Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    9:08 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Rich Guy: We Should Get More Votes Than Poor Back to Topics
Jams77

Champion Author
Kansas City

Posts:21,581
Points:3,395,345
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 15, 2014 1:25:50 AM

I don't often post here anymore but I thought this article raises a profound question. With a large number of our population not paying any taxes and actually receiving benefits/rebates without paying any taxes, should they be entitled to vote? Dems of course will say "Yes" because this is there voting base. On the other hand, is it fair to those that actually pay taxes that end up supporting those that pay no taxes and continue to vote for those that keep rolling out the freebies?

Rich Guy: We Should Get More Votes Than Poor
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:25,265
Points:2,288,090
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Feb 23, 2014 6:54:54 PM

Norm, Yes.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,707
Points:1,343,815
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Feb 23, 2014 6:51:02 PM

An observation...

Y'all ever notice that with conservatives, when a Republican president spends out of control, they blame congress (Democrats); and when a Democrat president spends responsibly, they credit congress (Republican)???

LOL, SMH!
Profile Pic
ropegun11
All-Star Author Illinois

Posts:775
Points:563,485
Joined:Sep 2011
Message Posted: Feb 23, 2014 6:32:24 PM

de·moc·ra·cy - noun \di-'mä-kr?-se\

: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting

: an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights

One vote per citizen, thank you.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,769
Points:1,891,445
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Feb 23, 2014 2:47:04 PM

Weaselspit, >>Are we really going to pretend that the GOP hasn't contributed to this runaway spending in Congress over the last decade?<<
~
It goes back much further than just a decade. The real increases started with Johnson (D) 'Guns and Butter Policy', made worse by Nixon( R) 'temporarily' going off the Gold Standard by Executive Order (Unconstitutional?), and Reagan's (R ) compromising, While it was temporarily slowed under Clinton (D) through a more financially responsible Congress after 1994 elections, Bush ( R) did, as you noted, accelerate spending.

There is no pretending about it. Both parties had and continue to have a hand in driving our country towards financial perdition. If you looking to change things for better, you may want to check this organization out.
~
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,914
Points:3,251,260
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 23, 2014 12:35:16 AM

>>You just do not want to own what you said so instead you attack the poster.<<

No, I attacked your idiotic post, which was filled with lies and unfounded accusations.

>>You are the one that claimed it was a way for the GOP to garner votes, nobody else.<<

So what? I never denied that. You keep posting that nonsense, pretending that I've been denying it.

>>...in my older days I would respond to your personal insult by saying something about how you lower the entire IQ average of the entire board...but I won't.<<

And yet you did.
Profile Pic
Jams77
Champion Author Kansas City

Posts:21,581
Points:3,395,345
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 22, 2014 1:27:32 AM

I posted this topic because the underlying linked article did raise a profound issue into what our national, state and local have elections have become. Money!! We now have voting blocs supporting politicians based on what they are "voting to give them". More food stamps, More unemployment benefits, More free health care, and yes, More abuse of the programs and people spending there EBT card at liquor stores and casinos.

I have and always will support one person - one vote however they must be a legal citizen in order to be entitled to vote.

I have heard the other side state "vote early and vote often" and you can judge the source of those comments.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,939
Points:1,887,580
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2014 6:42:06 PM

You just do not want to own what you said so instead you attack the poster. You are the one that claimed it was a way for the GOP to garner votes, nobody else. Own what you said...in my older days I would respond to your personal insult by saying something about how you lower the entire IQ average of the entire board...but I won't.

[Edited by: AFSNCO at 2/21/2014 6:43:13 PM EST]
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,914
Points:3,251,260
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2014 6:04:25 PM

>>You are the one that made it owned by the entire right wing when you claimed it was a way to garner more votes. It was one man writing a letter to the editor, not a blog like I had first thought. One letter to the editor, no politician, nobody of importance, but yet somehow YOU and only YOU jumped to the idea it was a way to garner more votes for the GOP. Do I need to post your quote again or do you remember saying it?<<

What you've just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,939
Points:1,887,580
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2014 10:02:23 AM

"What's laughable is you claiming that I said it was "owned by the entire right wing"."

You are the one that made it owned by the entire right wing when you claimed it was a way to garner more votes. It was one man writing a letter to the editor, not a blog like I had first thought. One letter to the editor, no politician, nobody of importance, but yet somehow YOU and only YOU jumped to the idea it was a way to garner more votes for the GOP. Do I need to post your quote again or do you remember saying it?
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,718
Points:328,805
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 6:31:42 PM

"marty, will a one hand applause do?"

