WORK ETHIC
WORK ETHIC
Taking off work on a Wednesday to protest your boss’s 4% tax increase
(Tax day teabaggers)
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: Byrd
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Obama reveals | Are you ready TO ROCK! Next »
» 519 comments
-
Recent Comments
Justacarolinian on Giggity Giggity funkers on Giggity Giggity Kai on Always keep Sayvara on Mrph furmer miff Justacarolinian on Giggity Giggity Jordan on ABSTINENCE Ovaltine Jenkins on ABSTINENCE ElbieSee on Giggity Giggity viking gal, original… on And then the nasty ol… froofrou on Giggity Giggity 
Cheezburger Network Blog
I’m not from the US, but that LOL stupid.
I WANT my boss to make more money. That’s the point – if boss makes less money, people get fired, doh.
Other than that, don’t care much about US prez. You elected two consecutive idiots, GL with that.
Better than electing the same idiot consecutively, which is what we did last time.
Better than electing the same idiot consecutively, which is what we did the last two times.
FXT for accurracy
How is electing two seperate morons better than electing the same moron? At least with the same moron you know what to expect.
Electing two morons shows an attempt to fix the problem. Elect the same one twice and you just show that you’re too lazy to even try.
im in favor of not electing morons myself….. but maybe thats just me….
Good luck with that. We’re not allowed to vote for the one guy we want, just the winners of the primaries.
I was just going to mention that we don’t get to choose our candidates. We only get to choose from the morons that make it past the primaries. I feel I voted for the least moronic candidate.
Truly!
I mean, c’mon! Bob Barr?
Bob Barr, what a dork…he’s a good 5 years away from being a real libertarian, even a Constitutional one like myself
Actually, you can vote for anyone (Write-in Candidate), but it won’t matter. The popular vote is merely to give the electoral colleges an idea of what the people want, but they don’t have to vote for the one who wins the popular vote.
Then vote in the primaries?
This would be a great idea if all voting citizens would actually follow through with it. Unfortunately, the ones who do actually vote in the primaries are usually only those at either extreme of the spectrum. Hopefully more moderates will start taking an interest.
Win!
To Portland’s “Electing two morons shows an attempt to fix the problem. Elect the same one twice and you just show that you’re too lazy to even try.” that is.
Clinton wasn’t re-elected was he? O_o
He did . 1992 & 1996.
Understanding business: FAIL
If your boss makes more money, he will not hire more people. He probably won’t even pour the money back into the business. He certainly won’t wonder if he should divide some of the extra money up and give it to those people who made him more successful.
No, unless you work for one of the rare individuals who believe Labor is as important as Capital, he’ll just go back to doing what bosses always do: wonder how he can cut some more hours from the schedule and make even more money next period.
I speak from experience here, been a member of management for the last five years.
Sorry, but assistant-managing a retail store or fast-food outlet, while a noble vocation, doesn’t automatically qualify one to pontificate on the intricacies of business. Clearly your understanding of growth and business ownership, not to mention the difference between skilled and unskilled labor, is a bit lacking.
How about managing a fine dining restaurant grossing a quarter million per week? Does that give me some insight, or do I have to attend some special school for jerks before I have any validity in your mind? No, no, I get it: I disagree with you, so I must be wrong.
Jerk.
I could have told you that from the beginning. We at Jackass Corp are not responsible for your innately inferior answers…
Right. Because if I had dared to say “trust me, I’m in management, I see this all the time”, you would have pounced all over it, accusing me of being a poseur, a troll, and who knows what else.
Are these the tears you just accused Portland Mark of having?
Nope — just calling you a hypocritical opportunist. (I’ll come right out and say that next time, if it would make things easier.)
Opportunist I can accept, I am posting in between work so I can’t get as drawn out as I prefer. However, hypocritical, not so much.
He is claiming to be an owner of a mid sized business. Sure, there is a decent chance he is blowing information out of his ass. The same chance that you are but you have a nastier habit of blowing information out of your ass in my humble experience. Portland Mark doesn’t have that habit in my experience here. We’ve had our clashes but he tends to be solid on his info.
So say what you will, but I’ve seen more hypocrisy in this LOL alone from you than anybody else.
And you’re falling back again on misdirection and personal attacks in order to maintain your moral superiority. But somehow I’m the hypocrite.
Moral superiority? In a lol debate? Now you’re just trying to be funny.
As for misdirection, I am being very direct. You’re a hypocrite, your previous arguments in this lol and others have proven it.
Now for personal attacks, sure, I think you’re a cretin, a jackass, and probably a liar. You conveniently come up with your high authority talk and then decry anybody else stating any kind of authority if they don’t agree with you.
There is no misdirection here, just you on the cross being attacked by the horrible… Whatever the hell you think I am. I am sure it falls somewhere between socialist and liberal or something else that doesn’t conform to reality.
Now that was a bit of misdirection.
Direct? Really? I keep asking you to quote me — no response. Not exactly direct, is it?
And I love how you’re trying to distract us all from those open questions with these personal attacks and invented slights. Don’t tell me it’s work, when you have no time to respond to a question, but you can’t type fast enough when you can spew some venom.
In short — nice try, PKer.
Tis called working in a call center taking calls from people who need help with their loans and leases. Ebb and flow, thus rise and fall of call volume.
You do have a point and coincidence backs you on it, so I have no recourse but to apologize. Call volume drops during lunch time but I can’t expect you to believe me so I will simply apologize and let it go.
And, right on cue, here come the fake tears. Here’s a tip, clown — if you don’t want to be called on your bullshit, don’t fall back on proof by authority. Got it?
You made false assumptions about my experience, (obviously, if I disagree with you, I must not have any experience) in an attempt to invalidate my point. Now, finding out my experience is relevant, you fall back on the personal attacks. Quite typical of the koolaide drinker you are.
What relevant experience? You don’t manage the company, you run a restaurant. Again, I have no problem with that — until you pontificated as though you were responsible for the strategic direction of the chain.
Unless you have a second job as Senior VP of Business Development, you’re just blowing smoke.
So pretty much you are making a statement of authority with no backing to claim that others have no backing.
So how am I the hypocrite again? You must not read your own posts in relation to the words of others.
Misdirection fail.
Point out to me where I used proof by authority in response to PM. Clearly I disagreed with him, and I challenged his credentials, but I didn’t throw mine on the table in response.
Or do you fail to understand how that’s not the same thing?
Dhoti vs. PortlandMark – Online debate of the century
Dhoti’s strategy – assume his opponent is bluffing/lying/full of shit, argue from assumption
PortlandMark’s strategy – opine on his relevant experience, back it up, and expose the ad hominem attacks of his opponent.
PortlandMark FTW! However, 2-minute misconduct for calling someone a “koolaid drinker”.
Tubby Referee FTW!
*sitting alone for two minute penalty*
*passes PM some brownies while Tubby has back turned*
*noms* You rock! Wait, these brownies taste funny…
Again — what relevant experience? I ask and I ask, but all I get are personal attacks and annoying unrelated comments.
I wonder why that is…
How is managing a restaurant irrelevant experience? I managed a restaurant as well, as it was about profit profit profit, not pouring money back into the business. The owner (a very fat man in a Land Rover and a mansion on the rich side of town) was more concerned with the P&L statements than the fact that I needed a new oven. Is that irrelevant? If so, why?
if i may add, breifly, because ya’ll are having so much fun.
and i don’t mean to particularly back any one of the top above as I haven’t been around PK as long as some of the others to see past actions and habits, however, judging from this alone:
Portland Mark has made valid arguments and backed them up, short of submitting his resume I find him to be credible at least in the case of this argument in his judgement of management and the position he is in. I follow this up by stating in contrast to what you keep saying, Dhoti – somehow you’re looking down your nose at a manager of a restaurant (I’m referring to any sit-down restaurant, be it find dining or Chili’s) – there’s alot that goes into managing a restaurant. Just because he’s not some hot shot in a business office doesn’t degrade his position of managment nor managing tactics. It all comes down to money and profit regardless.
I suggest, if you continue this line or argument you find a different approach that’s less snarky and more factual.
“Senior VP of Business Development” is a fancier, less offensive way of saying “Highly-compensated Person who does absolutely nothing useful.”
You care to do the same or will you be the pot calling the kettle black? Again…
You were the one down below talking about how you were sending work overseas. Care to keep your hypocrisy under control?
Where did I say that, exactly?
Wow, you’re a nasty piece of work little man.
And you have your head so far up your ass you’re not seeing daylight. Point?
Made..
restaurants are operated in a completely different manner than most businesses, so your overreaching generalization in regards to business does not really apply…
a restaurant operates with a maximum volume (seats) they can achieve whereas most businesses have the ability to expand incrementally. a company that makes more money should invest more money back into the company so that the next accounting period they will have made even more money… it’s called the economies of scale.
But restaurants do have the opportunity to expand by adding new features, new services, can expand by opening new locations, can upgrade the equipment, or it can line the owners pocket.
indeed, plus you do have to manage expenditures, predict the market as far as supply, manage employees, there’s many similarities between them. The concept of operating with a maximum volume is consistent in most business – seats perhaps in restaurants but each seat represents a customer and in most business I know of you always try and maximize customers to increase income and therefore profit.
I don’t see your point with “expanding incrementally” as that occurs, as charro said, with restaurants as well, be it upgrades to the restaurant, staff training, liquor lisences, or even opening new restaurants. It’s all the same in the end.
a lawyer can add more employees to increase the efficiency of an office, but a restaurant cannot add more employees and expect the turn over rate of tables to increase past a certain number as people still have to eat the food… the number of tables in a restaurant present a fixed ceiling for profit. the only way to increase profit past that point are either to cut costs or to expand the seating area of the restaurant…
Or add take-out, catering, and/or products for direct sale to consumers (e.g., a brand of seasoning, seafood sauce, etc.).
yup. diss, you did point out some things that i left out…
Well, we can keep that in mind when we open our restaurant.
I get to knead the anti-dho.
Also improving quality and selection so that you can sell premium items, add a full service bar, hire a really top-notch pastry chef so you move more desserts…these may not seem like huge percentage changes at first blush, but drinks and add-ons are where they really make their margin.
There’s still a maximum output of the kitchen to be considered, as well as the slightly lower profit margin on to go food. Plus, it’s a pain in the butt to put together when you’re busy!
you’re assuming that the lawyer will increase business by increasing the size of his office which is the same to say you’d think a restaurant would increase its business based on the size of the restaurant – that may or may not hold water as it seems to be like, “build it and they will come” – hopeful and possibly successful approach but probably more likely due to coincidence – what gets a good business to hire more employees and a restaurant to hire more staff is the quality or cost of what they do.
i think you’re making a good argument but i think your missing the correlation between a restaurant and any other business.
you got me thinking, though, i’ll be back in a bit.
in my experience (which isn’t all that considerable), and from what i see at other people’s workplaces, the lawyer would be more likely to ask one or more of his current employees to take on more responsibilities, usually with no increase in salary.
Which is exactly why this is the first time my mother has slept since Tuesday. This is what attorney’s do.
I missed this whole subcategory – so…since a “boss-man” may or may not hire more staff or expand the business in response to greater profits then…what? That validates leftism? Because it doesn’t. While he might *not* hire more people or expand his business in response to profits, it is still *certain* that he can’t and won’t do so when there are no profits. The presence of profits also indicates to other people that there is money to be made if the businessman wastes the opportunity.
All this posturing is meaningless in light of the big picture. Jeez.
incrementally means that you can increase the size of your operation without having to expend huge amounts of capital… i.e. opening a new location.
new features, new services, and new equipment will not increase the number of people you can seat for dinner… only opening a new restaurant will which is not an incremental change, but rather a new business venture all together…
I’ve done a few different types, of businesses, including restaurant, and it all goes by the same rules…Work hard, be smart, watch your ass, get out when you can’t take it any longer…
If I may interject, given that I waited tables for 10 years, from a owner-managed local brewpub to corporate mega-crap places including Chili’s, Rainforest Cafe, and a Hilton….and now I am part owner and manager of a small biotech company. I hope those are credentials enough to be allowed to speak…
When I worked for a locally owned and operated brewpub, our management plowed money back into the business they owned as well. And they did everything they could to support their waitstaff in making good tips (including being AMAZING support on the floor- they thought their job was to make the wait staff look good). As a result they have expanded to open 3 places in the state I will refrain from mentioning to protect everyone, including myself
. In contrast, and I think this is the point of the LOL, the corporate places set up systems of management that made it practically impossible to provide excellent service, thus the servers made much less than 20% that I made at the brewpub. They also made you tip the MANAGERS out at a couple of places (the salaried manager get tipped from the $2.13/hr servers- seriously). This made the management happy (I guess- they actually seemed miserable, but stayed fro years). But it made the servers miserable. It was my second or sometimes third job and after 3 of these places, I never even considered working a corporate server job again because these places are all about volume- bc that is what makes the TOP money. They do not care about their employees or their customers. The fact that folks still eat in these places amazes me, and I admire the folks that work there- they work HARD for their money. So now I am a minority owner and manager of a biotech- a small biotech. I love our staff, and I protect them because, frankly we do not pay them enough- but I know the cash flow- I know we pay these talented pp as much as we can when we get a great person hired on, because without them we cannot make our money. I think that when a large company does not see the value of their lower level employees as contributing to the money making enterprise, it is not surprising, but it is short sited, and yes, more common than not. Trickle down economics does not work- I have to fight fellow owners that believe in that all the time—they think trickle down works, BUT they do NOT actually ever allow trickle down without a fight from myself and our CEO. I do not think it uncommon that those at the top feel that they have taken all the risk and given all of the effort, and should thus keep all the reward. It is blatantly untrue- no one gets to where they are alone, and an awareness of this would make TD economics work- but since most are self absorbed (normal human nature I think as well), then the job of the govt is to ensure that everyone benefits when things go well, in relation to contribution- and that means that everyone should pay a FLAT tax. However to those above who wanted PROOF that those making more pay less % than those making less, I would ask that you refer to Warren Buffet- HE, the second richest man in America, has come right and said he pays less % (because of tax shelters, etc) then his receptionist, that he pays well for a receptionist in Omaha- I do not recall the exact difference bu I believe he mentioned paying in the high teens, while his receptionist (maybe secretary) paid in the high 20s to 30s… SO please continue to deeply believe in this, and those of us who know better will share our success with those that helped us attain it an leave you behind…bye!
Which is why it’s a DAMN shame that smaller businesses will always be hardest hit by these vomitous and immoral tax increases. They are in the best position to recognize the worth of their workers. And their workers, in turn, and this is what’s so offensive about this lol, are more likely to genuinely care about their employers. I’ve worked in plenty of small businesses, and you bet your ass I’d have turned out on a Wednesday to protest something that hurt them (which in turn hurt ME directly.)
The maker of the LOL is a moron and a jackass.
Clearly, your understanding of the corporate management mind set, not to mention the self-constructed liabilities of the American business climate (greed, stupidity, total lack of vision and mindless, slavish obsession to MAKING THE QUARTER instead of coming up with a true business plan designed to create long term health and profitability) is a bit lacking.
This whole argument could have been avoided if you didn’t make the assumption that Mark managed a retail store, Dhoti. You do not know him in real life, so you have no excuse to use an ad hoc argument to attack him, as your claims are baseless seeing you have no evidence to back up your claims. Have a nice day, try again next time.
Sorry, I edit that, it was ad hominem argument, not ad hoc. Just correcting myself to make sure you don’t have another excuse to attack someone.
Reread carefully.
I attacked his credentials because he used them to argue his point (this is known as proof by authority, and a precondition for it is the quality and relevancy of the debater’s credentials). Really, it’s quite simple: if you inject a statement into an argument, you are required, on challenge, to either support or withdraw it. That should be fairly obvious.
Congrats on the Latin, but you use it incorrectly here.
But you never support your arguments with cites or anything other than ill-tempered arguing, so why are we listening to you?
You don’t, obviously. After all, anything that contradicts the PK median is “uncited”, and any attempt to put forth such a position is “ill-tempered”, since it’s just not polite to be contrary.
So instead, people like dwn pretend there’s an ad hominem attack, and the rest of you swallow it whole, because “attack the messenger” is like right up there in the Alinsky playbook.
I’m not talking about a normal conversation, I’m talking about the numerous times you’ve been asked to provide a (non-blog) link to back up what you’re saying, and you never did. I contradict the PK median all the time, but I back myself up when I do with a link, an article, and a nicely-worded dissent post. What’s so hard about that?
I don’t recall anyone asking for a link in this particular threadlet.
You’re ignoring confirmation bias. Whenever I provide a link, it’s automatically dismissed because it’s contradictory. Like on this very thread, in fact — look for the guy who dismissed my CBO numbers, via the Washington Post, as made up by Ross Perot.
Aaaaaaaand here we go……ignoring the main point of the post in order to say that you’re being picked on.
-
Ok, so you weren’t asked for a link in this thread. What about all the other times you HAVE been asked for a link, and either refused to provide on because “everyone’s being mean about it”, or provided a blog link, which is dismissed as opinion vs. something more tangible? And why must you always sink to calling names, regardless of the situation, or the fact that up until that point, people have at least been polite to you? I just don’t get it. I guess you have to have a “special” type of personality to automatically assume that you’re being picked on when asked to be polite or provide sources.
No, the main point of the post is that you want an excuse to lecture me (again) for imaginary behavior. I don’t know why I even respond…
Please, enlighten me on all those other times. If it’s such a common thing, I’m sure you can spit a few examples off the top of your head. I can certainly think of a few that follow my pattern — like when our good buddy DeathWrymNexus said, and I believe this quote is pretty close, “I’ll be damned if I have to prove anything to you”. Never mind the one I already mentioned IN THIS THREAD!
Here’s what it boils down to. Most Internet liberals (I’d argue most vocal liberals in general) are obnoxious little children with short fuses and no sense of honor. (That’s clear around here — politeness is based on agreement, nothing more.) You tread carefully so as not to provoke them. I don’t give a rat’s ass, because if you’re pissing off a Kos Kid, you must be doing something right. Accept it for what it is rather than assuming that your road is the high road.
Here’s an example you STILL haven’t backed up.
Try it again — the link is screwed up.
Linky
Link. *sigh* But I’m surprised, since it’s apparently such a consistent and flagrant tactic on my part, that you had to go back that far to find it. Why is that?
