THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

[Phatscotty]

Scotty thinks America has been in decline since Woodrow Wilson a century ago:

I know, I have failed to find solid evidence of that actual statement. However, if you look at progressive ideals and Communists ideals, they are 2 peas in a pod, and the statement is based on that. The substance of the ideals is far more important than an official name change.

I should rephrase: Communists and Progressives share the same ideology. As related to BVP, it's easy to call it silly that Communists are teaching in our schools. But everyone knows the Progressives and the Liberals DOMINATE academia, especially at the union level.

Been going on since Woodrow Wilson started shipping in European Professors, and it only took a generation to get to the great depression.

Link

... And he would be right in that assessment.

...

So it would not be unfair to accuse Phatscotty or NS of wanting to put the US back 100 years?

I.e, before Woodrow Wilson?

All of a sudden Symmetry changes the subject to.....Woodrow Wilson? Okay, fine....let's play Symmetry games


I will meet you half-way, but you have to realize you are not even close to understanding anything about me or what I believe in, and you should by now, because you have been pretending for years......I can realize I don't know that much about you our your country or your people, which is why you will barely ever find me harping on and on like I do.

However, the only thing I would like to set back 100 years is the income tax, and no you do not get to throw all your worst historic fears about every other issues besides income taxes onto me. For the record, I would like to move back to a time when people were able to keep the fruits of their own labor, and it was understood as fundamental to the idea of Freedom, Liberty, and America.

in other words.....


btw, your edit is WAYYYYYYYYYYY out of context. You start editing me out of context again, and I will never speak with you again. I find it highly disgusting and find no reason to communicate with a person who does such things. Fair warning

[CreepersWiener]

I support people who work to EARN money and things to be actually bought and paid for...not handed out to lazy losers who sit at home all day and collect a check from Obama that comes out of my pocket.

Pray tell...who are these people? And how exactly is Obama cutting them a check? If Obama cuts them a check...that seems to be Obama's business and not yours. Seems that Obama's checkbook would be located in Obama's pocket, not yours.

Certainly a reference to Obama Buck's is not meant towards Obama's own money. Therefore it is a misconstrued term being peddled as a term for Welfare. Welfare existed WAY BEFORE OBAMA!

If I remember right, Bush increased Food Stamps by almost a hundred dollars.

Welfare has nothing to do with Obama, Welfare is agreed upon through ALL our elected officials. Have fun trying to vote all them out!

[Symmetry]

Scotty thinks America has been in decline since Woodrow Wilson a century ago:

I know, I have failed to find solid evidence of that actual statement. However, if you look at progressive ideals and Communists ideals, they are 2 peas in a pod, and the statement is based on that. The substance of the ideals is far more important than an official name change.

I should rephrase: Communists and Progressives share the same ideology. As related to BVP, it's easy to call it silly that Communists are teaching in our schools. But everyone knows the Progressives and the Liberals DOMINATE academia, especially at the union level.

Been going on since Woodrow Wilson started shipping in European Professors, and it only took a generation to get to the great depression.

Link

... And he would be right in that assessment.

...

So it would not be unfair to accuse Phatscotty or NS of wanting to put the US back 100 years?

I.e, before Woodrow Wilson?

All of a sudden Symmetry changes the subject to.....Woodrow Wilson? Okay, fine....let's play Symmetry games


I will meet you half-way, but you have to realize you are not even close to understanding anything about me or what I believe in, and you should by now, because you have been pretending for years......I can realize I don't know that much about you our your country or your people, which is why you will barely ever find me harping on and on like I do.

However, the only thing I would like to set back 100 years is the income tax, and no you do not get to throw all your worst historic fears about every other issues besides income taxes onto me. For the record, I would like to move back to a time when people were able to keep the fruits of their own labor, and it was understood as fundamental to the idea of Freedom, Liberty, and America.

btw, your edit is WAYYYYYYYYYYY out of context. You start editing me out of context again, and I will never speak with you again. I find it highly disgusting and find no reason to communicate with a person who does such things. Fair warning

Cute, but the threat of never talking to me again kind of got old when I was in primary school. Now it's just a lame threat, and I don't like threats.

An objection that you want to put the US back 100 years would place you wanting the US pre Wilson, pretty much exactly 100 years ago. It's what you said, it seems to be what you still believe, and it's an accurate criticism.

