Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Actually, nothing belongs to the government. But everything in this Nation belongs to We the People.CEO income doesn't belong to the government.
You're quite mistaken. The excessive wealth of the One Percent does indeed "come out of the pockets" of the Ninety Nine Percent -- as is plainly seen in the progression of income disparity during the past four decades since Reagan introduced supply side "trickle down" economics. The Nation's wealth has since been siphoned up and the steady increase in CEO pay, while wages have stagnated or declined and pensions are reduced or eliminated, is the evidence which is right before your eyes if you'd care to examine it.It doesn't come out of your pockets.
Because they are plainly excessive, which is detrimental to the overall health of the Nation's economy (obviously).Why would you want to "tame" the salaries of CEO's?
They produce nothing. It is the workers whom they exploit who produce those goods and services. The same workers who produced the same goods and services during the time before the right-wing revolution began (in the early 80s) and the inequitable upward redistribution of wealth commenced. There has been no change in productivity or quality. The only change has been in the distribution of profit -- and the damaged economy we are dealing with today is the consequence of that.They produce the goods and services that make your life more comfortable.
Those excesses need to be addressed, too. Two wrongs don't make a right.If you want to trim salaries why not start with Hollywood celebs in your socialist crusade? They contribute almost nothing to the economy and they flaunt their wealth.
That is another issue which needs to be addressed. It is another example of inequitable distribution of wealth which ultimately is harmful to the national economy. There is no question that sweeping reform is needed and it will take a political revolution such as occurred in the late 1930s to accomplish -- and swallowing the right-wing propaganda routine is in the way of that.If you want to consider something meaningful instead of parroting hypocritical socialist fools, start worrying about how government spends the money they actually take out of your pockets.
Yeah, sure. Because there are three or four "competing" monopolies that are all state sponsored, it's a fail. Would you feel better if I called it a state sponsored oligopoly? Split another couple of hairs. See what you can do to drag out the nondiscussion.
Yeah, we cleared that hair split up for you. Those companies ALL recieved federal bail out money, therefore, they are state sponsored. Being stupid is a horrible excuse for splitting hairs. Fannie and freddie are literally state sponsored. As in, they are backed by federal money and run with federal money.
You win Rabbi! Tell him what he has won, Jonnie!
Not a fucking thing and particularly not any more responses from the host.
Yes, it was state sponsored or it would not have needed a bail out. That is reality. GM, Fannie, Freddie, Monsanto, JP Morgan, BoA, Citigroup and a host of other state sponsored monopolies and oligopolies (happy now?) are well, state sponsored, numb nuts.
The problem isn't corporations it's government involvement in corporations in picking and choosing which ones will succeed (the ones most helpful to the govrernment) and which ones fail (the ones who refuse to pay off).
The people, the public now serves the government's interests instead of the government protecting the public's liberty.
People in poverty don't think about anything but survival. To me, I think a lot of conservatives forget that. They place high demands on "common folk" because they are able to see life different. Imagine a house fire, where you loose all your possessions. What would be on your mind then, the economy, politics? No food, shelter, etc.
The problem isn't corporations it's government involvement in corporations in picking and choosing which ones will succeed (the ones most helpful to the govrernment) and which ones fail (the ones who refuse to pay off).
The people, the public now serves the government's interests instead of the government protecting the public's liberty.
I'll tell you the same thing FDR told the conservatives back when they were saying this shit to him. You are full of shit! You have it backward. You don't understand if all the wealth goes to the top 1%, that will directly and negatively affect your liberty. You will become the rabble again. Tiny Tim. A Surf. Peasant. Working poor.
Yes, companies that manufacture in America and employ Americans are winners and companies that outsource to India or hire illegals are the losers.
The problem isn't corporations it's government involvement in corporations in picking and choosing which ones will succeed (the ones most helpful to the govrernment) and which ones fail (the ones who refuse to pay off).
The people, the public now serves the government's interests instead of the government protecting the public's liberty.
I'll tell you the same thing FDR told the conservatives back when they were saying this shit to him. You are full of shit! You have it backward. You don't understand if all the wealth goes to the top 1%, that will directly and negatively affect your liberty. You will become the rabble again. Tiny Tim. A Surf. Peasant. Working poor.
Yes, companies that manufacture in America and employ Americans are winners and companies that outsource to India or hire illegals are the losers.
You should care. Why? Because the exchange of capital for goods and services is what we call economic growth. If the average worker has less capital, he is reluctant to exchange that capital for the goods and services provided. If that reluctance spreads, the economy slows and fewer profits can be gleaned.Average workers are nothing special, who the fuck cares what they earn?
No, it isn't. The income tax was introduced as a way to make up the lost federal revenue due to the reduction in foreign tariffs.
No, they don't. They move the money offshore or they pay themselves in stock options.
Yeah, in the bizarro world. You don't know what you're talking about so just stop. Every cut in marginal tax rates has been followed by increased federal revenue and lower unemployment, all things being equal.
Wrong on all counts..
You saying I'm wrong doesn't make it true. Feel free to elaborate at any time.
Lehman Bros. Richard Fuld, $40 million.
Merrill Lynchs Stanley ONeal, $46 million.
Bear Stearns' James Cayne, $40 million.
