RE: The Economy of Votes

RE: The Economy of Votes (Full Version)

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

Message

OneMoreWaste -> RE: The Economy of Votes (2/25/2009 5:10:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs I'd like to see businesses absolved of responsibility for health care and retirement. It's wonderful that you provide these to your employees, and I'm sure glad that my employer provides these for me, but it does put many US businesses at a competitive disadvantage internationally, and like it or not, we have a global economy and that's not going to change. Health insurance costs are only a symptom, though. The U.S. medical industry has snowballed into an almost incomprehensible cash-sucking monster, with insurance companies, lawyers, and "healthcare" providers of all sorts caught in a twisted game of cost one-upmanship. I don't have a solution, but it needs to be resolved for our long-term health (no pun intended).

Mercnbeth -> RE: The Economy of Votes (2/25/2009 8:48:08 AM)
Great speech huh? Some things that President Obama and Congress can't do; they can't make me stay in business, they can't make me invest. 59 was overjoyed to announce that me, and those like me are "done". I'd agree, if we're not - we're preparing to be. Done and gone, with us go our spending, our employees, our employee tax, and our business. Who knows, maybe some of that old family money will come in and decide to run and work in a business that requires 24/7 attention with a 50%+ ultimate tax liability after adding all the Fed, State, and local obligations together. Even with a super majority you can't force people to stay in business; although if any Administration would try, I'm sure it would be this one. They also can't stop me from laughing when I hear the Treasury Secretary say; "The economy will recover next year if the actions we take work." I heard that as, I'll be rich tomorrow if I've pick the correct six lottery numbers.No action plan, no benchmarks defined, no outline of the steps to be taken or their expected benefit to the economy, not the private sector economy. I sure there are plenty of details and a clear plan for increasing the number of bureaucrats and increasing their budgets. Fortunately for the Administration, most only see the nice suit and the smooth talk off the TelePrompter. My question from the show - I'm trying to find out where I can buy the vibrating buzzer that was under Nancy Pelosi's ass for beth; and wonder if the President had the remote control at the podium, all the Democratic members present had a button and if the majority hit it she rose, or if it was self induced? Yesterday our little investment group had a meeting and cashed out our original investment. We're now playing with house money. We didn't play yesterday, because according to our 'expert', there was some 'technical' buying scheduled. The same expert suggested we go 'all in' today short across the board. The votes were 7-3 and what do you know - DOW down 175 in the first hour as I type this. I'm not the lead or responsible for the orders, and haven't been to the office yet, but I think we hit target and doubled up again. You can make money in this economy - just sell short every day there is another speech given my anyone from this Administration. Goes to show, hollow rhetoric may work on the campaign trail, but not in real life. The fictional editorial on another thread rings true in business community. Everyone in my little group employs people from a top end of a couple of hundred to five. We won't make the papers individually because we're too small. These are good jobs, with good benefits, and although they don't all have my 0% turn over rate for the past year, none of us have a permanent help wanted ad in the paper like McDonald's. These jobs will not be replaced, they will be absorbed. None of us individually have a market niche big enough that can't be taken by some competitor without adding any of our employees. They may take one or two to capture a bigger chuck of our client base, but not all. That's the way it works for small business. Were the big three auto makers to fold, someone else may start a new US auto company and need the same employee base, but that's not the case with small business. Once a good, ongoing small business folds, its usually a life changing experience for those employed. I'm sure there were a lot of votes garnered last night. A lot more people will be in need of the entitlement promised. Nothing said provided details or focused on a solution to turn around the existing situation. Banks are collectively still the 'bad guys'. "We have to spend!" Where where will we get the money? Unlike Congress - the average person can't print it. Without stability at the money center banks there will be no lending. Without lending there will be no rise and not even any stability in the housing market. Without that stability there is no personal 'piggy bank' in the form of a home's equity. The average person isn't spending; nor should they. Unless you are working for yourself your have no security and your future is not secure. Your employer is either evaluating his personal ROI, or is loosing money and planning on closing. Security comes from being a public employee benefiting from all that money being printed. Nothing in yesterday's 51 minutes of rhetoric changes that or gave any hope to any business sector. Hell, it seems that even Senator Byrd is 'getting it' and is concerned by what he sees as power grab being conducted by this Administration. BYRD SEES POWER GRAB. Hey - the DOW is only down 82 now; did President Obama say; "Never-mind!" - I better get to the office and see if we got our order in time.

