Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEPob3kQ-6g&feature=player_embedded
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX7M3w02Bfw&feature=player_embedded
Tks for this link. I think alot of folks in the older generation (those in their 60's to 80's) can understand and relate to Mr. Roberts and his conclusions. The part about being worse off than Russia before their collapse is hard to comprehend, but probably correct.
WOW!
That's impressive.
Thanks Windpower!
You're welcome Peter and cbc
I think Max Keiser is really getting the message out
It was a little depressing about the long term unemployment outlook but not surprising
I just heard today on the radio that Hoover is re-starting up a factory (in Ohio IIRC) -- they brought back some jobs from China
Hoooray
well, maybe not, the factory jobs used to pay $20/Hr
now they are paying minimum wage (at least most of the workers will qualify for food stamps .....)
Just like Keiser was saying they would do --- start leveling the wages between China and the US
Socialism and the Democratic agenda quit being fun for many Americans when they found out that by world standards, they were rich also. There are about 7 billion souls on the planet. There are about 300 million in American, or 4%. World-wide, the richest 5% of all humans primarily live in the US, Canada, the UK, and Germany, Japan, and a few other select areas. There are pockets of wealth in Asia, Africa, and South America, but most of the wealth is really in the US.
In the US, the "working class" rally against the elite, and often point out that 5% of Americans own all the wealth. "Spread the wealth", they cry. In much of the world, they rally against the fact that America, a small nation with less than 5% of the WORLD population, controls most of the world's wealth. According to the CIA factbook, 85% of the worlds wealth and GDP is owned by 20% of the population, and the US is the largest portion of that 20%. Outsourcing is really no different than "spreading the wealth", on a macro scale. If one takes the position that all business is owned and controlled by greedy Republicans (a false premise), then the GOP has done more to improve the lives of the poor than every Democratic program combined. Since the 1960's and LBJ's Great Society, we have spent TRILLIONS on poverty programs in the US, and yet the number in poverty is about the same. The greedy business owners (The GOP?), have outsourced jobs that have ultimately resulted in huge increases in the GDP and standard of living in China, Vietnam, Africa, Malaysia, and even Mexico. One BILLION people are better off today than they were 15 years ago because the "greedy" GOP outsourced jobs. Interestingly, the average American today has a better standard of living than he did BEFORE outsourcing started 40 years ago. Many items that we take as necessities today were luxuries to our parents. Many average families have two cars, cell phones, and a closet full of clothes. Americans living at the poverty level still have a higher standard of living than literally BILLIONS of other humans.
I don't want to get into a protracted debate about this issue, but Democrats should stop and think that perspective is needed sometimes. If their fundamental ideology is that of wealth redistribution and fairness for the common man, then they shouldn't be too concerned that some of those men [and women] happen to live in China or Africa, and want their piece of the "American" dream also. They are no less human than the guy in Ohio or Detroit, MI.
This fact aside, there are plenty of good things the Democrats do, and the GOP also does some good things as well. They both do a fair number of stupid things. The point I am trying to make is that there is perspective to every issue. This inconsistency with the Democrats has always bothered me, though.
Windpower, good explanation of some economic facts of life in 2011. Now what to do or can we do to make positive change for our economy? I suppose we could attempt to put the genii back in the bottle by erecting trade barriers--but,that has been long cited as one of the primary catalysts of the depression in the 30's. If true, that may make that suicidal for us.
What part did our tax policies play in this situation? Quite a bit it seems, so maybe some of the tax law incentives feeding it must be changed--how can we enact incentives that will make it attractive for multinationals to repatriate profits back to the US? Lower corporate taxes? Hard to do in a political atmosphere where those corporations are vilified for doing what our tax laws evidently want them to do--don't believe that was an intended consequence but, that has been their effect. Don't know answer---if I find it---I'll run for POTUS.
What part have union wage, work rules and benefit packages played? Know what politicians and pundits have claimed but, not clear about real impact when productivity is factored in.
What part have our unilateral environmental laws and regulations played? In some industries, a major factor, in others, not so much. Whether these laws/regs are needed, too much or too little is a separate issue from direct economic effects.
Have our other labor laws and standards become part of problem? I feel like we may have or want to live with most of them----not willing to go back to child labor or sweatshop conditions. Can't fix everything.
Can we "force" a change by punitive laws directed at the "evil corporations"? Might be some political gain by using them as scapegoats for policy flaws but afraid that would only encourage those corporations to make their moves even faster and more comprehensive, losing even more jobs.
There are surely more examples of the root and contributing factors---figure all this gordion knot out and you can be next POTUS for sure. Our political system seems to have gotten very good at demonizing everyone involved and we lurch from election to election and scapegoat to scapegoat like some poor bear surrounded by a pack of hounds. It seems to be impotent when solutions are needed----much easier to stick it to the other side(s), get yourself elected or re-elected and keep on dancing.
