This can't be serious...

[Big Media]

http://www.thedieline.com/blog/2008/10/ ... psi-t.html

I'm all for reinventing yourself but this is suicide. It looks foreign. Like if I were to go to a Wal-Mart in China, this is what I would find.

[cgarison]

HAHA!!!! Looks like the generic knock offs of real products at Target.

[Hoosier Daddy]

70's retro?

[AmpedNow]

I seen these the other day but never got around to posting it.

I...dunno.

The multicolor, weird font labels of the 90's/early 00's is definitely out. The minimalist, two-tone color labels of the 70's are in.

But this is kinda overboard.

Not so much the colors, but the complete logo changes. I still love the Mountain Dew buzzsaw label.

[Rock]

Bah, decades of branding yourself..only to throw it away on foolishness like that. I'm for re-inventing also...provided that the re-invention's needed, and you don't throw da baby out with the bathwater! "Pay no attention to our problems..you see our cool, new logo?!!!"

[Jet Black]

I'm a Pepsi man but looks really crappy. Let's go back to the old red, white & blue.

[Hoosier Daddy]

I like your Avatar, Jet.

Spooky Cool.

[Cameron]

OMG! It's the Obama campaign logo on the Pepsi can.

Bow to your overlords now big corporations!

Maybe this olive-branch will make the Guv'ment look upon you as a friend of the new socialism and spare your factories...er... "People's Workplace".

Obama wants to eat your babies and kill your mothers!!!!

I'm John McCain. I graduated at the last of my class...can't remember how many houses I have...I'm working for the common-man...and I approve this message.

[Arp2]

Bow to your overlords now big corporations!

You guys don't get it. They don't have to...they can just leave.

The CFO of Procter & Gamble said yesterday that P&G had already completed its preliminary study of moving the company elsewhere....with taxes on the company already the second-highest possible in the free world and heading higher and federal taxes alone on its leaders heading for 54%, why stay?

I really expected better from you, Cameron....engineers usually have deliberate, logical patterns of thought. You surely know math pretty well.....try to run Obama's numbers and make them work....try every way you can think of. Use his own materials as much as you want but run the numbers, yourself. G'ahead. Also, factor in what might happen if people start structuring their finances for tax minimization and avoidance rather than growth. Give it a shot....by and for yourself....

[Big Media]

I've seen it all now.

I start a little yarn about some reimaging and it goes political.

[Cameron]

Bow to your overlords now big corporations!

You guys don't get it. They don't have to...they can just leave.

The CFO of Procter & Gamble said yesterday that P&G had already completed its preliminary study of moving the company elsewhere....with taxes on the company already the second-highest possible in the free world and heading higher and federal taxes alone on its leaders heading for 54%, why stay?

I really expected better from you, Cameron....engineers usually have deliberate, logical patterns of thought. You surely know math pretty well.....try to run Obama's numbers and make them work....try every way you can think of. Use his own materials as much as you want but run the numbers, yourself. G'ahead. Also, factor in what might happen if people start structuring their finances for tax minimization and avoidance rather than growth. Give it a shot....by and for yourself....

P&G should get ol' "Keating Five" McCain to throw them a couple of billion to stay. We see where McCain's economic interests are. After that, we can give the automakers a couple of billion to make some more SUV's to get the economy rolling. Why hell, poor ol' Exxon can barely afford to stay in the US with this horrible business climate. Are you liking the "growth" path we're on - or have these failed policies that favor large business collapsed under its own weight?

[Arp2]

US automakers have already been given $25 billion.

I see you've either been taught to deflect the question at hand and try to change the subject to the various assigned personal attacks, as untrue as they might be, or just do it reflexively.

I also see that you haven't done the math. Go ahead and try it....no one, not even Obama's surrogates from the vaunted University of Chicago (which recruited me, by the way, thank you very much), can explain how it adds up. The assigned response to the "explain this math" question, no matter how or how many times asked, is, "go to the website." So go ahead, Cameron....go to the website and try to make Obama's math work!

The promises are a lie, or the tax threshold is a lie........or both. Unless you can be the first one to make the math jibe, that is.....try it for yourself!