MmeGigs -> RE: The Economy of Votes (2/25/2009 6:16:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OneMoreWaste Health insurance costs are only a symptom, though. The U.S. medical industry has snowballed into an almost incomprehensible cash-sucking monster, with insurance companies, lawyers, and "healthcare" providers of all sorts caught in a twisted game of cost one-upmanship. I don't have a solution, but it needs to be resolved for our long-term health (no pun intended). There are a lot of folks out there who are working on and implementing solutions. The "Minute Clinics" that are opening up all over the place are one example. They're half or less the cost of going to the dr's office. There are a lot of medical "Help Line" services available through insurance companies or hospitals/clinics where you can speak with a nurse and get some advice or assistance and perhaps avoid a visit to the dr. There are websites like WebMD where folks can get information that can help them make better decisions about their care. I saved me and my insurance hundreds of dollars by looking up a knee injury and discovering that it would mend itself if I wrapped it up and took it easy for a week or two. My employer has a self-funded health insurance program. They're focusing heavily on wellness programs and preventive care, and are strongly (and in a positive way) encouraging staff to participate in order to cut costs. They've made it clear that if they save money they'll pass those savings along to us by doing just that - last year we had a month with no health ins premiums taken out of our checks because our collective expenses were lower than they'd anticipated. For someone with family coverage, that was nearly $300, and was definitely a great incentive to be prudent with our health care spending. Most of the "snowballing" of medical costs is about the rate at which medical technology is changing, not about insurance or lawsuits. An expensive piece of medical equipment used to be a long-term investment, but today it's obsolete in a couple of years. Last year's drug has been replaced by a newer, better drug that's only available at top-gouge retail price. We can do things today that would have been considered miraculous not all that long ago, but many of those miracles cost a lot of money - hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. We're also spending more because we're a lot more focused on treatment than prevention. Should insurance really be paying for lap-band or gastric bypass surgery for someone who hasn't given eating less and getting some exercise a shot? Should insurance be paying for cholesterol-lowering medications for someone whose diet consists of fried chicken and Big Macs? We're also spending more because health care consumers are demanding more. We don't want to be in a hospital ward the way we would have been in the past, we want private or semi-private rooms and a lot of individual attention. That requires a lot more staff and many more square feet per patient of expensive hospital space. There are lots of opportunities for savings in health care costs, but many of them involve taking some control over the amount of profit that the various players are taking out of the system. Many folks like to point to malpractice claims as the demon in health care costs, but malpractice insurance costs track more closely with the profitability of the malpractice insurance industry than they do with the costs of malpractice claims, which haven't really increased as a proportion of total health care costs. There's a lot of evidence that folks are less likely to sue if their dr or hospital accepts responsibility for errors and takes steps to address them, but this is something that the insurance companies and risk managers tell health care providers not to do. The ass-covering culture that malpractice insurance companies have promoted actually leads to more claims, which means higher malpracitce premiums and more profits for the malpractice insurance companies and higher health care costs.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: The Economy of Votes (2/25/2009 7:44:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth A damn good question was asked; "Why are people against raising taxes?". The implication is that anyone against raising taxes is "rich" and doesn't want to participate in solving the economic problems facing the US. That would be the exception. In another thread Warren Buffet was quoted as saying something to the effect that this is a battle between 'us' and 'them' and 'us are winning. Think what you like, but Warren Buffet's 'us' doesn't have me, or anyone I know as a member. The 'us' I identify with are business people, 'successful' if the definition means we own all or a major chuck of something and operate a business. I'll answer why we're against taxes - taxes make us unproductive. Taxes make us keep assets and resources out of circulation. Taxes stop us from expanding. How does that affect someone who doesn't own anything, works for a salary, and sees us as uncaring, unsympathetic, cold 'capitalists'. To know that you have to know some details. I provide my personal situation and company as a case study. I just closed out 2008. Much to my chagrin, my company grossed about $335k. Shows what a poor manager I am, I try to break even. Why? Well, CA already had the highest corporate tax rate in the country and I'd rather pay tax at a lower personal rate, or give it out in bonuses to my people, but even after doing that, the cost of my product (money) was so low in the last quarter, I couldn't spend enough to keep pace. Take a look whats in that number. I paid out $700k in salary, and another $800k in operating expenses. No complaints in doing so. I pay 100% of my employee's health coverage, provide a 401k with company participating dollar for dollar, and routinely give out bonuses every quarter when we hit 'plan'. I base my involvement in business based upon a 'Return on Investment'. Many know, and appreciate that's pointed first to an ROI on capital investment. However for me and, many if not all, of the people I associate with in similar situations. That ROI is more about the investment in time as it is capital. There is some number I have in my mind where I'm not willing to invest my time to pay a bigger percentage of my gross income into taxes going into a pit of government bureaucracy. Who knows, tonight President Obama can hit that number in announcing his raising taxes plan. Then what happens...? Well, I come in one day and say to my employees - "sorry - we're closing". It will take about 6 months to a year to liquidate out the company. My employees, ranging from my operations manager making six figures, to my 2 temporary college kids making $12/hour will be out of a jobs. Good luck replacing them in CA today. As a result their mortgages and rents won't be paid, they'll buy less groceries, they'll curtail any vacation plans. My vendors, will see a small percentage of that $800k I paid out to them 2008. They may have to lay off employees, cut back on orders to their suppliers, and a similar 'trickle down' of failure will occur. Me - well I won't be paying any of that higher tax rate. I'll not be making any 'income' of note, and especially will be sure not to hit the 'rich' threshold of $250k. I'll live off assets. I won't invest anything, except perhaps on more 'short sell' options in the stock market. Here's the problem; take my situation and multiple it by 10 and you get my 'short sell' investment group. Take an multiply it by a million and you have the mindset of many in business. I've had the ability, desire, and ambition to hire on another outside marketing employee for nearly 6 months. I haven't done so for one reason - I can't answer the question why I should. Why generate more money, to pay more tax to support this path of government policy? Ah, NO! So there is one less potentially six figure income not generating tax, not generating spending, not spending at conventions, not buying plane tickets, not taking business meals at restaurants, spending at gas stations, upgrading a wardrobe at clothing stores, and buying from office supply stores. Again - multiply it by many similar situations throughout the company and you have a reason why higher taxes produce less tax income. AIG, BoA, GM, and the rest of the failures get the press and the bail-out. Asking people like me, representing a much greater segment of the US economy when considered as a whole, to fund their failure and you get a lot of pissed off 'capitalists' who are, based upon my conversations, ready to 'cash out' and sit back for the rest of their lives. Once again, I don't think I'm a genius to figure this out. I pretty confident that it was part of an overall plan. We're dinosaurs, entrepreneurs with and without college degrees who just had a work ethic, self accountability, the ability, and some 'luck' to be 'successful'. More of us aren't being produced by this society nor this educational system. The majority are being indoctrinated to want a government which prevents them from hurting themselves. They want a government to pursue a course that results in total and daily government involvement; protecting them and providing 'cradle to grave' coverage. So it becomes 'liberal' to make laws to eliminate playground equipment to protect the children from skinning their knees on 'dangerous' monkey bars. We hear screams from the people to protect them from their decisions and inhibit foreclosure on a house they couldn't afford in the first place. We have a President who says its fine and appropriate to conduct civil disobedience. It's obvious to me, the government wants more of these people and less of me. What they want is votes. November provided the perfect storm of disgust in the policies and programs of the prior Administration, the strength of public employee unions, and the big voting block of failures, corporate and individual, who hoped to benefit from a candidates stated platform of rewarding them for their results. Well, that candidate is now President and he came in with large enough coattails to insure fulfilling his promises. To see the joy in Nancy Pelosi's face yesterday in announcing yet another $410 Billion of proposed 'pork' spending was a sight to behold. Of course she does represent and is a member of the 'us' referred to by Buffet; so she has cause to smile. The goal - produce more votes. Were I to close my business, who would my employees vote for, a person championing fiscal responsibly and implementing pragmatic spending cuts and audits to eliminate duplicity; or one who says to them, it wasn't your fault, here's a hand-out? Government reliance, bludgeoning bureaucracy, increased entitlements produce votes. That's the goal here - not turning the economy around. In 20-30 years all us dinosaurs will be gone - I've got no complaints and will comfortably enjoy the balance of life. I'm looking forward to it as much many of you are to having the government 'save' you. Good luck with that. CIAO! Merc, I've always enjoyed your posts...always well thought out...both sides, etc. Not knowing which industry you're in, I couldn't answer your questions as finitely as if I did...however.... Ironically, as Republican, I've always done better when Dems were in power. That aside, I wonder why you question when "enough is enough" as to financial repercussions as to going beyond some predetermined tax level as to making too much money. Certainly it's appropriate to question whether you want to work (much) harder to achieve that extra 100k (or more)...understood. But if your goal was to continue growing your business, it's equally understandable that, at 350k, the business is one animal....at 2,750k it's no longer a larger version of the same animal...indeed, it's a completely different species. Working four times as hard for another 100k (net) may seem unfruitful. Every business owner needs to determine whether or not they choose to go to that next level, you of course, no less. I remember when my businesses broached 450k (sales) in the late 80's, and I was determined to hit 750k. It was then simply a larger version of the one at 450k, with a few surprising cracks along the way. When I then went to 1,500k sometime later, it became an entirely different animal, and the changes in its makeup in that transition surprised me tremendously. When we went from there (recently) to $3,150k I was astounded by the changes that exceeded every change before. Not only was it a different animal...to remain at the helm, I too had to become a different animal as well. And now I'm at a bit of a crossroads.... We'll easily hit $4,150k by year end, with growth likely approaching $5,750k by year end 2010 and similar growth to somewhere around $6,750k by year end 2011. (I got lucky...I invented a product that everyone needs {in a very specific industry} with overwhelming margins, and I'm the only one who has that thing). The dilemma: Should I go there? What are the ramifications if I do? Taxes will surely go up. But I'll be making more money along the way as well. Indeed, I'll be paying more taxes too. So the question (as I see it) isn't..."do I want to work that hard?", rather...."will the fruits of my efforts follow me if I do?" If I had to do it all myself...surely not. Thankfully that's not the case. But, because I'd pay more in taxes to make $800,000.00 (after taxes) versus $175,000.00 (after taxes) today...I don't see that as a valid argument not to pursue a dream. (2 cents).

