[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[kaz]

If I sued you for slander, you would have to provide evidence, in court, that what you said was true.

No he wouldn't, bonehead. You would have to prove that it was false. Furthermore you would have to prove that it caused you actual financial harm. You know less about the law than you know about climate.

I agree with the financial harm part. The other part is, once again, only what you want to be true.

The word that he very clearly stated to describe me has a very specific meaning. It would be up to him to show why it was not merely a slanderous lie.

1) First of all you mean libel, I didn't verbally call you a Marxist, I wrote it

2) I didn't say it to other people, I said it to you

3) If you would get off your lazy ass and learn to Google things before you demonstrate your ignorance and stupidity, a simple google search would show you that what I told you was correct. You have to prove it was false, it caused harm, and I either lied or wrote it with reckless indifference to the truth.

You are a Marxist and that it counters your agenda to turn us into a Marxist country isn't harm. What is the matter with you anyway? Seriously.

 

[Foxfyre]

And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.

Do you think government should approve CEOs? What about other executives? What about companies in general?

Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?

Give me an example of shareholders firing a CEO.

CEO's get fired all the time, dolt. The CEO of several of the corporations I have worked for were given the boot.

Yup. Except in the relatively rare cases of serious misconduct--think Enron or Madoff--CEO's are almost as vulnerable as NFL coaches--if they don't produce and keep the stockholders happy, they're out. With our very modest investment, I sure want those guys to make profits and keep attracting more shareholders because that keeps my investments healthy.

The only CEO that is not vulnerable is the one who holds all or at least a controlling share of the company stock and that is your average small to mid sized business owner. But if he doesn't turn a profit, he clobbers his own financial well being, so he has a lot of incentive to keep expenses in line as he provides products and/or services people will buy.

Unfortunately bureaucrats in government have no such incentive. The more they spend, they more they can expect to spend and the more they spend, the more important they are and the more money they can command. so there is zero emphasis on saving money and every effort made to spend every penny they get and find some way to ask for much more.

And Congress of course keeps itself in power by providing more and more free stuff to the people, so it has no incentive to keep expenses in line or reduce costs for government.

And all that results in what the self-serving and the idiots who worship them want to be the 'fair share' that the producers of the land will pay to keep the politicians and bureaucrats in power.

 

[kaz]

Obama was judged by we, the people, to be more worthy than any of the alternatives released from the Republican clown car.

He was judged by you the leaches to be a more effective meal ticket for people who want handouts of other people's money. Which is why you like him, he's the Marxist candidate.

 

[PMZ]

And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.

Do you think government should approve CEOs? What about other executives? What about companies in general?

Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?

Give me an example of shareholders firing a CEO.

Shareholders elect a board of directors and the board fires them. So every CEO who was ever fired was fired by the shareholders.

Shareholders vote according to the number of their shares. Talk about a rigged election.

That’s the Republican dream plutocracy. Everyone votes according to their wealth. As the top 1% has half of the wealth, those few would run the country and the world. The conservative wet dream.

 

[PMZ]

And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.

Do you think government should approve CEOs? What about other executives? What about companies in general?

Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?

I think for any country to prosper the citizens have to support solutions to national problems. Otherwise it descends into an Africa like warring of tribal interests.

Bush's policies left in their wake an untenable pile of debt. That's a national problem.

Corporations argued to the Supreme Court that they are citizens.

As citizens I think that they join us in being accountable for supporting solutions to this national problem.

What we, the people, can hold them accountable for is, actually, what is in their self interests. Grow. Build the GDP back to where deficits vanish and debt gets paid.

There are an infinite number of ways to do that, and frankly, if they were doing their jobs as business leaders, none of those solutions should be necessary. But they are not. Not the current set anyway.

It's the responsibility of we, the people, to manage our democracy.

Let's do it.

And it's the job of politicians to manipulate you into doing it for you, and they just look out for their own interest. You think W is the devil and Obama is our Messiah, and they are the same thing.

Capitalism, which just means economic freedom is how we the people manage our democracy. What you advocate leads to Communism, and you're taking us there fast. Which is what you want, except the word.

''Capitalism, which just means economic freedom is how we the people manage our democracy.''

Perfectly wrong.

Democracy is how we manage our capitalism. Business complies with our laws, not vice versa.

 

[kaz]

Give me an example of shareholders firing a CEO.

Shareholders elect a board of directors and the board fires them. So every CEO who was ever fired was fired by the shareholders.

Shareholders vote according to the number of their shares. Talk about a rigged election.

