"What if taxes are not raised that money goes staright into their greedy pockets, right? Business dont hire people as a social service they hire less people than they need and force everyone to work extra. So I dont completely buy the notion that they can shed more people and continue to operate at the same level."
Is this reality or is it our movie inspired, class warfare inspired vision of business. Most businesses are not in practice to force people to work more. On the contrary to attract better talent you have to actually give more in today's world. I think some of us have just worked for bad companies and buy the hype. We are taught in this world that business owners are bad people that CEO's are rich greedy fu-- blah, blah, blah. The reality is that business owners and CEO's are representive of the rest of society. There are good ones and bad ones. Nice ones and mean ones. This notion that businesses are inherently greedy is not an accurate one. Businesses are in business to make a profit. That is why they exist. They do what it takes to earn a profit. In some cases that means cutting jobs. In some cases that means coddling employees. There is a lot more that goes into running an EFFECTIVE business than being greedy and hoarding as much for yourself as you can.
This is a government and hollywood inspired caricature.
Obama stands for change, Hillary stands for same old political bullshit. She is a CLINTON. Enough is enough.. Time for a new face. A new energy. HIllary would have contradicted everything Obama stands for, she was never even CONSIDERED. The only reason it was even brought up in the media is cuz it makes for a good story. So when people like Briggs get SERIOUS about it actually could have/should have happened it shows that u don't understand this election, and you don't understand Obama. There was never a chance for Hillary to be on the ticket.
Obama stands for change, Hillary stands for same old political bull****. She is a CLINTON. Enough is enough.
Please, enough buzzwords. "Change." "Hope."
Obama represents change and hope, but Hillary would have been more of the same? The same of what? What we had under Bill Clinton? That would probably be too much to hope for, as that was among the most prosperous and peaceful times in the history of this country. We were respected internationally.
The vilification of Hillary Clinton and the Clintons in general is so overboard and inaccurate, and flies in the face of what they have actually done in their political lives.
If somebody likes Obama, that's great, but to try and turn the Clintons into some sort of Anti-Christs really just ignores what they have accomplished, there is so much more good than bad.
I'm tired of hearing about their "attitudes" or "arrogance". It carries the same weight as those who say Obama is some intellectual elitist. It is just BS people say because they have no true argument. You know what my answer to that is? I hope Obama is an "intellectual elitist"! He's running for President for Christ's sake!
oohah
Well I just watched Obama's speech online and have to say that that was nothing short of MAGNIFICENT! If there's one tiny criticism I have, it's that I wish Obama had referred to the issues he talked about specifically as "moral" issues because morality is such a powerful term and motivating force. It was still the best political speech I've heard by a Democrat this decade (or maybe tied for the best with some of his other speeches).
[Edited by - bonn1997 on 08-29-2008 08:51 AM]
Posted by Bippity10:
Is this reality or is it our movie inspired, class warfare inspired vision of business. Most businesses are not in practice to force people to work more. On the contrary to attract better talent you have to actually give more in today's world. I think some of us have just worked for bad companies and buy the hype. We are taught in this world that business owners are bad people that CEO's are rich greedy fu-- blah, blah, blah. The reality is that business owners and CEO's are representive of the rest of society. There are good ones and bad ones. Nice ones and mean ones. This notion that businesses are inherently greedy is not an accurate one. Businesses are in business to make a profit. That is why they exist. They do what it takes to earn a profit. In some cases that means cutting jobs. In some cases that means coddling employees. There is a lot more that goes into running an EFFECTIVE business than being greedy and hoarding as much for yourself as you can.
This is a government and hollywood inspired caricature.
Bippity,
So tell me do these numbers sound like "hype" or "hollywood inspired caricature"?
Average pay for top CEO's is 10.5 million on average 344 times the pay of the average worker .
America's highest paid power suits"
Hedge and Private Equity fund partnerships the top 50 of these managers averaged $588 million in earnings. To make matters worse these fund managers pay taxes at the rate of 15% whereas the average American Worker pays 35%. Why is this because of a provision in the tax code that allows them to claim their "carried interest" as capital gain. So on average for every million made in pocketed interest Investment Fund Managers saves around $200,000 in taxes.
I don't know call me crazy but maybe this provision needs to be revisited by our government.