[Phatscotty]

okay....so.........no comment about any of the subject matter you asked about??????? You also seem to have missed the essence of my post, because you continue to pretend I want to set back everything 100 years? That is just the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Luckily, only the dumbest people actually believe that. And you are the one bringing up "grade school" threats?

Don't edit me out of context, and you don't have to worry about a perma-foe......

It's a fair offer

[Symmetry]

okay....so.........no comment about any of the subject matter you asked about???????

Don't edit me out of context, and you don't have to worry about a perma-foe......

It's a fair offer

What was the context you were worried about? Do you not think that the progressive movement started a hundred years ago anymore, and do you not want to see a return to the days before the progressives anymore?

That would be a return to a century ago.

[Woodruff]

You have never heard anyone say they are voting for Obama "because he is black"? A little further, do you suspect that millions of people voted for Obama "because he is black"?

Do YOU suspect that, Phatscotty? Because I've got to tell you...anyone who believes that MILLIONS of people voted for Obama because he is black is an utter moron.

I don't find the concept all that unbelievable, I at least don't find it ridiculous. If you don't think Obama's race attracted anyone to his campaign you are mistaken.

You're actually trying to correlate "millions of people" with "anyone"? Did that actually make sense when you typed it?

This is where you, Woodruff, come back with some data or at least offer an explanation to support that this idea is moronic. Scotty at least attempted to back up his claim.
I'm thinking that while its possible that millions may have voted for Obama because he was black, there may be millions who did not vote for him for the same reason. The question is which group is larger.

Where did Phatscotty's 97% figure come from? It doesn't seem to be close to what I found, though I have no idea how accurate what I found was either, to be honest. So I'm not saying his figures are wrong, just that I didn't find them. Here's what I found that seemed relevant to the topic:

In an October 17–20, 2008, NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of registered voters, 2% said race made them more likely to vote for Barack Obama, 4% said it made them less likely to do so, and 2% were not sure. Race was not a major factor for the other 92% (margin of error was ±2.9%).[127]

A July 18–21, 2008, NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 20% of African American registered voters and 8% of white registered voters considered race the single most important factor when voting (margin of error was ±3.1%). This percentage increased in both groups from previous polls.[128]

A June 6–9, 2008, NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 17% were enthusiastic about Obama being the first African American president, 70% were comfortable or indifferent, and 13% had reservations or were uncomfortable (margin of error was ±3.1%).[129]

[Woodruff]

one party has cleaned their own house and got rid of all those Bush Republicans and is already half way through reconstruction.

I really hope you aren't referring to the party who has gone so far to the Christian right that they want to set this country back socially 100 years?

Republicans haven't gone to the Christian right. If anything, it's moved much closer to the libertarian/constitutional right.

From where I'm sitting, I would disagree with that very strongly. It's moved A LITTLE to the Libertarian/Constitutional side of things, but it's been moving to the Christian right for quite some time and currently sits smack-dab on the far side of it.

And there's no platform to "set this country back socially 100 years".

I would agree. Unfortunately, that seems to be the intent of some.

[Woodruff]

Republicans today are not the same as the Republicans of 4 or more years ago. There are actually true conservatives and libertarians in the party now.

There were then too. Or have you forgotten Ron Paul and a couple of others so quickly?

I do hope you're not including Romney and Ryan in "true conservatives" OR "Libertarians"...

[Woodruff]

I support people who work to EARN money and things to be actually bought and paid for...not handed out to lazy losers who sit at home all day and collect a check from Obama that comes out of my pocket.

It is statements like these that show me just how deluded and misinformed some people are.

[Woodruff]

To the OP. You made YOURSELF sound so biased and unbelievably stupid that your initial post talking about how the intelligent people will vote for obama sound completely ludicrous.

Scientists have proven the following:

People who are intelligent...vote Democrat

People who are stupid as ffuck...vote Republican
source: American Political Scientist Daily

Scientific theory has established this quaint little nummy num num. Certainly you don't want to be stupid, so you must be voting Democrat...right?

That doesn't seem particularly "scientific" for a "scientific theory".

[Woodruff]

Scotty thinks America has been in decline since Woodrow Wilson a century ago:

I know, I have failed to find solid evidence of that actual statement. However, if you look at progressive ideals and Communists ideals, they are 2 peas in a pod, and the statement is based on that. The substance of the ideals is far more important than an official name change.

