Barney Frank again

[airdvr 200]

Please tell us what happened to the federal deficit during Reagan's tax cutting term, and Bush II's tax cutting term

Well, since only Congress actually spends money let's look at who controlled the aisles.

During Reagan's admin Dem's controlled the House and Senate 6 out of 8 years. Dems controlled both houses the entire time H.W. was in office. It's only under W's rein that he had control for 6 of the 8 years.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 1,651]

You should try adjusting for inflation and population growth.

It's interesting to graph the revenues and see how the (inflation and population adjusted) slope changes (even going negative) when the tax cutters ride into town.

GHW Bush called it "Voodoo Economics", and he was dead right.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skydived19006 4]

I love the idea of penalizing big business for success. It's a good idea as long as you don't work for a big business, hold stock in a big business, or purchase anything produced by a big business. They have three choices when faced with higher taxes; cut costs such as employees, cut earnings, or pass the raised cost of business along to their customer. None of these are good for the economy, and all affect the poor, yes even the homeless.

Oh, fourth option is to find a more friendly place to do business, that's good for our economy!

I think that when talking tax hikes they should all be realistic, and admit that they're going to raise taxes on the middle class, as this is where the money is! The whole "95%" thing is also bullshit! In excess of 40% pay no federal income taxes currently!


These are primarily for fun:
"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."[H. L. Mencken]

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests, " I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can." [Barry Goldwater]

WHY I THINK VOTING SHOULD BE RESTRICTED


This is one of my favorites. From Alexander Tyler. No, he wasn't writing about the United States. This quote is well over one hundred years old. Tyler was writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic.


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

The last of these quotes is the most interesting to me. If you think that there's any truth in it at all, then where do you think we are in the process? My opinion is that we're near the end of the process, and therefore near the end of this grand experiment we refer to as a democracy.

Martin

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

I love the idea of penalizing big business for success. It's a good idea as long as you don't work for a big business, hold stock in a big business, or purchase anything produced by a big business. They have three choices when faced with higher taxes; cut costs such as employees, cut earnings, or pass the raised cost of business along to their customer. None of these are good for the economy, and all affect the poor, yes even the homeless.

Well, they could stop paying the CEOs $(Tens of Millions) in bonuses and perks, but I can't see that happening.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

Well, they could stop paying the CEOs $(Tens of Millions) in bonuses and perks, but I can't see that happening.

I can't either, but then it is a free market. If I could command 10 million in salery, and find someone to pay it, as I say "everyone goes home in a lemo!"

Ironically, why do we seldom hear folks complaining about an actor being paid 10 million to appear in a movie? Why is there not a rule that a professional athlete only earn up to some arbitrary amount?

Here's an idea, why should the federal government not simply confiscate all professional athletes, and actors earnings above $1,000,000/year? They don't need it, call it being patriotic! Everyone knows that those actors and athletes are a bunch of damn greedy folks anyway!! I know that this "solution" won't help the economy, or our deficit, but it would make me feel better. I don't know why it would make me feel better, since I'd be no better off. Maybe someone can why enplane it to me why screwing someone else gives me such a warm fuzzy feeling?

Being a DZO, and screwing fun jumpers every weekend, you'd think I'd already have the answers to this question. Help me understand this!

Martin

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

Well, they could stop paying the CEOs $(Tens of Millions) in bonuses and perks, but I can't see that happening.

I can't either, but then it is a free market. If I could command 10 million in salery, and find someone to pay it, as I say "everyone goes home in a lemo!"

Ironically, why do we seldom hear folks complaining about an actor being paid 10 million to appear in a movie? Why is there not a rule that a professional athlete only earn up to some arbitrary amount?

Maybe it's because overpaid CEO's have been shipping American jobs offshore, while overpaid actors and sportsmen haven't.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

Maybe it's because overpaid CEO's have been shipping American jobs offshore, while overpaid actors and sportsmen haven't.

It's CEOs job to keep a company profitable. That is what they're paid to do. This country doesn't want large cooperation to thrive here, if they do they're evil. Since the large cooperation are evil, we have to punish them with higher taxes. After isn't "making things fair" what the tax system was set up to do? It has nothing to do with funding government, just equalizing the play field.

