiotics are probably the biggest factor, life expectancy was around 50 in 1913 and is about 75 now; I bet you that things like potable water, health departments making it less likely that I get tainted foods and the FDA, among other government functions have helped this.
privatization by falconwolf · 2009-02-02 06:08 · Score: 1

And the reason any of this cannot be offered by a private company?
Water privatization has been and is being privatized. Atlanta, GA offers a cautionary tale. Once the water was privatized the water became bad. Eventually the city had to take the water system back. Water was also privatized in Cochabamba, Bolivia. As soon as Bechtel, the largest engineering company in the US, bought the water system they raised the price of water. It was raised so much many rioted. Several people, including a teenage boy, were shot and killed and a lot of other injured to protect Bechtel.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
half ? more like a third ... by curri · 2009-02-02 06:09 · Score: 1

I don't know what 'average' is :) but I'm looking at my W2, I made slightly more than 100K (which puts me way above median salary), and pay less than 25% counting ALL deductions (including social security). Adding sales and property tax would make it close to 1/3 of my income.
Multiple sources of funding by curri · 2009-02-02 06:13 · Score: 1

Roads are funded by gas taxes, AND federal and state contributions (from other taxes). Schools are funded by local school taxes AND federal and state contributions. And the original post referred to taxes in general.
Yes, there is waste in government functions, but many of those functions are essential, and we haven't found better ways to do them.
Re:Selling to both sides? Brilliant! by nyvalbanat · 2009-02-02 07:01 · Score: 1

I wish. Easier said than done, though.

--
Ubuntu on primary work desktop since Dapper Drake (2006).
Allow the freemarket operate in health care by falconwolf · 2009-02-02 07:28 · Score: 1

There are a couple of reasons why I don't think you'll see a functioning free-market health-care system.
1) The cost of catastrophic care is high enough that people will need insurance.
I didn't say there wouldn't be insurance. Insurance is part of the plan. Right now most people can't buy insurance on their own and have to get it through their employers. This is because if an employer offers health insurance the employer will get a tax break, but if an individual buys health insurance they do not get a tax break. With a free market system everybody can get insurance and have a tax break. Allow people to choose what type of insurance coverage they want and can afford. If a family wants comprehensive coverage they can pay more for insurance but if an individual only wants catastrophic coverage they can pay out of pocket expenses to see a doctor. For major expenses the insurance will cover it. And if they want coverage for a disability they can buy short term disability insurance. With a plan like a Health Savings Account they can pay for regular expenses. Obviously those who choose such a plan will pay less for insurance than the family who buys comprehensive coverage.
2) Insurance doesn't work very well in the free market due to game theoretic reasons.
There's this thing called person responsibility I happen to believe in. When I've gone grocery shopping I've compared prices. With a freemarket in health care I'd also compare prices. When I can I shop for what I consider the best deal, which may be different than someone else's best deal.
3) Doctors in certain specialties have essentially monopolies in their local areas, forcing their salaries to absurd levels.
Encourage people to go into those specialties and introduce competition. As I say above, if I can shop for a service I can get the best deal.
4) Most importantly, society is not going to let anyone die from lack of healthcare. And so, many people will free-ride off of this and not get health insurance.
What do you think socialized medicine is? It's exactly like that. I don't now but I used to watch my health and try to live as healthy a life style as I could. Because I tried to take care of my health I should have been able to pay less for insurance. Under socialized medicine I wouldn't have that choice, I'd pay the same as the person down the street who eats 5 days a week at McDonald's or the corner greasy restaurant. Under a freemarket though if I wanted to I could join a local healthcare coop. As I'm already a member of two coops, Lakewinds Coop and The Wedge I probable would join one.
Those are some reasons why I think a France-style healthcare system would be cheaper and provide better heath-outcomes then a perfectly free-market one.
And under a system like France's I end up paying for the person down the street who eats at McDonald's 5 days a week even though I eat health food.
"Instead most of the money was simply given to banks, those banks aren't lending money instead their using the money to buy other banks."
No, it was given in exchange for equity, as I said...
Read the name of the program, Troubled Assets Relief Program. It was approved by congress to buy troubled assets from banks, not to give money to banks and that exactly what it should have done. If people wanted the money to go to banks then it should have been named something more appropriate. Heck congress wasn't even happy with what was done to the money.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
1. Re:Allow the freemarket operate in health care by DavidShor · 2009-02-02 19:29 · Score: 1
  
  "There's this thing called person responsibility I happen to believe in. When I've gone grocery shopping I've compared prices. With a freemarket in health care I'd also compare prices. When I can I shop for what I consider the best deal, which may be different than someone else's best deal."
  Due to reasons that are partialy outlined in the previous link, the free market doesn't converge to good outcomes in the insurance market. It's one of the first things they teach you in Game Theory...
  Maybe you'll end up with something workable, but it's not too hard to show the outcome will not be pareto-efficient.
Easier said than done by falconwolf · 2009-02-02 07:51 · Score: 1

Also check out "The Third Wave". A group of high school students asks a teacher how the German's can allow the Holocaust to happen, so he shows them. Wiki says it was a tv movie however I saw it in my philosophy class in college.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
1. Re:Easier said than done by theGreater · 2009-02-02 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
sales tax by falconwolf · 2009-02-02 10:39 · Score: 1

Make it the same authority that licenses cars and taxes gasoline and tires.
I think it depends on the state who taxes what. I don't think the same authority taxes licenses, gas, and tires where I live. And we have the same recycling tax on tires, as well as batteries. I don't recall for sure but I think there's a deposit on batteries that you get back when you return a battery.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
IBM? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-09 05:36 · Score: 0

You mean Indian Business Machines?