servantforuse -> RE: The Economy of Votes (2/25/2009 7:52:03 PM)
If votes = economy we are all in trouble. The percentage of those in this Country that pay NO federal taxes is just a hair under 45%. That number will balloon in the next couple of years..

kdsub -> RE: The Economy of Votes (2/25/2009 8:45:43 PM)
It is a mess that’s for sure...but we have a choice...pay now or our kids will. How to do it though...May I ask are you against all tax increases or just some taxes. Over the last 30 years wealth shifting from the middle class to the upper class has caused an economic imbalance that has manifested itself in this depression. It makes no difference now that the greed of big business in search of cheap labor and maximum profits caused the problem. It seems to me the only way to correct this imbalance is to shift the wealth back to the middle. I understand the dilemma you describe…shifting the wealth with strictly taxes may punish some of the abusers that have taken advantage of the American worker…BUT will also destroy many responsible business owners that are just scraping by here in America. I think the answer is partly taxes in the short term but perhaps not quite the amount that is proposed. But I would go all out on making employing Americans a top priority. I want to see severe tax incentives for companies that employ in America or move back to America. This would reward American employers and more than offset a small increase in taxes. It would also punish owners of out of country industries selling in America and give them incentives to move their industries here. I will take flack I know but when our lives are on the line I want tariffs …so we can compete. I don’t believe reprisals will have a large affect on our already struggling economy. All trade agreements should be renegotiated to favor America goods and employees. Many opponents to this step in my mind don’t understand we are still the worlds most lucrative market… Other countries will be forced to comply. Yes it is shitty to them but is getting to be them or us… I’d rather fight with goods than soldiers. There is in my mind ONE bottom line…ONE answer to our problems…we must bring the industrial base back to America while we still have economic power. If we wait much longer we will not have the economic might to dictate these changes and we will be doomed to a second-rate economy and country. Butch

