hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on May 6, 2011 18:43:38 GMT -5
In 1980, CEOs made 42x average worker, in 1950, 23X. The rich/poor gap hasn't been this big since before the 1st Pub Great Depression. Voodoo is an absolute disaster for the country, and now these CEOs can give secret money to campaigns, and there are 6 corporate lobbyists for every representative. Lovely...Vote bought off Pub, and blame the victims!!
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on May 6, 2011 19:39:03 GMT -5
Is there some news story, article or poll that you would like to discuss?
Something with actual facts and not what you type?
|
|
Mad Dawg Wiccan
Administrator
Rest in Peace
Only Bites Whiners
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 20:40:24 GMT -5
Posts: 9,693
|
Post by Mad Dawg Wiccan on May 6, 2011 19:44:03 GMT -5
Link?
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on May 6, 2011 21:39:08 GMT -5
You dare to doubt me, misled ones? ;D ;D CEOs see pay rise 24% on average- MSN Money Make MSN your homepage ... list of the top 50 highest-paid CEOs last year. Seven chief executives took home more ... That's 24% more than in 2009, and much of ... money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=fa7d41ef-e781... CEOs earn 343 times more than typical workers ... of $11.4 million in total pay -- 343 times more ... In 2010, the gap narrowed with CEOs making 343 times the ... News Corp. profit tumbles 24% as MySpace ... www.ivpressonline.com/business/chibrkbus-ceos-earn-343... Nationally, CEO pay tops pre-recession levels That was 24 percent higher than a year earlier ... used in the AP analysis; half of the CEOs made more and ... More on this topic. See what Arizona's top CEOs make www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/2011/...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 7:45:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2011 21:44:08 GMT -5
The rich/poor gap hasn't been this big since before the 1st Pub Great Depression.Dimocrats started the Great Depression so that they could get more poor people's votes.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on May 6, 2011 22:06:39 GMT -5
tHE MISLED CHIME IN AGAIN. hAD NOTHING TO DO WITH, hARDING, cOOLIDGE, hOOVER?
|
|
Mad Dawg Wiccan
Administrator
Rest in Peace
Only Bites Whiners
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 20:40:24 GMT -5
Posts: 9,693
|
Post by Mad Dawg Wiccan on May 6, 2011 22:10:51 GMT -5
Can you say Class Envy?
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on May 6, 2011 22:15:50 GMT -5
The rich/poor gap hasn't been this big since before the 1st Pub Great Depression.
Stop importing desperate poverty stricken people and you'll get your gap back down to 23x or whatever number you feel comfortable with.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on May 6, 2011 22:43:29 GMT -5
Thanks for the crappe pub jobs and minimum wage...and the 2nd Pub Great Depression. I guess that makes you a multimillionaire, Wic? And a NY Yankee I suppose LOL! ;D
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on May 6, 2011 22:45:51 GMT -5
What you actually do is raise taxes to 70% over 10 million dollars. Hope you enjoy the Pub banana republic...
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on May 6, 2011 22:54:06 GMT -5
Typical- The misled prove they don't know the facts- then blame it on the illegals and class envy. Capitalist tools ;D Watch out for the commies...BOO!
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on May 6, 2011 22:55:57 GMT -5
What you actually do is raise taxes to 70% over 10 million dollars. Hope you enjoy the Pub banana republic...
Head south to your buddy Chavez for all the bananas you could handle. This place is for hard working entrepreneurs who sacrifice to make as much money as they see fit. Obviously your communist philosophy makes it hard to understand they take a bunch of people with them.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on May 6, 2011 23:07:15 GMT -5
Aren't you Canadian? Is hard to believe...but thanks for your innermost total delusions. People with no knowledge DO freak out when shown their mythology is pubduperie...US now has lowest upward mobility in modern world....
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on May 6, 2011 23:29:43 GMT -5
US now has lowest upward mobility in modern world....