I'm just getting to the good stuff the loopholes created for Corporations allow them to save twice as much with "unlimited tax deductibility of executive pay" thus top companies can deduct their executives pay off their corporate income taxes. So essentially the more a company pays an executive the less they pay in taxes.
Finally the government has created 20 billion dollars worth of bail outs and procurement for Corporations.
So you don't think any of these loopholes and tax codes warrants legislative reform? Because we're all waiting for that elusive trickle down effect into the economy. This isn't just some "government and hollywood inspired caricature". It's reality as long as some of continue to rely on media sound bites for our information none of these issues will be addressed because corporate America continues on the American people's ignorance on these matters. So whatever side you fall on please please I cannot say it enough become informed about the topic particularly since this issue affects all of us workers directly.
Posted by Bonn1997:
Well I just watched Obama's speech online and have to say that that was nothing short of MAGNIFICENT! If there's one tiny criticism I have, it's that I wish Obama had referred to the issues he talked about specifically as "moral" issues because morality is such a powerful term and motivating force. It was still the best political speech I've heard by a Democrat this decade (or maybe tied for the best with some of his other speeches).
[Edited by - bonn1997 on 08-29-2008 08:51 AM]
Obama is a incredibly gifted orator and he was masterful last night. I think he did a great job laying out his plans and issuing the challenge to McCain.
Posted by bitty41:
Posted by Bippity10:
Is this reality or is it our movie inspired, class warfare inspired vision of business. Most businesses are not in practice to force people to work more. On the contrary to attract better talent you have to actually give more in today's world. I think some of us have just worked for bad companies and buy the hype. We are taught in this world that business owners are bad people that CEO's are rich greedy fu-- blah, blah, blah. The reality is that business owners and CEO's are representive of the rest of society. There are good ones and bad ones. Nice ones and mean ones. This notion that businesses are inherently greedy is not an accurate one. Businesses are in business to make a profit. That is why they exist. They do what it takes to earn a profit. In some cases that means cutting jobs. In some cases that means coddling employees. There is a lot more that goes into running an EFFECTIVE business than being greedy and hoarding as much for yourself as you can.
This is a government and hollywood inspired caricature.
Bippity,
So tell me do these numbers sound like "hype" or "hollywood inspired caricature"? Average pay for top CEO's is 10.5 million on average 344 times the pay of the average worker .
America's highest paid power suits" Hedge and Private Equity fund partnerships the top 50 of these managers averaged $588 million in earnings. To make matters worse these fund managers pay taxes at the rate of 15% whereas the average American Worker pays 35%. Why is this because of a provision in the tax code that allows them to claim their "carried interest" as capital gain. So on average for every million made in pocketed interest Investment Fund Managers saves around $200,000 in taxes.
I don't know call me crazy but maybe this provision needs to be revisited by our government.
I'm just getting to the good stuff the loopholes created for Corporations allow them to save twice as much with "unlimited tax deductibility of executive pay" thus top companies can deduct their executives pay off their corporate income taxes. So essentially the more a company pays an executive the less they pay in taxes.
Finally the government has created 20 billion dollars worth of bail outs and procurement for Corporations.
So you don't think any of these loopholes and tax codes warrants legislative reform? Because we're all waiting for that elusive trickle down effect into the economy. This isn't just some "government and hollywood inspired caricature". It's reality as long as some of continue to rely on media sound bites for our information none of these issues will be addressed because corporate America continues on the American people's ignorance on these matters. So whatever side you fall on please please I cannot say it enough become informed about the topic particularly since this issue affects all of us workers directly.
Once agian, Bitty you take the extremes. No one said "no legislative reform is needed". but I do definitely express doubt in increased government involvement. They have not shown us that they can run our businesses any more fairly than our business owners can, yet we have no problem saying we need "more government involvement. What we fail to realize that the people that run government are pulled from the same pool of people that you consider "greedy CEOs". It's no different. Actually a large portion of those running our government were at one time "greedy CEO's".
How is your public transit system doing. Every year the cost of mine goes up. Every few years it nearly doubles. Yet the product and service do not get better. They are a government created monopoly and in position to give back by creating a great service at a cheap price. It's never done. Our school system is the same. The Board of Education is developed and our school systems go in the crapper.
