Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-27-2010, 08:15 AM
 
Location: Dorchester
2,603 posts, read 4,858,767 times
Reputation: 1090

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donna-501 View Post
Republicans don't want any jobs on Obama's watch. They would rather the US go down the drain.
The Republicans are the minority in the Congress. If it doesn't pass, then it didn't appeal to some Dems either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-27-2010, 08:16 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
38,759 posts, read 22,552,064 times
Reputation: 14209
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01Snake View Post
As usual, I'm sure Pelosi/Reid have some BS tacked onto the bill.
...and as usual, the left is just responding in a knee-jerk reaction, because they are not interested in finding out why the bill is opposed, they just assume all the worst case scenarios.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2010, 08:17 AM
 
10,875 posts, read 13,857,736 times
Reputation: 4896
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post

THe dems have a super majority and could pass anything they wanted.
Like a true republican, you don't have a clue how congress or the government works.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2010, 08:19 AM
 
Location: Reality
9,949 posts, read 8,879,690 times
Reputation: 3315
Quote:
Originally Posted by TempesT68 View Post
Like a true republican, you don't have a clue how congress or the government works.
Is it the fault of the Republicans that the Dems don't have the gonads to push something through with 51 votes instead of 60? Is it the Republicans fault that the Dems aren't brave enough to make them filibuster a bill? The Reps are playing hardball and the Dems are losing every inning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2010, 08:28 AM
 
59,555 posts, read 27,735,906 times
Reputation: 14419
Why am I not surprised with the usual evil republican posts It is the republicans fault.

I have not seen any discussion on the bill itself, just trash throwing from the left.
Well guess what, I did some research and this is what I found.

"This jobs bill is fairly significant, but there’s no way it will pass. According to the CBO, it’s not quite deficit neutral, which means that Sen. Ben Nelson [D, NE] will cross the aisle and vote no. Plus, so far no Republicans have indicated any interest in voting in favor, so, barring some shocking turn of events, there’s no way for the Democrats to get to 60 on this and break the GOP filibuster. "

"according to the CBO", you know that group you on the left are always citing as being the final say when it comes to budget items.

And it looks like 1 democrat will kill the bill. Again, blame the reuplicans when you can't get ALL the democrats together.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2010, 08:29 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,940 posts, read 19,614,488 times
Reputation: 9681
The National Association of Manufacturers today sent a letter to U.S. Senators expressing the NAM’s opposition to S. 3816, the Creating Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act. Text:


The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)—the nation’s largest industrial trade association—opposes the Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act (S. 3816). Manufacturers are concerned that the bill’s proposed tax increases would impose new costs on American manufacturers, making them less competitive in the global marketplace and jeopardizing U.S. job creation.

American companies with overseas operations support and create U.S. jobs. An estimated 22 million people in the United States—including more than 53 percent of all manufacturing workers—are employed by companies with operations abroad. With more than 95 percent of the world’s customers outside the United States, American companies establish operations abroad in order to penetrate foreign markets and add new customers.

Manufacturers share your concern about the critical importance of job creation. The NAM’s Manufacturing Strategy for Jobs and a Competitive America urges lawmakers to support policies that help ensure that the United States will be the best country in the world to headquarter a company, to innovate and perform global R&D and to manufacture, both for the American market and as an export platform for the world. To this end, NAM supports a national tax climate that does not place U.S. manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace. Unfortunately, the tax increases in S. 3816 do just the opposite.


The proposed acceleration of U.S. tax on foreign subsidiary operations has no counterpart in the tax laws of our foreign trading partners. Ending deferral in these cases would place U.S. affiliates at a cost disadvantage vis-à-vis their foreign-based competitors. At the same time, the potential scope of the disallowance proposal would have an overall chilling impact on the ability of some companies to meet non-tax cost pressures in delivering goods to American consumers.

Recent economic and jobs reports confirm that our economy continues to struggle. The U.S. manufacturing sector — which employs nearly 12 million Americans in relatively high-paying jobs – truly is key to the strength of the U.S. economy. Consequently, we strongly recommend that you consider changes that will make the manufacturing sector more competitive, more productive, and able to create even more high-paying jobs.

The letter was signed by Dorothy Coleman, NAM’s vice president for tax and economic policy.