Followed by three raspberries.


By the way, the synonym for "authors" is "writes."

[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 2/20/2014 6:32:17 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,598
Points:3,843,490
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 6:06:16 PM

"Right wing idea? Hmm....one guy rights something silly and it is owned by the entire right wing! Laughable at best...."

I will take your comment seriously when you criticize those who keep harping "liberals this" and "liberals that" and "all liberals want" and "that's the way all liberals think", etc/
Until then, to be fair, it is tit for tat.
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:25,265
Points:2,288,090
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 6:04:25 PM

marty, will a one hand applause do?
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,718
Points:328,805
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 5:23:05 PM

"That doesn't mean it's supported by all right wingers or the entire right wing."

Given the current shambles in which the right finds itself, it's virtually impossible to find -anything- supported by all (or even most) right wingers.




"I pointed out that liberals were doing the exact same thing in this thread that you are accusing Republicans of doing in the NAACP thread."

Translation: Nobody paid attention to what I wrote in that thread, so I'll advertise here. Please... somebody... give him an attaboy.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,914
Points:3,251,260
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 3:26:33 PM

>>Right wing idea? Hmm....one guy rights something silly and it is owned by the entire right wing! Laughable at best....<<

What's laughable is you claiming that I said it was "owned by the entire right wing". Yes, it's a right-wing position, and as far as I've seen it's supported by only right-wingers. That doesn't mean it's supported by all right wingers or the entire right wing. Read what I actually wrote, not what you want to believe (or tell others) I wrote.

 
>>I pointed out that liberals were doing the exact same thing in this thread that you are accusing Republicans of doing in the NAACP thread.<<

Tim, still waiting for you to show us all where "liberals are doing the exact same thing in this thread". Who on this thread claimed that Tom Perkins is "representing EVERY conservative in the US"?
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,255
Points:1,957,430
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 2:47:18 PM

sgm: "Because we all know rich folks are immune from asking the government to do them favors...."


Usually those favors don't involve wholesale societywide changes where trillions of dollars are redistributed, if for no other reason than because for every rich person (or corporation) who wants a favor, there is another rich person (or corporation) who doesn't want that favor granted and is willing to use their money to try to prevent it.

Bribes and influence are endemic to any bureaucracy, and the larger, more powerful, and more complex that bureaucracy is, the more such behavior occurs. This is just another reason to support limited government. Consider, if there were a flat tax on everyone, no deductions, no credits, no incentives, or anything like that, and that regulations were few, clear, and written without exceptions being allowed, how much less bribery and influence peddling would occur.

If you are a large corporation with plenty of cash, it makes perfect sense to divert some of that cash, from say your R&D budget for new and better products and services, toward influencing the laws and regulations that govern your business. A change to a single law or regulation, for good or bad, can make a far bigger difference to your bottom line than using that money to develop a new product, and as such it makes sense from their point of view to spend the money that way. It also makes sense to spend the money to try to change the laws and regulations to hurt your competitors if possible in addition to making things better for yourself. As government gets ever larger and more complex the rewards for doing this well, and the penalties for doing this poorly, will continue to increase.

As always, the marketplace adapts to its environment, and as government grows in size, scope, and complexity, what you noted with distaste above will only get worse. And if you expect politicians to be on your side to stop it, think again. They benefit as much or more by having the ability to help their friends and punish their enemies, so they have no incentive at all to stop it.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,528
Points:3,067,995
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 2:23:37 PM

<<just changing the system to prevent the wolves from voting on what's for dinner would solve the most immediate problem of politicians giving away freebies (to be paid for by someone else, or more precisely by someone else's children and grandchildren) in return for votes.>>

Because we all know rich folks are immune from asking the government to do them favors....

This blog post has a ton of links to good articles on regulatory capture. Not for the poor.

[Edited by: sgm4law at 2/20/2014 2:25:50 PM EST]
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,939
Points:1,887,580
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 2:22:52 PM

"But that same logic is being applied in the NAACP thread right now!"

