Rangerland Forum Information

[Hockey101]

Can we all stop acting like one man, whether a governor or president, has pretty minimal effect on private hiring?

The government does have an affect, but that is government as a whole.

I wouldn't say minimal effect. It depends on what policy a president adopts and what kind of laws he/she passes. Most of the data on businesses (NFIB), for example, show an unfavorable opinion to Obamacare. Who knows if that's what the companies i mentioned above even thought about that. Maybe not, but it would not surprise me either.

So, it depends what a president does. I would say it's not like a 100% direct effect that a president has on the US economy, but depending on what he/she does it has an indirect effect on the economy.

[jkman61494]

Honestly? I think it's the whole negative feeling businesses have on government period. After all it's why S&P downgraded us, They said directly, the lack of confidence they had in our government was a major factor. How are people supposed to have any confidence when you have two sides so completely unwilling to work together?

Not to mention the two totally different directions. For example, a non-profit on clean energy. I worked for them once but once the Tea Party took over Congress, my entire organization went belly up. How are we supposed to have organizations like that in place today when their entire directive may change?

Even during the Clinton years, hell even the BUSH years, you didn't have this division. Even Bush Jr. wasn't totally against alternative energy.

So whether it's Obama, or Romney as your President...Until the two parties actaully put country first? I don't see the type of consumer and business confidence like we say 6-7 years ago.

[jkman61494]

By the way 101, politics aside I can sympathize. Literally while I was reading your post I got the most joyous call I've received in over a year....a job offer. I totally feel your pain. The organization I just spoke of was eliminated in 2011, and I spent over a year now going to grad school part time and scratching by with part time work. It's not fun.

[Ebase]

Also the idea that Romney would be able to create jobs when his history shows he's really good at destroying them is really funny.

That's not true. His company created more jobs, by the thousands. If you want to go down this path, then i'll tell you that Obama has lost over one million jobs in the work force.

Well, we could argue all day long about where those jobs went and never agree but...

This whole thing with Romney the job maker I find problematic. What Romney always leaves out in all of his "job creating" prowess is that his firm Bain Capital as a job growing venture was a total failure. Abysmal in fact. It's shining achievement: Staples. And that was a good thing. It brought roughly 200,000 low-skilled employees into the workforce. And he stayed on with the board. Just about every other venture failed and without the few big deals the firm would have went off of a cliff.

Bain shifted its business model and became a firm that specialized in leverage buyouts. Essentially, they were a predatory company looking for weak companies to purchase. And then of course chop it up to pieces. This was FAR MORE lucrative then the humanist that Romney paints himself as. Whatever jobs he created in the private sector were completely erased by the number of predatory takeovers that Bain made.

And all of this is ok but when anyone makes an assertion that Romney knows how to make jobs because he had in the private sector that is true because of Staples. But the large number of smaller companies Bain destroyed was 20x what Staples did with their 200,000 jobs. Many of which were minimum wage or slightly above thereof, unskilled, and uninsured.

Again, so for all of his chest thumping about how he knows how to make jobs? Maybe, but he sure found it more lucrative to kill them.

That's a dishonest way of describing Bain and Romney. You either don't know much about this or you are being dishonest about it.

WSJ on Bain

If you want to slam Romney on this then at least be fair and slam Obama for spending half a billion dollars on Solyndra, which his administration was notified multiple times that it was doomed to fail before handing out that loan, and the execs of Solyndra received bonuses as it was going bankrupt and it laid off thousands of people. But hey, Obama's buddies got the best end of the deal getting bonuses from taxpayers' money. Not the workers though, the hell with them!

Actually, I have quite a bit of knowledge of leverage buyouts. And it's easy to shoot that across the bow. As for a WSJ report well... there is an unbiased source of information.

Look I don't loathe Bain and what they are. They are a cog in the wheel. But Romney uses it as a feather in his cap and it is the type of thing that escapes qualification by the public.

If you see it different then ok... But don't have illusions about what they are. They are profitable and Romney grew it. Is it a moral business like some liberals rail it for lacking? No it isn't. It is a business and it is run to maximize profit. As long as you play by the rules it's ok by me. If the rules are being exploited to negatively impact? Change the laws. I don't blame Bain whatsoever.

But there you go again. Flip it back the other way in a completely unrelated topic to demonstrate the "if you think Romney is bad than you should see what Obama did..."

We weren't discussing Obama and Solyndra but if you wish me to rail Obama then ok... Solyndra is a fiasco. It is a classic case of government waste. But Ask yourself, "how many other ventures with government investment fail and are mismanaged?" How about the F35 or the myriad of 1000's of project? Here is the issue: green projects are a pet of Obama and the right loathes it. Total waste of taxpayer money. I agree 100% with you. It's wrong. I hate government waste. I accept some waste such is the nature of the beast but as long as the government grants money there will be someone to abuse it.

The amount of outrage that the right is displaying is disproportionate because of what it is and who attached his name to it. All is fair in love and war.

But govt waste and Obama has about nothing to do with Romney. I was just making a point. Do I like how Romney made a living? Not really. But there are lots of companies that do things I don't like.

Being dismissive and quoting a WSJ article won't change what his company is and does. It has a market niche and they have been succesful at what they do.

And Solyndra is a real black eye. But in the scheme of government waste? Pffft... You can go down a list of ridiculous expenditures, grants, loan guarantees etc... And Solyndra is but a teaspoonful of a 30 gallon ice cream drum we call the federal (or lack thereof) budget.

Solyndra serves 2-purposes. It fails green initiatives and it paints the President as a frivolous spender. In other words: politics circa 2012.

[Hockey101]

Honestly? I think it's the whole negative feeling businesses have on government period. After all it's why S&P downgraded us, They said directly, the lack of confidence they had in our government was a major factor. How are people supposed to have any confidence when you have two sides so completely unwilling to work together?

Not to mention the two totally different directions. For example, a non-profit on clean energy. I worked for them once but once the Tea Party took over Congress, my entire organization went belly up. How are we supposed to have organizations like that in place today when their entire directive may change?

Even during the Clinton years, hell even the BUSH years, you didn't have this division. Even Bush Jr. wasn't totally against alternative energy.

So whether it's Obama, or Romney as your President...Until the two parties actaully put country first? I don't see the type of consumer and business confidence like we say 6-7 years ago.

We were downgraded mainly because we have an unimaginable debt in the trillions and the dollar's value is very questionable as well. Businesses hate the government, yes. You are talking to an ultra capitalist here who at times flirts with anarchocapitalism. Business never trust government, but that untrustworthiness goes through levels. We reached a very high level in that regard. Regulations have been tougher. Tax proposals have not been business friendly (especially Obama's stance on capital gain's taxes), Obamacare is not well liked by businesses either. Stock market is doing ok but these ups and downs are a clear sign of insecurity.

You are right. Not much will be done until both parties resolve issues. However, if Romney gets elected then what every American should hope is that he can improve this country, just as i hoped and gave Obama the chance to do so. Unfortunately, i don't think he did it, and that's my opinion.

[Hockey101]

By the way 101, politics aside I can sympathize. Literally while I was reading your post I got the most joyous call I've received in over a year....a job offer. I totally feel your pain. The organization I just spoke of was eliminated in 2011, and I spent over a year now going to grad school part time and scratching by with part time work. It's not fun.

Good for you jk! I think also teddy on here had a phone interview. I sent him a message last week or earlier this week. And thank you for your sympathy. There is nothing worst than feeling so confident and sure that you are about to get something and all of the sudden it's gone. I haven't even looked at a job opening since. I'll start again on Monday. This week i just want to drink, eat, watch hockey, and hopefully have a sunny weekend to do things outside to get distracted a bit. Just to make sure that that company was not lying to me i had a friend call them to see if they have any job openings and they told him that they took off the job posting on LinkedIn (I love that by the way) and that they may reopen it early 2013.

Man i really wanted that job...so badly.

The slight positive news i have is that Palm Beach State College is looking for an economics adjunct professor. Definitely not what i would like to do (teach), but i could use some measly income and add more on my resume as well.

But you know.... in a way i should be thankful that i am not married and don't have kids. Two family friends of my parents have lost their jobs and their kids are either in college or going to college in August. I can't imagine those feelings. If i am demoralized and pissed off now, i can't imagine what they must be feeling.

Anyway, good luck to you.

[Hockey101]

Also the idea that Romney would be able to create jobs when his history shows he's really good at destroying them is really funny.

That's not true. His company created more jobs, by the thousands. If you want to go down this path, then i'll tell you that Obama has lost over one million jobs in the work force.

Well, we could argue all day long about where those jobs went and never agree but...

This whole thing with Romney the job maker I find problematic. What Romney always leaves out in all of his "job creating" prowess is that his firm Bain Capital as a job growing venture was a total failure. Abysmal in fact. It's shining achievement: Staples. And that was a good thing. It brought roughly 200,000 low-skilled employees into the workforce. And he stayed on with the board. Just about every other venture failed and without the few big deals the firm would have went off of a cliff.

Bain shifted its business model and became a firm that specialized in leverage buyouts. Essentially, they were a predatory company looking for weak companies to purchase. And then of course chop it up to pieces. This was FAR MORE lucrative then the humanist that Romney paints himself as. Whatever jobs he created in the private sector were completely erased by the number of predatory takeovers that Bain made.

