Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No it means government drove them to move on to a more business friendly environment.
Besides you have some fucking balls talking about "running away" considering thats exactly what democrat legislators in both Wisconsin and Indiana have done...Not to mention the audacity of the leftist Indiana legislators - running away because they oppose a right to work piece of legislation.. Yeah only a tyrannical democrat would force someone to join a union if they want to work...
When I negotiate in good faith, sign a legally binding contract and accept the terms settled upon, I look at my compensation as "my money". When a corporation begs concessions and whittles away benefit packages, then uses those gains to enhance the bottom line and gin up the stock price, I believe I am entitled so some of the gains made by speculators who profited by my concessions.Why is it again that you feel entitled to money that isn't yours?You seem eager to embrace the wrong rather than seeking a solution.Because its not yours?
Two wrongs make a right?
You're just bitter over people having things you don't.
Welcome to reality - and it sounds like you need a helmet.
What legitimate claim do you have on the money earned by others?
I understand. Today's Conservative cannot see virtues in hard work, honesty, fair play and respect.I was told on this very thread that hard work does not do anything to bring real wealth. I was told just yesterday by Limbaugh that 'teamwork' is not an American virtue but something to be dismissed as Socialism. I've been told on this very thread that smart counts for more than fair.boy oh boy have you bought a load of malarkey. Alinsky would love you. In the land of the blind etc etc etc ....
I'm a living anachronism. I have been playing by rules that seemingly have served this society well for generations. But those rules are arcane and trite. The new rules are strip a corporation down to its lowest possible vitality, increase the stock price, trade on the price before it increases, take the profits from that sale and invest in another company and do the same.
My values include pay workers a fair wage for their efforts. Retain those workers with benefit packages so they no longer have to fear medical calamities will devastate their meager savings. Treat retirees with the respect they earned after years of service to the company. Treat my community with respect by not making an environmental wasteland of the neighborhood. Treat my stockholders with respect, but don't hurt the workers just to keep them happy.
I could not get any respect from today's Conservative with such values. Today's Conservative regards those values as something subversive and dangerous.
I guess then that today's Conservatives are all successful businessmen and women. Today's Conservatives dismiss hard work as foolish. They regard collective bargaining as evil and suspect.
I'm glad I have my values. I don't know what would pump blood through my body otherwise.
You're values? Don't make me laugh. What is trying to be put across to you is that your values aren't in fact good values.
Working hard? What is intrinsically valueable or noble about that? You simply have to unlearn some things. I get an awful lot of people took pride in hard work and it was viewed as noble or something the blue collar workers that worked hard. Take a few moments and rid yourself of your biases and look at that objectively. WHY is that something a person should take pride in? What is inherently noble about putting in any more effort than is necessary to generate income?
Paying people a fair wage? I agree with that too. The problem is you aren't honest with yourself. What constitutes a fair wage is not whatever the employee thinks is fair. The employer gets a say too and is normal human nature that the employee is gonna think their worth more than they are and the employer is gonna think their worth less than they are and you meat somewhere in the middle.
Helping people avoid the cost of medical calamities? Here's one thing that has never changed. Employers have NEVER compensated workers based on what they need to live on. You are compensated as a result of the skill you provide. Not as a result of what you need to live on.
Treat retirees with respect? Why is it an employers responsibility to plan for your life after you choose to stop working? Again you are paid for the skills you provide. An employer certainly doesn't oweing anything (even though most companies will still match 401k contributions) for NOT working. You have it entirely backwards. Employers have bent over backwards to retain good employees. They DO pay them to not work (vacation). They subsidize their healthcare and they give people money to live on even after they stop producing anything for them. You sniveling, selfish entitlement assholes still have the nerve to contend that it's the employers that aren't treating you fairly.
And so, anyone who does the same can expect that you will consider their compensation as their money, and make no claim on that.. Good.When I negotiate in good faith, sign a legally binding contract and accept the terms settled upon, I look at my compensation as "my money".Why is it again that you feel entitled to money that isn't yours?You seem eager to embrace the wrong rather than seeking a solution.
What legitimate claim do you have on the money earned by others?
On what basis?When a corporation begs concessions and whittles away benefit packages, then uses those gains to enhance the bottom line and gin up the stock price, I believe I am entitled so some of the gains made by speculators who profited by my concessions.
What does that 13.9% figure come to in dollars?He made some good investments....
