@MikeinSC: to bad the richest people only pay around %17 income tax while the rest of us are paying over 35%
Too bad you're confusing capital gains for income. Also, shall we go into what percentage of the overall tax burden the top 20% pay annually? Heck, Bush's tax cuts pushed MORE of the tax burden on the rich.
The number one criticism that I hear leveled at Obama from moderates and Democrats is that he compromises too much and relies too frequently on his "reaching across the aisle" shtick. If there problem with him is that he doesn't fight hard enough against Republican policies, and his only competition is another Republican, then who the hell do you think they are going to vote for?!
The number one criticism that I hear leveled at Obama from moderates and Democrats is that he compromises too much and relies too frequently on his "reaching across the aisle" shtick. If there problem with him is that he doesn't fight hard enough against Republican policies, and his only competition is another Republican, then who the hell do you think they are going to vote for?!
Funny, the MOMENT he became interested in compromise was the moment he couldn't force things thru Congress. He then CLEARLY doesn't know what he is talking about economically. He argues against Republican policies without actually producing his own policies. You don't hear moderates stating that as a complaint given that they hate Obama for WAY more reasons than that. He's an arrogant, lazy, intellectually incurious, tedious bore who the country should be ashamed of ever voting for.
(C) : In the USA, we have to see who appears on the Primary election ballot first. I'm in Ohio. By the time our primary is held, many candidates will drop out for lack of funding. I voted for Ron Paul in the last Prez. primary.
I'll be voting for Obama, again. I am disappointed that he hasn't seemed to stand his ground against the republicans, but it's going to come down to the lesser-of-two-evils, once again.
I don't think he's a terrible president, but I don't think he's the best, either.
If I had to blame anything or anyone for the current gridlock it would be the whole of D.C., not any single individual or party.
I don't vote conservative because I don't believe in conservative principles. I believe people have a right to marry whom they choose (barring things such as incest and pedophilia), I believe in the absolute and complete separation of church and state, and I believe having 80% of all wealth in the hands of the top 10% is a national tragedy. Conservatives would disagree with me on all points, so obviously I'm not going to vote against my moral fiber.
@MikeinSC: to bad the top %20 of rich people have %99 of all the money. so shouldnt they pay %99 of all taxes? makes sense to me.
I think the real solution is to tie executive pay to worker pay, then tax everyone. There's no way on Earth an executive working one day produces as much as a factory floor worker does in several years, but their pay scale says otherwise.
I voted for Obama in 2008 and he has turned out to be almost identical to Bush, so I will hopefully be voting for Ron Paul but will definitely be voting for the opposition.
It all really depends on who is running. Its too early to know. What I do know is that it will ultimately come down to voting for the lesser of two evils, just like it always does. So I'll most likely vote for Obama, if I vote at all. He hasn't done a great job, but I know its not really his fault. He at least seems to have good intentions, even if Congress/HOR didn't let him do anything. My biggest fear is that the public isn't smart enough to realize why Obama hasn't been great and vote for a Republican just because its not Obama. Obama isn't perfect or even close, but he doesn't terrify me like Republicans do.
@salad10203 said:
I voted for Obama in 2008 and he has turned out to be almost identical to Bush, so I will hopefully be voting for Ron Paul but will definitely be voting for the opposition.
Whoever runs against Obama is going to be more like Bush than Obama was/is, unless Ron Paul gets the nom, which won't happen. Name one Republican with a real chance of getting the nom that is further away from Bush than Obama is.
I voted for Obama in 2008 and he has turned out to be almost identical to Bush, so I will hopefully be voting for Ron Paul but will definitely be voting for the opposition.
What if the opposition likes to pose for photo shoots going down on a corn dog?
I voted for obama when I lived in Illinois for senate because he was the young new guy who I thought would do something. What did he do? nothing that helped me, after a short time re started running for predient and forgot all about illinois. If you don;t know anything about Illinois it's the place where you're more likely to go to jail more being a governor than killing a man. bla bla bla
in the end, I would love it if ron paul won the republician nominee and I would vote for him.
This is actually going to be the first presidential election that I can actually vote in. I don't know who I'm voting for yet, but I'm going to try to keep an open mind. It's not going to be Obama though.
Yeah not wanting to vote for Obama again is understandable but voting for the GOP side is weird. They are a different party and the winner of the primaries are not going to agree with your fundamentals as much as the democrat you elected to office. Like, voting for the other side because you hate how things are, is not going to help your ideals
Also, I might come back to this in 10 years and laugh. I don't know much about Ron Paul fyi.
The number one criticism that I hear leveled at Obama from moderates and Democrats is that he compromises too much and relies too frequently on his "reaching across the aisle" shtick. If there problem with him is that he doesn't fight hard enough against Republican policies, and his only competition is another Republican, then who the hell do you think they are going to vote for?!