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) introduced S. 3816 on Tuesday. According to CQ Politics, Senate Democratic leadership has bring that bill to the floor next week rather than vote on any of the major tax provisions that expire at the end of 2010.

S. 3816: Higher Taxes, Damaged Competitiveness, Fewer Jobs « Shopfloor


hmmm this bill is a jobs killer
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2010, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,705 posts, read 26,513,113 times
Reputation: 12714
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
The Senate is scheduled to vote today on a bill which makes changes in the tax system to punish companies which move American jobs off-shore and to give tax breaks to those which bring our jobs back.

It's far, far overdue, but the Republican's have vowed to kill it.




Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress):


Been in control of Congress for almost four years, and now is the first opportunity to bring this up?

So compassionate!

So now after the stimulus has failed to create jobs because it was used to reward supporters instead of create incentives to hire people, they want to use unemployment to justify another power grab?

We could have a bunch of new jobs open up tomorrow if we kicked out the illegal aliens, renegotiated NAFTA, ended China's permanent most favored nation trading status and lowered our excessive corporate tax rates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2010, 08:32 AM
 
6,074 posts, read 6,079,296 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
I don't know why the link I posted doesn't take you to the text of the Bill, so here it is IN IT'S ENTIRETY.

Note that there are NO amendments, nothing tacked on, no lard. It's just a straight up bill.

So, what excuse are the Republican's using? Echoing the Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers, the Republican leadership claims it will reduce competitiveness, tax goods made overseas for sale overseas and actual reduce employment.


S.3816 -- Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act (Placed on Calendar Senate - PCS)


S 3816 PCS
Calendar No. 578
111th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 3816
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create American jobs and to prevent the offshoring of such jobs overseas.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
September 21, 2010


Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. REID, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DORGAN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill; which was read the first time
September 22, 2010

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create American jobs and to prevent the offshoring of such jobs overseas.
  • Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  • This Act may be cited as the `Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act'.
TITLE I--INCENTIVES TO CREATE AMERICAN JOBS


SEC. 101. PAYROLL TAX HOLIDAY FOR EMPLOYERS MOVING JOBS TO THE UNITED STATES FROM OVERSEAS.