And as I recall, you never bothered to prove your 60% figure. You said you COULD prove it, but when I asked you to, all you said was “you first”. That, sadly, fits the pattern.
And for the record, now that I think about it, it was Jane St whatever who made the “I’ll be damned” quote. Dwn simply refused.
Are we done dredging up ancient history that has nothing at all to do with the thread under discussion? Or are you going to make me justify the time in second grade I said I had gummy worms, but didn’t hand any out, thereby making another statement without proof?
First off, the link you provided is a blog. As an opinion, it’s non-admissible. Second, I backpedaled on the 60% figure and admitted that it was conjecture and speculation on my part.
-
Now, if we’re done dredging up the past, can we agree that you won’t delve into name-calling if the people around you are being polite?
So, are you saying I *did* provide a link? Because earlier you said I never do. Which is it?
Oh, and it’s an *image* that happens to be *hosted* at blogger. Seriously, did you click on the link? Never mind — it’s almost like I could have predicted that you would have dismissed it out of hand for some reason. Oh, wait…
Okay, I see where you partially backpedaled, but you waited hours later on an entirely different thread to admit it. That’s intellectually dishonest, at best.
PortlandMark, (mostly) dwn, and most of the other particpants started off impolite and got nasty fast. (As opposed to diss in our side discussion — that was respectful disagreement.) I make no apologies for being impolite in response to bile. You’ll likely say it was my fault — I likely won’t care. High road, and all that.
You’re generally polite? Please.
It’s just a ways up, but if that’s too hard, link. I was mildly condescending and unclear at worst. You were insulting from the get-go.
I’ve had several civil and interesting debates with froo, with whom I disagree strongly on many issues. We have never descended into insults, and appreciated each other’s time in explaining our views.
You seem incapable of holding a polite conversaton with pretty much anyone. Diss is so nice she could get a T. Rex to drink tea with her on a sunday luncheon, more credit to her, but it’s not a skill anyone else has.
Condescension, even “mild” (an understatement in this case) is quite rude. I took offense. Don’t presume to blame me for behavior you initiated.
Please point out where I used the phrase “generally polite”.
“I make no apologies for being impolite in response to bile.”
Implying that you are not impolite when not subject to bile, or would at least apologise for such (I’ve yet to see you do so). Unless you’d like to argue that something froo said qualifies as ‘bile’?
*crickets*
“If a, then b” does not imply “if not a, then not b”; this isn’t Boolean logic.
I’m not sure why you want to critique the politeness of my comments, but I’m not interested in continuing this discussion with you. I’m happy to keep talking to froo if she (I think she — sorry if not, Froo!) comes back.
Driving and typing is dangerous. I figured I’d get home first.
*more crickets*
No response — what a shocker. But what will truly surprise me, Froo, is if you don’t repeat the same baseless accusation in the near future and pretend that this thread never happened.
It has been unequivocally proven by economists and by time itself that “trickle down” economics does not work. Giving tax breaks to rich people does not generate jobs; it only generates deposits in offshore bank accounts.
Odd, since “trickle down economics” was a term coined by Reagan-era Democrats, was never implemented, and thus was never tested. Try again.
Good luck. It has been explained to these people over and over and over again that the term (as well as the theory as understood) “trickle-down” was nothing but a strawman created by the left. It wasn’t what was being practiced, it wasn’t what was being preached, it was just a term used to give free markets (which unequivocally, demonstrably, historically and provably DO work) a negative connotation. Obviously we both know this and most free market adherents and economists do, but whether this will ever be acknowledged by the general populace here, I highly doubt.
I really don’t care what *you* think it was created *for;* the theory that if you give ginormous tax cuts to giant corporations and uber-rich individuals and they’ll use the money to create jobs is what I’m talking about. If that isn’t actually “trickle-down economics” then whatever, but the theory? Didn’t work, doesn’t work, can’t work.
nice to see someone here with a lick of common sense, the rich don’t spend more because they have more, or if they do, most likely it would be spent in foreign places not stateside.
however if the working poor are given tax cuts, they spend the increase on newer cars, new clothes, toys, more & better quality food. in otherwords, the day to day necessities that the rich already have in abundance.
give a gich man $10, he’ll stick it in his pocket, give a bum $10 and he’ll either get food or booze. point is, the poor man spent his and that boosts the economy, not collecting interest in a bank or dust in a jacket pocket forgotten about
Except that a fair number of “poor” people dumped their stimulus checks straight into their bank accounts.
Which was then used to pay bills in the near future…
Pretty much everybody dumped it into their bank accounts but when the middle class and poor get money, it tends to go right back out for services as it is harder for them to accumulate funds due to rate of pay vs expenses required.
So you’re right but it still doesn’t invalidate her point in any way…
I understand your need to make a negative reply as quickly as possible, but you should have thought this one through a bit more.
Yes, in most establishments, one cannot simply slap a Treasury check on the counter and walk out with double cheeseburgers and/or bottles of bourbon, and yes, individuals usually use personal checking accounts to facilitate this transaction. However, as I assumed was clear from context, it wasn’t this type of transaction I was referring to; instead, I meant that individuals were depositing the check with the intent of keeping it in reserve rather than spending it right away.
I neglected to consider that you would ignore all context and common sense in order to make your point. I apologize for this miscommunication, and I’ll attempt to make my posts clearer in the future in hopes of keeping this kind of tragedy from happening again.
And yet you still aren’t catching the point. A lot of those people who put that money in their bank account still didn’t get to keep it in there that long.
Now, I realize that you are projecting an inability to comprehend but I figured I would try to get this point across again.
I wasn’t talking about cashing checks, I was talking about how little of it actually remained in their accounts after a relatively short period of time.
So why exactly did you decide to attack a strawman instead of address my point?
Progress! At least you’re (backhandedly) admitting that you introduced a straw man. Usually you just keep running with it until some other forum regulars pick up the thread.
Now that we’re back on topic — I’m arguing that a lot of folks made a good-faith effort to keep the stimulus money in the bank, or at least used it as the beginnings of an emergency fund.
While I agree that generally, the poorer you are, the harder it is to save, I feel that poorer households are generally balanced in the medium term, i.e. living paycheck to paycheck. (Which is not to say that they aren’t in debt, just that they can afford to service the debt.) So I don’t see how you think that cash coming in must immediately go back out. That would seem to imply that being poor automatically leads to bankruptcy, but how can every poor family not be meeting their basic bills?
Unless you’re suggesting that an otherwise cash-neutral family would, if given the choice, use stimulus cash to pay down debt versus establishing an emergency fund. While, assuming low volatility in your upcoming expenses, paying down debt may be the rational move, people aren’t rational, and psychologically, I think people are naturally inclined to hold onto the cash to guard against future risk than pay down the debt and accumulate the savings over time.
1. I didn’t introduce the strawman, you did.
“Yes, in most establishments, one cannot simply slap a Treasury check on the counter and walk out with double cheeseburgers and/or bottles of bourbon, and yes, individuals usually use personal checking accounts to facilitate this transaction. However, as I assumed was clear from context, it wasn’t this type of transaction I was referring to; instead, I meant that individuals were depositing the check with the intent of keeping it in reserve rather than spending it right away.”
That is you stating that I was talking about the simple fact of life that people must cash their checks to use them.
“Pretty much everybody dumped it into their bank accounts but when the middle class and poor get money, it tends to go right back out for services as it is harder for them to accumulate funds due to rate of pay vs expenses required.”
That was what I said, while it can be assumed that I am being snide, it is false. I am simply stating that the savings don’t last as long as you think simply because there are other expenses that require that money to come right back out.
So if you are going to attack me, at least don’t make up an argument to rebel against.
2. I realize that you are saying that people will squirrel away money but I am stating that while they try and manage to save some of it, all of it isn’t retained and thus used for what they have to use it on.
Or they will do something else very basic to human beings, they will spend it on some luxury that they couldn’t afford with their normal stream of income. Such as a bigger TV, video game system, bigger grill, etc.
You talk about human nature yet only accept one facet of it in your argument. You talk about sensibility and how people lack it to pay down their debts so they stash it but you miss the equally realistic occurence: the poor spending the excess money to enjoy themselves as they realize they won’t have that sum of money for a while.
Pretty much like the minor explosion of spending that occurs with tax rebates, I know that myself and a number of other people take that moment to get that next gen system, some games, and other luxuries while using the rest of it to get caught up on bills and the like.
So yes, I agree that your point is valid but only acknowledging one side of the human condition. When given a surplus, people in my income level are prone to catching up on bills, getting some luxuries, and squirreling away the rest.
…and there’s the elitist card. Figured it wasn’t far off.
If the money has to come “right back out” for expenses, that suggests that the expenses aren’t unforeseen and/or catastrophic, but are regular, or at least predictable. (Otherwise, wouldn’t they be more randomly distributed?) So, if these folks can’t meet their regular obligations, that means they’re either already bankrupt, or are going to be shortly, stimulus or no. And that seems like a contraction, because by that logic, everyone who’s poor would be, by default, going bankrupt.
You’re underestimating how innately and irrationally risk-averse people are. (This has been pretty well established over the last 20 or 30 years or so.) When everything looks rosy and some extra cash comes in — yes, spending spree, no argument there. But on the other half of the business cycle, things look scarier, perceived risk goes up, and that spending spree disappears. For both the stimulus and the last round of refunds, that’s precisely what happened. The personal savings rate and the amount of liquid funds on deposit went up through both.
Put it this way — the economy’s going to hell, your job is (probably) less secure, your investments have (probably) lost money. You don’t have enough cash saved. (That’s not a value judgment — you said you needed to catch up on your bills.) If that’s all true, did you really blow that cash like you would have in years past?
@dwn – stop playing with the trolls. you could catch swine flu.
What elitist card? I showed you where you were wrong. If it is elistist to have a moment of being right, then sure I’ll accept that but you wouldn’t be playing victim here, would you?
And you are still not factoring in the basics of human nature or you aren’t reading all of what I am saying.
Some of it is squirreled away, I certain did so. However, a fair amount of it was used to catch up on some long term debt and some was used to actually do something besides the usual routine.
So I think we are starting to agree in circles at this point as I am saying that a majority of the money goes right back out within a relatively short period of time while a small amount is squirreled away.
@ubr: I have no issue with debating and he is only being mildly caustic so I think I’ll manage.
> people in my income level
It’s backhanded, sure, but it seems clearly intended to inject an “people like us vs people like you” flavor.
No, we’re still not agreeing, but I think we’re done, if your argument is going to continue to be “you don’t understand human nature”. Again, the behavior in the presence of risk I’m talking about is all pretty well established stuff. (I wish I had some cites for you, but the best explanation I’ve seen recently is in the first few chapters of “The Science of Fear”, by Dan Gardner. Unfortunately I only have the Kindle version with me so I can’t easily pull out references for you.) What are you basing yours on? (Obviously I’m not asking you for more detailed citations than what I’m providing, just a general direction.)
Out of all honesty, my words are coming from my own experience and the observation around me. This isn’t academic for me so I don’t have a book to point you to. Of course, you’re free to disregard anything I have said and you probably will.
This whole issue isn’t academic for me. I am living at that economic level but I am not bankrupt nor are the people around me. We pay our bills and live check to check because that is how the cookie crumbled.
You are saying that all the poor and middle class simply tossed it into the bank to be stored and I am saying that it partly right. However, I am also saying that a fair amount of it was spent to get some debts caught up and some enjoyment as living check to check doesn’t quite lend itself to much in the way of excess spending.
So I honestly don’t know what to tell you. What I have seen does not fit into the neat paradigm that you are detailing from the book you are claiming to be able to cite.
As you said, we’re done. You are repeating the same thing over and over which is making me repeat the same thing ad nauseum, which does nothing for either of us.
Go forth and claim your victory over strawmen (yours or otherwise,) elitism, and whatever else strikes your fancy.
Instead of wrapping it up amicably, you have to slip in one last post that’s nothing but personal attacks. And yet you consider me the troll. Classy.
Yeah, cite? How exactly are you getting data for that?
LOL, being “a member of management for the last five years” makes you knowledgeable about business and how capital is spent?
Almost every line is dead wrong: “If your boss makes more money, he will not hire more people”. Then how does one expand a business?
“He probably won’t even pour the money back into the business” Nope, Walmart never put another penny into the business after they opened their first store.
“He certainly won’t wonder if he should divide some of the extra money up and give it to those people who made him more successful” Dude, it is driven by competition. You pay more to employees to keep them. If you don’t, they can leave.
Seriously, read a book on economics, business and capitalism and let us know when you are educated enough to discuss it.
You’ve never worked for Walmart or a place like it, have you? Sure some money is spent but it is the bare minimum…
Huh? You’re expecting a Taj Mahal Walmart? Their business model is keeping costs low across the board to keep customers coming back for *gasp* LOW PRICES.
So that’s a no, you haven’t worked for a Walmart. Care to keep your exaggerations under control there or do you like to debate in make believe?
Seriously, I have no idea what you are babbling about. What “exaggerations” do I need to keep “under control”?
The Taj Mahal comment was an useless exaggeration, thought that would have been obvious.
“You pay more to employees to keep them. If you don’t, they can leave.”
Yet a lot of people are simply stuck, so Walmart pays them whatever they feel like, IE, minimum wage.
Something tells me that you haven’t had it rough before and if you had, you forgot a lot.
My Taj Mahal statement was b/c you were calling me out for stating that Walmart puts more money into their business. Of course they do. That’s how new stores are built and more people are hired.
Obviously, you are a liberal and I am not. I have “had it rough”, pulled myself up by my bootstraps and took personal responsibility for my life and decisions.
Anything else?
Um, no, I’m not a liberal, I just happen to disagree with you. Any more name calling today?
As for pulling yourself up, that’s great. Somehow I find the accusation that I didn’t take responsibility for my life a bit amusing but you obviously still think the wage that Walmart pays isn’t horrid nor how they treat their employees is abhorrent and further proof that Trickle Down is a failure so I will let you be.
I know failed causes when I see them but knowing me, I will probably bother later.
*yawn* Alright, I am tired of being red herringed and straw maned for a day. It’s seriously irritating, dude. Good luck.
He is giving you a mane made of straw?
at least he got a present.. ;P
as a note towards wal-mart, btw – they pay their employees, for the most part, minimum wage with a $.25/hour raise every 4-6 months I believe. Now that’s living it up! not to mention you don’t qualify for health care until you’ve been there for 6 months, it’s still expensive as hell. keep in mind this is all from about 6-7 years back.
the mentality I saw from wal-mart employers while I was working there was they did little to nothign to retain employees (unless it could cause a lawsuit) as it’s often cheaper to lose an employee and hire a new one (there really isn’t much that goes into training there if you can believe that).
anyway, just saying, before you get all high and mighty might want to look into it.
as for the taj mahal, never been but it looks pretty.
out of curiosity, why is it whenever anyone has an idea that comes across as educated or backed up by experience they get labelled a liberal? also, compared to what qualifies as a conservative these days, how is that bad?
*thinks about past experiences with WalMart employees*
Why, yes. Yes, I can believe that.
I don’t really understand why it’s considered TEH EVUL to pay the bulk of your entry-level employees minimum wage, though. If you can get what you consider an adequate workforce with adequate retention at that rate, what’s the incentive to pay more? And, yes, I’m well aware that you can’t support a family on a minimum wage job. Big surprise. It was never intended to be a good standard of living, just a bottom level of pay. While I recognize that good, skilled people occasionally find themselves in a position where they have to take a minimum wage job to get by (due to layoffs or whatever), in general if all you qualify for is minimum wage you should either: A) plan your lifestyle accordingly — get a roommate, ride the bus, don’t have kids… and/or B) do something to increase your skill level and marketability.
@Diss: You honestly don’t think it is just that easy, do you? Let alone that you can be qualified for “skilled” work and still not get a job just because the demand dropped in that area. Also, saying to “just move” isn’t going to cut it either.
Believe it or not, some people are honestly just stuck. Plenty of education, just no opportunity in their field so they take what they can get.
Finally, getting into college doesn’t pay the tuition and you still have to get by in the meantime.
I think you are oversimplifying…
@DWN: I never said “easy”. Life is full of tough choices. Look, some people are never going to be able to get a job where they make decent money, either from lack of ability or lack of initiative, but somebody’s got to make the fries. Then you have another category; as we both noted, people who do have skills but who are laid off in a job market with no opportunities. If the widget factory closes, the job market is going to be glutted with widgetmakers and there’s no way around that; under those circumstances, yes, you take a lower paying job or two if necessary, but you have to come up with a game plan to move on somehow rather than assuming that eventually widget demand will increase and you’ll get your job back.
I know there’s plenty of people out there right now, good people, with degrees and/or skills in areas where there’s little to no demand right now. I’m saying it’s unrealistic from a business perspective to expect employers to pay them more than market value for the jobs they are doing, not the jobs they are qualified for. I don’t make as much at my (professional) job as I’d like, hence the whole second job thing. The job market is pretty soft in my city in the area I practice in; that’s life.
And I never said “just move”…crap, you know how much it costs to move? I mean, I guess if you’re stuck in a seriously depressed area and you figure it’s your only shot, people try to make it work, but in general I wouldn’t recommend it as an easy option.
Well aware. I worked the entire time I was in college and law school (and was a single mom most of that time, too). Worked in a drug store, delivered pizza, etc. Also will be paying off my student loans until about forever. I can vouch for the not easy part, lol.
Mainly, though, my remark wasn’t directed at people in your position, but at people who for example drop out of high school, get a job as a ticket seller at the movie theater, and wonder why they can’t support themselves in the style they’d like to and whine about it.
Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. I tend to get a bit touchy on the subject, apologies love.
@dwn: No prob, I have plenty of topics of my own I get touchy on! *hugs* (And you, you’re going to do FINE in the long run; I firmly believe that.)