@ryanwho said:
@tunaburn said:
how did the majority vote to re-elect obama!? how can you not see how shitty america is becoming?
Most GB users are entitled enough to lean left yet stupid enough to not understand that a poor democratic president can be replaced with a better candidate through primaries. Its not just "re-elect or vote right" unless you're just completely ignorant.
I'm not American, but there's no chance of Michele Bachmann even being a candidate right? Cause she's kinda nuts.
Her bigger problem is not having a penis. Perry having a penis and being handsome without being Mormon is why he's gonna win.
That would have worked in 2006. It's a brave new world. I don't think that 'idea' of 'presidential looking' matters anymore.
@tunaburn said:
how did the majority vote to re-elect obama!? how can you not see how shitty america is becoming?
Most GB users are entitled enough to lean left yet stupid enough to not understand that a poor democratic president can be replaced with a better candidate through primaries. Its not just "re-elect or vote right" unless you're just completely ignorant.
A president seeking re-election runs unopposed, almost always. I don't think there is ever a case where it occurs because that person would be destroyed in there political party
how did the majority vote to re-elect obama!? how can you not see how shitty america is becoming?
Most GB users are entitled enough to lean left yet stupid enough to not understand that a poor democratic president can be replaced with a better candidate through primaries. Its not just "re-elect or vote right" unless you're just completely ignorant.
A president seeking re-election runs unopposed, almost always. I don't think there is ever a case where it occurs because that person would be destroyed in there political party
@MikeinSC: to bad the top %20 of rich people have %99 of all the money. so shouldnt they pay %99 of all taxes? makes sense to me.
You're aware that if we taxed everybody making $200,000 or more 100% --- it would take care of the deficit for a single year and cause unemployment to become 100%, right?
@Fajita: There's no way on Earth an executive working one day produces as much as a factory floor worker does in several years, but their pay scale says otherwise.
Top executives do far more work than most people can appreciate. Can you appreciate the pressure of having the fortunes of an entire huge corporation resting on your shoulders? And do you wish to argue that Steve Jobs is as valuable to Apple as your average worker?
Obama will be the Dem nominee because the fallout of him not being the party would destroy their voting bloc.
And he is, easily, the worst President in the last century. He's armed Mexican gangs with guns used to kill at least one border agent. He has tried to politicize the federal contract system. He's decided to not prosecute illegal aliens for violating the country's borders. He decided to pursue as brazenly an anti-business policy as possible in his term. He is asking voters to dig up dirt on his opponents (viva la change, eh?). He attacked Libya completely in violation of US law. He circumvented bankruptcy laws and screwed over warranty holders in GM to favor the unions.
Yeah, great choice, retarded 53% of the country that voted for the empty suit.
EDIT: A Senator once said that a President adding $4T to the debt was "unpatriotic". I wonder if he still believes that --- considering that he has added $4T to the debt in his term thus far...
The number one criticism that I hear leveled at Obama from moderates and Democrats is that he compromises too much and relies too frequently on his "reaching across the aisle" shtick. If there problem with him is that he doesn't fight hard enough against Republican policies, and his only competition is another Republican, then who the hell do you think they are going to vote for?!
Funny, the MOMENT he became interested in compromise was the moment he couldn't force things thru Congress. He then CLEARLY doesn't know what he is talking about economically. He argues against Republican policies without actually producing his own policies. You don't hear moderates stating that as a complaint given that they hate Obama for WAY more reasons than that. He's an arrogant, lazy, intellectually incurious, tedious bore who the country should be ashamed of ever voting for.
Obama was never interested in compromise, he was elected into a fait a complit by the 'mistakes' (read : theft and war crimes) of the Bush regime which preceded him and people like you enjoy pretending that the previous decade's experiences never happened so you can scapegoat a man for your country's and electorate's failings as a collective democracy, failings that the whole world has payed for in blood and poverty and those which will eventually lead to the Rise of the Dragon as it owns your country far into this millennium.
He's actually a smart, highly qualified, hard working, worldly intellectual giant who most of the country abhors because many Americans actually hate and fear intellectual, sensitive, morally fibrous leaders unless they're Bible thumping fascists and especially when they're black.
I'll be voting for the first time in November 2012 (turn 18 in September 2012). I won't vote to re-elect Barack Obama, though I'll go with a conservative party member in the end.
I couldn't blame one guy for what the picture shows, that would just be stupid.. but damn is that some funny shit.. Lol
The number one criticism that I hear leveled at Obama from moderates and Democrats is that he compromises too much and relies too frequently on his "reaching across the aisle" shtick. If there problem with him is that he doesn't fight hard enough against Republican policies, and his only competition is another Republican, then who the hell do you think they are going to vote for?!
