Democrats want to separate the rich, from the very rich.

[mgz]

Once again most of the things the US is ranked low in compared to other nations is because as a whole the nation is mediocre , about half the country gets better treatment then most people around the world for living conditions if not more.

[kyanwan]

Also, the only arguments I'm seeing in this thread are "RICH PEOPLE ARE JERKS SO WE HAVE TO BRIBE THEM." Sure, they're jerks. That's why you SHOULDN'T GIVE THEM MORE MONEY. They don't even try to earn it. You should only get paid if you produce something, and all these people do is move money around, producing nothing.

I thought the same thing myself.  But, we'll give you a hypothetical situation:

Manufacturer X - let's say, a small business up the street from me-  "Scorpion Fasteners."   Real place.

Say, they win a contract from Boeing.   Produce 50 million screws for their new airliner.  Each screw costs $0.20 due to special materials and strict quality control & testing standards.   They need $4 million - bam - right now.

Where do they go?   Who has $4M laying around?

Now, when this company gets this job, who makes the screws - exactly.

------

Let's take another step into this situation.   Who pays the workers?   With contract work of this type - the buyer who issues the work order usually pays 60-90 days after the work is delivered.   The company making the product or delivering must finance - they must handle all the costs for labor, materials, quality control, shipping - all of the above.

This, unless they have created some alternate terms.  But believe me, when you've got the potential to make something like 4M or some big contract amount for your company - the work issuer will say - hey, you finance it - or this other place that we have will make them, and they've already got the financing.   It's our terms, or you lose the work.

True for foodservice, retailers, automobile, manufacturing, service industry - everything.  

Where would Google be without venture capital?

Money is the backbone of every aspect of our economy.   Those with the money, are the fuel for our machine.   Attacking them, will make them leave.

There are places in the world, places growing fast - which do not have the burden that doing business here does.   If we stifle our own economy like this, the money will move elsewhere.   Obama has no clue what the hell he's doing, he has no clue what the hell business does.   Nobody will win in the end.   We'll all lose - from the guy who refuses to work at McDonalds - because his welfare benefits are better ---- to the Investment Banker- who will no longer have work in the USA ... because the industry died, c/o debilitating taxes to prop up a bunch of freeloading bastards.

Once again most of the things the US is ranked low in compared to other nations is because as a whole the nation is mediocre , about half the country gets better treatment then most people around the world for living conditions if not more.

I saw a guy who looked pathetic at the grocery store this morning.   I assumed, the guy received state aid.   Not because I watched the payment method, but because of the look he had.

Our state, offers many avenues for people at the bottom - to reach to the top.   You can get a free GED - through no-cost or low-cost Adult Education.   We have associate degree programs through the state university system which are extremely cheap - I'm talking $1000-2000 per semester.

If you are at the bottom, you need to put forth an effort.  2 years or less - you can get a decent job that is respectable, and you will be proud to say you do.

What is the only requirement to do such?   A little thing called: effort.   A bit of hard work.   Not even that much - only a year or two.   Is that too much to ask?   They're not even paying for the bulk of it!

So whose fault is it, if someone remains a pathetic loser?  

Is it my fault that someone won't get up in the morning?  

Is it my neighbor's fault?  

How about the rich guy who lives in Greenwich - is he somehow stopping a guy in Hartford from leaving his house, going down to the school - and learning something?

Not really - actually the rich guy is already financing the education that they refuse to get.  The rich guy is paying for the empty seat in the classroom with that man's name on it.   The only thing that people will take - are the programs that are a free ride, with no work.

Now - while I've said a million times, I have no problem giving ASSISTANCE, I would rather take the teach a man to fish approach.   Public benefit and public options - should have a requirement of education.   Forget job searches.   If you want welfare or public benefits - you go to school - for an associate's degree or better.   You maintain a C+ or better average, or your benefits are cut.   Then you get a few months (6-8 is fair.) additional support after you graduate - so you have time to find a job.  

That's the way it should be done.

This will not only solve status problems, earnings problems - but it will improve the quality of our society.  It will improve the quality of life of our disadvantaged.   Not only that, but they will have the dignity of being able to earn a good quality of life with their own skills.

Me - I don't care what other "conservatives" think.   I'm strongly sided with - if we're going do do ANYTHING for people, give them anything for free - it should be an education & earning skills.

[relic2279]

  It's our terms, or you lose the work.

If you are already in business, get awarded a nice fat contract from say, Boeing, I don't exactly see why they'd have to seek out venture capital. A bank would have no problem giving such a loan to a small company as long as it's not a shady deal.

