If Re-Elected Bush plans to initiate draft in 2k5??

Casey said:

CEO's and etc. salaries should be capped. Fuck them and their million dollar Christmas bonuses and hiding all their money in the Caymen Islands just to fuck Unky Sam. True patriots pay US taxes.

Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely! Fuck free enterprise and our whole economic system. Who needs private business ownership free of governmental control anyway...I mean really, what the fuck has it done for us to this point? OH YEAH- IT'S MADE US THE WEALTHIEST NATION ON THE PLANET. But on the other hand, you do make a good point... look at what your economic philosophy has done for the Soviet Union...oops, bad example- THEY COLLAPSED. And before you say, "It's made George Bush, Bill Gates, the Kennedys rich, but not me..." compare your standard of living to that of citizens of other nation. Typical liberal, you take everything for granted.

Casey said:

Oh and Fuck Tax Shelters, thats where companies lower their quarterly profits by hiding money in legal tax shelters (approved by dicks in Congress) and avoid taxes.

Click to expand...

Again, see above. Come on, who's money is it anyway? Do these companies really think that just because they invest in capital, research, development, production, distribution, marketing, etc. that they are entitled to make any money? Fuck'em!! Tax the shit out of them so that taxes make any proftits negligible and they sell out to foreign corporations...who aren't subject to our tax laws. Why the fuck should the government allow our money to stay in private hands in the U.S. when we can either confiscate it for the government/good of all or drive it into the hands of foreign businesses- that beats having an elite class...yes Communism, it worked so well for the Soviet Union... it sent a whole fucking nation down the economic tubes.

Casey said:

In Bush's America, the burden of Tax is being further shifted on the working middle income class, and taken off the wealthy investor class. Thats a fact, and you can bitch all you want about consumer prices, b/c I'd rather pay 5 cents more for shit at Wal-Mart if it means the rich dont just get richer and poor get poorer.

Read Perfectly Legal by David Cay Johnston.http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...002-2732889-9645652?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Click to expand...

sili me. I guess I just thought my wife and paid less in taxes last year than during the tax-happy Clinton years. And we are smack dab in the middle of the middle class. You don't mind paying 5 cents more at Wal-Mart (I assume you mean in taxes, because we wouldn't want the Walton family to make any more money off the company their father built from the ground up)? You talk about hitting the middle to lower/middle classes with taxes...who the fuck do you think shops at Wal-Mart? George Bush? Man, you have all the answers don't you?

If you really want to talk about how taxes affect people, you need to talk proportional impact. That 5 cent tax you propose hits the lower class the hardest because 5 cents is a greater proportion of their income than it it is of Bill Gates income; it's simple economic fact- people only buy so much shit, regardless of income.

Casey said:

I'd rather pay 5 cents more for shit at Wal-Mart if it means the rich dont just get richer and poor get poorer.

Click to expand...

Yes, in a perfect Communist society we are all equal...just like in Cuba, right?

I think if a company is laying off 1000 people, or whatever, then the CEO's shouldnt be able to turn right around and increase their vacation package to include a million dollar trip to Hawaii. Thats should be a clause that benefits everyone.

I read somewhere that the average CEO's salary w/o benefits is some 100+ million dollars. And what the fuck do they really do? Not shit, just oversee the people below him at the meetings, and then fly back to thier mansion. All that is at expense to the company profits, the stockholders and the employees. Its like Congress voting on increasing their salary. Right now, thats fuckin unconstitutional.

Im all for people making money, what Im NOT for is people who got truckloads of money, lobbying Congress and receiving unfair tax cuts at the American people's expense. Do you know how much money gets pissed right down the toilet? Government waste and pork-barrel spending is at its highest.

Why should companies who make billion dollar annual profits, be receiving Corporate Welfare? We can protect the public w/o making this a equal socialist society. Typical of you to take the extremist Cuba comparison, just to show your ignorance.

Casey said:

Its like Congress voting on increasing their salary. Right now, thats fuckin unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

Actually that's explicitly Constitutional. Usually the liberals are the one screaming about the Right suspending the Constitution to suit their own agenda at certain times... but then double standards are nothing new to politics (on both sides).

