those tax-free offshore accounts and the whole pension scam thing.  I am going to send the campaign a copy of "Hostile Takeover," I think--it has mucho documented info about this stuff. (and lots of stuff Jim could use in reply to G. Allen's challenge to him on Stephanopoulos to name the items Allen voted on that Webb opposes.)
Of course, public campaign financing, reasonable redistricting (when will the Supremes see the probs with gerrymandering?) and fair elections (personally, I favor universal vtoe by mail) should all be in the picture for real change. 

you get back to work.
Or, maybe this is what someone pays you to do?

except I know you're not.  What's so absurd about this debate is to hear right wingers talking about the horrors of income redistribution, when that's EXACTLY what they're doing, stealing from the poor and middle classes and giving to the super rich.  That's right, everyone, it's REPUBLICANS who have been practicing class warfare for years now, they just don't want you to know it.  They also want to blame "liberals" for everything, but that's another story...

Are you feeling the dark side of the force?

admits that corporations and the rich are paying more than their fair share, it's hard to ignore.

The point of the article is this : Over the past decade, tax revenues have become much more volatile, alternately soaring and plunging in the wake of swings in the stock market and repeatedly defying government projections.
I think it's a stretch to say that the NYT is saying what you are saying, thought the NYT is owned by some conservative, wealthy people.

______

Corporations pay their fair share?  Really?
According to http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04358.pdf
(General Accounting Office) Comparisons of the tax liabilities of FCCs and USCCs from 1996 through
2000 varied depending on the measure.
• A majority of all corporations reported no liabilities during these years
with a higher percentage of FCCs doing so than USCCs, an estimated
average of 71 percent and 61 percent, respectively. However, the results
were reversed for large corporations with a greater percentage of large
USCCs reporting no tax liability.

In other words, large American and International companies don't pay much taxes.
_______

Corporations and the rich are paying more than their fair share?  What?

You're missing some pieces of the puzzle ...

Are the rich are paying their fair share in payroll taxes?

Do the rich pay there fair share in state taxes?

Taking money from hard working families!!

Webb has made it pretty clear that he only wants to take from the Halliburton, Paris Hilton tax bracket.  Now...if you would like to start a campaign to protect these people and their "hard earned" money, go right ahead.

Let's take up a collection for them!

Actually, I.Publius, while I would never negate the importance of the investors and owners of businesses, those who actually produce the income are frequently the workers. Nobody succeeds alone or in a vacuum.

Even the best entrepreneur needs great workers. Nothing can kill a business quicker than lousy employees with a bad attitude who don't provide good customer service.

And nothing can help a business to succeed faster than a great team.  So, rewarding the employees is not giving them a hand out.  It's smart business.

If an American corporation produces in low-wage countries, then government shall tax those profits at a rate reflecting the loss to the American economy/wage earner, and designate those taxes for redevelopment and job-training in the affected/impacted communities. 

Production that takes place in Communist China would reflect an additional fee that reflects China's artificially low authoritarian controlled currency rate relative to the dollar.  That excise fee would be applied to the god-awful Chinese-America trade deficit.

however, it is better to approach this from an incentive standpoint versus a disincentive one.

Rather than create disparate tax system (which would necessarily create potential legal questions), it would be better to find an incentive system designed to keep jobs in the U.S.  In other words, creating free enterprise zones in areas such as Martinsville, Virginia.

This needs to be a holistic approach that transcends just taxation.  It needs to focus on a whole host of areas, including tort reform, job retraining, etc.

A punitive approach will only get you so far.  As my grandma always said, "You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar."

Either way, folks should keep an open mind when approaching this subject and not engage in the classic liberal v. conservative diatribe.

We already provide incentives in the form of lowered or eliminated Municipal taxes, subsidized rent, transportation improvements and other taxpayer funding to entice corporations to locate and grow in our communities.  But there are limits to the generosity, especially if it is repaid with a move to the latest off-shore maquiladoras offering better terms. There has to be a cost to this decision.

It is important to note that Corporations have NO inherent rights in America. Corporations operate at the sole discretion of the public -which grants them a charter to operate. NAFTA legislation was crafted with economic dislocation offsets, it is time they were used.  Otherwise industries that have profited from NAFTA should expect to see their charter recinded.

you should have Webb submit legislation to abolish them.  Let's see what kind of impact that will have on the economy.

To state that "Corporations have NO inherent rights...." is non-sense.  Corporations enjoy many of the same inherent rights under the Constitution that apply to regular citizens.  For example, corporations have the right to due process, have inherent property rights under the Constitution, and many other rights and protections under the U.S. Constitution.

From the time of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific, the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to recognize that corporations are afforded "personhood" under the Constitution.

In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394 (1886)), at the lower court levels the question of whether corporations were persons had been argued, and these arguments were submitted in writing to the Court. However, before oral argument took place, Chief Justice Waite announced: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

For to you paint such a broad, an inaccurate statement, shows a complete misunderstanding of Constitutional law.