And all of this is ok but when anyone makes an assertion that Romney knows how to make jobs because he had in the private sector that is true because of Staples. But the large number of smaller companies Bain destroyed was 20x what Staples did with their 200,000 jobs. Many of which were minimum wage or slightly above thereof, unskilled, and uninsured.

Again, so for all of his chest thumping about how he knows how to make jobs? Maybe, but he sure found it more lucrative to kill them.

That's a dishonest way of describing Bain and Romney. You either don't know much about this or you are being dishonest about it.

WSJ on Bain

If you want to slam Romney on this then at least be fair and slam Obama for spending half a billion dollars on Solyndra, which his administration was notified multiple times that it was doomed to fail before handing out that loan, and the execs of Solyndra received bonuses as it was going bankrupt and it laid off thousands of people. But hey, Obama's buddies got the best end of the deal getting bonuses from taxpayers' money. Not the workers though, the hell with them!

Actually, I have quite a bit of knowledge of leverage buyouts. And it's easy to shoot that across the bow. As for a WSJ report well... there is an unbiased source of information.

Look I don't loathe Bain and what they are. They are a cog in the wheel. But Romney uses it as a feather in his cap and it is the type of thing that escapes qualification by the public.

If you see it different then ok... But don't have illusions about what they are. They are profitable and Romney grew it. Is it a moral business like some liberals rail it for lacking? No it isn't. It is a business and it is run to maximize profit. As long as you play by the rules it's ok by me. If the rules are being exploited to negatively impact? Change the laws. I don't blame Bain whatsoever.

But there you go again. Flip it back the other way in a completely unrelated topic to demonstrate the "if you think Romney is bad than you should see what Obama did..."

We weren't discussing Obama and Solyndra but if you wish me to rail Obama then ok... Solyndra is a fiasco. It is a classic case of government waste. But Ask yourself, "how many other ventures with government investment fail and are mismanaged?" How about the F35 or the myriad of 1000's of project? Here is the issue: green projects are a pet of Obama and the right loathes it. Total waste of taxpayer money. I agree 100% with you. It's wrong. I hate government waste. I accept some waste such is the nature of the beast but as long as the government grants money there will be someone to abuse it.

The amount of outrage that the right is displaying is disproportionate because of what it is and who attached his name to it. All is fair in love and war.

But govt waste and Obama has about nothing to do with Romney. I was just making a point. Do I like how Romney made a living? Not really. But there are lots of companies that do things I don't like.

Being dismissive and quoting a WSJ article won't change what his company is and does. It has a market niche and they have been succesful at what they do.

And Solyndra is a real black eye. But in the scheme of government waste? Pffft... You can go down a list of ridiculous expenditures, grants, loan guarantees etc... And Solyndra is but a teaspoonful of a 30 gallon ice cream drum we call the federal (or lack thereof) budget.

Solyndra serves 2-purposes. It fails green initiatives and it paints the President as a frivolous spender. In other words: politics circa 2012.

I know you didn't like me referring Obama in the discussion but at least i finally got a fair, well thought out and correct post out of ya!

I mean, we disagree on capitalism and what it allows companies like Bain to do (i respect your opinions of that, though). From my perspective i see Romney as someone who at least lived life by taking responsibility and building something on his own. He pretty much gave away what he inherited and paved his own road. So, maybe he has that concept that could improve this country. I don't know if he will or not. He may be even worse than Obama. We don't know. But, Obama said a lot of things that in the end made me say in November "okay, you won...you want to change this country's mess, do it". Personally, i think he did the exact opposite. But anyway, i think you made some valid points. Points that i respect because they were fair.

Bravo!

[teddyc]

By the way 101, politics aside I can sympathize. Literally while I was reading your post I got the most joyous call I've received in over a year....a job offer. I totally feel your pain. The organization I just spoke of was eliminated in 2011, and I spent over a year now going to grad school part time and scratching by with part time work. It's not fun.

Good for you jk! I think also teddy on here had a phone interview. I sent him a message last week or earlier this week. And thank you for your sympathy. There is nothing worst than feeling so confident and sure that you are about to get something and all of the sudden it's gone. I haven't even looked at a job opening since. I'll start again on Monday. This week i just want to drink, eat, watch hockey, and hopefully have a sunny weekend to do things outside to get distracted a bit. Just to make sure that that company was not lying to me i had a friend call them to see if they have any job openings and they told him that they took off the job posting on LinkedIn (I love that by the way) and that they may reopen it early 2013.

Man i really wanted that job...so badly.

Sorry to hear this! Hang in there.

Yes...I'm still interviewing for a great job with probably the final decider on Wednesday when I meet the individuals who have the final decision. I say my chances are better than 50/50 because my history aligns so well with the role and I am willing to travel for 50 % of the work. Not an easy role to fill.

The market is miserable....but what I fear is that this is a sign that businesses would rather work lean than build talent. If they don't invest in people and instead become ultra selective and use head count as a cost savings....then the job market will remain the same no matter how well the economy performs.

They're growing accustomed to this way of life and investing in head count will be a hard sell to large companies with demanding shareholders. No risk means stability in their holdings. Just pound the hell out of their workers like they are Chinese. 60 hours a week, reducing benefits and freedom for the sake of savings and if they can't hack it...then they will throw the load on the high performers or fill the position from the piles and piles of resumes at their disposal. Only the select can apply. Good luck getting your foot in the door!

THIS is not American. And is the result of greed. No party has shown strength in jobs...they just make noise, build their political war chest and point fingers at the other side. It's easier that way. And through them, the ultra rich have found a way now to protect their fortune instead of helping build America/Americans. Fuck Education, Fuck Health Care, Fuck Infrastructure and Fuck those who are not "perfect" or already set up with their slice of pie.

We have no leadership that is not influenced by the money grabbers.
We need a big change.

[Hockey101]

The market is miserable....but what I fear is that this is a sign that businesses would rather work lean than build talent. If they don't invest in people and instead become ultra selective and use head count as a cost savings....then the job market will remain the same no matter how well the economy performs.

Oh wow teddy. You hit the nail on the head with 100% accuracy. That's exactly it. From what i've experienced in...well...over a year (it's depressing to deal with that), you are right. It's about being selective. I am in a gray area. For entry level jobs and managerial but non-experience jobs, i become over-qualified. It's ridiculous, but true. Like the last company, the lady said "your academia is extremely impressive", and who knows if that turned her off. They think that a person being over-qualified will want to either move on to a better job ASAP, or they will demand bonuses and raises. Yet, for fitting jobs employers seek people with a ridiculous amount of experience that is unmatchable for someone like me. Why? Because there are so many people that lost higher end jobs and need to take lesser managerial jobs. So, they lowball them knowing that they have the experience, will deliver, but they have to accept the salary given because it's either that or going with unemployment benefits. A lot of these people are married and have families. And i get it that they deserve it more than me. They need it more than me. But it does irk me how employers don't see the moral, but rather see the advantage.

We do need a big change, but in government as a whole and the federal reserve as well. We need the GOP to be less dickly and the Dems be less jerkly. I am not happy with either party right now, but obviously the Dems having the most power since 2006 and extreme power since 2008, they get the blame. Yet, who is to say the GOP is better when they fucked up in 2004 and on? I don't trust any of them, but i've been an avid follower of Romney since 2007 and i want to give this guy a chance.

Irregardless of who gets elected. I just want this country to improve to where it was. If Obama wins in November, i'll be upset, but fuck it.....give him four more years to hopefully right the ship. I will reach 30 years of age in June. I want a stable job. I want to start my life, find someone to be with and start a family. Yes, i still love to get drunk and have fun, but....i want a stable life more than this now. Fuck...it sucks getting older...

But anyway. I definitely want to know when you get it. I'll toast it for you with my next drink that day. It's a thing of mine i do personally. I toast to the good things that happen to people i know. So, let us know!!! Good luck dude!

This post has been edited by Hockey101: Apr 20 2012, 11:40 PM

[jkman61494]

Corporate CEOs are now making 380 times the salary of the average American worker, a record high and the biggest pay gap in the whole world

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/busine...workers-632264/

THIS is why I'm so fully against the whole notion of trickle down economics, or giving "job creators" more tax cuts. They horde the money for themselves and don't hire additional more qualified people.

Today, if you're under 30, the way you get a job now is you have to do an unpaid internship to prove your worth and get hired. But even then there are things that hold you back......like having a degree or doing this lovely thing called working.

Two cases that I had to deal with
1) Interning with Hershey Entertainment doing gameday operations with the Bears. Despite work in communications, and a degree I was disqualified because I was a grad student.

2) State Government: Though I had worked with some non-profit organizations and also worked with some political campaigns, I was ineligible to get involved with a legislative fellowship because.....I had worked before.

What did this all mean essentially?

21 year olds with absolutely no job experience got fast tracked into government work, or getting an in with Hershey at the expense of people like me who actaully could walk right in there with our experience. It would literally be better for me to go back to school for a new undergrad degree than go for a Masters.

That kind of business model is an absolute joke but you see it more and more now.

[Hockey101]

So...say someone becomes like Michael Dell who started his own company in his dorm room, worked his ass off day and night, put in so many hours of his life, succeeded, employed thousands of people in the end and gave investors an opportunity to retain returns, he should not be allowed to make x-amount of money in your opinion?

[Beamer]

So...say someone becomes like Michael Dell who started his own company in his dorm room, worked his ass off day and night, put in so many hours of his life, succeeded, employed thousands of people in the end and gave investors an opportunity to retain returns, he should not be allowed to make x-amount of money in your opinion?