Casey said:

Typical of you to take the extremist Cuba comparison, just to show your ignorance.

Click to expand...

Hey you laid the groundwork, I just filled in the blanks. I don't think I'm ignorant...I understood perfectly what you were saying. And in theory Communism works, but practically, as we can see, it's a dumb fucking idea. I would argue it is more ignorant to ignore history.

And Cuba is not an extremist comparison; FYI it is often cited by political scholars as the best functioning example of Communism the world has seen...Now that really makes the idea shine, don't it?

Casey said:

Oh and Fuck Tax Shelters, thats where companies lower their quarterly profits by hiding money in legal tax shelters (approved by dicks in Congress) and avoid taxes.

Click to expand...

Thats why I support FairTax/Flat Tax ideas. However, dont blame big corporations for taking advantage legally of what they can. Poor and middle class also have "tax shelters" and programs they can take advantage of if they have priorities. Or if you are working poor with kids you can get EIC and endup not only paying ZERO taxes, but making a profit/rebate tax time. Plus we have HOPenis Enlargement credits, IRA deductions,etc. I disagree with the system but whilke it exists I will work within it.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp

If ya read it on the internet then it must be true.

Texan, you state that history needs to be observed when regarding economics, so take your own advice. There are many other historical forces that contributed to America's wealth and power besides a free market. And study the actual logisitics of our economic system as well, it's always been partly socialist, as the founders intended, and it always will be. A certain degree of governmental control is essential in our system, it's really just certain minutia of how it's exercised at the federal level that Democrats and Republicans fight about.

Federal controls on the economy don't equal a closed or communist society, that entire system is far more complicated than just economic measures, and I believe you are aware of this. Market control and taxation does not equal a closed society or less deomocracy. So far as taxation on corporations, there seems to be this general conservative faith in business that they'll somehow pass along their savings to the working world if they aren't regulated. Multi-nationals don't answer to any higher authority than the bottom line and their own longevity, and this in and of itself is neither good nor bad. Blaming taxation, however, for outsourcing and corporate downsizing is a conclusion achieved mostly by intuition and assumption. The economy of the US is in a transitory phase as we shift to a mostly post-industrial model, and corporations will change the nature of their operation regardless. One of the largest flaws I see in economic theory from political conservatives is the stoic belief that things do not change over time.

The preferance of spending more for consumer goods or accepting higher taxation is not strictly economic. The bottom line is that the infrastructure of society must be paid for by taxation at some level - the argument lies in who pays how much because of what. Simplistic as the example may be, recall the original governing document of our nation, The Articles of The
Confederation. The new country nearly collapsed as they lacked the power to tax and control commerce between the states. Taxes are essential, at the household, consumer, and corporate level, ideally with a mixture, as we now operate. Many theorists and scholars far more learned and saavy than those of us in this forum advocate such a system. I think you would also agree, as a student of law, that it's quite oversimplified to suggest that being willing to spend more due to a belief in corporate taxation as consumer does not necessarily identify somebody as a liberal or wealthy. With a thorough review of the issues, I believe you might find that molly coddling of corporate entities by the government does little or nothing for the middle and lower classes while redistributing ever greater amounts of wealth to the upper percentile.

Finally, you may want to check up on some books regarding the effects of corporate taxation and regulation. One very fine MIT study was able to demonstrate emprically that environmental regulation and taxation on industry forced inovation and higher productivity, eventually raising the profits and efficiency of all the firms regulated. Without regulation and progressive attitudes in economics, the industrial backbone of the nation becomes a monolithic system vulnerable to any number of ailments.

Our country did survive for over a century and a quarter ( after the official formation of the "USA") without any direct tax on income [ which was of course unconstitutional, requiring the 16th Ammendment ( which much research has shown was probably not legally ratified)] So I dont buy the idea that an (income) tax is necessary.

Other than that, Swank, I enjoy reading your posts. I do have some disagreements, however it is obvious your perspective is one that is well-thought and more formed that most partisan bickering on this subject.