MmeGigs -> RE: The Economy of Votes (2/25/2009 9:19:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Hey - the DOW is only down 82 now; did President Obama say; "Never-mind!" - I better get to the office and see if we got our order in time. The rise and fall of the DOW isn't an indication of the strength of the economy or of the wisdom of a particular economic plan or of the long-term viability of a particular course of action, it's an indicator of how analysts and traders feel about the possibility of turning a quick profit. Wall Street doesn't care about long-term sustainability and it has no social conscience. All it cares about is how much money it's going to make. I don't think that these things are Wall Street's problem, but I think that we've got to stop letting Wall Street's concerns for profit trump concerns about sustainability and social responsibility. We've got to talk about these things as the interconnected systems that they are. What we really need now is to get back to some real market fundamentals, like looking at long-term gains rather than short term profits. That higher returns come with higher risk is econ 101. Any responsible financial counselor will recommend investing one's nest egg conservatively and only putting money that one can afford to lose or has time to recoup into risky stuff with high returns. We have ample evidence that repackaging risky high-return investments doesn't turn them into stable high-return investments, they just enable the repackagers to make a bundle of money and get out before the shit hits the fan. That crap is so common it has an acronym. IBG - "I'll Be Gone". The values of lots of investments have been bloated for quite a while. When the Dow passed 10,000 there were a lot of folks saying that the stuff that made up that number wasn't worth anywhere near that much. Unfortunately, Wall Street doesn't measure the value of an investment in terms of how much the underlying security is worth, it measures it in how much you can sell it for and how likely you are to find some sucker to buy it from you. A lot of the investments that have tanked weren't investments at all, they were gambling. Some were theft. Ponzi schemes are crumbling all over the place now that investors are getting more cautious. We can't build an economic recovery by making it safe for a small number of folks to strike it rich making risky investments. We can build an economic recovery by investing in folks who are involved in the real market - those who produce and sell and buy actual goods and services. If they're strong and doing well, the folks on Wall Street will have something worthwhile to invest in.

Mercnbeth -> RE: The Economy of Votes (2/26/2009 7:35:11 AM)
With more people joining the ranks of the unemployed, and today people who didn't pay their mortgages up for Bankruptcy Judge instance re-write; more votes are being generated. In these times it really makes you feel foolish if you pay your bills and live up to your obligations. Integrity is definitely a personal trait that should be eliminated if you want to live through these times. Paying your bills, and making money gets you nowhere, and rewards you with being targeted as one of the problems needing attention and targeting. If you are, like me, pointed to as being one of the problems and causes of this country's economic collapse because we don't pay enough taxes, are you feeling guilty? Today a budget was delivered address that problem and pointed to encumbering anyone silly enough, really stupid enough, to have not bought too big a house, not extended credit, not ran our businesses into the ground. We like to continue doing so, foolishly prideful of our accomplishments especially in this market, but the rules are about to be changes and we'll be left with the decision of what to do when they are implemented. Leaving that aside, will the 'plan' work? Few details, becoming S.O.P from this Administration, have been released but there are a few. More taxes on income over $250k, and a higher rate of taxes. Will the numbers regarding the budget in the 'best case' work to solve the problem? I don't think so. However, don't take my word or my numbers; the Wall Street Journal applied the proposal to reality: quote: let's not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let's go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion. Fast forward to this year (and 2010) when the Wall Street meltdown and recession are going to mean far few taxpayers earning more than $500,000. Profits are plunging, businesses are cutting or eliminating dividends, hedge funds are rolling up, and, most of all, capital nationwide is on strike. Raising taxes now will thus yield far less revenue than it would have in 2006. Source: TAX THE RICH ECONOMICS But the economy will recover - right?! quote: Mr. Obama is of course counting on an economic recovery. And he's also assuming along with the new liberal economic consensus that taxes don't matter to growth or job creation. The truth, though, is that they do. Small- and medium-sized businesses are the nation's primary employers, and lower individual tax rates have induced thousands of them to shift from filing under the corporate tax system to the individual system, often as limited liability companies or Sub-chapter S corporations. The Tax Foundation calculates that merely restoring the higher, Clinton-era tax rates on the top two brackets would hit 45% to 55% of small-business income, depending on how inclusively "small business" is defined. These owners will find a way to declare less taxable income. Yes we will! At least some of the money will be spent on a good cause! quote: New York got its share of earmarks, among them $475,000 to "improve and expand" the Italian American Museum in Little Italy. STIMULATING PORK This is directly pointed to the 'Economy of Votes'; look close at the link and you can see its bi-partisan pork. All for getting the folks back home to re-elect the 'status quo'. The only 'outsiders' seem to be those pushing for fiscal responsibility.

Mercnbeth -> RE: The Economy of Votes (2/26/2009 11:08:27 AM)
Because I site the lack of details as one of the primary reasons for not supporting the spend and tax plan of this Administration, I will point out some of the income side of the ledger. Details of the spending side have been well noted. quote: The individual side (Family income exceeding $250,000.) $338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire $179 billion - eliminate itemized deduction $118 billion - capital gains tax hike Total: $636 billion/10 years Business: $17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes $24 billion - tax carried-interest as income $5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine" $61 billion - repeal LIFO $210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform $4 billion - information reporting for rental payments $5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas $3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs $62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants $49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties $13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies $1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers $882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit Total: $353 billion/10 years Source: $1 TRILLION TAX INCREASE Good news for those wanting to see the oil companies hit hard; looks like they have been targeted and will be hit very hard. So will anyone working on a oil rig, or working for in the oil/gas exploration industry. So what - once out of jobs, they'll be entitled to all the new benefits and hand outs provided on the other side of the ledger. It wouldn't be difficult to pass these increased taxes onto the gas/oil consumer, but why bother. No new exploration, no new fields opened, nothing to offset the foreign cost of oil. The result of higher pricing will bring back the higher profits, and higher price at the pump, just like last year at this time. Good news for all!

