Unless the builder or contractor knew they were using unsafe/unapproved/inferior products, I don't think they are those who should be sued anyway. I'm sure many will disagree.

 

My post was meant to reveal the plight of the couple who's new house was destroyed from the inside out and then their insurance was revoked.

Now they can't live there, while their plumbing and wiring corrode worse by the day.

The contractor bought the product assuming it was fit for use, i'm sure...

 

I think Obama should buy all these people a new house. Everyone else is getting a bailout, what's another trillion dollars.

 

the chinese are killing us from the inside out!!! the other day we got oranges from safeway and got home, and noticed they were a product of CHINA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! how can it be cheaper to send oranges from china!!!

 

I guess no one here remembers the the Union "Look For The Union Label" , "Buy American" ad campaigns of the late 70's, early 80's?

We were all warned about this, years ago. No One took it serious, and here We sit.

Isn't it funny how freaking stupid the American public, as a whole, is?

I mean, just look at Our Government. On sale to the Highest Bidder, for years. And now We complain when the Bankers, Insurance Companies, etc. all sit high and mighty, while the middle class suffers. Who's to blame? Look in the mirror.

 

Our government caused this with the current tax system. It encourages manufacturers to relocate overseas and get tax incentives to do it. And just remember the government has no money. They tax us and spend our money. Much of what it is spent on now is not authurized as legal under the constitution

 

I don't want this to get political and moved to the club.
There are plenty of this type of threads in there.

When the 16th amendment was passed it was proposed as a corporate tax intended to replace revenue lost due to a reductions in tariffs.

From the Wiki, links below:
On June 16, 1909, President Taft, in an address to Congress, proposed a 2% federal income tax on corporations by way of an excise tax and a constitutional amendment to allow the previously enacted income tax.

Upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock.[18][19]

On July 12, 1909, the resolution proposing the Sixteenth Amendment was passed by the Sixty-first Congress and submitted to the state legislatures. Support for the income tax was strongest in the western states and opposition was strongest in the northeastern states.[20] The governor of New York, Charles Evans Hughes, who a few years later became a Supreme Court justice, opposed the income tax amendment because he believed "from whatever source derived" implied that the federal government would then have the power to tax state and municipal bonds and thus excessively centralize government power, and that it 'would make it impossible for the state to keep any property'.[21]

The presidential election of 1912 was contested between three advocates of an income tax.[22] On February 25, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that the amendment had been ratified by the necessary three-fourths of the states, and thus had become part of the Constitution. Shortly thereafter, the Revenue Act of 1913 was enacted.

See also, Revenue act of 1913:

The Act also provided for the reinstitution of a federal income tax[2] as a means to compensate for anticipated lost revenue because of the reduction of tariff duties. The most recent effort to tax incomes (Wilson-Gorman Tariff of 1894) had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because the tax on dividends, interest, and rents had been deemed to be a direct tax not apportioned by population. That obstacle, however, was removed by ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment on February 3, 1913.[3] The Act provided in part that:

[ . . . ] subject only to such exemptions and deductions as are hereinafter allowed, the net income of a taxable person shall include gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, businesses, trade, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in real or personal property, also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any lawful business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever [ . . . ][4]

The incomes of couples exceeding $4,000, as well as those of single persons earning $3,000 or more, were subject to a one percent federal tax.[5] Further, the measure provided a progressive tax structure, meaning that high income earners were required to pay at higher rates.

It would require only a few years for the federal income tax to become the chief source of income for the government, far outdistancing tariff revenues.

Less than 1 % of the population paid federal income tax at the time.

The act was applicable to incomes for 1913, 1914, and 1915. [6]

(Chart)
Revenue Act of 1913
Normal Income Tax and Additional Tax on Individuals

38 Stat. 166 [7]
INCOME NORMAL RATE ADDITIONAL RATE COMBINED RATE
0 1% 0 1%* bottom marginal rate
$20,000* 1% 1% 2%
$50,000 1% 2% 3%
$75,000 1% 3% 4%
$100,000 1% 4% 5%
$250,000 1% 5% 6%
$500,000 1% 6% 7% top marginal rate

(another chart, adjusted for inflation)
1913 Dollars Inflation - BLS 2009 Dollars Exempt - 1913 Exempt - 2009
$3,000 2,180% $65,400* Single Filers $3,000 Singles $9,350 or 14.3%*
$4,000 2,180% $87,200* Married Filers $4,000 Marrieds $18,700 or 21.4%*
$20,000 2,180% $436,000
$50,000 2,180% $1,090,100
$75,000 2,180% $1,635,100
$100,000 2,180% $2,180,000
$250,000 2,180% $5,450,400
$500,000 2,180% $10,900,700

Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revenue Act of 1913 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I think you need to look at the American company ordering the Chinese drywall. Somebody over here either speced the drywall that way or didn't inspect it before reselling it.