I should rephrase: Communists and Progressives share the same ideology. As related to BVP, it's easy to call it silly that Communists are teaching in our schools. But everyone knows the Progressives and the Liberals DOMINATE academia, especially at the union level.

Been going on since Woodrow Wilson started shipping in European Professors, and it only took a generation to get to the great depression.

Link

... And he would be right in that assessment.

...

So it would not be unfair to accuse Phatscotty or NS of wanting to put the US back 100 years?

I.e, before Woodrow Wilson?

All of a sudden Symmetry changes the subject to.....Woodrow Wilson? Okay, fine....let's play Symmetry games

All of a sudden? Are you incapable of reading the written word?

[Nobunaga]

I support people who work to EARN money and things to be actually bought and paid for...not handed out to lazy losers who sit at home all day and collect a check from Obama that comes out of my pocket.

Pray tell...who are these people? And how exactly is Obama cutting them a check? If Obama cuts them a check...that seems to be Obama's business and not yours. Seems that Obama's checkbook would be located in Obama's pocket, not yours.

Certainly a reference to Obama Buck's is not meant towards Obama's own money. Therefore it is a misconstrued term being peddled as a term for Welfare. Welfare existed WAY BEFORE OBAMA!

If I remember right, Bush increased Food Stamps by almost a hundred dollars.

Welfare has nothing to do with Obama, Welfare is agreed upon through ALL our elected officials. Have fun trying to vote all them out!

... Fair point, but I believe this is the manner of thing to which he was referring.

...

[Funkyterrance]

You have never heard anyone say they are voting for Obama "because he is black"? A little further, do you suspect that millions of people voted for Obama "because he is black"?

Do YOU suspect that, Phatscotty? Because I've got to tell you...anyone who believes that MILLIONS of people voted for Obama because he is black is an utter moron.

I don't find the concept all that unbelievable, I at least don't find it ridiculous. If you don't think Obama's race attracted anyone to his campaign you are mistaken.

You're actually trying to correlate "millions of people" with "anyone"? Did that actually make sense when you typed it?

This is where you, Woodruff, come back with some data or at least offer an explanation to support that this idea is moronic. Scotty at least attempted to back up his claim.
I'm thinking that while its possible that millions may have voted for Obama because he was black, there may be millions who did not vote for him for the same reason. The question is which group is larger.

Where did Phatscotty's 97% figure come from? It doesn't seem to be close to what I found, though I have no idea how accurate what I found was either, to be honest. So I'm not saying his figures are wrong, just that I didn't find them. Here's what I found that seemed relevant to the topic:

In an October 17–20, 2008, NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of registered voters, 2% said race made them more likely to vote for Barack Obama, 4% said it made them less likely to do so, and 2% were not sure. Race was not a major factor for the other 92% (margin of error was ±2.9%).[127]

A July 18–21, 2008, NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 20% of African American registered voters and 8% of white registered voters considered race the single most important factor when voting (margin of error was ±3.1%). This percentage increased in both groups from previous polls.[128]

A June 6–9, 2008, NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 17% were enthusiastic about Obama being the first African American president, 70% were comfortable or indifferent, and 13% had reservations or were uncomfortable (margin of error was ±3.1%).[129]

So if 60-odd million people voted for Obama, 2% would be about one and one half million right? That being said and considering that polls can be off by varying degrees,(this can be a pretty uncomfortable question for people answer honestly) it's not really a stretch to say that millions of people could have voted for Obama because he was black. Your other statistics provided don't show Scotty's claim to be moronic either. You can split hairs on these figures if you want but its not as crazy an idea as you implied earlier.
I have to applaud you on your posting of some actual data though, Woodruff, that was very refreshing.

[Woodruff]

I have to applaud you on your posting of some actual data though, Woodruff, that was very refreshing.

As opposed to you?

[BigBallinStalin]

I have to applaud you on your posting of some actual data though, Woodruff, that was very refreshing.

As opposed to you?

If your evidence has failed to back your claim, do you avoid the possibility that you were wrong by deflecting people's attention onto others?

[Phatscotty]

Scotty thinks America has been in decline since Woodrow Wilson a century ago:

I know, I have failed to find solid evidence of that actual statement. However, if you look at progressive ideals and Communists ideals, they are 2 peas in a pod, and the statement is based on that. The substance of the ideals is far more important than an official name change.

