RE: The REAL Welfare Story (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


farglebargle -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/22/2008 7:17:56 PM)

I think if we required the Legislature to actually *read* the spending bills they vote on, the process would get a whole lot more streamlined. That's gotta save a few bucks right there...





UtopianRanger -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/23/2008 12:37:45 AM)

quote:

Archer...you're pissing in the wind speaking to people that...

a)  Don't understand the logic

b)  Have never owned, started or managed a company

c)  Are looking to be entirely contrary solely because your comments don't fit their interpretation of the way the world should be

I didn't know that that it cost $100,000.00 to build a job, but it doesn't surprise me.

I'm not sure where I knew inherently that the 100k cost would generate about a 50 - 60k paycheck....but I suspect the (above) boneheads also may have known that number and asked themselves "how in the hell could it cost 100k to provide a job that pays 50k....what a dumb ass....that means they'd be losing 50k".

To which I would then add for the truly dense....that's because the employer expects to pull out of his 100k (that you get 50k for) 225k.

(Dat be how he make da money).

Archer, I've read your stuff before...you're very knowledgeable about finance, economies, the way money and markets work....but trying to explain any of the above to people who've never stuck their toe in any water colder than lukewarm....you're pushing a rope uphill bud.





quote:

(I gave up trying to explain the concept of money and markets to most of these people years ago).


I told them. I told them....I swear I did. If they didn't listen to you /take your advice, they'd all go broke. Now every single one of them is flat broke, without a pot to piss in or a penny in their pockets---and it's all because they didn't listen to you and read Greenspan's book. [:D]










- R




Griswold -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/23/2008 8:52:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

Actually, I do run a business with employees so I know that Archer is basically full of baloney. His numbers are radically off base. He's also ethically cracked on this topic.

Question: how many $50-100K jobs is Wal-mart creating?

Yeah, I thought so...




(See what I mean?)




TheGorenSociety -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/23/2008 9:23:00 AM)

Wow, you must live in slow Ocala we have run into similar issues with disability .




Real0ne -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/24/2008 2:05:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

What shocked me was the funding of competitive sports: so, it's taxpayers who pay for leagues to buy their teams and stadiums?!



yep we have one of those stadiums and all it was was a nice corporate welfare package. 250million to build a stadium whne all that was needed was minor renovations to the old one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Griswold

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

BTW the 100,000 number is simple to reach Sallary is generally found to be about 50%
So middle class job total compensation of 100,000 would yield a $50,000 a year job.

It's a rule of thumb only but that's where it comes from for me.


Archer...you're pissing in the wind speaking to people that...

a)  Don't understand the logic

b)  Have never owned, started or managed a company

c)  Are looking to be entirely contrary solely because your comments don't fit their interpretation of the way the world should be

I didn't know that that it cost $100,000.00 to build a job, but it doesn't surprise me.

I'm not sure where I knew inherently that the 100k cost would generate about a 50 - 60k paycheck....but I suspect the (above) boneheads also may have known that number and asked themselves "how in the hell could it cost 100k to provide a job that pays 50k....what a dumb ass....that means they'd be losing 50k".

To which I would then add for the truly dense....that's because the employer expects to pull out of his 100k (that you get 50k for) 225k.

(Dat be how he make da money).

Archer, I've read your stuff before...you're very knowledgeable about finance, economies, the way money and markets work....but trying to explain any of the above to people who've never stuck their toe in any water colder than lukewarm....you're pushing a rope uphill bud.

(I gave up trying to explain the concept of money and markets to most of these people years ago).


a)
I most certainly do understand the logic.  Its a worst case scenario.  If you want to include the janitor who cleans the toilets, the accountant who writes the employees checks, the rent or space the employee occupies, stock options, etc etc I suppose that the number can be jacked up to 100k for a 50k employee.

Of course its accounting bullshit but thats besides the point.

b)
Well lets see now.  I have been in biz as in owned, managed or call it what you like run a, read; my company since 1984 do I qualify?

c)
Thats right.  They do not fit this constitutional republic as it should be!


I have read archers stuff too and find it short sited to the extreme.

His massive strike to the economy by interupting these large corps is nothing more than a temporary rocking of the boat.