We voters are not innocent victims here---we are enthusiastic participants in the political system--the first question always shouted by the media and pundits and us is; "Who is to blame for (fill in the blank)?" How can we change that to; "What can we do to solve (fill in here)?" We could always search for someone to blame later if we still need a head for our platters. Perhaps human nature is just too perverse to allow us to make that systemic change.
Obviously, I have no real answers----just questions.
Our President doesn't appear to even be willing to ask the questions, rhetorical performances and posturing is all he has shown us so far----yes, the "other side" only does encores for us. We're just going to have to hold on somehow I guess, and hope we can muddle through somehow. We've done that many times so we must like doing it that way.
To be clear I have never implied or said that Corporations are "evil"
Corporations are not evil they are amoral, without any morals. They have very few goals: to get larger and more powerful and to return 'profits' to the owners and executives of the corporation.
The situation is that corporations are very large powerful entities that the supreme court has endowed with personhood.
They have no moral restraints in the pursuit of these goals and because they can purchase influence and lawmakers (now with almost total impunity thanks to recent supreme court rulings) they are close to unstoppable.
I am going to post the John Perkins interview here as well because I think he much more eloquent in his explaination of the empire that is making the top 1% in control of virtually all the wealth
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8171.htm
I think most companies share the morals and values of their officers and directors. Companies don't do evil things, in certain instances people who run them do evil things through them by extension. There are plenty of well-respected corporations, which really means they just have great management.
It is interesting to listen to the news. There is a war right here in America: a class war. Corporations are almost always portrayed in a negative light. Either the greedy oil company or evil defense contractor or uncaring health insurance company.
Corporations were granted "personhood". I lecture occasionally on tax and economic issues. I pose a question to the students: "how many of you think it is immoral to take the standard deduction or any other legal deduction on your tax return?". I have never had one student tell me that it is wrong. I then ask: "why is it wrong for a company to do the same thing?". Gets them thinking every time.
NM
A flawed analogy
This would be closer to current realities
"Would you think it was wrong to take a tax deduction that was written into law for you because you paid a bribe contibuted a few hundred thousand dollars to the reelection campaign of a certain congress committee chair person ?"
try asking that question next time
I agree with Windpower that corporations are neither evil nor immoral, but simply amoral. A level headed person would not consider a shark evil or immoral if it eats a swimmer because it is only doing what it is designed to do. Doesn't mean you have to like sharks.
A successful corporation will take every legal advantage available, which I have no problem with, but because of their influence they have the ability to revise or create new laws. A corporation can only consider morals on financial terms or otherwise face being consumed by another shark.
And one moral dilemma corporations face is placing our Country and it's citizens best interest above profit.
Quote from: Windpower on May 25, 2011, 12:37:22 PM
NM
A flawed analogy
This would be closer to current realities
"Would you think it was wrong to take a tax deduction that was written into law for you because you paid a bribe contibuted a few hundred thousand dollars to the reelection campaign of a certain congress committee chair person ?"
try asking that question next time
Are you not making an unstated assumption that any such tax code item is the result of a corrupt bargain? I do believe that is called a "strawman argument" because the question has been designed to elicit a preconceived answer----who wouldn't say no to such a question. in a courtroom, it is called "leading the witness".
I am sure some tax deductions or other favorable tax treatments have been achieved that way----but not all----is the home mortgage interest the result of a corrupt bargain between home builders and govt or is it an appropriate way to encourage homeownership as a public good? Are tax incentives to buy more energy efficient appliances and materials a corrupt bargain with manufacturers or meant to achieve a legitimate public purpose? Depending on your ideological agenda or biases, either answer can be "correct". I think you have to ask about any such tax code item; "Is there a legitimate public interest served by the tax regulation?" In some cases, there was at the beginning but as time goes by the public interest has changed----in some cases, your scenario is absolutely correct.
Many examples of both can be found in the thousands of pages of the US Tax Code. And many, probably most of the corporations and individuals who take advantage of those clauses had nothing to do with getting them passed by congress---no contributions, no lobbyists. any such code items are beneficial to someone or some organizations and not all are profit making corporations or fat cats.
Windpower---you have rightly called me out at times for making too broad generalizations. You are right that corporations are usually amoral---so are many individuals. I think any of these tax code items can be used in an immoral or moral manner by any of us. "Personhood" for corporations does have relevance----how can the general requirements of the commercial laws be applied to contracts between 2 individuals and equally to contracts signed between one of the various forms of "legal personhoods" and individuals and even the governmental entities like cities, etc? They are treated by the law and the courts as personhoods too. Do you think we should deny that status in law only to individuals? How about churches, unions, political party organizations, charitable trusts, trusts set up by persons to manage their affairs or estates? We could list an endless variety of groups of people who have formed legal entities that have personhood status----it's done because it has proven to be a practical means to organize our human society. You are aware I'm sure that corporations and other legal personhoods can be and are prosecuted just like human beings for many criminal actions. If they could not be, how would you identify the guilty "person" to prosecute when a huge organization has acted in a criminal manner----which of the thousands of individuals involved in the action could be successfully singled out? It would be virtually impossible.
