your not you’re
[quote]Jathan.young wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]Jathan.young wrote:
and improved military… It’s been awful.
[/quote]
You forgot the word spending after military. [/quote]
If you look at the percent of GDP that we spend as a country on military, you will find it’s lower then a lot of countries. And liberals are always so quick to point out military spending, but ignore things like healthcare, welfare, federal wages, and other huge expenses that the Obama administration has put into place. [/quote]
Welcome to PWI.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Jathan.young wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Reagan is not Deity…and President Obama is not Evil Incarnate…
Mufasa[/quote]
Reagan was a Cock Sucker and did America irreparable harm[/quote]
Yeah we have just never been able to recover from the tax cuts, job growth, end of the cold war, and improved military… It’s been awful.
You are clearly retarded, my friend
[/quote]
Welcome to PWI…pull up a chair and let your blood pressure rise.
And remember, if you are a white conservative…you are racist and most likely the devil.[/quote]
Yes remind me next time one of those old steel towns file for bankruptcy . Or for that matter every time some poor person files for welfare because they are living in a vast pool of unemployment that was caused by a bad decision a bad president made .
I blame Reagan for the problems Youngstown OH, Flint MI , Detroit MI, Chicago ILL, The list goes on . Reagan left a BIG FUCKING HOLE in America
[/quote]
Do you blame Reagan for the cities here in Cali filing bankruptcy ?
[quote]Jathan.young wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]Jathan.young wrote:
and improved military… It’s been awful.
[/quote]
You forgot the word spending after military. [/quote]
If you look at the percent of GDP that we spend as a country on military, you will find it’s lower then a lot of countries. And liberals are always so quick to point out military spending, but ignore things like healthcare, welfare, federal wages, and other huge expenses that the Obama administration has put into place. [/quote]
tied with Russia and only out done by Saudi Arabia
where are you getting your info ?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Jathan.young wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Reagan is not Deity…and President Obama is not Evil Incarnate…
Mufasa[/quote]
Reagan was a Cock Sucker and did America irreparable harm[/quote]
Yeah we have just never been able to recover from the tax cuts, job growth, end of the cold war, and improved military… It’s been awful.
You are clearly retarded, my friend
[/quote]
Welcome to PWI…pull up a chair and let your blood pressure rise.
And remember, if you are a white conservative…you are racist and most likely the devil.[/quote]
Yes remind me next time one of those old steel towns file for bankruptcy . Or for that matter every time some poor person files for welfare because they are living in a vast pool of unemployment that was caused by a bad decision a bad president made .
I blame Reagan for the problems Youngstown OH, Flint MI , Detroit MI, Chicago ILL, The list goes on . Reagan left a BIG FUCKING HOLE in America
[/quote]
Do you blame Reagan for the cities here in Cali filing bankruptcy ?[/quote]
no
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We have a local Tea Party group in Gilbert AZ . Apple (is) (was) going to buy a defunct Solar Plant and turn it into a factory . The local Tea party does not like granting them Tax exempt status . So it could very likely fail .
There is nothing like voting against your own self interest especially for IDEOLOGY [/quote]
You can’t have it both ways pitt. You’ve posted innumerable times and even started some threads about how all these rich corporations aren’t paying their fair share of taxes–and should not get the tax breaks they do–and now you are criticizing this local Tea Party for supporting your very own stated position and not wanting to give tax exempt status to a corporation for a plant project.
Just Say No (which targeted white kids) and creating higher mandatory sentences for drug offenses, with a particular emphasis on crack, didn’t help cities any. That was how Reagan ran the war on drugs which we know has failed.
Interestingly Nixon also waged “war” on drugs but during his administration, and only during his administration, treatment received more funds than law enforcement and it worked as reductions in crime were seen.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We have a local Tea Party group in Gilbert AZ . Apple (is) (was) going to buy a defunct Solar Plant and turn it into a factory . The local Tea party does not like granting them Tax exempt status . So it could very likely fail .