So, our government tells business to go away by penalizing them for achievement. They leave, and we cry about that too. You can't have eat your cake and have it too.

I tried this theory with a girl friend once. Every time she did something good, I punished her. Damned if she didn't leave me! Obviously she was a bitch!

Martin

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[SpeedRacer 1]

Random tasteless joke:


In Boston there's a brand of hotdog called a Fenway Frank.

Q: What's the difference between Barney Frank and a Fenway Frank?

A: They come in different buns.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

Maybe it's because overpaid CEO's have been shipping American jobs offshore, while overpaid actors and sportsmen haven't.

It's CEOs job to keep a company profitable. That is what they're paid to do.

I explained why CEOs get little sympathy. The gap in compensation between CEO and average Joe working for the corporation has grown exponentially over the last 2 decades, while the economy hasn't kept pace with CEO compensation. If the CEO messes up, he get a golden parachute and Joe gets unemployment.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

I explained why CEOs get little sympathy. The gap in compensation between CEO and average Joe working for the corporation has grown exponentially over the last 2 decades, while the economy hasn't kept pace with CEO compensation. If the CEO messes up, he get a golden parachute and Joe gets unemployment.

If corporations didn't reward their CEO's for operating profitably and expanding the business, what incentive would the CEO have to operate profitably and grow.
The reasons CEO compensation has increased is because simply business has expanded. If I work in a plant butchering chickens, my responsibility does not increase or decrease as the business grows and hires more people. If the CEO does a good job of keeping a corporation profitable, then it will most likely expand. With that expansion comes more jobs and responsibility and rightly so should include more pay.

Somehow many people have this theory that the market is going to grow without the corporations growing. Or somehow we're going to be able to expect CEO's to expand these business and employ more people without paying them more for the extra responsibility. This world would be a better place if we quit coveting what other people have and work for our own.

I work for a reputable corporation as a low-end salaried employee. I'm very thankful that I have a job and I give them my best, because my raises and bonuses are directly related to the companies profits that year. You want to make it more difficult for corporations like mine to profit so you can hand that money back to people like me. Well what happens when you start handing that money to people like me and take it from the corporations profitability in an already struggling market where corporations are struggling to stay afloat. Well my bonuses and raises go away for sure, and I'll be lucky if my job doesn't too. They are not obligated to employ me. A CEO's salary is hardly a drop in the bucket for a companies expenses. Our company grossed over a billion in sales last year. A couple pennies difference in grain prices will affect our profitibility for hundreds of millions of dollars. Our CEO's salary is less than $750,000.

The wealth gap naturally increases with capitalism. So what? What does that mean? You may get a smaller piece of the pie as the pie grows, but the pie has grown enough that your smaller piece is still bigger than it was before. You cannot make the rich poorer without making the poor poorer.

Do you know how lucky we are to live in a country where even the lowest paid person in the country can own a vehicle or save his money to further himself. Most countries owning your own car is for the wealthy of the wealthy. This country will get what it has coming when we try to tear down the rich. Wow, so were all even now, but were all broke or unemployed.

Phew, sorry for the long post

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

I explained why CEOs get little sympathy. The gap in compensation between CEO and average Joe working for the corporation has grown exponentially over the last 2 decades, while the economy hasn't kept pace with CEO compensation. If the CEO messes up, he get a golden parachute and Joe gets unemployment.

If corporations didn't reward their CEO's for operating profitably and expanding the business, what incentive would the CEO have to operate profitably and grow.

Ummm so you don't think, say, $5M/year would be enough incentive, instead of $30M?

And what about all those corporations that underperform and STILL give multi-$millions to their CEOs?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Ummm so you don't think, say, $5M/year would be enough incentive, instead of $30M?

If they set a cap at $5m, what is going to inspire him/her to expand the business if he's not going to get paid more. Businesses need to grow if you want the stock to grow and more jobs to be created.

Quote

And what about all those corporations that underperform and STILL give multi-$millions to their CEOs?