Correct. It all started in 1965 when that obnoxious, adulterating drunken killer opened up immigration to hopeless third world countries. Starstruck dems held him in high regard to the end. A pitiful display to say the least.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on May 6, 2011 23:48:23 GMT -5
Actually it was when the demented bought off actor with Alheimers halved the taxes on the very rich, turned them into mega rich, and started the min. wage on its way to 1/2 what it was in 1968. Also gave amnesty to illegals (forgot new regs), and quadrupled the deficit, and raised a generation of morons... ;D
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on May 7, 2011 0:00:03 GMT -5
and quadrupled the deficit
Like Obama just did?
< You can tell when he walks into the room... Hey big spender! >
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on May 7, 2011 0:12:44 GMT -5
Actually, Obama's added like 20%, to avert a Pub Depression. He actually includes war costs in the budget, too! Why anyone listens to pubs-- it is sheer BS salemanship Poor chumps- unfortunately they take us with them...
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on May 7, 2011 0:15:43 GMT -5
Reagan quadrupled the DEBT. Obama reduced Booosh's last deficit...bailouts and stimuli cost money...
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on May 7, 2011 0:30:04 GMT -5
Actually, Obama's added like 20%, to avert a Pub Depression.
20%? What ass did you pull that from? It was 1.4t last year and will be 1.6t this year. Bush's last deficit was around 4b. The bailouts were a big part of it but Obama could have vetoed them. Of course he didn't and your friends the "greedy pubs" pocketed wads of your dough. Sorry you just don't grasp these concepts.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on May 7, 2011 0:55:50 GMT -5
Well considering the debt is 14 trillion, I'm about right. And Booosh was about the same. 4b? LOL!! You seem to be on the Pub lie and spin network...maybe you would have prefered another Pub great depression. Eight Pub lies you believe: 1) President Obama tripled the deficit. Reality: Bush's last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama's first budgetreduced that to $1.29 trillion. 2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy. Reality: Obama cut taxes. 40% of the "stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt, which is why it was so much less effective than it could have been. 3) President Obama bailed out the banks. Reality: While many people conflate the "stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts to be "non-reviewable by any court or any agency.") The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama. 4) The stimulus didn't work. Reality: The stimulus worked, but was not enough. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs. 5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts. Reality: A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand. Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts. 6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion. Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion. 7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is "going broke," people live longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc. Reality: Social Security has run a surplus since it began, has a trust fund in the trillions, is completely sound for at least 25 more years and cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit (compare that to the military budget!) Life expectancy is only longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about the same number of years as they used to. 8) Government spending takes money out of the economy. Reality: Government is We, the People and the money it spends is on We, the People. Many people do not know that it is government that builds the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things that are the soil in which business thrives. Many people think that all government spending is on "welfare" and "foreign aid" when that is only a small part of the government's budget. ;D ;D
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on May 7, 2011 1:11:22 GMT -5
Booosh's was 400 billion PLUS that little bailout? Is that how you people get that ridiculous figure? Pffffft!!
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on May 7, 2011 7:10:26 GMT -5
In 1980, CEOs made 42x average worker, in 1950, 23X. The rich/poor gap hasn't been this big since before the 1st Pub Great Depression. Voodoo is an absolute disaster for the country, and now these CEOs can give secret money to campaigns, and there are 6 corporate lobbyists for every representative. Lovely...Vote bought off Pub, and blame the victims!! Become a CEO and stop whining. As for Voodoo economics, it's been a while since Ronald Reagan but you guys still love to attack him. So sad. As for voting Republican, you do realize that Obama received a ton of money from CEO's, right? And those lobbyists seek and receive favors both parties? Seriously why do you or anyone else even care about the gap between the average worker and CEO pay? It's none of your business and it certainly is not the government's. If you believe that you are underpaid, seek legally and morally what you believe is your due (i.e. not use the government to seize it). As for the gap between rich and poor, again so what? Despite what Obama has said, it's NOT the job (read the Constitution) of the government to even things out in terms of income. And it's not the most important metric on the planet. Consider: if Joe Worker is making 50K and Bob CEO makes 500K. Next year Joe makes 60K (a 20% increase) and Bob makes 550K (a 10% increase). Both are doing better but the gap between their pay is higher. OMG the gap between the rich and poor is WORSE!!!! Yet both are doing better and that is what counts. The left would be happier is both lost salary instead, say Joe went to 40K and Bob to 400K but now the gap is smaller and the lefties rejoice. You people scare me.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on May 7, 2011 7:11:57 GMT -5
Thanks for the crappe pub jobs and minimum wage...and the 2nd Pub Great Depression. I guess that makes you a multimillionaire, Wic? And a NY Yankee I suppose LOL! ;D So basically everyone had a manion and a pool under Clinton and then Bush came in and it all went away. Yeah...