Do we need reform? Yes. No one has argued with you on this. I'm just not so quick to jump on the the government has the best solution band wagon. In some areas they just need to get out of the way.
As for your average CEO pay. Remember that is overall pay, not salary. The average Salary is far less. The rest of the pay is tied into performance incentives which is what Investor's have been clamoring for. This has been the trend since the Enron and Tyco scandals.
Bitty I think you are missing the mark. I am not a CEO supporter, which is what is assumed whenever you don't trash every CEO and call all business owners greedy pigs. I'm just not under the impression that our government is any different. As a matter of fact, by nature of the position, politicians gain their position because they want power. Not so different than the corporate CEO.
Bippity,
I think you are probably a generally intelligent guy but this debate is very difficult to have when concrete facts are consistently absence from your posts. I'm not trying to be conscending but you really aren't bringing anything of substance to the table. I am not entirely sure if you are comprehending the workings of our government and how it works in relation to business. I've presented facts that clearly demostrate incidences in which government was heavily involved and there was economic growth in both this country and foreign countries. Yet you seemingly ignore that big government in business can and has worked. Most importantly the government is the one to police business so unless you offer another entity, government is the best thing we have going for providing answers for our economic crisis? So we can lean on our Congress, Senate, and President for solutions.
McCain is going to have a 44 yr old sarah pellum conservative gov from alaska.
If this isn't a joke. If he McCain dies, a hockey mom takes office.lol
Like I said , there might not be an election, GB needs a disaster to stay in office.
Posted by bitty41:
Bippity,
I think you are probably a generally intelligent guy but this debate is very difficult to have when concrete facts are consistently absence from your posts. I'm not trying to be conscending but you really aren't bringing anything of substance to the table. I am not entirely sure if you are comprehending the workings of our government and how it works in relation to business. I've presented facts that clearly demostrate incidences in which government was heavily involved and there was economic growth in both this country and foreign countries. Yet you seemingly ignore that big government in business can and has worked. Most importantly the government is the one to police business so unless you offer another entity, government is the best thing we have going for providing answers for our economic crisis? So we can lean on our Congress, Senate, and President for solutions.
So let me see:
1.) You are insulting as he-ll in this post. Good job on that one. But thanks, your insults have inspired me to go back to school to get to your level of education so we can discuss politics on a sports website that wastes our day in a deeper more meaningful way.
2.) Consistent facts absent from my post? Of course. we are on a sports website in the middle of the day while hopefully both of us are working/or attending school. If you are researching to find concrete facts, something is wrong. This is a surface level argument.
3.) You and I have not yet disagreed on whether government intervention and regulation is needed in business, you and I have disagreed on how much. By insulting my point of view you have taken the road that so many do in debate today. Especially in this situation where we are talking in soundbites instead of having a real face to face conversation and points are made on the fly. If someone disagrees just go after their intelligence level.
4.) I have given you clear examples of two government run programs which are the main reason why I only want "government policing" and nothing else.
5.) In the future if you need more clarification on a topic feel free to ask in a respectful way.
6.) just think all the moments we just spent discussing this topic could have been put to better use. We could have used these wasted minutes bettering ourselves so that we can make more money and complain less.
If you think discussing the country in which you reside in economic policies to be a waste of time then by all means I admit you have me beat on that front. But keep in mind that when you complain about people voting just party lines instead of voting by the candidate that you find to be the most agreeable; choosing not to become fully informed on issues you leave yourself with no choice but to vote for the "popular" candidates of the Democrat or Republican parties.
But your right I'll get back to spending my time researching whether Gallinari can shoot an NBA 3.
Posted by bitty41:
If you think discussing the country in which you reside in economic policies to be a waste of time then by all means I admit you have me beat on that front. But keep in mind that when you complain about people voting just party lines instead of voting by the candidate that you find to be the most agreeable; choosing not to become fully informed on issues you leave yourself with no choice but to vote for the "popular" candidates of the Democrat or Republican parties.
But your right I'll get back to spending my time researching whether Gallinari can shoot an NBA 3.
