Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Wolferz

State of the Union

Recommended Posts

Finally, a free thinker! You are not the only one on this forum who has had some rough times and I pray that things look up for you. There are those around here who feel anyone unemployed or underemployed is a subspecies too stupid and lazy to work, kinda like when Reagan explained away poverty by saying the people who were hungry "didn't know where the food was"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't see why how much you make, or how terrible you are off is relevant to this discussion. Woferz, my apologies, but the rich do not use so called loopholes to get out of taxes entirely, indeed people with money pay a bloody hell of a lot more taxes then you, it's almost assured. I don't know where you get off saying things like that; it really is quite ridiculous and totally incorrect.

As for your hardships, well, that's your problem. There is not one other person on the face of this planet who's responsible for you, none. Now, I'm not saying you didn't work hard, but there is more to success then hard work and it shows. It's self evident that some people manage to go somewhere with there lives and some don't, and while I'm not sure exactly facilitates this, I don't feel any need to pity those who can't succeed. And like I said before, your problems are yours, it's not a matter of sparing money to "help a neighbor though a rough time" it's a matter of having a choice. The government has no business making me or anyone responsible for supporting others.

Now, I can understand why you might be bitter towards those of us with more money then you, but it is hardly our problem. Being so disgustingly crass about it is hardly the solution, though I must say it paints a rather bad picture of the lower class.

Oh, and Race, I'm not claming that the unemployed are too stupid and too lazy to work, simply that they aren't my problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wolf I am also sorry to hear about your situation. What can I say...it doesn't have to be that way.

quote:

I am unable to work because of a Government regulation designed to protect everyone

I only take issue with this statement because if you think industry is going to police themselves or treat you better without regulation....history is clear. The only time industry acts as a responsible social partner is when the people demand, usually in blood, that reality. In this country a propaganda system has been instituted against working people and itÔÇÖs still going strong today. Our labor history has been buried and people manipulated by converging systems of thought that really only serve a tiny portion of the country. Government can be a strong ally in building a future concerned with issues of social and economic justice but those reps have to be held accountable. Petition recall, instant runoff, debates shaped by vision and ideas rather than corporate sponsorship/ownership, transparency and accountability for those in public and private office. Until that happens theyÔÇÖll throw all the nonsense in the book at you...but the simple fact is that power of self determination begins and ends with the people and their communities. Anyway, thatÔÇÖs how I feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JuanFermin

quote:

Originally posted by Wolferz:

If you are too hardhearted to help a neighboor through a rough time, I pity you. [/QB]

You're right, that was an uncalled for personal attack and I apoligise. I need to remember that not everyone takes advantage of the system. Growing up near the "Projects" of R.I. I saw A LOT of abuse of government programs and I should know better than to think that everyone does this.

Let's agree to disagree, aggreeably

However, I would like to add that I had years of hard luck myself, which is the reason that I went back to school .... and I just registered to go back to school AGAIN, even though I'm working 7-5, basically 50hrs a wk. so I can stay ahead of the curve. You always need to make sacrifices to get ahead, which was a very hard lesson that I had to learn personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Let's agree to disagree, aggreeably"

Very admirable.

On a seperate note:

I'm going to make my one obligatory criticism of this whole process and then be gone, at least until I decide to chime in again I would love to enter this debate as I have strong feelings, as all of you do as well. I (try to) stay away from these debates however, because most people aren't here to debate, rather their here to prove the superiority of thier views. That entails shutting down whomever opposes you, usually through what degrades into personal attacks. It also (usually) entails ignoring valid points which oppose the stance being advanced. If these discussions could stay civilized; if the people involved would admit to THEMSELVES that NO ONE is completely right EVER, EVER (we are not devine); if the people involved can prevent emotion from cluttering their logic, then these discussions might actually work towards something productive, as opposed to now just being an expression of opinion, devoid of value. As it is, these are just shouting matches, and I get pissed off and then there goes all credibility.

For in truth, if our stance were entirely secure, there'd never be any reason to get upset, would there? If one is entirely certain of their position then opposition can be cooly dealt with. Anger shows frustration, and frustration results when our position has holes poked in it where we thought there were none. We get mad because we think we're being shown up and then feel obligated to retort, after all an attack on something I say is an attack on me, isn't it? No it's an attack on falicy, adherance to which is despicable. IMHO, one who is able to look back and say "you know what? What I said here, the view I presented here, is either a)wrong outright or b)needs modification," one who says and lives by that is worthy of high regard and respect, again IMHO.