Funny, the MOMENT he became interested in compromise was the moment he couldn't force things thru Congress. He then CLEARLY doesn't know what he is talking about economically. He argues against Republican policies without actually producing his own policies. You don't hear moderates stating that as a complaint given that they hate Obama for WAY more reasons than that. He's an arrogant, lazy, intellectually incurious, tedious bore who the country should be ashamed of ever voting for.
Obama was never interested in compromise, he was elected into a fait a complit by the 'mistakes' (read : theft and war crimes) of the Bush regime which preceded him and people like you enjoy pretending that the previous decade's experiences never happened so you can scapegoat a man for your country's and electorate's failings as a collective democracy, failings that the whole world has payed for in blood and poverty and those which will eventually lead to the Rise of the Dragon as it owns your country far into this millennium.
He's actually a smart, highly qualified, hard working, worldly intellectual giant who most of the country abhors because many Americans actually hate and fear intellectual, sensitive, morally fibrous leaders unless they're Bible thumping fascists and especially when they're black.
And when the Republicans won an absolute mandate in 2010 to undo his policies, they won because of his mistakes and crimes.
Obama is a dunce. Lazy. Total moron who has the rep of being "smart" due to mouthing the same mouth-breathing platitudes that you mistake for deep thought. Americans aren't fond of incompetent empty suits --- but a lot of them enjoy government largesse provided by others, so he always has a shot.
Obama being black isn't his problem. Him not having a clue what to do on anything is the problem. And that he managed to pick such unbelievably bad Cabinet secretaries clearly show he has absolutely no judgment. He is best when he's reading the words written for him by somebody else. Leave him without a script and it's a train wreck. Heck, GDP for 2Q 2011 has been revised downward to 1.0%. Thanks Obama. SOLID policies ya got there.
The number one criticism that I hear leveled at Obama from moderates and Democrats is that he compromises too much and relies too frequently on his "reaching across the aisle" shtick. If there problem with him is that he doesn't fight hard enough against Republican policies, and his only competition is another Republican, then who the hell do you think they are going to vote for?!
@ryanwho said:
@tunaburn said:
how did the majority vote to re-elect obama!? how can you not see how shitty america is becoming?
Most GB users are entitled enough to lean left yet stupid enough to not understand that a poor democratic president can be replaced with a better candidate through primaries. Its not just "re-elect or vote right" unless you're just completely ignorant.
That sure is a lot of condescension for something that is completely irrelevant.
@MikeinSC: to bad the top %20 of rich people have %99 of all the money. so shouldnt they pay %99 of all taxes? makes sense to me.
You're aware that if we taxed everybody making $200,000 or more 100% --- it would take care of the deficit for a single year and cause unemployment to become 100%, right?
@Fajita: There's no way on Earth an executive working one day produces as much as a factory floor worker does in several years, but their pay scale says otherwise. Top executives do far more work than most people can appreciate. Can you appreciate the pressure of having the fortunes of an entire huge corporation resting on your shoulders? And do you wish to argue that Steve Jobs is as valuable to Apple as your average worker? Obama will be the Dem nominee because the fallout of him not being the party would destroy their voting bloc. And he is, easily, the worst President in the last century. He's armed Mexican gangs with guns used to kill at least one border agent. He has tried to politicize the federal contract system. He's decided to not prosecute illegal aliens for violating the country's borders. He decided to pursue as brazenly an anti-business policy as possible in his term. He is asking voters to dig up dirt on his opponents (viva la change, eh?). He attacked Libya completely in violation of US law. He circumvented bankruptcy laws and screwed over warranty holders in GM to favor the unions. Yeah, great choice, retarded 53% of the country that voted for the empty suit. EDIT: A Senator once said that a President adding $4T to the debt was "unpatriotic". I wonder if he still believes that --- considering that he has added $4T to the debt in his term thus far...
Look, I'm not saying execs should not make a fortune. However, when a man can work HARD 40 hours a week and still not be able to feed his family, that's a problem. If someone is willing to work 40 hours a week, he should not have to choose between treating Timmy for his asthma and putting food on the table.
If you want the bottom percentile of people to pay their fair share of taxes, they need the money with which to do so.
The workers are the ones who produce the goods from which all profit is obtained. When a company makes billions in profits, gives millions in bonuses to its execs, and pays their hourly employees a pittance that they can't subsist on, that's a problem.
@MikeinSC: to bad the top %20 of rich people have %99 of all the money. so shouldnt they pay %99 of all taxes? makes sense to me.
You're aware that if we taxed everybody making $200,000 or more 100% --- it would take care of the deficit for a single year and cause unemployment to become 100%, right?
