Trueisms

[Ronkh]

"don't hate the player, hate the game". until a fair tax plan is developed, people and corporations will use whatever "legal" write-offs they can to keep more of their own money and there are a ton of write-offs if you can wade through the ridiculous amount of irs codes. of course, the politicians who write the codes always win.

That's an oversimplification. Corporations are run by people; people can choose to have morals, ethics and values. Corporations can choose not to employ lobbyists to create and exploit loopholes in the tax code. If the sole purpose of corporation or company is to generate revenue, we now live in a pretty sad world. I don't think the Wright Brothers invented an airplane for the sole purpose of generating revenue. I don't think a @#$%ing MBA ever invented anything.

Your whole argument is a huge cop-out; corporations are started by people--people who are inventors, visionaries, pioneers, entrepreneurs. Sure there was a profit motive, but it wasn't their ONLY motive--they left that to the MBA CEO's who run them now.

I agree with you.. Inventors, visionaries, pioneers, and entrepreneurs started many of the big corporations and someone else (i.e... a bean counter) ends up running them later. This is sad but it is real.

I experienced it firsthand. I used to work for a company that went from being privately held to publicly traded. The founder was well respected by all. Stories of how he personally help his employees were abound. He once flipped a hospital bill for an employee when he found out he couldn't afford it. The founder was a hippie from the 70s and community activism was always a priority. All that changed....once the company went public. A few years back, the board of directors removed him as the CEO and installed a wall-street type. Can you imagine being fired from a company that you created/started....

Once the "Bean counters" takes over...everything boils down to (seems to IMO) $$$.

Perfect. Sorta like the Investment bankers on Wall St, telling Olive Garden to stop the all you can eat bread sticks

 

[Swanicyouth]

The majority of the jobs are not created in the USA. Manufacturing in another country may not be by itself wrong but the huge exodus of jobs as corporate profits have soared (all the trickle down working somewhere else) has left us with a workforce, many without needed skills, without decent paying jobs.

We do need entitlement reform but the benefits of the improving economy have not reach all yet to reduce the impact on social programs (welfare, food stamps).

This country manufactured "stuff" before all these entitlements started. If half the people in this country weren't receiving some type of "entitlement" (love that term), there would be more competition for jobs - and costs of labor would probably go down. In fact, you could probably actually make something in this country.

The problem IMHO isn't an economic one - it's a mentality problem. There are huge clumps of cities in America where nobody works. There are government programs for medical care, food, and housing. The government is there to see nobody goes without. Well, maybe if people are in fear of "going without" they would get a damn job.

IMHO the only way to fix it is to cut them off. The labor force would increase, new workers would have earned dollars to spend and pay more taxes - and the economy would be stimulated. New jobs would be created.

How did this all work 100 years ago before all these BS entitlement programs??? Those who worked ate - those that didn't - didn't. It was pretty simple. America manufactured all types of goods. Now we make nothing and a large portion of our population sits at home each day waiting for a government check.

 

[MooreImpressive]

Thanks, Ron. Another one of those guys who have tons of complaints, but not a single REALISTIC solution. just mad at the world. nobody could ever do right enough for these people.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

This country manufactured "stuff" before all these entitlements started. If half the people in this country weren't receiving some type of "entitlement" (love that term), there would be more competition for jobs - and costs of labor would probably go down. In fact, you could probably actually make something in this country.

With all due respect, you are too young to know what you are talking about. And the whole "47%" is such a specious argument, you know that includes people who are retired (or not retired) and collecting social security, right? Are you going to begrudge your parents (and Ron) their social security? Or aren't your parents old enough to collect social security? I guess if they are they are just "takers", right?

 

[Setec Astronomy]

Partially correct, mostly wrong....

Explannation = CEO's have a fiduciary responsibility to their stock holders. Therefore, if they didn't do all they could to be more profitable, they could be fired, sued and worse.

Thanks Ron, for straightening me out! BTW, CEO's always had that responsibility, but they weren't always dicks. Now go back to watching Fox News.

 

[MooreImpressive]

Setec has been living on Planet Earth. Ron is still in fantasy land. good luck, Ron. its a cruel world, understand it and change, or you'll get left behind. I didn't make the rules, I just get them.

 

[Paul Mitchell]

Does anybody know what the percentage is when you factor out social security and medicare? Those people, including me, should not be included as we earned those "entitlements" as we paid into the system for many years.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

Does anybody know what the percentage is when you factor out social security and medicare? Those people, including me, should not be included as we earned those "entitlements" as we paid into the system for many years.