With more responsibility comes more pay. I'm not going to be very happy with my company if they put me in charge of 3 more airplanes and not pay me anymore regardless of my performance.
Much of a corporations profitibility is beyond the control of the CEO. You are assuming that if a corporation is suffering its always because of the CEO underperforming. Govt subsidies of ethanol and soy-diesel almost drove us out of business because of rising grain prices. We have lucked out through the worst of it while Pilgrims Pride and Tyson (our biggest competitors) can't say the same.

The boardmembers of a corporation choose their CEO. It is in their best interest to choose a CEO that will make the company turn a profit. If they screw the company up they will probably get fired. You seem to demonize all corporations and CEO's because of a small handful that have screwed their employees and shareholders. I think even Fox news is calling these a$$holes out. It is in the best interest of the corporation to determine if their CEO should be rewarded or fired, not the govt. It seems you want to pin all the blame of the current economy on the CEO's. Often times these "evil" corporations are victims too.

A free market can be a tough market, but its great for the consumer.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

Ummm so you don't think, say, $5M/year would be enough incentive, instead of $30M?

If they set a cap at $5m, what is going to inspire him/her to expand the business if he's not going to get paid more. Businesses need to grow if you want the stock to grow and more jobs to be created.

Quote

And what about all those corporations that underperform and STILL give multi-$millions to their CEOs?

With more responsibility comes more pay. I'm not going to be very happy with my company if they put me in charge of 3 more airplanes and not pay me anymore regardless of my performance.
Much of a corporations profitibility is beyond the control of the CEO.

That works both ways! Maybe a corp is successful DESPITE an incompetent CEO.

Quote

You are assuming that if a corporation is suffering its always because of the CEO underperforming. .

The responsibility is the excuse for the big bucks.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

That works both ways! Maybe a corp is successful DESPITE an incompetent CEO.

Like I said, its in the best interest of the company and its board to ditch an incompetent CEO. Although one doesn't normally achieve that position in a company based on incompetence.

Quote

The responsibility is the excuse for the big bucks.

Yes, thats a big part of it. You need to reward merit, but you can't add more responsibility to a person, without expecting to pay them more.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

That works both ways! Maybe a corp is successful DESPITE an incompetent CEO.

Like I said, its in the best interest of the company and its board to ditch an incompetent CEO. Although one doesn't normally achieve that position in a company based on incompetence.

Quote

The responsibility is the excuse for the big bucks.

Yes, thats a big part of it. You need to reward merit, but you can't add more responsibility to a person, without expecting to pay them more.

40 years ago when our corporations dominated the world, (CEO compensation)/(worker compensation) ratio was less than half of what it is now. The CEOs of the time had no trouble running their companies. Your argument has no merit whatsoever.

The current rate of CEO compensation IS a problem in the USA

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

40 years ago when our corporations dominated the world, (CEO compensation)/(worker compensation) ratio was less than half of what it is now. The CEOs of the time had no trouble running their companies. Your argument has no merit whatsoever.

The current rate of CEO compensation IS a problem in the USA

I think you need to reread some of my posts. I've explained this already. Are you trying to tell me that these corporations you're referring to haven't grown exponentially and don't employ more people than 40 years ago, or are you trying to say a CEO of a corporation that employs 10,000 people should be payed at the same compensation ratio to his/her employees than a CEO from a corp employs 50,000 people.

The concept is pretty basic. Lets say I own a company that employs 4 people at $10/hr to operate a cash register. My year end profit is $75,000. Ok now lets say I open another store and employ 4 more people at the same rate. Well if all goes well, my salary should be $150,000 and they will still make 10$/hr to do the same job. If you somehow think that they need to be compensated more for the same job because I'm managing another store, then all I have to say is WOW. Your ideals are going to devestate this economy.

Ok, if you think CEO compensation is really what's holding back America, heres one example of why that's utter bs.

Lets take everyones beloved wal-mart

They average $256 billion in sales a year. This last year their CEO's full compensation with stocks and salary comibined was 23.3 million. Thats only .0009% of the companies sales.
Also Walmart employs over 1.2 million people in the US alone, so if the CEO decided to work as a volunteer and liquidate his salary equally to all the employees it would only be an extra $20/yr for every employee or less than a penny an hour more. I hardly think his $23.3 million is a problem.