I do not offer these thoughts to disrespect you or your disgust with organizations whose collective acts can be reprehensible-----granting them legal personhood does grant them some benefits but, it also imposes most of the same responsibilities----we just need to demand that they are held to them.
To answer your question: It is NOT wrong to claim equal protection of the law---it IS wrong to bribe lawmakers for votes and for them to sell them. It is NOT wrong to participate in political processes in accordance with law including speech, associations or contributions. Moral or Immoral?----a more difficult decision. Is it moral or immoral to use political influence over government to take money or property from one person and give it to another? Our answers to that question forms the philosophical basis of the arguments of the left and the right. We try to resolve that question through elections with no answer ever being final.
One hopes that our personal moral beliefs guide our political and economic actions and how we treat each other always. The golden rule may be an old saw but it can still cut a straight line for us.
RW
ps: I'm going to try and not be so long-winded. Obviously not there yet.
QuoteYou are right that corporations are usually amoral---so are many individuals.
I know this was in reply to Windpower but I just wanted to point out that though many people disregard moral behavior, only a sociopath is truly amoral.
Also it is perfectly legal for any individual or corporation to make campaign contributions, and of course elected officials must appease their backers. Since I can not compete financially with a large corporation, does that not give them an insurmountable advantage in regards to getting their man (or woman) into office?
Quote from: Windpower on May 25, 2011, 12:37:22 PM
NM
A flawed analogy
This would be closer to current realities
"Would you think it was wrong to take a tax deduction that was written into law for you because you paid a bribe contibuted a few hundred thousand dollars to the reelection campaign of a certain congress committee chair person ?"
try asking that question next time
Perhaps, but why drag the unions into this?
By your reasoning, the hundreds of millions in
bribes contributions the unions donate to keep the status-quo in power is bribe money, and the resultant pro-union legislation is immoral. All those unions that took the Obamacare exemption are as immoral as Texaco for taking R&D tax credits, since the only reason the got the exemption is because of some well-placed and timely
bribes contributions to Pelosi et al.
Quote from: dug on May 25, 2011, 02:53:00 PM
And one moral dilemma corporations face is placing our Country and it's citizens best interest above profit.
Agreed, however that is an inherently human condition - self-preservation - and corporations are nothing more than "persons", by extension of the people who run them.
Quote from: Windpower on May 25, 2011, 10:09:07 AM
To be clear I have never implied or said that Corporations are "evil"
Corporations are not evil they are amoral, without any morals. They have very few goals: to get larger and more powerful and to return 'profits' to the owners and executives of the corporation.
The situation is that corporations are very large powerful entities that the supreme court has endowed with personhood.
They have no moral restraints in the pursuit of these goals and because they can purchase influence and lawmakers (now with almost total impunity thanks to recent supreme court rulings) they are close to unstoppable.
I am going to post the John Perkins interview here as well because I think he much more eloquent in his explaination of the empire that is making the top 1% in control of virtually all the wealth
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8171.htm
According to the census folks, 80% of all the corporations in the US have less than 20 employees. We often hear "half of all corporations don't pay taxes". True, but S-corps don't pay tax. Their owners are taxed directly. It is a true but misleading statement , as it attempts to convey a different meaning - that half of the corporate profits are untaxed, which is not true.
Quote from: dug on May 25, 2011, 04:23:11 PM
Also it is perfectly legal for any individual or corporation to make campaign contributions, and of course elected officials must appease their backers. Since I can not compete financially with a large corporation, does that not give them an insurmountable advantage in regards to getting their man (or woman) into office?
Dug, is a corporation not just a voluntary association of many, sometimes millions, of individuals who have pooled their financial strength in order to harness the power of capital? Are there not many other associations of individuals who have joined together to harness their collective political strength? A few examples: The NRA, The NAACP, The various Tea Party's, Common Cause, Move On---the list is almost endless---Unions, all the political parties through the years, etc, etc, etc.
The strength of our Republic, our political system is the ability, the inalienable right, of any of us to freely associate, to gather together and pool our strength and votes to petition the Congress for redress of grievances, new laws, repeal of old ones, and yes, special treatment. The NRA is not a corporation, just an association of individuals with common interests who are rarely rivaled as influential "lobbyists". I grew up on Capitol Hill, father was Congressman. He, like all the politicians , received donations from many sources-----the groups who could muster support from real voters such as the NRA, wielded a lot more influence than any corporations could with mere $$.
Dollars are nice and useful in a political campaign but, you can't win an election without the voters--sometimes corporate and other $$ can greatly influence an election but there are many examples of incredibly rich individuals who spend immense personal funds and still lose. (see California senate race of 2010 for one).
Who among is not merely one person?