  • (a) In General- Section 3111 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
  • `(e) Special Exemption for Certain Individuals Hired to Replace Employees Whose Jobs Were Overseas-
    • `(1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (a) shall not apply to wages paid by a qualified employer with respect to employment during the applicable 24-month period with respect to any qualified replacement individual for services performed--
      • `(A) in a trade or business of such qualified employer, or
      • `(B) in the case of a qualified employer exempt from tax under section 501(a), in furtherance of the activities related to the purpose or function constituting the basis of the employer's exemption under section 501.
    • `(2) QUALIFIED EMPLOYER- For purposes of this subsection, the term `qualified employer' has the meaning given such term by subsection (d)(2).
    • `(3) QUALIFIED REPLACEMENT INDIVIDUAL- For purposes of this subsection--
      • `(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified replacement individual' means any individual--
        • `(i) who begins employment with a qualified employer after September 21, 2010, and before September 22, 2013,
        • `(ii) with respect to whom the qualified employer certifies that such individual has been employed by the qualified employer to replace another employee--
          • `(I) who was not a citizen or lawfully present resident of the United States, and
          • `(II) substantially all of whose services for the employer were performed outside of the United States,
        • `(iii) with respect to whom the qualified employer certifies that substantially all of the services the individual will perform for the employer will be performed within the United States, and
        • `(iv) who is not an individual described in section 51(i)(1) (applied by substituting qualified employer for taxpayer each place it appears).
      • For purposes of this paragraph, only 1 individual may be treated as a qualified replacement individual with respect to any employee described in clause (ii) being replaced by the qualified employer. Any certification under clause (ii) or (iii) shall be made by signed affidavit, under penalties of perjury.
      • `(B) EMPLOYER- All employers treated as a single employer under subsection (a) or (b) of section 52 shall be treated as a single employer for purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii), except that section 1563(b)(2)(C) shall be disregarded in applying section 1563 for purposes of such section.
    • `(4) APPLICABLE 24-MONTH PERIOD- For purposes of this subsection, the term `applicable 24-month period' means, with respect to any qualified replacement individual of a qualified employer, the 24-month period beginning on the hiring date of such individual by the employer.
    • `(5) ELECTION- A qualified employer may elect to have this subsection not apply. Such election shall be made in such manner as the Secretary may require.
    • `(6) SPECIAL RULE FOR THIRD CALENDAR QUARTER OF 2010-
      • `(A) NONAPPLICATION OF EXEMPTION DURING THIRD QUARTER- Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to wages paid during the third calendar quarter of 2010.
      • `(B) CREDITING OF FIRST QUARTER EXEMPTION DURING FOURTH QUARTER- The amount by which the tax imposed under subsection (a) would (but for subparagraph (A)) have been reduced with respect to wages paid by a qualified employer during the third calendar quarter of 2010 shall be treated as a payment against the tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to the qualified employer for the fourth calendar quarter of 2010 which is made on the date that such tax is due.
    • `(7) REGULATIONS- The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this subsection, including regulations necessary to prevent the avoidance of such purposes through the transfer and retransfer of employees within and without the United States or otherwise.'.
  • (b) Coordination With Work Opportunity Credit- Section 51(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    • `(6) COORDINATION WITH PAYROLL TAX FORGIVENESS OF QUALIFIED REPLACEMENT INDIVIDUALS- The term `wages' shall not include any amount paid or incurred to a qualified replacement individual (as defined in section 3111(e)(3)) during the 2-year period beginning on the hiring date of such individual by an employer unless such employer makes an election not to have section 3111(e) apply.'.
  • (c) Transfers to Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund- There are hereby appropriated to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund established under section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) amounts equal to the reduction in revenues to the Treasury by reason of the amendments made by subsection (a). Amounts appropriated by the preceding sentence shall be transferred from the general fund at such times and in such manner as to replicate to the extent possible the transfers which would have occurred to such Trust Fund had such amendments not been enacted.
  • (d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to wages paid after September 21, 2010.
TITLE II--DISINCENTIVES TO MOVING AMERICAN JOBS OVERSEAS


SEC. 201. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION, LOSS, OR CREDIT FOR CERTAIN ITEMS INCURRED IN MOVING AMERICAN JOBS OFFSHORE.

  • (a) In General- Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`SEC. 280I. EXPENDITURES INCURRED IN MOVING AMERICAN JOBS OFFSHORE.

  • `(a) Disallowance- No deduction, loss, or credit shall be allowed under this title for any taxable year for any disallowed amount.
  • `(b) Disallowed Amount- For purposes of this section--
    • `(1) IN GENERAL- The term `disallowed amount' means any amount which is paid or incurred during the taxable year which is properly allocable to an American jobs offshoring transaction.
    • `(2) LOSSES- Such term shall include any loss from any sale, exchange, abandonment, or other disposition of property in connection with an American jobs offshoring transaction.
    • `(3) EXCEPTION FOR COSTS RELATED TO DISPLACED WORKERS- Such term shall not include any amount paid or incurred for assistance to employees within the United States whose jobs are being lost as part of an American jobs offshoring transaction, including any severance pay, outplacement services, or employee retraining.
  • `(c) American Jobs Offshoring Transaction- For purposes of this section--
    • `(1) IN GENERAL- The term `American jobs offshoring transaction' means any transaction (or series of transactions) in which the taxpayer reduces or eliminates the operation of a trade or business (or line of business) within the United States in connection with the start up or expansion of such trade or business (or such line of business) by the taxpayer outside of the United States.
    • `(2) EXCEPTION- A transaction (or series of transactions) shall not be treated as an American jobs offshoring transaction if the taxpayer establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such transaction (or series of transactions) will not result in the loss of employment for employees of the taxpayer within the United States.
  • `(d) Aggregation Rule- All employers treated as a single employer under subsection (a) or (b) of section 52 shall be treated as a single taxpayer for purposes of this section, except that section 1563(b)(2)(C) shall be disregarded in applying section 1563 for purposes of section 52.
  • `(e) Regulations- The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this section, including regulations necessary to prevent the avoidance of such purposes and the application of this section in the case of mergers, acquisitions, and dispositions and in the case of contract employees.'.
  • (b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
    • `Sec. 280I. Expenditures incurred in moving American jobs offshore.'.
  • (c) Effective Dates-
    • (1) IN GENERAL- The amendments made by this section shall apply to transactions occurring after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    • (2) EXCEPTION FOR EXISTING TRANSACTIONS- The amendments made by this section shall not apply to transactions occurring after the date of the enactment of this Act if the taxpayer establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegate that on or before such date the taxpayer publicly identified the transaction in sufficient detail that the nature and scope of the transaction could be identified.
SEC. 202. TAXATION OF INCOME OF CONTROLLED FOREIGN CORPORATIONS ATTRIBUTABLE TO IMPORTED PROPERTY PRODUCED BY EMPLOYEES IN AMERICAN JOBS MOVED OFFSHORE.