Please, Michael Dell is a drastic exception. There are 500 Fortune 500 CEOs. How many are Michael Dell? Plus he should make his earnings in stock, not liquid capital, which is what we're discussing.


Trickled down did not trickle down, it was vacuumed up. It's insanely easy to look at what percentage of America's wealth the top 1% earned in 1979, as well as what percentage they held. Both have doubled since. Where did that money come from? From the rest of us.

101, do we have more people starting companies now than we used to? No, we just have more people abusing cuts in order to maximize their own bonuses. What's the result? A lopsided, floundering economy.

[Hockey101]

So...say someone becomes like Michael Dell who started his own company in his dorm room, worked his ass off day and night, put in so many hours of his life, succeeded, employed thousands of people in the end and gave investors an opportunity to retain returns, he should not be allowed to make x-amount of money in your opinion?

Please, Michael Dell is a drastic exception. There are 500 Fortune 500 CEOs. How many are Michael Dell? Plus he should make his earnings in stock, not liquid capital, which is what we're discussing.


Trickled down did not trickle down, it was vacuumed up. It's insanely easy to look at what percentage of America's wealth the top 1% earned in 1979, as well as what percentage they held. Both have doubled since. Where did that money come from? From the rest of us.

101, do we have more people starting companies now than we used to? No, we just have more people abusing cuts in order to maximize their own bonuses. What's the result? A lopsided, floundering economy.

I can understand if the CEO is a bastard who is not even performing (i.e Immelt) well. But there are many CEOs of smaller companies as well. So what do you want this country to be? A country that government says "you are not allowed to earn x-amount as a CEO for this company"?

Really, tell me the solution. You want government to control this? If not then what? It's free enterprise. If a CEO is kicking ass for a big company then he/she deserves the humongous bonus. I would not be jealous about it. And if i worked at the company, still had my job, got a promotion or two in x-amount of years, and the company is looking good....i don't think i would give a rat's ass about what the CEO got. If the company stunk, is on the verge of bankruptcy, i am fired, as are thousands of other fellow workers, and the CEO still gets a bonus without getting fired for doing a piss poor job (which is not common anyway) then i will be pissed. But would i want government to interfere? No.

Trickle down economics allowed a lot of people to grow their wealth. It has its flaws, but what "trickle down" really means is supply side economics, which has been practiced since the 1920s and worked in regards to taxes on the middle and lower class, actually. If you look at data regarding US households of lower income class over the years and how many own household amenities, like TVs and so forth. Like in the 1980s about 40% of lower income households had air conditioning. By the early 2000s, that percentage nearly doubles to 80% of lower income households. In 2000 we had about 25% owning a computer and by 2005 it increased nearly to 40%. The unemployment rates and inflation rates that started by Reaganomics from the 80s through the 90s and early 2000s after a terrible economic situation in the later 70s proved that supply side had benefits.

Yes, it is not perfect. Yes, you will probably Google and find a crapload of web sites proving how it never worked, does not work, and will never work. In some things, they will probably be right. There is no such thing as a perfect, disaster proof economic policy because of man made decisions that cannot be controlled. But, the key numbers show that when it works it drastically allows the economy to excel and show an increase of the average American household spending in amenities and in some cases even an increase in property space.

I mean, you are talking as if the top earners make all of this money and keep it to themselves as if they are not taxed one bit by the federal government, state government, and local government. Not to mention the charitable donations made. Not to mention how their taxed money is used to actually run certain government programs. Nearly half the country does not pay the main taxes. It is unfair to paint all CEOs the way you do. Look at the former CEO of Dominos. I forgot his name, but he spent a fortune building an educational institution. You have so many great CEOs. I've read so much about the good ones and the bad ones. I had to, it's what i had to study and report on and be tested on. Some are an inspiration. Some make me wonder how they even got to be CEOs.

For example... Sergio Marchionne of FIAT. He turned that company around. He cleverly got Chrysler and i believe Chrysler will drastically improve once the economy truly recovers. Investing in technology, FIAT built one of the best technological engines ever in the MultiAir. And now, we have it here in the US. Genius. An awesome genius. He worked his ass off under extreme pressure and he is about to turn around two major car manufacturers in two continents. That man deserves a frigging signed blank check to fill in his own bonus.

I understand there are so many greedy bastards out there as CEOs. They lie. They cheat. And they hurt people. But that is human. What this country witness in the later 80s and all of the 90s was an amazing boom of investments in new industries. Supply side paved the way for Toyota and Honda to come in the US, invest in the US, and prosper. It paved the way for technology in computers and internet that started an amazing economic era in the 90s.

There are pros and cons to any economic policy you can name. There are many pros to even a socialistic type of economy. Many pros to a very strong libertarian type of economy, and believe it or not but Estonia is pushing that policy a lot.

So, for anyone to tell you that supply side does not work, or... "trickle down", he/she is selling you a bunch of bullshit. I would be the first to tell you that supply side is nowhere near perfection or flawed proof. Anyone who tells you it completely works is also full of shit. It doesn't completely work and it can't efficiently work forever. We're becoming such an intertwined global economy that what happens outside of the US also affects the US. The most intelligent person in the world can create a new, bulletproof economic policy, but guess what? If Japan...Germany, and the UK go under, they drag the US as well.

This is why i think supply-side would not work as efficiently as it once could. I think in the future we will see some new policies and ideas take place to monitor and integrate with the global economy. Anyway, i am dragging this too long and it is almost 4am.

[Ebase]

So...say someone becomes like Michael Dell who started his own company in his dorm room, worked his ass off day and night, put in so many hours of his life, succeeded, employed thousands of people in the end and gave investors an opportunity to retain returns, he should not be allowed to make x-amount of money in your opinion?

Please, Michael Dell is a drastic exception. There are 500 Fortune 500 CEOs. How many are Michael Dell? Plus he should make his earnings in stock, not liquid capital, which is what we're discussing.


Trickled down did not trickle down, it was vacuumed up. It's insanely easy to look at what percentage of America's wealth the top 1% earned in 1979, as well as what percentage they held. Both have doubled since. Where did that money come from? From the rest of us.

101, do we have more people starting companies now than we used to? No, we just have more people abusing cuts in order to maximize their own bonuses. What's the result? A lopsided, floundering economy.

I can understand if the CEO is a bastard who is not even performing (i.e Immelt) well. But there are many CEOs of smaller companies as well. So what do you want this country to be? A country that government says "you are not allowed to earn x-amount as a CEO for this company"?

Really, tell me the solution. You want government to control this? If not then what? It's free enterprise. If a CEO is kicking ass for a big company then he/she deserves the humongous bonus. I would not be jealous about it. And if i worked at the company, still had my job, got a promotion or two in x-amount of years, and the company is looking good....i don't think i would give a rat's ass about what the CEO got. If the company stunk, is on the verge of bankruptcy, i am fired, as are thousands of other fellow workers, and the CEO still gets a bonus without getting fired for doing a piss poor job (which is not common anyway) then i will be pissed. But would i want government to interfere? No.

Trickle down economics allowed a lot of people to grow their wealth. It has its flaws, but what "trickle down" really means is supply side economics, which has been practiced since the 1920s and worked in regards to taxes on the middle and lower class, actually. If you look at data regarding US households of lower income class over the years and how many own household amenities, like TVs and so forth. Like in the 1980s about 40% of lower income households had air conditioning. By the early 2000s, that percentage nearly doubles to 80% of lower income households. In 2000 we had about 25% owning a computer and by 2005 it increased nearly to 40%. The unemployment rates and inflation rates that started by Reaganomics from the 80s through the 90s and early 2000s after a terrible economic situation in the later 70s proved that supply side had benefits.

Yes, it is not perfect. Yes, you will probably Google and find a crapload of web sites proving how it never worked, does not work, and will never work. In some things, they will probably be right. There is no such thing as a perfect, disaster proof economic policy because of man made decisions that cannot be controlled. But, the key numbers show that when it works it drastically allows the economy to excel and show an increase of the average American household spending in amenities and in some cases even an increase in property space.

I mean, you are talking as if the top earners make all of this money and keep it to themselves as if they are not taxed one bit by the federal government, state government, and local government. Not to mention the charitable donations made. Not to mention how their taxed money is used to actually run certain government programs. Nearly half the country does not pay the main taxes. It is unfair to paint all CEOs the way you do. Look at the former CEO of Dominos. I forgot his name, but he spent a fortune building an educational institution. You have so many great CEOs. I've read so much about the good ones and the bad ones. I had to, it's what i had to study and report on and be tested on. Some are an inspiration. Some make me wonder how they even got to be CEOs.

For example... Sergio Marchionne of FIAT. He turned that company around. He cleverly got Chrysler and i believe Chrysler will drastically improve once the economy truly recovers. Investing in technology, FIAT built one of the best technological engines ever in the MultiAir. And now, we have it here in the US. Genius. An awesome genius. He worked his ass off under extreme pressure and he is about to turn around two major car manufacturers in two continents. That man deserves a frigging signed blank check to fill in his own bonus.

I understand there are so many greedy bastards out there as CEOs. They lie. They cheat. And they hurt people. But that is human. What this country witness in the later 80s and all of the 90s was an amazing boom of investments in new industries. Supply side paved the way for Toyota and Honda to come in the US, invest in the US, and prosper. It paved the way for technology in computers and internet that started an amazing economic era in the 90s.