In bed…
Walmart, consistently does whatever it can to NOT play fair. For instance, you only get health care if you work full time, so they deliberately pressure the store managers to not schedule ANYONE over 36hr a week if they can help it, so then they are not FT, and thus no benefits. They also set “performance metrics taht no one can meet without overtime, but then tell employees they are to clock out and then finish the work, unpaid. If you do nto believe me, pelase look at the lawsuits currently filed and filed in the past 15 years. As to putting money back into the stores- how about putting enough so that their own customers are not robbed, raped, etc- did you know the crime rate of Wal-mart parking lots is higher than other big-block stores such as Target, Best Buy, and higher in many case than most cities? Because they do not take care of them (they may now, they had another lawsuit on that as well). I think holding Walmart out as an example of how things should work shows a lack of informed opinions. Wal-mart has many many ads that tell how much “they” give back to communities now…listen closely- it is the EMPLOYEES donating their already minimal money- NOT the company. The 4 largest shareholders, the wife and children of Good old Sam gave less than 100K in charitable giving between ALL of them in 2004, unless you count contributions to the republican party- then they gave LOTS! This is not the example of how business should be conducted- minimal training, minimal wages I agree with—It sickens me (and I am very liberal so I feel tremendous guilt about this) when pp with no skills are paid 70-100K in government jobs, etc. Or because they are in the right union. If a monkey can do your job, you should not make 6 figures. But some semblance of humanity must be maintained, and Wal-Mart is not it.
Lynn worked in their photolab so it is depressing how much you are preaching to the choir with me.
Oh goody. A bootstrap retard. You know what? GFY. Seriously. I hate your type.
And yet you don’t hate them enough to tear up the stimulus checks they buy for you.
I would still love to know what makes you think you’re so superior to the rest of us. I don’t understand your “OMG Robin Hood iz stealing my gold!” mentality.
-
You make it sound like you’re the only one who deserves to have an opinion because you have money. How much money do I need before my opinion matters?
Nice try. Clearly, that faux-populist whining works around here (see dwn) but it doesn’t mean shit to me.
What?
I think it’s fairly self-explanatory. What part is troubling you?
@Dhoti
I’m not entirely sure what I’m tearing up, and who is buying it for me. I hate the bootstrap types because I have tried very very hard to pull myself up by my bootstraps just to have someone above me kick me in face. I graduated college, worked hard in several jobs, but have consistently been in bad employment situations, unfortunately. Like my dream job, managing a video game store. That job was great! But the poorly managed company I worked for opened us in an oversaturated shopping plaza with 2 other established stores and expected us to make about twice what we pulled in. The chain also relied almost entirely on grassroots advertising while our competitors were sponsoring popular radio stations and putting ads in the mail. Despite the fact that I walked door to door in surrounding neighborhoods handing out our flyers, and tried to arrange video game competitions in local bars and eateries, our store just didn’t compete. And since I missed our sales goal, I got canned. Not because I didn’t work hard enough. Not because I was a lazy jackass. But because we didn’t make enough money. Period.
Bootstrap my ass. Sometimes the cards are just against you.
So it’s just envy, then? That’s not even interesting.
Some people don’t understand that the objections to rampant government control/spending (one equals the other) encompass those of moderate and meager means as well as those horrible rich folk (what’s rich now, 100 grand per family? Who knows? It’s roulette!) No one’s ever heard the term poor but proud, apparently.
Dhoti, the level of condescension you manage to inject into your posts is mind-boggling to me.
Yes, Froo, we all know your attitude that “conservatives” should sit down and shut up and sprain their necks nodding to whatever idiotic populist opinion is in fashion this year. Grow a pair.
Walmart pays semi-lower wages to keep their prices low, but I seem to recall the company making a profit last quarter when no one else did, and they pumped that money back to the employees in the form of employee discounts, bonuses for hourly employees, and other monetary gains for those low paid employees. While they aren’t my favorite company, they do what they can when they can.
wal-mart has it’s place – i mean there’s people there that do make decent money in the form of management and supervisors and often, there is the chance for overtime but it’s uncertain and usuall not a whole lot.
ideally, wal-mart employees would be made of high school students who haven’t figured out you can make tons more waiting tables or retired people who just want to add an extra bit of income without too much work. but, we’re not in an ideal circumstance and their pay is low, not semi-low for the most part. their customer incentives and raises are so miniscule that the employee can only really afford to shop at a wal-mart (i think their employee discount is 10%).
anyway, like I said before, though – things might have changed, it’s been (thankfully) a long time since i’ve worked there
“A lot of people are simply stuck….”
How did they get stuck? I don’t think Wal-Mart got them stuck, but it was probably the result of bad choices made earlier in life: didn’t study hard in school, got involved in drugs, never developed a work ethic, had offspring too young, but it was probably something very personal that got them stuck.
Wal-Mart did not get them stuck. But Wal-Mart proviced a place for these people to at least earn a wage. And, if you can show up on time, follow directions, show responsibility, not steal, consistently make it to work when scheduled, Wal-Mart can give you a chance to advance.
It is better that private business be the place where Americans can advance then having the government provide with no expectation of beneficial action from those receiving benefits.
“I don’t think Wal-Mart got them stuck, but it was probably the result of bad choices made earlier in life: didn’t study hard in school, got involved in drugs, never developed a work ethic, had offspring too young, but it was probably something very personal that got them stuck.”….or WalMart entered the community and shut down all of the local businesses so now they are the only place to work—so you cannot go to the store up to block and get paid better because you work harder…hmmm….and then the classic..when they do not make enough profit, (note NOT lose moeny, just not make enough), they CLOSE the store and those folks now ahve to drvie 2 hours to the nearest store..which is either a large city, or more likely a Wal Mart that has not closed yet. Come on pp- rurla America is what you all like to pretend is the only “real” America- those are the onles that get stuck at WM—the rest of us went to school and ran the hell away as fast as we could- but dang- I still see that it is not about the choices they make (unless you want to say they deserve a substandard life bc they shopped at a WM, ever, thus closing down the other businesses–valid, but still). What options do you all think exist in Culbertson, NE, or Suffolk, WY? Walmart—the Walmart 30 miles up the road, cause that is it. Also Walmart is no cheaper than Target or Costco—-they bait and switch.. check out the lawsuits again! And lie lie lie about “made in the USA. Walmart and those that shop there by choice are the problem, not the solution. Have not stepped in one (unless visiting family where this is the only place to buy milk for 60 miles, so yes, I have seen them recently), in 15 years. IF it is the only place to buy milk – what are you going to do? If the manufacturing in your town shut donw, what are you going to do? Move? Easier said than done- grow some compassion people.
Pending lawsuits are not exactly cites. Finished lawsuits, that might be a better way to go.
-
I’m not a Walmart apologist. I’d rather dig my eyes out with a rusty spoon than work there as my brother has for the last ten years. However, speaking on your comment about Walmart shutting down local businesses and then not paying comparable wages, you’re wrong. Minimum wage is minimum wage regardless to where you go, and a lot of the Mom and Pop businesses that were shut down paid their people minimum because that’s all they could afford. Not to mention the fact that in a business like that, there isn’t a lot of room to move up.
-
I’m not sure I understand your anger here. No one is holding Walmart up as the shining example of what capitalism should be, or as where everyone should work. It’s simply the biggest store people think of when they think of retail. Target and other retail stores are comparable in prices with Walmart, but generally Walmart beats them. If you want to find the best prices around, come to Texas and shop at either a Walmart or an HEB that are within five miles of one another. I can guarantee you the lowest prices anywhere, because Walmart actually has to compete with HEB, which is a company that scares them to death.
-
If a shop 60 miles away from the nearest Walmart is being shut down by competition, they had bigger problems than a Walmart moving in 60 miles away. Usually it means they were charging too much for their goods and services, and being the only option, were allowed to remain. Then, when competition moved in (even though it wasn’t convenient to shop after having driven 60 miles), the prices were so much better at Walmart that the CUSTOMER made the decision which store stayed and which store shut down.
I am getting battered by colleagues today- so this is my outlet…I miss HEB though- possibly the only thing I miss about Tx- that is a good company that takes care of it’s pp, btw—not perfect, but good folks! that is all any big business can try for- WM does not even try they just suck, and the suck the life out of the very pp that they claim as their customer base- it has been painful for me to watch for along while… also the lawsuits I refer to are those that were won- I do not have time to cite- sorry ( I know it should be done, I am in serious venting mode though, and really should not even be on here and should be working instead!).. but they exist…
Stephen, there are so many things wrong with this statement I don’t even know where to begin. But if you think people don’t get stuck in their jobs these days, you’re very very wrong. I’m so very stuck in my job right now. I have qualifications and experience, but I still can’t get a second look from potential employers. And the company I’m working for is NOT growing now, so potential for moving up is rather small.
And don’t get me started on all the ridiculously bigoted statements about Walmart employees. I worked there for 2 years when I was younger, and it’s not social reject list you created here. Sickening.
Or hear from the masters about bootstraps and debt (applying to all presumed “rulers” who foist them upon us, especially at unprecedented scale): “”To preserve [the] independence [of the people,] we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:39
THAT is why the bootstraps don’t “work” anymore. That is why even Greenspan said free markets have a flaw. That and only that. We’re living THAT dream right now. Hope it fulfills all your fantasies ’cause you’re only getting more of the same.
Walmart: low prices, thin margins, minimal spending
Whole Foods: higher prices, thicker margins, more generous spending
I don’t want to get into a debate on the relative merits of those two chains, but for Walmart, grocery stores, and your other discount, low-margin retailers, minimal spending on overhead is the point.
Which is exactly why Daft Punk’s point was misguided at best and completely ignorant at worst. Thank you.
LOL, you have no clue what my point even was, do you? I concur w/ Dhoti’s thinking.
You were talking about how profits trickle down when Dhoti just pointed out why you’re wrong. Memory fail perhaps?
The employees at the wage slave level never see that increase in profits.
“You were talking about how profits trickle down”
LOL, where?
“Then how does one expand a business?
Nope, Walmart never put another penny into the business after they opened their first store.
Dude, it is driven by competition. You pay more to employees to keep them. If you don’t, they can leave.”
Those were your answers to Portland Mark’s comments about how extra money in the boss man’s wallet doesn’t mean it will trickle down. The majority of this conversation has been about trickle down. You are stating the obvious that a business has to spend profits to expand, which is true. Portland Mark was failing to elaborate on the degree of profit sharing that is done, which is very low. The workers don’t ever really see that profit sharing, despite their work for it.
If you don’t realize that we are talking about Trickle Down and its failures, then why are you telling us to read about economics when you don’t even know what we’re talking about in the first place.
And before you even bother, it isn’t a red herring, it isn’t a straw man. It is the term that defines that wealthy paying less taxes means they have more profits to spend on their workers, the trickle down effect. It is exactly what you were talking about.
the part everyone here is missing is that if a company cannot make a profit they will have to cut shifts and therefore contribute less to the economy… increased business taxes does not mean that the ‘boss’ will take home more or less money… just that the company will have a greater tax burden which could limit their ability to expand and hire more workers…
Which is true and thanks for adding that.
Very true. I do agree with you ubr. Excellent point.
Perhaps giving more money to the middle class will increase their buying power, thus increasing the chances of said business to make a profit due to increased sales…it’s worth a try right?
I don’t pretend to be an economist, but I do know that trickle down economics haven’t worked in the past and I don’t expect them to work in the future. If I had all the magical answers, I would certainly share them….
The Steve: For a fee…
trickle down economic principles are much maligned because people really don’t understand the principles behind them…
here’s a short summary…
if a company makes more money and hires more employees to expand their company there will be more people out in the economy able to purchase the goods that the company is selling therefore allowing the company to expand more.
*phew*
and steve, you hit the nail on the head… if there is more buying power in the market, there is more earning potential as well…
this, of course, is a very simplistic overview and does not include foreign trade and other outside influences…
While what you’re saying is true, I’m not sure I see how methods for sustaining growth are the way to go when faced with a sharp downturn. Surely a different kind of problem needs a different answer?
I’m not much for economics, but from everything I’ve read it always seems that sharp periods of spending have the best track record in ending depressions, and the cost is often less than that of sustained economic hardship.
Oh, now I get it — you’re in the UAW. Clearly, unskilled workers should be paid far in excess of their market value, because they’re all special little snowflakes and skilled workers get paid more. Is that about right?
No, I’m not in the UAW but least you are putting more effort.
I’m not either, but — let’s see you build a car. *waits*
Does my cub scout pinewood derby racer count?
Lol…as I recall there’s a certain amount of skill involved there.
No, I just get tired of people impugning the value, difficulty, and skill level of the work done by people who happen to not wear suits to work.
Only if you won or at least placed in the derby.
i’ll build you a car, but you have to buy the popsicle sticks.
Do I get at least one rubber band, staple and piece of used chewing gum?
You’re missing the point, which has to do with the market value of a job, not its difficulty or skill level. Though it’s classy of you to just assume it’s an elitist attack because you don’t have to actually defend it that way.
No, actually it was aimed at your characterization of them as “unskilled workers”.
And it might surprise you to find that I do actually think the UAW leadership shot themselves in the metaphorical foot over the past few decades by insisting on maintaining the status quo for their units while the industry floundered. It’s far from the sole cause of the Big Three’s problems, but it’s a contributing factor.
I’d be more likely to call a Boeing line worker skilled — even if the job doesn’t involve welding or fiberglass forming or some other skilled trade like that, there’s still a fair bit of training involved and the skillset required changes as the products evolve. But based on my understanding of the composition of a typical automotive factory floor and the scope of an auto line worker’s job, I wouldn’t consider them skilled. Semi-skilled, maybe. I don’t mean “unskilled” as a pejorative, but I don’t see that auto line worker being as difficult to replace/valuable to the company as a Boeing line worker.
@dhoti: I will honestly admit, having never worked on the line at either an automaker or Boeing, that I can’t compare the relative skill levels required. I will point out that the UAW also represents a lot of Boeing line workers, as well as units in other non-automotive industries. (Hey, the more you know, right?)
I hate to sound like an A**, but doesn’t it bother anyone else that the guy delivering the mail, with no education whatsoever, except that he can read, drive and follow a map, makes more than most professors? come on now- BALANCE. I say again, if a teenager can do you job, then really? Should you make 6 figures (or high 5?), really? Which is not to say that we should pay all non-teens that are not heads of household a living wage- it can be done. But it bugs me that I did work my A** off for 6 years of graduate school, and a nimrod gov’t hack with no education at all, or maybe high school makes more than I do- in the end I do great and now make much more- so this is not really personal, maybe it is elitist though- and I am on a high horse- but this is not a black and white, all money/business/capitalism BAD or GOOD- it is a system with human players and as such flawed- no more or less the govt—also a system of human players. But in that case everyone gets a say—so they get to be the arbiters…but I do think that occasionally, frankly undeserving pp make a lot of money because they just got lucky. Since the reverse is more common, I try not to address this in my life too often- it is much more common that deserving pp are screwed- so rather than kill them all and letting God sort it out, I think we shoudl focus on bringing everyone up (which means making pp that make ALOT of money) pay their fair share, which is really all that we are talking about—I am in this group (again I do fine!), and I am fine with it- I paid a higher percentage of my earnings when I was in grad school making less than 30K a year and working twice as much… so I digress, but I think you get my point—business are people- and as such, flawed, and many will do exactly what they are MADE to do, or allowed to get away with- that is why civilized places have social contracts bt with pp and the govt—to protect the population from the morons who are trying to get more and end up screwing us all… current banking crisis,,economy, etc—ok serously I am done now;
@ dropping in. I’m a professor, so I’ll address this. First…take a deep breath, then repeat after me: “If you love what you are doing for a living, and you can live on what you make, you are a success.” OK?
As for the postal worker, she/he has to deal with the public if at the post office, which is hard work–I’ve done my 7-eleven time, so I know! The mail carriers do physical labor (ever lifted one of those bags?), plus keep an eye on those who live alone or are elderly.
And they don’t get the pleasure of dealing with ideas every day, the way you or I do–they have to wait until after work for stimulating reading. So calm down, OK? Here, have a snack.
*offers chocolate chip cookie*
*just curious*
Dhoti, what do you do for a living?
Before you start, I will tell you that I’m in social work and work with 14-18 yr old males trying to reintegrate them back withtheir families after having been adjudicated either delinquent or dependent…so no..I have no business acumen or experience; but, it seems like you consider yourself to be “business minded”, so I was curious.
*crickets*
-
I knew that would happen.. did you really expect and answer, MG?
Can’t blame the guy. No matter what his answer was he’d get his sh!t ripped for being a poser from both sides.
Meh. At least you can’t get the flu from arguing over the ‘net.
I’d say he gets as good as he gives.
I’m sure you do. But you’re a narrow-minded fool, so your opinion doesn’t carry much weight. Sorry.
Actually, I’m not really that narrow minded. But you wouldn’t have noticed that because your a nasty little piece of work. Feel free to call me a fool, but my guess is you lead a sad lonely life because you have zero tolerance for those who disagree with your point of view (some doctors refer to this as Optharectalitis).
-
So why don’t you answer MG’s question instead of avoiding it?
Funny how blanket generalizations are A-OK for you, but bad for everyone else. Entitled much?
And I think HST summed up the rationale quite eloquently. (I’m sure you’ll disagree, but since you joined the bandwagon so sadly late, I also don’t care.)
Entitled? Yes, in fact I am. Any other questions? I don’t see how my comment was a blanket generalization since it was directed only at you. Further to that, I don’t know how you would get your ’sh!t ripped’ for answering a question as to what you do for a living. It’s just another excuse to dodge a question you don’t ‘feel like answering’.
Or hear from the masters about bootstraps and debt (applying to all presumed “rulers” who foist them upon us, especially at unprecedented scale): “”To preserve [the] independence [of the people,] we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:39
THAT is why the bootstraps don’t “work” anymore. That is why even Greenspan said free markets have a flaw. That and only that. We’re living THAT dream right now. Hope it fulfills all you
Well, that’s the crux of the problem in today’s economy. With the availability of Hedgfunds and deriviatives and other financial machinations that should not exist, companies base growth off of dollars and not actual business.
The market should only be able to grow if it actually GROWS. In order to do that you have to accrue more business, in ordeer to support that you need more people to work in your business which then creates new jobs.
In today’s market, they take all the earnings, throw it into fictional financing and don’t grow their companies.
The only companies that understand this principle, sadly, are Wal Mart and fast food companies. See also, they are doing quite well-even Burger King in this economy
I disagree with you more often than not, but your post makes a lot of very good points. Well done.
Which means either we have common ground somewheres, or maybe your wrong a lot
;
Fact is, a lot of people cry for free markets, and I am one of them, however, many do not bother to define what the market consists of.
So if they personally put money into the business they can’t get that money back – ever? You may not know the entire story of where the money is going and why. They maybe putting money away to open up at another location or just for a raining day (so that they will not have to lay people off during slow periods).