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on May 7, 2011 7:15:23 GMT -5
I agree with some of the things that TT says. The problem is that TT is not mentioning that many of the loans that went bad were forced upon them by the government. Also, many of the people involved in the fiasco are in the Obama administration as we speak.
Get the government out of our business. Outside of upholding the contracts that we sign, the government has no place in it. Kill the Community Reinvestment Act, kill Fannie and Freddie, and HECK NO to bailouts!!! The more power government has, the more it will be corrupted to cater to the special interests.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on May 7, 2011 7:22:05 GMT -5
Reagan quadrupled the DEBT. Obama reduced Booosh's last deficit...bailouts and stimuli cost money... That is a COMPLETE LIE and the CBO numbers support me on this. In 2007, the deficit actually dropped to 170 billion, including Social Security receipts. It was actually dropping and substantially due to the Bush recovery and the tax cuts. What happened? Well the Democrats swept into power in Congress, an empty suit neophyte looked as if he might become president, and the MSM hyped how bad the economy was. The results? A Democrat induced shock to the system that their wreckless Community Reinvestment Act loans help set up. And the deficit started to increase. It's under Obama WITH a Democrat Congress that we had our first TRILLION dollar deficit. That's right: Obama and the Democrats, NOT Bush! Bush's worse deficit was about 500 billion and his average about 350 billion. This stinks, without a doubt, but much better than the Obama-Democrat 1.5 TRILLION! And here is Warsaw spreading lies. So shocking.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on May 7, 2011 8:32:46 GMT -5
Ok, time to add some truth to what Warsaw speaks of: Eight Pub lies you believe: 1) President Obama tripled the deficit. Reality: Bush's last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama's first budgetreduced that to $1.29 trillion.Truth: Warsaw refers to the 2009 budget. The CBO data is here: www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/AppendixF.shtmlThe question is this: who is responsible for this one? Obama and the Democrat Congress or Bush and the Democrat Congress? Seriously: who signed it? Of course, even if Bush did sign it, Warsaw ignores two key points: 1. DEMOCRATS passed the budget so it's as much their budget as Bush's (Democrats do this all the time, witness how they stabbed Bush I in the back over the 1991 budget deal). 2. Much of the deficit was the one time (and horrible thing that many GOP's were against) bail outs which has been since been paid back and were only needed due to Democrats strong arming of banks with the Community Reinvestment Act. Indeed, Obama actually refused from early paybacks so he could keep banks under his thumb. Now look at the data I linked. The deficit was going down between 2004 and 2005 to a low point of 160 billion at which point the Democrats swept into Congress, Obama looked strong to become President, and the MSM started to hype how bad the economy was as they did to Bush I (where they stated the blatant lies that a mild recession was the worst economy since the Great Depression). That all said, let's give Warsaw and Obama the benefit of the doubt and that the 2009 deficit was signed into by Bush (after passing a Democrat Congress). The largest part of that deficit was the now paid back bailouts. What is causing Obama's 1.5 Trillion dollar deficits now? Well for 2010, it was the failed stimulus. We know it failed since it did not do what Obama and Biden claimed it would: keep unemployment below 8% Looking at the 2011 budget, and I am using Wikipedia since I am having a hard time finding hard CBO numbers, the estimated budget deficit is about 1.65 trillion due to 2.17 trillion revenue and 3.82 trillion spending. No stimulus, no bailouts yet still Obama and the Democrats are somehow spending far more money than Bush and the GOP ever did. 2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy. Reality: Obama cut taxes. 40% of the "stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt, which is why it was so much less effective than it could have been.Truth: Obama had a very small and temporary tax cut for everyone. Props to him but it wasn't nearly enough. Also truthful is that for many this was not a "tax cut" since they did not pay taxes. It was just welfare with another name. Also truthful is that Obama has been attempting to raise income taxes, especially for the "Wealthy" by letting the Bush tax cuts expire, reduce the value of tax deductions (he has been quoted as saying it's not fair that the rich get to write off let's say 35% for a charitable deduction while someone else only 15% even though the rich guy is getting taxed at 35% and thus perfectly fair). Also truthful is that Obamacare has increased taxes on wealthier Americans which means less capital to invest in jobs. Also apparent is that Obama wanted to raise income taxes across the board. Why do I say that? Because he did nothing to extend or make permanent the Bush tax cuts for the middle class until the GOP won the off year elections. He and the Democrats could have very easily made pemanent the tax cuts for all but the top 2% (whcih he claimed he wanted to do) in his first two years. He did not, but instead demagouged that the cuts were only for the rich even though the cuts dropped the rates across the board. Conclusion: either Obama is incompetent at achieving his goals (with his post election popularity and strong Democrat majories, he could have easily made permament the Bush tax cuts for most Americans as he later claim he wanted) or wanted the tax cuts to expire on all Americans and thus raise taxes on all Americans who pay. And finally, Warsaw's claims that debt only creates debt but does not stimilate has no basis in fact and indeed contradicts historical evidence under JFK, Reagan, and Bush that following significant drops in income tax rates that revenues subsequently increase. 