There are pros and cons to any economic policy you can name. There are many pros to even a socialistic type of economy. Many pros to a very strong libertarian type of economy, and believe it or not but Estonia is pushing that policy a lot.

So, for anyone to tell you that supply side does not work, or... "trickle down", he/she is selling you a bunch of bullshit. I would be the first to tell you that supply side is nowhere near perfection or flawed proof. Anyone who tells you it completely works is also full of shit. It doesn't completely work and it can't efficiently work forever. We're becoming such an intertwined global economy that what happens outside of the US also affects the US. The most intelligent person in the world can create a new, bulletproof economic policy, but guess what? If Japan...Germany, and the UK go under, they drag the US as well.

This is why i think supply-side would not work as efficiently as it once could. I think in the future we will see some new policies and ideas take place to monitor and integrate with the global economy. Anyway, i am dragging this too long and it is almost 4am.

But for as right as you may or may not be, what you are arguing and what is believed by the mainstream right are different. I will add here is that that there is a cult that exists in the American right. The sensation that supply-side economic theory requires that Americans reduce tax rates on everything in order to raise revenues and kickstart a new age of prosperity. It is populist, it is revisionist, and it is idiotic. They want to go far beyond cuts in the marginal tax rate and dive into all kinds of ridiculous gimmicks. Rebates, credits, cuts across the board. Some permanent and some temporary.

But even last week I heard Romney start talking about the Bush tax cuts and how they were great for the US. And that we should do even more. Really? I don't even he believes in what he is saying.

Meanwhile, reality was/is that when Clinton exited office the US debt was roughly $6 trillion. The CBO had projected that we were going to run roughly a $6 trillion dollar surplus. That is a fact. If the government had stayed on that track and did nothing the country would have balanced the books. the results of a roaring supply-side economy.

But something weird happened. Instead, W. Bush under the guise of a Reagan style supply-sider added roughly $3 trillion in unfunded tax cuts. BUT we also lost about the same because the economy slowed (911, recession, etc…) Then we added about $6 trillion in new spending from 2-wars, medicare drug, and the list goes on.

Basically, instead of being in the black we ended up with roughly $14 trillion in debt in a blink of the eye. And half of that came from idiotic tax cuts that never should have happened had the right been subscribers to intelligence or at the bare minimum history.

This was under the guise of developing "supply side economics." To date, Romney has been an avid pusher of this same type of mentality that is shown historically to exasperate and create new problems. This is not Reaganomics at all. Have you read his 54 or whatever step plan he has on his site?

The problem with some of your belief in Romney and supply-side economics is that they are not one in the same. I agree that there are problems with supply-side but it does work. I am all for it. I believe in it. But the current political right needs to become students of history and not shovel the same mule shit that helped to get us where we are. And until these things are debated by politicians with a keen eye on history and reality, we will all suffer.

Sadly, Romney just shows me that he is not a student of history but a man pandering to a populist belief that is not grounded in reality. It isn't tax breaks to stimulate the economy. We have our largest corporations sitting on top of at least a trillion dollars and many have shown record earnings. The money is there. The demand is not. And consumer confidence due in part to the clowns in Washington is on life support. Unless that changes then no economic theory is worth discussing.

Its all about consumer confidence. Increase it, the coffers will loosen, demand will go up, banks will loan money, loan guarantees will fire up.

But then Romney goes and says, we are going to create millions of new jobs. But then he says that he is going to cut government jobs. Reasons why aside, even if you create tons of new jobs, if you throw millions out of their government jobs you have a zero sum gain.

Its a real problem but I am with you. Lets kick up some supply side economics. Lets create that climate. Let us also work with reality and history as guides. Something in short supply on the right and an economic theory so demonized on the left that the moment you say "supply" they freak out. And they don't even know why.

[jkman61494]

Didn't you hear, we don't need history anymore. It's boring and it helps no one in school

[jkman61494]

I won't pretend to be this business model expert. But to me, there's simple math.

CEO's are making MUCH more than they were 15 or 20 years ago. The wage gap between a CEO and an average worker is the worst in the entire world. I read somewhere that in Japan, the gap is around 30/1. We're going to be over 400/1 in no time.

Add to the fact salaries haven't been moving up with the cost of living for roughly 30 years.


So, the top 1%, or perhaps even the top 0.5% are making more and more. The vast majority of Americans are at best making the same, but with everything costing more, they're in essence making less.

And we want to give tax cuts to those making more? When it's clear from the last time we did this it only added debt and did absolute nothing to stimulate growth? I think a lot of people already forget just how bad it got at the end of 2008, when this country was losing jobs at depression like levels. 800,000+ per month.

Again simple math.

If we are -$14 trillion in the hole, and we offer tax cuts that will cause our government to bring in less revenue, it equals higher deficits.

And we want to know why our economy is struggling?

[Hockey101]

So...say someone becomes like Michael Dell who started his own company in his dorm room, worked his ass off day and night, put in so many hours of his life, succeeded, employed thousands of people in the end and gave investors an opportunity to retain returns, he should not be allowed to make x-amount of money in your opinion?

Please, Michael Dell is a drastic exception. There are 500 Fortune 500 CEOs. How many are Michael Dell? Plus he should make his earnings in stock, not liquid capital, which is what we're discussing.


Trickled down did not trickle down, it was vacuumed up. It's insanely easy to look at what percentage of America's wealth the top 1% earned in 1979, as well as what percentage they held. Both have doubled since. Where did that money come from? From the rest of us.

101, do we have more people starting companies now than we used to? No, we just have more people abusing cuts in order to maximize their own bonuses. What's the result? A lopsided, floundering economy.

I can understand if the CEO is a bastard who is not even performing (i.e Immelt) well. But there are many CEOs of smaller companies as well. So what do you want this country to be? A country that government says "you are not allowed to earn x-amount as a CEO for this company"?

Really, tell me the solution. You want government to control this? If not then what? It's free enterprise. If a CEO is kicking ass for a big company then he/she deserves the humongous bonus. I would not be jealous about it. And if i worked at the company, still had my job, got a promotion or two in x-amount of years, and the company is looking good....i don't think i would give a rat's ass about what the CEO got. If the company stunk, is on the verge of bankruptcy, i am fired, as are thousands of other fellow workers, and the CEO still gets a bonus without getting fired for doing a piss poor job (which is not common anyway) then i will be pissed. But would i want government to interfere? No.

Trickle down economics allowed a lot of people to grow their wealth. It has its flaws, but what "trickle down" really means is supply side economics, which has been practiced since the 1920s and worked in regards to taxes on the middle and lower class, actually. If you look at data regarding US households of lower income class over the years and how many own household amenities, like TVs and so forth. Like in the 1980s about 40% of lower income households had air conditioning. By the early 2000s, that percentage nearly doubles to 80% of lower income households. In 2000 we had about 25% owning a computer and by 2005 it increased nearly to 40%. The unemployment rates and inflation rates that started by Reaganomics from the 80s through the 90s and early 2000s after a terrible economic situation in the later 70s proved that supply side had benefits.

Yes, it is not perfect. Yes, you will probably Google and find a crapload of web sites proving how it never worked, does not work, and will never work. In some things, they will probably be right. There is no such thing as a perfect, disaster proof economic policy because of man made decisions that cannot be controlled. But, the key numbers show that when it works it drastically allows the economy to excel and show an increase of the average American household spending in amenities and in some cases even an increase in property space.

I mean, you are talking as if the top earners make all of this money and keep it to themselves as if they are not taxed one bit by the federal government, state government, and local government. Not to mention the charitable donations made. Not to mention how their taxed money is used to actually run certain government programs. Nearly half the country does not pay the main taxes. It is unfair to paint all CEOs the way you do. Look at the former CEO of Dominos. I forgot his name, but he spent a fortune building an educational institution. You have so many great CEOs. I've read so much about the good ones and the bad ones. I had to, it's what i had to study and report on and be tested on. Some are an inspiration. Some make me wonder how they even got to be CEOs.

For example... Sergio Marchionne of FIAT. He turned that company around. He cleverly got Chrysler and i believe Chrysler will drastically improve once the economy truly recovers. Investing in technology, FIAT built one of the best technological engines ever in the MultiAir. And now, we have it here in the US. Genius. An awesome genius. He worked his ass off under extreme pressure and he is about to turn around two major car manufacturers in two continents. That man deserves a frigging signed blank check to fill in his own bonus.

I understand there are so many greedy bastards out there as CEOs. They lie. They cheat. And they hurt people. But that is human. What this country witness in the later 80s and all of the 90s was an amazing boom of investments in new industries. Supply side paved the way for Toyota and Honda to come in the US, invest in the US, and prosper. It paved the way for technology in computers and internet that started an amazing economic era in the 90s.

There are pros and cons to any economic policy you can name. There are many pros to even a socialistic type of economy. Many pros to a very strong libertarian type of economy, and believe it or not but Estonia is pushing that policy a lot.

So, for anyone to tell you that supply side does not work, or... "trickle down", he/she is selling you a bunch of bullshit. I would be the first to tell you that supply side is nowhere near perfection or flawed proof. Anyone who tells you it completely works is also full of shit. It doesn't completely work and it can't efficiently work forever. We're becoming such an intertwined global economy that what happens outside of the US also affects the US. The most intelligent person in the world can create a new, bulletproof economic policy, but guess what? If Japan...Germany, and the UK go under, they drag the US as well.

