Stephen Russell wrote:

>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/opinion/14herbert.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

> I do NOT want to see the Bush Tax Credits extended.
> 
> For over a decade USA industry has gotten fat in profits at the
> expense of the USA worker.  We have looked at the bottom line
> implications of keeping a manufacturing site in the USA for about 10
> to 20 seconds.  Those in a meeting will generally chuckle and approve
> the closing of the plant here to open a different one there.
> 
> Those first companies who did that were forward thinking and broke new
> ground in the world economy.  Didn't they see the flood of dollars out
> of the country would have an effect sooner instead of later?  I think
> they just focused on their tunnel vision or that bottom line.
> 
> Welcome to the wake up call of 2010.  You now have to pay to play.
> Each one of you who got very rich will now have to pay it back 100,000
> $ a year or so they say.  To me that 100,000 = only two incomes.
> 
> I would love to see a change to the Bush Tax Credits that forgive the
> extra % if your investment portfolio proves your investments are
> bringing jobs home.
> 
> How to define the rules for this are beyond my pay grade.  I could
> toss out a few options if the phone wasn't ringing.

Hi Stephen,

Maybe if a guy has *NO* overseas investments and really *is* creating 
jobs for Americans *HERE* he should get a credit for that, but . . .
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://pete-theisen.com/
http://elect-pete-theisen.com/

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to