OneMoreWaste -> RE: The Economy of Votes (2/26/2009 5:05:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs There are a lot of folks out there who are working on and implementing solutions. The "Minute Clinics" that are opening up all over the place are one example. They're half or less the cost of going to the dr's office. There are a lot of medical "Help Line" services available through insurance companies or hospitals/clinics where you can speak with a nurse and get some advice or assistance and perhaps avoid a visit to the dr. There are websites like WebMD where folks can get information that can help them make better decisions about their care. I saved me and my insurance hundreds of dollars by looking up a knee injury and discovering that it would mend itself if I wrapped it up and took it easy for a week or two. Interesting argument. I personally believe it's only a matter of time before the AMA forces through a law requiring prescriptions for orthopedic braces, the way they did with contact lenses. The cheap, ready availability of them on eBay must have them grinding their teeth! Meanwhile, you can't buy most antibiotics, sterile saline, or even pure oxygen- oxygen!!- without a prescription. Gotta go through the system. Gotta pay the doctor, and all his staff (like the person handling insurance billing), and the insurance company, and the companies handling the paperwork to make sure that these dangerous substances don't end up in the wrong hands, and the Federal auditing to make SURE that they don't, and the pharmacist who has to handle these items because they can't possibly be left on a shelf for any fool to pick up... quote: Most of the "snowballing" of medical costs is about the rate at which medical technology is changing, not about insurance or lawsuits. An expensive piece of medical equipment used to be a long-term investment, but today it's obsolete in a couple of years. Last year's drug has been replaced by a newer, better drug that's only available at top-gouge retail price. We can do things today that would have been considered miraculous not all that long ago, but many of those miracles cost a lot of money - hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. But the new drug isn't necessarily more effective. For damn sure, the company that spent millions developing it, testing it, getting it approved by the FDA, buying liability insurance for the inevitable class-action lawsuits that will pop up over side-effects, is now spending tens of millions more advertising it, sending reps to all the doctors and hospitals with merchandise promote it, funding studies and white papers, conferences, hiring pretty women, doing more advertising, and so forth... So it HAS to be prescribed. quote: We're also spending more because we're a lot more focused on treatment than prevention. Should insurance really be paying for lap-band or gastric bypass surgery for someone who hasn't given eating less and getting some exercise a shot? Should insurance be paying for cholesterol-lowering medications for someone whose diet consists of fried chicken and Big Macs? Everybody's gotta pick on the fatties [8\|] Treatment is more lucrative than prevention. quote: There are lots of opportunities for savings in health care costs, but many of them involve taking some control over the amount of profit that the various players are taking out of the system. My point exactly (as above). Insurance companies increase rates annually/quarterly/whatever. So people end up without insurance. They have an emergency, go to the doctor/ER, and skip out on their bill. This raises costs for the hospital. So the hospital raises their prices across the board to cover their A/R problems. The insurance companies negotiate their own rates, but still, they need to cover expenses, so they raise their costs. So now more companies and individuals have to go with less or no insurance. They get charged even MORE by the hospital because they're uninsured. So they can't pay and end up in collections. So the hospital raises their prices across the board to cover their losses... And you end up with over-the-counter analgesics costing more than $10 per pill on the hospital receipt. Every private practice doctor needs to hire at least one person to handle insurance paperwork and billing. When I go to the doctor I pay my copay, then the claim is submitted to my insurance company. They deny it, and mail me notice. Then the doctor mails me a notice that I need to pay them. Then I mail them a check. How much time and paper is being wasted here? It's ludicrous. And the examples are ENDLESS, endless, endless. The entire system is unfathomably wasteful, overcomplicated, self-supporting, and snowballing. While the tort system is undoubtably part of it, the real problem is the insurance industry.

OneMoreWaste -> RE: The Economy of Votes (2/26/2009 5:07:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub It is a mess that’s for sure...but we have a choice...pay now or our kids will. How to do it though...May I ask are you against all tax increases or just some taxes. I choose your kids! [8D] quote: There is in my mind ONE bottom line…ONE answer to our problems…we must bring the industrial base back to America while we still have economic power. If we wait much longer we will not have the economic might to dictate these changes and we will be doomed to a second-rate economy and country. Butch I do agree with you on this. But, I don't think it's going to happen.

kdsub -> RE: The Economy of Votes (2/26/2009 5:16:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OneMoreWaste quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub It is a mess that’s for sure...but we have a choice...pay now or our kids will. How to do it though...May I ask are you against all tax increases or just some taxes. I choose your kids! [8D] quote: There is in my mind ONE bottom line…ONE answer to our problems…we must bring the industrial base back to America while we still have economic power. If we wait much longer we will not have the economic might to dictate these changes and we will be doomed to a second-rate economy and country. Butch I do agree with you on this. But, I don't think it's going to happen. I believe we can and the situation we are in proves it... When the US economy shrinks so does the rest of the world... When the US slows its use of oil... the prices drop... We are still the chief reason for most of the production of goods in the world. We fuel their economies to supply ours. But this will not last long so now is the time to act. If we get tough we will not be liked…in fact hated…but It must be done IF we want to keep our way of living…It’s still up to us... the rest of the world will have no choice but to follow or invade. Butch