What's your point....
How much does Bill Gates make a day.
Warren Buffet....
Oh that's right it's only evil and wrong when republicans make money off investments
They should pay their fair share.
I bet you pay more than 13.9%.
Sad part is he doesnt know what the definition of work is. I say he deserves every penny. SO does the janitor who is more credible than he is.
Romney's tax plan will cut his own taxes and raise taxes on that janitor, based on what the average janitor/cleaner around here makes.
Why is that good? Why can't anyone here who is defending his wealth and his tax rates defend his plan?
Because it's fair. That you lefties don't understand what fair means is not our fault. Fair does NOT mean that which is easier for people or not as burdensome for people or how much you arbitrarily decide someone can do without. You're 100% right on this. If you claim you really want a fair tax code then yes, equitably distributing the tax burden will mean the taxes of the poor go up while the taxes of the rich go down.
What you libs don't get is that 'fair' isn't exactly a positive word. Fair in this case does not care about the burdon it puts on someone that has nothing to do with it. All fair cares about is an equitable distribution of where the money comes from. Whether it burdens some more than others is irrelevent where fair is concerned.
Because dividends are dispersed after profits are taxed. Simple I know, but I won't be shocked if this requires further explanation.
The company pays a corporate tax rate on it's profits. The dividend the company pays is new income and is taxed at a capital gains rate because it is going to another person. The fact is, every time money changes hands, it is taxed.
If I earn $100 dollars and I pay tax on that, then I buy something from someone for $50, that person has to pay tax on that $50. It is erroneous to claim that other person is exempt from paying tax on the $50 I give him because I already paid tax on my $100.
It's NOT going to a new person. The stockholders are the owners of the company. You leftists just can't wrap your brain around the idea that not everything is like working the Fryolator at Burger King.
Look at it this way. Say I'm the sole owner of a small business. Rather than paying myself a salary, I choose to take my money out of MY business as a share of profits. The government taxed my company - which is to say, me, because I own the business - when it made the profits. Then, when I shifted a portion of those profits from my business's bank account to my own, it taxed me AGAIN on that shift.
The only way you're going to be able to consider that "new income because it's going to another person" is if you consider the business I own to be a separate person from me. And we all know how the left SCREAMS about the idea of businesses being viewed as people.
Keep in mind, every nickel that a guy like Romney doesn't pay, because his rate is around 14% instead of higher,
is either a nickel someone else has to pay, or a nickel that gets added to the debt, or a nickel that has to come out of the budget.
If you want Romney's rate lower, which is what he wants, according to his own plan...
...who do you want to pay the difference?
1. Do you want to pay it?
2. Do want to just add it to the debt?
3. Do you want to cut your grandma's Medicare to pay for it?
4. Cut some poor family's food stamps to pay for it?
5. Cut some student's tuition assistance to pay for it?
Who do you want to pay for the tax cut Mitt Romney thinks HE deserves???
Welcome to the world of difficult choices. This isn't politics. If the money isn't there, the money isn't there. You have to cut something. My opinion, for what it's worth, is to consider whether or not government has gone beyond it's obligations in terms of what it spends. I know it sounds nice for government to do all these things for people. But right now we are experiencing the ramifications of spending on what sounds nice with little forethought as to whether there are some real drawbacks. The authors of the constitution knew this. Have a look at Jefferson's quote in Gallant's sig. Again it sounds like the nice moral thing to do, but it is not the role of the fed to spend money creating equality or making people's lives better. That isn't an idea of selfishness or greed. It comes from knowing that what inititally sounds compassionate and moral is really immoral and leads to tyranny in the long run.
So, according to the new values, it's okay to beg concessions and enhance the bottom line with that money, so long as a stock sale is profitable. Nothing should go back to the workers who sacrificed. It should all go to those who merely bet on the company, not those who produce for the company.And so, anyone who does the same can expect that you will consider their compensation as their money, and make no claim on that.. Good.When I negotiate in good faith, sign a legally binding contract and accept the terms settled upon, I look at my compensation as "my money".Why is it again that you feel entitled to money that isn't yours?
What legitimate claim do you have on the money earned by others?
On what basis?When a corporation begs concessions and whittles away benefit packages, then uses those gains to enhance the bottom line and gin up the stock price, I believe I am entitled so some of the gains made by speculators who profited by my concessions.
Has someone not lived up to the terms settled upon in their contract?