The difference is the guy speaking for the NAACP speaks for an organization which represents the entire state. This one here is some blog writer who only represents himself. And I wear boxer briefs...LOL.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,255
Points:1,957,430
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 2:16:48 PM

sgm: "I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. I acknowledge that point, but I will reiterate that the number of votes allowed should not be proportionate to the money one has or makes. "


While I'd prefer that one's representation in government (individuals only) should be proportional to how much they are paying for government, just changing the system to prevent the wolves from voting on what's for dinner would solve the most immediate problem of politicians giving away freebies (to be paid for by someone else, or more precisely by someone else's children and grandchildren) in return for votes.


mudtoe


[Edited by: mudtoe at 2/20/2014 2:17:29 PM EST]
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,707
Points:1,343,815
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 1:30:59 PM

"I pointed out that liberals were doing the exact same thing in this thread that you are accusing Republicans of doing in the NAACP thread. "


I guess that makes us all Even Stevens!

*ROTFL*
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,844
Points:840,690
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 1:25:10 PM

I pointed out that liberals were doing the exact same thing in this thread that you are accusing Republicans of doing in the NAACP thread.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,707
Points:1,343,815
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 1:19:55 PM

"j/k before people lose their panties!"

LOL, I wear briefs bro...

*ROTFL*
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,707
Points:1,343,815
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 1:19:03 PM

"Right wing idea? Hmm....one guy rights something silly and it is owned by the entire right wing! Laughable at best.... "


But that same logic is being applied in the NAACP thread right now!

Laughable indeed.

*ROTFL*
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,939
Points:1,887,580
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 1:06:24 PM

"This is just another right-wing idea to garner more Republican votes because you can't win under the current system and feel it slipping away as the country's demographics change."

Right wing idea? Hmm....one guy rights something silly and it is owned by the entire right wing! Laughable at best....
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:25,265
Points:2,288,090
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 12:23:19 PM

Nick, well said. Take a bow for your remarks!
Profile Pic
Jams77
Champion Author Kansas City

Posts:21,581
Points:3,395,345
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 12:09:55 PM

AFSNCO "Um, yes, that is how a free society works. If you want to have what I have you need to work for it. If I worked for mine what gives anyone the right that doesn't work for theirs get part of mine?"

Amen to that comment!

If you want a better life, earn more money, raise your standard of living - get out there and work for it. Don't sit around waiting for someone to give it to you!
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,939
Points:1,887,580
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 12:06:09 PM

"Sadly (and predictably) those espousing this view have no problem when its the Koch brothers getting millions of vote...but will be the 1st to scream foul when George Soros gets millions of votes under the same system they were singing the praises of..."

Hey, I also propose that those with a negative income tax percentage should be allowed to vote but their vote is against the person they vote for!

:-)

j/k before people lose their panties!
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,707
Points:1,343,815
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 11:48:57 AM

"But to say that a billionaire gets millions of votes and a priest or a professor gets twenty or so, that is where it changes the basis for our society in the wrong direction. "


Sadly (and predictably) those espousing this view have no problem when its the Koch brothers getting millions of vote...but will be the 1st to scream foul when George Soros gets millions of votes under the same system they were singing the praises of...

That's how conservatives roll.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,528
Points:3,067,995
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 11:44:55 AM

<<It's undemocratic in the same sense as not allowing two wolves and a sheep to take a majority vote on what's for dinner.>>

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. I acknowledge that point, but I will reiterate that the number of votes allowed should not be proportionate to the money one has or makes.

If you want to have a baseline threshhold of one vote if one pays taxes, that would be ok (although a profound change).

But to say that a billionaire gets millions of votes and a priest or a professor gets twenty or so, that is where it changes the basis for our society in the wrong direction.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,939
Points:1,887,580
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 11:32:02 AM

"Redistribution" seems to the con word of the day....In other words, I have mine, if you don't have yours, well tough. Go work 4 jobs a week. "

Um, yes, that is how a free society works. If you want to have what I have you need to work for it. If I worked for mine what gives anyone the right that doesn't work for theirs get part of mine?
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,939
Points:1,887,580
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 11:30:18 AM

"I'm afraid that tax credits and deductible expenses are two different things."

Yes it is and it actually gives the person more money. If it were only a deductible it would be taken away, usually at a percentage, from pre-tax dollars to lower the person's taxable income. As a tax credit it is taken directly away from the person's actual tax and as such is an addition to a refund. It not part of their overpayment but in addition to their overpayment.

[Edited by: AFSNCO at 2/20/2014 11:30:36 AM EST]
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,255
Points:1,957,430
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 11:23:37 AM

sgm: "And completely undemocratic. "


It's undemocratic in the same sense as not allowing two wolves and a sheep to take a majority vote on what's for dinner.


mudtoe



[Edited by: mudtoe at 2/20/2014 11:24:32 AM EST]
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,707
Points:1,343,815
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 11:19:00 AM

"So you are OK with government giving the same deal to Exxon as they did to Solyndra?"