Everyone is quick to jump on the Chinese like just because something is made in a particular geographic location that it's intrinsicly inferior. Somebody over here either speced it to be crappy and cheap or didn't take due dilligence before reselling it.

Mike

 

Can ANYONE tell ,me why in the hell we still trade with China? Actually I can...

THIS IS EXACTLY WHY OUR DAMNED ECONOMY IS IN THE CRAPPER, send OUR JOBS to China, Mexico, etc so the product gets built cheaper, both in labor AND QUALITY.

Of course, our sorry government and employers blame us, the people, the consumer for this which is BS. I don't recall EVER saying I wanted to lose my factory job to a Mexican in the late 90's, nor did any of my fellow 700 workers. And I don't recall saying I wanted my stuff made everywhere BUT the US with lower quality standards. As for them blaming ME saying I want a cheaper product... I call BS on that too. My Chinese made Playstation was $400, that is not cheap! And I know damn well it doesn't cost that much to make one. Indonesian made jeans from Hollister are $60, same identical looking WRANGLER pair, made in same country is $15 at Wal-Mart. So there goes that stupid philosophy!

Our government needs to stop taking money from these companies, and make them PAY for their sins, as in higher taxes for exporting jobs out of our economy. That is the REAL PROBLEM. As long as it is allowed, companies will continue to cut out American jobs and move them to other countries. As a matter of fact, just recently it was announced that a local NC Dell computer plant is closing down and moving to Mexico. And NOTHING is going to be done by our sorry government to stop it. But if that same COMPANY is in fear of going under, who is going to bail THEM out? The damned government, or actually You and I when THEY raise our taxes, the same damned people who are unemployed because the same a-holes running that company making Multi-million dollar salaries decided WE make too much money...

Sorry for the rant, but being one of the many unemployed at the moment and losing all my stuff so these *******s can send jobs to other countries is pissing me off. I will be homeless if I don't get a job soon, while the goddamn bank that our crappy government gave billions of dollars to takes my f---ing house and my cars! WTF?! IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

 

How exactly do you propose to legally tax exporting jobs? If you want to bring jobs back, we need to tax businesses less so there is less of an advantage to move overseas.

Playstations are now 299 and you can surf the net and play blu-rays on them. Sounds like a bargain. Early adopters always pay a premium. People want stuff cheap, that's just the way it is. I bet you want cheaper gas, cheaper electric. I bet you negotiate your trucks and property down. I bet you shop online some vs paying more locally.

Our economy is in the crapper because it was artificially inflated with easy credit. Nobody owned anything. The past 10 years or so was basicly BS. Most people had way too much in mortgage, way to much in vehicles, credit cards, boats, RVs, toys, etc. It looked like we had all this money and prosperity, but it was all smoke and mirrors. Now it's time to pay up and the high is over.......welcome to the hang over.

Mike

 

Government can place tariffs on imported goods. Eliminate the advantage of outsourcing work to other countries.

Cutting taxes is not a cure-all. If you want to lower taxes for business, then you need to raise taxes for someone else. Or borrow the money.

 

Or option 3. Lower taxes bring more business and more revenue even with the lower rate. Would you rather have 10% of 100,000 or 7% of 200,000? We are among the highest corporate taxes in the world.

You can't artificially keep jobs in the country by taxing them leaving. There will always be a way around it.

Mike

 

ever check your frozen concentrate juice or bottled juice for that matter?
alot of it comes from china - i was PO'ed one day when i picked up a can of a good ole american name Seneca and found that it came from China!

we flat out will not buy it!!!!!

 

I hate to burst everyone's bubble but we live in an age of world trade and world economics. The computer you're typing on is largely made out of country. Fords are made out of country. If you don't buy foreign goods, you're not going to be buying much of anything.

Get over it.

Mike

 

Lower taxes can promote economic growth. But reducing taxes does not necessarily yield larger revenues.
FactCheck.org: Supply-side Spin


Life is a zero-sum game. If you reduce taxes for one group, you must raise taxes for everyone else.

This chart shows the main sources of federal revenue over the past 50 years. Note how the share of revenues paid by corporations has decreased, while payroll taxes paid by workers have increased. Like a little mouse, the government is nibbling away at your paychecks.



You mean loopholes, I agree, as long as politicians answer to the lobbyists and special interests who pay for their elections, and not the people who voted for them, there will always be a loophole.