3) President Obama bailed out the banks. Reality: While many people conflate the "stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts to be "non-reviewable by any court or any agency.") The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.Truth: The bailouts were needed in large part due to the Community Reinvestment Act which Obama's ACORN friends used to strong arm banks. Also true: the bailouts were passed in a bipartisan effort and Obama voted yes to support it. Finally true: the bailouts have been mostly if not fully repaid. If you accept the premise bank failure would have been catastrophic (I don't), it would seem that it was a good investment. Even if you do not, we got the money back. 4) The stimulus didn't work. Reality: The stimulus worked, but was not enough. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs.Truth: the stimulus failed to work as promised and unemployment surged past the promised 8% and hit 10% Also truthful, I need to find and read the report that Warsaw references. 5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts. Reality: A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand. Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts.Truth: business is risky and whether someone will make a decision to invest or not depends on the risk to reward ratio. If risk is the same but reward is lower due to higher taxes, there will be less investment. Also, demand is due in part to how much the consumer can spend. If the government takes your money via taxes, you have less to spend and thus demand decreases. Also, historically economic booms have followed tax cuts: JFK, Reagan, and Bush II. 6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion. Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion.Truth: The above includes government revenues due to its seizure of the college lending programs that were included in Obamacare even though one has nothing to do with the other. Also, historically the CBO has vastly underestimated the growth of government entitlement plans and some very questionable assumptions were made. Furthermore, initial CBO estimates showed higher deficits only to now show cuts? Highly suspect again. 7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is "going broke," people live longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc. Reality: Social Security has run a surplus since it began, has a trust fund in the trillions, is completely sound for at least 25 more years and cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit (compare that to the military budget!) Life expectancy is only longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about the same number of years as they used to.Truth: the trust fund has been borrowed against and is depleted. It can not be used to pay out promised benefits without taking money from the general funds which is already in a deficit. If the general fund could not pay its bills by borrowing against the trust fund, how will it now be able to pay its bills and pay back the borrowing? It can't. Also, the number of workers compared to retirees has decreased and thus there will be a revenue crunch and no trust fund to back it up. Regarding life expectency, while it is true that the decrease in infant and child mortality did skew life expectancy numbers, there has still been a marked increase in how long a person can live. We have more people living past 70, 80, 90, etc... and they will be taking from SS and again with fewer workers. It is a Ponzi scheme and already we are seeing proposals to deny benefits through means testing or removing the income cap without increasing benefits for those who would now be paying more into the system. 8) Government spending takes money out of the economy. Reality: Government is We, the People and the money it spends is on We, the People. Many people do not know that it is government that builds the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things that are the soil in which business thrives. Many people think that all government spending is on "welfare" and "foreign aid" when that is only a small part of the government's budget.Truth: government takes money from people who produce and know how to create wealth to give to those who do not. In such a system you discourage production and encourage waste. The Great Society Program destroyed our inner cities, the black family, made out of wedlock birth acceptable, and increased crime and that's just ONE program! As for infrastructure, much of that is done on a local and state level, not the federal which we are mostly referring to. Also, much of that is funded by bonds. Also, we created much of the original infrastructure in this nation prior to a large federal government or even, *gasp* an income tax!