Don't know how other small business operate, but when my father had his own HVAC company (relatively small, 12-15 employees) and was awarded larger contracts, payment was done half now, half on completion.

[kyanwan]

  It's our terms, or you lose the work.

If you are already in business, get awarded a nice fat contract from say, Boeing, I don't exactly see why they'd have to seek out venture capital. A bank would have no problem giving such a loan to a small company as long as it's not a shady deal.

Don't know how other small business operate, but when my father had his own HVAC company (relatively small, 12-15 employees) and was awarded larger contracts, payment was done half now, half on completion.

It's all relative.   When you deal with the largest consumer in the nation - the Federal Government, or any Government agency - local, state - it's our terms (Net 30) or forget it.

I used Boeing as an example, with subcontracting in mind - because they get the money to pay the subcontractor Net 30.   You get paid Net 60 or Net 90.   You can push the terms by doing a Net30/15 Net60/10 Net90/0 or something ... but that hurts.

Lines of credit like that - the banks are investing, and they expect a decent immediate return that's guaranteed.

[relic2279]

Lines of credit like that - the banks are investing, and they expect a decent immediate return that's guaranteed.

That was kind of my point. If you are a small company doing business with a huge company, and just got awarded a juicy contract, why wouldn't the banks see that as a profitable investment to give money to you? It would be easier then finding individual investors or investor firms for venture capital.

[August Osari]

Here's a stupid statement. On what are you determining standard of living? Homeownership? We're 3rd or 4th in the world despite our considerably larger population. Median income? 2nd only to Switzerland. The gay UN Human Development Index? 15th.

You want to take over General Motors and do a better job? Care to handle that kind've pressure? 20 bucks says you're under 20 years old.

Why is it gay? Because it places your country in 15th when it should clearly be 1st just because it's AMERICA, right? You also cherry-picked your statistics, there, and I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even realize it.

Also, you're a complete idiot if you actually think the guys at the top of General Motors have the power you're implying--it's not that easy to fix something once you've already smashed it to bits. Pressure? You're naive if you think people with power feel any pressure--so long as they keep a lot of money and power in the end, they're satisfied, and... oh, hey, you're handing that money and power over to them without question!

As far as my age goes, it's pretty much irrelevant. Twenty, thirty, forty, fifty... Actually, if anything, I'd be less likely to do a good job as I get older since I'd have less time left to feel the repercussions of my mistakes. Maybe you should have taken a shot at my education instead?

[sdedalus83]

The point is that comparing the HDI of the US to any one of those 14, aside from Canada, France and Japan, is meaningless.  They're all small, ethnically and culturally homogeneous countries with simple economies, no population growth, and no immigration.

It would be like comparing the working conditions in a moderately sized law firm to the average conditions at GE.

[mgz]

The point is that comparing the HDI of the US to any one of those 14, aside from Canada, France and Japan, is meaningless.  They're all small, ethnically and culturally homogeneous countries with simple economies, no population growth, and no immigration.

It would be like comparing the working conditions in a moderately sized law firm to the average conditions at GE.

obviously the GE guys will be way better off right ??

...

[vicious796]

Here's a stupid statement. On what are you determining standard of living? Homeownership? We're 3rd or 4th in the world despite our considerably larger population. Median income? 2nd only to Switzerland. The gay UN Human Development Index? 15th.

You want to take over General Motors and do a better job? Care to handle that kind've pressure? 20 bucks says you're under 20 years old.

Why is it gay? Because it places your country in 15th when it should clearly be 1st just because it's AMERICA, right? You also cherry-picked your statistics, there, and I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even realize it.

Also, you're a complete idiot if you actually think the guys at the top of General Motors have the power you're implying--it's not that easy to fix something once you've already smashed it to bits. Pressure? You're naive if you think people with power feel any pressure--so long as they keep a lot of money and power in the end, they're satisfied, and... oh, hey, you're handing that money and power over to them without question!

As far as my age goes, it's pretty much irrelevant. Twenty, thirty, forty, fifty... Actually, if anything, I'd be less likely to do a good job as I get older since I'd have less time left to feel the repercussions of my mistakes. Maybe you should have taken a shot at my education instead?

No, it's gay to compare standards of living as a whole from a country/countries with populations less than that of one of our major cities. It's the same as incorporating universal healthcare for 30 million people as opposed to 300 million people, population is everything. The HDI from the UN heavily favors nations with free University as well as a socialized medicinal sector. The reason the US is as high as 15th on that list lies solely in our GDP as, in my personal opinion, it is impossible for us to finance a nation-wide federally financed healthcare system. Further education is a different matter than what we're discussing but that would also present a difficult situation with the vast number of "public" Universities in the United States and the amount of money it takes to keep them running.