I don’t understand why they can’t make money if the business is doing good. People don’t start businesses just to give all the money that is made away. They are trying to make something of themselves through hard work. They employ people to help them do the work.
At some point the employees have to trust the employers knows what they are doing. If they don’t know, the business will go under and people will be out of a job. It should be up to the business owner how and what to spend the money that THEIR company made, not the employees.
But then again that is just how I see it. I know their are people that need to control everything so this would not work for them. My advice to them would be start your own business so that you can have control over where / when / what the money is spend on. But that is just how I see it.
Actually, in most businesses, your boss will probably try to find ways to cut your job no matte rhow much money he is making. I work for a growing company. Our benefits and hours are getting cut like crazy, even thought he company is making more money than ever, in spite of the economy.
Jerks will find ways to be jerks, no matter what happens.
But what I was trying to get at is that there may be some people like that in the world but that isn’t all of them.
And if you don’t like how the company is being run then you are free to leave and find a new job.
I hate to hear people complain about something within their control and then they don’t do any thing about it.
It’s even more stupid. They aren’t protesting their boss’ tax increase, they are just protesting tax increases. And they are doing that in a stupid way too.
All in all, the stupidity of that LOL is overwhelming on many levels.
Yes, because the Regan years showed so well how just how effective the ‘trickle down’ philosophy is.
*eyeroll* Surely the 95% will NEVER have to play for this: http://perotcharts.com/images/deficit/budgetdeficit15-640.png
I hardly think the new tax plan is responsible for the deficit, and it looks to be reducing year-on-year for the next 4 years.
Then, it changes direction in 2012? WTF is with that? No-one knows who’ll be president then, let alone what his/her budget or econonic policies will be like.
It’s like someon just made that graph and picked whatever numbers they wanted, to make the current administration look bad.
It’s called interest, dumbass. Look it up.
*shakes head* Paul, you are a moron.
Those are Congressional Budget Office numbers.
“Those are Congressional Budget Office numbers.”
You are the moron here. Read the chart again: “Source: A Preliminary Analysis of the President’s Budget and an Update of the CBO’s Budget and Economic Outlook March 2009″.
It helps to recognize the “Update” was done by Ross Perot’s website, and not the CBO.
Jebus, Mark. You and Paul can sit with Dunce caps in the corner.
Here is the SAME DAMN CHART compiled by WaPo from White House and CBO numbers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html
Note that anyone here contesting these are too inept to understand the numbers or too dumb to verify it themselves.
Verification fail. The Washington Post produced exactly the same graph a month ago — did Ross Perot get to them, too?
Check your sources- I bet they didn’t.
What are you, five years old? I have a link waiting for a moderator to clear.
Meanwhile, I’ll hold your little hand and show you. Google “forcing the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade”
Clink on the first link. Then come back here and apologize.
You’re starting to sound like Hurley at the hatch.
?? didn’t that involve dynomite?
oh dear…
Oh, and then click the second link for a pretty chart with colors you will enjoy, but facts you will not.
just about every chart on that site is composed of numbers lifted directly from government agencies that are responsible for those numbers.
They just put it in a nice chart form
I love these pictures. Seriously. These idiots don’t realize that under the new tax plan they are getting taxed less, than they would under McCain’s purposed plan.
I make around 30K a year, and my check went up about 16 bucks every two weeks.
None of these morons will be paying more in taxes, and they won’t be spreading your wealth. All they have done is rolled back the taxes to levels in the 1980’s and trust me, the wealthy were doing just fine back then.
Seriously, the only reason these people bitch is because they dream of one day being rich. I dream of one day being super skinny, driving a Audi TT Quattro and banging three supermodels. Guess what, both have abot the same chance as coming true.
I’ve seen this argument a hundred times already and it’s just so short sighted. We (as a government) spend so much more than we take in, and it will eventually need to stop. We can’t borrow unlimited amounts of money and we can’t keep printing money. Eventually, we’ll either need to cut taxes or eliminate government programs, probably both. That is when we’ll all see tax increases.
Plus, it’s not just about what we pay in taxes. We don’t vote based on what we’ll get out of it. You may let politicians buy your vote via taxes (and entitlement programs), but I vote based on what’s right. Liberals like to say conservatives are greedy but in reality, it’s conservatives who want a flatter rate which means we’ll pay more. Liberals want to force just the rich to pay more so it doesn’t inconvenience them. They want to benefit from government programs but pay for them. It’s legalized robbery and that is what’s being protested.
“Liberals want to force just the rich to pay more so it doesn’t inconvenience them.”
If somebody (not a business, a person) makes $250,000 per year they pay a smaller percentage of their income than someone making $40,000 per year. The person making 250k isn’t going to have trouble putting food on the dinner table if you raise their taxes, but they might not be able to trade in that 2008 Porsche for the 2009 model.
Someone making 40k who can barely afford to support a family to begin with, and you think they should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the 250k guy? You think that’s fair? Really?
“If somebody … makes $250,000 per year they pay a smaller percentage of their income than someone making $40,000 per year” – Can I have a link please? I find that hard to believe since I know I’m paying a higher tax rate now since graduating college and getting a better job, and I know my dad pays an even higher tax percentage (and I am taking social security, sales tax, etc. into account when I say that).
It was a hypothetical example, idiot. You are the one saying that it’s unfair for the rich to pay more than the working class. That only leaves two options, one is a flat % rate for everyone, the other would be the rich paying a smaller percentage than the working class. Either way would leave the system broken.
-
My example remains valid in either case. If you take 25% from a guy making 35k a year (leaving him with 26k), he’s going to have trouble putting food on the table. On the other hand, if you take 25% from a guy making 250k (leaving him 187k) he’s still living quite comfortably.
-
You also falsely accuse all liberals of “benefiting from government programs”. I would like to know which program I currently benefit from. I check the mailbox every day for my “Free Liberal Moniez” but I haven’t seen anything yet!
But the thing is, if you only take 25% from that man making 250k a year, (which generally happens when you own a small business) or rather, only take 25% from the man who makes 250 million a year (which ONLY happens when you own a large business), then that man who makes 250 million a year can afford to pay that man who makes 35k a year more. So that man who did make 35k at 25% tax is now making 45 or 55 or more at 25% tax.
That is the way it happens when the rich are taxed less. All of history supports that.
Really? I’m pretty sure that history dictates that the CEO pockets that extra money and continues to give the minimum pay increase that prevents the worker from quitting.
Yes, yes, of course, until a competing CEO has more money to spare and offers the skilled workers a larger paycheck than the CEO pocketing the money, then in order to keep the employees, the first CEO is forced to pay a larger paycheck.
It just takes a little while for that to hit the layman, but it does. And in companies where it doesn’t.. They lose their workforce and fail.
Stupid Reaganomics. THEY DO NOT WORK. Trickle-down economics do not work! It has already been tried, and it got us absolutely nowhere.
I’m sick of the same theories that have been PROVEN not to work still are an argument point for people like you.
Rich people don’t “share the wealth”. You can’t work hard for a company and be rewarded anymore because the CEO and other corporate suits are sucking up all of the money. If you don’t believe me, I’ll let you come talk to all the people that just got laid off from Caterpillar here in Peoria. They are paying people less money than they did back in the 70’s! I’m not exaggerating.
I’ve worked my butt off for the past year and seen a near 100% increase in my pay. With that has come a near 200% increase in my tax percentage. Explain how *that* is fair.
Trickle-down economics WOULD work, if CEO’s shared the wealth they received by paying the employees generous salaries rather than simply pocketing all the profits or handing it out as huge bonuses to the top executives.
The very reason these people are protesting is because they don’t WANT to share their wealth, proving equivocally that they won’t do it by choice. Forcing them via taxation is the only way. Trickle-down economics doesn’t work because it doesn’t factor in the GREED of the people at the top.
I’m much more concerned about the concentrated greed about people like you at the bottom. Go figure out how to finance your credit-card lifestyle without my help.
I pay the balance of my ONE credit card off every month. I use it to buy gas and groceries because I get 2% back, and I use it to pay my utility bills online to save paper, and reduce the amount of mail that I need to sort through.
My school loans are completely paid off.
I own one vehicle free and clear (‘91 Mustang). My other vehicle will be paid off next year (‘07 Impreza).
Of course my mortgage isn’t paid off, but at 27 years of age I suspect that is normal. I pay more than required each month and expect to cut 6 years from the length of the note.
So before you start telling me how to handle my finances, and making personal attacks at me, you should probably go Fu(k yourself.
(not sure if this nesting is right…)
I’ll assume you’re being truthful. So, you’re doing all the right stuff, hopefully socking a little money away each month, and you can expect to be sitting on a nice little nest egg in a few years.
But no, that’s not enough for you — you see some rich “populist” politicians on TV vilifying other rich people, and you get greedy and jealous. Why should they have more than you? Why doesn’t government step in and take their wealth from them, and give you a piece? After all, you deserve it more…the guy on TV said they were bad, and you voted for him, so you must be good…
That just doesn’t make sense. Anyone with even a modest intellect can look at a scenario like, say, The Steve or P. Mark’s and see that redistribution is not going to give them more money. The average person might well end up with less money if a truly redistributionist approach to finance was taken.
Rafiq was right on the money. People vote for their dream of being rich, nothing else. I personally vote up my taxes, the ones I pay right now, when I’m convinced that the money will be spent in ways I approve of, as any responsible citizen should.
Bellyaching about the cost of economic recovery belies the cost of forgoing such recovery. Look at historic examples of countries that chose to cut back spending (the popular meme at the time was ‘batten down the hatches’, I believe). Australia post-1929 springs to mind, but there are swath of great examples. If you don’t spend now, it will cost you more in the long run. Debating how much, where and when to spend is fine, but refusing to accept the necessity for it is just denial and gets you nowhere you want to go.
err, “concentrated greed OF people like you”
@ Dhoti above
I don’t want them to give the money to ME. I want them to give the money (my 24% or 11k included) to those who NEED it. Give it to people less fortunate than me, who don’t have healthcare or can’t buy their children new clothes, or to our education system so kids can have a decent education and be better off than their parents.
If that means they need to take a little more out of the pockets of the top 1% of American’s, then so be it. They aren’t starving, they have healthcare, and they can buy clothes from the Gap for their toddlers to outgrow in 3 months.
Noble goals, to be sure. I’m just understandably suspicious when someone reaches for my wallet without first offering their own.
“You can’t work hard for a company and be rewarded anymore because the CEO and other corporate suits are sucking up all of the money.”
If you want some of that money, then why aren’t you busting your butt to become a CEO or corporate suit? Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you’re not doing EXACTLY that because of the principle. You think those people are greedy and will NOT be like them. Ok, then why not set the new standard? Go get the CEO job and GIVE YOUR MONEY AWAY! Get your face and your actions all over the news and set the new standard. I sincerely hope you do. Enough people doing this and we wouldn’t NEED taxation. It’s probably fairly safe to assume that these CEOs and corporate suits spent quite some time in school and working their way up in a business to get to the position that is now handing them ludicrous amounts of cash. Who are you to say they don’t deserve it?
God forbid that people who work hard get to keep the money they earned. No, they should give it to people who don’t work at ALL. I am not implying that liberals as a whole have no work ethic, that would be obviously ridiculous. But I’ve seen my fair share of people slurping on the nipples of the government because they don’t want to have to get off their fat asses and drive their government-funded mercedes benz to a job and make the money themselves. These people get a fat welfare check every month because they have 5 kids. Those kids can be seen running around in dirty clothes, scrawny beyond belief, and (in many cases) on medication for their [insert ADD or other behavioral disorder] (try spending quality time with your children). It’s not something I am personally wanting to pay for.
If you’re a liberal who works hard for your money, then I, for one, am proud of you. Keep it up. Work your tail off and prove all the conservatives wrong. But when you start getting taxed more heavily and are therefore unable to provide your children with the life you feel they deserve, all so someone else can have a free ride, don’t come complaining to us.
From being on PK for a while, I can tell you that the regulars who are liberals or socialists on this site all have what you would consider ‘real jobs’.
As for welfare, try raising a kid on a welfare check for 3 months, then come back and talk to us about ‘free ride’ again. Till then, either do some reading about the reality of living on the edge of the economy, or STFU.
*sigh* Ok, you walked right into this one.
I’ve raised TWO children on welfare for SIX months and know just how easy of a free ride it is, believe me. I had exactly zero issues paying my bills, including rent. Undoubtedly now, though, you’ll be calling me a hypocrite. My issue is with those who use the system as a living, as opposed to those who use it to get back on their feet and become self-sufficient.
I’ve been homeless. I know what it’s like to eat someone’s 3-day old leftovers from the garbage can because you don’t have anything else. I know what it’s like to have people spit on you because you asked them for a dollar to go get some ramen. I’ve woken up at 3 a.m. on a hillside, wearing four layers of clothing and still freezing to death, and taken a 2-mile walk to Circle K for some coffee so I could try to sleep through the night … on more than one occasion. I’ve had to suck it up and live with my parents after 30. I’ve lived with FIVE other people in a one bedroom to get by, and like I said before, I’ve been on welfare in the past, food stamps and all. I’ve “lived on the edge of the economy” more than enough thank you very much.
Like I said last time, “I am not implying that liberals as a whole have no work ethic, that would be obviously ridiculous.” Please take the time to read through what I’ve said before assuming I’m just some rich kid that got an inheritance and has no idea what’s going on.
As for your liberals and socialists having “real jobs”, GREAT! I’m glad they do! But, in my opinion, they should stuff it about the corporate suits sucking up all the money if they’re not going to do what they can to get into those positions. If you want the money that a corporate suit makes, BE a corporate suit. Otherwise, deal with the position (and attached salary) you’re willing to work, and STFU about it.
Gaff, in order for Reganomics to be proven or disproven, it must first occur, which it never has.
Thank you. Finally someone says it.
Yes, yes your example of Peoria laying off people is completely relavent to the thought of cutting taxes for the rich. When the times right now are a strong example of the rich being taxed more and more.
So obviously layoffs at a time when the rich are being taxed more means that the rich are greedy when they’re taxed less.
Oh, and did you think about the fact that those horrid, evil, rich construction company owners maybe thought it was a good idea to maintain their old Caterpillars, rather than frivolously buying new ones? How many horrid, evil, greedy rich construction companies across the nation are feeling the pinch of the extra taxes?
Even the greediest rich fat cat will spend money when they think it will make them more money. And if they have more money to spend, they’re more willing to take a risk in investing, and thus they’ll be more likely to invest in some new company which will employ more people. Not to mention buying new Caterpillars when their old one just needs a rebuilt engine.
Really now? I’ve yet to see that happen. I know most about the entertainment industry due to my father working radio, but many company will do anything to cut.
Just a couple days ago, Clear Channel, who is the fattest cat in the land when it comes to radio, cut out their best sales people from the Burbank Radio Cluster. Sales people work by commission, so when they want to spend less, they cut the guys with the biggest salaries, even though those are the guys making the most money.
And it’s exactly that kind of thinking that keeps you poor.
How does having an opinion keep you poor? Unless she’s a CEO, she can not control it, no matter if she thinks like you or not. The fact is, rich people are concerned with getting more rich. This has been proven time and time again by profitable companies that have shipped jobs off to India and cut costs not because they needed to save money, but because a spreadsheet told them they could have even more money.
That’s a “fact”, huh? So earlier this year, when I switched a couple of my company’s service providers to cut costs, I was only doing it because a spreadsheet told me I could have even more money? I’ll have to talk to HR about that, because my paycheck didn’t seem to change.
Are you saying you’re a CEO or just the schmuck who got charged with the layoffs?
Because I am doubting that you are a board member or a CEO.
Oh, right, I forgot — it’s the faceless, shadowy “they” we’re attacking here.
So when you switched providers did you give all of your employees a raise with the extra money you saved?
Careful, he doesn’t have an answer that isn’t a personal attack for that.
In this market? Are you insane? No, we put the savings back into the business to keep us in the black, so we could afford to keep everyone (and their health benefits) on the payroll. Another one of those savings, you might be interested to learn, was an across-the-board pay cut, with senior management declining to draw a salary for the rest of the year.
But go ahead and tell me how that was an evil management thing to do, and how we should be handing out cash instead as the company goes down in flames.
Thanks, dwn, for another insightful contribution.
No. I buy raw materials and turn them into a product consumers can’t make themselves.
It’s not all about wholesale vs. retail.
That’s because you don’t own the company, though, right? You are one of the worker bees, correct?
@Dhoti:
But go ahead and tell me how that was an evil management thing to do, and how we should be handing out cash instead as the company goes down in flames.
Isn’t that the definition of trickle down economics, though? You can’t have it both ways.
I’m not going to discuss company ownership, but by what I’m assuming you mean, no, I’m not a worker bee.
I don’t see your point re trickle down, though.
If pay rises are forced on you by the market (ie. trickle down, ie. pay rises to ensure compeitive salaries) then you’re paying out just enough to keep people from walking out in disgust. Which isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement.
You talk about pay cuts to stay in the black and keep afloat. But what does ‘afloat’ mean? For any large, publicly traded organisation it means continuing to hand out fat dividends to the stakeholders. Even if you are (as ludicrous as it sounds) the CEO of a major corporation, and have made personal sacrifices for ‘the good of the business’, those are not for the employees. They are for the owners, who will jump ship with all the money if their cash cow shows signs of drying up. They have you over a barrel and you know it, THAT’s why you must cut salaries to stay ‘in the black’, to protect your future salary. It’s not virtue, it’s necessity.
Because the already wealthy demand more from those who have less.
Remind me again how this virtuous, beneficial-for-all free market works?
@purple: “In the black” means what it always does, namely, income greater than expenses. I don’t recall ever mentioning dividends. But given your mentions of “fat dividends” and “cash cows” and “demanding more from those you have less”, clearly you have some deeply held personal biases on the issue, so I suspect we’re going to have to agree to disagree.
And, for the record — no, I’m not a CEO, and my company is not a large or publicly traded company. I don’t recall ever asserting that I was.
Are you socking as lowly grunt? Please don’t, it makes the conversation confusing.
Please don’t engage in personal attacks, it lowers the tone. I have my own opinions, and am not shy about voicing them.
If you’ve taken the time to study political philosophy, the role of business is pretty simple really. It exists to allow those with resources to enforce unfavourable trades on those without. Essentially it is one of many tools for the stratification of society. Whether this is a good or bad thing is a matter of opinion. That this is the case is a matter of fact.