RW
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-2010/story?id=13224558
For those unaccustomed to the loopholes and shelters of the corporate tax code, GE's success at avoiding taxes is nothing short of extraordinary. The company, led by Immelt, earned $14.2 billion in profits in 2010, but it paid not a penny in taxes because the bulk of those profits, some $9 billion, were offshore. In fact, GE got a $3.2 billion tax benefit.
So if Windpower lived and worked in Texas all year (where there is no state income tax) I wonder if he would voluntarily pay California an extra 10% of his income at year-end simply because he happened to mail his tax return from a post office box located in California....I bet not.
>:(
Windpower!
I knew there were some things we could agree on 100%---a shameful and disturbing state of affairs that cries out for a change----perhaps some form of alternative minimum tax like the AMT I have had to pay for several years.
RW
NM, If the situation was as you assume, I would agree with you. However, the way I understand how it's done is profitable contracts are assigned by GE to various off shore subsidiaries so the profits are not booked in the US parent. Then those $$$ are retained on their non-US firms balance sheet in countries with low or non-existent tax burdens and are also sheltered from US accounting requirements. They owe no taxes unless the $$ are brought into the US---insult and more injury to our economy.
The 3.2 B in refundable tax credit to GE is really galling---may be legal but, it's really galling.
RW
Quote from: rwanders on May 26, 2011, 12:32:02 AM
NM, If the situation was as you assume, I would agree with you. However, the way I understand how it's done is profitable contracts are assigned by GE to various off shore subsidiaries so the profits are not booked in the US parent. Then those $$$ are retained on their non-US firms balance sheet in countries with low or non-existent tax burdens and are also sheltered from US accounting requirements. They owe no taxes unless the $$ are brought into the US---insult and more injury to our economy.
The 3.2 B in refundable tax credit to GE is really galling---may be legal but, it's really galling.
RW
Not quite. There are strict rules. Everything you wanted to know that the MSM or Fox won't tell you. No spin, just facts:
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/40545/000119312511047479/0001193125-11-047479-index.htm
Look to the Notes on Income Taxes
Committee for Economic Development (you have heard of this group, right ?)
http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=9666.0
QuoteDug, is a corporation not just a voluntary association of many, sometimes millions, of individuals who have pooled their financial strength in order to harness the power of capital? Are there not many other associations of individuals who have joined together to harness their collective political strength? A few examples: The NRA, The NAACP, The various Tea Party's, Common Cause, Move On---the list is almost endless---Unions, all the political parties through the years, etc, etc, etc.
Doesn't seem a fair comparison. If I contribute money to the NRA for example I know exactly for what cause it is being used to progress, which in this case would be the protection of gun rights. If I take a job with GE that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with their political views or agenda, just trying to earn a living. The #1 goal of GE is to increase revenue, presumably the other organizations you mentioned are non profit.
So the end result of all this is a small group of people wielding extraordinarily unproportional political pull in regards to shaping policies that favor them financially.
Jeffrey Immelt's vote should carry the exact same weight as mine, but of course it doesn't which is wrong IMO.
Money may not necessarily buy an election, but lack of it will damn sure lose one.
Dug, i understand your point and it true that access to lots of $$ can make it easier for someone to exercise political influence. Union members are in a particularly tight spot. They actually end up paying at least part of their dues to support candidates or issues they may be utterly opposed to. The reality you point out is the reason it is incumbent on people who have issues or candidates they support to seek out other groups of like-minded folks and add their combined weight to the contest. It may include pooling a lot of small $$ together, volunteering for candidates, "lobbying" for your issues, speaking up at public meetings, etc.
My point is; You are not helpless, you, joined together with like-minded people can exercise a lot more influence than you may imagine. The Tea Party movements have exerted influence far beyond their ability to spend money. At the same time, the pooling of small contributions by tea partiers has now provided a pretty good pile of $$ to counter a good part of the $$ spent by their opposition. Effective political action is about marshaling voter support--money is obviously an important means to do that but, it is not the only way. political contributions tend to flow towards those who appear to be gaining voter support----success breeds success.
The best thing any candidate or issue supporter can have is for their opposition to feel defeated before the election even begins---makes their own fund raising easier and places a winner's mantle on them and everybody loves a winner----change that perception and today's political "sure thing" suddenly is a horse race. I repeat, you are NOT helpless. "Money" is often defeated at the polls.
People can either sit and bemoan their fate or join with kindred spirits and fight for what they want. Unfortunately letting yourself feel helpless and defeated only leads to feeling helpless and defeated.
Actively supporting, I repeat, actively supporting your causes or candidates may not guarantee you a victory but you will win some and while you will sometimes be defeated, you will not feel helpless.
Why do we look so hard to find reasons to justify feeling defeated? Maybe it is part of human nature to guarantee ourselves at least the small victory of saying; "See, I was right, the system is rigged. I can't ever win so why even try"? I was right!
