By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - The Bush-Obama tax cuts are failing to create jobs...

goforgold on 19 July 2011
richardhutnik said:
goforgold said:
richardhutnik said:

Would you rather I say businesses ARE charities?  They aren't.  The end up working to maximize profits.  That is how they work.  Of course, how they do this can be done a lot of ways, and whether they think short or long term.  If they think short term, they will totally ruin long term profit potential.  Beyond this, one needs to ask if maximizing profits is the ONLY set of values that society has.  If society has more values, then things that run against long term interests can be mitigated to a certain degree.

And yes, short term maximizing of profits can not only kill a country, but also an economy.   You can create systemic issues in the economy that can't be gotten out of easy.  And the idea of deficit spending, suggested by Keynes, and gospel by economists now, has been done for years, so there isn't much else to go back to.

so hiring Americans which would also reinforce this countries economic stability is considered a charity, and these are the people d*ck riding the constitution, beyond absurd

and @ the bold the fact that we as a f*cking species still offer that as a question is just pathetic,

I mean come the f*ck on it's 2011 not 1


The thing is, when you have multinational corporations, they don't care about anything outside of maintaining markets (with the least effort possible on their part) and maximizing profits.  Your rant in the last bit comes from someone who has a degree of patriotism, and you see such echoed also in the likes of Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan.  And such individuals can be strongly pro-constitution, and have these concerns also.

 Multinational corporations have no patriotism at all.  While hiring Americans would help, it isn't in their prerogative.  And you do have every right to be upset about it.  But I believe there needs to be more than you being upset and ranting about it, to make a difference here.

and that's the point Americans do know anything about, these Multinational corporations are who these "patriots" are telling us to put our faith in, trickle down, they'll give a shit, etc. when what you say is absolutely true, they DON'T GIVE A SINGLE FUCK, which is why that comic was put forth

I don't know who's worse, the republicans or the *people* who listen to them.

I mean there is LITERALLY NO reason in all the universe why Americans don't have jobs. The sole reason is the people who should be giving them jobs don't care, and care about money more simple as that.



Around the Network
goforgold on 19 July 2011
mrstickball said:
goforgold said:
sethnintendo said:

We should legalize marijuana then go on a global campaign of dropping barrels of weed on all countries instead of bombs. Then instead of having to pay for dropping bombs, pissing people off/making them hate USA, etc.. they will pay us for the weed and be happy. Sounds like a win/win to me. Too bad the pharmaceutical, paper, cotton, oil, etc.. companies would give their left nut to keep marijuana illegal.  We could be leaders in the marijuana economy.

PS..  Trickle down (literally taking a piss on the poor)/voodoo economics doesn't work....  You usually just have the rich holding onto more money.  When you have <1% owning a vast majority of the wealth then it is pretty obvious that economic system isn't working.  Seems like we are just back in the middle ages.  You have the ultra rich protected by the military against the poor.  If you want to call that democracy then so be it.  I call it a monarchy or oligarchy.

Obama should have shown some balls and just went for the middle class cuts to stay.  He should have restored the rich tax rates to what they were under Clinton.  OMG I have to give up so much money...  The rich cry.  It is so hard to live off of 500k a year....  Try living off of 20k a year you pricks.  I worked my ass off for most jobs and they barely pay shit because they know they can get away with it considering the economy is pure shit.  Take a look at CEO pay rates for the past 40 years compared to the workers pay.  CEO's are getting paid way too much and have increased their salaries leaps and bounds past the average worker salary growth rate.  Just study and work hard is all they tell you to do to be successful.  Well, it helps a hell a lot more to be born into a rich family than trying to work your way out of the shit infested job market that is available to most people.  American dream must be a dream of debt.  Keep you in debt thus placing you forever in the rat race. 

this

I also love how the response to share the wealth is always "NOT in the constitution"

yet when 'is capitalism in the constitution?" is brought up it's always "next question"

Your argument is very strange.

If wealth-redistrubtion isn't allowed due to constitutional constraints, then the form of economy must default to the other choice, regardless if it is mentioned in the constitution.

 

We should legalize marijuana then go on a global campaign of dropping barrels of weed on all countries instead of bombs. Then instead of having to pay for dropping bombs, pissing people off/making them hate USA, etc.. they will pay us for the weed and be happy. Sounds like a win/win to me. Too bad the pharmaceutical, paper, cotton, oil, etc.. companies would give their left nut to keep marijuana illegal.  We could be leaders in the marijuana economy.