Exactly--I was looking that up, it's very easy to find: Monthly Statistical Snapshot, April 2015

So, just taking the over 65 retirees, that's ~13% of the population--Population Clock

That doesn't include the people that are on Social Security Disability--since they are "takers"

The thing that I can't find is how many of those 47% "takers" are on military pensions or on military disability--because those guys that got their legs blown off in Iraq and are collecting government disability--they're the worst takers there are, right? And those career military guys--30 years and they're collecting a pension??? Takers! And what about those retired FBI and federal marshals and DEA--where is Fox News exposing these takers! And the retired CIA--that's not like a real job, is it? I think they can sit around doing nothing, because it's all "classified", that's just a ruse so I can't tell where my tax dollars are going! Oh, and what about those mailmen? Sure, they privatized the post office--but what about before then? All those mailmen sitting around collecting government pensions and just to add insult to injury, some poor sap has to deliver mail to them--but he'll never get a government pension!

You guys convinced me--everything would be fine if it wasn't for all those takers who never gave ANYTHING to this country--that are all on the government dole...

EDIT: And while I'm on a roll, Swanic, you work in a pharmacy--did it ever occur to you that the people you interact with are disproportionately on "government assistance" because they are old (retired) and disabled? I'd be willing to bet the percentage of pharmacy customers that are on government assistance is a lot higher than the general population--because people who are on Medicare or disability are a lot more likely to need medication than the general population.

 

[Swanicyouth]

With all due respect, you are too young to know what you are talking about. And the whole "47%" is such a specious argument, you know that includes people who are retired (or not retired) and collecting social security, right? Are you going to begrudge your parents (and Ron) their social security? Or aren't your parents old enough to collect social security? I guess if they are they are just "takers", right?

This is great. I'm too young to know what I'm talking about??? Start talking about cutting entitlements and making people work to earn money and right away we're starving senior citizens. Seriously? You have to know that's not where I'm implying the abuses lie.

EDIT: And while I'm on a roll, Swanic, you work in a pharmacy--did it ever occur to you that the people you interact with are disproportionately on "government assistance" because they are old (retired) and disabled? I'd be willing to bet the percentage of pharmacy customers that are on government assistance is a lot higher than the general population--because people who are on Medicare or disability are a lot more likely to need medication than the general population.

Lolz. Too rich. Most people on "government assistance" I deal with aren't disabled or "old". By "government assistance" I'm talking about Medicaid - not Medicare. I'm not implying or stating retired Medicare recipients should be cut. In fact, IMHO, I think Medicare benefits should be increased. I deal with people who have worked their whole lives, retired, only to have to spend 50%+ of their monthly income on medication - that's AFTER Medicare.

I don't think ANYONE wants senior starving or going without medical care. On the other hand, there is a massive amount of our population out there who are young healthy eaters who choose not to work. I'm not sure why your trying to lump these people in with the retired - but obviously it's not the same population.... While they can't seem to work for some reason or other, they seem to be able to figure out how to reproduce quite readily.

 

[Bunky]

How did this all work 100 years ago before all these BS entitlement programs??? Those who worked ate - those that didn't - didn't. It was pretty simple. America manufactured all types of goods. Now we make nothing and a large portion of our population sits at home each day waiting for a government check.

I do not consider both completely related. The exodus of jobs with the disparity growing between rich and poor is not good for the country. It is not all because they are all lazy. Some of these pockets were created by the government by discriminatory housing laws helped by banks for years after being declared illegal. Years ago we were more agricultural based so many could self-subsist but much less so today.

I think we need to get people educated for the jobs of the future - not the past. The majority of the manufacturing jobs are gone and not coming back. College is too expensive -- another racket like health care.

 

[Bunky]

Does anybody know what the percentage is when you factor out social security and medicare? Those people, including me, should not be included as we earned those "entitlements" as we paid into the system for many years.

I had posted this a while back on the stats about people "living" off the government.

151 Million people getting a benefit (2011 data)

49 Mil Social security - you pay directly for this

85 Mil Medicaid

46 Mil Medicare - you pay directly for this

49 Mil Food stamps

23 Mil WIC

20 Mil SSI

13 Mil in subsidized housing

5 Mil getting unemployment - paid mostly by employment taxe

 

[trashmanssd]

you know how that makes me feel.

 

[Ronkh]

As far as the quoted stats go, I assume they are correct. They really don't show anything as far as this discussion goes.