Mercnbeth -> RE: The Economy of Votes (3/2/2009 3:00:04 PM)
quote: "As bad as things are, they can still get worse, and get a lot worse," said Bill Strazzullo, chief market strategist for Bell Curve Trading. Strazzullo said he believes there's a significant chance the S&P 500 and the Dow will fall back to their 1995 levels of 500 and 5,000, respectively. Source: GOING DOWn! They will get worse - what other way can they go? The reason is clear, it seems that there is no attempt by this Administration or Congress to involve the private sector in attempting to turn the economy around. Every house 'saved' from foreclosure puts downward pressure on the RE market. Every 'ACORN' demonstration, backed by the Administration, inhibits and encumbers the efforts and spends the resources of the same Banks and Financial institutions who got bailed out. In other words, we have efforts taken by this Administration pulling in two different directions. No longer is it a matter of Liberal or Conservative; it just is. I realize of course that anyone making money is 'evil' and anyone considered 'rich' a pariah. Ironically except for those like the top 10 Senate millionaires; Kerry, Kohl, Rockefeller, Corzine, Feinstein, Fitzgerald, Lautenberg, Frist, Edwards, Kennedy. 'Preachers' who couldn't and wouldn't live one day as they expect their constituents to accept as the new 'norm'. (SENATE MILLIONAIRES) The establishment of the ruling class in the US, entrenched by PAC contributions, provides little hope of solution coming from their ranks. The 'public' outcry only seem to get published if it's in harmony to the agenda; 'wealth' and 'riches' are bad and evil if the person behind it doesn't subscribe to the agenda that only good things come from this Administration, regardless of the result. However some successful people and leaders of industry from both sides of the aisle seem to be silenced; unless, of course, they enjoin the cheers of "It's Bush's Fault!". Well damn, even if it is - in fact stipulating for the sake of discussion that it is his fault just to get beyond that point; shouldn't there be some 'plan of action' in place that everyone can say put us on the right path away from the prior administration's errors? I mean, if someone hands you a stick of dynamite and you see the fuse lit and fizzing, shouldn't some personal accountability come into play if you don't snuff out, pull the fuse, or throw away the stick and let it explode as far away from you so it will inflict the smallest amount of damage? Wouldn't sending a Trillion down the same 'rat-hole' without benchmarking the recovery plan be like lighting another fuse on anther stick of dynamite with the lit one someone else handed you? Granted, diving on a hand grenade may make you a hero, but I don't see that occurring either. Instead I see more of the same. I see the dynamite being put under a fundamental load bearing beam with a purpose of brining the entire house down; private business both big and small. I see the situation being used to increase the government's involvement in our daily lives and to garner votes from the growing number of failures. Who in their right mind would invest in Wall Street on the 'upside'? GM shares are selling for less than a spark plug. A share of the NY Times is less than the cost of a Sunday newspaper. This is the time for the government to approve spending a Billion dollars - so far and counting? It's got to be a plan to make all private industry and business to the point of failure. Is there another expectation to anticipate on the actions taken thus far? More spending, and less income expected due to creating an environment ripe for more personal and business failure - those people don't generate income to tax! Not one word of confidence, or expectation of survival for the country and society that, even in the worst times, always had some goal on the horizon identified by leaders from both political parties. It doesn't seem to be a desire to do so. Better to beat everyone down and tell them that the can NOT survive without the government. Tell them that making money, or at least an arbitrary 'too much' money is bad. The actions point to acceptance in the reasoning that the 90% who planned and accounted for their housing expense should pay for the 10% who didn't. You can not find a person who has confidence in the private sector. The only fully employed, fully paid, fully vested in their retirement, fully benefit entitled, and secure in their jobs are public employees. The road the Administration and Congress is on perceives this as the solution, and sees no other. Whether you call it 'socialism', 'nationalism', or a national 'commune' is that what you want? If you have a different perspective and believe another outcome likely I like to hear it; not just a 'feeling' but pointing to these or other issues and predicting a path to any other outcome. Where's the private investment part of the plan? Are we headed for a society in the US that includes having the government as a partner for each and every industry? Is that desirable to anyone? Does anyone have a different perspective?

Owner59 -> RE: The Economy of Votes (3/2/2009 5:31:56 PM)
Well,Merc. You`ve come quite a long way.You used to deny that there was even a crisis. Now you`ve a least come around to reality. So now finally,a question. What would you suggest we do to address the current credit crisis and the recession,besides the do nothing plan your party has put forward ? And how do you feel about the money bush gave the banks ,some 350 billion in TARP funds,that`s just sitting in the vaults,......... doing nothing,.........just sitting there,......b/c your favorite president bush gave it to them without any strings or rules.Mission accomplished.[:D] And just as a disclaimer,please answer this question.Yes or no. Are you now,or have you ever been a banker or a member of a bank company that`s received TARP money? [;)]