The objective of ‘income greater than expenses’ is to enable growth, which increases the value of the assets of the owners. Whether they are making direct, easy to see profits through dividends or indirect ones through the success of the business they own is immaterial.
What I’m objecting to is your portrayal of business as some kind of public service. It’s not, it’s out for itself, pure and simple. If you want to debate whether regulated, unregulated, or other forms of business can be asets to a society, or would be assets to modern american society, that’s a separate issue.
Like I said, we’re going to have to agree to disagree — we’re clearly not even speaking the same language.
If you’re choosing to remain wilfully ignorant, I guess you’re free to do so. Please be aware that there is a lot more to society and business than might be apparent at first glance, and it can realy help you understand how they work to look into it.
Yes, there is — and believe me, you’re missing it.
@Dhoti: Agree to disagree? How exactly? Purple Switch is stating the obvious. Businesses don’t exist as a public service, they are in it for themselves, otherwise the services they provide would be free or they would at least be nonprofit.
You’ve stated yourself that you don’t work for others, you work for yourself. Is it that hard of a stretch to understand that the company you work for is the exact same way?
I’m not trying to pick a fight here but your agree to disagree statement is mindboggling. Please elaborate.
And I will back Dhoti here, he didn’t state he was a CEO. That was inferment and assumption on our parts.
@dwn: There’s a pretty massive gap between “business is not a public service” (we’re not a nonprofit, no argument there) and “[business] exists to allow those with resources to enforce unfavourable trades on those without”/”is one of many tools for the stratification of society” (um, wow).
When I said “agree to disagree”, I meant “go away, wacko, clearly we can’t even begin to talk about this”.
*shrugs* If you don’t get the terminology, that’s no biggie. It’s how I learned to think about this stuff, as everyone who studies it does, so it’s the language that comes naturally to me.
The goal of a business is to make profits. It has goods of value X. It trades them to others who need them for X+Y, and makes Y, less costs.
Pretty simple really. You might be giving services, in which case you pay employees X. The whole premise is giving less than you get.
Those goods and services might be of great value in one place, and little in another (eg. international trade). They might have situational value based on immediate demand (eg. medical services). Y might be small enough, in relation to X, that people will tolerate it (eg. wholesalers).
I’m attacking this idea that business is something other than out for itself that you seem to be pushing. Feel free to argue that it can be, or is, a good thing. Just don’t try and disagree with a point of fact (business is out for itself) without a damn fine argument behind you.
@purple: It’s not your economic terminology I disagree with; it’s your personal manifesto.
@purple: I never asserted that business is inherently altruistic. I didn’t mean to imply it, I certainly never stated it, and as I told dwn above, I don’t believe it. That’s not in contention.
What we *are* in contention about, however, are your previous assertions about the role of business, its shareholders, and managers, which seem to point to a personal belief on your part that business is evil. I’m accepting your first argument while flatly rejecting the second.
If you’d like to continue condescendingly quoting Econ 101 at me for the point we’re in agreement about, go ahead, but that’s not the crux of the argument, as you well know.
I disagree with describing the profit motive as a necessarially good thing. I wouldnt call all business inherently evil, and I wouldn’t ignore the good it can and does do.
I’m just trying to caution against being blinded to it’s nature. My ‘personal manifesto’ is founded in what’s good for individuals, what will best serve the people who compose a society.
From that perspective, I think it’s very important to be willing to question why things like big business behave in the ways they do, and what might need to be done from keeping them from actively causing harm. The kind of reverence I see in your outlook toward the profit motive makes it very hard to do this, which is why I was butting in.
In short; if self-interest is evil, then business is evil. So it’s a moral matter, which is why I had a PPE slant going in. And why all we can really do is clarify our opinions and look at the logic behind them.
@Dhoti: Fair enough, thanks for the clarification of your point. I’ll let you two go at it on your own.
…the role of business is pretty simple really. It exists to allow those with resources to enforce unfavourable trades on those without.
Well sh!t! I’m CLEARLY doing something wrong, then. I just want to sell my product and remain solvent.
*rethinks business strategy*
I assume you buy your product for less than you sell it for? Then it’s an ‘unfavourable trade’. The circumstances might make it good for the buyer for other reasons, but that’s the core of what business is about.
And business can be ethically run and socially conscious, and I truly hope yours is. But it must be about the bottom line in order to remain solvent, and it does that by selling for more than it buys for.
Nesting fail.
No. I buy raw materials and turn them into a product consumers can’t make themselves.
It’s not all about wholesale vs. retail.
I don’t want to denigrate the work you do, or imply that it is without value. But the concept at play here is you get more for the stuff than you pay for it.
It might be easier to think of it in terms of selling the time and skill used to make product, which you set a price for.
Again, I’m not trying to be insluting or imply that you price unfairly. Most small businesses have to price low, in relation to costs, to compete. Just trying to clarify how the concept applies in this case.
What I am seeing here is that Purple Switch’s comments are being taken personally. However the terminology, while blunt, is accurate.
You buy low and sell high. It isn’t evil, it simply is because in the reverse, the other person would do it too. You are reaping reward for your effort with a little extra on the side.
It is why I can’t begrudge the mechanic too horribly much when I get nailed x hundred dollars for labor. I can’t do it but it is in excess to the amount paid for the part, sometimes a lot excess. *grumble*
But Purple Switch still has a point. Business isn’t about altruism, it is about profit with altruism as a possible side effect.
HST, purp – you two are uniquely positioned to talk past each other on this one. What would be profit for a normal retailer is, because HST is a producer as well as retailer, in this case accurately representing the cost of labor and marketing rather than being simply a markup from the wholesale cost of an item.
Purp – you’re getting the resistance you’re getting because of the toxic assumptions packed into your “unfavorable” language. The truth, as you came close to teasing out in mid-thread, is that goods and services have different values in different circumstances. The trick of a retail business is to produce or obtain a thing in circumstances where its value is lower, move it to where it’s needed (or find the person who needs it or wait for the time it’s needed), and sell it in circumstances where its value is higher. The trade isn’t unfavorable, it’s being made in conditions where the working definition of favorable is different from the previous trade.
(hit reply too soon)
The point I was making: in ordinary usage, the connotations of unfavorable maps closely onto unfair. But the value of an item really is different for different people under different circumstances, so fairness is a much looser concept here.
Fair enough, I was just spouting off a Dhoti and didn’t think through my wording. It’s not something I’m accustomed to debating, normally being taken as a point of fact, so haven’t thought through how to put it.
‘ensuring it can provide good and services at a cost higher than that at which they were obtained’ might be a better way to say the same thing.
My own bias getting in the way of clear communication, d’oh. And shoving my head up my ass probably wasn’t the best way to clarify, either… I wish I could quit you, formal logic.
Dhoti, that makes absolutely no sense.
You stated that the rich pay a lower percentage. That is not a hypothetical, it is a statement of fact. In any case, a person making 35k a year can afford to live just fine. I know because I was making less than half that (~15k) 2 years ago when I was in college and I supported myself and girlfriend. If you make that much and can’t afford food, either you live in too expensive an area (like NY) or you think you need things that you want (like cable).
I think the income tax should be done away with. If not that, then set a base amount needed to live (lets say 20k for example, higher for families). Subtract that from your yearly income, and pay a flat rate on the remaining. No more tax brackets.
Ummm…so we agree!
35k guy would only pay taxes on 15k of his income.
250k guy would pay taxes on 230k of his income.
I fully agree that is EXACTLY how taxes should work. Tax the wealthy more, tax the poor less. Thank you.
I suppose it’s the gap that we actually disagree on (20k is actually higher than I’d like that to be), and that I think taxes should be low for everybody and it’s not the governments job to pay for people’s needs.
And I think everybody agrees that the tax code needs to be simplified (which this would at least begin to accomplish).
assuming a person of lesser wealth is taxed at an equal rate to someone of more wealth – what should the tax for someone who still lives with mommy and plays grass roots superhero on the computer all day be taxed?
That’s perfectly acceptable. Obviously a flat rate would be mean that you get taxed more, and you get taxed the same percent no matter how much you make, so there’s no discouragement of becoming more wealthy.
The problem everyone has is when the poor are taxed at 10%, and the rich are taxed at 70%.
THAT is the taxing the rich that discourages economic growth.
Steve, the reason you don’t get your Free Liberal Moniez is because you talk about it too much. You’ve been banned.
Oh crap! Now I talked about it too!!
Damn! The first rule of Free Liberal Moniez is that you never talk about the Free Liberal Moniez?
It’s rich to see a conservative talk about being short-sighted in light of the fact that Republicans stripped the flu preparedness money out of the stimulus package and wanted to strip volcano monitoring out, as well, and just weeks afterwards we found out just how disastrous that kind of short-term thinking can actually be.
Was there funding for SETI in the stimulus package that Repubs wanted to strip, too? Should we be preparing for an alien invasion?
I wouldn’t be surprised if Aliens attacked right now considering how bad things have gotten.
The swin-flu is a media driven scare. On average 36,000 in the US and between 250-500,000 people worldwide die from the flu every year and they never make the news.
Thank you! I’ve been trying to tell my mom this and no one will listen. I mean, I’ll grant that it’s weird that flu is going around in late April, but the only difference between swine flu and any other flu is that more people in the 15-35 age range are dying. It’s almost like that’s the only age range that matters to people.
It’s not just a bad illness because it has “swine” in front of it, and death isn’t just sad because it happened to someone young and healthy.
‘almost like’?
You incorrigible optimist.
No, that’s not it. It’s that when young, healthy people die of a sudden illness it’s a statistical anomaly, and leaves fewer available to reproduce and replace those who would naturally die of age-related causes.
Why do you think the very young, the very old, and the immuno-suppressed are the first to receive flu shots every year?
Because WE’RE not supposed to need them as badly.
It’s almost like that’s the only age range that matters to people.
I think it’s more the fact that we tend to think of people in that age range as being relatively less vulnerable to infectious disease, so an outbreak that seems to hit that bracket hard is unusual and somewhat scary for that. You don’t want your 80 year old granny to die of the flu, but it seems more expected than having your 20 year old son die of the flu.
I disagree. Read “Flu” and you’ll understand more of the origin issues (swine and avian) which make this outbreak more concerning to the entire world.
The stats you quote are those who would be vulnerable/would be expected to die anyway, which is why it never makes the news.
Swine flu affects the young and strong. That’s concerning: if you don’t know anything about the devastation left by the 1918 pandemic, you should definitely read the aforementioned book.
You ARE aware that the whole swine flue panic is completely stupid, right? It is the H1N1 Influenza virus, which is the common flue! This disease is also as lethal as the common flu, and just as contagious and deadly. Meaning insignificantly.
The news coverage and the panic incitement is completely overblown.
Thank you.
I agree it’s totally blown out of proportion, like West Nile and SARS were a few years back. You NEVER hear people talking about them nowadays. Can I have a link that says something about the H1N1 being the common flu (without all of the pig-related info)? I’d like to flash THAT around. xD
.
Too bad people are so easily frightened, killing off all of the pigs before they even know how the virus is spread (Egypt ordered 300,000 pigs slaughtered). If we took all of the health “advice” about animals seriously, they’d all be wiped out and have gone extinct before now. Raising cattle the way it’s done now (and modern “agriculture” as well) is worse for the environment than a silly flu. Get sick, go to doctor.
.
Not to sound insensitive, but have you ever thought that by ‘killing off’ the ‘weaker’ ones of us, the flu is doing us a favor?
Wow, I can imagine the rage and controversy I’m going to incite.
Natural selection at it’s best.
Trolling at its worst is more like it.
Kind or not, people dying from diseases IS a function of natural selection. Granted nobody wants to see their loved ones die from preventable causes, but those deaths do eliminate the people who are genetically vulnerable to those diseases, thus making future generations stronger.
Yes, we should do everything possible to prevent an outbreak, but a public scare is hardly the best way to go. The media could have explained the disease in a way that doesn’t make my Grandmother terrified to eat the bacon she bought from the store.
Two separate issues:
1) Don’t sell commercials on tv by scaring granny about bacon.
and
2) Sure, natural selection is at work. So what? Should we let the weak ones die in general? Is the flu a handy way to strengthen our little community here? That may be the effect of the flu, but do we want that? Should we withhold antibiotics too, and let all those kids with strep just kick off, and then we’d have pretty hardy kids left … ? Do you have children? Am I missing something here?
Quoting myself “we should do everything possible to prevent an outbreak”
People get sick and die every day. They don’t make the news. Why should this disease be any different?
The media should educate, ie: Sexual activity puts you at risk for HIV, which has no cure.
Not scare, ie: ZOMG 109 DEAD FROM SWINE FLU!!1!
Too, we need actual information on how to keep from getting these diseases. A big reason that people have no immunities to certain diseases anymore are commercials for Lysol, antibacterial hand rinses, and other products that kill off the good germs along with the bad. People freak out that they have Teh Jerms on them and don’t realize that not all germs are bad. So they kill off everything with anti bacterials instead of being responsible, they take their kids to the doctor for antibiotics for a runny nose, and now we have epidemic outbreaks of things we should have at least a partial immunity for.
-
It’s irritating. Please, be responsible about washing your hands.
My understanding is that human beings as a whole, from everything we surround ourselves with on a daily basis from the time we’re infants, don’t have much natural immunity anymore. As a lone individual, simply limiting the amount of times you get antibiotics or not washing your hands as much isn’t going to help with that.
You need to read “Flu” by Gina Kolata. I just finished it last week.
Here’s a synopsis.
When we think of plagues, we think of AIDS, Ebola, anthrax spores, and, of course, the Black Death. But in 1918 the Great Flu Epidemic killed an estimated 40 million people virtually overnight. If such a plague returned today, taking a comparable percentage of the U.S. population with it, 1.5 million Americans would die.
In Flu, Gina Kolata, an acclaimed reporter for The New York Times, unravels the mystery of this lethal virus with the high drama of a great adventure story. From Alaska to Norway, from the streets of Hong Kong to the corridors of the White House, Kolata tracks the race to recover the live pathogen and probes the fear that has impelled government policy.
A gripping work of science writing, Flu addresses the prospects for a great epidemic’s recurrence and considers what can be done to prevent it.
Considering the fact that I see too many children being raised in a bubble by their parents, who freak out at the sign of a snotty nose (I’m using my step kids as examples here), we aren’t being allowed to develop natural immunities to the things around us. Out of curiosity, who here grew up playing outside, and remembers your mom laughing at you for doing something stupid, like eating dirt? How many times did you come home covered in God knows what because you were outside playing, and your mom or dad just took a hose to you and threw you in the tub? My step kids are yelled at if they come home dirty because they might get sick, they are told to wash their hands with the frequency of an autistic OCD-sufferer, and they are forced to use Purell if, God forbid, they touch anything that doesn’t belong to them. My 4 year old step daughter ended up in the hospital last month because she caught something that knocked her on her ass that should never have progressed beyond a common cold. She has no immunities to what is around her, because she is overdosed on antibiotics on a regular basis by her mother, who doesn’t understand the proper use and application of Kleenix.
-
Now, I realize that my POV here is small, but I hear news stories about MRSA, swine flu, people getting small pox again after it was supposedly irradicated, and I can’t help but think that it’s because we treat our children and ourselves as china dolls that will break if we get dirty or sick. For the love of Pete and yourselves, quit freaking out when you get a sore throat!!!! Drink salt water and deal with it!!!!
-
That was a rant in general, not directed at you, Jane
I didn’t think it WAS directed at me ’cause I was kinda of agreeing with you. I was only saying it was one step further than how individuals raise their kids. That with each generation surrounding themselves with these products, running to the doctor for everything, even the antibiotics we put into foods, we as individuals can’t do much about it.
I’m too lazy to go look for it right now (ok, and I need to be doing other stuff) but I think I’ve heard there might also be a relation between the not-letting-kids-get-exposed to germs and overuse of antibiotics and the increased incidence of allergies and autoimmune disorders.
Trying this link again:
“Flu: The Story Of The Great Influenza Pandemic”
LOL! Click my name… or McGyver’s. Whoever!
Jane and Diss: I realize that I’m going to be seen by others as a bad parent, but my daughter rolls around with the dog, and is allowed to scootch around in the dirt and mud as she wants to. I refuse to shelter that kid for fear of her doing what Diss mentioned and developing allergies to something weird that she hasn’t been exposed to. She’s been to the doctor twice outside of her wellness exams since she was born, and the only reason for those visits was that she had a deep chest cough, and her being a preemie, I was told to watch out for those. Thank the Lord that my hubby doesn’t mind and agrees with my style of doctor-free parenting, and I hope it works. I don’t want to see my daughter in the hospital with a common cold, like her sister.
-
And I fully expect to have to pay for broken bones, doctor cuts and scrapes myself, and generally do all the things my mother had to do for me as a kid, because my daughter is already shaping up to be the same type of carefree daredevil I was growing up
This is kinda weird…
I agree with froo. If you overmedicate your kids to the point that a common cold is a serious ilness, how much are you actually protecting them? Keep them safe yes, but not insulated. They’ll have to care for themselves at some point, might as well start with basic hygiene.
And I ate mud pies as a kid, and ran barefoot on gravel, and played in the woods (under adult supervision, where there is no dangerous wildlife). It was good times.
@froo: You will get no argument from me on that one. My kids were all happily filthy as little ones, lol…they’ve all pretty much made it to adulthood at this point.
Switch: We did more stupid things than that. By all rights, my sister and I should have been dead a long time ago. I can vividly remember playing War in the woods across from our house (this was in a subdivision, mind you) with BB guns loaded with lead shot. No one ever actually got shot, but that doesn’t mean we didn’t try. Also, my sister busted her lip at least three times in the same place, all while doing stupid things that we all did (two different occasions she busted it while jumping across a drainage ditch in our yard). Mom would simply wipe our blood off, apply a bandage, and send us back outside with our friends. We were healthy, happy, fit, never sick, and had really good childhoods. I can’t bear to “shelter” my child to the point that she remembers her childhood as being mostly inside.
*adds self in as one of the rowdy twit kids*
I hate tetinus shots… Stupid rusty nails being there while I am climbing precarious areas of a broken garage… *grumbles*
And we rode bikes, rode horses, rollerskated, skateboarded, without any protective gear at ALL! When I was 12, me and a bunch of the neighborhood kids built a humongous, precarious treehouse out of stuff liberated from the neighborhood construction sites (new subdivision).