This is why i think supply-side would not work as efficiently as it once could. I think in the future we will see some new policies and ideas take place to monitor and integrate with the global economy. Anyway, i am dragging this too long and it is almost 4am.

To avoid huge quoted blocks in replies

I am not going to reply to your accusations that are like conspiracies, but when taxes were reduced the amount of revenues that the government took in were actually higher. The GDP growth was also very good, especially in the 1980s with staggering turnarounds, even with the inflation rate.

The Bush tax cuts actually did help, especially after 9/11. The problem when you have these tax cuts is that it limits your ability to spend. The government, since Bush, did right in the tax cuts, and even Obama's economic team urged him to extend them (unsurprisingly most of that team left his administration). The problem was, and is, government spending by ridiculous amounts and W. Bush is to blame for creating this unlimited credit card. It created this culture in DC that Congress and the Executive branch can spend all they want on even the most idiotic things. Obama entered this culture and continues this terrible tradition except he upgraded from gold card to platinum card.

I think Romney having dealt with the results of supply-side economics and the taxes he had to pay as an individual and for the company gave him the experience in what has worked better for him and Bain.

[Hockey101]

I won't pretend to be this business model expert. But to me, there's simple math.

CEO's are making MUCH more than they were 15 or 20 years ago. The wage gap between a CEO and an average worker is the worst in the entire world. I read somewhere that in Japan, the gap is around 30/1. We're going to be over 400/1 in no time.

Add to the fact salaries haven't been moving up with the cost of living for roughly 30 years.


So, the top 1%, or perhaps even the top 0.5% are making more and more. The vast majority of Americans are at best making the same, but with everything costing more, they're in essence making less.

And we want to give tax cuts to those making more? When it's clear from the last time we did this it only added debt and did absolute nothing to stimulate growth? I think a lot of people already forget just how bad it got at the end of 2008, when this country was losing jobs at depression like levels. 800,000+ per month.

Again simple math.

If we are -$14 trillion in the hole, and we offer tax cuts that will cause our government to bring in less revenue, it equals higher deficits.

And we want to know why our economy is struggling?

Simple math, you say, but no solution. It's like you guys want to hint something and i am asking you this. Do you want government to control how much a CEO can make? And again, you claim these CEOs make a ridiculous amount. Do we know how much they invest, though? How much they give out? We don't.

You can tax this people all you want. But 1) there will always be loopholes where they can protect their finances, 2) it would take like over 100 years to reach x amount of billions in revenues from taxing this rich class, which makes it pocket change compared to the amount of money government has spent and the amount of debt we're in; counted as trillions.

[Ebase]

So...say someone becomes like Michael Dell who started his own company in his dorm room, worked his ass off day and night, put in so many hours of his life, succeeded, employed thousands of people in the end and gave investors an opportunity to retain returns, he should not be allowed to make x-amount of money in your opinion?

Please, Michael Dell is a drastic exception. There are 500 Fortune 500 CEOs. How many are Michael Dell? Plus he should make his earnings in stock, not liquid capital, which is what we're discussing.


Trickled down did not trickle down, it was vacuumed up. It's insanely easy to look at what percentage of America's wealth the top 1% earned in 1979, as well as what percentage they held. Both have doubled since. Where did that money come from? From the rest of us.

101, do we have more people starting companies now than we used to? No, we just have more people abusing cuts in order to maximize their own bonuses. What's the result? A lopsided, floundering economy.

I can understand if the CEO is a bastard who is not even performing (i.e Immelt) well. But there are many CEOs of smaller companies as well. So what do you want this country to be? A country that government says "you are not allowed to earn x-amount as a CEO for this company"?

Really, tell me the solution. You want government to control this? If not then what? It's free enterprise. If a CEO is kicking ass for a big company then he/she deserves the humongous bonus. I would not be jealous about it. And if i worked at the company, still had my job, got a promotion or two in x-amount of years, and the company is looking good....i don't think i would give a rat's ass about what the CEO got. If the company stunk, is on the verge of bankruptcy, i am fired, as are thousands of other fellow workers, and the CEO still gets a bonus without getting fired for doing a piss poor job (which is not common anyway) then i will be pissed. But would i want government to interfere? No.

Trickle down economics allowed a lot of people to grow their wealth. It has its flaws, but what "trickle down" really means is supply side economics, which has been practiced since the 1920s and worked in regards to taxes on the middle and lower class, actually. If you look at data regarding US households of lower income class over the years and how many own household amenities, like TVs and so forth. Like in the 1980s about 40% of lower income households had air conditioning. By the early 2000s, that percentage nearly doubles to 80% of lower income households. In 2000 we had about 25% owning a computer and by 2005 it increased nearly to 40%. The unemployment rates and inflation rates that started by Reaganomics from the 80s through the 90s and early 2000s after a terrible economic situation in the later 70s proved that supply side had benefits.

Yes, it is not perfect. Yes, you will probably Google and find a crapload of web sites proving how it never worked, does not work, and will never work. In some things, they will probably be right. There is no such thing as a perfect, disaster proof economic policy because of man made decisions that cannot be controlled. But, the key numbers show that when it works it drastically allows the economy to excel and show an increase of the average American household spending in amenities and in some cases even an increase in property space.

I mean, you are talking as if the top earners make all of this money and keep it to themselves as if they are not taxed one bit by the federal government, state government, and local government. Not to mention the charitable donations made. Not to mention how their taxed money is used to actually run certain government programs. Nearly half the country does not pay the main taxes. It is unfair to paint all CEOs the way you do. Look at the former CEO of Dominos. I forgot his name, but he spent a fortune building an educational institution. You have so many great CEOs. I've read so much about the good ones and the bad ones. I had to, it's what i had to study and report on and be tested on. Some are an inspiration. Some make me wonder how they even got to be CEOs.

For example... Sergio Marchionne of FIAT. He turned that company around. He cleverly got Chrysler and i believe Chrysler will drastically improve once the economy truly recovers. Investing in technology, FIAT built one of the best technological engines ever in the MultiAir. And now, we have it here in the US. Genius. An awesome genius. He worked his ass off under extreme pressure and he is about to turn around two major car manufacturers in two continents. That man deserves a frigging signed blank check to fill in his own bonus.

I understand there are so many greedy bastards out there as CEOs. They lie. They cheat. And they hurt people. But that is human. What this country witness in the later 80s and all of the 90s was an amazing boom of investments in new industries. Supply side paved the way for Toyota and Honda to come in the US, invest in the US, and prosper. It paved the way for technology in computers and internet that started an amazing economic era in the 90s.

There are pros and cons to any economic policy you can name. There are many pros to even a socialistic type of economy. Many pros to a very strong libertarian type of economy, and believe it or not but Estonia is pushing that policy a lot.

So, for anyone to tell you that supply side does not work, or... "trickle down", he/she is selling you a bunch of bullshit. I would be the first to tell you that supply side is nowhere near perfection or flawed proof. Anyone who tells you it completely works is also full of shit. It doesn't completely work and it can't efficiently work forever. We're becoming such an intertwined global economy that what happens outside of the US also affects the US. The most intelligent person in the world can create a new, bulletproof economic policy, but guess what? If Japan...Germany, and the UK go under, they drag the US as well.

This is why i think supply-side would not work as efficiently as it once could. I think in the future we will see some new policies and ideas take place to monitor and integrate with the global economy. Anyway, i am dragging this too long and it is almost 4am.

To avoid huge quoted blocks in replies

I am not going to reply to your accusations that are like conspiracies, but when taxes were reduced the amount of revenues that the government took in were actually higher. The GDP growth was also very good, especially in the 1980s with staggering turnarounds, even with the inflation rate.

The Bush tax cuts actually did help, especially after 9/11. The problem when you have these tax cuts is that it limits your ability to spend. The government, since Bush, did right in the tax cuts, and even Obama's economic team urged him to extend them (unsurprisingly most of that team left his administration). The problem was, and is, government spending by ridiculous amounts and W. Bush is to blame for creating this unlimited credit card. It created this culture in DC that Congress and the Executive branch can spend all they want on even the most idiotic things. Obama entered this culture and continues this terrible tradition except he upgraded from gold card to platinum card.

I think Romney having dealt with the results of supply-side economics and the taxes he had to pay as an individual and for the company gave him the experience in what has worked better for him and Bain.

If you cut taxes when you are running a deficit, and you do not shrink the size of government what happens?

It's not conspiratorial, it's ghastly arithmetic.

I am not exonerating anyone in Congress but also don't defend Bain as a righteous enterprise. It is a 100% predatory corporation. Honestly, I have no issue in it as a shareholder. It has earned money and should I have shares in the company I expect a return on investment. That isn't what irks me about Bain. It's this sudden finger point that Republican supporters go for to tout Romney's accolades. They call him a great example of a job creator but in reality he created roughly a 250,000 by his campaigns estimation of what amounts to minimum education general employment positions. Basically, jobs that would not lift you out of poverty or enable you to raise a family. I wouldn't be touting this if people knew the reality of it. If he is going to talk about long term sustainable growth thru the private sector, is this really a great example of his business prowess? Not really. In fact, it is an example of how out of touch he is with the common man who is depending on him to lift him.

Romney is a sharp business mind and a successful one. I don't laud success. It's the American dream. When Romney tries to remake himself as the every man who lifted himself up by his own bootstraps it's bullshit. Like pretty much every other facet of his personality. Want a Republican with the right to say these things? John Boehner can. The VP can. Romney is not one of these guys.