While you have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, a corporation has to petition for, and be granted those rights by an agent of the state, subject to more onerous rule and regulation.  In Virginia the State Corporation Commissioner is that agent. You can't become a Virginia corporation without permission.

So me and 100 of my Webb buddies can gather downtown and pontificate about how Webb is going to beat Allen in November and we have a RIGHT to do so. By virtue of birthright. No permit required.  A corporation could organize the same event, but would have to get a permit to do so.  No inherent right.

And while you can get a basic drivers license, purchase minimal insurance and go driving down Bubby Boulevard, a cabbie driving the same car down the same street in the course of his business could not. He is subject to corporate regulation and sanction.

Corporations exist at the discretion of the public, subject to the best interests of the public. They are granted the PRIVELEGE of doing business in the U.S.ofA.

 

A corporation must petition the state for the right to exist, but once it does so, it enjoys legal personhood in nearly every sense.

And a city can reasonably regulate YOUR 100-person gathering just as easily as it can a corporation's. 

Here ends your constitutional primer.

As cited in a certain constitutional primer which I now hold, "[c]orporations are entitled to due process of law and equal protection under the law....Generally, unless the context of the statute or constitutional provision requires application only to natural persons, a corporation is entitled to the protection and rights afforded thereby."

Somehow, Bubby, you are getting hung-up over the fact that corporations are created by complying with state corporate law setting forth provisions whereby incorporators must file "articles of incorporation" with the state.

Once the incorporators have fully complied with state law regarding incorporation, a corporate entity is afforded most constitutional rights of enjoyed by natural citizens.

It seems that you want to obviate nearly 120 years of American jurisprudence.

I don't really know what socialism is anymore.  It's more like corporate welfare since instead of allowing the market to put companies like US Airways out of business, our tax dollars keeping them around despite market forces.

Now when a person fails for reasons beyond their control (illness, etc.) we let them blow in the wind while the banks grow fatter. 

Not that I am a fan of any welfare, but given the choice between helping people down on their luck verses poor performing corporations, I'd hope that society would back the people every time.  The make of a civilized society is how we treat our weakest, not our strongest (BTW, we when the bird flu comes, those without better health coverage will spread it to all of us regardless of wealth). 

Webb understands the price we all pay for leaving behind portions of the population. 

My father always said that if the gap gets too big between the rich and the poor things like revolutions occur. The gap is getting bigger--it's funny to see peeps like Ken Lay and Skilling that feel they're doing nothing wrong by screwing everyone and raking it in. Not to mention as been stated at nausuism that fact that all these tax cuts Bush is proposing dont mean squat, because everything else is going up even more than the so called tax breaks. More f'n sound bites from George Bush Allen and Company. Hopefully voting Americans will get out to the polls and vote this fall!!!!

The last paragraph is the most important

"Quarles, the shipping clerk frustrated by puny raises, isn't waiting for the economics to change. Foreseeing that package handling would grow only more automated, he enrolled in college. He just graduated and plans to look for a job with more promise.

"This," he said, "isn't a career for me.""

The era of the $20/hour stable middle class job is dead.
Formal education is the entry key to stable employment in modern society and continued training and adaptability are necessary to remain competitive.  Globaliziation is here to stay.  Learn and adapt or stagnate and fail 

remember all those people who went back to school for technology and software jobs that are now being outsourced overseas?

The are huge numbers of jobs that can be sent overseas and done over the internet.  And what many corporations want is not only to do that but then create a glut of workers for the jobs they can't oursource so that they can calim competition for the jobs and drive the pay of the remaining jobs down

Meanwhile the executives get rich with stock options and bonuses - and options are more valuable because they have cut ctosts

what they don't realize is that in the long-term they may be destroying their markets.  The genius of Henry Ford - despite his otherwise being an obnoxious person and anti-semitic - is that he paid his workers enough and priced his cars low enough that his workers could affor to buy the product they produced.

Keep cutting income to the average person and the consumer spending that has propped up the American economy and you will see a collapse that you cannot probably not imagine unless you are at least in yourlate 70's.

Take for instance, the 50 Y.O. unemployed former textile worker in Mouth of Wilson. Where, you say? Its on another planet you have probably never heard of - Southwest Virginia.

A $20/hr job would be heaven for her. Love to have it.

The problem is way bigger than education. Unless NOVA wants another 2 million economic refugees from down state, and ever more incarcerations, we better get serious about standing our rural economies up.

Sorry if I wasn't as clear earlier let me try again

The old way was you finish highschool you start to work at company X raise a family retire after 30 years and live happily everafter.

We could wax nostalgia for the old days or argue about "mean" corportaions but the fact is reality has changed.