The stockholders who made money based on the rise in stock price - what contract did they have with you?
Really?The idea that poor people should pay the same rate of tax as rich people is only 'fair' by someone's arbitrary made-up definition of what 'fair' is.Romney's tax plan will cut his own taxes and raise taxes on that janitor, based on what the average janitor/cleaner around here makes.
Why is that good? Why can't anyone here who is defending his wealth and his tax rates defend his plan?
Because it's fair. That you lefties don't understand what fair means is not our fault. Fair does NOT mean that which is easier for people or not as burdensome for people or how much you arbitrarily decide someone can do without. You're 100% right on this. If you claim you really want a fair tax code then yes, equitably distributing the tax burden will mean the taxes of the poor go up while the taxes of the rich go down.
What you libs don't get is that 'fair' isn't exactly a positive word. Fair in this case does not care about the burdon it puts on someone that has nothing to do with it. All fair cares about is an equitable distribution of where the money comes from. Whether it burdens some more than others is irrelevent where fair is concerned.
I asked you three specific questions.So, according to the new values, it's okay to beg concessions and enhance the bottom line with that money, so long as a stock sale is profitable. Nothing should go back to the workers who sacrificed. It should all go to those who merely bet on the company, not those who produce for the company.And so, anyone who does the same can expect that you will consider their compensation as their money, and make no claim on that.. Good.When I negotiate in good faith, sign a legally binding contract and accept the terms settled upon, I look at my compensation as "my money".
On what basis?When a corporation begs concessions and whittles away benefit packages, then uses those gains to enhance the bottom line and gin up the stock price, I believe I am entitled so some of the gains made by speculators who profited by my concessions.
Has someone not lived up to the terms settled upon in their contract?
The stockholders who made money based on the rise in stock price - what contract did they have with you?
I sure miss fairness as a virtue!
Keep in mind, every nickel that a guy like Romney doesn't pay, because his rate is around 14% instead of higher,
is either a nickel someone else has to pay, or a nickel that gets added to the debt, or a nickel that has to come out of the budget.
If you want Romney's rate lower, which is what he wants, according to his own plan...
...who do you want to pay the difference?
1. Do you want to pay it?
2. Do want to just add it to the debt?
3. Do you want to cut your grandma's Medicare to pay for it?
4. Cut some poor family's food stamps to pay for it?
5. Cut some student's tuition assistance to pay for it?
Who do you want to pay for the tax cut Mitt Romney thinks HE deserves???
1) I expect everyone to pay for it the same
2) No... I want a balanced budget amendment with provisions for paying OFF the debt
3) Medicare is the only place?? I expect massive government spending cuts across the board
4) Yes... I cut out food stamps, other entitlements too, both private and corporate
5) YES INDEED.. you want to go to school as an adult, PAY FOR IT YOUR FUCKING SELF
Simple
I understand. Today's Conservative cannot see virtues in hard work, honesty, fair play and respect.I was told on this very thread that hard work does not do anything to bring real wealth. I was told just yesterday by Limbaugh that 'teamwork' is not an American virtue but something to be dismissed as Socialism. I've been told on this very thread that smart counts for more than fair.
I'm a living anachronism. I have been playing by rules that seemingly have served this society well for generations. But those rules are arcane and trite. The new rules are strip a corporation down to its lowest possible vitality, increase the stock price, trade on the price before it increases, take the profits from that sale and invest in another company and do the same.
My values include pay workers a fair wage for their efforts. Retain those workers with benefit packages so they no longer have to fear medical calamities will devastate their meager savings. Treat retirees with the respect they earned after years of service to the company. Treat my community with respect by not making an environmental wasteland of the neighborhood. Treat my stockholders with respect, but don't hurt the workers just to keep them happy.
I could not get any respect from today's Conservative with such values. Today's Conservative regards those values as something subversive and dangerous.
I guess then that today's Conservatives are all successful businessmen and women. Today's Conservatives dismiss hard work as foolish. They regard collective bargaining as evil and suspect.
I'm glad I have my values. I don't know what would pump blood through my body otherwise.
You're values? Don't make me laugh. What is trying to be put across to you is that your values aren't in fact good values.
Working hard? What is intrinsically valueable or noble about that? You simply have to unlearn some things. I get an awful lot of people took pride in hard work and it was viewed as noble or something the blue collar workers that worked hard. Take a few moments and rid yourself of your biases and look at that objectively. WHY is that something a person should take pride in? What is inherently noble about putting in any more effort than is necessary to generate income?