I wish that humans were not entirely resistant to the idea that something THEY think might actually be completely wrong. (I have no particular example in mind, this resistance just seems to be common-place in all people, including me) Oh and I wish the Drugs post hadn't been deleted, because then I wouldn't have felt the need to write this again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dragon Lady did you ever read my response in that drugs post? I wrote a big fat post about decartes (who by the way I do NOT entirely subscribe to) just for you, and I was just wondering if you read it. 'Twould be a shame if I was the only one who read it, but I still think the mind and body are seperate entitys, however they are nessecarily co-mingled as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

This is for those of us who dont make the money like silk and fermin. I scrape for every penny to pay my bills and I have no kids. I dont make enough to save 500 every month, and not because I dont try. I work 2 jobs plus have a business of my own, and I dont have the extra bills, dont even have a phone or TV. Some of us were not blessed with money, we get by with what we have.

Blessed with money?!? WTF?!? So now I'm "blessed with money" as if I didn't work to earn it?

I work one job and make enough money. It's called 'developing job skills' and finding a job that pays more than minimum wage.

Social Darwinism seems to apply here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Bush wants to do away with taxes on dividends.

The whole dividend tax cut was never properly explained. I've heard people on the radio complain by comparing their hard-earned $50,000 income being tax, but someone receiving a $50,000 dividend check as something akin to "free money" that they didn't really earn like the hard-worker did, so why not tax it?

The problem with this lack of understanding is that the complainer is failing to recognize the original transaction that resulted in the dividend. That original transaction is that someone bought into a company and became an owner.

What does it mean to be an owner of something? As an owner, you are entitled to a share of the profits of the business. Otherwise, why own anything? Buying into a company is not just purchasing stocks that you intend to sell later for a profit -- that is capital gains. It is also to reap the rewards in terms of your share of the profits. Dividends are the company's disbursement of profits to the owners (shareholders). If the government taxes the profits of the company and then taxes the dividends after being disbursed, then that money is being taxed twice.

In order to buy enough shares in a stock to garner $50,000 in dividends, one must have put a lot of money down in the first place, but being rich enough to purchase a large chunk of a company shouldn't disqualify that person from fair treatment by the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

In order to buy enough shares in a stock to garner $50,000 in dividends, one must have put a lot of money down in the first place, but being rich enough to purchase a large chunk of a company shouldn't disqualify that person from fair treatment by the government.


I understand the logic...it sounds good until you live in America and live with the upper 5% who earn at least 155,000 annually. Where the top 400 people examined by Forbes had a minimum a worth of $725 million and includes about 280 billionaires. The captains of industry who inherited most of their wealth (Thurow, 1987; Queenan, 1989) Then it's a romp through Harvard vaguely remembered through a drug induced haze and it's off to maintain the status quo from on high.

Here is your fair treatment in government:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.asp

What does it mean to be an owner? That's an interesting question. I guess when competition is so cut throat if you manage to pull your self up (assuming you aren't swimming in a sea of wealth already) you feel your entitled to just about anything you want...I don't know I never been there and I don't really care to....I know I'd end up doing all those stupid things like trying to take care of my workers and their families and go bust.yeah I can understand climbing up high and looking out and realizing that either this mountain is really shear and really high or damn if I can do everyone else can too. Of course we know that there is only so much opportunity to go around..

Lets go down the list and try to understand how that system that sounds entirely reasonable and "good" would lead to these facts in America:

20.4% children live in poverty

10.9% elderly live in poverty

America spends 12.4% on health care (the most of any country in the world) but and doesn't even cover everyone.

US infant mortality is 10 per 1000 the highest of any industrialized nation.

We have no national maternity leave program.

We are fifth in the world for murders...in the world...

American workers get 10.8 paid vacation days a year. Of course we are last again.

And the lowest voter turn out rate of any western democracy.

Canada, sometimes the next up from the bottom rung, outperforms us in every every area and usually by a wide margin.

But I guess we can destroy any other country the fastest....

As we are starting to see....with the consolidation of industries, power, and wealth perhaps the myth of ownership will no longer appeal to a disenfranchised population...maybe when the promise of political choice is actually offered, people will see a light and move towards it. Or maybe the haves will do everything in their power to have one branch of the government decide our elections.....or have the media only focus on certain stories with engineered content..and maybe shift education under the wise and fiscally responsible wing of industry (cause we all know they do a good job until some dictator acts up and causes our economy to tank)because they paid good money for that election, those media outlets, and that society anyway.right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with your argument is the fallacy that the "poor" is a constant class, when it is actually a churning turnover class. Everybody has aspirations of improving themselves, or at least, make life better for their children. People start out at the bottom and work their way up. Many corporations are headed by people who started out in the mail room (or equivalent) 25 years ago.