There is nothing like voting against your own self interest especially for IDEOLOGY [/quote]
Actually, that is the ONLY honest way to vote. Voting for what is right, especially when it’s against self interest is what is supposed to happen. The fact that it doesn’t is why we have the majority of the problems we do.[/quote]
Damn well said. Principles man, principles.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We have a local Tea Party group in Gilbert AZ . Apple (is) (was) going to buy a defunct Solar Plant and turn it into a factory . The local Tea party does not like granting them Tax exempt status . So it could very likely fail .
There is nothing like voting against your own self interest especially for IDEOLOGY [/quote]
Actually, that is the ONLY honest way to vote. Voting for what is right, especially when it’s against self interest is what is supposed to happen. The fact that it doesn’t is why we have the majority of the problems we do.[/quote]
Damn well said. Principles man, principles.
[/quote]
I could be wrong but I believe that is a problem Aristotle saw with democracy.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We have a local Tea Party group in Gilbert AZ . Apple (is) (was) going to buy a defunct Solar Plant and turn it into a factory . The local Tea party does not like granting them Tax exempt status . So it could very likely fail .
There is nothing like voting against your own self interest especially for IDEOLOGY [/quote]
You can’t have it both ways pitt. You’ve posted innumerable times and even started some threads about how all these rich corporations aren’t paying their fair share of taxes–and should not get the tax breaks they do–and now you are criticizing this local Tea Party for supporting your very own stated position and not wanting to give tax exempt status to a corporation for a plant project. [/quote]
I can have it both ways and if I do not than I will surly lose. I agree with their Ideology but if they do not give Apple the tax break some one else will and it will be a huge loss .
IMO it is an issue with interstate commerce and goes much deeper . Out side of a Federal Regulations (which I am not in favor) I can see no way to level the field
Mom and Pop stores will never compete with Corporations. We could eliminate taxes period and they would not be able to compete for a number of reasons. We could tax C Corps. @ 30%, Mom & Pops 0%, and they still wouldn’t be able to compete.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Mom and Pop stores will never compete with Corporations. We could eliminate taxes period and they would not be able to compete for a number of reasons. We could tax C Corps. @ 30%, Mom & Pops 0%, and they still wouldn’t be able to compete. [/quote]
How do you figure ?
Let’s forget about write offs , let us say, what percentage of before tax profit is Home Depot paying as apposed to Paul’s Hardware and Lumber .
I do not know but I would bet that Paul still pays a higher percentage . Then you add the write offs that Home Depot gets and you probably realize HD pays a very low percent as apposed to Paul
The only advantage HD has over Paul is buying power . Paul’s garden dept. has plants that grow well in AZ , HD has plants that grow ell in Atlanta GA. Paul retains good employees better than HD does . Tax rate and buying power are a huge advantage
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Mom and Pop stores will never compete with Corporations. We could eliminate taxes period and they would not be able to compete for a number of reasons. We could tax C Corps. @ 30%, Mom & Pops 0%, and they still wouldn’t be able to compete. [/quote]
How do you figure ?
Let’s forget about write offs , let us say, what percentage of before tax profit is Home Depot paying as apposed to Paul’s Hardware and Lumber .
I do not know but I would bet that Paul still pays a higher percentage . Then you add the write offs that Home Depot gets and you probably realize HD pays a very low percent as apposed to Paul
The only advantage HD has over Paul is buying power . Paul’s garden dept. has plants that grow well in AZ , HD has plants that grow ell in Atlanta GA. Paul retains good employees better than HD does . Tax rate and buying power are a huge advantage
[/quote]
Well for one thing economies of scale plays a huge factor. HD is able to buy bulk at a lower price driving the selling price down while Paul’s hardware can not. So a packet of screws costs HD $0.50 and Paul $1.00 allowing HD to sell the screws for $1 while Paul has to charge $1.50. Both make $0.50 per sale (Gross), but it cost consumers an extra $0.50 to buy at Pauls.
Paul also has a smaller inventory, which means customers have to order & wait for inventory Paul doesn’t have. Not nearly as much of a problem for HD. As a matter of fact, your local HD may not have X product, but the HD 15 miles away might. There is no other Paul’s to shop at.