My brother and I went exploring the creek that drained into the river behind our house in the rain, during a flash flood warning. Our concession to safety? My older brother told me to hold his hand when we crossed the creek while he held on to trees.
“I agree it’s totally blown out of proportion, like West Nile and SARS were a few years back”
I’ve been wondering if we are seeing something blown out of proportion, or if global mobilization of the medical community has repeatedly prevented a full blown pandemic like the 1918 one?
One difference between 2009-H1N1 and SARS is that this year’s virus can be transmitted from human to human, which was not possible with SARS or with West Nile. This makes it a lot more dangerous.
“Get sick, go to doctor.”
Ignoring the reality that many in America and many many more in Mexico have no health care available to them without going to the emergency room. I can haz single payer health care plz?
“Not to sound insensitive, but have you ever thought that by ‘killing off’ the ‘weaker’ ones of us, the flu is doing us a favor?”
You first please. The one person society can do without is the one who doesn’t believe in the basic sanctity of human life.
Should I list the number of issues I have now that I am not checking with the doctor on now or should I wait for the twit to come back and ask?
Because the “See a Doctor” answer is rather like dearly departed Mary’s answer of “Let them eat cake…”
And I am with you on the expendable society member thinking, there Portland Mark.
That must bite so hard. I get free, publicly funded healthcare and went to see a doctor a few months back ’cause my foot hurt. Turned out I’d sprained it real bad, all I got was a condescending look and some basic advice (‘don’t run in flat shoes, don’t go barefoot ALL the time, improve your gait’).
The idea of thinking I was really hurt and not being able to get care… I honestly don’t want to think about it.
Developing rhematoid arthritis at 27 sucks. One of the reasons I had to give up doing art by hand. I am not as bad off as I could be so I won’t make a big deal of it. I only have about three or four things wrong, I could keep a better count but I honestly just ignore them most times because I can’t do anything about it. I am lucky that I have medication to manage my GIRD but I had to hit the free clinic for that, something I hate because I prefer to pay my own way.
Now cue the people saying I’m gunning for pity which is why I hate the subject in the first place.
You won’t get pity from me, just sympathy. And admiration for not blaming the system. In your shoes I’d be picketing medical insurance at least, if not more illegal things.
No point really at this time, I have two sons to feed and my fiancee to support who is taking care of those boys. I see any time I take off for medical problems as money taken from my kids, especially since I don’t have sick leave or insurance.
I couldn’t afford to picket even if I was inclined.
And that’s how I know I’m not even close to being ready for kids. The idea of having to give a majority of my time to society to get paid still irks me. Having to give it all to a family I just couldn’t do.
A few years down the line, maybe I’ll think differently. But I know that, right now, I couldn’t live for someone else. I admire your maturity, and hope the rewards (both wholesome and less so) are worth it for you.
My oldest son (4 year old) runs out to hug me every day when my fiancee’ picks me up from work. Good enough wholesome reward for me. The rest could use some work but my boys are worth it.
*hugs* My cousin has had rheumatoid arthritis since she was a kid. She’s on so many medications and is still sick all the time, to say nothing of the side effects of all her medications. So no, I don’t think it’s a pity party but choosing medication or food is a decision a lot of people have to make and it seriously sucks.
Damn, that does suck… And of course it has to be rainy today. *grumbling ensues*
@Original Shortright: I remember you telling me about that. Still boggles the mind. Stupid bones.
*raises hand*
i was 20 when my RA was diagnosed. the doc thinks it hit at about 17. suuuuuuuuuucks.
*Gentle hugs, all around*
Um…you do realize that SARS was kept from becoming a major problem through aggressive action by public health officials wherever it turned up, right? Including some strict quarantines and close monitoring?
The system worked, so SARS fizzled, thus proving we don’t need the system? Sorry, that argument’s a loser.
Dammit man, what did I tell you about bringing facts to an argument? How many times must I beat the insolence from your heathen eyes?
Exactly what I’ve been saying.
Actually, the CDC says that H1N1 Swine flu viruses are different from regular human H1N1 flu viruses. [link]
Interesting link, Diss, thanks.
Has anyone else heard that this is a rare strain that combines avian, swine, and human influenza virus components?
It’s a government plot to make us throw money at them.
-
I blame Umbrella…
I have. I also heard that, like the Spanish Flu in 1918, this virus is NOT simply killing off those with weak immune systems like a previous poster said. I think I heard that those most at risk are between the ages of 20 – 40, and that we may get one quick outbreak at the end of this year’s flu season and have it come back for next year’s season. That being said I’m not too worried about it just yet.
that’s where i’m at – not worried yet even though a pediatrician nearby was diagnosed this am with it. summer is nearly here so we’ll be in open spaces more than closed up. this fall/winter – not so good, but by then flu shots ought to be up to speed on this one. i heard last night that it takes 6 months to culture the flu vaccine?! which makes it perfect timing for next flu season
WordPress does not like links to Making Light for some reason, which is really starting to irritate me. Jim Macdonald did a really good post on what the flu is and how it works, including a good layman’s-terms explanation of viral pneumonia. (Making Light is at nielsenhayden.com and the post title is Flu Redux.) Jim is a highly trained and experienced medic and a pretty decent SF writer, his posts are always good reading.
Here’s a convenient way to check swine flu symptoms online. [link]
It is the H1N1 Influenza virus, which is the common flue!
So was the 1918 strain. And it’s spelled “flu.” Sorry, but I can’t link…
ATLANTA — The new swine flu virus lacks genes that made the 1918 pandemic strain so deadly, a U.S. health official said Friday.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the new virus is “a very unusual” four-way combination of human genes and genes from swine viruses found in North America, Asia and Europe.
CDC flu chief Dr. Nancy Cox said the good news is “we do not see the markers for virulence that were seen in the 1918 virus.”
The global flu epidemic early last century was possibly the deadliest outbreak of all time. The virus was an H1N1 strain — different from the H1N1 strain involved in the current outbreak — and struck mostly healthy young adults. Experts estimate it killed about 40 to 50 million people worldwide.
OH NOES the only solution to disaster is GUBMINT MONEY
Noes! The pinkos will rush in and tear us limb to limbaugh!
Those indecisive pinkos are no real threat. Real revolutionaries wear primary colours, not salmon. *grin*
And real revolutionaries have to fight to swim upstream, like how the salmon rushdie current every year.
It’s their Fidelity to their ancestral spawning grounds, or ideals, that I admire.
Ah well if you want to talk about Evo kids.
No stalin’ the transition of power, keeping it accountable.
Ooh, that could leave Marx.
Some people have difficulty lenin that you can’t force the pace of change. Che first requirement for a revolutionary is an ernesto desire to enact the will of the people.
But Mao is Zedong for Ho Chi Minh
to come to the aid of his country …
You can’t Bukharin a trend as big as the will of the people.
And if you try, even if you deserve Zapata on the back,
you’ll just end up being a Pancho bag.
Your mastery of puns knows no bounds. Always just the Rykov line, out of thin air.
With me you’ll get everywhere Villa flattery.
I’ll Cabet you say that to all the boys
yeah because…my boss is just going to sit and take it. He isn’t going to raise the price of his product to off set his increase in taxes….That’s what you liberals don’t understand…a tax increase on the producers in our economy is a tax increase on everyone…because now instead of paying 1.99 for your “green” toilet paper it is now going to cost 2.99 for your “green” toilet paper… because the evil bosses want to make the same amount that they did the year before.
We understand that.
What you don’t seem to understand is that the employer will increase the margin on every product he produces. So that several thousand dollars he pays in extra taxes is being spread across every single item that producer sells for the year. Sure, if the producer only sells two items all year, the increase in price on those items would be fairly extreme. Most producers sell thousands, or millions of items per year. This means the tax increase translates to a few extra pennies per item, which we can afford due to the extra money we working class losers will have due to decreased taxes.
See what I did there?
But, if that increase in price happens on everything, the increased tax money we have in our pockets won’t even begin to offset the increased cost of simply living as we are accustomed.
While you may not be earning in the tax bracket that does have in increase in taxes I DO. My wife and I earn at this ‘rich’ level right out of school. Please tell me why it is fair for us, a 25 year old couple, to pay more taxes to ‘redistribute’ our ‘wealth’ to the rest of America? We have gone through over 20 years of school to get to where we are, and we are far from wealthy.
You are counting kindergarten through college as an income worthy indicator? Well, hell, I have a master’s degree! Where is MY extra????
That’s sort of a stupid argument, isn’t it?
Sorry, man, if you’re making a quarter million straight out of school rather than lying out your arse for the fun of trolling, you can afford to pay TEN PERCENT LESS THAN YOU WOULD HAVE DURING THE FVCKING REAGAN ADMINISTRATION!
Actually, I would say that if you make a quarter of a million dollars straight out of school…congratulations on doing well in the NBA or NFL draft.
Also what you said.
If you work hard and toward your goal it might happen. But without the hard work and commitment all you are is bitching about something that you are not willing to work for.
People can be rich with hard work and savings. There are multiple places that can help people get off the ground but you still have to work for it. People now a days want a free ride. This country was not built on a free ride. This is what makes the US different from all others. It is up to each of us to make a good life for ourselves. If we expect our “neighbors” to give to us, then what will motivate us to go out and work is being taken from us. In the end we will have a few people supporting lots of people, with a few people in the middle.
I just hope that people see it before it is too late to change the direction.
If you disagree with me then you are not a worker but a taker from the people that do work and have does something with their lives.
Your last statement invalidates whatever argument you might have had, as it is a blanket attack and makes no sense.
-
And if you disagree with me, you’re an alien from the planet Garbnock and your feet smell.
You answered my question about if you are a worker or a taker. Seem like you have no problem taking from the people that have worked hard to bring themselves out of low income to mid/high income.
Don’t understand why I have to give up things that I have worked really hard for just so that someone that isn’t working hard get to have the same stuff that I do. Let them work for it.
Wow, Americans really seem to enjoy holding up signs.
It makes us feel like we make a difference. Not that we do, but it makes us feel like we do. Personally, I don’t bother. Unless I have millions of dollars to buy off politicians to go along with my sign, I can’t affect any change, that we can believe in, or otherwise. We still choose who takes these elected offices, to some extent, but we do not choose whose agenda they will push. The most we can do is not re-elect them, but there is either no one who can beat them, or too many people, splitting the votes too many ways to ever unseat anyone.
You’re damn right we do! Even if we have no idea why we are doing it. We love to make people feel like crap. Especially the poor. Because making money is so easy. I just blew my nose with a $20 because it was wrinkled. *sarcasm*
These “idiots” are protesting the sham tax “rebates” that you are claiming as great and wonderful. Under the Obama administration your income taxes may go down, but that won’t help when your energy bills triple, food bills double, and pretty much every other product you purchase becomes obscenely expensive. Seriously, do you really believe that when corporations and wealthy individuals are taxed more that they just roll over and take it? Or maybe, OMG, they raise the prices of the stuff you buy to offset their taxation. Who is the idiot?
So what you’re saying is they are protesting the wrong thing…they should be standing in front of Fortune 500 companies demanding they lower prices…
I think you may find that in many places the government regulates prices.
That’s the idea of the R.S.P. so you can’t just jerk the prices around
Source? I’m pretty sure the only way the government can regulate prices is during a crises to avoid illegal price gouging. Otherwise greedy people would have been selling $25 bottles of water after Katrina, etc.
There are a lot of prices being regulated not just utilities (no, I don’t have a source). Milk is kept within a small price range for example. Utility comapnies are natural monopolies, so they’re regulated pretty closely (since monopolies are usually illegal). The price regulations are usually not fixed, they just aren’t allowed to exceed a certian amount.
Unfortunately, thanks to then-Governor W, electricity in Texas is deregulated. It was supposed to LOWER our prices by creating “competition” amongst the energy companies. Instead, we now have some of the highest electricity rates in the nation. BRING BACK UTILITY REGULATION TO TEXAS!
Kthanxbi
Central Texas AGREES!! God, a 70 dollar bill in an APARTMENT??? F that
$70/month in an apartment isn’t bad. that’s about what I pay.
I was going to agree with that, Tubby. I’dve passed out if my electricity was $70 one month. Of course, my apartment was upstairs, and was old, so the insulation was bad. Since I’ve moved into a house, my energy bill has literally been cut in half. Now, when it gets up to 110º in the shade and I’m forced to close windows and turn on the A/C, we’ll see what it goes to, but for now I’m doing ok.
You swallowed John Boehner’s lies too? John Reilly at MIT, the researcher whose study Boehner claimed he was using when he said a family energy bill would go up by $3100, has himself said that Boehner is “wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.” Reilly himself puts the per family cost of cap and trade at $79/year using the same average family size as Boehner does, less than 1/7 what the average annual tax REDUCTION (not rebate, fool!) amounts to.
So, you want to try again?
They aren’t so stupid that they don’t realize they have lower taxes for the time being. I realize that as well. The point is that all this bail out money is coming from somewhere. It doesn’t exist yet. It will over the next few generations when we will be raped with taxes! That is what they are protesting.
The bailout money is coming from Chinese loans…
Just like the untold amount of war debts that aren’t added to the deficit yet.
They won’t give us any more loans, we owe too much and we have to pay those loans back. Through taxes. And war debts are too be expected and will be added to the taxes we and our children will pay.
True…so you can thank W for the war debt…
True, as well as the Democratic congress which included Obama at the time and we can continue our thankfulness towards Obama who also does not plan to pull out though I can’t blame him for that.
Er, your precious Obama voted to fund the war every time. And just so you know… The Democrat controlled congress could have stopped the war at any time by pulling funding. But they didn’t. Obama and all his democrat friends voted to fund the war every year.
Yeah thats the funny part, he voted against the war but for the funding. A little torn aren’t we?
That’s called “supporting the troops”. Get with it, you righties keep talking about that without actually understanding what it means. You guys think it means sending them away to die more often, lefties think it means giving them the equipmen they need to be successful and giving them plenty of veteran’s benefits when they return.
Actually, *leftie* I do understand. I understand that he is supporting our troops, which is the only right thing to do, but I was pointing it out in context to the fact that he disclaims any part in the debt he inherited from the last administration. The point is, he had his part in it, spending.
I support the president, but hope that he fails at implementing his policies. Is that the gist of it? Because the “support the troops” effort, while a cute little sound byte, always came off as that to me.
… Do you honestly think that if the troops had absolutely no funding for the war, we would leave them there to fight it with the rocks they pick up from the ground?
If the Democratically controlled congress really wanted our troops home tomorrow, they would vote a budget that had NO FUNDING for the war, and the prez would be forced to bring them home immidiately.
Wrong. W and Rumsfeld said several times that if funding for the war was cut they’d just raid other parts of the defense budget or shift money other ways. Not that there was ever an appreciable risk of that, with the screams of TREASON!!!1!1ONE!! any time the subject came up.
And cut the BS about what the “Democratic Congress” could have done. With the number of filibusters the Republicans have resorted to in the past two years, that’s a load of crap and you damn well know it.
No, no… The congress has complete ability to end any war, merely by removing funding. If funding was slightly cut, so that the war could continue on lessened levels, then money could be shifted to cover the difference if needed.
And so what about filibusters? When the Repubs controlled congress, the Dems filibustered all the time. It’s merely a tool of the minority to try to gain some form of control.
Actually, the republicans have the all time record for filibusters for the last two years of the Bush administration.
*swipe*
Oh…I’m sorry, sir, your ChinaCard is declining. Would you like to use another method of payment?
Yes, I’ll pay cash. Do you have a copy machine here?
zing!
Umm, can’t really protest a company for selling you stuff. thats called a boycott.
Everyone should be required to read the definition of the word Socialism before they are allowed to paint it on a sign.
Yes, universal health care is a policy typical of socialist governments, but the US is not by any means a socialist nation, nor is it headed in that direction under this administration.
Da…da…Well said, Comrade The Steve.
Socialism, very simply put, is a system of government that attempts to equalize all indivuals and government ownership of companies. Obama does want to equalize everybody (or at least bring everybody closer) which is why he wants such a progressive tax code. And the government could own (along with the UAW) as much as 89% of GM (click my name for a link). That’s socialism.
I love how folks on The Right use the word “progress” as a bad thing (ie “progressive tax code”). Hasn’t anyone read the definition of the word “progress”? Let me save you the trouble;
1. a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage: the progress of a student toward a degree.
2. developmental activity in science, technology, etc., esp. with reference to the commercial opportunities created thereby or to the promotion of the material well-being of the public through the goods, techniques, or facilities created.
3. advancement in general.
4. growth or development; continuous improvement: He shows progress in his muscular coordination.
5. the development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level.
6. Biology. increasing differentiation and perfection in the course of ontogeny or phylogeny.
7. forward or onward movement: the progress of the planets.
8. the forward course of action, events, time, etc.
9. an official journey or tour, as by a sovereign or dignitary.
In the context of progressive tax code, progressive means the tax rate goes up as the income goes up. I don’t use it as good or bad necessarily, that’s just what it’s called (but I do think that is a bad practice). And the progressive movement has a very specific meaning too. It’s the definition(s) you give that they were trying to latch onto so people say “hey, progressive. That means moving forward. I don’t know what it is but progress is good, right? I’m for progress.” Your definition of progressive means nothing politically. I could say lowering taxes is progressive, you could say health care for all is progressive. Progressive in the political world has a very specific meaning (basically socialism light), and that is what conservatives say is bad; the movement, not the name.
Well, whether anything can be considered ‘progress’ depends on which perspective you watch a given fact / event from.
What 16th century England called ‘progress’ entailed the slaughter / slavery / economic exploitation of the indigenous people who lived in the colonies.
The advancements in pharmaceutics in the 30’s-40’s in Germany were outstanding. Jews mostly, but also other ‘inferior’ categories of people were used as lab rats to achieve these results. Is it still ‘progress’?
If you have more than one wife in England, you can get checks from the government, one for each wife. You call it progress, I call it legitimization of woman abuse.
Ermmmm…. I live in England. And that’s simply not the case.
Many kids. yes. Many wives, no. Polygamy is not legally recognised in the UK (except in corner cases where people married overseas and moved to the UK. Even then, it’s not recognised for benefits etc.)
You might want to check your facts before you open your mouth in a public forum.
John, that still isn’t socialism.