That’s the Republican dream plutocracy. Everyone votes according to their wealth. As the top 1% has half of the wealth, those few would run the country and the world. The conservative wet dream.

You don't know the difference between a business and government because you are a Marxist.

I'll throw you a bone. Foxfyre, Bipat, PMZ is a Marxist. There you go PMZ, one of the criteria was I had to say it to someone else, not you. Proving the truth is a lie is still going to be a bit tricky though.

 

[PMZ]

The bankers who downgraded the US debt and their primary justification was deficits and debt as a percent of GDP? The only reason liberalism exists is that you don't test your rhetoric against empirical data. If you did, liberalism would go the way of the dodo bird.

Is there a relevant point in here someplace?

Just that it blew your statement out of the water.

''The bankers who downgraded the US debt and their primary justification was deficits and debt as a percent of GDP?''

What's the answer to this question?

 

[bripat9643]

If I sued you for slander, you would have to provide evidence, in court, that what you said was true.

No he wouldn't, bonehead. You would have to prove that it was false. Furthermore you would have to prove that it caused you actual financial harm. You know less about the law than you know about climate.

I agree with the financial harm part. The other part is, once again, only what you want to be true.

The word that he very clearly stated to describe me has a very specific meaning. It would be up to him to show why it was not merely a slanderous lie.

Wrong, bonehead, it's up to you to prove he is lying.

 

[PMZ]

I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt. This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.

ROFL! The idea that any politician has any desire to pay down the debt is utterly hysterical. Were you born yesterday?

Clinton did.

 

[bripat9643]

Shareholders elect a board of directors and the board fires them. So every CEO who was ever fired was fired by the shareholders.

Shareholders vote according to the number of their shares. Talk about a rigged election.

That’s the Republican dream plutocracy. Everyone votes according to their wealth. As the top 1% has half of the wealth, those few would run the country and the world. The conservative wet dream.

You don't know the difference between a business and government because you are a Marxist.

I'll throw you a bone. Foxfyre, Bipat, PMZ is a Marxist. There you go PMZ, one of the criteria was I had to say it to someone else, not you. Proving the truth is a lie is still going to be a bit tricky though.

I also called him a Marxist, so he can sue the both of us.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt. This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.

ROFL! The idea that any politician has any desire to pay down the debt is utterly hysterical. Were you born yesterday?

Clinton did.

ROFL! Clinton benefited from the Peace Dividend, thanks to Reagan. He never tried to pay down the debt. He kept trying to increase it.

 

[kaz]

I think for any country to prosper the citizens have to support solutions to national problems. Otherwise it descends into an Africa like warring of tribal interests.

Bush's policies left in their wake an untenable pile of debt. That's a national problem.

Corporations argued to the Supreme Court that they are citizens.

As citizens I think that they join us in being accountable for supporting solutions to this national problem.

What we, the people, can hold them accountable for is, actually, what is in their self interests. Grow. Build the GDP back to where deficits vanish and debt gets paid.

There are an infinite number of ways to do that, and frankly, if they were doing their jobs as business leaders, none of those solutions should be necessary. But they are not. Not the current set anyway.

It's the responsibility of we, the people, to manage our democracy.

Let's do it.

And it's the job of politicians to manipulate you into doing it for you, and they just look out for their own interest. You think W is the devil and Obama is our Messiah, and they are the same thing.

Capitalism, which just means economic freedom is how we the people manage our democracy. What you advocate leads to Communism, and you're taking us there fast. Which is what you want, except the word.

''Capitalism, which just means economic freedom is how we the people manage our democracy.''

Perfectly wrong.

Democracy is how we manage our capitalism. Business complies with our laws, not vice versa.

Wrong.

In capitalism, people vote with their pocketbook. It's a true democracy because the majority make the decision of who wins and who fails. In capitalism, the minority are still free to "vote" their own picketbooks as they choose.

A democracy in government is a tyranny of the majority. The minority have no freedom to chose anything. Then when as you say the "democracy" manages the capitalism, they remove the choice of the minority. Like obamacare. And then you have no capitalism.

Again, why does the word Marxist bother you? You are clearly that.

 

[Foxfyre]

PMZ objects to those who built and finance the business having the right to vote what happens to that business. Imagine that. But he claims all this brilliant personal business experience--just as he claimed to be a brilliant scientist on the environmental threads. Amazing guy this PMZ. Quite a resume.

(Reminder. . . I still have that nice assortment of bridges to sell ya'll - sale prices this time of year.)