PS..  Trickle down (literally taking a piss on the poor)/voodoo economics doesn't work....  You usually just have the rich holding onto more money.  When you have <1% owning a vast majority of the wealth then it is pretty obvious that economic system isn't working.  Seems like we are just back in the middle ages.  You have the ultra rich protected by the military against the poor.  If you want to call that democracy then so be it.  I call it a monarchy or oligarchy.

Obama should have shown some balls and just went for the middle class cuts to stay.  He should have restored the rich tax rates to what they were under Clinton.  OMG I have to give up so much money...  The rich cry.  It is so hard to live off of 500k a year....  Try living off of 20k a year you pricks.  I worked my ass off for most jobs and they barely pay shit because they know they can get away with it considering the economy is pure shit.  Take a look at CEO pay rates for the past 40 years compared to the workers pay.  CEO's are getting paid way too much and have increased their salaries leaps and bounds past the average worker salary growth rate.  Just study and work hard is all they tell you to do to be successful.  Well, it helps a hell a lot more to be born into a rich family than trying to work your way out of the shit infested job market that is available to most people.  American dream must be a dream of debt.  Keep you in debt thus placing you forever in the rat race.

Few notes:

  1. Legalizing pot (as much as I want it) will not make a significant dent in the deficit or economy. It would likely have a $50 billion dollar effect on the economy, which is very large for a single sector, but still pales in comparison to the $3 trillion we spend every year.
  2. Even if the US had no standing army whatsoever, no military at all, you still haven't balanced the budget. You've only solved about 1/2 of the debt problem. Of course, that assumes we survive long enough for the Canadians to invade with their bagged milk and mountees.
  3. You assume that those who are rich are static in that top 1%. They are not. Each downturn and upswing cycles in many, many new people that are rich, and many that become poor. For example, 10 years ago, Mark Zuckerburg was a kid in school. Now he's a multi-billionaire. Studies have shown that even among the ultra-riches, their progeny are only 10% more likely to be  ultra-rich themselves and within just two generations, there is no statistical difference that those ultra-rich will have grandkids that are rich too.
  4. Take a look at CEO pay rates vs. their entire workforce. We had this argument a few months ago with Vetterman and his job at Catepillar. The employees wages comprised 99.8% of all wages spent, with the remaining 0.2% going to the CEO. Therefore, those that have the largest impact on wages are, by far, the workers, not the CEO. Furthermore, you make the poor assumption that being born rich is the key to success....Which shows why many people are poor in America. Many love to blame CEOs, the ultra rich, Barak Obama, rather than take a look at their own life and personal development to see what they can do to be better off. Few bother doing that, and will always remain poor. Not because of the CEO, but because they fall into traps of materialism through debt which does far more harm to them than a CEO.

I was only agreeing with that point.

and yeah not when the "other choice" is a fucking shit choice



sethnintendo on 19 July 2011
mrstickball said:
  1. Take a look at CEO pay rates vs. their entire workforce. We had this argument a few months ago with Vetterman and his job at Catepillar. The employees wages comprised 99.8% of all wages spent, with the remaining 0.2% going to the CEO. Therefore, those that have the largest impact on wages are, by far, the workers, not the CEO. Furthermore, you make the poor assumption that being born rich is the key to success....Which shows why many people are poor in America. Many love to blame CEOs, the ultra rich, Barak Obama, rather than take a look at their own life and personal development to see what they can do to be better off. Few bother doing that, and will always remain poor. Not because of the CEO, but because they fall into traps of materialism through debt which does far more harm to them than a CEO.


I was kind of just bouncing around on rants on my first post.  I do understand that workers make up more of the population than CEO thus making up more of wages spent.  I also realize that a lot of CEOs are taking stock options.  However, I do not understand why from 1990-2005 CEO's pay can go up 298% while the average worker only got about 4.3% increase in the same time period.  Just looking at the graph you can see there is something not quite right.  I am not sure if this graph is factoring in inflation but even if it is it is kind of pathetic.  How is a CEO worth 300% more in value in 2005 than it was in the early 90s.  Are CEOs going to be worth 300% more in 2015 than 2005.  Look at the minimum wage bracket.... -9.3%