  • (a) General Rule- Subsection (a) of section 954 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining foreign base company income) is amended by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and inserting `, and', by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4), and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    • `(5) imported property offshored income for the taxable year (determined under subsection (j) and reduced as provided in subsection (b)(5)).'.
  • (b) Definition of Imported Property Offshored Income- Section 954 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
  • `(j) Imported Property Offshored Income-
    • `(1) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subsection (a)(5), the term `imported property offshored income' means offshored income (whether in the form of profits, commissions, fees, or otherwise) received from a controlled foreign corporation and derived in connection with--
      • `(A) manufacturing, producing, growing, or extracting imported property;
      • `(B) the sale, exchange, or other disposition of imported property; or
      • `(C) the lease, rental, or licensing of imported property.
    • Such term shall not include any foreign oil and gas extraction income (within the meaning of section 907(c)) or any foreign oil related income (within the meaning of section 907(c)).
    • `(2) IMPORTED PROPERTY- For purposes of this subsection--
      • `(A) IN GENERAL- Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the term `imported property' means property which is imported into the United States by the offshored controlled foreign corporation or a related person.
      • `(B) IMPORTED PROPERTY INCLUDES CERTAIN PROPERTY IMPORTED BY UNRELATED PERSONS- The term `imported property' includes any property imported into the United States by an unrelated person if, when such property was sold to the unrelated person by the controlled foreign corporation (or a related person), it was reasonable to expect that--
        • `(i) such property would be imported into the United States; or
        • `(ii) such property would be used as a component in other property which would be imported into the United States.
      • `(C) EXCEPTION FOR PROPERTY SUBSEQUENTLY EXPORTED- The term `imported property' does not include any property which is imported into the United States and which--
        • `(i) before substantial use in the United States, is sold, leased, or rented by the controlled foreign corporation or a related person for direct use, consumption, or disposition outside the United States; or
        • `(ii) is used by the offshored controlled foreign corporation or a related person as a component in other property which is so sold, leased, or rented.
      • `(D) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES- The term `imported property' does not include any agricultural commodity which is not grown in the United States in commercially marketable quantities.
    • `(3) OFFSHORED INCOME- For purposes of this section, the term `offshored income' means income described in paragraph (1) that is directly or indirectly derived from the operation of a trade or business (or line of business) which was started or expanded outside the United States as part of an American jobs offshoring transaction (as defined in section 280I(c)) to which the provisions of section 280I apply.
    • `(4) DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES-
      • `(A) IMPORT- For purposes of this subsection, the term `import' means entering, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption or use. Such term includes any grant of the right to use intangible property (as defined in section 936(h)(3)(B)) in the United States.
      • `(B) UNITED STATES- For purposes of this subsection, the term `United States' includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
      • `(C) UNRELATED PERSON- For purposes of this subsection, the term `unrelated person' means any person who is not a related person with respect to the controlled foreign corporation.
      • `(D) COORDINATION WITH FOREIGN BASE COMPANY SALES INCOME- For purposes of this section, the term `foreign base company sales income' shall not include any imported property income.'.
  • (c) Separate Application of Limitations on Foreign Tax Credit for Imported Property Offshored Income-
    • (1) IN GENERAL- Paragraph (1) of section 904(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to separate application of section with respect to certain categories of income) is amended by striking `and' at the end of subparagraph (A), by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C), and by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new subparagraph:
      • `(B) imported property offshored income, and'.
    • (2) IMPORTED PROPERTY OFFSHORED INCOME DEFINED- Paragraph (2) of section 904(d) of such Code is amended by redesignating subparagraphs (I), (J), and (K) as subparagraphs (J), (K), and (L), respectively, and by inserting after subparagraph (H) the following new subparagraph:
      • `(I) IMPORTED PROPERTY OFFSHORED INCOME- The term `imported property offshored income' means any income received or accrued by any person which is of a kind which would be imported property offshored income (as defined in section 954(j)).'.
    • (3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Clause (ii) of section 904(d)(2)(A) of such Code is amended by inserting `or imported property offshored income' after `passive category income'.
  • (d) Technical Amendments-
    • (1) Clause (iii) of section 952(c)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain prior year deficits may be taken into account) is amended--
      • (A) by redesignating subclauses (II), (III), (IV), and (V) as subclauses (III), (IV), (V), and (VI), and
      • (B) by inserting after subclause (I) the following new subclause:
          • `(II) imported property offshored income,'.
    • (2) The last sentence of paragraph (4) of section 954(b) of such Code (relating to exception for certain income subject to high foreign taxes) is amended by striking `subsection (a)(5)' and inserting `subsection (a)(4)'.
    • (3) Paragraph (5) of section 954(b) of such Code (relating to deductions to be taken into account) is amended by striking `and the foreign base company oil related income' and inserting `the foreign base company oil related income, and the imported property offshored income'.
  • (e) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years of foreign corporations beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act, and to taxable years of United States shareholders within which or with which such taxable years of such foreign corporations end.
Calendar No. 578
111th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 3816
A BILLTo amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create American jobs and to prevent the offshoring of such jobs overseas.
Thanks for taking the time to make this thread and post in particular.