@Fajita: There's no way on Earth an executive working one day produces as much as a factory floor worker does in several years, but their pay scale says otherwise. Top executives do far more work than most people can appreciate. Can you appreciate the pressure of having the fortunes of an entire huge corporation resting on your shoulders? And do you wish to argue that Steve Jobs is as valuable to Apple as your average worker? Obama will be the Dem nominee because the fallout of him not being the party would destroy their voting bloc. And he is, easily, the worst President in the last century. He's armed Mexican gangs with guns used to kill at least one border agent. He has tried to politicize the federal contract system. He's decided to not prosecute illegal aliens for violating the country's borders. He decided to pursue as brazenly an anti-business policy as possible in his term. He is asking voters to dig up dirt on his opponents (viva la change, eh?). He attacked Libya completely in violation of US law. He circumvented bankruptcy laws and screwed over warranty holders in GM to favor the unions. Yeah, great choice, retarded 53% of the country that voted for the empty suit. EDIT: A Senator once said that a President adding $4T to the debt was "unpatriotic". I wonder if he still believes that --- considering that he has added $4T to the debt in his term thus far...
Look, I'm not saying execs should not make a fortune. However, when a man can work HARD 40 hours a week and still not be able to feed his family, that's a problem. If someone is willing to work 40 hours a week, he should not have to choose between treating Timmy for his asthma and putting food on the table. If you want the bottom percentile of people to pay their fair share of taxes, they need the money with which to do so. The workers are the ones who produce the goods from which all profit is obtained. When a company makes billions in profits, gives millions in bonuses to its execs, and pays their hourly employees a pittance that they can't subsist on, that's a problem.
Thing is, it's not the same people who are always on the bottom or the top. The groups are infinitely fluid. You'll always have new college grads or high schools grads entering the market to load up the low-tier income scales. You'll always have most of the low-tier guys moving up to a higher income tier. They seldom stay there for any length of time. I'll re-mention Jobs. Before him, Apple was basically bankrupt. Completely useless in the market. He basically turned it around. He turned the company into a revenue generating machine. As useful as the line workers are --- Jobs was the guy who actually turned it all around and warrants extremely high compensation for it.
Are some execs grossly overpaid? Yes. Companies receiving government bailouts paid execs bonuses which was baffling since it's difficult to argue that an exec did a good job when the company was dead...but when the company makes a ton of money, it is almost always decisions made by the higher ups that made the choices.
I don't begrudge anybody their salaries (well, except public union employees, who negotiate with people they donate heavily to in order to rip off the populace). If somebody is underpaid, then they need to move to a better situation. Nobody can be overpaid because your value is what you can get for your labor (even if I believe their labor isn't worth their compensation)
IF I was an american I'd surely vote Obama. Being a european, I mean, the way the republicans are pictured over here, I can't imagine why anyone sane would vote them. To me, the party seems to be extremely conservative, religious fanatics that favour the rich in society.
IF I was an american I'd surely vote Obama. Being a european, I mean, the way the republicans are pictured over here, I can't imagine why anyone sane would vote them. To me, the party seems to be extremely conservative, religious fanatics that favour the rich in society.
Pretty much sums up the tea party. I have to say, as a moderate Republican, the far right wingers are pushing me out of the party. I can't take this Glenn Beck nonsense.
IF I was an american I'd surely vote Obama. Being a european, I mean, the way the republicans are pictured over here, I can't imagine why anyone sane would vote them. To me, the party seems to be extremely conservative, religious fanatics that favour the rich in society.
The European press has done a remarkably poor job in ever understanding Republicans --- one of the reasons so few Americans pay attention to the international media.
@BoG: I have to say, as a moderate Republican, the far right wingers are pushing me out of the party. I can't take this Glenn Beck nonsense.
So what part of "cut spending and stop increasing taxes" is so anathema to you?
IF I was an american I'd surely vote Obama. Being a european, I mean, the way the republicans are pictured over here, I can't imagine why anyone sane would vote them. To me, the party seems to be extremely conservative, religious fanatics that favour the rich in society.
The European press has done a remarkably poor job in ever understanding Republicans --- one of the reasons so few Americans pay attention to the international media. @BoG: I have to say, as a moderate Republican, the far right wingers are pushing me out of the party. I can't take this Glenn Beck nonsense. So what part of "cut spending and stop increasing taxes" is so anathema to you?
We cannot solve the debt problem by cutting spending alone. New revenue is half of the equation. It's just silly to protect tax loopholes, and protect the very rich and large corporations. A small increase on their taxes would do no harm to jobs or business, yet would do wonders to help resolve our debt problems. Reform and cuts are necessary with regards to the biggest money eaters, being Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. However, I think we're much to focused on those organizations, and need to branch out to less visible money eaters.
I vote for the man, not the party. Sadly, Obama hasn't lived up to what I had hoped, and the Republicans candidates scare me--not too sure what I'll decide yet, but Obama will probably be the safer choice for me.