The issue of double taxation resonates with the lower, middle, and upper classes because even the poor envision a day when they will do better, and they don't want to see their successes taken away from them. They want their children to be better off than they were.

Regarding the captains of industry: these things go in cycles. New technologies breed new captains. Look at Bill Gates. Going back in time, look at John Rockefeller. Look at Ben and Jerry. Ted Turner. Dot-Com instant millionaires who got out in time. The market can be a fickle place. I don't begrudge the successes of others.

What does it mean to be an owner? There is a difference between being an owner of a small business and being an owner in a corporation. The small businessman must deal with the day-to-day logistics, the shareholder does not. The shareholder is offering up their capital in exchange for a future revenue stream. Most stockbrokers will explain that their portfolios are either: 1) growth stocks, 2) income stocks, or 3) growth and income stocks. This means that: 1) you're in the market for capital gains, 2) you're in the market for a secure revenue stream, or 3) you're willing to trade a little risk for the chance of a bigger payout. People who depend on dividends are in group #2. They are not speculating that the market will go up, they are becoming part of a corporation that will be around for a while.

Have you seen the latest round of TV commercials where people overhear cell-phone conversations about buying stocks in companies and then mistake the caller for the "owner?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know about the schools in the NW Race, cause i'm in one!!! Even after student protest and rallies about the schools being cut, even after the kids spread the word to people that this would save the kids from missing 9 more days compared to the 15 we already have. We have no spring sports and the school grounds and buildings are deplorable. But yet parents want this program and that program regardless of the cost. When Oregon legislature chickened out and made the taxe measure a vote instead of doing themselves (and i curse every coward in that lesislature)it failed so instead of getting out on june 10th like we are supposed to they have to cut 24 days from our school year. All because rich mommy and daddy can send their son to a private school, and don't give a damn about everyone else. Oh in case you don't know Oregon already has the shortest school year in the country before the cuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Dragonlady

It's self evident that some people manage to go somewhere with there lives and some don't, and while I'm not sure exactly facilitates this,

We've touched on a bit of everything here and there. Intelligence. Will power. "Luck of the Draw" in birth status. Wealthy parents, etc., etc. Even down to likes and dislikes in job preferences. It's possible for anyone to improve their lot in life but not necessarily probable. What about the guy or girl who strugggled to make a "D" in class and is destined to be a delivery driver or a cashier their whole life?

quote:

Steve Schacher

As an owner, you are entitled to a share of the profits of the business.

In my mind that's income just the same as a paycheck. So why not tax it? What's different?

I read the yahoo message boards a lot. IMS (information management services), formerly DP (Data processing), IE the computer guys, made Yahoo my home page so I figure I'm safe if I stay on there. Some BS but then again some really good messages about on par with those posted here.

So anyway one guy pointed out that wages paid to workers are parts of overhead and not subject to tax. Rang true to me and made sense. So why not allow dividends paid be counted as overhead as well then the company would not be taxed and that money be recycled within the company for better equipment and stuff? That way those receiveing dividends (income in my mind) would still be taxed and the company could put that money to company use.

Just a thought I had. Probably a lot I don't know or understand. But on the surface it certainly sounds like an extremely generous tax break to the rich. "Duoble Taxation" is the new buzzword much like "Trickle Down" economics was when Reagan was in office.

quote:

Steve Schacher

The shareholder is offering up their capital in exchange for a future revenue stream.

See? Income.

quote:

$ilk

Blessed with money?!? WTF?!? So now I'm "blessed with money" as if I didn't work to earn it?

Ummm basically yeah. If you can SAVE $500-$700 a month you are blessed. Not that you didn't earn it but you are blessed to be able to save that much.

quote:

$ilk

It's called 'developing job skills' and finding a job that pays more than minimum wage.


Back to my response to Dragon lady where some just can't do that.

quote:

Fermin

When was the last time that a poor guy gave you a job?