For a truely "fair" comparison you need to compare countries in Europe to individual states in the United States. You will see, in that type of comparison, we vary by state in a similar fashion to how the countries of Europe vary. The United States as a whole is more diverse in population than any 1 European nation, maybe not by a percentage base (though I'd be surprised if one was) but definately by raw number.

It's like Fire Testing, what I do for a living. Sure, a small scale test may look fantastic but when you take it to a full scale test you throw in 1000 variables the small scale didn't have. What passes in one may not pass on another. If you throw in more material you throw in more risk of flaw.

I also wasn't referring to being 15th as a bad thing, it's far... far... far away from the bottom.

To go back to the taking over GM thing, the CEO of one of those companies is responsible for the actions of his underlings and gives the final word on major decisions that can determine if said company lives or dies. GM was a monster that didn't do much in the ways of change and suffered for it when the country changed without them. The lack of innovation in the CEO prevented the rest of the company from changing. There are certain times when the best thing to do is nothing and just maintain the way a product is created and not change anything though. It takes intellect, education, and a ton of experience to know when to do these things. This is why I attacked your age, your post screams of a lack of experience.

Not saying I have much of my own at 23.

I didn't attack your education for several reasons. First, your post was actually well written. You understand what grammar and spelling are as well as how to use italics to better show your points. This does not come from an uneducated person. I called the comment stupid, not the poster. Also, by implying you're under 20, I imply that you most likely haven't graduated from a University and worked in the private or public sector. All leads back to experience, which comes with age and... well... experience.

Most of us are actually not calling for giving them more money, it's more along the lines of letting them keep more of the money they earned (by either making change to a company that would die without it or by maintaining the standard practices that allowed them to create a profit in the first place). To be responsible for a giant of a company like Ford, GM, or Chrysler, does put the pressure on you, especially now. Everything the CEOs of that company do is watched, reported, and scrutinized. They are under the weight of the heavy public eye. You walk into a position knowing that you employ thousands of individuals and pay for their family's well being in many cases. You can't say that these executives don't care about their employees, you don't know them personally. Even if they only care about themselves, it would tarnish their reputation and potentially exorcise them from the workforce if they were to destroy the lives of thousands of Americans by making a wrong move.

So, yes, I can say with a level of certainty that they are under pressure. They are at the end of the line when things go drastically wrong and are rarely recognized for when things go right - that's how our society works. We love to nail people for doing something wrong but rarely take the time to cheer for those who see success. Being under the magnifying glass of the mass media is pressure, in the extreme. Everything down to your personal life will be reported so you have to keep yourself in check almost 24 hours a day.

[kyanwan]

No, it's gay to compare standards of living as a whole from a country/countries with populations less than that of one of our major cities.

QFT. 

[vicious796]

No, it's gay to compare standards of living as a whole from a country/countries with populations less than that of one of our major cities.

QFT. 

But, no matter how many times you or I state this, it's always disregarded by those in lower population countries. I'm waiting for Ace to pop up and give us a catchy phrase like "That's my momma!"

[mrjpark]

Word.  No matter what, the bottom stays poor and the top will stay rich.  And honestly, taxing the rich more won't "squeeze" them.  They're already earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year at the very minimum.  If they complain that we take a bit more to help out our country in need, they can go fuck themselves.  The reason it's come to this is that their "reinvesting into the economy" hasn't been working because honestly, they're human beings.  A CEO, before being a dedicated American citizen, is a CEO.  His premiere interest is to make money.  Sometimes this leads to good things, sometimes not.  Throughout history, we can see that most CEO's will do what's necessary to make more money even if it hurts the American economy.  So even if we're letting them keep this money instead of taxing them heavier in hopes that they'll use it wiser, chances are it's not going to happen.

"Even if they only care about themselves, it would tarnish their reputation and potentially exorcise them from the workforce if they were to destroy the lives of thousands of Americans by making a wrong move."

Unfortunately, like I've already said, tarnishing their reputation isn't really an issue.  You have to do what you have to do.  America's not kind to businesses in this sense and countless jobs that Americans could have are lost to outsourcing and/or cheaper labor.  Does this make the CEO a demon?  No, he's just doing what's best for his company.  If I remember correctly, it's been like a year or two since Levis, the American brand, finally closed down their last plant in America in order to find cheaper labor elsewhere in the world.