RW
Quote from: Windpower on May 26, 2011, 08:48:44 AM
Committee for Economic Development (you have heard of this group, right ?)
http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=9666.0
I don't have a problem eliminating the billions in tax credits to the oil companies if you don't have a problem eliminating the billions in tax credits and payments-in-kind to the small farmers....
The point I am trying to make in my posts is that of the inconsistencies in the entire process. Contributions are "bribes" , unless its from the Union, in which case it is just fine. Tax credits to corporations are bad, but refundable tax credits to somebody who didn't pay tax in the first place is fine. R&D credits to the oil company is GOP greed, but R&D credits to farmers are fine. That is just from the Democratic perspective. I could easily fire off a list from the GOP's side.
One can't take a moral position, and then alter it to suit his position, and maintain my respect for very long. I guess that is why there are not too many politicians I respect. I'm a limited government advocate. I also understand there are roles in society that only government can fill; private enterprise is not the answer to every problem. My thinking and actions are generally consistent with my ideology.
If they fired half the government workers I doubt most of us would notice them gone. Gary Johnson literally cut half of the payroll in NM in his eight years, and by most accounts the 90's were the most productive period in NM history.
I guess we agree on that one, NM
the government should not be distorting markets either the ag market or the mining industries with subsidies or special tax breaks
My point was CED is a semi secret, very powerful organization has been pulling government strings for 60 years or so -- for the benefit of 'business'
citizens, not so much
It is very instructive to watch the whole video link below but if you only have a few munutes start watching at 4 minutes 20 seconds
and listen to Rep Jim Cooper (TN) tell you "The way it works is this...."
http://www.ced.org/about/about-ced
rwanders- I really don't think I feel helpless, well maybe to the practical extent of reality, but not helpless in my everyday affairs or livelihood- definitely not defeated. On the contrary I spend most days content and satisfied, breaking only now and then to vent a little such as now. My usual thoughts about the state of affairs are in reference to my own, my family and my friends, and I feel grateful and privileged to have lived in a time of such prosperity, good health, and though not particularly peaceful, at least myself and my family have been spared from the direct horrors of war.
As far as politics go I guess like a lot of folks my faith has steadily degraded over the years, reinforced by actions and result time and time again.
Its hard to get too fired up about a political candidate at this point in my life after so many disappointments over the years. There have been politicians who have tried to fulfill some of their campaign promises but they are becoming a very rare breed, nearly, if not extinct. Though I don't support him Obama is the latest and greatest example- a glorious campaign promising hope and change to a nation so desperate for it they were willing to bite on nearly anything, only to assume office and carry on with business as usual- and worse.
The tea party is probably a healthy thing for the US, anything to shake up the status quo a bit, but though I think some of the ideas they represent are good there are many core values they hold dear which I could never support.
Any political faction I would support as a sane and sensible alternative to what we have now would be labeled by the majority as a radical, anti- US, terrorist sympathizing threat to their way of life, in part due to what I believe is a mainstream propaganda blitz that reduces my choices to either red or blue, or more accurately red/blue. I have the right to choose one who is slightly less offending than the other.
Lobbying and getting involved with local government would likely get the best bang for your buck but I am not prepared to spend the time or energy for that purpose, at least not to the degree needed to have a significant effect. My life is too short and time too precious to devote much of it towards banging my head against the brick wall. I realize this could be interpreted as feeling hopeless and defeated but that's not how I see it.
What was I talking about? ??? Oh yeah, it seems to me that the main gist of the original post is that business/ corporations unchecked by (dirty word coming!) government regulation will almost surely do what best benefits them with little regard for you, me or our country. We've seen the results here and all over the world of hardily backed GOP (or insert DEM) policies that enable large corporations to become stupid rich at the expense of every single person below them. Humans are hopelessly fallible but humans drunk on money and power prove even more so, and unlike the town drunk who at worst might run into your car or throw up on your shoes, the intoxicated CEO can take out entire cities leaving people homeless and penniless. These people have no business running our country- we, the people do. Washington needs to break off its giddy affair with corporate money.
Based on the unlikely event of that happening, I'm off for my daily stroll with my dog to pursue a few unexplored canyons nearby in hope of discovering a treasure or two- an arrowhead, an elk sighting, or if I'm really lucky- a cat. If not my pooch will be happy enough chasing jackrabbits and benefiting their species by making them keener and faster, and I can enjoy the sights and smells and inspect the sunset at the appointed time. The good earth!
[cool]
Dug, I can agree with almost all your sentiments. Especially those pointing out the ability and propensity of some to manipulate information, data and most destructively, distort even basic rules of logic in order to pursue political agendas. Unfortunately, that describes a common trait, universal in politicians but present in almost all of us from time to time.
Usually, we are aware of it, recognize the puffery for what it is and apply our own BS filters. However, some among us become obsessed with the spinning, become "true believers" (sometimes called "kool aid drinkers"). In that state, rational, disciplined thought is abandoned and facts, half-truths, complete fabrications, illogical constructions, misinterpretations and plain old kookiness are cooked into a poisonous stew. The internet has accelerated and magnified this process becoming the Typhoid Mary of the conspiracy theorists.