It may not be the end all and be all to the offshoring problem, but its a step in the right direction.

Regarding the people crying and shouting about how ineffective the bill is, unless they are pushing other alternatives that can either strengthen the bill or create a new bill altogether that would have more of an impact they have no right claiming they are "true blue patriots looking out for ordinary, everyday real Americans."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2010, 08:33 AM
 
45,397 posts, read 26,667,114 times
Reputation: 25153
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
Been in control of Congress for almost four years, and now is the first opportunity to bring this up?

So compassionate!

So now after the stimulus has failed to create jobs because it was used to reward supporters instead of create incentives to hire people, they want to use unemployment to justify another power grab?

We could have a bunch of new jobs open up tomorrow if we kicked out the illegal aliens, renegotiated NAFTA, ended China's permanent most favored nation trading status and lowered our excessive corporate tax rates.
Yes, this is obviously a re-election hail Mary pass.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2010, 08:44 AM
 
Location: Ohio
24,620 posts, read 19,272,686 times
Reputation: 21752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
What part of the bill, other than the fact Obama favors it do you have issues with?
The lack of even the most basic knowledge of economics on this thread is absolutely appalling, but then I've come to expect that here at city-dada.

You cannot interfere with the economic processes.

Like it or not, you are now tied into the global machine and 300 Million Americans are not enough to sustain the operations of any US-based corporation, whether it is multi-national or not.

A corporation cannot increase market share by manufacturing goods in the US at enormous cost and expense, and then selling them overseas.

The only way US corporations can maintain their positions is by moving operations out of the US to an on-site location and using local labor to produce the items sold in that country or region.

The only thing his bill will do is guarantee that China, France, Brazil or India will move in and set up operations.

Why would European countries purchase something from the US when they can purchase the same thing from another country that produces it cheaper?

Not only will US corporations lose the potential for future market share, they will lose existing market share, which means loss of jobs in the US.

The bill is an excellent example of Little Brain mentality.

Go ahead and pass your bill and stand around looking all smug like you're a Big Brain.

I'll move my operation off-shore than spin it off under a new corporate structure, except the money won't be coming back to the US (so the US can't tax it), it'll be going somewhere else (and that country will get the tax benefit), and I'll still have access to that money for capital.

Not only that, I'll take that capital as a loan from myself and then deduct it off my taxes, so I pay even less taxes to the US government.

The only thing your bill will do is guarantee that jobs are continued to be off-shored and the government will collect even less in tax revenues than it is now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:32 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top