-
so-cial-ism: a system of society or group living in which there is NO private property, a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
LOL. Nope, we’re not headed to European-style socialism at all, as I hop into my Government Motors car, watch the president fire its CEO, limit executive pay and back its warranties. Oh, and pay no attention to health care or cap & trade. NOTHING TO SEE HERE, PEOPLE.
Keep your head in the sand, pal.
Not only is that economically moronic but it’s under a false assumption in many cases- I went to a rally myself- but it was in the evening AFTER work.
Yeah after work! unlike the illegals that didnt report to work when they protested!
I remember that day … I got to work in half the time! LOL
Most of the ppl I met on tea party day were UNEMPLOYED … so they werent taking a day off and if you have days coming to you what business is it of your boss what you do with that day?
and if you think the protest was about taxes that shows which liberal media outlet you get your news from…
“and if you think the protest was about taxes that shows which liberal media outlet you get your news from…”
And if you think it WASN’T about taxes, it shows which “fair & balanced” media outlet YOU get your information from. The whole “tea-party” thing was initiated and sponsored by Rupert Murdock and Fox News.
Wow.. Wow you really think that?
So liberal protests can have grassroots, internet based organization, but when a bunch of conservatives talk through forums, and organize a huge protest nationwide… It’s impossible, and has to be made by a big news station?
And sponsored by? What was purchased for it that needed sponsorship? I wouldn’t doubt if he helped get the word out, but whether or not he started it, there were still thousands upon thousands of people nationwide who protested. And none of them were immigrants purchased for a day.
Yeah, I know when the latest Save a Gay Baby Whale for Jesus rally was in town, FOX was all over that. I guess next you’re going to say that FOX is just the Fair and Balanced antidote to this wildly liberal media. Sigh.
And it’s liberals who are the delusional ones?
Right…small-town grassroots organizations like FreedomWorks, led by multimillionaire former Congresscritter Dick Armey, and Newt Gingrich, and the usual billionaires’ club. There’s a word for grassroots movements that are bought and paid for by establishment types like that – Astroturf.
So if a Conservative “astroturf” movement (assuming you’re right) happens, it’s a bad thing, but it’s ok if it’s a Liberal astroturfing funded by Soros and Moveon.org?
Considering that MoveOn is funded by its members, and not billionaires with ulterior motives? Yes.
Oh, and by the way, if the teabagging parties aren’t astroturf, then why was the domain for the teabagging websites registered in August of 2008, before the election? http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/28/22188/9728/612/703154
“Most of the ppl I met on tea party day were UNEMPLOYED ”
And they thought Bush style economics worked?!? They truly are stupid.
Minutes to write – 5
Number of teabaggers on this comment thread who are completely confused about taxes – 100
Number who don’t know what teabagging is – 98
Feeling I get knowing that it pissed off a bunch of teabaggers who don’t know anything about our tax system or know what teabagging is – Priceless.
Minutes to write-2
WIN!
OOpsie-hit enter by accident.
Ahem.
Minutes to write-2
% of liberals on this forum who are clueless about economics-100%
% of average Americans who didn’t know what teabagging meant before this nonsense and STILL wish they didn’t know-99.9999%. Does the word disgusting mean ANYTHING to you?
Feeling I get when I realize how appallingly ignorant about important stuff-economics, history, basic math, common sense, sociobiology, epidemiology, ad nauseum-most people are. And I’m not just talking about Americans;
We’re doomed .
Or maybe this is just Mama Nature’s way of FINALLY cleaning out the gene pool.
Sigh
As a liberal who owns a growing business, employs 5 people with health insurance, pays all my taxes and has quite an education paid for with *GASP* student loans, I invite you to be tea bagged by Bill O’Reilly. You’ll both probably enjoy it.
Hint – do some market research before you come up with a national tea bagging campaign that a singular nooz station is promoting. I hear the intartubes are helpful for this sort of thing.
Not all liberals are clueless about economics, they just don’t agree with YOU. Now I’m going to work to make some more money. I’ll happily share so your kids can be educated, roads can be built, the police in my town have jobs, we get to blow shit up overseas, and you get to enjoy your right to be wrong on the internet. Hey, just doing my part.
Seems you meant minutes to read there – and the thread is TL;DR.
Try reading the thread next time, and maybe you’ll have a chance of sounding like you talk out of something other than your arse.
It always makes me laugh, to see you Merkins bawling about “socialism” as though it was spelled with four letters. What about it frightens you so much? From Wikipedia: “Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other.” What’s so scary about that?
Before you all declare it on me, I freely admit I’m fond of many of the precepts of socialism; I’m also liberal (another foul word for you to chew on). I also work very hard at my job and don’t expect any handouts. One doesn’t preclude the other.
The funny part about this particular LOL hasn’t anything to do with socialism, but the fact that a protester is (ostensibly) taking time off work to complain about other people’s alleged poor work ethic. It’s funny. Unless, I guess, you’re a Republican and think “tea-bagging party” is the same as “tea party”. Ha ha!
I’m waiting for them to have a “Dirty Sanchez” party. You know, to protest illegal immigrants.
I am looking forward to the “Donkey-Punch” party. You know, to protest animal cruelty!
Or a “Rusty Trombone” party – you know, to protest the cutting of funds for music programs.
Or a “Stoned American” party to protest anti-marijuana laws…er…wait…that one sounds like fun…nevermind…carry on.
C-C-C-C-Combo Breaker!
WIN
I’m waiting for them to have a “Lucky Pierre” party. You know, to protest how the disenfrenchised middleman gets screwed from every direction …
If I’m paying your mortgage, I’m not gonna honk at you, but if you need attention I will hit you with my car, how’s that?
That one caught my attention too! Shouldn’t they be happy that their mortgage is being paid? Why didn’t the “your mortgage is not my problem” people beat up the “honk if you’re paying my mortgage” person?
I think the point of it was “You’re not paying for my mortgage, I am. So cut the crap with the taxes; I need that money.”
What an ignorant caption
The whole arguement is rather moot, in my opinion. Bush could spend billions on Iraq and giving huge checks to friends and no one said a word as long as they got their $2,500 bribe, er… I mean “stimulus check”. But golly gee, what happens when the next president doesn’t bribe the people into complacency? “Oh unhappy day, let’s go skive off work to drink tea in the streets.” “Hey, why not, that sounds better that work!” “Oh and let’s blame it on poor people having food to eat.” *snicker* “Oh yeah, THAT’S our problem…”
No one’s worried about the deficiet for a long time, and there is a simple reason. If you want to cut the deficiet, you will have to either drastically cut spending or drastically *RAISE* taxes (not cut them, as someone else here said), and likely, it would take both. What these “great citizens” are saying is, “Don’t you dare raise any taxes! And when necessity forces you to make cuts, cut the food and housing for the poor first. I want to see the widow down the street thrown out on the street with her three children and watch them starve. Certainly don’t cut the military, bailouts, or the wages of politicians… oh no, the first thing to go should be money to feed the poor, the sick, and the orphaned.” Forgive me if I disagree.
Governing is about prioritizing, not blinding following some political movement like brainwashed robots. I guess these people thought that Obama (or whomever they voted for) could wave a magic wand of Problems-Be-Gone and everything would turn into a Happily Ever After. You don’t repair a decade of waste, lack of financial regulation, and corruption by sticking a bandaid on it. The time for a bandaid was 5 years ago (while everyone was still distracted by Iraq). Now it’s time for a tourniquet.
But these people are living in a dream world that has only tenuous connections to reality. It’d sure be a shame if these people actually thought for themselves and look to the root of the problem. After all, I doubt those tiny checks to people like my elderly aunt cost anywhere close to what the bailouts, political paychecks, and all the other stuff we spend money like water to pay for cost the US government. But then again, all the others have lobbies and lawyers. Attacking the poor is like shooting plastic ducks at the carnival – they’re defenceless.
~Quaggy
Carefully targeted tax cuts can increase tax revenues, Pamela. If the tax cuts make the economy grow, tax revenues grow.
If you tax, say, a $100 economy at 5% you get $5.00. If you cut the tax to 4.5% and the economy grows to $115, you get $5.18 in taxes.
The facts do not support your argument. Lower taxes always result in a brief boom while the rich spend their newfound wealth, and a bust when the market has adjusted to the current facts.
Bullcrap. Every last bit of empirical data supports what I said. And I said carefully targeted tax cuts, not for the just for the rich. Learn to read what a person actually wrote before responding.
So what do we do? Raise the tax rate to 100%? Your comment is ideological, class warfare pablum that flies in the face of all evidence and all macroeconomic facts.
“So what do we do? Raise the tax rate to 100%? ”
Reductio ad absurdium argument FAIL
Come to California. The top tax bracket, the one they just increased because the state’s politicians are absolute morons on an astronomical scale, STARTS at $45,000. That’s rich? Especially in So Cal where $45K a year is like $10K a year in another state.
Even taking your statement at face value, do you realize how LITTLE you pay in state taxes as compared to federal taxes?
Uh, yeah. What the F is your point? That my state taxes should be as much as my federal taxes? I pay those federal taxes *too*!
(facepalm) These people give me such a headache… I doubt any of them know (or possibly care) that the USA has some of the lowest taxes of any democratic nation *and* some of the lowest currently compared to our own *history*. (Not historically low, though—that should be noted.) Seriously, people, in 1969 the top tax rate was 70% next to 35% now! We aren’t precisely suffering under the burden here.
Uhh, have you had your head buried in the sand? Have you seen our spending? You think we won’t ALL be clobbered by debt and taxes? Sure taxes aren’t bad now… but keep waiting.
…and how did we get out of the Great Depression? SPENDING….
Your somewhat right. We got out when the war started and spending was needed and companies boomed because of demand from the military. Saving companies that would have failed without help, is not the same way we got out of the Great Depression. It’s a cycle of life and economy. Another company would rise up and take that companies place. It has always worked like that in the past.
It figures that someone would focus on the pennies of higher taxes for upper income people to get you to look away from the BILLIONS of middle class dollars going to keep the upper class IN the upper class. Those protests had 0% to do with taxes and 100% to do with outrageous spending. The tea party idea was just borrowed to make a point, not to protest taxes.
What middle class?
Despicable.
All of you are idiots and know nothing about running a business, if you think that because a business makes more money it automatically means “bosses” make more money. While it’s true that some BOSSES are greedy, the majority of businesses will reinvest the money to keep the businesses afloat and competitive. If a business is not healthy it cannot survive = loss of jobs, it’s that simple! Think about it, if you make less money will you be able to buy a car, or basic needs, same as business. There has to be a balance I agree, but to dump on businesses making a profit it’s just plain stupid. You can always start your own business and make all the money you think business owners make – it isn’t much. I agree that there is excessive compensation going on, but the majority of businesses aren’t in that situation.
Consider that a UAW worker makes $50K/yr. and has no responsibilities, 40 hrs. and he’s done, THEN, how much someone that has incremental responsibilities should make? How about oversee 100 employees, or 500, or several plants, billions of dollars of assets?
Quit looking up and bitching at the system, we have the best set up of any country, if you’re willing to work for what you want then it’s there, if you want a hand out, then please move elsewhere, like Cuba.
The goverment spend the money we pay in taxes without consulting the owners of the money: us. What I took from these parties was not lower my tax, but spend the tax money wisely in things that benefit all, not just a special group.
And I believe in flat tax, so we all pay the same ratio.
The flat tax is a great idea, just not well thought out imo. Unless that flat rate applies to all the corporations currently hiding money oversees, and all the corporations getting by paying less tax on billions in income than I do on my median American income.
Um, they did consult you in that tiny little event called an election. If you did not bother to show up, that is your fault, if you don’t like the results, too bad, you are not a special little flower, majority rules. If you personally want to be consulted for every single government action then run for office.
It would help, however, if we were given a decent selection of people to choose from. I am a conservative, politically independent business owner who has sales not over $100,000 per year so I know what it means to have to pray that the economy doesn’t hit too many snags. At my rate of profit my sales mean my life, my building, my house, my car, you get the picture. The ONLY people we get to choose from on election day are the ones who have tons of cash and are able to pull enough political strings to get a nomination. 300 million people in this country and we get 2 to choose from? What kind of corporate pyramid do you think it takes to become one of those 2?. What we need to do is vote in some decent people into congress, but that system is set up by the haves, also. No one wants to do what is right. All they can do is think about what is right for them. Try watching the original “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Even back in black and white movie days it was the same. The only difference is one of the bad guys grew a heart at the last minute in the movie. Try finding that now days, no matter what news station you watch.
You have 2 candidates if you are only paying attention to one vote for one office. With local elections, you have hundreds if not thousands of choices over the years, but since those smaller elections have pathetic turnout, most people let 20 or 30% of the population choose for them. They complain about the results or vote for someone on some minor issue like skin color or stance on one single issue then they have only themselves to blame when they suddenly discover these other issues after the election.
The politicians are taking advantage of the ignorance and apathy of most of the population. If you don’t like the system, then come up with a better one, step up and be a part of it, work to educate people, research issues beyond soundbites and campaign ads. If you can’t find a candidate that is every single thing you ever dreamed of, then too bad, we all have to compromise because it is a democracy, no one person can have everything they want because that is likely not everything that other people want, there has to be compromise and middle ground.
When half the country complains they have no voice but refuse to USE the outlet they are given I have no sympathy.
Oh man, all the people in that picture should be thrown in the ocean.
All of those bastards look wealthy, but, I’m sorry, they have no work ethic. Take someone who works a floor job at Wal-mart, for their.. you know.. 6$ an hour or whatever they make. Their FOOT BLISTERS have more work ethic than the idiots in that LOLpic do.
they look rich because they’re white and wearing coats?
.
go take your broad generalizations back to your walmart job.
So basically what you’re saying is the less money you earn the more work ethic you have?
Wow, taking an example I used and trying to turn it into an “attack”.
Seriously, what is everyone here, 15?
so…
when republicans take a day off to demonstrate for an issue they believe to be important they are considered morons and hypocrites…
but…
when democrats take a day off to demonstrate for an issue they believe to be important they are considered heroes…
.
the hypocrisy is deafening.
Their right to protest is never in question, nor are they dismissed out of hand.
They’re being called morons because they haven’t though through their position. Becuase many of them don’t even understand it. Because this has been clearly demonstrated.
They’re being called hypocrites because many of them are. Whenther or not they acknowledge it, they reap the benefits of policies at least as ’socialist’ (a vague term at best) as those they oppose, and would object to their removal.
It’s unfair to paint with a broad brush, and there were plenty of people protesting who had a genuine point about ensuring all spending was necessary and properly accountable. But it’s wildly optimistic to expect to be icked out from the crowd.
purple, you just said that these people, who do not want to pay MORE taxes, are against ’socialism’. do you have any proof that any of the people pictured are on unemployment, medicare, welfare, or? did you know that hard working employees are given sick days, vacation days, and personal days to use as they see fit?
.
as for someone being called a moron, you obviously fit the bill. you have not thought out your position either as your second and last paragraphs conflict each other. they are all either morons or some have a valid point, you can’t have it both ways…
What I’m saying is that there are enough loud morons that the people with a valid point get drowned out. And all that people see (and comment on) are the morons.
Like it or not, no modern society is wholly one thing or another. There are socialist policies in place that benefit everyone (public schooling) that are all but universal. To take the position ‘no socialism now’ is as ridiculous as ‘no capitalism now’.
I’ve got nothing against reasonable people who want to argue for less socialism on a rational basis. I’d just question the wisdom of standing in a crowd of loud morons.
If it’ll make you feel better, though, we could just sit here and call each other names, Mr. Poopy-face.
are you in politics purple? you just put together several paragraphs that said absolutely nothing…
No, I’m into philosophy. We share the gift.
lol. i should’ve known…
OK. Third time’s the charm. I’ve been trying to say…
If you’ve got a point to make, and you care about it, make it WELL. Be clear and make sense. Many of the people at the tea parties weren’t doing this. This makes it really tough for the few who do have a point to get it across.
So maybe they’d have done better in another forum.
It’s not those people who are being mocked, it’s the majority who (if I were a tea-partier) I’d be mad at too.
*’I'm mocking’ for ‘being mocked’. Can’t speak for anyone else.
that’s the problem with a democracy, even the stupid people get to vote…
but i’m curious here, your point is to make a point well, but you keep referring to the “tea party people” in generalizations which is not a good way to make a point… especially since you obviously disagree with them on principle and therefore probably did not even listen to their actual talking points, just what you heard from the media.
and as for the forum part, it’s pretty hard to get on the news and get national coverage unless you come up with something outlandish… sensationalism is what the media sells these days…
.
*tangent* i heard a great quote the other day… “the media does not get paid for telling the truth, but rather they get paid based on their ratings.”
Don’t get me started on the need for accountability in the media. Something of a hobby-horse. Which is definitely why it’s so damn hard to get important but complex stuff debated on a broad scale in the public domain.
It’s fair to say I’m not all that informed on the protests. I read some coverage from the BBC, caught an IHT article, and read a couple US papers’ frontpages. It seemed like the good points about accountability, transparency and a duty of care over public money held in trust got drowned out, which was a shame.
I was enjoying the irony of talking about making a point well when I was restating myself for the second time… talking to myself a little there.
Have you ever gone to a “green rally”? Talk about people who haven’t thought out their position……But that’s progressive and right.
Oh god yes, most of those folks are just plain nutso.
The ones that really get me are the anti-animal testing types who eat McD’s at their protest. I mean, for crying out loud.
I’m sorry, I don’t remember taking advantage of any socialist policies or benefiting from them. Quite the opposite actually. Please do fill me in on my benefits as I have not been notified about them.
Public roads, public law enforcement, and public fire safety. And those are just the tip of the iceberg. There’s also public schools (not a given, but very probable). And let’s not forget about health and car insurance: it doesn’t matter if insurance companies are publicly or privately owned, they’re still group funds to help people who need it. Socialism is an economic concept, not a legal one. Just because something isn’t run by the government it doesn’t automatically make it not-socialist.
In short socialism has been a part of this country for a long time, in ways most of us have taken for granted.
True, insurance is simply a privatized version of socialism. Dividing out the costs of a procedure among many people.
Really? You don’t drive on roads, send kids kids to school, have any family members who collect Social Security or Medicare (you ready to pay all their bills out of your pocket?)? You don’t use police or fire services? You aren’t protected by public jails or mental hospitals? You don’t benefit from food subsidies that keep produce in the stores or government ensuring that milk actually contains milk and meat is fresh and safe?