Another note: As far as regulation ,taxes,etc, I think (perhaps) your argument does not consider the impact that the market and competition would (does) have on prices, wages, innovation, productivity. You correctly noted the impact of regulation on spurring production and efficiency. I would argue that healthy market competition does the same. And I stand by my assertion that corporate taxes are most felt by the consumer. Here is one example. While a student, I am employed at an hourly wage that is comfortably above the minimum wage, yet not a lucrative one. If any of the following are raised- FICA, Worker's Comp, Minimum Wage- be assured that this will effectively hurt me from both ends. 1- My wage will be comparitively lower as it is likely minimum wage workers in my industry will receive raises while middle tier workers will not- basically bringing my wage down lower ( closer to minimum and into low wage area). Or in the case of raised withholding, my ability to receive a raise will be lowered as my employer has already been forced to pay more to keep me on. I know that you know this, Swank, but I doubt most people understand that employers match FICA, have to pay a % into Unemployment, Workers comp,etc. Plus if you have benefits thats another expense. The total cost of a worker is much more than his wage and regulation makes this an undue burden and makes it more difficult to retain certain workers. Of course another option for my employer is to keep me but layoff minimum wage employees( or vice versa) causing me to do more work for the same pay ( Hey, productivity!.. I guess if that's what you want ..with increased unemployment, but most left-socialists desire the opposite). Either way, my employer will be forced to raise prices to keepup with the cost increases. So not only will I earn less, my dollar will also buy less. Inflation combined with stagnant wages- How Fun!

Really, I think the argument is more a philosophical/moral one than a political one ( I am neither (D) nor (R), btw). You may be correct to provide support that certain regulation helps the economy. But you must ask " Is it right?" and "By what(/whose) right?). I think most of those who agree with me on this matter understand that the outcomes are irrelevant to the principle of the matter. Perhaps, I could conduct a trial/study that determines that publicy shooting one employee per month increases worker productivity and wages. SHould we make this a law? I know of course, this may seem stretching things for impact ( what, how could you compare killing someone to legally stealing from them?). But really when one has a moral code and hierarchy of values, there is no room for pragmatism that is in direct oppostition to what is right.

Swank and Big, you both have good things to say. The point to my post was simply that what Casey suggested closely resembled Communism (his disdain for the elite, share the wealth via government redisribution philosophy), and the government telling private business owners how they can spend their revenues is contrary to what this country represents. My comments on observing history pertained only to the examples of communist regimes and their economic failures. I do not deny a certain amount of Socialist tint to our National economy, but you know as well as I that Socialism and Communism are horses of two different colors.

Anyway, I appreciate the well reasoned input. Big, I agree that economics is much more about philosophy than politics, although sometimes that is hard to see.

Best-

You both make a strong case (both law students eh?)

Indeed, those associates of mine that lean towards the Libertarian camp have often shown me that there truly is no legal grounding for an income tax. The argument against this is that our government is mixture of formal script and traditionalism more than strict interpretationists would like to admit. I do find the dubious necessity of the income tax interesting though, my actual knowledge of economics is such that I coulnd't really comment, though it is quite intriguing.

You both touch on the main point, which is that economics is a notoriously flaky field. Getting two economists to agree on much of anything is a tall order. At best econ is a complicated and fairly reliable system of pattern recognition from which we can project some modest predictions and estimates. The theory of how economies ought to be run and integrated with in society stems from our moral and social agendas.

With this in mind, I suppose my own ideas about where the government plays a role in economics is based in my ideas about the potential of the US to be a land of the greatest opportunity and freedom. My personal sense of fairness, admittedly rooted in intuition and attitude more than any seriou soul searching, bids that I support whatever system keeps teh greatest number of people in good straights. In this way I would expect the wealthy and the nameless (corporations) to take on a tax burden, as the quality of their lives is affected less in proportion to the poorer amongst us. The poor are more apt to endure suffering as economic penalties deplete what little wealth they have been able to accumulate. In theory this keeps them poor as their children have less access, limiting their chances for success (apologies for the abstraction of this).

