What Is Wrong With America ?

[JoeB131]

[

Joe, what you're writing off in your calculation is the very real work off organizing and allocating labor and resources toward useful results. It's incredibly important work in fact. You can replace capitalists with government agents, but the work still needs to get done. And most countries who've tried to adopt a full socialist model have found that individuals motivated by profit are far more effective than bureaucrats or democratically elected officials.

I'm not writing it off, I'm just not giving it as big a number as it is currently being assigned.

Yes, I do think the CEO for McDonalds should be paid more than the kid flipping burgers.

I do not think that should be on the order of 8 figures.

I would also argue the whole "Business Efficient/Government Inefficient" meme.

I've worked for government entities that were damned efficient at what they did, and no one made eight figures.

I've worked for companies where the management paid themselves huge salaries, but very little back into the business, and then wondered why the company went out of business and why the employees were unmotivated.

 

[JoeB131]

Stop lying, that is not what Bain Capital did.

No, that's exactly how Bain Capital operated.

Look up KB Toys, AmPad, GS Steel, or any of the other companies Bain looted for a quick profit.

Those companies were going under anyway, they were too far gone. Bain eased the pain for their employees and shareholders.

Now, look up Staples and how Bain saved that company and turned it around.

Actually, all those companies were doing fine until Bain came in and started looted them.

Do some research.

Here's a good place to start.

Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital | Politics News | Rolling Stone

And this is where we get to the hypocrisy at the heart of Mitt Romney. Everyone knows that he is fantastically rich, having scored great success, the legend goes, as a "turnaround specialist," a shrewd financial operator who revived moribund companies as a high-priced consultant for a storied Wall Street private equity firm. But what most voters don't know is the way Mitt Romney actually made his fortune: by borrowing vast sums of money that other people were forced to pay back. This is the plain, stark reality that has somehow eluded America's top political journalists for two consecutive presidential campaigns: Mitt Romney is one of the greatest and most irresponsible debt creators of all time. In the past few decades, in fact, Romney has piled more debt onto more unsuspecting companies, written more gigantic checks that other people have to cover, than perhaps all but a handful of people on planet Earth.

 

[dcraelin]

Hey "dolt" - liberalism created the irresponsible debt in the first place. Don't create the fuck'n debt and you won't need to punish success!!! Don't reward failure with free housing, free food, free healthcare, free transportation, and free expense account and you won't have the debt in the first place moron...
And California currently sits at $70 billion in debt you uninformed buffoon. No wonder you're such a lapdog to your liberal masters - you choose to life your life as an uninformed useful idiot.

I dont think it was "liberalism" that created the debt, but cronyism. That is a problem in America at all levels of government, by both puppet parties. Welfare for the rich is a big problem, "economic development" is an excuse for graft.
California's debt problem is improving thanks, in part to Jerry Brown.

Oh, so now you've gone from "Jerry Brown saved California" to "it is improving". At least I was able to wake you up a little bit. Now if you'd just open your eyes the rest of the way and join the rest of us in reality.
California is a shit-hole sitting on a $70 billion debt. They are about to go bankrupt like Detroit.
As far as the debt, I agree with you 100% that there should be no "cronyism" and no "corporate welfare" (of which almost none actually exists - this is just an ignorant left-wing talking point passed down from the masters like Reid and Pelosi). We spend over $1 trillion per year on unconstitutional entitlements. Take those away and our national debt is paid off in full in only 17 years.
Left-wing communist reward the lazy with free food, fee housing, free healthcare, free transportation, and fat expense accounts created the debt. Period.

A little reading comprehension might help...JerryBrown saved it from BANKRUPTCY, its DEBT problem is improving, tho I suppose they could turn around and head into bankruptcy, but as I understand it their borrowing cost are going down.

I think Reid and Pelosi are about as guilty as any other politicians in handing out corporate welfare. The support for those entitlements at the time they were passed I think was enough to pass a constitutional amendment to allow them IF one was thought to be needed. The courts were overwhelmingly "conservative" and against most new deal programs and wouldn't have hesitated to strike down if they had thought the programs were unconstitutional.

You better quit banging your head like that, you might hurt yourself. Even the densest rocks can be broken.

 

[JoeB131]

[

"working folks" are receiving fair wages today, are you claiming that "working folks" like plumbers, carpenters, and electricians are not receiving fair wages today? If you are, I hope you look at the bil the next time you call a plumber to unclog your toilet.

Actually, last time I had a problem bad enough to call a plumber, his labor rates were pretty reasonable. Of course, I do most of my home improvement things myself or I call my brothers who are in the trades.