I refuse to allow myself to have an opinion right now because then I would be no different then the people who make rash stupid decisions with no evidence to back them up. Once I find the true colors of the runners the closer it gets to the voting period, that is when I will make my decision.
Really worked last time when I saw McCain become impatient and un-trustworthy the closer it got to election.
IF I was an american I'd surely vote Obama. Being a european, I mean, the way the republicans are pictured over here, I can't imagine why anyone sane would vote them. To me, the party seems to be extremely conservative, religious fanatics that favour the rich in society.
The European press has done a remarkably poor job in ever understanding Republicans --- one of the reasons so few Americans pay attention to the international media. @BoG: I have to say, as a moderate Republican, the far right wingers are pushing me out of the party. I can't take this Glenn Beck nonsense. So what part of "cut spending and stop increasing taxes" is so anathema to you?
We cannot solve the debt problem by cutting spending alone. New revenue is half of the equation. It's just silly to protect tax loopholes, and protect the very rich and large corporations. A small increase on their taxes would do no harm to jobs or business, yet would do wonders to help resolve our debt problems. Reform and cuts are necessary with regards to the biggest money eaters, being Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. However, I think we're much to focused on those organizations, and need to branch out to less visible money eaters.
Actually, it's the only option. There isn't enough money to tax to resolve the problem. Know why corporations aren't hiring? Because they have no idea what it will cost to keep employees in a few years. Tax hikes will only further depress hiring. The only way to fix the problem is to expand the tax base.
To be honest, I'd even be willing to consider a tax hike: Once actual spending cuts occur. We've tried it the other way (raise taxes and cut spending later) and we never get the spending cuts. Ever (Reagan and Bush I learned that lesson the hard way). Until we spend less one year than we spent the previous year, a tax hike will be a non-starter. Heck, go back to 2008 spending levels and we'd slash a TON off the deficit right now. But, no, we put the "temporary" stimulus into the budget baseline so it's included in the estimates every single year. To keep in mind of how badly we overspend, for us to legitimately spend less in one year than we did in the prior year, it'd be a baseline budget cut of, roughly, NINE TRILLION DOLLARS. Cutting 2 trillion is only a small decrease in the rate of growth.
I don't see the point in voting in this upcoming election. Obama is mediocre at best. I wouldn't vote for a Republican if you held a gun to my head. Ron Paul is a nut job. I would vote for someone like Bernie Sanders in a heartbeat, but he wouldn't win and I doubt he'll run.
@MikeinSC: to bad the top %20 of rich people have %99 of all the money. so shouldnt they pay %99 of all taxes? makes sense to me.
You're aware that if we taxed everybody making $200,000 or more 100% --- it would take care of the deficit for a single year and cause unemployment to become 100%, right?
@Fajita: There's no way on Earth an executive working one day produces as much as a factory floor worker does in several years, but their pay scale says otherwise. Top executives do far more work than most people can appreciate. Can you appreciate the pressure of having the fortunes of an entire huge corporation resting on your shoulders? And do you wish to argue that Steve Jobs is as valuable to Apple as your average worker? Obama will be the Dem nominee because the fallout of him not being the party would destroy their voting bloc. And he is, easily, the worst President in the last century. He's armed Mexican gangs with guns used to kill at least one border agent. He has tried to politicize the federal contract system. He's decided to not prosecute illegal aliens for violating the country's borders. He decided to pursue as brazenly an anti-business policy as possible in his term. He is asking voters to dig up dirt on his opponents (viva la change, eh?). He attacked Libya completely in violation of US law. He circumvented bankruptcy laws and screwed over warranty holders in GM to favor the unions. Yeah, great choice, retarded 53% of the country that voted for the empty suit. EDIT: A Senator once said that a President adding $4T to the debt was "unpatriotic". I wonder if he still believes that --- considering that he has added $4T to the debt in his term thus far...
Look, I'm not saying execs should not make a fortune. However, when a man can work HARD 40 hours a week and still not be able to feed his family, that's a problem. If someone is willing to work 40 hours a week, he should not have to choose between treating Timmy for his asthma and putting food on the table. If you want the bottom percentile of people to pay their fair share of taxes, they need the money with which to do so. The workers are the ones who produce the goods from which all profit is obtained. When a company makes billions in profits, gives millions in bonuses to its execs, and pays their hourly employees a pittance that they can't subsist on, that's a problem.
Thing is, it's not the same people who are always on the bottom or the top. The groups are infinitely fluid. You'll always have new college grads or high schools grads entering the market to load up the low-tier income scales. You'll always have most of the low-tier guys moving up to a higher income tier. They seldom stay there for any length of time. I'll re-mention Jobs. Before him, Apple was basically bankrupt. Completely useless in the market. He basically turned it around. He turned the company into a revenue generating machine. As useful as the line workers are --- Jobs was the guy who actually turned it all around and warrants extremely high compensation for it.