Of course, it is unrealistic to suggest that society will not always be stratified . There will always be haves and have nots in a market economy. I would propose that heavily taxing those who have the very most for the benefit of those with hardly any isn't a true compromise of freedom, but in fact it is, as are nearly all taxes. The Tom Clancy fans seem to love the slogan 'freedom isn't free,' which I obviously lean towards, but in reality any capitulation to the state is compromise. So, as you both said much mroe succinctly, it's far mroe of a moral and philosophical debate. I admire the personal responsibility and gusto of the Libertarian view of all this, but there is a certain humanist and interpretational concepts about the proper role of governance and the social contract that sway me in the other direction as well. Personal responsibility and a Darwinian model of society appeal to me intellectually, but my only cursory pondering on the matter lead me to believe that the full application of such ideas is one of the concepts that thrives on the printed page but vaporizes in application.

That is not to say I have any qualification to really say so, more just an impression. Ultimately I still subscribe to the synthesis of approach as we can best mold it our needs. Things need neither be fully in one camp or another, and given the highly contended accuracy of any set economic approaches, which in practice I all find ridiculous given the constantly changing variables of economies, perhaps leaving the theory and practice maliable to the circumstances is our best bet. The best and worst approach may ebb and flow too fast for us to ever secure a hold on either.

Bush's economic plans are irresponsible, b/c in the end, all the growth is at the expense of cutting social programs, larger tax cuts for citizens at the higher end of the wealth spectrum, and Huge Federal Deficits.

I guess there will always be sheep that believe everything they read in the distorted liberal media. Too bad some folks can't think for themselves and/or read ALL the information, before they blindly follow the pied piper at the head of the liberal party.

Casey said:

Bush's economic plans are irresponsible, b/c in the end, all the growth is at the expense of cutting social programs, larger tax cuts for citizens at the higher end of the wealth spectrum, and Huge Federal Deficits.

Click to expand...

Even though I am a heartless libertarian, It is actually my belief that many social programs could be spared if government waste and beauracracy
were cut significantly. I am also not a fan of deficit spending.

I understand that a topic change is known as 'hijacking a thread,' but LevitraKid, show me a shred of evidence that the media has a liberal bias. I am aware of the Bernard Goldberg book. Frankly that's not very convincing, and he has been busted for using inaccurate and skewed statistics and leaving out key information in certain scenarios to emphasize his thesis. He offers mainly anecdotal griping and precious few hard facts to back up hhis claims. I might add that it is well documented that he holds a serious grudge towards his former employer as he his career more or less stalled out there.

And economics - Bush's economic s are horrible. I've only got a rough grasp of true economic principles and realities outside of the daily news rhetoric we all hear, but I know enough to read that most respected and compitent analysts are horrified by Bush's methods. It's what happens when we pick a failed and irresponsible businessman to take the lead for us.

BBNTB - I agree about government waste, it's a plague. It's also nearly iimpossible to stop as things operate right now. It's more or less buil tinto the system. Ideally political accountability and voting is supposed to be the cehck point for our insane decadence, but then we see how well that works.

Swank, we disagree on a lot, but you make for a fun discussion. It'd be fun to drink with you.

Swank said:

1. A draft is highly, highly unlikely.

Click to expand...

I completely agree.

2. We do take our freedoms for granted, but this doesn't justify a draft. Supra, for instance, enjoys his job by all description and is not made to do anything for our benefit. Firefighters and policeman keep you safe within your own country, free from the despotism of fire and crime. Do you feel service in those organizations should be manditory?

Click to expand...

No. I don't think mandatory military service should be required, except in the most dire of circumstances. Police and firefighters do have a rough job at many times, but I would still argue it's not a fair comparison of the life of a soldier. We're talking about guys that get paid 20K to dig a hole in the middle of the desert to sleep in, eat MREs for weeks on end, get four hours of sleep and no showers for god knows how long, and do it all again. Police and firefighters get a higher degree of compensation and are not asked to endure the same level of stress and hardship for the same number of hours. At any rate, if we had a drastic shortage, we would simply do the free market thing and offer a higher compensation to police and firefighters. More people would elect for military service if the compensation was higher, for that matter.

Bush is a terrible president. He's a mediocre man with very, very limited intellectual abilities.

Click to expand...