Paying people a fair wage? I agree with that too. The problem is you aren't honest with yourself. What constitutes a fair wage is not whatever the employee thinks is fair. The employer gets a say too and is normal human nature that the employee is gonna think their worth more than they are and the employer is gonna think their worth less than they are and you meat somewhere in the middle.
Helping people avoid the cost of medical calamities? Here's one thing that has never changed. Employers have NEVER compensated workers based on what they need to live on. You are compensated as a result of the skill you provide. Not as a result of what you need to live on.
Treat retirees with respect? Why is it an employers responsibility to plan for your life after you choose to stop working? Again you are paid for the skills you provide. An employer certainly doesn't oweing anything (even though most companies will still match 401k contributions) for NOT working. You have it entirely backwards. Employers have bent over backwards to retain good employees. They DO pay them to not work (vacation). They subsidize their healthcare and they give people money to live on even after they stop producing anything for them. You sniveling, selfish entitlement assholes still have the nerve to contend that it's the employers that aren't treating you fairly.
I'm still happy to suffer the values I have which contain the virtues of hard work, honesty, fair play and respect. I could not go around heartless, blind, disrespectful and larcenous. I'm not fit to be a modern Conservative.
Keep in mind, every nickel that a guy like Romney doesn't pay, because his rate is around 14% instead of higher,
is either a nickel someone else has to pay, or a nickel that gets added to the debt, or a nickel that has to come out of the budget.
If you want Romney's rate lower, which is what he wants, according to his own plan...
...who do you want to pay the difference?
1. Do you want to pay it?
2. Do want to just add it to the debt?
3. Do you want to cut your grandma's Medicare to pay for it?
4. Cut some poor family's food stamps to pay for it?
5. Cut some student's tuition assistance to pay for it?
Who do you want to pay for the tax cut Mitt Romney thinks HE deserves???
1) I expect everyone to pay for it the same
2) No... I want a balanced budget amendment with provisions for paying OFF the debt
3) Medicare is the only place?? I expect massive government spending cuts across the board
4) Yes... I cut out food stamps, other entitlements too, both private and corporate
5) YES INDEED.. you want to go to school as an adult, PAY FOR IT YOUR FUCKING SELF
Simple
Then let's hear Romney and Gingrich run on that. Let's hear them say, I want to cut all of the above because I want to be able to afford to cut my own taxes.
Run on the Truth.
Keep in mind, every nickel that a guy like Romney doesn't pay, because his rate is around 14% instead of higher,
is either a nickel someone else has to pay, or a nickel that gets added to the debt, or a nickel that has to come out of the budget.
If you want Romney's rate lower, which is what he wants, according to his own plan...
...who do you want to pay the difference?
1. Do you want to pay it?
2. Do want to just add it to the debt?
3. Do you want to cut your grandma's Medicare to pay for it?
4. Cut some poor family's food stamps to pay for it?
5. Cut some student's tuition assistance to pay for it?
Who do you want to pay for the tax cut Mitt Romney thinks HE deserves???
1) I expect everyone to pay for it the same
2) No... I want a balanced budget amendment with provisions for paying OFF the debt
3) Medicare is the only place?? I expect massive government spending cuts across the board
4) Yes... I cut out food stamps, other entitlements too, both private and corporate
5) YES INDEED.. you want to go to school as an adult, PAY FOR IT YOUR FUCKING SELF
Simple
Then let's hear Romney and Gingrich run on that. Let's hear them say, I want to cut all of the above because I want to be able to afford to cut my own taxes.
Run on the Truth.
Keep in mind, every nickel that a guy like Romney doesn't pay, because his rate is around 14% instead of higher,
is either a nickel someone else has to pay, or a nickel that gets added to the debt, or a nickel that has to come out of the budget.
If you want Romney's rate lower, which is what he wants, according to his own plan...
...who do you want to pay the difference?
1. Do you want to pay it?
2. Do want to just add it to the debt?
3. Do you want to cut your grandma's Medicare to pay for it?
4. Cut some poor family's food stamps to pay for it?
5. Cut some student's tuition assistance to pay for it?
Who do you want to pay for the tax cut Mitt Romney thinks HE deserves???