It would just be a source of amusement, comic relief for our political processes but, it has come to distort the processes of debates, of our unending need for reasonable discourse about public issues to the point that, like you, many have just opted out of the whole sorry mess.
I understand your feelings ---I swing back and forth between exhaustion and utter astonishment at the obvious thirst for kool aid some of us have to the unrequited urge to explore their heads in search of clear and logical thinking. I often feel a kinship with Charlie Brown----just when I think I'm going to kick the ball over their tin foil goalposts, they pull it back and disappear into a new alternative universe.
A walk with the dog in a nice quiet part of the world sounds great-----think I'll join you in that alternate universe.
RW
Good on ya dug --- we seem to be on the same page
We went to Outback tonight to enjoy life (and a good grilled salmon filet)
came home and I got the Bedini charger running
new post on that later ....
Quote from: Windpower on May 26, 2011, 10:13:59 PM
Good on ya dug --- we seem to be on the same page
We went to Outback tonight to enjoy life (and a good grilled salmon filet)
came home and I got the Bedini charger running
new post on that later ....
All the talk about corporations and such and then you go to Outback. See Item #11:
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/874691/000087469111000009/form10-k2010.htm#item11
:)
Hey Windpower,
Glad you and family had good evening and good dinner. Was that salmon a real wild Alaskan salmon, maybe even a Copper River Red? (a treat rivaled only by ones from the Kenai or Yukon Rivers).
Despite our lively exchanges on this forum, I truly wish for all the blessings of a happy and prosperous life for you and yours. I enjoy the rough and tumble of our exchanges and always learn something new.
In an era when so many trim their sails to every political breeze of the moment, it is a testament to your character that you remain steadfast in your beliefs and defend them so fiercely.
RW
Quote from: rwanders on May 26, 2011, 11:20:27 PM
:)
Hey Windpower,
Glad you and family had good evening and good dinner. Was that salmon a real wild Alaskan salmon, maybe even a Copper River Red? (a treat rivaled only by ones from the Kenai or Yukon Rivers).
Despite our lively exchanges on this forum, I truly wish for all the blessings of a happy and prosperous life for you and yours. I enjoy the rough and tumble of our exchanges and always learn something new.
In an era when so many trim their sails to every political breeze of the moment, it is a testament to your character that you remain steadfast in your beliefs and defend them so fiercely.
RW
I couldn't agree more. The thing that makes life interesting is diversity in opinions. If all politicians were as true to their beliefs as your average countryplans.com member we would all be better off.
Quote from: dug on May 26, 2011, 04:06:31 PM
rwanders- I really don't think I feel helpless, well maybe to the practical extent of reality, but not helpless in my everyday affairs or livelihood- definitely not defeated. On the contrary I spend most days content and satisfied, breaking only now and then to vent a little such as now. My usual thoughts about the state of affairs are in reference to my own, my family and my friends, and I feel grateful and privileged to have lived in a time of such prosperity, good health, and though not particularly peaceful, at least myself and my family have been spared from the direct horrors of war.
Based on the unlikely event of that happening, I'm off for my daily stroll with my dog to pursue a few unexplored canyons nearby in hope of discovering a treasure or two- an arrowhead, an elk sighting, or if I'm really lucky- a cat. If not my pooch will be happy enough chasing jackrabbits and benefiting their species by making them keener and faster, and I can enjoy the sights and smells and inspect the sunset at the appointed time. The good earth!
You might already know this, but you are already far richer, in many respects, than your average CEO. I long for the day of a small, quiet place in the country or woods that I built myself, not a debt to anyone, and where my wife and I could walk the dog and enjoy the sights and smells of earth.
Good thing the public sector (government) is around to remind me of how overpaid the greedy private sector is....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20110527/ts_dailybeast/14359_fanniefreddieexecspaid34millionafterbillionsinlosses;_ylt=AjaK4TWDmZ7w2FKoAwW7NwFg.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTRzcWY1dWs1BGFzc2V0A2RhaWx5YmVhc3QvMjAxMTA1MjcvMTQzNTlfZmFubmllZnJlZGRpZWV4ZWNzcGFpZDM0bWlsbGlvbmFmdGVyYmlsbGlvbnNpbmxvc3NlcwRjY29kZQN0b3BnbXB0b3AyMDBwb29sBGNwb3MDNQRwb3MDNQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA29iYW1hc21pbGxpbw--
d* d* d* d* d*
Quote from: Native_NM on May 26, 2011, 10:44:29 PM
All the talk about corporations and such and then you go to Outback. See Item #11:
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/874691/000087469111000009/form10-k2010.htm#item11
Well I am not going to live long enough to read that link.