SpinnerofTales -> RE: The Economy of Votes (3/2/2009 6:31:52 PM)
quote: I just closed out 2008. Much to my chagrin, my company grossed about $335k. Shows what a poor manager I am, I try to break even. Why? Well, CA already had the highest corporate tax rate in the country and I'd rather pay tax at a lower personal rate, or give it out in bonuses to my people, but even after doing that, the cost of my product (money) was so low in the last quarter, I couldn't spend enough to keep pace. Take a look whats in that number. I paid out $700k in salary, and another $800k in operating expenses. No complaints in doing so. I pay 100% of my employee's health coverage, provide a 401k with company participating dollar for dollar, and routinely give out bonuses every quarter when we hit 'plan' ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Ok...I have to ask you a bit about your numbers here before replying. You said your business took in $330,000.00 last year. And between operating expenses and salary, you laid out $1,500,000.00. This seems to translate into a net loss of over $1,000,000.00. But let's assume that you mean you personally got a net income of $330,000.00. Currently, if taxed at one of the two highest tax brackets, you would have paid $115,000 in federal income tax. (Not an inconsiderable amount, by the way) and kept $215,000. Under Obama's plan, you would have paid $118,700, keeping keeping $211,300. Now would I like everybody to pay less taxes? Of course I would. However, saying that you have reached the point where you are no longer willing to work because you will have to pay an extra $3,700.00 a year doesn't sound too reasonable to me. Let me ask, did you not work before Bush cut the tax rates on your income bracket? Did you live the life of a happy beachcomber, cashing the welfare checks and feasting on the food stamps, and then said "Hey now....35 instead of 39...NOW is the time to get off my ass and make some money!" On a less tongue in cheek note, I have a lot of respect for your statements about how you run your business. You seem to be one who does indeed "spread the wealth around". But we cannot say "We don't need to pay for police because I am an honest man." There are plenty of employers who view their employees as a commodity, to be bought cheap, worked hard and gotten rid of. Again, proof of this is that the gap between average workers and top executives have spread amazingly while over the last decade, the average worker's salary has stagnated. If more people were honest, we would need less police. If more employers, both in large corporations and small businesses ran things more as you say you do (and I have no reason to doubt it is truth), then we might need less regulation and taxation reform.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: The Economy of Votes (3/2/2009 7:26:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: I just closed out 2008. Much to my chagrin, my company grossed about $335k. Shows what a poor manager I am, I try to break even. Why? Well, CA already had the highest corporate tax rate in the country and I'd rather pay tax at a lower personal rate, or give it out in bonuses to my people, but even after doing that, the cost of my product (money) was so low in the last quarter, I couldn't spend enough to keep pace. Take a look whats in that number. I paid out $700k in salary, and another $800k in operating expenses. No complaints in doing so. I pay 100% of my employee's health coverage, provide a 401k with company participating dollar for dollar, and routinely give out bonuses every quarter when we hit 'plan' ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Ok...I have to ask you a bit about your numbers here before replying. You said your business took in $330,000.00 last year. And between operating expenses and salary, you laid out $1,500,000.00. This seems to translate into a net loss of over $1,000,000.00. Actually he said gross. This likely means his gross profit, which is sales less direct costs. quote: But let's assume that you mean you personally got a net income of $330,000.00. Currently, if taxed at one of the two highest tax brackets, you would have paid $115,000 in federal income tax. (Not an inconsiderable amount, by the way) and kept $215,000. Under Obama's plan, you would have paid $118,700, keeping keeping $211,300. That would depend on where the income came from, but if you are simply running off the AGI, then you would be correct. quote: Now would I like everybody to pay less taxes? Of course I would. However, saying that you have reached the point where you are no longer willing to work because you will have to pay an extra $3,700.00 a year doesn't sound too reasonable to me. Let me ask, did you not work before Bush cut the tax rates on your income bracket? Did you live the life of a happy beachcomber, cashing the welfare checks and feasting on the food stamps, and then said "Hey now....35 instead of 39...NOW is the time to get off my ass and make some money!" On a less tongue in cheek note, I have a lot of respect for your statements about how you run your business. You seem to be one who does indeed "spread the wealth around". But we cannot say "We don't need to pay for police because I am an honest man." There are plenty of employers who view their employees as a commodity, to be bought cheap, worked hard and gotten rid of. Again, proof of this is that the gap between average workers and top executives have spread amazingly while over the last decade, the average worker's salary has stagnated. If more people were honest, we would need less police. If more employers, both in large corporations and small businesses ran things more as you say you do (and I have no reason to doubt it is truth), then we might need less regulation and taxation reform. Merc is not alone in his thinking. One of the companies that I do the majority of my contract work through, just downsized last year. The reason being is the owners net profit went down by about 12%, even though his sales had increased by 57%. He said the extra effort was not worth it to him, because of the extra expense involved. I believe that is what Merc is getting at, that sometimes effort compared to return is looked at, and the extra effort may not be worth the return.

