Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Kirk's Market Thoughts -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jerome who wrote (867)	3/14/2014 10:28:12 AM
From: Jerome	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26612

Hey Robert......Is GM a good short for the near term? The number of deaths due to airbag failure is at 302. Note: Afghanistan has a zero corporate tax rate.....should Apple and Cisco be looking to build stuff there. They also have very lenient child labor laws. (heck schools cost money and all the teachers are Liberals) :)

To: Jerome who wrote (867)	3/14/2014 10:31:16 AM
From: Kirk ©	Respond to of 26612

Don't forget the cash overseas from Apple is used to buy equipment at Foxcom and UMC to build Apple products and chips to go inside. They get lower prices in exchange for this plus dedicated production lines. Many companies like Apple and Cisco have tons of cash on the balance sheet but not very many good ideas on how to use it. Investors say invest and expand....Apple and Cisco say..."in what". Apple could buy a phone company like T Mobil, but that would displease too many investors. So change the words slightly, how does it feel? Many companies like Jerome and Kirk have tons of cash on the balance sheet but not very many good ideas on how to use it. Investors say invest and expand....Kirk and Jerome (and Buffet t) say they have 70% of their net worth invested but they want the cash safe for a rainy day. I hope you are not suggesting that because we are frugal and safe we should be taxed twice...

To: Jerome who wrote (867)	3/14/2014 10:33:11 AM
From: robert b furman	1 Recommendation Recommended By robroy1 Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26612

Hi Jerome, I have run a business that would close it down with an increase in the minimum wage OR it would require an increase in the price of the service I provided. We had a stand alone quick lube at our Chevy store. To say that the minimum wage should go to 10.10 would have put us consistently in the red. We ran it not to make money but to stay close to our customers. For several years my manager and I attended the AOCA American Oil Change Association. Thousands of small business owners working 50-60 hours a day - creating wonderful customer relationships through honesty and hard work. This would kill them or the lube job just went from 35.00 to 45.00. I don't see how driving up the cost of services is considered giving the low income earners a break. What you and other liberals will not talk about is the alternative earned income credit.This is what compensates the low income earners to a higher degree of spending. I see these people come in with a tax return of$ 4500 every year about this time.It gives them back 2-3 times the amount of taxes with held over the year. This is the vehicle that is already out of kilter. It is a wealth redistribution plan already on steroids. No Democrat will utter minimum wage and the alternative earned income credit with in the same day let alone sentence. For the government to tell any business owner what they should pay their employees is government well beyond its intended purpose. The market should dictate what a laborers work is worth.If an employer is cheap - he will suffer from competitors stealing his emplyees with better wages. When has the government ever done anything efficiently let alone determine what an untrained,unskilled or uneducated employee is worth? NEVER This is not the role of Government to determine. It is the act of politicians appealing to low income people and it is fostering a divisive split with in our country. It does not go beyond just another sick political ploy designed to earn the loyalty of the poor. It will result in the closing of the little guys small business and or cost the poor more to live. IF and I think it is a big if - the American population wants the poor to have more money - it should be done through the alternative earned income credit . I would then know who to not vote for. We are at the point where the unemployed live better than the employed. THAT IS MORALLY WRONG. As Phil Graham ( a past Texas Senator) said so eloquently Mr Obama wants those riding on the wagon to live as well as those pulling the wagon. If there is to be an increase in the alternative earned credit program - it should be exactly that, earned by those participating in a work program and the passing of a randomly imposed drug test. Let the howling begin on that proposal! You want me to work?!! You want me to be clean!!??? Bob