I have a choice where to spend my money -- Outback provides pretty good food for a reasonable price -- that works for me
Quote from: rwanders on May 26, 2011, 11:20:27 PM
:)
Hey Windpower,
Glad you and family had good evening and good dinner. Was that salmon a real wild Alaskan salmon, maybe even a Copper River Red? (a treat rivaled only by ones from the Kenai or Yukon Rivers).
Despite our lively exchanges on this forum, I truly wish for all the blessings of a happy and prosperous life for you and yours. I enjoy the rough and tumble of our exchanges and always learn something new.
In an era when so many trim their sails to every political breeze of the moment, it is a testament to your character that you remain steadfast in your beliefs and defend them so fiercely.
RW
You know it had that good Sockeye flavor and was called Alaskan salmon ... delicious
I see you are from south central AK
I went moose hunting in the Chugach Mountains with Austin Meekin back in 96 -- it was a great trip even though I did not get my moose
I envy your location --(well maybe not during Nov -- through March) :)
we all have to find what works for our own sanity I guess
good to hear from you
Quote from: Windpower on June 02, 2011, 02:25:08 PM
Well I am not going to live long enough to read that link.
I have a choice where to spend my money -- Outback provides pretty good food for a reasonable price -- that works for me
It says the President of Outback makes tens of millions a year....
:P
I know they're truly a heart attack on a plate but, if anyone in the dinner group orders one of their "bloomin onions" I can't resist a taste----quickly followed by rapid fire additional bites until the last delicious, greasy delights are just a queasy feeling in my stomach.
They don't have the best steaks around but, they're dependably not bad and the price is reasonable. Running a successful restaurant any time is an achievement, a whole chain of them is really hard and I don't begrudge the CEO his financial success. A well run private business, not dependent on taxpayer money, is a living testament to the best of capitalism---even if the restaurant business is closer to slave labor.
Quote from: Windpower on June 02, 2011, 02:25:08 PM
Well I am not going to live long enough to read that link.
I have a choice where to spend my money -- Outback provides pretty good food for a reasonable price -- that works for me
Say you invented a product or provided a service. A popular one. Millions of people wanted it, and you made 10 cents per unit net. Every year you made millions. Does that make you greedy? At some point do you have a responsibility to work for free? What if you made millions and your neighbor made nothing because nobody wanted his product or service? Just trying to foster some honest debate and thinking.
"Say you invented a product or provided a service. A popular one. Millions of people wanted it, and you made 10 cents per unit net. Every year you made millions. Does that make you greedy? "
Greedy ? not necessarily, that is called success in today's paradigm
but if you grew and grew and finally after 20 years you knew you could fire your factory workers that had partnered with you in your success and transfer the jobs to Shanghai and make an additional .1 cent per unit and take a tax deduction for closing down your factory to boot --- yeah I think that is getting close to greedy.
" At some point do you have a responsibility to work for free?"
While the income tax legality is another complete argument ---in today's legal framework, work for free ?-- no, but you should pay your 'fair share of the taxes' not the 15% or less that the top 1 % earners in the US pay (according to the IRS for 2008)
Just a comment on CEO pay from my own company
Our CEO (working for the company for ~6 years, a Harvard business school 'wiz kid' at 41 years old, who in his first 3 years crippled the service team by arbitrailly dividing the field engineers based on his 'business model'--and CEO for almost 3 years) pulled 38 million in compensation last year -- we actually did very well, record profit and record earnings per share
The average raise for us worker bees was
wait for it
1.6 %
did I mention that they decided that we were 'over market compensation' in vacation time -- they cut max PTO (Paid Time Off for sick days and vacation days) from 30 days to 25 days
they cut our expense account meal allowance to $40 per day (this is the same meal allowance guidline I had 25 years ago) but I am sure our CEO follows this guideline too ;)
Success is ok, but just not too much...is what I read from your response?
While the effective tax rate for the richest is low, the dollars are large. The earned income of the richest families is taxed at a much higher rate than it is for the rest of us. Capital gains taxes are low. They were scheduled to revert to 28%+, and Congress extended the cuts. The same IRS website also indicates that most of the tax revenue collected comes from the top 3,000 returns. That means out of 300,000,000 citizens, just a few families pay most of the taxes. If "fair share" is a concern or criteria, then clearly half the families don't pay their share, as they have an effective tax rate of zero. Further, the IRS website indicates that the lowest quartile have an effective tax rate that is negative. They get back more than they had withheld. But since we are talking percentages.....
Depending on how large your company is, $38 million might not be that large in percentage terms. In absolute dollars, it is a lot of money, and I don't personally think anyone is worth that much. But if I was a major stockholder of a company and the CEO was making me hundreds of millions or billions, it might not seem that much. Oh wait, I am indirectly a shareholder, as my 401(k) depends on the market to make me enough money to retire on.