You actually believe that don't you? You speak as if you understand Apple when you really don't. You have the same grasp of Apple's history as you do of American politics and of the world. One eyed and blind sided by recent events - you have no real historical context whatsoever and you edit history to suit your argument as you see fit. Jobs was directly responsible for the bankrupting process on more than one occasion, from within and outside of the organisation even after he left to form NeXT. The Apple Lisa is one such example, the pushing out of Wozniak, Apple's Chief Engineer another and the backroom slaughtering of the Tower Computing deal the most important because it would've led to Apple 'compatibles' which would have pushed back the success of the x86 Multimedia explosion of the mid 90s - something I'm sure you have no fucking idea of but I'll just give you one company name - Creative Labs. Then there's the other context altogether which you ignore which is that Jobs didn't save Apple, Bill Gates did. MS bought (and possibly still owns, depending on whose research you agree with) a sizeable portion of Apple to pay down their debts as a result of Jobs' machinations to kill the Tower Computing deal and to get his NeXT debts payed (which was his deal with Apple for coming on as interim CEO). MS's money didn't come free and the whole PowerPC platform was translated into the XBOX360 while Apple's longstanding deal with IBM (MS's longterm archrival) died and Apple moved over to the Intel platform (another longstanding MS partner - ie 'Wintel'). Jobs arguably made Apple into a different company thereafter - hedging on safe bets of MP3 and smartphones; technologies/markets both developed completely independently of Apple by Fraunhoeffer and the growth of the internet and Nokia (who up until very recently were leading the phone market for almost two decades - not bad for a small company from a tiny European country) and that is certainly true but it wasn't due to his expertise. It was due to MS's relationships with China via PC'9x group which allowed Apple to deal with Foxconn (which had its own issues - namely corporate intrigue, research into less than savoury employment practices and the 'suicides' of at least three Foxconn employees) which in turn allowed them to produce far more profitable hardware which allowed them in turn to grow and develop their markets at a much faster rate than ever before. Jobs was a successful showman and he did have some clever ideas but he's not a super CEO by any means. He's the George Lucas of IT - a man who when left to his devices produces expensive turds (NeXT, SW EP1-3) but when connected to the right people and taking on some advice from the right corners can produce and be involved in excellence (Apple IIe, Macintosh, Pixar, iPod).
Right about now, I wouldn't be so much voting for someone as I would be voting against Obama. The man hasn't made the case as to why he deserves a second term. But none of the GOP candidates really stand out, so I might just be voting for whomever winds up with the GOP nomination next year.
@MikeinSC: to bad the top %20 of rich people have %99 of all the money. so shouldnt they pay %99 of all taxes? makes sense to me.
You're aware that if we taxed everybody making $200,000 or more 100% --- it would take care of the deficit for a single year and cause unemployment to become 100%, right?
@Fajita: There's no way on Earth an executive working one day produces as much as a factory floor worker does in several years, but their pay scale says otherwise. Top executives do far more work than most people can appreciate. Can you appreciate the pressure of having the fortunes of an entire huge corporation resting on your shoulders? And do you wish to argue that Steve Jobs is as valuable to Apple as your average worker? Obama will be the Dem nominee because the fallout of him not being the party would destroy their voting bloc. And he is, easily, the worst President in the last century. He's armed Mexican gangs with guns used to kill at least one border agent. He has tried to politicize the federal contract system. He's decided to not prosecute illegal aliens for violating the country's borders. He decided to pursue as brazenly an anti-business policy as possible in his term. He is asking voters to dig up dirt on his opponents (viva la change, eh?). He attacked Libya completely in violation of US law. He circumvented bankruptcy laws and screwed over warranty holders in GM to favor the unions. Yeah, great choice, retarded 53% of the country that voted for the empty suit. EDIT: A Senator once said that a President adding $4T to the debt was "unpatriotic". I wonder if he still believes that --- considering that he has added $4T to the debt in his term thus far...
Look, I'm not saying execs should not make a fortune. However, when a man can work HARD 40 hours a week and still not be able to feed his family, that's a problem. If someone is willing to work 40 hours a week, he should not have to choose between treating Timmy for his asthma and putting food on the table. If you want the bottom percentile of people to pay their fair share of taxes, they need the money with which to do so. The workers are the ones who produce the goods from which all profit is obtained. When a company makes billions in profits, gives millions in bonuses to its execs, and pays their hourly employees a pittance that they can't subsist on, that's a problem.