Let's not talk about the trades, though, guy. I mean those folks who make everyday life run and run effectively, and it isn't the guys in silk suits making 8 figures.

[
as to taxes, the 5% top earners are paying 70% of the federal income tax bill. the bottom 50% are paying nothing. Is that the "shared sacrifice" that obama talks about?

When the Rich have to eat their Dressage Horses, then I'll take their whining seriously.

Besides the fact that the income tax isn't the only tax paid. (Social Security and Medicare are Flat Taxes that are capped), the point is, the top 20% control 87% of the wealth. The bottom 40% control less than 1% of the wealth. And while they don't pay the income tax, they are paying state taxes,

 

[JoeB131]

[
Yeah, no doubt, because there's no way there's millions of people out there who have worked hard, stayed focused, sacrificed a bit, took a chance here and there, were smart and careful with their money and are now enjoying the benefits of those efforts. That would blow your whole jealous "you didn't earn that" schtick right out the freakin' window.

Cool. Hopefully that will make you feel a little better about yourself!

.

Well, I'm sure that there are some asshole who got rich, although I wouldn't call it a virtue.

I just don't think Spider-Boy is one of them. He comes off like he's about 15.

 

[dblack]

[

Joe, what you're writing off in your calculation is the very real work off organizing and allocating labor and resources toward useful results. It's incredibly important work in fact. You can replace capitalists with government agents, but the work still needs to get done. And most countries who've tried to adopt a full socialist model have found that individuals motivated by profit are far more effective than bureaucrats or democratically elected officials.

I'm not writing it off, I'm just not giving it as big a number as it is currently being assigned.

Sure, and we're all bound to have differing views on how big that should be. The question is, who makes the call? You? Government? Consumers?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Joe, what you're writing off in your calculation is the very real work off organizing and allocating labor and resources toward useful results. It's incredibly important work in fact. You can replace capitalists with government agents, but the work still needs to get done. And most countries who've tried to adopt a full socialist model have found that individuals motivated by profit are far more effective than bureaucrats or democratically elected officials.

I'm not writing it off, I'm just not giving it as big a number as it is currently being assigned.

Sure, and we're all bound to have differing views on how big that should be. The question is, who makes the call? You? Government? Consumers?

Well, it would be awesome if I did it, because I would be totally fair. But I have plans.

I think a combination of consumers and government would be best.

 

[dblack]

I'm not writing it off, I'm just not giving it as big a number as it is currently being assigned.

Sure, and we're all bound to have differing views on how big that should be. The question is, who makes the call? You? Government? Consumers?

Well, it would be awesome if I did it, because I would be totally fair. But I have plans.

I think a combination of consumers and government would be best.

So, sorta like ACA?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm not writing it off, I'm just not giving it as big a number as it is currently being assigned.

Sure, and we're all bound to have differing views on how big that should be. The question is, who makes the call? You? Government? Consumers?

Well, it would be awesome if I did it, because I would be totally fair. But I have plans.

I think a combination of consumers and government would be best.

Correct.

A pragmatic approach is always best, where private and public sectors complement each other – the former motivated by profit, the latter by the law and responsible governance, both functioning predicated on facts as to what is most likely to be efficient and successful, not blind, subjective, rigid fiscal dogma.

 

[dblack]

Sure, and we're all bound to have differing views on how big that should be. The question is, who makes the call? You? Government? Consumers?

Well, it would be awesome if I did it, because I would be totally fair. But I have plans.

I think a combination of consumers and government would be best.

Correct.

A pragmatic approach is always best, where private and public sectors complement each other – the former motivated by profit, the latter by the law and responsible governance, both functioning predicated on facts as to what is most likely to be efficient and successful, not blind, subjective, rigid fiscal dogma.

ie corporatism. Haven't we see enough to know how that works out?

 

[ABikerSailor]

What is wrong with America?

Too many whiny pessimists who constantly look for what is wrong instead of showing some balls and offering solutions.

Quick question......................how many problems have Chris Christie offered? He's shown a lot of problems (and shown some balls in the way he's attacked), but he's never really offered some solutions.

Personal opinion? I hope Christie has his ass handed to him, and suffers so much that he's never in politics again.

Leader of the RGA? I hope he goes away.

 

[Redfish]

[

"working folks" are receiving fair wages today, are you claiming that "working folks" like plumbers, carpenters, and electricians are not receiving fair wages today? If you are, I hope you look at the bil the next time you call a plumber to unclog your toilet.

Actually, last time I had a problem bad enough to call a plumber, his labor rates were pretty reasonable. Of course, I do most of my home improvement things myself or I call my brothers who are in the trades.

