State factory loss a 'crisis,' panel says

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | Sunday, February 22, 2004 | Len Barcousky

[Willie Green]

About 1,400 factories have closed in the state in the past three years, says the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association.

"If this isn't a crisis, then that word has no meaning," said David N. Taylor, communications director for the association. He was one of seven panel members representing an unusual alliance of labor and business who spoke Wednesday at a Trade Sanity Town Meeting at Butler County Community College.

[jpsb]

Do you favor funding government with tariffs (sales tax) or do you favor funding government with income tax?

[Texasforever]

You didn't ask a question the first time you made a statement. Now apologize and I might tell you.

[jpsb]

I'm sorry, do tell?

[Texasforever]

That didn't sound sincere.

[Veracious Poet]

"I have a hundred bucks that says you can't produce a quote by me on that subject. Deal?"

Here's a couple:

"Not a whole lot. In that tax range most itemize deductions and have 4 or more dependents. With the child tax credit plus itemized deductions federal taxes are VERY low."

"If I have one major gripe with the GOP and Bush is the tax reform packages went too far in removing people from the tax rolls. If we are going to have taxes, EVERYONE should be required to pay."

You wanna send me the $100 instead Mr. Taxman?

[Texasforever]

Where is my advocacy of the position. I just stated facts on the ground.

[jpsb]

Hey I ain't gonna kiss your ass. You argue day after day after day in favor of funding government with income taxes so I kinda figured you like the Marxist income tax. If not you sure fooled me.

[Texasforever]

argue day after day after day in favor of funding government with income taxes

I do? Still waiting on a post that has me "arguing for government funding via income tax".

[Veracious Poet]

"Well since you can speak for the founders I can too. They would have offshored manufacturing jobs too had they had the 21st century infrastructure we have today. They were nothing if not ruthless businessmen. They made up for it with slave labor though taking all the good jobs away from free men."

What part of "We the People..." do you not understand? LOL

[jpsb]

Good luck collecting from our little marxist friend. BTW I very much enjoy your posts.

[Texasforever]

What part of "We the People..." do you not understand?

What in the heck does that have to do with the Founders being the "founders" of bringing in cheap (slave) labor to do the jobs free men would have done? I get bored easily and you are going to have to try harder if you want to talk to me. So far you are batting 0.

[Veracious Poet]

I do? Still waiting on a post that has me "arguing for government funding via income tax".

...EVERYONE should be required to pay.

You don't even understand your own position, do you?. That wasn't the Founding Fathers vision, just in case you didn't know. ;-)

[Joshua]

"I know it's a novel idea to pay the little guy that actually creates the product a measly living wage,"

The little guy doesn't "create" the product. He's offered an opportunity to make a product at a wage that wiil produce a profit for the company. When his demands for wages limits the Corporation from making a profit they can either close or find other ways to produce their product at a profit.

Alot of those greedy shareholders that demand this are former employees who want to make sure their 401k stays in the black.

Your class warfare with CEO pay is simplistic and foolish.

While I do agree that some CEO's are paid more than they are worth,it's ridiculous to think that their pay is the reason for sending jobs overseas. I don't agree that anyone in this country has a right to a job with a living wage. Someone w/o even a high school diploma has no right to demand 50k a year to turn a screwdriver in a car assembly plant.

[Veracious Poet]

"What in the heck does that have to do with the Founders being the "founders" of bringing in cheap (slave) labor to do the jobs free men would have done..."

It wasn't the Founding Fathers that brought slaves to the New World...most of them didn't even own slaves BTW.

I'm sorry your getting bored with me, I think you must have got bored with American history as well, you should really take the time to study it some time (in small bites so you don't get bored). ;-)

[Texasforever]

If we have income taxes then everyone should pay income taxes. That is what being a conservative is all about equal responsibility for all. You are still grasping at straws. Try harder.

[jpsb]

Well it is a 2+2=4 thing. You see when you argue against tariffs you are in effect arguing in favor of income taxes. Oh No Mr Bill. Yup, in 191x the US passed the 17th amendment to the Constitution and revenue from income taxes started to replace revenue from tariffs. So constitutionally speaking we have two ways to fund government income tax or tariffs, so when one argues against tariffs they are in effect argueing in favor of income taxes. Understand? Yes Mr Bill, thank you for the history lesson.

[Texasforever]

It wasn't the Founding Fathers that brought slaves to the New World...most of them didn't even own slaves BTW.

LMAO so the slaves were forced on the Washington, Jefferson, Adams, etc.? You shouldn't have picked the slave era as your argument against slave labor or outsourcing. It was bush league.

[Veracious Poet]

Hmmm...so let me get this straight; Without skilled, ingenious US blue-collar workers the US Corporations would have grown just fine.

Well hell, they should have started out in Mexico or China to begin with!

I'm sure that wouldn't have made any difference at all to US consumers 50 years ago, would it?

[Texasforever]

You see when you argue against tariffs you are in effect arguing in favor of income taxes.

I argue against all forms of protectionism, that is why I am a conservative not a populist. See the difference?

[Veracious Poet]

Washington received his slaves through inheritance and marriage, bought slaves to keep families together, educated them and provided them with more than local poor white farmers.

Upon his death bequeathed his estate to his slaves and made them free upon Martha's death (legally there was no other way).

Washington always assumed that Blacks would be freed after the Revolution, but because of the fragile nature of the Union of States he let the issue go (Unlike Lincoln, who thought it better 600,000 should die to settle the issue).

As far as Jefferson & Adams, they'd have to explain their position for themselves...I suggest you read about them in-depth like I have Washington. ;-)