Again, I am railing the lack of intellectual honesty when it comes to Bain Capital. It is not the template for the American Dream. It's a template for a soulless, profit over morality enterprise. It is driven by money. End of subject. It's their cash that enables them to swoop in on a vulnerable company and slice and dice it for profit. And that means jobs. To go out and constantly pat himself on the back for Staples? If Staples is what we have to look forward to then...

[leetchie69]

I won't pretend to be this business model expert. But to me, there's simple math.

CEO's are making MUCH more than they were 15 or 20 years ago. The wage gap between a CEO and an average worker is the worst in the entire world. I read somewhere that in Japan, the gap is around 30/1. We're going to be over 400/1 in no time.

Add to the fact salaries haven't been moving up with the cost of living for roughly 30 years.


So, the top 1%, or perhaps even the top 0.5% are making more and more. The vast majority of Americans are at best making the same, but with everything costing more, they're in essence making less.

And we want to give tax cuts to those making more? When it's clear from the last time we did this it only added debt and did absolute nothing to stimulate growth? I think a lot of people already forget just how bad it got at the end of 2008, when this country was losing jobs at depression like levels. 800,000+ per month.

Again simple math.

If we are -$14 trillion in the hole, and we offer tax cuts that will cause our government to bring in less revenue, it equals higher deficits.

And we want to know why our economy is struggling?

Simple math, you say, but no solution. It's like you guys want to hint something and i am asking you this. Do you want government to control how much a CEO can make? And again, you claim these CEOs make a ridiculous amount. Do we know how much they invest, though? How much they give out? We don't.

You can tax this people all you want. But 1) there will always be loopholes where they can protect their finances, 2) it would take like over 100 years to reach x amount of billions in revenues from taxing this rich class, which makes it pocket change compared to the amount of money government has spent and the amount of debt we're in; counted as trillions.

I don't like the argument that it won't make a dent...doesn't mean they should not be taxed more...it is a START. They should not be excluded from being taxed more.

And you first point about "always find a way to protect their finances". Means we need serious Tax Reform.

[Hockey101]

I won't pretend to be this business model expert. But to me, there's simple math.

CEO's are making MUCH more than they were 15 or 20 years ago. The wage gap between a CEO and an average worker is the worst in the entire world. I read somewhere that in Japan, the gap is around 30/1. We're going to be over 400/1 in no time.

Add to the fact salaries haven't been moving up with the cost of living for roughly 30 years.


So, the top 1%, or perhaps even the top 0.5% are making more and more. The vast majority of Americans are at best making the same, but with everything costing more, they're in essence making less.

And we want to give tax cuts to those making more? When it's clear from the last time we did this it only added debt and did absolute nothing to stimulate growth? I think a lot of people already forget just how bad it got at the end of 2008, when this country was losing jobs at depression like levels. 800,000+ per month.

Again simple math.

If we are -$14 trillion in the hole, and we offer tax cuts that will cause our government to bring in less revenue, it equals higher deficits.

And we want to know why our economy is struggling?

Simple math, you say, but no solution. It's like you guys want to hint something and i am asking you this. Do you want government to control how much a CEO can make? And again, you claim these CEOs make a ridiculous amount. Do we know how much they invest, though? How much they give out? We don't.

You can tax this people all you want. But 1) there will always be loopholes where they can protect their finances, 2) it would take like over 100 years to reach x amount of billions in revenues from taxing this rich class, which makes it pocket change compared to the amount of money government has spent and the amount of debt we're in; counted as trillions.

I don't like the argument that it won't make a dent...doesn't mean they should not be taxed more...it is a START. They should not be excluded from being taxed more.

And you first point about "always find a way to protect their finances". Means we need serious Tax Reform.

leetchie.... it doesn't even matter which party, but do you honestly think that our government wants to do serious tax reform to stop the uber rich from protecting their finances? I applaud your positivity if you actually say yes.

[Hockey101]

So...say someone becomes like Michael Dell who started his own company in his dorm room, worked his ass off day and night, put in so many hours of his life, succeeded, employed thousands of people in the end and gave investors an opportunity to retain returns, he should not be allowed to make x-amount of money in your opinion?

Please, Michael Dell is a drastic exception. There are 500 Fortune 500 CEOs. How many are Michael Dell? Plus he should make his earnings in stock, not liquid capital, which is what we're discussing.


Trickled down did not trickle down, it was vacuumed up. It's insanely easy to look at what percentage of America's wealth the top 1% earned in 1979, as well as what percentage they held. Both have doubled since. Where did that money come from? From the rest of us.

101, do we have more people starting companies now than we used to? No, we just have more people abusing cuts in order to maximize their own bonuses. What's the result? A lopsided, floundering economy.

I can understand if the CEO is a bastard who is not even performing (i.e Immelt) well. But there are many CEOs of smaller companies as well. So what do you want this country to be? A country that government says "you are not allowed to earn x-amount as a CEO for this company"?

Really, tell me the solution. You want government to control this? If not then what? It's free enterprise. If a CEO is kicking ass for a big company then he/she deserves the humongous bonus. I would not be jealous about it. And if i worked at the company, still had my job, got a promotion or two in x-amount of years, and the company is looking good....i don't think i would give a rat's ass about what the CEO got. If the company stunk, is on the verge of bankruptcy, i am fired, as are thousands of other fellow workers, and the CEO still gets a bonus without getting fired for doing a piss poor job (which is not common anyway) then i will be pissed. But would i want government to interfere? No.

Trickle down economics allowed a lot of people to grow their wealth. It has its flaws, but what "trickle down" really means is supply side economics, which has been practiced since the 1920s and worked in regards to taxes on the middle and lower class, actually. If you look at data regarding US households of lower income class over the years and how many own household amenities, like TVs and so forth. Like in the 1980s about 40% of lower income households had air conditioning. By the early 2000s, that percentage nearly doubles to 80% of lower income households. In 2000 we had about 25% owning a computer and by 2005 it increased nearly to 40%. The unemployment rates and inflation rates that started by Reaganomics from the 80s through the 90s and early 2000s after a terrible economic situation in the later 70s proved that supply side had benefits.

Yes, it is not perfect. Yes, you will probably Google and find a crapload of web sites proving how it never worked, does not work, and will never work. In some things, they will probably be right. There is no such thing as a perfect, disaster proof economic policy because of man made decisions that cannot be controlled. But, the key numbers show that when it works it drastically allows the economy to excel and show an increase of the average American household spending in amenities and in some cases even an increase in property space.

I mean, you are talking as if the top earners make all of this money and keep it to themselves as if they are not taxed one bit by the federal government, state government, and local government. Not to mention the charitable donations made. Not to mention how their taxed money is used to actually run certain government programs. Nearly half the country does not pay the main taxes. It is unfair to paint all CEOs the way you do. Look at the former CEO of Dominos. I forgot his name, but he spent a fortune building an educational institution. You have so many great CEOs. I've read so much about the good ones and the bad ones. I had to, it's what i had to study and report on and be tested on. Some are an inspiration. Some make me wonder how they even got to be CEOs.

For example... Sergio Marchionne of FIAT. He turned that company around. He cleverly got Chrysler and i believe Chrysler will drastically improve once the economy truly recovers. Investing in technology, FIAT built one of the best technological engines ever in the MultiAir. And now, we have it here in the US. Genius. An awesome genius. He worked his ass off under extreme pressure and he is about to turn around two major car manufacturers in two continents. That man deserves a frigging signed blank check to fill in his own bonus.

I understand there are so many greedy bastards out there as CEOs. They lie. They cheat. And they hurt people. But that is human. What this country witness in the later 80s and all of the 90s was an amazing boom of investments in new industries. Supply side paved the way for Toyota and Honda to come in the US, invest in the US, and prosper. It paved the way for technology in computers and internet that started an amazing economic era in the 90s.

There are pros and cons to any economic policy you can name. There are many pros to even a socialistic type of economy. Many pros to a very strong libertarian type of economy, and believe it or not but Estonia is pushing that policy a lot.

So, for anyone to tell you that supply side does not work, or... "trickle down", he/she is selling you a bunch of bullshit. I would be the first to tell you that supply side is nowhere near perfection or flawed proof. Anyone who tells you it completely works is also full of shit. It doesn't completely work and it can't efficiently work forever. We're becoming such an intertwined global economy that what happens outside of the US also affects the US. The most intelligent person in the world can create a new, bulletproof economic policy, but guess what? If Japan...Germany, and the UK go under, they drag the US as well.

This is why i think supply-side would not work as efficiently as it once could. I think in the future we will see some new policies and ideas take place to monitor and integrate with the global economy. Anyway, i am dragging this too long and it is almost 4am.

To avoid huge quoted blocks in replies

I am not going to reply to your accusations that are like conspiracies, but when taxes were reduced the amount of revenues that the government took in were actually higher. The GDP growth was also very good, especially in the 1980s with staggering turnarounds, even with the inflation rate.

The Bush tax cuts actually did help, especially after 9/11. The problem when you have these tax cuts is that it limits your ability to spend. The government, since Bush, did right in the tax cuts, and even Obama's economic team urged him to extend them (unsurprisingly most of that team left his administration). The problem was, and is, government spending by ridiculous amounts and W. Bush is to blame for creating this unlimited credit card. It created this culture in DC that Congress and the Executive branch can spend all they want on even the most idiotic things. Obama entered this culture and continues this terrible tradition except he upgraded from gold card to platinum card.