A former roommate of mine was a carpet layer. IE self employed. He was always in tax trouble. He went to a tax preparer. The tax preparer could just not understand how he could gross $40k and be in tax trouble. All the tax preparer saw was the numbers. What he didn't understand was that $25k went right back into supplies, truck upkeep, and PAYING HIS HELP. So my carpet layer friend netted about $15k pre tax. That is poor. And yet he gave someone a job.

quote:

Steve Schacher

The problem with your argument is the fallacy that the "poor" is a constant class, when it is actually a churning turnover class.

Darn it. Ya stole my word;) I had been wanting to use fallacy for a while now.

Poor may be the beginning class but I don't think it turns over as fast as those without pity would like to believe. And that I believe is the fallacy in that argument. We will always have "poor". It takes years to achieve a living wage as opposed to a survival wave.

No flames intended to anyone. Just some rambling thoughts without even any real arguments behind them I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The school problem is something else, entirely. You touch on the state legislature passing the buck to voters who vote their own self-interest. The fault lies with the legislature, not the voters. What's wrong with self-interest? Nations thrive on it.

The problem isn't even with the legislatures, it's with the oppressive tax structure that only favors Congress. The problem in the states is that local money is being channeled to Washington via confiscatory tax policy instead of remaining local for the states, counties, cities, and towns to use. The money is being siphoned off to Washington where it is being doled back to the states with strings attached, or as payback to supporters.

The money should never have left the states in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Many corporations are headed by people who started out in the mail room (or equivalent) 25 years ago.


That is not an acurate statement. The vast majority of CEO's and senior execs started in the top 20% or the second 20%. Society is becoming more static.

quote:

The issue of double taxation resonates with the lower, middle, and upper classes because even the poor envision a day when they will do better, and they don't want to see their successes taken away from them. They want their children to be better off than they were.


I would agree with the last part. However when people lose their jobs and their pentions and college options are destroyed by a reckless company....then that same company covers the execs and cuts everyone else loose with nothing....people wake up.

When media focus on rags to riches BS stories utilizing synergistic strategies to inflate the reality of the situation you have one class pushing its values on another.only now its ok for some reason.however, if say, the workers want to go back to the jobs they got locked out of they are terrorists and threatening our economy for not eating a b*llshit contract like good little disposable people.ercontingent workers. Come on.

In our country workers were told it was wrong to think in those terms and were beaten, shot, and legislated against until they lost track of themselves. That's ok....times will change. The only thing that keeps destructive greed in check is a strong union hence a damaged America economy with a withering capital goods infrastructure and corporations falling over each other to get the hell out of dodge before that dreadfully boring labor people realize that all their jobs are gone..

The latest round of commercials is trying to get people into the market to keep even their meager earnings turning a "profit". That is until everyone got burned and didnt want to go back. Reallyif the ever declining middle class wasnt invested in the market they might start looking at the national gambling addiction and emperor Dow Jones in perhaps a new and peculiar light..

So instead of having real reform you have a government overrun with wealth and no punishment for doing "wrong". This is why a smart person will not take their money to Vegas regulated by law or a stock market regulated by crooks.

As far as investment theory....it sounds good. It does. Until you live it and loose your entire livelihood and your kidÔÇÖs ticket to college so some rich kids can play Rockefeller and run back to the trust when it doesn't work out.

Industry should always be secondary to, and take orders from, an insulated political body that represents the peoplethe real people, those who have to live in whats left after capitol flight..those cozy toxic wonderlands of poverty stricken crimetopia of those who deserve it because of a poor showing in the crap game of life where the house always wins (right GW wink wink)..these people of course stand in glaring contrast to our noble industrialists who are ever burdened with being able to hop a plane to wherever...to do whatever, and I mean whatever, whenever they get the urge..

Further these people should not get my tax dollars for R+D so they can make drugs that I might not even be able to afford....never mind I don' even want to get started on this....Cato blew that one off the hinges.

If you think that success is right there for the motivated you better check your socioeconomic background and know your role. This country is in a state of delusion and maybe when we run out of countries to bomb (this would of course leave us with a gaping industrial void) people can calm down and really take a look at how they are living and why they are living that way..or maybe they will stop voting status quowho knows.hell Bush actually acknowledged the global pandemic of AIDS [another liberal conspiracy (smirk)] and renewable energy so ANYTHING can happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

In my mind that's income just the same as a paycheck. So why not tax it? What's different?

What's different is that you're forgetting the up-front investment. Dividends are not manna from heaven, they are return on investment. The owner is giving up money today for the chance for more money tomorrow; they are not just getting dividends.