Once again, Bitty with the extremes. You seem to live on the extremes. Not once did I say discussing my country was a waste of time. The mere fact that we discussed here is evidence enough. What I find to be a waste of time is the discussion we had, once it degenerated into the typical "I'm smarter than you" BS prevelant in most forums. By the mere fact that you found time to insult my intelligence because we disagree on the level of government involvement needed shows me that your mind is closed on the subject. Just the mere fact that you make assumptions about my level of knowledge of the issues without once having met me is another indication of a closed mind. I'm willing to put my education, knowledge of the issues and current events, and career success up against anyone and everyone on this website and I'm confident that I'll do alright. But on an individual level I'm open minded enough to know that based on what I hear on this site I don't really know anything about you or anyone else. So I don't pass judgements. Obviously, you do.
Big government vs. small government have been debated for a long time. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Millions of amazingly intelligent people have argued on both sides of the fence for centuries and a definitive answer has never been reached........Until today. Thanks Bitty for knowing what's right. Now let's call a press conference and get the word out.
I don't know or care what your individual level intelligence is because you don't need to justify yourself to me. All I ask from debates is exchange of facts and opinions. If you enter into a debate and consistently fail to include facts in your positions you can't really expect for your position to be taken seriously.
I would be more then willing to listen and
digest to your opinions accompanied with facts. But I have very little patience for rhethoric on tangible issues like the economy, foreign policy, health care, etc. I think this statement says it all
Consistent facts absent from my post? Of course. we are on a sports website in the middle of the day while hopefully both of us are working/or attending school. If you are researching to find concrete facts, something is wrong. This is a surface level argument.
Politics affects our lives every hour on everyday so to me researching about my country's Economic policies is not just relevant after work, after hanging out with my friends, or after watching my favorite television show. I don't care if I'm in a gocery store, bar, at the beach, party, this is always relevant and beneficial to discuss. Btw I work in Economic Development so it is
kinda of relevant lol.
Posted by bitty41:
I don't know or care what your individual level intelligence is because you don't need to justify yourself to me. All I ask from debates is exchange of facts and opinions. If you enter into a debate and consistently fail to include facts in your positions you can't really expect for your position to be taken seriously.
I would be more then willing to listen and digest to your opinions accompanied with facts. But I have very little patience for rhethoric on tangible issues like the economy, foreign policy, health care, etc. I think this statement says it all Consistent facts absent from my post? Of course. we are on a sports website in the middle of the day while hopefully both of us are working/or attending school. If you are researching to find concrete facts, something is wrong. This is a surface level argument.
Politics affects our lives every hour on everyday so to me researching about my country's Economic policies is not just relevant after work, after hanging out with my friends, or after watching my favorite television show. I don't care if I'm in a gocery store, bar, at the beach, party, this is always relevant and beneficial to discuss. Btw I work in Economic Development so it is kinda of relevant lol.
So in the future if you want respect from me, ask me to clarify my position. Don't come with this typical chat room who's more intelligent bs. Behave like an adult. You want to be taken seriously, ask to clarify, don't insult. My arguments are clearly anecdotal and I'm not ashamed of that and openly admit it. If you don't like it, then stop addressing me, don't insult. Bottom line is, you've presented a lot of facts but have presented very little that disagrees with anything I've said. You want government to police. So do I. You want some regulation on of the corporate world, so do I. You've accused me of being on the opposite ends of the playing field from you because you have difficulty disccussing with someone that doesn't echo your every word. In the end the only place we disagree is that you give of the air that the corporate CEO is an evil greedy human being. You want big government to take control, I do not. You trust government to make things run smoothly. I do not.
So I will be the adult here and I ask you to clarify for me, why do you think companies need to have more regulation? Why do so many layoffs occur? Why do so many companies outsource?
By the way I'm glad you work in economic development. I hope to God it's not a government job. Because if my tax dollars are being spent on UltimateKnicks research, I'm going to throw a fit.
I should re-post this as"If Mccain takes an Alaskan soccer mom as his next VP he will be blown out"
Now it will be Dems 56 Repubs 44
Posted by Elite:
Obama stands for change, Hillary stands for same old political bullshit. She is a CLINTON. Enough is enough.. Time for a new face. A new energy. HIllary would have contradicted everything Obama stands for, she was never even CONSIDERED. The only reason it was even brought up in the media is cuz it makes for a good story. So when people like Briggs get SERIOUS about it actually could have/should have happened it shows that u don't understand this election, and you don't understand Obama. There was never a chance for Hillary to be on the ticket.