Call it an investment for a better life for society.

Large corporations have devasted many mom and pop businesses as mom and pop businesses cannot run as tight of a margin as these large corps can and the corps only run that margin long enough to clear the competittion get established and then prices go up, services and selection go down.

Kiss startup companies goodbye because they simply cannot afford to compete.

This was realized by the framers hence corporations were considered privileged as a result and hence they were slotted to pay WAR TAXES not the public, with exception to an emergency bankrupting situation where the public was to be asked to voluntarily donate to a war effort.

Corporations had sunsets that had to be renewed and they could be revoked for any violation of their charter.  

(That was before 1886 before the crooked supreme court gave corporations "PERSONHOOD", a straw man carrying the same rights as a man of flesh)

The reason corporations were st up like this is that they were not allowed to donate money to any candidates champaign for the very reasons and problems we have now!!!   

We live in a corporatocracy somewhere between fascism and socialism.

The corporations have taken over this country and they should be left to go out of business if they fuck up just like me or any other.

Archers approach is that the world will fall apart should we rock the coporate boat and thats just plain short sited.



So here is the plan;

1) Remove the corporate personhood.  (no more donating to champaigns by default)

2) Reinstate the corporate charters.

3) Break up conglomerates.

4) Break up monopolies including the money monopoly of the federal reserve corporation.

Do this over a period of time.  As holes develope and there is a NEED people will start private businesses to fill that need.  Get back to corporate taxation for the privilege of being a corporation and if they fuck up then they are out of here.  Put em up for sale there will always be buyers.

This will not only return the government to the people but inspire more mom and pop businesses to spring up and spread that wealth to more people.

Thanks for the lesson griz.




Griswold -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/24/2008 8:47:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Thanks for the lesson griz.



Any time.




philosophy -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/24/2008 9:03:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

This was realized by the framers hence corporations were considered privileged as a result and hence they were slotted to pay WAR TAXES not the public, with exception to an emergency bankrupting situation where the public was to be asked to voluntarily donate to a war effort.

Corporations had sunsets that had to be renewed and they could be revoked for any violation of their charter.  

(That was before 1886 before the crooked supreme court gave corporations "PERSONHOOD", a straw man carrying the same rights as a man of flesh)

The reason corporations were st up like this is that they were not allowed to donate money to any candidates champaign for the very reasons and problems we have now!!!   



......i didn't know this stuff, thanks for alluding to it. How do people percieve this shift, from corporate to personhood? Has it improved US society?




SugarMyChurro -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/24/2008 12:46:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
I most certainly do understand the logic.  Its a worst case scenario.  If you want to include the janitor who cleans the toilets, the accountant who writes the employees checks, the rent or space the employee occupies, stock options, etc etc I suppose that the number can be jacked up to 100k for a 50k employee.


I call those fixed costs in many cases. I incur such costs whether I have one more body doing work or not. However, sometimes the one more body has the potential to increase production and therefore profits well over the cost of paying the one employee. If I get rid of the employee I still pay for the janitor, the accountant, the space in which the work takes place, etc. As far as paying for it all, I see that as part of the price to be paid for my widgets and not as some price to tack onto the head of every employee.

Anyway, this part is still a digression. And I am still deeply suspicious of the rhetorical strategy that takes the original topic of this thread and derails it into a discussion of what it takes to run a business.

The concepts behind the legal status of a corporation have been discussed here many times in the past. Here are some previous discussions of it:

(Good general information links here)
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=716299

(Another opinion similar to the one expressed by RealOne)
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=316016

(Another tax break style subsidy...)
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=398861

-----

I really would have though that more conservatives would get on board for cutting back on corporate welfare. Instead, it's just the usual big business apologist stuff one hears from the likes of Rush Limbaugh. That's not conservatism, it's the same corporate cock-sucking we already get from both sides of the abysmally limited U.S. political system.







Archer -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/24/2008 1:42:56 PM)

Funny I see an agreement that it should be done, only a difference between wheather to do it as a Nucear strike or a less radical surgical strikes. Failing to be noted by those who want to spout rhetoric.







thompsonx -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/25/2008 7:28:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

BTW the 100,000 number is simple to reach Sallary is generally found to be about 50%
So middle class job total compensation of 100,000 would yield a $50,000 a year job.