Is Britain subsidizing BP Petroleum so much that they can sell gas here at $1/gallon???
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,528
Points:3,067,995
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 10:46:16 AM

"What you're suggesting is an abomination, and it's un-American. And I've already explained why. Your proposal is racist, sexist, and classist."

And completely undemocratic.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,914
Points:3,251,260
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2014 10:40:45 AM

>>Nick dont let a little thing like the constitution stand in the way of what is right.<<

I'm not. What's in the Constitution IS right - one person, one vote. What you're suggesting is an abomination, and it's un-American. And I've already explained why. Your proposal is racist, sexist, and classist.

This is just another right-wing idea to garner more Republican votes because you can't win under the current system and feel it slipping away as the country's demographics change. You use words like "responsibility" (as if people who make less money aren't responsible) to try and legitimize this ridiculous scheme to treat people unequally.

You KNOW that blacks and hispanics make far less money than whites (~60% and 70%, respectively); you KNOW that women make less than men (~81%). You constantly cast stones at others, calling liberals racists and liberal policies racist, but then propose something that you KNOW ahead of time will count black votes only 3/5 that of white votes (hmmm...where else has this 3/5 number had a place in our history?). Why is that? Why would you propose something that you KNOW is racist, sexist, and classist? Never mind, I already know the answer.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,255
Points:1,957,430
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2014 12:46:14 PM

RN: "I said nothing about free money or what's good or bad; that's your partisanship talking once again. "


So you are OK with government giving the same deal to Exxon as they did to Solyndra?


mudtoe
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,707
Points:1,343,815
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2014 12:43:47 PM

"So government money for Solyndra is good in your opinion, and government money for Exxon is bad? Sounds to me like a political agenda at work. I'm against free government money being handed to anyone, Solyndra, Exxon, or individuals."


Funny how you twist what I said. I simply pointed out that if a foreign company is heavily subsidized by their government, then its competitors elsewhere will have difficult times competing, unless the competitors company raises tariffs so that it equalizes or offers support/incentives to help compete. I said nothing about free money or what's good or bad; that's your partisanship talking once again.
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:25,265
Points:2,288,090
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2014 12:36:52 PM

If the reports are true about the threats Tennessee officials made about pulling financial support to VW if the union was voted in, doesn't that make those officials "thugs"?
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,255
Points:1,957,430
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2014 12:36:25 PM

RN: "Yet, when our government tries to help manufacturers here compete with countries that are bolstered by their government and cheap labor, we want to demonize our government rather than fight fire with fire..."


So government money for Solyndra is good in your opinion, and government money for Exxon is bad? Sounds to me like a political agenda at work. I'm against free government money being handed to anyone, Solyndra, Exxon, or individuals.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:25,265
Points:2,288,090
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2014 12:19:19 PM

"I don't get it."

I don't either. These are the same folks who cheered when Chicago lost the Olympics bid a few years back.
Profile Pic
KatmanDo
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:15,677
Points:3,285,810
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2014 1:42:01 AM

"No, it is a deductible expense in the way of child tax credits."

I'm afraid that tax credits and deductible expenses are two different things.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,707
Points:1,343,815
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2014 1:28:02 AM

"Now it seems when some people lose opportunity where they are living, they never consider a move to better their situation and just look for the government to take care of them. After all, we are creating a nanny state that will soon rival Europe if something doesn't change."


I think you are overlooking the fact that the opportunities available in times past are being sent overseas so that companies can have slave labor and then maximize profits. So the jobs that used to be elsewhere are overseas and nobody is relocating there where you don't speak the language and have no rights.

People blast Obama about Solyndra, but yet, don't say anything about the Chinese government heavily subsidizing their solar manufacturers so that they could do exactly what they did, i.e., put Solyndra and others out of business. Yet, when our government tries to help manufacturers here compete with countries that are bolstered by their government and cheap labor, we want to demonize our government rather than fight fire with fire...

I don't get it.
Profile Pic
Jams77
Champion Author Kansas City

Posts:21,581
Points:3,395,345
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2014 12:58:04 AM

Our free market capitalist economy works on supply and demand. Every time our government tries to tinker with it, we get unexpected consequence. Remember the Nixon wage and price freezes of the 1970's? If we take the minimum wage as an example, it only applies in depressed locals. When workers are hard to find, most jobs pay well above the minimum wage. I had to laugh at the demonstration in front of the fast food restaurants that occurred in Kansas City last fall. Fast food workers in Williston, ND make nearly $20 per hour because they can't find enough workers.