It's nice to be young and boisterous. I will say 1996-2000 were pretty darn good years for BRIGGS and co.
Posted by BRIGGS:
I should re-post this as"If Mccain takes an Alaskan soccer mom as his next VP he will be blown out"
Now it will be Dems 56 Repubs 44
If that's the case then Obama had no need to take Hillary. He was right to pick the person who he thought he'd work best with.
Posted by Bippity10:
"What if taxes are not raised that money goes staright into their greedy pockets, right? Business dont hire people as a social service they hire less people than they need and force everyone to work extra. So I dont completely buy the notion that they can shed more people and continue to operate at the same level."
Is this reality or is it our movie inspired, class warfare inspired vision of business. Most businesses are not in practice to force people to work more. On the contrary to attract better talent you have to actually give more in today's world. I think some of us have just worked for bad companies and buy the hype. We are taught in this world that business owners are bad people that CEO's are rich greedy fu-- blah, blah, blah. The reality is that business owners and CEO's are representive of the rest of society. There are good ones and bad ones. Nice ones and mean ones. This notion that businesses are inherently greedy is not an accurate one. Businesses are in business to make a profit. That is why they exist. They do what it takes to earn a profit. In some cases that means cutting jobs. In some cases that means coddling employees. There is a lot more that goes into running an EFFECTIVE business than being greedy and hoarding as much for yourself as you can.
This is a government and hollywood inspired caricature.
OK you guys got personal on this thread so I will take the opposite position of having (admittedly) lower than average IQ. But having said that I think "Trickle Down Economics" is the real Government inspired BS. Businesses are greedy, may be not all, but a large perecentage of them are. Any good business decision is made based on how much money can be made out of it even the ones where coddling employees are involved its done with an ulterior motive of making more money.
I am not a great proponent of big government but I do like to see checks and balances. There have been too many examples of how innocent people get exploited in these huge wall street scandals like Enron and Subprime bonds. Dont get me wrong I am in favor of free markets also, but when I see the bastards that perpetuate the crisis get bailed out and poor old grandma somewhere is left holding the bill that's whre I get upset. The republicans have shown one thing clearly as long as times are good and their buddies are raking in the dineros their faith in "free markets" are unshakable. But when the cycle reverses and the greedy bastards are supposed to be held accountable for their actions the same "free market" preaching republicans suddenly turn in to big government bailout specialists. The GOP simple put only exists to benefit the lobbysists at the cost of the common people. End of discussion.
So Enron and Subprime are shining examples of what can go wrong without checks and balances and how greed takes over and manifests itself. These things are our current history and I for one (low IQ withstanding) choose to learn from them. Somebody once said those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Truer words have not been spoken.
I always smack myself in the head for not being able to let things go.
So in the future if you want respect from me, ask me to clarify my position. Don't come with this typical chat room who's more intelligent bs. Behave like an adult. You want to be taken seriously, ask to clarify, don't insult.
This is an outright for you to say I ever challenged your intelligence. Questioning the validity of your opinions does not equate to your intelligence. I thought this would be understood?
My arguments are clearly anecdotal and I'm not ashamed of that and openly admit it. If you don't like it, then stop addressing me, don't insult.
Offering only anecdotal tidbits on this topic is very problematic. The information is easily accessible. If you didn't want to be bother fine but then avoid these types of debates. Sounds harsh maybe but this type of back and forth with no concrete information only breeds misinformation.
Bottom line is, you've presented a lot of facts but have presented very little that disagrees with anything I've said. You want government to police. So do I. You want some regulation on of the corporate world, so do I. You've accused me of being on the opposite ends of the playing field from you because you have difficulty disccussing with someone that doesn't echo your every word.
We don't disagree really? That would be nice if it were true because I do not share your opinion that "government fixes nothing", that "CEO's are representative of society", class warfare in business is not a reality. I have absolutely no difficulty discussing with someone that doesn't echo my every word but you need to re-read your posts and mine again to see where the differences are if you missed them the first time around.
In the end the only place we disagree is that you give of the air that the corporate CEO is an evil greedy human being. You want big government to take control, I do not. You trust government to make things run smoothly. I do not.