I should rephrase: Communists and Progressives share the same ideology. As related to BVP, it's easy to call it silly that Communists are teaching in our schools. But everyone knows the Progressives and the Liberals DOMINATE academia, especially at the union level.

Been going on since Woodrow Wilson started shipping in European Professors, and it only took a generation to get to the great depression.

Link

... And he would be right in that assessment.

...

So it would not be unfair to accuse Phatscotty or NS of wanting to put the US back 100 years?

I.e, before Woodrow Wilson?

... Perhaps it would be fair to say that, if you were speaking of levels of state sovereignty, over federal control. Is what you are referring to? If not, then what are you referring to?

...

I already told him, income taxes. But of course, that doesn't matter and it will be onto the next attack.

All Americans know we are losing more and more Freedoms as everyday goes by, regardless of who is in power. And they try to make it seem like a bad thing that we want our Freedoms back. Oh, but they can't accept that it could possibly be about returning to Constitutional principles, that's just a lie!!!

He is so racist, he can see nothing else.

[Phatscotty]

one party has cleaned their own house and got rid of all those Bush Republicans and is already half way through reconstruction.

I really hope you aren't referring to the party who has gone so far to the Christian right that they want to set this country back socially 100 years?

Republicans haven't gone to the Christian right. If anything, it's moved much closer to the libertarian/constitutional right. And there's no platform to "set this country back socially 100 years".

The fact that Bones thinks the Tea Party is a social movement shows a lot. It also shows the failure of whatever media outlet he gets his info from.

Still waiting for just a couple examples of what you meant by it, and by all means, please cherry pick them.

If you can't find any examples, or even just verbally state a few yourself, you could just take the statement back.

[Woodruff]

Scotty thinks America has been in decline since Woodrow Wilson a century ago:

I know, I have failed to find solid evidence of that actual statement. However, if you look at progressive ideals and Communists ideals, they are 2 peas in a pod, and the statement is based on that. The substance of the ideals is far more important than an official name change.

I should rephrase: Communists and Progressives share the same ideology. As related to BVP, it's easy to call it silly that Communists are teaching in our schools. But everyone knows the Progressives and the Liberals DOMINATE academia, especially at the union level.

Been going on since Woodrow Wilson started shipping in European Professors, and it only took a generation to get to the great depression.

Link

... And he would be right in that assessment.

...

So it would not be unfair to accuse Phatscotty or NS of wanting to put the US back 100 years?

I.e, before Woodrow Wilson?

... Perhaps it would be fair to say that, if you were speaking of levels of state sovereignty, over federal control. Is what you are referring to? If not, then what are you referring to?

...

I already told him, income taxes. But of course, that doesn't matter and it will be onto the next attack.

All Americans know we are losing more and more Freedoms as everyday goes by, regardless of who is in power. And they try to make it seem like a bad thing that we want our Freedoms back. Oh, but they can't accept that it could possibly be about returning to Constitutional principles, that's just a lie!!!

And yet you're actively campaigning and voting for the status quo.

He is so racist, he can see nothing else.

Ironic.

[Woodruff]

one party has cleaned their own house and got rid of all those Bush Republicans and is already half way through reconstruction.

I really hope you aren't referring to the party who has gone so far to the Christian right that they want to set this country back socially 100 years?

Republicans haven't gone to the Christian right. If anything, it's moved much closer to the libertarian/constitutional right. And there's no platform to "set this country back socially 100 years".

The fact that Bones thinks the Tea Party is a social movement shows a lot.

http://www.thedailydolt.com/2012/10/05/tea-party-rep-paul-broun-evolution-and-big-bang-are-lies-straight-from-the-pit-of-hell-why-yes-he-serves-on-the-house-science-committee-with-todd-akin/

[stahrgazer]

I personally, don't see how anyone could vote for Democrats. Do you like money? 99.9% of you will say yes. Then why would you vote for someone who wants to raise taxes and take EVEN MORE money from you when they already take so much to begin with?

I support people who work to EARN money and things to be actually bought and paid for...not handed out to lazy losers who sit at home all day and collect a check from Obama that comes out of my pocket.

What a joke!

