Yeah, I'll take a South African owned Miller Lite, please!

This is why I drink the local micro's. They don't make a light beer. I need new pants....

I think that is the attitude a lot of people have. They don't mind give people a hand when they are hurting, but to pay people to do nothing makes them mad. Since I left high school 38 years ago, I have worked for every penny I got. The ideal of my taxes going to support someone that has no desire to work........

+1

How do you know what their desire is?

Or do we just assume and wild asss guess their desire?

Mark

I will never claim to know what any single person thinks, but I can hypothesis what a percentage of a group may think, based on their actions. Just because I object to freeloaders does not mean I would oppose all welfare. It just means that I would support limits on how long people can use welfare, and other reforms.
$100B worth of tax money hidden in European banks

Do you think those limits do not exist?

Some do, some don't. Tax reform is multi-faceted. We need to make sure that the rich do not evade their due share. We also have to make sure that we do not waste the taxes that are collected. Think of how much money is wasted on our legal system. Between prosecutors, judges, supplied defense attorneys, and all the other expensive boondoggles in the system. Then the taxpayers get to pay for incarceration, reviews, and appeals, not to mention the added expense for reform training and special needs.

It would be great if someone could develop and pass a means of finding ways to make the process actually work, especially if they could make it self sufficient. Our prisons do nothing in the line of real reform. Instead of crowding them in huge crime factories, I would love to see small facilities where they work 12 hours every day doing farm work or forestry. The only exception would be allowing 4 of those hours for getting an education.

As for the front end, there are ways that we can streamline that process, and improve the efficiency of the system. For example, the exclusionary rule should be modified to allow such evidence, but issue criminal or monetary penalties for those who violate the rules.

"It would be great if someone could develop and pass a means of finding ways to make the process actually work, especially if they could make it self sufficient. Our prisons do nothing in the line of real reform. Instead of crowding them in huge crime factories, I would love to see small facilities where they work 12 hours every day doing farm work or forestry. The only exception would be allowing 4 of those hours for getting an education. "

I think the working part is unconstitutional. Just because they broke the law does not give the government the write to break it as well. And, you have safety issues with the products as they leave; are they safe to put on the marketplace?

"Some do, some don't. Tax reform is multi-faceted. We need to make sure that the rich do not evade their due share. We also have to make sure that we do not waste the taxes that are collected. Think of how much money is wasted on our legal system. Between prosecutors, judges, supplied defense attorneys, and all the other expensive boondoggles in the system. Then the taxpayers get to pay for incarceration, reviews, and appeals, not to mention the added expense for reform training and special needs."

Supplied defense attorneys prevents the rich from having even MORE power. The attorneys provide some degree of "equality" in the court room.

IMHO: We seem to forget about equal opportunity, which is a part of our problem.

Derek, did you really read what I said? There is nothing illegal about prisoners working. They are doing it already. In fact, a factory I worked at, faced its biggest competition from prison factories. Most prisons have work programs that allow the prisoners to earn a small amount of money. My thought is that they should be de-centralized and doing things more for the public good. We need more effort made to our national parks, and we need more farm workers. Instead of having farms hire illegals, you might have a program where certain criminals work the farms with only updated electronic monitoring. If they leave their programmed work zone, the monitor puts out a shock or puts them to sleep. It should also be able to detect the presence of drugs/alcohol and administer punishment appropriately.

And I never said anything about eliminating defense attorneys. I said that it was an inefficient system. And it has no releveance to the wealthy. My thoughts are that we should try to eliminate much of the dog and pony show part of the legal system and work towards a system that gives the best results for all. Look at the fallacies of our system. Juries are more likely to make decisions based on emotions rather than facts. Eye witness testimony is the most unreliable type of testimony.

Some in the legal system are working towards more of the negotiated cases, where instead of fighting in a court, they sit down at a table with a trained arbitrator. After hearing both sides, a decision is made by the arbitrator. The decision can be rejected, but if it is, it will be very difficult for the appealing party to win. We need to work on improving this system to where very few of our cases are tried in open court.

Instead of hauling dangerous criminals to the courts, systems should be developed to improve remote processing. Imagine the benefits of some type of setup where the criminal is in a small room at the prison. A good hologram of him is projected at the court. The courtroom, as viewed from the criminal's perspective, is seen in the room. All sounds are there. While having some limitations, there would also be some benefits. For one, it allows the court to limit verbal interaction.

And many seem to easily confuse equality of outcome with equality of opportunity...

OK...back on the Budweiser buyout track.

A friend and I were discussing this transaction. I had the position that this was a bad thing for our economy (low dollar value enables purchase of US based companies by foreign investors) he took the opposite position (it's foreign money supporting our country, and they pay US income tax just like prior management). This got me to thinking on this issue....and I'm not sure the outcome of foreign investment in the US markets....in so far as the taxpayers are concerned.

Is the US taxpayer better off or worse off as a result of a foreign entity owning our companies....or is it a moot point of who owns what? Comments?

Most foreign investments in this country have ended poorly. Usually for the foreign company. The Japanese buying major real estate in the 80s, Daimler Benz takeover of Chrysler, and many others. Things that work well in their areas, do not always work well with American companies.

Ask your friend where he supposes the PROFITS go to be spent...

Yeah...but the profits could be spent anywhere by either owner...no? And I would think that either owner will need to plow some of the profits back into growing their interests. So what's the diff?...or am I missing something?