Corporate CEO is greedy human being are you serious? I could care less about their individual personality traits lol. I'll explain this again if people I mean anyone is put into a situation unchecked involving a great deal of money they will get greedy its what makes us human. But wait this is where we make full circle: the importance of the government's checks and balances. Believe me corporate CEO's don't have the market cornered on greed that crosses all economic barriers. Take control of what? That doesn't even make sense I want them to police, you know watch over, provide some protection for workers, small investors, and consumers. Who said trust the government to make things run smoothly "checks and balances" "checks and balances" one of the founding principles of our Democracy.
So I will be the adult here and I ask you to clarify for me, why do you think companies need to have more regulation? Why do so many layoffs occur? Why do so many companies outsource?
Your all over the map and you will need to specify companies because again the reason why GM outsourced, laid-off, or need regulation might not be the same reason why American Airlines does. There is no uniform answer hence the need for exchanging of information and ideas. But I do appreciate you taking the high road and showing me how its done by adults.
By the way I'm glad you work in economic development. I hope to God it's not a government job. Because if my tax dollars are being spent on UltimateKnicks research, I'm going to throw a fit.
Haha Your tax dollars I think not just wasting my own time. But I do find it troubling that a private business owner would enter into a discussion about the economy without any facts to substantiate his claims.
This debate is stagnant and its clearly become something that it was most definitely not meant to be. So I will let it go.
[Edited by - bitty41 on 08-30-2008 04:38 AM][Edited by - bitty41 on 08-30-2008 04:39 AM]
Posted by loweyecue:
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by bitty41:
Bippity,
First off you stated one major inaccuracy in your post. And I think this goes to the heart of the matter why you are off base in some of your assumptions.
The United States is not ranked the highest in the Standard of living and I'll do you one better the UN's Human Development Index which measures a country's literacy knowledge education, life expectancy, and standard of living ranked the United States as number 13 hell we aren't even number one on our continent because Canada is.
So lets take a further look at our economy: one percent of the richest households in America control 38% of the wealth and the top 20 percent control 80%. Our distribution of wealth is the WORST among developed nations. An even more disturbing trend the things that the middle class rely on for wealth CDs, homeownership, savings accounts, money markets; 85% of all outstanding stocks and financial securities are controlled by the 10% richest families, as well as 90% of business assets. So I challenge you to find a reputable economist (I am not proclaiming to be one) that would say this model will promote positive economic growth and stability for a nation.
You also stated that your French, British, and Middle Eastern business associates complain that they live in a financial system that allows no growth from one class to the next. I think this a generic statement not really based on anything of substance other then a couple of guys talking. Thats not to say you or they are off base but I seriously doubt that their systems are that regimented. Hell the richest women in GB right now who I believe is worth more then the Queen of England J.K. Rowling started writing the Harry Potter series while she was on Welfare. This is just a random sample off the top of my head. The Middle East why you would group them together considering that the Middle East includes a vast number of countries with very diverse societies I don't know. But I also admit that I am not well versed of the intricacies of the French, British, and all the Middle Eastern countries economic systems.
You will get agreement with me on improving our educational system but again this deals with regulation. Various lending companies have been allowed to completely gouge college students on loans. The average college tuition at a private school is around 32,000 so please tell me how an average kid is going to come up with 128,000? Winning the lottery, becoming a big budget action star, signing a multi-million dollar pro sports contract? Now add that the student loan debt, to inflation that exists almost everywhere in this society (except of course our salaries)? Yet we wonder why so many kids opt to not goto college and this hurts the middle class the most. At least if you are poor it's easier to obtain financial aid but if you have both parents in the household and they make 50 grand a piece you can kiss most of financial aid good-bye.
Finally this country' stability is based on checks and balances. Thats why we have a Supreme Court, Congress, Senate, and President. Everyone (at least in theory) in this society has to answer for their actions. Thats what separates us from anarchy or on the opposite spectrum dictatorships. So when you complain that business men such as yourself are suffering under the oppressive rules of the American government remember that these checks and balances protect you and your family as well. Guess what the middle class that includes you to. Unless of course your net income falls in the bracket of top 10% (which I'm assuming it doesn't but I could be wrong). Stop believing the Reaganomics myth. That businesses and a country's economic growth will suffer tremendously if there is too much government oversight. You would be very hard pressed to find any actual facts or models to back-up this claim. But if you can I'm absolutely open to hearing it. I know we've all heard this saying before but your only as strong as your weakest link. Most countries in the world you can find filthy rich people but what truly separates the bad from, the good, to the best is their middle class and poor. What kind of opportunities if any they have to seek a better life. Because right now that rubber band is being stretched, stretched, and stretched until it snaps and the economy totally collapses. And would you feel it was worth it because you got to save a few extra tax dollars?