HD has resources Paul never will. This includes the ability to expand, take out a loan, pay employees more, offer benefits(which cost them less), ship goods, online shopping, etc… You say Paul retains good employees better, how so?
The scoop & scale of a C Corps. sales allow for lower prices. If Paul only has 100 items in inventory and he only sells X number of inventory a year, his profit margin has to be higher than HDs to met his revenue needs. HD has 1,000s of items in inventory and the # of transactions is at least 100s of times more than Paul, per store. So profit margain can be smaller due to the sheer # of transactions. Again, economies of scale.
The bottom line is, large corporations are able to sell goods/services for less than a Ma & Pa, while still being profitable.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Mom and Pop stores will never compete with Corporations. We could eliminate taxes period and they would not be able to compete for a number of reasons. We could tax C Corps. @ 30%, Mom & Pops 0%, and they still wouldn’t be able to compete. [/quote]
How do you figure ?
Let’s forget about write offs , let us say, what percentage of before tax profit is Home Depot paying as apposed to Paul’s Hardware and Lumber .
I do not know but I would bet that Paul still pays a higher percentage . Then you add the write offs that Home Depot gets and you probably realize HD pays a very low percent as apposed to Paul
The only advantage HD has over Paul is buying power . Paul’s garden dept. has plants that grow well in AZ , HD has plants that grow ell in Atlanta GA. Paul retains good employees better than HD does . Tax rate and buying power are a huge advantage
[/quote]
Well for one thing economies of scale plays a huge factor. HD is able to buy bulk at a lower price driving the selling price down while Paul’s hardware can not. So a packet of screws costs HD $0.50 and Paul $1.00 allowing HD to sell the screws for $1 while Paul has to charge $1.50. Both make $0.50 per sale (Gross), but it cost consumers an extra $0.50 to buy at Pauls.
Paul also has a smaller inventory, which means customers have to order & wait for inventory Paul doesn’t have. Not nearly as much of a problem for HD. As a matter of fact, your local HD may not have X product, but the HD 15 miles away might. There is no other Paul’s to shop at.
HD has resources Paul never will. This includes the ability to expand, take out a loan, pay employees more, offer benefits(which cost them less), ship goods, online shopping, etc… You say Paul retains good employees better, how so?
The scoop & scale of a C Corps. sales allow for lower prices. If Paul only has 100 items in inventory and he only sells X number of inventory a year, his profit margin has to be higher than HDs to met his revenue needs. HD has 1,000s of items in inventory and the # of transactions is at least 100s of times more than Paul, per store. So profit margain can be smaller due to the sheer # of transactions. Again, economies of scale.
The bottom line is, large corporations are able to sell goods/services for less than a Ma & Pa, while still being profitable.
[/quote]
usmccds423 - look who you are trying to educate.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
let us say, what percentage of before tax profit is Home Depot paying as apposed to Paul’s Hardware and Lumber .
[/quote]
Without more detail for this hypothetical, you are comparing apples to oranges.
How is Pual’s organized?
What basis do they pay tax?
What state?
Are you including dividends in HD’s calc?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Mom and Pop stores will never compete with Corporations. We could eliminate taxes period and they would not be able to compete for a number of reasons. We could tax C Corps. @ 30%, Mom & Pops 0%, and they still wouldn’t be able to compete. [/quote]
How do you figure ?
Let’s forget about write offs , let us say, what percentage of before tax profit is Home Depot paying as apposed to Paul’s Hardware and Lumber .
I do not know but I would bet that Paul still pays a higher percentage . Then you add the write offs that Home Depot gets and you probably realize HD pays a very low percent as apposed to Paul
The only advantage HD has over Paul is buying power . Paul’s garden dept. has plants that grow well in AZ , HD has plants that grow ell in Atlanta GA. Paul retains good employees better than HD does . Tax rate and buying power are a huge advantage
[/quote]
Well for one thing economies of scale plays a huge factor. HD is able to buy bulk at a lower price driving the selling price down while Paul’s hardware can not. So a packet of screws costs HD $0.50 and Paul $1.00 allowing HD to sell the screws for $1 while Paul has to charge $1.50. Both make $0.50 per sale (Gross), but it cost consumers an extra $0.50 to buy at Pauls.