[Cameron]

The promises are a lie, or the tax threshold is a lie........or both. Unless you can be the first one to make the math jibe, that is.....try it for yourself!

Here's some math:

Obama and McCain Tax Proposals
According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million.

The rich would pay more under Barack Obama's tax plan, and the poor and middle-class would pay less, a nonpartisan analysis finds. Under John McCain's plan, the rich would pay much less than they do now, the poor and middle-class would pay a bit less, and the federal deficit would grow, the study found.

Each individual's tax situation is different, so it's hard to say for sure how much more or less you would pay under the presidential candidates' ever-evolving tax proposals.

And at this point that's all they are -- proposals that may or may not get through Congress. They don't take into account wars, whether the president will sign an expensive social program into law, or the world economy.

With those caveats, here are highlights of how the candidates' proposals to change the tax code would impact you:

Obama says he would hike several taxes on people making more than $250,000, including the amount they pay on capital gains. Currently, the top income tax rate is 35 percent. Under Obama, that would go back up to 39 percent. Obama's staff told the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center he would raise the rates for people in the top two brackets -- about 2.5 million filers out of 100 million-plus. People in those high tax brackets would see the tax rate on their capital gains hiked from the current 15 percent to 20-28 percent.

The 95 percent-plus of the American population that earns less than $250,000 would see the following tax breaks: A $500-per-worker tax credit for people who earn less than $150,000 and do not itemize, and a $4,000 credit per child in college. Seniors who earn less than $50,000 would pay no income tax.

The Tax Policy Center notes seniors could end up paying more if corporations respond to Obama's proposed increase in the corporate tax rate by passing those costs along to consumers.

McCain would make permanent most of the tax cuts President Bush has already enacted, including those that benefit the middle class, such as elimination of the marriage penalty and the increase in child credits. He would also keep cuts that benefit the wealthy, such as the elimination of the highest tax brackets. Obama would keep the breaks for the middle class but not the ones for the wealthy.

McCain would also double the dependent exemption from $3,500 to $7,000, benefitting big families of all incomes.

Obama would leave the top corporate tax rate at 35 percent. McCain would cut it to 25 percent.

The two candidates differ widely in their approach to the estate tax, which the Republicans call the "death tax." McCain would set it at 15 percent for estates above $5 million. Obama would set it at 45 percent for estates above $3.5 million.

Both candidates favor extending a "patch" that would keep the Alternative Minimum Tax from encroaching on middle-income families.

Largely because his tax proposals would leave tax breaks for the wealthy in place, McCain's plan would cost the U.S. Treasury more than Obama's, the Tax Policy Center found.

The precise cost depends on whether you assume the current tax breaks would be renewed or would expire.

Assuming they would have been renewed anyway, Obama's plan would bring in an additional $700 billion in taxes over the next 10 years, while McCain's would cost the Treasury $600 billion. Assuming legislators would have let the tax breaks expire, Obama's plan would cost the U.S. Treasury $2.7 trillion and McCain's $3.7 trillion.

The center uses various assumptions both campaigns quarrel with. Each campaign also accuses the other of not being honest with the numbers.

The $600 million deficit the study projects McCain's plan would create doesn't count impact of current Iraq war spending. If McCain's plan drives the deficit up and puts upward pressure on interest rates, that increases costs for families and could force really Draconian, across-the-board spending cuts.

A Tax Policy Center analysis found that those in the lowest 20 percent of income earners, making less than $18,981 a year, would have a 5.5 percent boost in after-tax income next year, if his plan were enacted. Those in the top 5 percent, making more than $226,918, would see after-tax income drop by 0.1 percent.

Under McCain's plan, if enacted, the 20 percent at the bottom would have a 0.2 percent increase in after-tax income next year, while the top 5 percent would gain 3.3 percent. Once McCain's plan is phased in fully, during 2012, top earners would gain 5.3 percent and the lowest 0.9 percent.

Neither plan will have much of an effect on closing the income-gap. The current market-forces that result from this latest crash will have more of an effect.
Lower-income families, though, never enjoyed any boom associated "trickle-down". The tax rates in the Obama proposal, though, mirror those of the ones responsible for the longest sustained economic boom in U.S. history.