Let's not talk about the trades, though, guy. I mean those folks who make everyday life run and run effectively, and it isn't the guys in silk suits making 8 figures.

[
as to taxes, the 5% top earners are paying 70% of the federal income tax bill. the bottom 50% are paying nothing. Is that the "shared sacrifice" that obama talks about?

When the Rich have to eat their Dressage Horses, then I'll take their whining seriously.

Besides the fact that the income tax isn't the only tax paid. (Social Security and Medicare are Flat Taxes that are capped), the point is, the top 20% control 87% of the wealth. The bottom 40% control less than 1% of the wealth. And while they don't pay the income tax, they are paying state taxes,

I agree with you on one point, SS taxes should be collected on all income, not just the first 106K.

the rest of your post is either partisan bullshit or insane jealousy.

and why do you hate horses?

 

[rightwinger]

excellent post. 100% accurate.

No it's not. Because the unemployment isn't only Obama's unemployment (and I've raked Obama over the coals as much as anybody here). It's also House Republicans' fault. How about when Obama proposed small tax increases on the rich to pay for (badly needed) infrastructure jobs, and the Republicans shot it down ? That's just one example.

How about the fact that history has proven higher taxes means less jobs? So yes, the Republican's rightfully blocked Obama's "plan" which said the cure for cancer is adding more cancer cells....

Do you have any proof from history that higher taxes mean less jobs?
How do you explain the booming economy in the 50s despite a 90% upper tax rate?
How do you explain the economy crashing under Bush despite his slashing taxes?

 

[Redfish]

No it's not. Because the unemployment isn't only Obama's unemployment (and I've raked Obama over the coals as much as anybody here). It's also House Republicans' fault. How about when Obama proposed small tax increases on the rich to pay for (badly needed) infrastructure jobs, and the Republicans shot it down ? That's just one example.

How about the fact that history has proven higher taxes means less jobs? So yes, the Republican's rightfully blocked Obama's "plan" which said the cure for cancer is adding more cancer cells....

Do you have any proof from history that higher taxes mean less jobs?
How do you explain the booming economy in the 50s despite a 90% upper tax rate?
How do you explain the economy crashing under Bush despite his slashing taxes?

No one paid 90%. In those days there were thousands of exemptions and deductions.

Did you sleep through 9/11?

 

[JoeB131]

[

I agree with you on one point, SS taxes should be collected on all income, not just the first 106K.

the rest of your post is either partisan bullshit or insane jealousy.

and why do you hate horses?

I have nothing against horses. they are noble animals

Dressage Horses, on the other hand, are kind of emblematic of everything wrong with rich people. You take an animal that was designed to run, and you make it dance. And you pay millions of dollars for them, apparently.

Mitt Romney was a guy who claimed a $77,000 tax deduction for his Dressage Horsie and then wondered why most Americans just weren't seeing a vision. Here's a hint, Mitt. Most of us don't make enough to cover the tax dodge of your horse.

It's not an issue of jealousy, guy. it's a valid concern about letting people whose greed is a disease run the economy. We wouldn't let alcoholics run the beverage industry, we wouldn't let over-eaters run the agriculture, but we let people who are addicted to greed run the economy.

And we get the expected results.

 

[rightwinger]

How about the fact that history has proven higher taxes means less jobs? So yes, the Republican's rightfully blocked Obama's "plan" which said the cure for cancer is adding more cancer cells....

Do you have any proof from history that higher taxes mean less jobs?
How do you explain the booming economy in the 50s despite a 90% upper tax rate?
How do you explain the economy crashing under Bush despite his slashing taxes?

No one paid 90%. In those days there were thousands of exemptions and deductions.

Did you sleep through 9/11?

9/11 had nothing to do with the Great Bush Economic Collapse of 2008

 

[JoeB131]

[quo


No one paid 90%. In those days there were thousands of exemptions and deductions.

Did you sleep through 9/11?

Yes, there were a lot of deductions, but the top payers still paid around 48%, which was pretty reasonable.

As far as 9/11, yeah, that was bad, but Bush had exactly the wrong solution.

Cutting taxes might have made sense when Kennedy did it in 1962 to stimulate the economy, but it made no sense in 2001. the problem in 2001 was not a lack of capital, it was an overage of inventory because most companies had overproduced during the 1990's. Hense, they cut back on manufacturing until the inventories were used up.

Not that Conservatives are even making that argument anymore about tax cuts stimulating the economy being a good thing. No one buys that anymore. Now the argument is pitting the "earners" against the "takers". When in reality, the takers are usually people who worked hard all their lives and found the "earners" had looted their company's pension funds.