This is entirely opinion. It's obvious that you think he is a terrible President and there is no point in my saying he is not (I think he's mediocre), other than arguing the issues individually. As for his limited intellectual abilities, he's another James Stockdale, being a very poor, nervous speaker and not able to articulate his thoughts as well as many past Presidents. He has had good moments in the past. His speech to Congress about 10 days or so after 9/11 was one of the greatest speeches ever delivered by a President and I don't recall any nervous or stuttering delivery. Anyhow, I'll concede that point, but that doesn't carry over to intellectual ability. His academic history is more impressive than his previous opponent Al Gore, who I'd bet dollars to donuts you voted for. These criticisms of his intelligence could easily be summed up like you summed up the issue of liberal military weakness--as childish liberal propaganda.

He also dodged Vietnam in a very cowardly fashion for those of you so enthused about all things martial.

Click to expand...

Swank, you disappointed me on this one. That moveon.org/democraticunderground.com, Michael Moore garbage has been thoroughly debunked by pay records. Look, one could make a weak argument that joining the Guard is avoiding service, but Guard units routinely get called up for duty in the time of war. Then we find out Bush volunteered for missions in Vietnam.

One could blast Gore's Vietnam service. He had the audacity to say he served because if he didn't some other kid from Carthage, TN who have had to have gone. That's a joke, because he had his own little security force watching his head, due to being a Senator's son (which would happen with any Senator from any party). Because Al Gore served, another dozen kids had to go. Now, I'm not making a big issue of this. I've always felt, if you served, you served. It's relatively few that actually see the hardcore action on the frontline, but everyone plays a role. And to even make an issue of this, being that you praise Clinton so much is laughable, as his Vietnam record was disgraceful.

Somebody commented that the last democrat in office dismantled the military. Hmmm, this same military that we used to invade Iraq and Afghanistan so effectively? The army that allowed us to conquer a region in a few weeks that the Russians couldn't control in a decade of bloody combat?

Click to expand...

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is distorted in your argument. The Soviets were whipping the shit out of Afghanistan until we aided them.

Yes, you could argue that it is Clinton's military. It also has some Bush/Reagan carryover. It's not as if because Clinton cut the military budget we melted down the M-16s and the tanks. However, there were cuts in development, which will likely hurt us down the road. An incredible amount of technology came out of the money Reagan poured into research, compared to what we saw in the 90s.

The concept that liberals are militarily weak and won't protect their country is just childish conservative propaganda.

Click to expand...

World Trade Center 1993.
U.S.S. Cole.
Iraq in 1998.
African embassy bombings.

I'm done on this point. I can't continue to reflect on history and keep a straight face while reading your above statement.

For the last time, Iraq was not a major center of international terrorism and Hussein's government was not a terrorist booster. By all accounts it has some of the lowest concentrations of terrorists in that entire region of the world.

Click to expand...

It did have a low concentration of terrorist compared to some other countries, but an uncooperative government, whereas the Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians, etc. are supposedly trying to aide our campaign to find these individuals. Russian President Putin said Russian intelligence had knowledge of planned Iraqi attacks against the U.S. The Czechs stand by their account of Mohammed Atta meeting in Praque with a high-ranking official in Saddam's intelligence. All the major networks reported on this story in the days right after 9/11 then it was not heard from again, because our intelligence didn't take it seriously and missed it.

So far as the outsourced terrorists, I haven't even heard of this yet, but it's no secret Iraq had a full scale weapons program for years. Did they recently? After turning the country upside down searching, conducting tens of thousands of interviews, and confiscating nearly every available government PC, we can't find a shred of evidence to credibly support the claim. Open your eyes people . . .

Click to expand...

The outsourced nuke program was intercepted phone conversation between Khadafi and the North Koreans, where Khadafi commented that he was not going to bankrole Saddam's program, since Saddam had been captured. As for WMD, it is not hard to believe that we'll never find most of it, as it's easy to hide such things, in the grand scheme of things. There was one nuclear centrifuge that was only found because an Iraqi scientist disclosed that it was buried under a rosebush in his backyard. How much can we expect to find at that rate? In all likelihood, the WMD were moved to Syria. Am I seriously to believe that Hussein dismantled his program after there were no inspectors since 1998? Open your eyes people...

Boiling down the politics and horrors of the Balkans to a just a few thousand bodies of mixed ethnicities in holes (inaccurate statement by the way) is wrong for a lot of reasons, and it completely factors out the international and domestic political climates of the time.

Click to expand...