Most small business owners pay themselves more as a percentage of sales or profit than any large business owner ever could. For example, a small business might gross a million and the owner pays himself $50,000. That is 5 percent of sales. Wal-Mart grosses over $400 billion. Their guy gets $20 million, which is 0.0005%. Who is greedier? Is the small business guy worth 1000 times as much as the CEO who has thousands of stores and millions of employees on his back? The small guy has a few employees and a few customers. The Fortune 500 CEO - just a bit more responsibility for a lot smaller percentage of the pie.
I agree that 1.6% is a small increase given inflation, both reported and unreported (food and energy). On the other hand, it was 1.6% more than I got.
Since fairness is important, then it only seems fair that you don't get more leave than the other people in your industry.
Since it is unlikely that you have the same entertaining requirements, or are dealing at the same level as the CEO, it is not a fair comparison. Nobody said the world was fair.
the top 13,312 returns in the 'over $10,000,000 per year' category payed 20.9 % of their income in income tax
I we look at the middle of the income tax brackets roughly 50% of the total income of the US is made by those in the 250,000 per year and up brackets while the bottom 50% of income is made by those earning less than $250,000
Certainly the top earners get considerably more benefit from the infrastructure that the US Government provides from the taxes: Safety, security from invasion through a strong military, legal system, communication infrastructure, power generation, transportation, patent protection etc etc
arguably then they should pay more in taxes than someone making $40,000 per year that rarely if ever flies, almost never needs legal protection, uses very little of the tremendous power the country has built with the taxes.
But the the bottom 50% of the income pays as much as the top 50%
Andd what about Social Security why is it that anyone making more that ~$105,000 is exempt from paying on income over that arbitrary figure
The Supreme court has ruled the the FICA is a tax on income like any other direct tax -- it is not at all a 'trust fund' for lower wage folks. It is a tax on those of us making less than $105,000 per year that high income payers are largely exempt from.
And how much of the total income tax? Their returns are less than 0.5% of the total returns yet account for 8.1% of the total tax. The top 3% of the returns accounted for over half of the $1+ trillion paid in personal taxes.
I guess that's why anyone making over $250,000 is deemed rich?
I disagree. If you want to spread the wealth, then you also have to spread the benefit. The poor actually use more public services, including police and medical services, than the rich, who have access to private services. This is well documented.
Lots of people making less than $40,000 fly and drive. Which is harder on the infrastructure? The richest of the rich pay tax at a rate 3000 times higher than the $40,000 year guy. I doubt he uses 3000 times the service or receives 3000 times the benefit.
False. The IRS site has the data. You are confusing gross income and taxable income.
They are exempt because it is not a tax, but an insurance plan. It was not designed to be a retirement plan. I'm sure the rich would not have a problem increasing the wage base as long as the expected benefit rose also. SS benefits originally were accrued and paid proportional to the deposits made - similar to a savings account. The less you made, the less you contributed, and the smaller the benefit. The formula was equal for years. The Democrats changed the formula to use the contributions of the rich to subsidize the poor. This is well documented at the SS website. They have the formulas on their site, and discuss the program in detail. Some of you want the rich to pay insurance premiums into a system they can never collect on. I doubt you would pay your auto insurance company double premiums so that some guy who could not afford his premium could drive. Or a better analogy, you have two cars, both of which you insure, and when you make a claim the insurance company says "sorry, we used your premium to cover some guy who could not make his premium on his own so there is nothing left for us to cover your loss" That is EXACTLY what some of you want, and exactly what happens now. Raising the limit without raising the benefit is illegal in the current schema of the SS plan.
False. It is not a tax. It is an insurance contribution. There is more to the Flemming ruling than you will find on Wikipedia.
This is just one case of many that uphold the FACT that the Social Security TAX is a TAX like any other.
Having thus raised the money, the Supreme Court said that Congress could, in its future discretion, spend that money for whatever Congress then judged to be the general welfare of the country. The Court held that Congress has no constitutional power to earmark or segregate certain kinds of tax proceeds for certain purposes, whether the purposes be farm-price supports, foreign aid or social security payments.
U.S. vs. Butler, 297 U.S. 1; Stewart Machine Company vs. Davis, 301 U.S, 548; Helvering vs. Davis, 301 U.S. 619.
Congress certainly has always treated it like a general purpose piggy bank while letting much of public believing it is all in a "trust fund". Actually it is but, the only assets in the fund are IOUs from the Federal government-----or actually IOUs from YOU and I as taxpayers. That make you feel secure?
Apologists for the SSA debacle like to point out that we actually just owe it to ourselves so it isn't really a "debt"--------feel better yet?
I'm sure our children and grandchildren and their children won't mind paying that "debt" for us---maybe future generations will pay for theirs-----LOL. Eventually that bubble will burst and the crisis will finally give some congress the will and courage to act. Makes Bernie Madoff look like a petty thief doesn't it?
Didn't even take a conspiracy to pull it off---just normal willingness of voters to believe that government benefits to them really are free---that "rich guy" behind the tree will pay for it all.