Thing is, it's not the same people who are always on the bottom or the top. The groups are infinitely fluid. You'll always have new college grads or high schools grads entering the market to load up the low-tier income scales. You'll always have most of the low-tier guys moving up to a higher income tier. They seldom stay there for any length of time. I'll re-mention Jobs. Before him, Apple was basically bankrupt. Completely useless in the market. He basically turned it around. He turned the company into a revenue generating machine. As useful as the line workers are --- Jobs was the guy who actually turned it all around and warrants extremely high compensation for it.
You actually believe that don't you? You speak as if you understand Apple when you really don't. You have the same grasp of Apple's history as you do of American politics and of the world. One eyed and blind sided by recent events - you have no real historical context whatsoever and you edit history to suit your argument as you see fit. Jobs was directly responsible for the bankrupting process on more than one occasion, from within and outside of the organisation even after he left to form NeXT. The Apple Lisa is one such example, the pushing out of Wozniak, Apple's Chief Engineer another and the backroom slaughtering of the Tower Computing deal the most important because it would've led to Apple 'compatibles' which would have pushed back the success of the x86 Multimedia explosion of the mid 90s - something I'm sure you have no fucking idea of but I'll just give you one company name - Creative Labs. Then there's the other context altogether which you ignore which is that Jobs didn't save Apple, Bill Gates did. MS bought (and possibly still owns, depending on whose research you agree with) a sizeable portion of Apple to pay down their debts as a result of Jobs' machinations to kill the Tower Computing deal and to get his NeXT debts payed (which was his deal with Apple for coming on as interim CEO). MS's money didn't come free and the whole PowerPC platform was translated into the XBOX360 while Apple's longstanding deal with IBM (MS's longterm archrival) died and Apple moved over to the Intel platform (another longstanding MS partner - ie 'Wintel'). Jobs arguably made Apple into a different company thereafter - hedging on safe bets of MP3 and smartphones; technologies/markets both developed completely independently of Apple by Fraunhoeffer and the growth of the internet and Nokia (who up until very recently were leading the phone market for almost two decades - not bad for a small company from a tiny European country) and that is certainly true but it wasn't due to his expertise. It was due to MS's relationships with China via PC'9x group which allowed Apple to deal with Foxconn (which had its own issues - namely corporate intrigue, research into less than savoury employment practices and the 'suicides' of at least three Foxconn employees) which in turn allowed them to produce far more profitable hardware which allowed them in turn to grow and develop their markets at a much faster rate than ever before. Jobs was a successful showman and he did have some clever ideas but he's not a super CEO by any means. He's the George Lucas of IT - a man who when left to his devices produces expensive turds (NeXT, SW EP1-3) but when connected to the right people and taking on some advice from the right corners can produce and be involved in excellence (Apple IIe, Macintosh, Pixar, iPod).
I only have actual statistical info to back up my claims. I'm sure your evidence that the exact same people at the bottom of the economic ladder 20 years ago are a majority of the current group is compelling.
Apple was 90 days from declaring bankruptcy when Jobs took over as CEO in 1997. 90 days. That's "basically bankrupt" at that point. Jobs turned things around. Gates gave Apple a lifeline and Jobs turned around and within 13 years, made Apple more valuable than Microsoft. MS sold virtually all of their shares back in 2003.
You can discount what Jobs accomplished. You'd be wrong --- as you tend to be on American history and the world.
@MikeinSC: to bad the top %20 of rich people have %99 of all the money. so shouldnt they pay %99 of all taxes? makes sense to me.
You're aware that if we taxed everybody making $200,000 or more 100% --- it would take care of the deficit for a single year and cause unemployment to become 100%, right?
@Fajita: There's no way on Earth an executive working one day produces as much as a factory floor worker does in several years, but their pay scale says otherwise. Top executives do far more work than most people can appreciate. Can you appreciate the pressure of having the fortunes of an entire huge corporation resting on your shoulders? And do you wish to argue that Steve Jobs is as valuable to Apple as your average worker? Obama will be the Dem nominee because the fallout of him not being the party would destroy their voting bloc. And he is, easily, the worst President in the last century. He's armed Mexican gangs with guns used to kill at least one border agent. He has tried to politicize the federal contract system. He's decided to not prosecute illegal aliens for violating the country's borders. He decided to pursue as brazenly an anti-business policy as possible in his term. He is asking voters to dig up dirt on his opponents (viva la change, eh?). He attacked Libya completely in violation of US law. He circumvented bankruptcy laws and screwed over warranty holders in GM to favor the unions. Yeah, great choice, retarded 53% of the country that voted for the empty suit. EDIT: A Senator once said that a President adding $4T to the debt was "unpatriotic". I wonder if he still believes that --- considering that he has added $4T to the debt in his term thus far...