If it makes you feel any better, I find them both annoying. For the sake of devil’s advocate, I will see how I can spin this.
The Republican party is the party claiming fiscal responsibility and hard work ethic. Then they take off work to protest a lowered tax rate for themselves. Granted there had to be a percentage of people well off enough to be in the sights of said tax laser gun but the majority of them are wage slaves like the rest of us and they are taking time off to complain about lowered taxes.
Best I could do on short notice, sorry.
taking a personal / sick / vacation day that they’ve earned to protest something they disagree with sounds perfectly reasonable to me. i think a lot of the spin put on by the media on this issue refers too much to taxes and too little on the growing size of government… as a libertarian i want to see a smaller federal government, and all these spending and stimulus packages are doing the exact opposite…
I have to admit, unless they’re in my way or something I find protesters of any stripe somewhat fascinating. Personally, I’ve never found anything I feel strongly enough about to wander around with a sign when I could be doing something else.
But then, I’ve never been much for large groups of people, either.
They are called hypocrits because for 8 years they nodded along with Bush’s irresponsible spending and tax cuts (only leader in the history OF THE WORLD to start a war and CUT taxes) Maybe if these same people had spoken even the slightest whisper at Republican spending and no bid contracts they wouldn’t be such huge hypocrits.
Did you guys ever think paying those people protesting are most likely business owners? The big issue is raising taxes to a whopping 60% on incomes over $250k/year. I know many people who protested for that reason alone. They are your employers that work 120-150 hours a week building their business, paying your bills, and making a living for themselves. They are the ones with the most to loose as well, so a majority of them that were protesting were the business owners who have great work ethic.
120-150 hours a week? they work 5-6 days straight? lol… please use real numbers… thanx.
See, they’re really TWO people, and you have to calculate the hours together, see…….TWINS!! They’re twins!!!
-
Or something.
-
Made me think of this. [link]
To get my business off the ground, I did what I needed to. That meant working from 9-5, coming home, eating dinner with my wife, then disappearing into my office until 3am. I did that on a regular basis. I’d work on vacation because it calms me. I’d work as much as I needed to in order to start the business. So yes, 120 hours was not uncommon. I’ll admit 150 is an exaggeration, but my busiest week was probably close to that.
sorry john, but 120 is an exaggeration too… if what you say is true you only spend (on avg) 7hrs a day not working… throw in two hours a day for a sh!t, shower, and shave and you’d only be sleeping 5hrs a night and working 17hrs a day…
i work 60+hrs a week at my main job, plus school for my masters, and some more time for the company i’m starting up (to pay for my school, haha)… with all these commitments i know for certain that i do not put in 120hrs/week.
On average, I was sleeping 3-4 hours a night. I will give you some of the time was spent on sites like this and reading the news, but I pretty much worked as much as I could to do what I needed to.
We’ve gotten way of point though (nobody can sustain 150 hour work weeks). The point is some people are out there doing anything and everything they can to build a business and do well in life, and the government is misspending money and threatening to raise taxes from 40ish to 60 percent. That’s why people were protesting because others are lazy and want the government (and all of us) to pay their mortgages. I know of a number of hard working immigrants from India, Pakistan, Mexico, etc that will work 3 low paying jobs because they need to pay their bills. I have the utmost respect for them.
Putting it in that light, “Don’t spread my wealth, spread my work ethic” basically means “get off your ass and figure out your own problems, everybody has them. Some people are doing something about it, others are sitting around trying to get the government to bail them out.”
“Honk if you are paying my mortgage” isn’t “look at me, I’m not paying my mortgage you are hahaha” it’s a sarcastic sign because they don’t believe we should be spending BILLIONS of dollars to bail people out of the mortgage.
I regret saying “120-150 hours” because that was an exageration that is throwing everybody off point. Let me rephrase “90-120 hours” instead.
That 60% is an outright lie. The proposed top marginal rate is 39%. That’s 4% more than it is right now, 0% more than it was during the Clinton administration, and 10% LESS than it was during most of the Reagan administration.
My friend, there’s more to the story than that. It’s a return to 39.6% (4.6% increase) plus an additional 1.5%, and 20% for capital gains on high earners, an additional 4% in 10 years for social security, and a 2.9% increase in medicare.
So yes, the people that are creating jobs for everybody are going to be hit very hard meaning more unemployment.
No way does my boss make enough to qualify for the tax increase, or her boss for that matter. Still a good LOL though.
Typical liberal mentality, automatically assuming you work for someone else. I would assume she is an educated small business owner deeply concerned with the future failing economy.
The irony is that neither the poster nor the people arguing in their defense have thoroughly thought out their positions, either.
It’s really simple ECON 101, ya howler monkeys:
Fact: Printing lots of money increases inflation.
Fact: Inflation will make your $400 “tax cuts” (which will only exist for two years anyway – you’d know that if you didn’t get your talking points from DailyKos) worth LESS.
Fact: The cost of the stimulus, bailout, and all these other new megaprograms will be a crapload more than a measly $800. By, at a bare minimum, 10x.
Fact: Your taxes, yours, mine, and everyones, are going to have to go up if this debt is ever gonna be erased.
Fact: The Administration is counting on economic growth of 3.2% this coming year, and 4% for three years after that, (as well as virtually no inflation) to even begin to pay for their plans.
Fact: That (directly above) is delusional.
Conclusion: It ain’t gonna work.
So did you spend the last 8 years complaining that Bush didn’t pay off the deficit?
this is so stupid….my dad is a boss and we fail to see any humor in this whatsoever
To fail is human. To humor a failing father is human. To fail a humorless father is humanistic. To hail is femurless father is humiliating.
Everyone pick on the Republicans, we’re used to it. At least SOME of us believe in the Constitution and the form of government that brought about such incredible advancement of the human society. Bringing America into what the founders wanted to break away from is not right. Socialism/Communism isn’t OK, and protesting that fact is OK, even though you may not agree. Most everything that the Democrats are pushing for has been tried elsewhere. And has FAILED. Banning guns? Everyone will just stab each other (Great Britian anyone?). Socialised medicine? Waiting list for health care. Punishing sucess? People will stop succeeding.
DUH
The waiting list for healthcare only comes into play for people who couldn’t afford healthcare. Thus if you can afford private coverage, you won’t have to wait.
So your argument is what again? As for banning guns, I doubt that will come to pass and it doesn’t have my support anyway. Taxation isn’t punishing success, it is how governments pay for the damn services you take advantage of and are protected by.
The fear that a lot of us have (and it’s a long term, irrational NOW but possible in the future fear) is that eventually, the government will be paying for so much that we will end up living like the old railway and mine workers in the past, getting a wage for work, but having to pay the company store for things to live. You end up in the hole. At what point is enough government spending enough? When they are taking your entire paycheck to make sure they can pay for their programs, and giving you back enough to live on? This may be an irrational fear as of now, but if the great wheel of government keeps turning, growing bigger, and feeding off those who are trying to support it, then who’s to say it won’t happen?
Which is the slippery slope issue…
Just remember… just because it’s a slippery slope argument, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s WRONG.
Churchill’s anti-Nazi arguments of the early 1930’s used the slippery slope… and he was dead on target. Nor was he the first or the last to use a slippery slope argument and be proven correct.
ewww. you said company store. that is a bad bad word.
*washes mouth out with……soap, yeah, soap, that’s the ticket*
Well, I certainly can’t think of any point in my lifetime that the government ever voted itself LESS power.
Aren’t we still paying a telephone tax that was supposed to pay for the Mexican War?
*singing*
“Well, I owe my soul to the gubbamint sto’…”
Saint Peter dont’cha call me, cause I cain go
Where do you get this waiting list only comes into play bit?
Canada, England, France, et al, and occasionally in certain U.S. Medicare markets, all have waiting lists for virtually everything except emergency care. Real-world experience with Medicare blows away the argument that it wouldn’t happen here.
Rationing? Selective treatment policies? Already happen here in Medicare. Don’t believe it? Check Medicare coverage of PSA tests vs. CA 125 tests. One is covered, one isn’t, guess what the difference is?
Real life isn’t a game of Monopoly. Owning everything and knocking all the other players out of the game works for board games, not society.
Math Literacy FAIL
The 4-point increase to the top tax rate (35 up to 39) works out to a roughly 11.5-percent increase.
As for the protesters, they’re probably upset about Obama’s 5-point increase in their rate (10 to 15), which is a 50-percent increase.
Describing the numeric change in the percentage rate is expressed in points, the relative difference between the old and new rates is expressed as a percentage.
If you’re going to rip-off somebody’s overused snark, at least get the numbers/terms correct.
Is it just me, or is the nesting/threading on this site a bit strange?
UNINTENTIONAL hilarity! Hehehe. I’m sorry, someone is mad that some people might have taken off on a Wednesday?
Guess WHAT? We aren’t professional protestors. We don’t get PAID to take buses in to pretend to surround AIG – we’re REAL people with REAL jobs with REAL lives, who aren’t bankrolled by Soros. Wow…the LOL maker here? Is a complete and utter azzhole.
Oh, like the street people Michael Steele bused in from out of state to ‘volunteer’ for him the last time he ran for anything?
Uh, ACORN?
By the way, that Trickle-Up-Poverty sign is one I’ve been wanting to use; so far I can’t get a good shot of it. I’m glad to see it was used.
It’s fitting considering that “trickle-down” was an invention of the left. It’s fitting considering that the economic literacy of a nation is GONE. It’s fitting..all around.
I’d just like to add-
Everyone here is an idiot.
Thank you, goodnight.
Why are these people protesting? Unless they make over 250k a year, which something tells me they dont, they should be getting a tax break. If they do make over that amount, then a small tax increase will not hurt their way of living as much as they think they do.
You can’t cry “socialism” when the circumstances before this led us into this undesireable situation. When banks willingly give loans and credit cards to people who obviously cannot pay it back in time, the missing unpaid money will pile up and bite them back in the ass. Or when motor vehicle companies fail to make profit due to not gathering interest in their products for years on end, eventually causing massiving layoffs due to overproduction of unbought cars and numorous dealerships, collecting dust. Thanks to that, the govenment is forced to bail out these companies who are run by greedy CEOs who keep most of the profit because they paid lower taxes, and because they kept it, it did not trickle down, and spent it on luxuries that cannot possibly fuel the economy because they aren’t made for the masses, who are the primary fuelers of the economy. If lower and middle-class people pay less taxes, then they have more to spend on goods and services, and if rich people pay more taxes, then that will provide revenue for the government to spend it on projects to supply jobs. Not to mention pay back the massive loans we took from Japan and China and pay for the costs of the war.
Besides, if these have enough time to bother with protesting, they aren’t helping the economy by not doing jobs and buying things at that very moment.
Actually, I waited until after I got off of work and got out of my grad school class before I went to a tea party, jackass.
No, Dems have been criticizing Bush for the past 6 years. At least you are being honest about being hypocritical, because you just did exactly what you suggested; attacking Obama supporters while not introspecting your own problems. 100 days in office can only do so much, it is impossible for Obama to be the cause of the economic recession, it was dropped on his lap after years of building up during the Bush administration. And you can’t blame all the democrats either, as the GOP was in majorty of Congress for about 6/8 years of Bush, so they can pass anything they want, and Bush can veto anything he didn’t want. This is simple politics. As for my opinion, I have posted it on this page already.
@Nogitron. My apologies for previous snark–I took out some ‘end of semester’ stress on you.
And being who I am, have spent part of the day trying to understand why there might be such a difference in perception among educated people on the ‘free ride’ of welfare. I am starting to think it may come down to cost of living in different parts of the country. For example, the only way to keep monthly rent under $800 in the area I live in is 1) to have roommates or 2) to have a car and a VERY long commute.
I don’t get it. the country is bankrupt and people still want unfunded taxcuts?
no they want less spending. Less government programs, no bailouts, no pork projects, and our debt paid down with the surplus… THEN we want tax cuts. If you cut out all the social programs from the federal budget and just left the military and the government employees as the budget and kept the taxes where they are we could pay off this 12 trillion dollar debt in 5 years. But that will never happen so while it works mathematically it doesnt work economically because Americans have become fat and lazy when it comes to doing things for themselves.
Oh my business is failing after 100 years because I make a product thats gotten crappier and crappier and Ive been charging more and more for it… let me get someone to save my business so I dont have to fire all these union workers who voted for the guy in the white house.
Oh no Im turning 65 and I didnt plan for retirement for the last 45 years glad the government has been taking money from young people and giving it to the elderly for 70+ years. Biggest Ponzi scheme EVAR!!!!11!
Oh no Ive had 6 kids by 5 different men and im not married I better go ask the government for welfare so I dont have to get a job.
you see what im saying? handouts are never a good thing for the individual getting the hand out… they are good for government because the create dependence and that means votes for … you guessed it! bigger government.
They want to take money from the people who earned it and give it to those who didnt. Im not saying that a guy who becomes a CEO at a bank for 3 months should get 18 million dollars when the bank goes under either. But at least when that sort of thing happens its because of a contract that the bank signed with the guy and not a law that a politician made up that says something like oh no we went over budget and gave out too much money to people who didnt deserve it and now we think that everyone who makes more than X amount of dollars owes us N% more money out of each paycheck. You can fill in X and N later when the obama administraion raises taxes on all of us with cap and trade or just flat out raises them.
Oh and you remember that tax cut for 95% of us … yeah we got the 400 extra a year which turns out to be 13 dollars a week for the rest of this year, 8 dollars a week for all of next year and then the tax cut sunsets. So oops no more tax cut unless they can find a way to extend it. And lastly its not really a tax cut. Call the IRS and ask them if the tax rates have been changed. As of jan 1st we are in the new fiscal year for the American tax payer (not as some have proposed that we are in bush’s last fiscal term because we are filling out our 2008 taxes) and obama has changed our with holding allowance to give us 400 more a year… he just didnt change the amount we owe at the end of the year so when you go to pay your taxes april 15th 2010 you will owe the same amount you did april 15th 2009. That means you will get 400 dollars less in your refund and maybe even have to pay. Great plan huh?
What surplus?
Baka. Welfare provides enough to live on, PROVIDED you can prove that you are trying to get a job.
Do you even know what a ponzi scheme is?
The definition of “Fiscal Year”, according to http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f043.htm
FISCAL YEAR – This is an accounting year, i.e. when the books for the year are opened and closed. It can coorespond to the calander year or be say, July 1 to June 30, as many governments have it.
The accounting period for which annual financial statements are regularly prepared, generally a period of 12 months, 52 weeks, or 53 weeks.
Financial operations of the federal government are carried out in a 12-month fiscal year, beginning on Oct. 1 and ending on Sept. 30. The fiscal year carries the date of the calendar year in which it ends. (From fiscal year 1844 to fiscal year 1976, the fiscal year began July 1 and ended the following June 30.)
Most of these tea parties actually took place after 3 or 4 in the afternoon. The one in texas took place at 6pm central. the one in raleigh took place at 5pm eastern. If the people who attended them took the day off well then they used up 8 hours of vacation time and thats their right. I couldnt go because I was sleeping since I had to get up at 9:30 for work. I did help make some signs though and that was the saturday before the rally.
@Smartz: “Why are these people protesting? Unless they make over 250k a year, which something tells me they dont, they should be getting a tax break.” — the teabaggers were protesting _spending_, not _taxes_ per-se. The whole problem is that we’re spending ungodly amounts of money, and we have no plan to pay for it. The “pay as you go budgeting” that we were advertised during the campaign that gave us so much hope has changed.
TNSSAAFL.
And regarding skipping work to go to a teabagging party — the one we went to was at 6:00 in the evening.
Good for you! However, How the Hell are we gonna pay for the spending if the Government has NO MONEY? If you make enough money that you could afford to pay more in taxes, then why the f–k would you go buy something that… Nevermind. I’m not gonna argue online.
In Obama’s first hundred days, he and Congress have put together a three trillion dollar spending plan ($3,000,000,000,000) that will add more to the national debt than all of the previous presidents combined.
Even if we raised taxes on the rich to 90%, we wouldn’t see this paid off in our lifetime.
I think the tax increase is a bit higher than 4%. P.S, does anyone actually know why they hate Bush so much? He killed terrorists, kept us safe, and could bowl better than a 27! Obama has his head so far up his butt, he can’t even see the light of day.
1) “He killed terrorists”- And how, pray tell, do you tell the difference between an innocent civilion in the wrong place, at the wrong time, from a “Terrorist”?
2) “He kept us safe”- BB mark comment doubleplus ungood crimethink
3)WHAT THE FU_K DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING???
Take a chill pill, man — you’re getting all bent out of shape — it’s just the intarwebz.
Re: #3, WeaselMan is referring to how on the Tonight Show, Obama made fun of how badly he bowled by comparing himself to people who compete in the Special Olympics.
It was funny — it’s okay to laugh.
I own a small design business. My company employees 5 people. The taxes I pay do affect how much money I can use to grow my business and pay my employees. I’m in business to make myself rich, but it has an added side affect of allowing me to employ people, several of whom would be unemployed without me.
I’ve taught them all valuable work skills that nobody can take away from them. I didn’t do this out of the kindness of my heart, I did it so I could prosper. But as I do well, so do they.
MANY of my clients are also small businesses, who just like me employ other people. Most new jobs are created by small businesses.
I know for a fact that one of my clients who is starting a new venture would be able to increase my workload which in turn would allow me to pay my employees more if she didn’t have to pay so much in taxes.
It’s also naive to think that businesses actually PAY taxes. (This doesn’t contradict my previous point, lower taxes mean more cash on hand to invest AND lower prices) Corporations simply collect taxes and pass the cost of the taxes along to their customers in higher prices. If the tax burden becomes so costly that they can’t make a profit because of out-of-country competition having an unfair price advantage they go out of business. And then people lose jobs.
Ask yourself this – has a poor person ever hired you?
Yes.
Everyone is poor compared to someone else.
Baka.
This made the entire thread worthwhile: “Yes, Froo, we all know your attitude that “conservatives” should sit down and shut up and sprain their necks nodding to whatever idiotic populist opinion is in fashion this year.”
FTW, thread over
does anybody know where this picture was taken? cause the lady in the red shirt in front kinda looks like my grandmother…hmm
Dhoti, might your real name be Ignatius J. Reilly?
interesting article… youclash.com
This is a terrific LOL, and so true. These people are utter morons being led around by the nose by the Republicans. Idiots, all!