Perhaps some perspective is necessary. Many shares of stock pay dividends between 65 cents per share to 85 cents per share. When we talk about dividend, we're not talking about huge sums of money unless you have lots of shares. But, many people take a long-term perspective and reinvest their dividends into more stock purchases. After 20 years or so, the miracle of compounding takes over and before you know it, you're rich (at least by our government's definition).

When you look at it from a balance sheet perspective, different definitions apply. You have income and expense, and assests and liabilities. Income is what you earn, assets is what you own, expense is what it costs, and liabilities is what you owe.

The income statement compares income to expense, the measure your your cash flow. The balance sheet compares your assets to your liabilities to measure your net worth.

As you earn income, you save some of it in order to acquire assets, like a new car, a TV, or a house. What you don't save goes to expenses like food, and electricity, and such. If you can't save enough for a new car, you can put some money down and take out a loan for the rest. The loan is a liability, but the car is an asset. You're net worth is zero (actually it is the amount of your down-payment, which was a transfer of wealth from your checking account into your car). The draw on your income to pay the monthly car payment is not an expense to you, it is a transfer of wealth into your asset , the car (actually a reduction of your liability that increases your net worth by reducing the negative), minus the interest due on the liability. The value of the car depreciates over time, causing the value of your asset to dip below the cost of your liability if you're not wise in your purchase.

You don't have to buy a car, though. You can buy shares of stock in a corporation. The money you put down is the purchase price on the share of stock. You don't borrow -- you own 100%. Therefore, you don't make additional payments from your income because you don't have an offsetting liability. Your net worth is the value of the shares of stock, your share of the corporation. As an owner, you are entitled to a share of the profits. However, the corporation also has income and expense (sales vs. manufacturing costs, employee salaries, overhead, etc), assets and liabilities (factories, machines, land, vs loans), and their profit is based on their income minus expense as well. That profit is taxed by the government as corporate income tax (which is not also overhead), and then what is left is distributed back to shareholders as dividend. That should not be taxed again when the shareholder receives it because the shareholder already put up money up front to buy into the company. What is taxed is the capital gain when the shareholder sells the stock for a higher price than was bought at.

quote:

when people lose their jobs and their pentions and college options are destroyed by a reckless company....then that same company covers the execs and cuts everyone else loose with nothing....people wake up.

I agree. I don't think there are as many corrupt companies out there as you might.

quote:

When media focus on rags to riches BS stories utilizing synergistic strategies to inflate the reality of the situation ...

During the tech bubble of the Clinton era, there were a lot of bookkeeping games going to get around the tax code. One of them was the practice of devaluing the dividend payout as an incentive and focusing on stock price instead via the stock option. Stock options were bets on the future price of a stock. The bet was that a CEO would be offered a future option to buy a chunk of stock today at today's price, but they can't sell the stock unless it reaches a certain value after a period of time. No money changes hands, the CEO hasn't purchased anything. Today he is given the option in the future to buy a stock at today's price, say $65, if the stock reaches $100 in a year. If the stock reaches $100 in a year, the CEO can exercise his option and buy the stock for $65 and then sell it for $100, pocketing $35 as profit. All the CEO has to do is inflate the stock price.

There are lots of ways to inflate the stock price while hurting the value of the company in the long run. The short-term switch to stock options to get around tax policy (or, in my opinion, to loot some companies), is what is behind the business scandals. If companies focused on the proven methods of valuing performance, then they will survive.

quote:

In our country workers were told it was wrong to think in those terms and were beaten, shot, and legislated against until they lost track of themselves.

I sense a lot of anger from this point on, so I'll leave the rest uncommented.

[ 01-31-2003, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JuanFermin

quote:

Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik:

quote:

Steve Schacher

As an owner, you are entitled to a share of the profits of the business.

In my mind that's income just the same as a paycheck. So why not tax it? What's different?


There's a HUGE difference.

1. The money that you are investing in the stocks of this company that you are hoping to get dividends, is money that you've already paid taxes on.

2. While the company that you are buying stock in benefits and is able to build their company and add employees, you are taking a risk in purchasing that particular stock.

3. There is always the possibility, however slight, that the company goes out of business and you lose all your money.

4. There is a probability that the stock could go up... or down! --- As an example, last year one of my friends had to pay taxes on dividends he recieved from a company who's stock had lost almost 20% of it's value. So if he sold it he would lose money, and in the meantime he still has to pay those taxes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JuanFermin

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

The money is being siphoned off to Washington where it is being doled back to the states with strings attached, or as payback to supporters.