Freddie Macs Richard Syron, just shy of $20 million.
Fannie Maes Daniel Mudd, $12.2 million.
As the nations financial system was crumbling, the CEOs who were in charge of the most troubled financial firms pocketed fat paychecks during their final full year on the job and that doesnt include the golden parachutes they got when they walked away.
Public outrage over this disconnect has caused Congress to step in and try to do something about skyrocketing executive compensation. But history shows that government attempts have been weak, at best, when it comes to curtailing CEO riches.
Why? Because regulators never go far enough in giving shareholders a true voice. Its difficult to break up entrenched boards of directors that make the decisions on executive compensation.
Even the $700 billion bailout package that is fighting for life on Capitol Hill doesnt have the teeth to put a lid on these financial windfalls, experts say.
Over the past two decades, efforts by government officials to rein in the big payouts, including changes to the tax code and calls for more oversight, have actually contributed to the growth in CEO pay now 275 times the salary of the average working stiff, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
Government regulators are notoriously ineffective at reining in pay, and oftentimes the unintended consequences caused greater problems, says Charles Elson, an expert on corporate governance at the University of Delaware.
Lets go back to the mid-1980s when the public also was outraged about executives getting huge payouts as a result of the merger mania at the time. The government and investors wanted to make sure managers were selling companies because it was financially prudent, not because they would walk away with huge severance packages.
These concerns resulted in a 1986 change in the tax code creating a penalty tax on excessive golden parachute payments more than three times an executive's base pay.
What happened after that, says Steve Van Putten, a senior executive pay consultant for Watson Wyatt in Boston, was that companies started paying this penalty tax for executives, a process called grossing up. And the three-times base pay limit became the standard for many parachutes that were once well below that.
In 1992, the Securities and Exchange Commission introduced proxy disclosure rules taking information about executive compensation that was once narrative and thin on numerical values, and putting actual numbers out there for all to see.
It became very transparent, and a CEO at one company could see what another was making so theyd say, Hey, I want to be making that, says Van Putten.
The big change one that many compensation experts and shareholder advocates point to as a turning point that led to the obscene CEO paychecks were dealing with today came in 1993 with tax code provision 162(m) that limited tax deductibility for executive pay at $1 million. The exception to the rule was for pay that was considered performance-based compensation, like, you guessed it, stock options.
As a result, stock options have gone crazy, says Mel Fugate, assistant management professor at the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University. Under the rule, for example, a CEO could get $1 million in base pay and $400 million in stock options.
This focus on stock options created a volatile mix, boosting incentives for executives to make risky business moves in order to boost a companys stock price.
Thats exactly what has happened with the subprime mess that led to the downfall of so many old and established Wall Street firms.
Certainly, compensation practices at these companies have been a major contributor to the financial crisis, says Paul Hodgson, a senior analyst at the Corporate Library, an independent governance research organization.
Alas, government intervention thus far has been an unmitigated disaster, adds Alan Johnson, a compensation consultant. I would think if you went back 20 years or so, youd see its enriched consultants like me, lawyers, accountants. It was wasted time and money and didnt reduce pay. It was so poorly designed, so full of loopholes, and so silly.
So, what needs to be done to finally clamp down on CEO pay and incentives that encourage short-term gains, but do little for the long-term health of the nations corporations?
Can wild CEO pay be tamed? Probably not - Economy in Turmoil - MSNBC.com
You should care. Why? Because the exchange of capital for goods and services is what we call economic growth. If the average worker has less capital, he is reluctant to exchange that capital for the goods and services provided. If that reluctance spreads, the economy slows and fewer profits can be gleaned.Average workers are nothing special, who the fuck cares what they earn?
Consumer spending drives the economy. Consumer spending drives demand. Demand creates jobs.
Plus, aren't you an average worker?
Wrong on all counts..
You saying I'm wrong doesn't make it true. Feel free to elaborate at any time.
1. You have a problem with English..or the written form. I was referring to the Progressive Tax..and not just income tax.
Progressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. That wasn't the case from 1950 - 1980. That only happened after 1980 when taxes for the top tier were cut. And went into overdrive after 2000..when taxes were again cut. Over 50,000 manufacturing plants were closed during the Bush administration.
3. Total bullshit. What happened after 2000 was George W. Bush cut the interest rates to fuel a housing bubble. This staggered UE..but eventually burst. Bush's economy blew up in 2008...as expected.
1. You have a problem with English..or the written form. I was referring to the Progressive Tax..and not just income tax.
Progressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. That wasn't the case from 1950 - 1980. That only happened after 1980 when taxes for the top tier were cut. And went into overdrive after 2000..when taxes were again cut. Over 50,000 manufacturing plants were closed during the Bush administration.
3. Total bullshit. What happened after 2000 was George W. Bush cut the interest rates to fuel a housing bubble. This staggered UE..but eventually burst. Bush's economy blew up in 2008...as expected.
Average workers are nothing special, who the fuck cares what they earn?
A true Republican through and through. Believe it or not, I love it when you are honest. I especially love your signature line. ****** this and ****** that. Even quoting hearsay is OK because it gives you the opportunity to say "******" multiple times. You are a very, very good member of the Republican Party in very, very good standing. Congrats.