Look, I'm not saying execs should not make a fortune. However, when a man can work HARD 40 hours a week and still not be able to feed his family, that's a problem. If someone is willing to work 40 hours a week, he should not have to choose between treating Timmy for his asthma and putting food on the table. If you want the bottom percentile of people to pay their fair share of taxes, they need the money with which to do so. The workers are the ones who produce the goods from which all profit is obtained. When a company makes billions in profits, gives millions in bonuses to its execs, and pays their hourly employees a pittance that they can't subsist on, that's a problem.
Thing is, it's not the same people who are always on the bottom or the top. The groups are infinitely fluid. You'll always have new college grads or high schools grads entering the market to load up the low-tier income scales. You'll always have most of the low-tier guys moving up to a higher income tier. They seldom stay there for any length of time. I'll re-mention Jobs. Before him, Apple was basically bankrupt. Completely useless in the market. He basically turned it around. He turned the company into a revenue generating machine. As useful as the line workers are --- Jobs was the guy who actually turned it all around and warrants extremely high compensation for it.
You actually believe that don't you? You speak as if you understand Apple when you really don't. You have the same grasp of Apple's history as you do of American politics and of the world. One eyed and blind sided by recent events - you have no real historical context whatsoever and you edit history to suit your argument as you see fit. Jobs was directly responsible for the bankrupting process on more than one occasion, from within and outside of the organisation even after he left to form NeXT. The Apple Lisa is one such example, the pushing out of Wozniak, Apple's Chief Engineer another and the backroom slaughtering of the Tower Computing deal the most important because it would've led to Apple 'compatibles' which would have pushed back the success of the x86 Multimedia explosion of the mid 90s - something I'm sure you have no fucking idea of but I'll just give you one company name - Creative Labs. Then there's the other context altogether which you ignore which is that Jobs didn't save Apple, Bill Gates did. MS bought (and possibly still owns, depending on whose research you agree with) a sizeable portion of Apple to pay down their debts as a result of Jobs' machinations to kill the Tower Computing deal and to get his NeXT debts payed (which was his deal with Apple for coming on as interim CEO). MS's money didn't come free and the whole PowerPC platform was translated into the XBOX360 while Apple's longstanding deal with IBM (MS's longterm archrival) died and Apple moved over to the Intel platform (another longstanding MS partner - ie 'Wintel'). Jobs arguably made Apple into a different company thereafter - hedging on safe bets of MP3 and smartphones; technologies/markets both developed completely independently of Apple by Fraunhoeffer and the growth of the internet and Nokia (who up until very recently were leading the phone market for almost two decades - not bad for a small company from a tiny European country) and that is certainly true but it wasn't due to his expertise. It was due to MS's relationships with China via PC'9x group which allowed Apple to deal with Foxconn (which had its own issues - namely corporate intrigue, research into less than savoury employment practices and the 'suicides' of at least three Foxconn employees) which in turn allowed them to produce far more profitable hardware which allowed them in turn to grow and develop their markets at a much faster rate than ever before. Jobs was a successful showman and he did have some clever ideas but he's not a super CEO by any means. He's the George Lucas of IT - a man who when left to his devices produces expensive turds (NeXT, SW EP1-3) but when connected to the right people and taking on some advice from the right corners can produce and be involved in excellence (Apple IIe, Macintosh, Pixar, iPod).
I only have actual statistical info to back up my claims. I'm sure your evidence that the exact same people at the bottom of the economic ladder 20 years ago are a majority of the current group is compelling. Apple was 90 days from declaring bankruptcy when Jobs took over as CEO in 1997. 90 days. That's "basically bankrupt" at that point. Jobs turned things around. Gates gave Apple a lifeline and Jobs turned around and within 13 years, made Apple more valuable than Microsoft. MS sold virtually all of their shares back in 2003. You can discount what Jobs accomplished. You'd be wrong --- as you tend to be on American history and the world.
Of course, because statistical data is so much compelling than empirical facts that the whole world can see.
To be honest, both political parties have played a role in screwing up the country as much as it is now. It seems like sometimes the average person just can't "win."
To the guy who said "all this party voting is retarded", well...why, exactly? Political parties do have stated ideologies, and if you have opinions and thoughts about literally anything, then chances are they are going to skew towards one side or the other. Now, I'm obviously not saying that you should blindly vote for whatever candidate your party puts out there. You should definitely make informed decisions. I just can't personally see how you can claim to have consistent beliefs and still jump from one party to the next during every other election. At that point, all you're doing is voting based on the personality and likability of the President.
To the guy who said "all this party voting is retarded", well...why, exactly? Political parties do have stated ideologies, and if you have opinions and thoughts about literally anything, then chances are they are going to skew towards one side or the other. Now, I'm obviously not saying that you should blindly vote for whatever candidate your party puts out there. You should definitely make informed decisions. I just can't personally see how you can claim to have consistent beliefs and still jump from one party to the next during every other election. At that point, all you're doing is voting based on the personality and likability of the President.
Log in to comment