The money should never have left the states in the first place.

I remember reading somewhere that the States end up giving back to the school system about 75% of the money they take in for education, the other 25% gets burned up in the bureaucracy, like here in FL, where there is a shiny glass tower in Tallahassee for the bigwigs that are running the Nations 48 worst school system, while the kids are going to class in run down portables. But if you think thatÔÇÖs bad, the Feds burn up almost 50% of the money that is spent through the Federal Department of Education, and of course all the strings that they attach to that money is ridiculous. You are absolutely right; the Feds have no business dealing with local issues like this. Recently one of the newscasters commented that W is giving away all this money in tax cuts and will leave the states to hold the bag. Personally if taxes need to go up, I would rather it come from the states instead of the Feds, considering their record. Of course groups like the Gay lobby donÔÇÖt like this approach because itÔÇÖs easier for them to attach the strings to money that the feds dole out than money coming from the states, so close to the voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JuanFermin

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

The problem isn't even with the legislatures, it's with the oppressive tax structure that only favors Congress.

You really hit the motherload with this one, this is the reason that the entire tax structure has to go. The entire system in corrupt and favors the lobbyist. Back in 1909 when a change in the constitution was being debated for a 1% income tax, one of the members of congress got up and siad, "Gentlemen, the day will come when the wealthy of this country are taxed at not less than 10%", yet a half century later the highest tax rates reached 70%! Today even the POOR are taxed at 15%, plus another 7% for "Social Security" (I won't even get started on that one)

The entire system needs to be scrapped and have the feds go back to taking care of Defense and national matters. Everything else should go back to the states to handle and have the states do all revenue collection. The states could then pay a certain dollar amount per person that resides in that state back to the feds for defense, FBI and so on.... Of course this is all wishfull thinking, it will never happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

I don't think there are as many corrupt companies out there as you might

And I think that you omitting the fact that after ENRON + pals shredded a couple hundred of thousand lives, HUNDREDS of company's had to restate earnings.

I'm sorry but today's big time investors and top execs are the biggest cowards on the face of the earth and when crooked execs were hauled off in handcuffs they went to ground and are waiting for "outcry" to die down. They are cowards but they aren't stupid.

quote:

Clinton era

This was a corporate hero...deregulating was the game....self described Eisenhower republican...I would not be surprised to learn he set the stage for recent fiascosbut thats what you will get with corporate infiltration into the political process.

quote:

If companies focused on the proven methods of valuing performance, then they will survive.


Your right it isn't hard to survive. But they are not interested in surviving, they want to grow... vertically integrate and destroy their competition. When the apex is having five jets, 20 houses across the planet, etc everybody wants it. It is this insatiable greed that has come to define American business and hurt the people of this country and people all over the world. It does sound good on paper....but Tommy boy Friedman is turning out to be Stalin with a happy face.

quote:

I sense a lot of anger from this point on, so I'll leave the rest uncommented.


Really? I thought it was animated but not overtly emotional....

Behind the animation and lively descriptions exists some anger. I don't live in happy land. I live in real life and I examine the facts that are hard to find. Behind the veneer of the multi ethnic techno happy land that is America commercially defined one finds greed, unchecked ambition, corrupt political process accepted by the mind numbing group think attitude disseminated by corporate media, and the real abuse of people and families by those who believe that progress is profit and your personal worth can be estimated by your investment portfolio.

It does make me angry. It would make any moral person angry. I thought I was keeping it to a dull hum.

I will say I find it distasteful to sit back and discuss issues in cool robotic fashion.maybe when I get older.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Steve,

It's nice to see someone that knows how the economy works on this board.

Way too many of these kids are clueless and need a class in basic economics and how the system really works.

It's so unfair they whine, the rich should pay more, the poor should pay less, etc.

In all honesty, I wish that they would quit taxes and go to a lottery system, like most states have.

A federal lottery, that would be fair, problem is that usually only the bottom 30% of wage earners play the lottery, but then again, I think that's a good thing, because they don't pay any taxes anyway.

I would like to see the rich not pay anything, that way they will invest most of that money back into their business's and investements which will make the economy grow, then you tax the workers to get the money to run the government.

The rich create the jobs, taxing them out of business is committing economic suicide, as the economy right now will tell most people if they were looking at it in an honest perspective.

I don't hate the rich, I love the rich. I have NEVER been employed by a poor person, NOT once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×