The average person will have 7 careers and 15 jobs. You need the education to get started but then it's up to the individual to adapt to the changing marketplace.  Sometimes life is painful but in the end everyone is better off.  The consumers, the corporations and the workers.  Oh and one other thing the beauty of America is free enterprise so become an entreperneaur and start your own business.  Thats the best way to "stick it to the man" :) 

Tax breaks for the wealthy and deficit spending.  Who cares, it will work out.  Except that it hasn't. We have a record national debt and ever growing budget deficit.

Who holds the debt?  China, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Korea. What would it take for China to make a disaster of our nation?  Simple, flood the currency markets with our dollars.  Our economy would go into a spin.

Saudi Arabia?  They could either cut oil production which would effectively raise gas prices higher.  Or they could also dump dollars on the markets.  Nice.

Venezuela: Same deal as the Saudis.

Korea: They keep talking about selling American dollars - if they do look for other Asian nations to follow.  You will be taking a wheelbarrow load of dollars to the store to buy bread.

So deficits don't matter?  We can keep using oil and buying everything from China?  Are you sure it is in America's interest to have our debt held by communist and feudal nations? 

Never mind, lets talk about flag burning.

 

Especially one of our more conservative cheerleaders for the new economy:

If America no longer produces things like steel, durable goods, and factory parts here in the U.S. because China can do it cheaper, what happens if China ever gets mad at us and throws up an embargo?  Or another country blockades us, or China?  Or what if China, South Korea, Mexico or any other nation just decides they want to see us weakened and we can't get the products we need?

Beyond all the cheerleading over the genius of the free market, which is shipping so many of our high paying manufacturing jobs overseas, is there also a security issue here?  Are we more vulnerable today because of how little we produce at home and how vulnerable we are?

And for those who are so enthusiastic that Americans now get to have 15 different careers, before you so gleefully sweep away the old days when there was company loyalty, economic stability, and when a man or woman could work for a company for 30 years and live in the same community all his or her life, is our way of life so much better today?

It's conservatives who constantly whine about threats to the family.  I personally think the destabilization to society that the new economy has brought on is a million times more of a threat to the American family than gay marriage ever will be.

The family isn't threatened by gay people wanting to be in committed relationships. But it is threatened by parents who lose jobs, constantly moving from community to community, never having roots in any one town, not knowing the meaning of loyalty to a company (and knowing the company was loyal to you too). 

There was a time, in New York, when there was terrible flooding.  IBM sent all their employees home.  Managers called to make sure their workers were coping and to see what IBM could do to help.  IBM had the most loyal employees in the world back then.

And those employees also were volunteers in stable communities.  Their kids weren't on drugs or doing alcohol, because parents had the time and resources to be involved in their children's lives in a way you barely see today.

And I think a lot of the reason is that in today's economy, people constantly change jobs. If you miss too many days, regardless of the reason, your manager isn't going to call you to see what's wrong with your family or ask how he can help.  He's going to call to tell you your job has been outsourced to Bangalore.  You'll lose your mortgage.  But that's ok, because your next job will be half way around the country, where your kid will have to adjust once again to being the stranger, the outcast because high school cliques are tough to break into. So, he'll get in with a bad crowd because those may be the only kids who'll have him.

There's no sense of community, no sense of loyalty, no job security, an increase in depression and substance abuse, a rise in divorce rates. But hey, the new economy is great. Don't look back to when there was economic fairness, a strong sense of community, strong unions, respect for both workers and owners. Let's all march into the Brave New World of the corporatist free traders.

These aren't even real conservatives. They simply use the nostalgia and yearning of true conservatives who may someday realize what they're really missing.

Maybe that's why Ronald Reagan is still Jim Webb's hero even while Webb has come home to the Democratic Party.

I'm not a professor of economics but here is my humble attempt also you have alot to say and we agree on some things too in fact dems and repubs agree on alot its the extremes that mess things up but thats for another time and post :)

Paragraph 1 and 2 Lets see from what I can remember from Econ 101 each country specializes in its strengths and everyone gets along (sorry for the gross generalization)
However you are correct there is a security risk DoD is struggling with this very issue with technolgoy.  Bascially we need more scientists and engineers.  Also The World is Flat does a better job of explaining what is going on and the pros and cons.  I generally am more on the pro side but there are definently some negative side effects

Paragraph 3 I'm not saying thats a good or bad thing I was just saying thats the reality of the world we live in now.  For what its worth Peesonally, I think I would get bored doing the same thing for 30 years although job secruity would be nice I could always work for the government I guess :)

Paragraph 4 interesting point I am also more center or leftist on the whole gay marriage thing.  I am a fiscal conservative social libertarian

For the rest of your piece I think this moves beyond politics and more into the pros and cons of modern society.  I think a key point to remember is that ultimately humans are in charge still.  We all have choices thats what makes America great.  I have made a choice to work around 40 hours a week instead of 60.  Because of this choice I will propably make less money but I feel that the pros outway the cons in this instance. 

Hope this is sort of what you were looking for