1) I expect everyone to pay for it the same
2) No... I want a balanced budget amendment with provisions for paying OFF the debt
3) Medicare is the only place?? I expect massive government spending cuts across the board
4) Yes... I cut out food stamps, other entitlements too, both private and corporate
5) YES INDEED.. you want to go to school as an adult, PAY FOR IT YOUR FUCKING SELF
Simple
Then let's hear Romney and Gingrich run on that. Let's hear them say, I want to cut all of the above because I want to be able to afford to cut my own taxes.
Run on the Truth.
Really?The idea that poor people should pay the same rate of tax as rich people is only 'fair' by someone's arbitrary made-up definition of what 'fair' is.Because it's fair. That you lefties don't understand what fair means is not our fault. Fair does NOT mean that which is easier for people or not as burdensome for people or how much you arbitrarily decide someone can do without. You're 100% right on this. If you claim you really want a fair tax code then yes, equitably distributing the tax burden will mean the taxes of the poor go up while the taxes of the rich go down.
What you libs don't get is that 'fair' isn't exactly a positive word. Fair in this case does not care about the burdon it puts on someone that has nothing to do with it. All fair cares about is an equitable distribution of where the money comes from. Whether it burdens some more than others is irrelevent where fair is concerned.
If you have a shred of intellectual honesty, you'll then have to agree that the idea that rich people should pay a higer tax rate than people is only 'fair' by someone's arbitrary made-up definition of what 'fair' is.
The idea that poor people should pay the same rate of tax as rich people is only 'fair' by someone's arbitrary made-up definition of what 'fair' is.
After all a tax rate is not a 'fair' measure in the first place. Is it? If paying a percentage of your wages is 'fair',
why shouldn't I be able to buy a car for, say, 50% of my annual wage, and likewise, Romney should have to pay 50% of his annual income when he buys the same car?
So, what have we learned from this thread?
I learned that I hold values that were inculcated by trusted moral leaders like parents, teachers and clergy. Those values are study hard, work hard, obey the laws, respect others.
Well, if I grew into a Conservative in 2012, seems those values are dated and obsolete. I should have been much much more self centered. I should not have worked hard as hard work does not serve one well to earn a living.
What I should have done, according to the modern Conservatives posting here was get my foot somehow into the executive suite, skimmed as much profit from the company for my personal gain as possible and invest that gain in companies who outsource their production to countries not so concerned about creating a vibrant middle class. Countries where slave wages for workers is just fine. Countries where care for the environment isn't even on the national read. In other words: countries that aren't America.
Then I would be regarded as smarter than the hordes who did pursue hard work and an honest living. I would be lauded as a true American who assuages teamwork and champions self interest over all other virtues.
I guess as I was born twenty years before the first Reagan regime, it was far too late to be taught the new virtues of selfishness and greed. I was born in a gentler time. And mores the pity now.
Basically, what I've learned is that you're incapable of hearing anything but the echo chamber inside your head, saying, "You are better and more moral than everyone else. You're SUCH a good person", and it is therefore pointless to talk to you like a sane, intelligent person.
They have meds for that, loser. Investigate.
People like Mikey believe two things. One there is nobility in poverty.
Two, unless one works in a low end unskilled job ,they are not working at all.
Look, the Left's entire premise of "working hard" is based one one factor, Unions.
The worker focused left is not concerned with jobs in general. They want union jobs.
For example. During the 2008 crisis in which it became clear that GM was in serious financial trouble a few things came to the forefront. The Left whined and bitched about the potential loss of UNION jobs. They railed against those "Jap car companies" that kept the unions out. They whined about "those Jap car companies" taking away business from GM and Chrylser. They wanted protectionist legislation to protect, you guessed it, UNION jobs.
At the end of the day, those evil "Jap car companies" pay wages in the same neighborhood as the UAW plants. In fact some pay more. The fact is none of the foreign manufacturers here are saddled with the high cost of wages and benefits the Big Three have to endure.
GM at pone time was paying over $70 per hour for each line employee. Toyota's truck plant in San Antonio, TX has a per hour labor cost of around $40 per hour.
If GM was not answerable to the UAW and the AFL-CIO, nobody would have raised such an intensive stink.
The idea that poor people should pay the same rate of tax as rich people is only 'fair' by someone's arbitrary made-up definition of what 'fair' is.
Actually the opposite of true. The notion that fair distribution of tax burden has anything to do with a person's ability to pay it is what fits no definition of fair.