I think Romney having dealt with the results of supply-side economics and the taxes he had to pay as an individual and for the company gave him the experience in what has worked better for him and Bain.

If you cut taxes when you are running a deficit, and you do not shrink the size of government what happens?

It's not conspiratorial, it's ghastly arithmetic.

I am not exonerating anyone in Congress but also don't defend Bain as a righteous enterprise. It is a 100% predatory corporation. Honestly, I have no issue in it as a shareholder. It has earned money and should I have shares in the company I expect a return on investment. That isn't what irks me about Bain. It's this sudden finger point that Republican supporters go for to tout Romney's accolades. They call him a great example of a job creator but in reality he created roughly a 250,000 by his campaigns estimation of what amounts to minimum education general employment positions. Basically, jobs that would not lift you out of poverty or enable you to raise a family. I wouldn't be touting this if people knew the reality of it. If he is going to talk about long term sustainable growth thru the private sector, is this really a great example of his business prowess? Not really. In fact, it is an example of how out of touch he is with the common man who is depending on him to lift him.

Romney is a sharp business mind and a successful one. I don't laud success. It's the American dream. When Romney tries to remake himself as the every man who lifted himself up by his own bootstraps it's bullshit. Like pretty much every other facet of his personality. Want a Republican with the right to say these things? John Boehner can. The VP can. Romney is not one of these guys.

Again, I am railing the lack of intellectual honesty when it comes to Bain Capital. It is not the template for the American Dream. It's a template for a soulless, profit over morality enterprise. It is driven by money. End of subject. It's their cash that enables them to swoop in on a vulnerable company and slice and dice it for profit. And that means jobs. To go out and constantly pat himself on the back for Staples? If Staples is what we have to look forward to then...

I am not going to start an argument with you on Bain and the American Dream. We are black and white on that issue and i am not going to waste my time with the other attacks on Romney.

This is the problem with the GOP and the Dems.

GOP: Cut taxes, "shrink" government. That basically means "we want to decrease taxes, we want to shrink government, but we will also add government that promotes conservatism".

Dems: Raise taxes, and increase government entitlements. That basically means, "we want to tax more, so we can spend more".

Both are wrong. We've had these approaches for ten years now. Wrong wrong wrong. For the GOP. If you want to cut the debt and cut taxes as well, then do not spend an extra dime on government programs that are helpful to conservatism. You are being hypocrites, that's what you did for years and it was a joke. For the Dems. If you want to cut debt, increase taxes? Ok. Increase more government spending with entitlements? It's not cutting anything.

Neither party can execute the right plan.

If you raise taxes but you don't shrink government, what do you think happens? You can tax all you want but you're just going to get billions over x-amount of years while the trillions in spending increase. You do damage in the private sector and public sector. You cut taxes and you don't drink the government? You MAY...MAY....help the private sector, but not help the public sector either.

Neither of them get it right.

[jkman61494]

GOP: Cut taxes, "shrink" government. That basically means "we want to decrease taxes, we want to shrink government, but we will also add government that promotes conservatism".

Dems: Raise taxes, and increase government entitlements. That basically means, "we want to tax more, so we can spend more".

I'm sorry. Where are you getting this "the Dems want to spend more?"

Barack Obama and his administration had a bill to cut $4 trillion in spending. It was almost double what Republicans were originally asking for. John Boehner all but agreed to it as he was a rare voice of reason and trying to cooperate. It was all gravy right? WRONG. It all went awry when leather head's own his own political party swept the rug from under his feet and refused to agree to it. Why do you ask?

Why not just listen to the soulful words of Mitch McConnell who said "I refuse to help to get President Obama re-elected."

Did they do bailouts? Yes. Which by the way...so did George Bush. Most economists agreed it put a plug in the drain and helped stop the free fall that went on between September 2008 and February 2009.

Now, the President could have done more, or maybe his party could have done more. But this tired talking point of how Dems want to spend more is just senseless bashing. The Republicans have been the party over the past 30 years to not only increase spending, but not introduce ways of how to pay for it.


Fact: The Federal government grew more under George Bush than Barack Obama.
Fact: There are fewer government employees today than when George Bush left office.

[Dunc]

I won't pretend to be this business model expert. But to me, there's simple math.

CEO's are making MUCH more than they were 15 or 20 years ago. The wage gap between a CEO and an average worker is the worst in the entire world. I read somewhere that in Japan, the gap is around 30/1. We're going to be over 400/1 in no time.

Add to the fact salaries haven't been moving up with the cost of living for roughly 30 years.


So, the top 1%, or perhaps even the top 0.5% are making more and more. The vast majority of Americans are at best making the same, but with everything costing more, they're in essence making less.

And we want to give tax cuts to those making more? When it's clear from the last time we did this it only added debt and did absolute nothing to stimulate growth? I think a lot of people already forget just how bad it got at the end of 2008, when this country was losing jobs at depression like levels. 800,000+ per month.

Again simple math.

If we are -$14 trillion in the hole, and we offer tax cuts that will cause our government to bring in less revenue, it equals higher deficits.

And we want to know why our economy is struggling?

Simple math, you say, but no solution. It's like you guys want to hint something and i am asking you this. Do you want government to control how much a CEO can make? And again, you claim these CEOs make a ridiculous amount. Do we know how much they invest, though? How much they give out? We don't.

You can tax this people all you want. But 1) there will always be loopholes where they can protect their finances, 2) it would take like over 100 years to reach x amount of billions in revenues from taxing this rich class, which makes it pocket change compared to the amount of money government has spent and the amount of debt we're in; counted as trillions.

I don't like the argument that it won't make a dent...doesn't mean they should not be taxed more...it is a START. They should not be excluded from being taxed more.

And you first point about "always find a way to protect their finances". Means we need serious Tax Reform.

leetchie.... it doesn't even matter which party, but do you honestly think that our government wants to do serious tax reform to stop the uber rich from protecting their finances? I applaud your positivity if you actually say yes.

Hallelujah! The first political opinion voiced by 101 that wasn't slavishly toeing the hard-core conservative line!

[Hockey101]

GOP: Cut taxes, "shrink" government. That basically means "we want to decrease taxes, we want to shrink government, but we will also add government that promotes conservatism".

Dems: Raise taxes, and increase government entitlements. That basically means, "we want to tax more, so we can spend more".

I'm sorry. Where are you getting this "the Dems want to spend more?"

Barack Obama and his administration had a bill to cut $4 trillion in spending. It was almost double what Republicans were originally asking for. John Boehner all but agreed to it as he was a rare voice of reason and trying to cooperate. It was all gravy right? WRONG. It all went awry when leather head's own his own political party swept the rug from under his feet and refused to agree to it. Why do you ask?

Why not just listen to the soulful words of Mitch McConnell who said "I refuse to help to get President Obama re-elected."

Did they do bailouts? Yes. Which by the way...so did George Bush. Most economists agreed it put a plug in the drain and helped stop the free fall that went on between September 2008 and February 2009.

Now, the President could have done more, or maybe his party could have done more. But this tired talking point of how Dems want to spend more is just senseless bashing. The Republicans have been the party over the past 30 years to not only increase spending, but not introduce ways of how to pay for it.


Fact: The Federal government grew more under George Bush than Barack Obama.
Fact: There are fewer government employees today than when George Bush left office.

Wow...4 trillion in debt over what was it? Ten years or so? And Obama spent how much in three years?

Come on man. Obamacare alone is a ridiculous expenditure. Democrats that are more liberal than moderate want an entitlement society imitating Europe's socialist model. You can't deny that.

[Beamer]

Entitlement society? Such a recent weasel term.



Hey, I mean, I like paying for my neighbors to go to the emergency room for the sniffles as much as the next guy, and I'm totally cool that we're paying more for health care and doctors are receiving less in turn, meaning that HMOs are swallowing far more of our expenses than is probably healthy, but...

[Kusand]

Your claim regarding liberal Democrats is about as sound as me claiming "Republicans that are more conservative than moderate want a traditional Christian society imitating Iran's theocratic model. You can't deny that."

Entitlement society. Absurd.

[Dunc]

Your claim regarding liberal Democrats is about as sound as me claiming "Republicans that are more conservative than moderate want a traditional Christian society imitating Iran's theocratic model. You can't deny that."

Entitlement society. Absurd.

It's not 101's fault, he has so many Fox talking points - totally unrelated to facts or reality - floating around in his head that sometimes (all the times) they just leak out into Rangerland.

[Ebase]

Neither of them get it right.

And so here is the problem I have. But the GOP in many ways do not understand the problem. (I would argue that the Democrats don't care about the costs)

The GOP do not understand what government is now. They do not understand its role in keeping the US competitive in this century.

They cannot even get to a place where they realize some of the most fundamental and universally truths like climate change. The social conservatives have issues with science.

The Republicans now market themselves as more libertarian but they are actually corpatocracy.

The democrats are as well. Instead of killing government to let companies fleece the country they are giving the money to allow it.




This post has been edited by Ebase: Apr 24 2012, 03:02 PM

[Sed]

Well, I guess the internet IS an echo chamber.

[rightbug]

Well, I guess the internet IS an echo chamber.

[Beamer]

Well, I guess the dinner set IS a necco flavor!

[Sed]

Well, I guess the dinner set IS a necco flavor!

They do taste like pressboard and veneer!

[leetchie69]

I won't pretend to be this business model expert. But to me, there's simple math.