No, here's the jokes:
Most Republicans won't consider retired citizens some of those "lazy losers who sit at home all day and collect a check," when in fact, they are. Yes, they paid into Social Security, enough that would last 5-8 years, the lifespan expectancy 'back then.' And then went on to live 30-40 years. The Ryan (now called Romney) "fix" is to let those who bankrupted social security and medicare, continue to collect, but end it just AFTER the last baby boomer retires.

Most of this economic crash began just before Bush's second term... the ball was rolling downhill then, and Bush did nothing; if he'd done something "in time" it may not cost what it's costing now. There's an old adage about a stitch in time saves nine that can apply here, just substitute sewing thread for dollars.

Most physicians agree that many of the most costly illnesses would be less costly if caught earlier, and that's what Obama's initial plan wanted to help with, to catch things earlier so they cost less in the long run.
When companies reduce or eliminate health benefits because they CAN, they also reduce or eliminate the average person's ability to get into Group healthcare that costs less than every individual family in American purchasing it. Obama initiated something that addresses that... it got warped by Republicans but there are still aspects of the Affordable Care Act that DO make health care insurance more affordable to those who had no health care insurance. Basically, Obama's plan acknowledges that we can't count on Big Business.

"Big business" that Republicans want to protect at all costs, have absolutely zero patriotism.

If they did, they wouldn't take our jobs overseas. If they hadn't done that, more people would have jobs and not be 'lazy losers' sitting at home. Also, if "big business" wants to avoid the higher income taxes that is just fair at a time when they're about the only ones who have any money to afford a little more, then they could hire some people here, and write off the expense of employing people, lowering their profit which in turn reduces their taxes.

Of course, that does not address those who are fraudulent about needing assistance, but cutting it all out because some few commit fraud - the Republican plan - isn't right either.

Obama's plan was to take us back to Reagan tax rates, which worked, rather than Bush tax rates, which led us into economic decline. And if you want to scream at that because it will cost "the rich" more money, take a better look at Romney's plans; he won't directly increase the tax rate, he'll just reduce or eliminate the deductions for your house, your medical care, your childcare expenses... all those things that help the little guy, including the small business owner, stay just a little above drowning.

America was NOT founded to help the rich guy get richer while the poor guy dies under the weight of no home, no food, and no one caring. The opposite is true, it was founded to escape the weight of Lords owning All. Present-day Republican plans want to undo over 200 years of history, and its working because anything less than "rich get to keep it all," and the scream of "socialism" has people rallying to their cause... like the rats that followed the Pied Piper.

The Republican party today wants to insist that women who happen to get pregnant (maybe they didn't have health care to get a birth control script, hmm?) should under almost every circumstance, have the child. Then the Republican party today does not want to help ensure the child is fed, clothed, housed, or educated properly.

Ike, Abe, and even Ronald are turning over in their graves at what is called "Republican" today, because instead of strengthening the Republic, this party is doing its best to tear us apart.

~
also a registered Republican who thinks it's time to disown them

[Nobunaga]

... I grow weary of this "shipping jobs overseas" mantra.

... What does the phrase mean, exactly? ... Democrats relate it to...

1. Comapnies / factories closing operations or cutting services, then restarting those factories & services in another country.

.... This is uncommon, but not unheard of. It is much more common to see US businesses shipping jobs out of state - to other states where the tax climate is more friendly.


2. The expansion of business overseas.

... So if a company has millions of customers in Asia, building a plant in Asia to better meet that demand would still be labelled as "shipping jobs overseas". Indeed it is so labelled and decried by the left.

... Or if a business expands production, building articles overseas for eventual sale in the United States, this is also a sin, apparently.


... But expansion is just that, adding jobs, not subtracting jobs from anywhere.

... Granted, it would be great if all expansion could be done in the US, but with our criminal corporate tax rates (up to 39% Federal, 12% State), does that make any sense to anybody?

... Add to that the very high cost of labor (though lower than many other western nations)... and the picture should be pretty clear.

... And here comes a carbon tax... increased responsibility for employee insurance (gotta cover all those 26 year old kids now)... what company with any interest whatsoever in making money would expand in this country?

...

[stahrgazer]

... I grow weary of this "shipping jobs overseas" mantra.

... What does the phrase mean, exactly? ... Democrats relate it to...

1. Comapnies / factories closing operations or cutting services, then restarting those factories & services in another country.