The fact that was trying to be made is of those receiving those funds, how many really "need" them? Truly need them..... And I am not talking about SS or Medicare, since those are government mandated savings accounts. But with the SS discussion, SS really needs an overhaul as far as age/$$$ disbursement. A discussion that no politician wants to have, because even though it is necessary, the people that have paid into have every right to be looking forward to it.

Now to comment on Swanic's comment on we don't manufacture anything, he is substantially correct. This shift was directly caused by giving China "most favorite trade" status.
(blame Clinton or Nixon as you wish) Exacerbated by the fact that with our tax code we are not competitive.


Next on the list = CEO/MBA
Impressive, you say you run your own business, so even if not a corp, you are the ceo, so you are lumped into the category as you stated above. Do you not take care of your employees? Do you try to keep your business expenses as low as you can? Do you not pay taxes as prescribed by the agencies of jurisdiction? Then you are guilty of what you said above.
MBA's Most of em I have met have no idea how to run a business.

 

[JSFM35X]

Running a Small-to medium sized business in the USA is not easy. Regulations, healthcare and other expenses are a huge cost. Employees get paid regularly and many times the bosses are the ones who go without until cash flow is sufficient for them to get paid. Cheaper items from abroad have had a profound effect on our business and its frustrating. We provide excellent benefits to attract the best employees in every class from driver, warehouse, office and sales support. We then must figure out how to compete with cheap labor form overseas. We have become more efficient and dropped out margins but its still a struggle daily.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

This is great. I'm too young to know what I'm talking about??? Start talking about cutting entitlements and making people work to earn money and right away we're starving senior citizens. Seriously? You have to know that's not where I'm implying the abuses lie.

I think you're too young to understand what a functioning economy looks like. What we have now isn't--where people who work at banks are part of the "financial industry"--wtf? Pushing money around isn't an "industry", it doesn't make anything except money for the pushers. Back before you remember, those condos you live in were probably a farm or a manufacturing plant, where people produced something of importance, like food or tools, where people could have worthwhile jobs and make a decent living and not be "takers". If you ask me the "takers" are the 1%-ers who "took" everyone's jobs to Mexico or China.

there is a massive amount of our population out there who are young healthy eaters who choose not to work.

"Massive"...lolz. You accuse me of conflating welfare with retirement, so I'm accusing you of conflating a few bad apples with the rest of the bushel, and throwing in a racial subtext on top of it.

 

[Ronkh]

So in over an hour since my post, nobody arguing with me on my points.

That means either I convinced everyone that I am correct, or people don't want to argue with a fool....................................

hmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[Ronkh]

"Massive"...lolz. You accuse me of conflating welfare with retirement, so I'm accusing you of conflating a few bad apples with the rest of the bushel, and throwing in a racial subtext on top of it.

Racial sub text ???

One of the two of us need new glasses

 

[Setec Astronomy]

Now to comment on Swanic's comment on we don't manufacture anything, he is substantially correct. This shift was directly caused by giving China "most favorite trade" status.
(blame Clinton or Nixon as you wish) Exacerbated by the fact that with our tax code we are not competitive.

C'mon Ron, that's a bunch of crap, there are no Chinese brands in the US--name one. It was the American executives that saw a way to finally screw the unions by having products made in China, and once enough companies did that, the remaining companies didn't have any choice but to do the same. The Chinese didn't do this to us, we did it to ourselves. What I'm saying is that whatever got opened up as far as trade status, no Chinese companies sent their products into our market, it was our companies that went to China to have their stuff made. It was a CHOICE that American companies made, and it was really the checkmate in the labor/union game.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

Racial sub text ???

One of the two of us need new glasses

This isn't the first time Swanic has complained about his customers--everything has a racial subtext, doesn't it? We live in the post-racial country, but we seem to have an awful lot of problems with people that are a different religion or color or speak with a funny accent--we even have a lot of problems with people that support different political parties, eh?

 

[Angus]

It was the American executives that saw a way to finally screw the unions by having products made in China, and once enough companies did that, the remaining companies didn't have any choice but to do the same. The Chinese didn't do this to us, we did it to ourselves. What I'm saying is that whatever got opened up as far as trade status, no Chinese companies sent their products into our market, it was our companies that went to China to have their stuff made. It was a CHOICE that American companies made, and it was really the checkmate in the labor/union game.

Couldn't agree more. This is the sad reality we brought onto ourselves.