It's a rule of thumb only but that's where it comes from for me.


Archer:
Your above definition I have no problem with.  Here is your original post that I do have a problem with:
quote:

Each job created in the US costs the employer about 100,000 a year, more if it's to be a "Living wage" middle class job.

 
 

The position you defend is not the position you state in your post.  In fact it is in opposition to it.
Further it is a miss-characterization to try to coalesce a job that has no or minimal benefits(like those at the largest private employer in the U.S...Walmart) with jobs that have "full" benefits (like the longshoremen in California)
thompson

 
 
 
 
 
 
 




thompsonx -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/26/2008 12:31:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

It's a method to see if you are a hypocrite or not.  Notice, I'm not calling you one.  It's just that it quite plain from this, and other posts of yours (many, many other posts) that you have a deep anger in you about the free market system in general, and you haven't really espoused any type of philosophy or coherent political plans other than "Tear it down!" to take it's place.

Stealing a quote (and changing the wording somewhat): "The free market system is the worst economic system in the world: except for all the others."

Human institutions will always be imperfect, to someone's definition, at sometime.  How you handle your business, based on your rants against the current US free enterprise system will tell me if you are a "true believer" in the stuff you spew, or if you are simply a hypocrite who wants more power and money, and can only see the destruction the current system as the most likely path to achieve that.

Firm

FirmhandKY:
I see you are up to your old tricks again.  You constantly try to group corporations,free enterprise and free markets as one.
Free enterprise is antithetical to corporations and free markets.  You are the one who is constantly bleating about people taking personal responsibility for their actions but a corporation, by its very nature, denies personal responsibility.
Free markets differ from free enterprise by the obvious fact that if you buy products from countries who sanction slavery, by whatever euphemism you choose to use, you are only skirting U.S. laws against slavery. 
Free enterprise does not exist in this country.  Try growing any number of legal products like peanuts,tobacco,milk,crayfish just to name a few.  There are numerous industries that you may not enter into simply because the government has set them aside for their corporate pals.  Try bidding on a job in Iraq.
If you are in favor of free enterprise you and I are in lock step.
If you are in favor of utilizing slave labor under the guise of free markets then you and I will always disagree.
If you are not in favor of personal responsibility then I can understand your support for corporate enterprise.
thompson










SugarMyChurro -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/26/2008 1:25:47 PM)

That was helpful.

I am always mystified how the most basic ideas must be explained and argued over as if they were being spoken aloud as if for the first time. It's tiresome and derails numerous topics.

You can tell from the rhetorical technique and the same tired lines that it's the usual talking points from the corporatist right-wing, for whom corporations are effectively the godhead.

But your dead right, Thompson, the very status of being a corporation is a legal strategy intended to evade responsibility (as in "limited liability for debt").





Real0ne -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/28/2008 12:21:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

I really would have though that more conservatives would get on board for cutting back on corporate welfare. Instead, it's just the usual big business apologist stuff one hears from the likes of Rush Limbaugh. That's not conservatism, it's the same corporate cock-sucking we already get from both sides of the abysmally limited U.S. political system.



Oh yeh and its hands down corporatism.  How we could allow a corporation to control our economy is mind boggling.








luckydog1 -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/28/2008 12:35:30 AM)

Yes lets get back on topic.  How about naming a specific example of "Corprate Welfare", and lets look at the pros and cons of it.  Liked I asked way back.  If we are going to talk about the "Real Story" lets get real.  Not generalised rhetoric, an actuall, specific example.  For example I noted that Wallmart, takes the full credit for upgrrading thier energy efficiency/ making green improvements. 




Real0ne -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/28/2008 12:36:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

This was realized by the framers hence corporations were considered privileged as a result and hence they were slotted to pay WAR TAXES not the public, with exception to an emergency bankrupting situation where the public was to be asked to voluntarily donate to a war effort.

Corporations had sunsets that had to be renewed and they could be revoked for any violation of their charter.  