The political climate of the time, versus today, is that it was in France and Germany's backyard and they were not illegally taking oil bribes. The statement of the few thousand mixed ethnicity casualties is absolutely accurate specific of the Kosovo region. I am much less familiar with the details of Bosnia.

Do yourself a favor and pick up a book on the history fo the Balkans and see how you feel.

Click to expand...

I know the short history is that they've been fewding forever. I have a reasonable knowledge of the situation, though I'm not an expert. I have a close friend with many Serbian relatives and an aunt with a Croatian family that have informed me of their accounts of history. As for a book, I'd find it interesting, but I don't consider someone that has read more than I have to necessarily be an expert. We've got historians like Schlessenger and wannabes like Zinn offering opinions. Hell, even Michael Moore writes books, so the connection between writing and truth telling is hardly an absolute.

Additionally, we contributed to UN operations in the area and conducted a bombing campaign to depose a dictator. We didn't fly our flags under some kind of bizarre and constantly shifting 'manifest destiny' style agenda and invade the country.

Click to expand...

There was NOT a UN mandate. We didn't have one because Russia vowed to veto it. Even today, Putin (no friend to our Iraq campaign) blasts the American left for its hypocrisy on the Iraq issue. It was authorized by NATO. I find "manifest destiny" to be an interesting choice of words, given that we're giving partial control of Iraq to the interim government on June 30th. It took five years for us to turn over control of Germany after WWII and Nazi loyalists killed 5,000 of our soldiers AFTER Germany surrendered, and we didn't even have Islamic fundamentalism to deal with. No one questions the legitimacy of our post WWII actions.

Totally different scenarios, not valid for comparison in the slightest.

Click to expand...

Very similar. Quite valid for comparison.

Comparing Bush's foreign policy to Clinton's is like holding a candle next to a spotting light. One is far-reaching, practical, and effective; the other is old-fashioned, a bit dim, and if you take it too far out of it's prescribed element it's disappears and you're left in the dark.

Click to expand...

I'll give you that Bush has been a domestic disappointment, though we'd disagree on what grounds. However, his foreign policy has been remarkable. His "failure" to secure a coalition centered around two alleged allies, France and Germany, which were later found to be making illegal oil purchases at give-away prices. And I'm supposed to listen to people telling me that OUR actions were all for oil? It would be funny, but when I think about the fact that their votes count the same as mine, I find it sad.

Clinton's foreign policy was not the disaster of, say, Jimmy Carter, but it was appeasement based. Clinton bent-over and lubed too many times for my tastes. Look, this is a world of 200+ nations with a variety of personal interests. If you're liked by everyone, you're probably not doing things right.

For the record, on the occasion the I have the time, I find it fun to argue with opposing viewpoints such as that of Swank. I take all politics with a shaker of salt, not merely a grain. In my day-to-day optimistic life, I am a Republican because I see it as the lesser of two evils. However, I am hardly a Bush cheerleader. I think they're mostly all serving sinister motives. I am not in total agreement with, but most impressed by the political commentary of Alex Jones at www.infowars.com.

Casey said:

Oh yeah, your right, millionaires shouldnt pay any taxes. Its those fuckin middle income scHydromaxucks that are dragging the heels of America.

Gee there's a reason why they pay more taxes, They're fuckin MILLIONAIRES.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't suggest they should pay less, though I wouldn't mind a flat-tax system. I personally think corporate taxes should be virtually eliminated entirely, but would not have so much of a problem with a higher level of personal income tax on the wealthy, purely from an economic point of view. This way, millionaires could pool money into corporations which would create jobs. And, ultimately, it is millionaires that create jobs. To be blunt, hiring and layoff decisions are made in the boardroom, not in the trailer parks and ghettos. No one has the ability to open a business and hire anyone unless he has lots of money in his pocket.

Swank said:

If anybody is interested, over the last two decades the GOP has wildy outspend democrats and Bush has NEVER vetoed a spending bill. Financially Bush is reckless to the point of absurdity.

Click to expand...

I pretty much agree. Bush is basically a pro-war liberal with some belief in supply-side economics. His spending has been inexcusable, in my opinion. No serious political critic could make a convincing argument the guy even deserves the title "moderate". Those that consider him a right-wing radical conservative have just been filled with nonsense from the neo-communist, anti-American element and are really out in left field.