Paul also has a smaller inventory, which means customers have to order & wait for inventory Paul doesn’t have. Not nearly as much of a problem for HD. As a matter of fact, your local HD may not have X product, but the HD 15 miles away might. There is no other Paul’s to shop at.
HD has resources Paul never will. This includes the ability to expand, take out a loan, pay employees more, offer benefits(which cost them less), ship goods, online shopping, etc… You say Paul retains good employees better, how so?
The scoop & scale of a C Corps. sales allow for lower prices. If Paul only has 100 items in inventory and he only sells X number of inventory a year, his profit margin has to be higher than HDs to met his revenue needs. HD has 1,000s of items in inventory and the # of transactions is at least 100s of times more than Paul, per store. So profit margain can be smaller due to the sheer # of transactions. Again, economies of scale.
The bottom line is, large corporations are able to sell goods/services for less than a Ma & Pa, while still being profitable.
[/quote]
usmccds423 - look who you are trying to educate.
[/quote]
Ahh, I don’t mind. I don’t have a problem with Pitt.
Although he did say I conspire with the devil last week…
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Mom and Pop stores will never compete with Corporations. We could eliminate taxes period and they would not be able to compete for a number of reasons. We could tax C Corps. @ 30%, Mom & Pops 0%, and they still wouldn’t be able to compete. [/quote]
How do you figure ?
Let’s forget about write offs , let us say, what percentage of before tax profit is Home Depot paying as apposed to Paul’s Hardware and Lumber .
I do not know but I would bet that Paul still pays a higher percentage . Then you add the write offs that Home Depot gets and you probably realize HD pays a very low percent as apposed to Paul
The only advantage HD has over Paul is buying power . Paul’s garden dept. has plants that grow well in AZ , HD has plants that grow ell in Atlanta GA. Paul retains good employees better than HD does . Tax rate and buying power are a huge advantage
[/quote]
Well for one thing economies of scale plays a huge factor. HD is able to buy bulk at a lower price driving the selling price down while Paul’s hardware can not. So a packet of screws costs HD $0.50 and Paul $1.00 allowing HD to sell the screws for $1 while Paul has to charge $1.50. Both make $0.50 per sale (Gross), but it cost consumers an extra $0.50 to buy at Pauls.
Paul also has a smaller inventory, which means customers have to order & wait for inventory Paul doesn’t have. Not nearly as much of a problem for HD. As a matter of fact, your local HD may not have X product, but the HD 15 miles away might. There is no other Paul’s to shop at.
HD has resources Paul never will. This includes the ability to expand, take out a loan, pay employees more, offer benefits(which cost them less), ship goods, online shopping, etc… You say Paul retains good employees better, how so?
The scoop & scale of a C Corps. sales allow for lower prices. If Paul only has 100 items in inventory and he only sells X number of inventory a year, his profit margin has to be higher than HDs to met his revenue needs. HD has 1,000s of items in inventory and the # of transactions is at least 100s of times more than Paul, per store. So profit margain can be smaller due to the sheer # of transactions. Again, economies of scale.
The bottom line is, large corporations are able to sell goods/services for less than a Ma & Pa, while still being profitable.
[/quote]
I think I covered buying power . As far as wages HD used to pay good back in Marcus Bernie’s days . But now they are the Walmart of home improvement
HD inventory used to be good back in Marcus Bernie’s day but their skus have shrunk.
Try and get a antique brass pop up for a bathromm sink in Scottsdale AZ . Some one in Atlanta GA thought no one is Scottsdale would need one . The list goes on because of central control.