(That was before 1886 before the crooked supreme court gave corporations "PERSONHOOD", a straw man carrying the same rights as a man of flesh)

The reason corporations were st up like this is that they were not allowed to donate money to any candidates champaign for the very reasons and problems we have now!!!   



......i didn't know this stuff, thanks for alluding to it. How do people percieve this shift, from corporate to personhood? Has it improved US society?


I suppose that depends on how you want to look at it.  Corporations originally were set up to have revokable charters and now they are invincible.  What was the last corporation that the government has brought down?  I cannot think of one.

The problem is that the people cannot match the corporations or compete with them in terms of money donations for champaigns etc.  Changing the corporation from a straw man with priviledgesto the status of a person now made them eligible to donate to champaigns!

That is the very problems we have in our political system today and they are virtually untouchable.  Slap them with a 20 million fine?  So what raise the cost of the items they sell by a couple cents.   It would not surprise me if the fines were tax deductible.

Giving corporations personhood means we no longer have the right to force them to go over their books, warrants are required as for any citizen, they pay taxes as any citizen instead of the exceedingly higher "privilege" tax that they initially were required to pay.

Corporations were set up to pay not only a privilege tax as they have much more buying power but they were also expected to pay for the WAR TAXES because non other than war benefits their interests most!!!  The citizens only in an emergency.  Today its the citizen who pays most of the war taxes and the corporations that get the benefit from it.

They were set up that way to protect us from a corporatocracy that we have now.  

It paved the way for my previous post.  A corporation controlling the economy with "real" congressional oversight.

The framers of this country really had their shit together which is not say they did not make plenty of mistakes but compared to now? 

Sure there are benefits, it made us or at least those at the top extremely rich at the expense of our integrity as a nation and our constitutional values.








Real0ne -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/28/2008 12:50:13 AM)

quote:

How about naming a specific example of "Corprate Welfare"


sub prime

airlines

car manufactures

that bank debacle a few years ago

that damn stadium in my back yard

everyday inflation!

to name just a couple.
literally zillions of examples of corporate welfare.







SugarMyChurro -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/28/2008 1:10:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
If we are going to talk about the "Real Story" lets get real.  Not generalised rhetoric, an actuall, specific example.


Thanks, but I have a life and don't need the extra credit homework assignment.

My objection was to the digression that went down the road of how much it costs to run a business or how much each employee is going to cost one. That's not a justification for corporate welfare, it's accounting!

The OP is about a book from which we were making general statements. We could collectively read the book and meet here again afterward. I imagine the journalist that wrote the book has numerous real examples from which he draws his conclusions.

FWIW, some real examples have been cited already and I don't personally want to get bogged down in yet another digression in the form of a war about the reliability of online sources. But, "limited liability for debt" is a very real aspect of the corporate mentality. What we don't see is anyone taking financial responsibility for corporate boondoggles.








b12345 -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/28/2008 1:52:54 AM)

SMC why can't you realise that more or less Archer agrees with you...you insist on arguing over and over about "distractions from the original point', when you could just say ok we agree that corporate wel-fare is bad, we disagree on how to stop it.  and then 'bam' no more distractions, back on topic. 




popeye1250 -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/28/2008 11:08:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Yes lets get back on topic.  How about naming a specific example of "Corprate Welfare", and lets look at the pros and cons of it.  Liked I asked way back.  If we are going to talk about the "Real Story" lets get real.  Not generalised rhetoric, an actuall, specific example.  For example I noted that Wallmart, takes the full credit for upgrrading thier energy efficiency/ making green improvements. 


You know that guy "BONO"?
Remember a few years ago his "forgive third world dept" B.S.?
What got "forgiven" was all the bad loans that big banks made to third world countries.
And to add insult to injury those big banks are again making bad loans to third world countries that they know can't be repaid!
Think they'll be looking for another bailout from the Taxpayers a few years down the road?
Those banks stockholders should take the hit not U.S. Taxpayers!




Real0ne -> RE: The REAL Welfare Story (1/28/2008 12:14:39 PM)

quote:

SMC why can't you realise that more or less Archer agrees with you


How did you come to that conclusion?   I do not see any connection?  Did I miss somehting?







Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875