Maybe some lower income families will go and buy a Pepsi and kick-start things.

[Jet Black]

Wow, that's seriously delusional.

[Lester]

Neither plan will have much of an effect on closing the income-gap.

What's wrong with "work harder, earn more"?

[Lester]

Hahaha. Got this from a co-worker.

• As of November 5, 2008, when President Obama officially becomes president-elect, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:
  
  1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are under-achieving a 'fair shake'.
  
  2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst you. This will help those who are 'too busy for overtime' to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.
  
  3. All top management will now be referred to as 'the government.' We will not participate in this 'pooling' experience because the law doesn't apply to us.
  
  4. The 'government' will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging its workers to continue to work hard 'for the good of all'.
  
  5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's 'good to spread the wealth around'. Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more 'patriotic'.
  
  6. The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don't feel bad, though, because President Obama will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free food stamps, and he'll let you stay in your home for as long as you want , even if you can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our democratic congress, you might even get a free flat screen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (because all Americans should be entitled to nice looking hair).
  
  7. Oh yea, your Christmas bonus this year will be donated to the local homeless shelter. Feel good about it, because you will be doing your patriotic duty of "Sharing Your Wealth with the less fortunate."

[Arp2]

Here's some math:

No, Cameron, not some math....your math! I want you to do the math, not cut and paste text from the website you saw in an Obama commercial. And don't compare plans...simply make the math in Obama's work!

You should be a logical thinker, you have the math skills needed, and nobody in the world has been able to make it add up, so far. I want you to become famous! Be the first in the world to make it work!

Lower-income families, though, never enjoyed any boom associated "trickle-down".

That's a lie...just yet another assigned talking-point lie. Research it for yourself. (And try not to use a website from a Democrat commercial this time.)

The lowest quintile of American earners has enjoyed the greatest gain in standard of living of all! The "rich" of a number of other countries would be better off being our "poor!"

The tax rates in the Obama proposal, though, mirror those of the ones responsible for the longest sustained economic boom in U.S. history.

"Responsible for," NO. Being an engineer, surely you know that what you're measuring does NOT necessarily indicate the cause of what you're seeing on your meter or scope, let alone a cause and effect relationship. Also, you surely know that there's a delay between a change and the effect of a change.

For example (a loose and general example, sure), say a body requires "3x" calories a day to maintain a weight of 300 pounds; if that person took in only 2x calories some particular day, he would NOT wake up the next morning weighing 200 pounds. He's on his way to 200, but it's going to be awhile. That's the way economic policy works...the policy starts to steer the economic body in a particular direction, but it's not going to get into that neighborhood for about 18-24 months.

And, by the way, the longest sustained economic boom in US history is the one we all just enjoyed from 2002-early 2008, 12-18 months longer than the internet-bubble-based, semi-fake one from '95-'99.

Maybe some lower income families will go and buy a Pepsi and kick-start things.

If the only things that sustain or grow sales are the things "poor" people buy more of when given a marginal dollar (after three get stolen from others and gubmint's overhead eats two), then no one but those who make those low-level bare necessities and cheap pleasures will have a job.

Growth occurs because people want and can pay for more, better, bigger, higher, faster, and different, not because a Sam's Cola drinker shifts to Pepsi or the buyer of a '98 used car can go for a '99. America -- all of it -- will grow as those like Nordstrom and its suppliers see more business, not as Wal~Mart and its suppliers do.

[CoolBreeze]

I read the other day that Pepsi will spend millions of dollars on that new logo. I could have done it for $300 bucks.

[genlock]

Think of all the banks and branch banks signs that have to be changed due to failures and takeovers/mergers.
The big sign business would be the place to be right now.
Assuming your brother-in-law controlled such things for the victorious bank in question.

[Cameron]

Neither plan will have much of an effect on closing the income-gap.

What's wrong with "work harder, earn more"?

Good question. What happened?

I've LIVED the bad-math of the last eight years. Time to hit, "clear" on that calculator.