It used to be if you had no opportunity where you were living, Americans would move to an area to better their life. Remember the great migration to the west coast especially California during the 1930's during the Dust Bowl?

Now it seems when some people lose opportunity where they are living, they never consider a move to better their situation and just look for the government to take care of them. After all, we are creating a nanny state that will soon rival Europe if something doesn't change.

[Edited by: Jams77 at 2/19/2014 12:59:33 AM EST]
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,707
Points:1,343,815
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 10:19:52 PM

"I will make a prediction though, and that is if all these governments gang up on Google, assuming that they can all stand together without one or more of them stabbing the others in the back and cutting a side sweetheart deal with Google, and Google suddenly finds itself with a tax bill large enough to threaten Wall Street earnings expectations, some of those famous employee perks will disappear. Watch and see. That's one reason I don't own Google anymore, because their earnings could take a big hit if this happens, and that will crater the stock price, at least for a while."


But if you're watching these things (and I know you do), Google is doing the smart thing of rapidly diversifying itself so it will be insulated against such things because it will be taking in revenues from numerous corners. So I don't see their high flying stock (which has been up there for a long time) dropping off rapidly at all...
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,255
Points:1,957,430
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 6:17:56 PM

RN: "I have no comment on what Google does with its money or tax avoidance schemes as I'm just trying to focus on companies that treat their employees as people and how that translates into better profitability and as you pointed out, even greater market share..."


And it sure helps that bottom line a lot if you don't have to pay onerous liberal government style taxes, which means more money for shareholders, executives, and employees, and lower prices on the products and services :) I owned Google stock for a while and made some money, so I have no problem with what they are doing. I'm content to leave well enough alone and let the marketplace sort out issues about what fair compensation is on its own without government interference. Again, if you are right, then "good" corporations (your definition of such) will triumph over "bad" ones all on their own.

I will make a prediction though, and that is if all these governments gang up on Google, assuming that they can all stand together without one or more of them stabbing the others in the back and cutting a side sweetheart deal with Google, and Google suddenly finds itself with a tax bill large enough to threaten Wall Street earnings expectations, some of those famous employee perks will disappear. Watch and see. That's one reason I don't own Google anymore, because their earnings could take a big hit if this happens, and that will crater the stock price, at least for a while.


mudtoe


[Edited by: mudtoe at 2/18/2014 6:19:22 PM EST]
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,707
Points:1,343,815
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 6:06:57 PM

"As a side note I got quite a chuckle out of you citing Google as a good corporate citizen, when other liberals, and liberal run governments, are spitting on them for using creative accounting techniques to funnel their billions in earnings through small subsidiaries in places like Ireland and the Caribbean in order to avoid high taxes in the other countries in which they do business. Perhaps that's how they are able to treat their employees better?"


LOL, nice try, but no dice.

Again, we're talking about companies that treat their employees well and how that goes a long way to making the company profitable. Google has been that kind of company from the beginning, LONG before they hit the big time. I have no comment on what Google does with its money or tax avoidance schemes as I'm just trying to focus on companies that treat their employees as people and how that translates into better profitability and as you pointed out, even greater market share...
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,255
Points:1,957,430
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 5:22:36 PM

RN: "Google is that way, and from what I've been told, Xerox is also a great place to work. It just needs to take on to companies at large for it to have a larger effect."


If their employees are producing a profit, then they are worth keeping. If they aren't, well........ And if you are correct in that these companies are better, then they will out-perform their competitors, and they will take market share from them. Therefore, no government intervention is necessary because "good" corporate citizens will triumph over "bad" corporate citizens in the end anyway.

As a side note I got quite a chuckle out of you citing Google as a good corporate citizen, when other liberals, and liberal run governments, are spitting on them for using creative accounting techniques to funnel their billions in earnings through small subsidiaries in places like Ireland and the Caribbean in order to avoid high taxes in the other countries in which they do business. Perhaps that's how they are able to treat their employees better? :)


mudtoe
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:25,265
Points:2,288,090
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 5:14:11 PM

"If more companies ran this way rather than simply being cold, logical, and mathematical and only doing what's best for the bottom line, you'd see the economy responding differently as well as workers themselves."