MmeGigs -> RE: The Economy of Votes (3/2/2009 9:27:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth They will get worse - what other way can they go? We have not hit bottom yet, I agree. quote: The reason is clear, it seems that there is no attempt by this Administration or Congress to involve the private sector in attempting to turn the economy around. Not at all. It's not true that the private sector - by that I'm assuming you mean businesses and investors - has not been involved. Congress has had hearings to find out what business thinks it needs to get back on its feet. That's what the bank and automaker hearings in congress were all about - they told Congress what they needed and they got funding. Lots of businesses have been right out there with their requests for part of the stimulus money. A huge chunk of the stimulus money is targeted at projects that will directly benefit the private sector - construction companies and industry. There have been loads of meetings between congressfolk and representatives from business and industry. What's different is that the private sector isn't the primary voice in the discussion. quote: I realize of course that anyone making money is 'evil' and anyone considered 'rich' a pariah. This is a view shared by a very small number of extreme lefties. It's not a view that is shared by the Democratic party or by the vast majority of the Democratic rank and file or by the vast majority of liberal and liberal-leaning folk. I'm guessing that you know that, so what is the point of tossing something like this out there? quote: However some successful people and leaders of industry from both sides of the aisle seem to be silenced; unless, of course, they enjoin the cheers of "It's Bush's Fault!". I've heard and seen a lot of news stories about what different business interests think about the stimulus plan and what they think should be done. I've read a lot of statements from Congressfolk on both sides of the aisle. There were stories today on NPR about the effect the economy is having on small businesses and entrepreneurs. This from a supposedly "leftie" news source. You might want to reconsider where you get your news. quote: Wouldn't sending a Trillion down the same 'rat-hole' without benchmarking the recovery plan be like lighting another fuse on anther stick of dynamite with the lit one someone else handed you? Yes, but I don't really see that you've suggested anything resembling a solution in this thread, you just accused folks you disagree with of unsavory motives and threatened to take your ball and go home. Not very constructive. quote: Is there another expectation to anticipate on the actions taken thus far? More spending, and less income expected due to creating an environment ripe for more personal and business failure - those people don't generate income to tax! According to many conservative posters here, 40% of our population doesn't make enough income to pay income taxes, and many of them are actually taking out of the system rather than paying in. I agree that this is unsustainable. For a number of years now we've seen most of our job growth in retail and service jobs that don't pay crap. A lot of the increase in individual earnings for folks on the low end has come not from increases in wages or assistance, but because they're working more hours. Even with that, folks on the bottom aren't getting ahead. The ratio of tax-payers to non-tax-payers has been getting worse. What do you suggest we do about this? How do you suggest we go about getting enough of these folks over to the tax-paying side of the fence to make a real difference? Keep in mind that more education isn't an option unless we have more jobs for folks with an education. Only about a third of our jobs require a college education, and about a third of our jobs don't pay a living wage. If we all have degrees, we'll still need an awful lot of folks to run cash registers, flip bugers and clean hotel rooms. quote: You can not find a person who has confidence in the private sector. The only fully employed, fully paid, fully vested in their retirement, fully benefit entitled, and secure in their jobs are public employees. The road the Administration and Congress is on perceives this as the solution, and sees no other. Whether you call it 'socialism', 'nationalism', or a national 'commune' is that what you want? I suspect that the public's loss of confidence in the private sector has something to do with the private sector's loss of confidence in them. Anyone relying on their wages to make a living - and that's the vast majority of us - would be a fool to have confidence in the private sector. Wall Street as much as comes right out and says that it doesn't give a rat's ass what happens to working people. Look at the way stocks go up after a layoff. If, as you say, the only employees who are fully employed, fully paid, fully vested in their retirement, fully benefit entitled and secure in their jobs are public employees, what does that say about the private sector's ability to provide good jobs? If the private sector can't provide good jobs, who is going to buy the things that it produces? While many retailers are dealing with losses, Dollar Tree profits are up 11%. What does that say to you? Much of the private sector seems to have forgotten that labor and consumers are the same people. It's not like that's a new idea - Henry Ford understood it. You can't make money if too many folks can't afford to buy what you're selling. I think that what we're feeling now is the result of many years of downward pressure on wages. We've built a consumer-driven economy while turning an increasingly large number of us into less effective consumers. Not terribly bright. quote: If you have a different perspective and believe another outcome likely I like to hear it; not just a 'feeling' but pointing to these or other issues and predicting a path to any other outcome. Where's the private investment part of the plan? Are we headed for a society in the US that includes having the government as a partner for each and every industry? Is that desirable to anyone? All I've seen from you in this thread is a 'feeling' that the administration is doing this just to get votes and a 'feeling' that there will be doom and gloom if they succeed. What's your solution? Here's my solution. Let's try something we've never tried before - working this thing from the bottom up. I'd like to take all of the bailout and stimulus money and use it to provide direct subsidies to businesses to pay a living wage. I'd cut through all of the bullshit about how much that should be by setting it at the low estimate - somewhere between $12 and $15 an hour. I believe in the free market, but I understand that it's a pyramid scheme. There will be a lot of folks on the bottom and a few folks at the top. I'm okay with that. However, it's not a sustainable system if it starts getting top heavy and the base of the pyramid isn't solid. That's what's happening now. While businesses don't seem to understand that labor and consumers are the same folks, this is a daily reality for working folk. They're getting paid less for their labor, and they've been consuming less. If they get paid more, they'll consume more. Businesses will make more money and investors will have something to invest in. quote: Does anyone have a different perspective? Would you listen if they did? You seem to be more focused on blame and dire predictions than you are on discussion.

MmeGigs -> RE: The Economy of Votes (3/2/2009 9:39:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Merc is not alone in his thinking. One of the companies that I do the majority of my contract work through, just downsized last year. The reason being is the owners net profit went down by about 12%, even though his sales had increased by 57%. He said the extra effort was not worth it to him, because of the extra expense involved. I believe that is what Merc is getting at, that sometimes effort compared to return is looked at, and the extra effort may not be worth the return. Perhaps Merc and your employer need to reconsider the business that they're in. This is what we tell workers when they're made redundant, is it not? Retrain, retool, reinvent yourself for the current economic circumstances. Be flexible, be mobile, try to position yourself as both diversified and able to specialize. If the extra effort isn't worth the return, get out of the way and leave it to someone who is willing to do the work. Isn't this what we're always telling our workforce? Why would this not apply to Merc and your employer?

Owner59 -> RE: The Economy of Votes (3/2/2009 10:19:55 PM)
Lot of heavey lifting there, MmeGigs.Thanks! You pretty much expressed how I feel.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: The Economy of Votes (3/2/2009 11:23:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Merc is not alone in his thinking. One of the companies that I do the majority of my contract work through, just downsized last year. The reason being is the owners net profit went down by about 12%, even though his sales had increased by 57%. He said the extra effort was not worth it to him, because of the extra expense involved. I believe that is what Merc is getting at, that sometimes effort compared to return is looked at, and the extra effort may not be worth the return. Perhaps Merc and your employer need to reconsider the business that they're in. This is what we tell workers when they're made redundant, is it not? Retrain, retool, reinvent yourself for the current economic circumstances. Be flexible, be mobile, try to position yourself as both diversified and able to specialize. He is not my employer, but a business partner. We have had the discussion before about the new direction, and his options. He just feels that he has enough, and has made enough to keep the company slim and enjoy more of his free time. The company is far from failing. quote: If the extra effort isn't worth the return, get out of the way and leave it to someone who is willing to do the work. Isn't this what we're always telling our workforce? Why would this not apply to Merc and your employer? You seem to have an assumption of something that is not true. The company is not in the way, just very selective of clients, since this company is the top in the area. To keep that specialization he has decided to stay small, because he becomes just one of many when he branches out and does not specialize. By paying top pay, and it is incentive pay (meaning you only get paid from billable time) the consultants set their own salaries. I am a little different since I contract out to handle an entire department for him. I am the Project Manager, Lead Consultant, Salesperson and Account Manager for a particular area. He regularly sees about a 42% net profit from what I do. That is net profit and not gross. No reason to get out of the way. Just not much reason to expand and become that much larger right now. And the reason this would not apply is that they run their own companies, and are taking care of their bills. Now if they were hurting for money, then more money would probably have a higher priority. Do you understand that?

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625