CEO's are making MUCH more than they were 15 or 20 years ago. The wage gap between a CEO and an average worker is the worst in the entire world. I read somewhere that in Japan, the gap is around 30/1. We're going to be over 400/1 in no time.

Add to the fact salaries haven't been moving up with the cost of living for roughly 30 years.


So, the top 1%, or perhaps even the top 0.5% are making more and more. The vast majority of Americans are at best making the same, but with everything costing more, they're in essence making less.

And we want to give tax cuts to those making more? When it's clear from the last time we did this it only added debt and did absolute nothing to stimulate growth? I think a lot of people already forget just how bad it got at the end of 2008, when this country was losing jobs at depression like levels. 800,000+ per month.

Again simple math.

If we are -$14 trillion in the hole, and we offer tax cuts that will cause our government to bring in less revenue, it equals higher deficits.

And we want to know why our economy is struggling?

Simple math, you say, but no solution. It's like you guys want to hint something and i am asking you this. Do you want government to control how much a CEO can make? And again, you claim these CEOs make a ridiculous amount. Do we know how much they invest, though? How much they give out? We don't.

You can tax this people all you want. But 1) there will always be loopholes where they can protect their finances, 2) it would take like over 100 years to reach x amount of billions in revenues from taxing this rich class, which makes it pocket change compared to the amount of money government has spent and the amount of debt we're in; counted as trillions.

I don't like the argument that it won't make a dent...doesn't mean they should not be taxed more...it is a START. They should not be excluded from being taxed more.

And you first point about "always find a way to protect their finances". Means we need serious Tax Reform.

leetchie.... it doesn't even matter which party, but do you honestly think that our government wants to do serious tax reform to stop the uber rich from protecting their finances? I applaud your positivity if you actually say yes.

Well not just to stop the uber rich but address the tax reform code in general.

Tax pot/legal gambling and deficit will reduce real quick!

[Kusand]

Tax pot/legal gambling and deficit will reduce real quick!

Given that a huge amount of the price of pot is baked (teehee) in by its prohibited status, taxing pot isn't going to do THAT much.

Edit: Also - I can't find stats on this, grain of salt time - I've anecdotally heard that gambling disproportionately affects the poor, so I have trepidation about gambling legalization to raise revenue in the same way that I'm not interested in raising the taxes of the fictional "lucky" who don't earn enough to pay federal income tax.

This post has been edited by Kusand: Apr 24 2012, 06:49 PM

[Nilan 666]

Pot tax may not raise much but ending that part of the drug war, savings!

[Kusand]

Pot tax may not raise much but ending that part of the drug war, savings!

Certainly savings to be had there in terms of incarceration and enforcement and what have you, for sure.

[Alitaki]

Certainly savings to be had there in terms of incarceration and enforcement and what have you, for sure.

This can be achieved by decriminalizing pot.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I don't mean make pot legal, just decriminalize it up to a certain amount. Found carrying a dimebag? Pay a fine, court mandated rehab or something like that. Get caught carrying a brick (or 10)? Then you take legal action.

This post has been edited by Alitaki: Apr 25 2012, 08:33 AM

[leedsy99]

Certainly savings to be had there in terms of incarceration and enforcement and what have you, for sure.

This can be achieved by decriminalizing pot.

Not to debate whether or not pot should be decriminalized, but the economic angle of how money would be saved through incarceration/enforcement is naive. No one goes to jail for simple marihuana possession, they go for distribution. And people sell drugs, at the risk of incarceration, because it makes them money. So if you take away the income stream from a drug dealer, do you really expect them to shrug their shoulders and join the workforce? And by practicing "decriminalization," all you do is furthr encourage an illegal service industry that operates outside of any regulation or public benefit (i.e., taxes). As I often see in my job, dealers not only profit from their trade, but they also qualify for social services as being "unemployed" -- do we really want to encourage that from people?

[rightbug]

So if you take away the income stream from a drug dealer, do you really expect them to shrug their shoulders and join the workforce? And by practicing "decriminalization," all you do is furthr encourage an illegal service industry that operates outside of any regulation or public benefit (i.e., taxes).

If you go for full legalization, though, you can collect taxes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/citie...juana.html?_r=1

On the decriminalization front, though, Massachusetts recently did this. Does anyone know if there have been either benefits or negative repercussions from the move?

[Kusand]

Not to debate whether or not pot should be decriminalized, but the economic angle of how money would be saved through incarceration/enforcement is naive. No one goes to jail for simple marihuana possession, they go for distribution. And people sell drugs, at the risk of incarceration, because it makes them money. So if you take away the income stream from a drug dealer, do you really expect them to shrug their shoulders and join the workforce? And by practicing "decriminalization," all you do is furthr encourage an illegal service industry that operates outside of any regulation or public benefit (i.e., taxes). As I often see in my job, dealers not only profit from their trade, but they also qualify for social services as being "unemployed" -- do we really want to encourage that from people?

According to the FBI, 45.8% of drug-related arrests were marijuana possession, which comes out to over 400,000 people. Those arrests are distinct from marijuana sale/manufacturing (6.3% of arrests). The New York Times reported that there were over 50,000 possession arrests in 2011, making it the leading reason for arrest in New York City.

Arrests cost money. Holding the people arrested costs money. Why is it naive to suggest that legalization would reduce the costs associated with hundreds of thousands of arrests?

This post has been edited by Kusand: Apr 25 2012, 09:18 AM

[Alitaki]

Not to debate whether or not pot should be decriminalized, but the economic angle of how money would be saved through incarceration/enforcement is naive. No one goes to jail for simple marihuana possession, they go for distribution. And people sell drugs, at the risk of incarceration, because it makes them money. So if you take away the income stream from a drug dealer, do you really expect them to shrug their shoulders and join the workforce? And by practicing "decriminalization," all you do is furthr encourage an illegal service industry that operates outside of any regulation or public benefit (i.e., taxes). As I often see in my job, dealers not only profit from their trade, but they also qualify for social services as being "unemployed" -- do we really want to encourage that from people?

According to the FBI, 45.8% of drug-related arrests were marijuana possession, which comes out to over 400,000 people. Those arrests are distinct from marijuana sale/manufacturing (6.3% of arrests). The New York Times reported that there were over 50,000 possession arrests in 2011, making it the leading reason for arrest in New York City.

Arrests cost money. Holding the people arrested costs money. Why is it naive to suggest that legalization would reduce the costs associated with hundreds of thousands of arrests?

Leedsy's post made me look it up and unbeknownst to me, NY State decriminalized marijuana back in 1977 for amounts less than 25 grams. What's that? One joint? I wonder how many of those arrests could have simply been a fine.

[Kusand]

Leedsy's post made me look it up and unbeknownst to me, NY State decriminalized marijuana back in 1977 for amounts less than 25 grams. What's that? One joint? I wonder how many of those arrests could have simply been a fine.

According to some of the sources I read which were pro-legalization so I opted not to use it, a lot of arrested were made for "possession in public" after they were stopped and asked to turn out their pockets - apparently the decriminalization doesn't apply for having it/smoking it in public view.

[toph]

Leedsy's post made me look it up and unbeknownst to me, NY State decriminalized marijuana back in 1977 for amounts less than 25 grams. What's that? One joint? I wonder how many of those arrests could have simply been a fine.

Nah, it's a lot more than that. I think a gram can make like two relatively big joints. An ounce of pot is a lot and it's 28 grams or so.

[xcdudesquadloves...]

Leedsy's post made me look it up and unbeknownst to me, NY State decriminalized marijuana back in 1977 for amounts less than 25 grams. What's that? One joint? I wonder how many of those arrests could have simply been a fine.

An ounce of pot is a lot and it's 28 grams or so.

That is correct. 25 grams is a lot to just be carrying around on you. At that point its usually possession with intent to sell.

[Puckforbrains]

Leedsy's post made me look it up and unbeknownst to me, NY State decriminalized marijuana back in 1977 for amounts less than 25 grams. What's that? One joint? I wonder how many of those arrests could have simply been a fine.

An ounce of pot is a lot and it's 28 grams or so.

That is correct. 25 grams is a lot to just be carrying around on you. At that point its usually possession with intent to sell.

Thats debatable.


If they legalize and allow licensed shops to distribute, people are certainly going to purchase their product from a business like this rather than a street dealer. And I find it funny to call people street dealers - everyone I have ever purchased from has been a surburbanite, someone with a family. To me, street dealer paints a scene out of New Jack City or Traffic.

Legalize and tax it. U of Hawaii ( or some entity in Hawaii) did a study years ago on it -

"A study conducted in 2007 by University of Hawaii-West Oahu professor, William Boyd, found that approximately $33 million a year in tax revenue and savings could be generated by the legalization of marijuana."

Hawaiian Gold


I think a lot of states could use that kind of scratch these days - more likely Federal money as well, but I think both State and Federal should reap the rewards.

[toph]

Just because you buy from a suburbanite doesn't mean it doesn't come from some shady wholesale dealer somewhere along the supply chain.

[teddyc]

Just because you buy from a suburbanite doesn't mean it doesn't come from some shady wholesale dealer somewhere along the supply chain.

Like Walmart !

[Puckforbrains]

Just because you buy from a suburbanite doesn't mean it doesn't come from some shady wholesale dealer somewhere along the supply chain.

LOL

Not going to derail this thread any longer.Look up the old thread if you want to get back into this debate.

[Kusand]

The GOP nomination is over now, right?