http://consumerist.com/2007/04/ceo-pay-up-298-average-workers-43-1995-2005.html

Sure I agree that people don't make the best decisions.  Should I have invested more than spending it on video games, electronics, etc...  Probably should have (especially when major corporations first went public, Microsoft, Netflix, Google, etc...)  If I invested decently then I would probably be in better shape.  However, when I am getting basically 0% pay increase every year (with most of my money going to bills) then that is pretty much a wage reduction due to inflation.  The average worker only going up 4.3% in wages during that time period didn't even have a chance to beat inflation or barely beat it.  So basically everyone in this country has been getting pay cuts every year while CEO can easily outpace inflation with their wage increases.  Hell, Congress even gives themselves 3-4k raise each year for a shitty job they preform.  If you had the approval rating of Congress then you would be fired; you would not be given a cost of living increase raise each year (makes it easier when you can vote for your own raise).  I haven't met too many people that tell me every year their job provides them with 3-4k per year for cost of living.  If they are lucky they might get $0.25 more per hour.



mrstickball on 19 July 2011
sethnintendo said:
mrstickball said:
  1. Take a look at CEO pay rates vs. their entire workforce. We had this argument a few months ago with Vetterman and his job at Catepillar. The employees wages comprised 99.8% of all wages spent, with the remaining 0.2% going to the CEO. Therefore, those that have the largest impact on wages are, by far, the workers, not the CEO. Furthermore, you make the poor assumption that being born rich is the key to success....Which shows why many people are poor in America. Many love to blame CEOs, the ultra rich, Barak Obama, rather than take a look at their own life and personal development to see what they can do to be better off. Few bother doing that, and will always remain poor. Not because of the CEO, but because they fall into traps of materialism through debt which does far more harm to them than a CEO.


I was kind of just bouncing around on rants on my first post.  I do understand that workers make up more of the population than CEO thus making up more of wages spent.  I also realize that a lot of CEOs are taking stock options.  However, I do not understand why from 1990-2005 CEO's pay can go up 298% while the average worker only got about 4.3% increase in the same time period.  Just looking at the graph you can see there is something not quite right.  I am not sure if this graph is factoring in inflation but even if it is it is kind of pathetic.  How is a CEO worth 300% more in value in 2005 than it was in the early 90s.  Are CEOs going to be worth 300% more in 2015 than 2005.  Look at the minimum wage bracket.... -9.3%

http://consumerist.com/2007/04/ceo-pay-up-298-average-workers-43-1995-2005.html

Sure I agree that people don't make the best decisions.  Should I have invested more than spending it on video games, electronics, etc...  Probably should have (especially when major corporations first went public, Microsoft, Netflix, Google, etc...)  If I invested decently then I would probably be in better shape.  However, when I am getting basically 0% pay increase every year (with most of my money going to bills) then that is pretty much a wage reduction due to inflation.  Hell, the average worker only going up 4.3% in wages during that time period didn't even have a chance to beat inflation or barely beat it.  So basically everyone in this country has been getting pay cuts every year while CEO can easily outpace inflation with their wage increases.  Hell, Congress even gives themselves 3-4k raise each year for a shitty job they preform.  If you had the approval rating of Congress then you would be fired; you would not be given a cost of living increase raise each year (makes it easier when you can vote for your own raise).  I haven't met too many people that tell me every year their job provides them with 3-4k per year for cost of living.  If they are lucky they might get $0.25 more per hour.

For your first point:

I'd say globalization is a big factor in regards to CEO pay vs. worker pay. There is only one CEO in a company, while there are many workers. With expanding footprints in many countries, it makes sence that the guy that has to deal with divisions in every region or even every country is compensated more. Likewise, profit bases can expand significantly due to the global marketplace - instead of the CEO being over a company based in California that sells products in the US, that CEO may still be based in California, but selling products to China, Germany, France, ect. Therefore, compensation is likely to be higher, whereas the base worker is still dealing with a localized set of responsibilities and needs.

For example, I found a handy chart that compares business sizes vs. average compensations among all workers according to a 2007 survey of ~680 businesses. It found that there is essentially a direct correlation between company size and compensation packages, so it makes sense that as businesses get bigger, so do the compensation packages which likely get pushed to the top of those that have larger footprints at the company: http://www.pragmaticmarketing.com/publications/survey/2007/analysis-of-2007-survey-results

I agree with the argument of congressmen and their compensation. Its far too high. That is why I'm an advocate of smaller government: If you think congressional compensation packages are bad, try the other hundred thousand workers for the federal government that make, on average, 50% more than the average American does plus is exempt from most payroll reductions (such as social security, medicare and the like).



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.