Exactly. That is why companies such as COSTCO and In-N-Out do so well withing their respective fields. They treat the employees well, pay them fairly and offer benefits to all employees.

To answer a remark earlier in this thread, I will never step foot into a Wal-Mart unless I absolutely have to.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,707
Points:1,343,815
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 5:07:31 PM

"Sorry, that ain't never going to happen. It's never happened in the past, and it's never going to happen in the future, unless some fancy genetic engineering takes place turning people into mammalian social insects who will work mindlessly and selflessly for the collective (meaning the people at the top). "


How can you say that when its happening right in front of you???

Google is that way, and from what I've been told, Xerox is also a great place to work. It just needs to take on to companies at large for it to have a larger effect.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,255
Points:1,957,430
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 4:58:20 PM

RN: "THAT's my solution."


Sorry, that ain't never going to happen. It's never happened in the past, and it's never going to happen in the future, unless some fancy genetic engineering takes place turning people into mammalian social insects who will work mindlessly and selflessly for the collective (meaning the people at the top).

This is why the policies of the left are always doomed to fail, because they don't acknowledge that human nature is what it is.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,707
Points:1,343,815
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 4:04:11 PM

"The economy has no concern for the individual. On a macro scale it's cold, logical, and mathematical, because in the aggregate people will act in their own self interest, which is quite predictable. Everything I said can be traced back to that one simple fact that people will act in accordance with their own self interest (that may not always be true on the small scale of a few individuals in specific circumstances, but on the large scale as in how the economy works it is 100% true). So you may call me Ebeneezer if you wish, but it does not change the truth of what I say, or of what's coming as a result of the economic incentives and disincentives government is imposing on every person."



And that's the thing.

The people behind the wheel of the economy (you know, the 1%ers) have very little concern for the individual which is why it is cold, logical and mathematical as you say.

When we stop looking at people as dollars and cents and rather as human beings, then and only then will we make changes to the economy so that it grows in a more wholesome way, i.e., is more beneficial to more than just the select few.

The firm I work at understands this quite well. It is one of the few firms in our industry that didn't have layoffs during the recession and it has people clamoring to get in and those in rarely leave. Why? Because everyone's contribution is valued and people here are not simply dollars and cents (i.e., expenses). And sure there are different levels of employment and salaries, but not a lotta class envy (or at least that I'm aware of), and there is ample opportunity for personal and professional growth and development. Its not a mom and pop shop, as we have offices in several states, but I do know the managing partner on a first name bases as well as his wife (because they make it a point to attend the Christmas party of each office and personally thank the professionals and the staff for their contributions that helped make the year's success).

Yes, its a great place to work, but it wasn't always this way...but they learned a very hard lesson and vowed not to repeat those mistakes and to date they haven't.

If more companies ran this way rather than simply being cold, logical, and mathematical and only doing what's best for the bottom line, you'd see the economy responding differently as well as workers themselves. And before anyone tries to go there, I'm not talking about some socialist takeover of companies and/or the economy. We're in business to make money, good money, but there is a difference between making money and treating people like human beings and making money and treating people as a necessary expenditure.

Indeed, Ebenezer found that out after his visitations, and in the end his perspective changed and he STILL ran his business to make money, but treated the staff differently and that was a win/win for all.

THAT's my solution.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,255
Points:1,957,430
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 3:45:22 PM

RN: "Dude, is your name ebenezer or something? Have some concern for your fellow american citizens...and maybe less for that corporation that isn't a citizen.... "


The economy has no concern for the individual. On a macro scale it's cold, logical, and mathematical, because in the aggregate people will act in their own self interest, which is quite predictable. Everything I said can be traced back to that one simple fact that people will act in accordance with their own self interest (that may not always be true on the small scale of a few individuals in specific circumstances, but on the large scale as in how the economy works it is 100% true). So you may call me Ebeneezer if you wish, but it does not change the truth of what I say, or of what's coming as a result of the economic incentives and disincentives government is imposing on every person.

The bottom line is that you can't give incentives for not working and disincentives for working, along with disincentives to employers to hire people(e.g. higher minimum wage, more taxes such as Obamacare) rather than move the jobs overseas or replace them with automation, and expect any result other than what's currently happening. I daresay that the people you claim to be concerned about will be the first ones to starve when it all eventually comes crashing down. The people you hate, probably including me, will have long since seen it coming and gotten themselves and their money out of harms way, as will the rich democrat politicians you keep voting for.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 2/18/2014 3:46:19 PM EST]
Post a reply Back to Topics