But some of ya'll are absolutely right. People like Obama get elected because they promise more free stuff than the other guy. He sure as hell didn't get elected on his resume, qualifications, or experience.

And most of those who vote for an Obama type don't WANT to be producers, but they sure as hell want what the producers have and some would even suggest that the producers have no control of any kind over their own businesses or the profits/wages they earn from them. And they want the ability to dictate to the producers what their 'Fair Share' of taxes is gonna be. Sounds pretty Marxist to me.

 

[PMZ]

Executives are normally paid by BOD compensation teams comprised of other executives on a quid pro quo basis. You reward me and I'll reward you.

And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.

Do you think government should approve CEOs? What about other executives? What about companies in general?

He actually does think the government should determine who should be a CEO. We already know he thinks the government should determine how much they get paid. Then he'll whine that he's not a Marxist.

Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?

That's exactly what a lot of so-called "progressives" have called for. The want the government to have the right to revoke a corporations charter any time the government decides it doesn't like what that corporation is doing. That is the ultimate in Fascism.

Do you believe that Bernie Madoff corporations should have been allowed to continue to operate?

 

[kaz]

I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt. This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.

ROFL! The idea that any politician has any desire to pay down the debt is utterly hysterical. Were you born yesterday?

Clinton did.

Actually under Clinton the debt went up every year. That's what happens when you give politicians blind trust. They lie to you...

 

[kaz]

And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.

Do you think government should approve CEOs? What about other executives? What about companies in general?

He actually does think the government should determine who should be a CEO. We already know he thinks the government should determine how much they get paid. Then he'll whine that he's not a Marxist.

Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?

That's exactly what a lot of so-called "progressives" have called for. The want the government to have the right to revoke a corporations charter any time the government decides it doesn't like what that corporation is doing. That is the ultimate in Fascism.

Do you believe that Bernie Madoff corporations should have been allowed to continue to operate?

How would that have been possible with him in jail and the money left distributed back to the people he swindled as happens in capitalism?

It's in fact your system that allows government and not consumers to pick winners by using money confiscated at the point of a gun to prop up losers.

 

[bripat9643]

And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.

Do you think government should approve CEOs? What about other executives? What about companies in general?

He actually does think the government should determine who should be a CEO. We already know he thinks the government should determine how much they get paid. Then he'll whine that he's not a Marxist.

Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?

That's exactly what a lot of so-called "progressives" have called for. The want the government to have the right to revoke a corporations charter any time the government decides it doesn't like what that corporation is doing. That is the ultimate in Fascism.

Do you believe that Bernie Madoff corporations should have been allowed to continue to operate?

Bernie Madoff broke the law by defrauding his customers. What Democrats are talking about his shutting down corporations simply because they make too much money in the eyes of Democrats, or because they make products Democrats don't like, like tobacco companies and oil companies.

 

[PMZ]

He actually does think the government should determine who should be a CEO. We already know he thinks the government should determine how much they get paid. Then he'll whine that he's not a Marxist.



That's exactly what a lot of so-called "progressives" have called for. The want the government to have the right to revoke a corporations charter any time the government decides it doesn't like what that corporation is doing. That is the ultimate in Fascism.

Do you believe that Bernie Madoff corporations should have been allowed to continue to operate?

Bernie Madoff broke the law by defrauding his customers. What Democrats are talking about his shutting down corporations simply because they make too much money in the eyes of Democrats, or because they make products Democrats don't like, like tobacco companies and oil companies.

What BriPat wants to be true. What he believes that he's entitled to have true.

Delusional.

 

[PMZ]

A good article about another one of our National problems that Republicans avoid as its inconvenient to have problems when you can't even imagine solutions.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalearcher/2013/09/04/could-americas-wealth-gap-lead-to-a-revolt/

 

[PMZ]

He actually does think the government should determine who should be a CEO. We already know he thinks the government should determine how much they get paid. Then he'll whine that he's not a Marxist.



That's exactly what a lot of so-called "progressives" have called for. The want the government to have the right to revoke a corporations charter any time the government decides it doesn't like what that corporation is doing. That is the ultimate in Fascism.

Do you believe that Bernie Madoff corporations should have been allowed to continue to operate?

How would that have been possible with him in jail and the money left distributed back to the people he swindled as happens in capitalism?

It's in fact your system that allows government and not consumers to pick winners by using money confiscated at the point of a gun to prop up losers.

Remember, my position that you are disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable for growth.

Has nothing to do with your pontificating about what others think.