.... This is uncommon, but not unheard of. It is much more common to see US businesses shipping jobs out of state - to other states where the tax climate is more friendly.

...

It's a lot more common than you realize.

Here's a few examples you can maybe relate to.

Americans are formidable purchasers of athletic shoes like Nike and Reebok, but the only still-made-in-USA athletic shoe is New Balance.

Companies overseas pay their workers less to produce their shoes, yet the price of New Balance is comparable to what those overseas-manufactured products are fetching. And not just for the shoes sold offshore. Last year, the owner of New Balance commented that they might have to break down and move offshore soon, too, since the Nikes and Reeboks manufacturing might move to Vietnam, a reasonably "virgin" workforce who will therefore work for less than (Inda, Pakistan, used to be Mexico and before that it was - you guess it! USA!) will work for.

Americans purchase a lot of automobiles, and some might say, we invented the things, including the "drive train" and yet, you can't find a "drive train" manufactured in the USA anymore; they're made overseas and shipped in, and NOT just for the overseas-brand vehicles. And not just for the Fords, Chevies, and Dodges that will be sold offshore.

Similarly, computer components are marketed by American companies, but darn few - if any, anymore - are made with all-American-made components. Televisions, same-same. Not just for the computers/tv's that will be sold offshore.

Jet engines, ditto, except for those which have governmental restrictions due to security reasons (such as the F119/Raptor, which had a contractual requirement that all parts be made and assembled in the USA). But many of the intricate commercial engine parts were offshored. And not just for the jets that will be sold offshore.

Phonebanks... another example of thousands and thousands of jobs that left the USA to go to other countries, and not just to make calls within those other countries. Nope, next call you or your family gets could very well come from India rather than Indiana.

And when the companies are done milking those people (when the people start asking for a few more wages or benefits) the companies then move on to another country whose labor force didn't yet wise up.

I grow weary of those who don't get that it's things like this - not Obama - that are tearing our economy, and as a result, our country, down. I grow weary of those who don't see that this does take away jobs from Americans.

[Woodruff]

Americans are formidable purchasers of athletic shoes like Nike and Reebok, but the only still-made-in-USA athletic shoe is New Balance.
Companies overseas pay their workers less to produce their shoes, yet the price of New Balance is comparable to what those overseas-manufactured products are fetching. And not just for the shoes sold offshore.

This right here...its this sort of thing that pisses me off. Moving overseas purely as a profit-driven motive at the expense of our nation's workers. And so many people defend the practice.

[stahrgazer]

This right here...its this sort of thing that pisses me off. Moving overseas purely as a profit-driven motive at the expense of our nation's workers. And so many people defend the practice.

Like Nobunga is trying to do, you mean?

I also grow weary of those who bitch and moan and call folks (like me, who lost my job at Pratt because of so much company offshoring while Bush was in office turning blind eyes or helping the offshoring by eliminating regulations) lazy because we can't find decent work anymore so are asking for a little help for a while, and maybe a little while longer than we'd like, until some rich dude decides he'll hire just one more person and that person is one of those "lazies" or even me!

Two months ago I read where UTC (Pratt) is making a big aerospace investment in Morocco. Now I know where my and my 6 thousand friends' jobs went.

And I'll repeat: we lost our jobs during Bush's regime, long before the 'crash' and several years before Obama took office.

Edit: Tangential point. You realize, China is now in the Aerospace market, jets and rockets? Wonder why? It's like the music and video cd's... companies made deals to sell over there, that included letting the Chinese in on how we make things, and they took it and ran with it, not at all bothered that they weren't supposed to steal our patents. But when those contracts hit, whewwwie the stockholders were so happy for a month. All good, Nobunga, because the company made a profit back then, huh?

And no matter that the "lazy" Americans now can't find work, huh?

[BigBallinStalin]

Americans are formidable purchasers of athletic shoes like Nike and Reebok, but the only still-made-in-USA athletic shoe is New Balance.
Companies overseas pay their workers less to produce their shoes, yet the price of New Balance is comparable to what those overseas-manufactured products are fetching. And not just for the shoes sold offshore.

This right here...its this sort of thing that pisses me off. Moving overseas purely as a profit-driven motive at the expense of our nation's workers. And so many people defend the practice.

And what of the poorer people in foreign nations?