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

40 years ago when our corporations dominated the world, (CEO compensation)/(worker compensation) ratio was less than half of what it is now. The CEOs of the time had no trouble running their companies. Your argument has no merit whatsoever.

The current rate of CEO compensation IS a problem in the USA

Not nearly the problem that the corruption in our government is. I see actor to key grip compensation ratio as a big issue as well. What can we do?!?

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

40 years ago when our corporations dominated the world, (CEO compensation)/(worker compensation) ratio was less than half of what it is now. The CEOs of the time had no trouble running their companies. Your argument has no merit whatsoever.

The current rate of CEO compensation IS a problem in the USA

I think you need to reread some of my posts. I've explained this already. .

No, you haven't explained AT ALL why in 2008 it is necessary for a CEO of a bank he is driving into bankruptcy to be compensated in the $tens of millions, with a golden parachute attached in case he is fired for incompetence.

You haven't explained AT ALL why a company that is losing money can't make savings by cutting CEO compensation instead of firing workers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[bwnco 0]

That is exactly 100% correct and its why higher taxes is only punishing the wealthy. Why in gods name would you want to punish success! They are the ones that make the jobs. Personally I wished it was just 20% across the board tax rate.. and like someone else said in the form Live within our fucking means and stop handing out money to every swinging dick that wants it.. Which means, less damn goverment control in all aspects of any country...

"Anything I've ever done that ultimately was worthwhile initially scared me to death."

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

40 years ago when our corporations dominated the world, (CEO compensation)/(worker compensation) ratio was less than half of what it is now. The CEOs of the time had no trouble running their companies. Your argument has no merit whatsoever.

The current rate of CEO compensation IS a problem in the USA

Not nearly the problem that the corruption in our government is. I see actor to key grip compensation ratio as a big issue as well. What can we do?!?

Shareholders need to take control and not leave the compensation packages in the hands of the old boy network, each member of whom scratches the other's back.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,436]

>Why in gods name would you want to punish success!

Supporting the country that people claim they love is not "punishment."

> Personally I wished it was just 20% across the board tax rate..

To support our government 100% it would have to be 42% across the board. Do you really want that?

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

That is exactly 100% correct and its why higher taxes is only punishing the wealthy. Why in gods name would you want to punish success! They are the ones that make the jobs. Personally I wished it was just 20% across the board tax rate.. ...

Because the Chinese simply won't lend us enough money to make up the difference.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

No, you haven't explained AT ALL why in 2008 it is necessary for a CEO of a bank he is driving into bankruptcy to be compensated in the $tens of millions, with a golden parachute attached in case he is fired for incompetence.

Well we keep jumping around here. Are we talking compensation ratios, salaries affect on profits, or golden parachutes. I have addressed these except for Golden parachutes.

Quote

You haven't explained AT ALL why a company that is losing money can't make savings by cutting CEO compensation instead of firing workers.

Well I suppose it could, but that would be pretty ineffective and not solve crap.
Reread my Wal-Mart example. I've already shown you that 23.3 million is not going to make a rip of a difference if a corporation of that size is struggling. because that is only .0009% of the companies sales. If a company of that size is going bankrupt, there is a a much bigger problem than that CEO's salary.

Assuming wal-mart wants to cut jobs to save cost, we'll assume the low-end workers are making 16,000/yr. It takes less than 1500 of the 1.2 million employees to equal that CEO's salary. Thats less than 1 person per store. And that's assuming the people getting layed off are the low-end workers. Cuts are usually made at all levels. Which would reduce that number even more.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

Assuming wal-mart wants to cut jobs to save cost, we'll assume the low-end workers are making 16,000/yr. It takes less than 1500 of the 1.2 million employees to equal that CEO's salary.

What's 1,500 more unemployed people anyway, when you have houses to maintain in Aspen, Nassau and Nice, and your yacht needs another barman.

Let them eat cake. It's the Republican way.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[blueskybug 0]

If you feel taxes must go up and Obama wins and raises taxes will that be inconsistant what he has been telling voters ? Would that be close to a "read my lips" comment ?