Swank said:

To the fellow who insists that government subsidation of corporations ought to spur them into giving their employees higher salaries, I'll just take it for granted you don't work in the corporate world my friend. The goal is to make money, not balance society by giving back what fair regulation has endowed your firm with . . . I would love to hear somebody sit in a board room and say "you know lads, let's take the profits we'll report this quarter, that we've recieved from massive kickbacks and deregulation, and just up teh salary of all our lower tiered employees a bit eh?"

Click to expand...

I actually work for a large corporation that doesn't pay its lower-tiered employees all that well. Actually, the entry-level pay is as good as anything on the market, but the promotions take an eternity. There is no room to move up. Anyhow, while they don't pay their employees exhorbatant salaries, I was flabberglasted to find out how much they donated to charity last year (over one billion dollars total).

Anyhow, your argument on the goal of making money is true. That is the ultimate goal. However, in a healthy and competitive economy, if I'm the man at the top I want the best people working for me. I'll do whatever I can to lure away talent from my competitors, and some of them will raise salaries to keep their talent. There is a human element here you cannot account for.

Casey said:

CEO's and etc. salaries should be capped. Fuck them and their million dollar Christmas bonuses and hiding all their money in the Caymen Islands just to fuck Unky Sam. True patriots pay US taxes.

Click to expand...

That would fly in the face of our Constitution. We have implied law and this nation was founded on the right to earn a buck. We do not need limits to earnings. The average CEO (this stat is a few years old) earns around $400,000, probably a little more right now. The $20 million guys are the exception to the rule. What does the law of averages tell us? There are a hell of a lot of CEOs making less than $400,000 out there.

I don't favor limiting income, as I view it an unAmerican. However, voice your displeasure with your wallet. I convinced my parents to switch their phone from AT&T a few years ago, because I read where the CEO gave himself a raise that pushed his salary to over $20M, while 20,000 workers had been laid-off. Take your business elsewhere and expose such things. It's easier than ever to do today with the internet.

Also, the CEO income versus workers income thing is often overexaggerated on the whole. Let's use the AT&T example. My greatest objection is that it sets a poor example company-wide for work ethic and morale. However $20,000,000 divided by $20,000 figures out to $1,000. So, if the CEO worked for free that year, he could have kept those workers on the payroll for about one more week. What I'm illustrating is that with companies that large, even the CEO's salary is a drop in the bucket. They could work for free and it wouldn't even begin to make a dying company profitable.

Sometimes there are circumstances outside anyone's control too. Recently, at a local steel mill, workers were laid-off and an executive was given a one million dollar raise in salary. The union had a field-day selling their union propaganda to the simpleton masses. Here is the reality: that executive had a more lucrative offer from a prospering company and it took one million dollars to retain him. The steel mill had filed for bankruptcy and the creditors made it a condition that they retain certain executive to keep from foreclosing. In other words, they would have foreclosed had this guy been lured away. Another example of how the unions often don't serve the "working man".

Thats a fact, and you can bitch all you want about consumer prices, b/c I'd rather pay 5 cents more for shit at Wal-Mart if it means the rich dont just get richer and poor get poorer.

Click to expand...

I could give a shit what the rich make, as long as there is opportunity for me. The rich have not been getting richer AND poor getting poorer. The gap has been growing during booming economies. Well, that is to be expected. Look, those people that spend their last bit of disposable income on canned beer and WWE pay-per-views, and bitch about having no gas to drive to work are losers in life. There are fundamental problems that start at, and never leave, home. Those people will live about the same both in boom and recession. However, the person that seizes opportunity will leave that person further behind during a period of great opportunity. However, it's not as if he actually did anything to make him "poorer".

Casey said:

I read somewhere that the average CEO's salary w/o benefits is some 100+ million dollars.

Click to expand...

That's just simply not true. My guess is that you read something about the top 10 or so CEOs and it probably counted all compensation including stock options, which we can thank Clinton for.

Why should companies who make billion dollar annual profits, be receiving Corporate Welfare?

Click to expand...

I completely agree with you on this matter.