Bitty you raise some great points, many of which I agree with. But let me ask you this question. You brought up our educational system. Can you research and examine what has happened to our educational system since the Board of Education has come into affect. The government fixes nothing. You and I will agree to disagree on this topic. When the government gets involved it decreases competition and innovation. It leads to indirect consequences that are not obvious to see but happen nonetheless. I'm just stating reality. We can raise the taxes on business to suit the masses. And on paper it looks great. But the bottomline is people go into business to make money. When you eat into their profits they will cut costs. It's human nature.
Absolutely AWESOME post by Bitty!! WOW!!!!
Bippity - Here is my counter to your argument: The premise that large government stifles innovation and competition is a bad one. Government is perfectly capable of being efficient. I think the root of the problem is the approach the govt has taken in the US of A. Who gets hired to government? Do the best and the brightest take govt jobs? Do you think any one in even the top 25% of college students would work for our govt? Didnt think so either. It has always been the policy of our govt to hire second and third tier people into government jobs. When you load you organization with such people do you really expect innovation and competition? None of these people are bad employees but the overall culture become oppressive, stifling and resistant to change. Those high flying ambitious people needed to create and share a vision and to mobilize the masses are not there in Govt agencies, that is why they fail. So large govt is not bad govt. Its who you hire into it.
Your argument about people going onto business to make money is spot on. So they will shed jobs if taxes are raised? What if taxes are not raised that money goes staright into their greedy pockets, right? Business dont hire people as a social service they hire less people than they need and force everyone to work extra. So I dont completely buy the notion that they can shed more people and continue to operate at the same level.
But this economy did not crash becuase of taxes it crashed IN SPITE of tax breaks, that much is history. We live in an economy financed primarily through debt. Regardless of how you look a it, the republicans took the approach that we would borrow our way out of debt. The last I checked that shyit dont fly. At some point in the future this nation will have to realize that status quo is not working and we actually have an obligation to repay our debt. The only way any government can hope to pay off anything is by increasing taxes, interest rates etc. There is no way around it, we have all seen what the fancy footwork by accountants who juggle numbers at will can do (Read ENRON) and we have also seen that you cannot finaance your entire economy based on debt alone. So yes raising taxes is a MUST.
Why is it the "policy" of government to hire 2nd and 3rd tier employees when you can hire 1st tier? That point right there shows government is not operating at the most efficient level. But to answer the question, government jobs do not pay as well as private companies. However, there are some of the brightest people in the world for the government because they believe it's their obligation to help improve the society that raised them. I am sure Bloomberg could just retire and relax at his billion dollar island and billion dollar mansion, instead of dealing with the stress of being the NYC mayor at the pay of $1 per year. Also, Spitzers and Clintons are lawyers graduating from Ivy league schools, who could have just made millions and coast for the rest of their lives, but they just choose to become politicians and work for the public.
This doesn't change the fact that the governemnt is inefficient. Most government employees, who are are not scrtunized by the media, aren't performing at the highest level. I went through the public school education in NYC, and I could tell you the teachers (majority) were not working after hours making improvements to their lesson plans or trying to fix the problems why their students can't read or do basic mathematics operations. They say it's not their fault and just blame the NYC public education system for their student's shortcoming. But if their job is on the line, I am sure there would be more teachers holding study sessions after school. My point is, most government jobs are very secure, and there aren't many incentives to perform at the highest level. Also, the job security and pension plan undermines (many, not all) government employees' motivation to be as productive and innovative as they can.
I can give another example. Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric, said he did not want to be a politician because there are no incentives to be innovative and efficient since there are no competition for governemnt service. To illustrate this point, he mentioned the governor of Indiana promised to keep jobs in the state and not outsource them in his election campaign; the governor kept his promise by increasing overall state tax rate to make up for the higher cost of keeping the jobs in state.