I'm not completely disagreeing with your post.  I find the trickle-down theory to be kind of like Communism; it would work in an ideal situation/nation, but in the end it's an idealist theory that will never work due to human nature.  In most cases, more money kept means higher bonuses for the board.  Hell, look at what happened to the tax payers' money with AIG.  Even if they do try to reinvest into their own company, the choices that these men make don't really trickle down because majority of their workers don't even live in America (at least for the major corporations) or they just can't afford to keep the workforce that existed in the 90's (like Intel).  Intel is one of the better companies, though, in this sense.  They are trying, at the very least, to hire as many Americans as possible and are spending their money in upgrading their American facilities.

Either way, this direct tax on the rich will be much more effective and greatly increase tax revenue.  Maybe I'm too cynical, but the less money we "give" them to misuse, the happier I am.  If they earn that money, it's all theirs, but in a case like this where we forgo taxing them in hopes that they'll try to help us back, I lack the faith.  In short - I like this tax.

[mgz]

Word.  No matter what, the bottom stays poor and the top will stay rich.  And honestly, taxing the rich more won't "squeeze" them.  They're already earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year at the very minimum.  If they complain that we take a bit more to help out our country in need, they can go fuck themselves.  The reason it's come to this is that their "reinvesting into the economy" hasn't been working because honestly, they're human beings.  A CEO, before being a dedicated American citizen, is a CEO.  His premiere interest is to make money.  Sometimes this leads to good things, sometimes not.  Throughout history, we can see that most CEO's will do what's necessary to make more money even if it hurts the American economy.  So even if we're letting them keep this money instead of taxing them heavier in hopes that they'll use it wiser, chances are it's not going to happen.

"Even if they only care about themselves, it would tarnish their reputation and potentially exorcise them from the workforce if they were to destroy the lives of thousands of Americans by making a wrong move."

Unfortunately, like I've already said, tarnishing their reputation isn't really an issue.  You have to do what you have to do.  America's not kind to businesses in this sense and countless jobs that Americans could have are lost to outsourcing and/or cheaper labor.  Does this make the CEO a demon?  No, he's just doing what's best for his company.  If I remember correctly, it's been like a year or two since Levis, the American brand, finally closed down their last plant in America in order to find cheaper labor elsewhere in the world.

I'm not completely disagreeing with your post.  I find the trickle-down theory to be kind of like Communism; it would work in an ideal situation/nation, but in the end it's an idealist theory that will never work due to human nature.  In most cases, more money kept means higher bonuses for the board.  Hell, look at what happened to the tax payers' money with AIG.  Even if they do try to reinvest into their own company, the choices that these men make don't really trickle down because majority of their workers don't even live in America (at least for the major corporations) or they just can't afford to keep the workforce that existed in the 90's (like Intel).  Intel is one of the better companies, though, in this sense.  They are trying, at the very least, to hire as many Americans as possible and are spending their money in upgrading their American facilities.

Either way, this direct tax on the rich will be much more effective and greatly increase tax revenue.  Maybe I'm too cynical, but the less money we "give" them to misuse, the happier I am.  If they earn that money, it's all theirs, but in a case like this where we forgo taxing them in hopes that they'll try to help us back, I lack the faith.  In short - I like this tax.

the biggest argument for massive taxing of the right =if i make  80k a year and get taxed 245k a year and get taxed 40% but make 275k a year and get taxed 50% i now make less money then i did when i was making 30k less. If you tax the wealthy to much then people stop trying to become wealthy since there is little gain. Its easier to be upper middle class then rich if you tax the wealthy to much.

[sdedalus83]

Aside from a handful of high profile exceptions, anyone who cannot maintain a lifestyle indicative of affluence without earning a salary is inherently not a member of the upper class.
By restricting the tax to only a few percent, they hope to avoid driving even more exectives away from direct compensation; however, there has never been a better time to accept stock in lieu of pay.
The potential revenue was never all that great, but should it act as the catalyst for an exodus toward stock as compensation, it will be disastrous as those multimillion dollar salaried execs won't just be avoiding the new tax, they'll bypass all income tax.

[vicious796]

however, there has never been a better time to accept stock in lieu of pay.

Tell me, Vegeta, where did the Dow Jones close at yesterday?



Thank you, Vegeta.

[sdedalus83]

Since when was buying low not the ideal way to invest?

[vicious796]

Since when was buying low not the ideal way to invest?

I was supporting your statement by informing everyone that the Dow is over 9000 again for the first time in a long time, a good sign.

[mgz]

Since when was buying low not the ideal way to invest?

I was supporting your statement by informing everyone that the Dow is over 9000 again for the first time in a long time, a good sign.

or the calm before the storm ...

[sdedalus83]

Ah,responding while driving is probably a bad idea, can't pay attention to either task.

[vicious796]

Oh I hope you didn't wreck...