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on May 7, 2011 8:45:20 GMT -5
The gap between rich and poor is important. And, it is evidence of the devaluing of real labor and work and the over lining of pockets of executives. And, the CEO/owner, fine. But, we now see a lot of so-called great managers who had nothing to do with building and starting a company, come in and rob the coffers of the company , line their pockets, run the company into bankruptcy and off the go. It has become and inside game that the upper network maintains because they can. And, with the demise of unions, individual workers don't have much of a chance. We need some type of ability for workers to bargin for their worth as well. And, the govt is involved because they make laws regulating businesses and rules of engagement, etc. You don't say why that gap is supposedly important. Devaluing labor? It's a market economy and you get paid what you can command. If you believe you are underpaid, go work for someone who you think will pay you your worth. If no one will pay it, then you aren't worth it. As for the managers who are robbing the place, please. If I own a company and bring in someone, he's gonna turn things around. If he fails, he's fired and word gets around that he's no good. Managers and CEO's are paid big bucks because either they succeed or are seen as haing the best chance to do so based on their earlier work. No one is going to hire a known screw up to destroy the boss's business no more than I would hire my own hitman. Unions failed because they overreached and made their companies inefficent. Look at the job banks in GM for example. Foreign companies did it better and more efficiently; the market won as it always does. Old skills and products lose value (should we have a bailout for the companies that made 8 track tapes?) and new products and skills become valued. It's not the governmen't job to give some worker more than a boss is willing to pay him just as it's not the job of the government to put into my bed a woman who doesn't want to sleep with me. I'm sick of the whining. If you don't think you are pay what you are worth, find someone who will pay it. If you think corporations are inefficent and only good for paying some supposed upper class off, they are inefficient and ripe for a competitor: be that person and whip them at their own game!
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on May 7, 2011 9:18:09 GMT -5
The market isn't completely "free". There are a lot of props behind the free market that only enable certain people, conditions, etc and eliminate competition. In a free market, nothing is "too big to fail". We keep propping up the failures and inflated values of their so called contributions. We don't have even close to a 'free market', I think a large reason CEO's are so highly valued is because of big government forcing companies to merge and grow so that they can afford to navigate complicated domestic and international tax code and regulations, it is nearly impossible for small/medium companies to compete is certain areas because they simply don't have the resources. We need to level the playing field by vastly simplifying the tax code (fairtax) and streamlining regulations. This would allow more entrepreneurs to start competing businesses.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on May 7, 2011 9:52:09 GMT -5
Some CEO's did well the last year or so with the options issued to them during the bailouts . Companies issued generous options to retain them because cash sums would raise eyebrows during the bailouts. Now that profits are good and share prices have risen,they have been well rewarded for the tanking .
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on May 7, 2011 10:07:14 GMT -5
"US now has lowest upward mobility in modern world...."
Where the hell are you getting your information for outragous statements like this. Your ignorance about America AND other countries is astounding. If you think America is so bad and upward mobility is still impossible then go live somewhere else, you have no idea how good it is here.
|
|