Get into hardware where there are thousands of very like skus . A stainless steel allen screw . find one at HD I dare you 
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Mom and Pop stores will never compete with Corporations. We could eliminate taxes period and they would not be able to compete for a number of reasons. We could tax C Corps. @ 30%, Mom & Pops 0%, and they still wouldn’t be able to compete. [/quote]
How do you figure ?
Let’s forget about write offs , let us say, what percentage of before tax profit is Home Depot paying as apposed to Paul’s Hardware and Lumber .
I do not know but I would bet that Paul still pays a higher percentage . Then you add the write offs that Home Depot gets and you probably realize HD pays a very low percent as apposed to Paul
The only advantage HD has over Paul is buying power . Paul’s garden dept. has plants that grow well in AZ , HD has plants that grow ell in Atlanta GA. Paul retains good employees better than HD does . Tax rate and buying power are a huge advantage
[/quote]
Well for one thing economies of scale plays a huge factor. HD is able to buy bulk at a lower price driving the selling price down while Paul’s hardware can not. So a packet of screws costs HD $0.50 and Paul $1.00 allowing HD to sell the screws for $1 while Paul has to charge $1.50. Both make $0.50 per sale (Gross), but it cost consumers an extra $0.50 to buy at Pauls.
Paul also has a smaller inventory, which means customers have to order & wait for inventory Paul doesn’t have. Not nearly as much of a problem for HD. As a matter of fact, your local HD may not have X product, but the HD 15 miles away might. There is no other Paul’s to shop at.
HD has resources Paul never will. This includes the ability to expand, take out a loan, pay employees more, offer benefits(which cost them less), ship goods, online shopping, etc… You say Paul retains good employees better, how so?
The scoop & scale of a C Corps. sales allow for lower prices. If Paul only has 100 items in inventory and he only sells X number of inventory a year, his profit margin has to be higher than HDs to met his revenue needs. HD has 1,000s of items in inventory and the # of transactions is at least 100s of times more than Paul, per store. So profit margain can be smaller due to the sheer # of transactions. Again, economies of scale.
The bottom line is, large corporations are able to sell goods/services for less than a Ma & Pa, while still being profitable.
[/quote]
I think I covered buying power . As far as wages HD used to pay good back in Marcus Bernie’s days . But now they are the Walmart of home improvement
HD inventory used to be good back in Marcus Bernie’s day but their skus have shrunk.
Try and get a antique brass pop up for a bathromm sink in Scottsdale AZ . Some one in Atlanta GA thought no one is Scottsdale would need one . The list goes on because of central control.
Get into hardware where there are thousands of very like skus . A stainless steel allen screw . find one at HD I dare you
[/quote]
No one buys stainless steel allen screws, which is why HD doesn’t carry them…Supply/Demand and all that.
What is the demand for antique brass pop ups for a bathroom sink? Probably not very high.
Mom & Pops are not competitive enough, that is their main problem.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do not think all Republicans are racist , I do how ever feel racism is alive and well in America and much of the dislike of Obama is racism plain and simple .
I think another portion is standard operating procedure for the Republican party
I think the rest is just the nut jobbery antics of the Tea party [/quote]
I think it’s the opposite. You have a small number of people still clinging on to hardcore racism, and they are likely to be a walking stereotype; white, moronic, right wing, rednecks.
But the vast majority of any “racism” you actually see in America today comes from liberals. They’re the ones always wanting to treat minorities differently from white people. That is, by definition, racism. Why not just drop it and accept that it’s a non-issue? That’s how I feel.
But no, liberals are telling me that I can think George Bush was a shit president, but I can’t possibly, legitimately think Barack Obama is a shit president. Let me know how they’re not being racist.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do not think all Republicans are racist , I do how ever feel racism is alive and well in America and much of the dislike of Obama is racism plain and simple .
I think another portion is standard operating procedure for the Republican party
I think the rest is just the nut jobbery antics of the Tea party [/quote]
But no, liberals are telling me that I can think George Bush was a shit president, but I can’t possibly, legitimately think Barack Obama is a shit president. Let me know how they’re not being racist.[/quote]
Interesting how that works huh?
The media is a powerful thing.