 

[P@triot]

No it's not. Because the unemployment isn't only Obama's unemployment (and I've raked Obama over the coals as much as anybody here). It's also House Republicans' fault. How about when Obama proposed small tax increases on the rich to pay for (badly needed) infrastructure jobs, and the Republicans shot it down ? That's just one example.

How about the fact that history has proven higher taxes means less jobs? So yes, the Republican's rightfully blocked Obama's "plan" which said the cure for cancer is adding more cancer cells....

Do you have any proof from history that higher taxes mean less jobs?
How do you explain the booming economy in the 50s despite a 90% upper tax rate?
How do you explain the economy crashing under Bush despite his slashing taxes?

I explain it with the fact that everything you just stated never happened. If you would actually research facts instead of turning to your liberal propaganda "comfort food" you would know this.

“Democrats defend high tax rates on the basis of the rates in the mid-twentieth century.18 But that’s another distortion. It is true that FDR raised the top rate in 1935 to 79 percent. But what we never hear is that it only applied to incomes over $5 million—the equivalent of $76,000,000 per year today. In 1935 only one man in the entire U.S.A. paid a penny at that rate—John D. Rockefeller.19 The reality is that from 1935 through the 1970s the highest tax rates did pass 70 percent, 80 percent, and for a time even 90 percent, but those rates were aimed only at billionaire industrialists, not small business owners. Only a handful of taxpayers in America ever paid the top rates.2”

Excerpt From: Wayne Allyn Root. “The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide.” Regnery Publishing, 2013-03-26. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/ultimate-obama-survival-guide/id601965000?mt=11

You get that chief? Only one man ever paid that rate. But hey - keep up with your "taxing everyone 90% is a good thing" fallacy. It's done wonders in the Obama economy (which has seen 10% unemployment at the longest rate of above 8% unemployment in U.S. history).

By the way - Obama (and Clinton) collapsed the U.S. economy. Under Bush, the highest unemployment ever hit was 7.2% - and that was only for a couple of months. Obama created 10% unemployment (thanks in part to Clinton collapsing the housing market).

 

[rightwinger]

How about the fact that history has proven higher taxes means less jobs? So yes, the Republican's rightfully blocked Obama's "plan" which said the cure for cancer is adding more cancer cells....

Do you have any proof from history that higher taxes mean less jobs?
How do you explain the booming economy in the 50s despite a 90% upper tax rate?
How do you explain the economy crashing under Bush despite his slashing taxes?

I explain it with the fact that everything you just stated never happened. If you would actually research facts instead of turning to your liberal propaganda "comfort food" you would know this.

“Democrats defend high tax rates on the basis of the rates in the mid-twentieth century.18 But that’s another distortion. It is true that FDR raised the top rate in 1935 to 79 percent. But what we never hear is that it only applied to incomes over $5 million—the equivalent of $76,000,000 per year today. In 1935 only one man in the entire U.S.A. paid a penny at that rate—John D. Rockefeller.19 The reality is that from 1935 through the 1970s the highest tax rates did pass 70 percent, 80 percent, and for a time even 90 percent, but those rates were aimed only at billionaire industrialists, not small business owners. Only a handful of taxpayers in America ever paid the top rates.2”

Excerpt From: Wayne Allyn Root. “The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide.” Regnery Publishing, 2013-03-26. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/ultimate-obama-survival-guide/id601965000?mt=11

You get that chief? Only one man ever paid that rate. But hey - keep up with your "taxing everyone 90% is a good thing" fallacy. It's done wonders in the Obama economy (which has seen 10% unemployment at the longest rate of above 8% unemployment in U.S. history).

By the way - Obama (and Clinton) collapsed the U.S. economy. Under Bush, the highest unemployment ever hit was 7.2% - and that was only for a couple of months. Obama created 10% unemployment (thanks in part to Clinton collapsing the housing market).

Root is a righting douchebag

Come back with a legitimate source

 

[P@triot]

Sure, and we're all bound to have differing views on how big that should be. The question is, who makes the call? You? Government? Consumers?

Well, it would be awesome if I did it, because I would be totally fair. But I have plans.

I think a combination of consumers and government would be best.

Correct.

A pragmatic approach is always best, where private and public sectors complement each other – the former motivated by profit, the latter by the law and responsible governance, both functioning predicated on facts as to what is most likely to be efficient and successful, not blind, subjective, rigid fiscal dogma.

And the problem is, the left wants a government that destroys the private sector - not "compliments it".

You want a government which "compliments" the private sector? Demand constitutional government (ie the federal government adheres to the 18 enumerated powers delegated to them by the states). Problem solved.