Ron Paul owns Newt

[reppingfor20]

what are you talking about? no where has this been shown to be true, in fact the exact opposite has been demonstrated over and over. Trickle down economics, or horse and sparrow economics does not work, companies horde money, thats a fact. I live in canada a more socialist country then yours and we are in better conditions then you, USA is far from socialist, that seems to be the scare word along with communism. Instead you have socialism for the elite and shit for the middle and poor. These fuckers benefit from infrastructure paid by the american people yet they contribute nothing in taxes. Why do they deserve this? they don't, hiring people isn't an out, these people have to work and in turn generate more money for the people in charge. It's almost as if you think or many think that corporate owners create jobs when demand isn't there. Improve the middle class and the problems are solved, simple as that. Put money in the hands of those that have to spend it and you will stimulate the economy. Look at the 13 billion dollar companies that paid no taxes, do you know how much increase they say in job creation? zero, in fact it has gone down in spite of them making record profits, its a fact, how can you argue that this is not right?

great post

[avxo]

no companies corporations are making way too much profit and paying their ceo's way too much money, it needs to be more evenly divided, and revenue positive needs to go back to employees paychecks after it get's past a certain amount they earn in positive income.

No... see, you're confused. Your personal and political beliefs aren't facts and you shouldn't peddle them as such.

You assert that companies are making way too much profit. What's too much and who decides it? What's "way too much" and how can I tell if a certain amount of profit is "way too much" or just "too much"? And why is having a profit bad?

You assert that companies are paying their CEOs way too much money. This is at least somewhat reasonable, in the sense that a large number of CEOs are ridiculously overpaid. But the same questions as before apply: What's too much and what's "way too much"? How do I distinguish between one and the other?

Lastly, you assert that profit must be more evenly divided among the workers. Frankly, that's bullshit. The workers are simply hired to do a job for a salary or an hourly wage. But you seem to be missing the fact that the profits can be (and routinely are) distributed in a completely fair way: they are paid out in the form of dividends to the company owners, a.k.a. the shareholders.

[reppingfor20]

No... see, you're confused. Your personal and political beliefs aren't facts and you shouldn't peddle them as such.

You assert that companies are making way too much profit. What's too much and who decides it? What's "way too much" and how can I tell if a certain amount of profit is "way too much" or just "too much"? And why is having a profit bad?

You assert that companies are paying their CEOs way too much money. This is at least somewhat reasonable, in the sense that a large number of CEOs are ridiculously overpaid. But the same questions as before apply: What's too much and what's "way too much"? How do I distinguish between one and the other?

Lastly, you assert that profit must be more evenly divided among the workers. Frankly, that's bullshit. The workers are simply hired to do a job for a salary or an hourly wage. But you seem to be missing the fact that the profits can be (and routinely are) distributed in a completely fair way: they are paid out in the form of dividends to the company owners, a.k.a. the shareholders.

hope you enjoy living in poverty

[avxo]

hope you enjoy living in poverty

I'm a Getbigger friend. The only thing bigger than my biceps is my stock portfolio (or depending on the situation, my cock).

But in all seriousness, why do you think that large corporate profits translate to living in poverty? Someone making more money than me doesn't translate into my living in poverty. Nor will giving a cut of corporate profits to the janitor magically make anything better. The actual value (i.e. the purchasing power) of the dollars in your checking account is important. The amount isn't.

[reppingfor20]

I'm a Getbigger friend. The only thing bigger than my biceps is my stock portfolio (or depending on the situation, my cock).

But in all seriousness, why do you think that large corporate profits translate to living in poverty? Someone making more money than me doesn't translate into my living in poverty. Nor will giving a cut of corporate profits to the janitor magically make anything better. The actual value (i.e. the purchasing power) of the dollars in your checking account is important. The amount isn't.

Corporations will keep hording money and not using it to pay their employees a living wage more and more, the way they are getting away with it now, you are endorsing them hoarding money, they have record profits now, and the employee wages do not reflect that whatsoever.

[avxo]

Corporations will keep hording money and not using it to pay their employees a living wage more and more, the way they are getting away with it now, you are endorsing them hoarding money, they have record profits now, and the employee wages do not reflect that whatsoever.

First of all, you're mixing apples and oranges. You've gone from advocating a profit-sharing scheme for employees to talking about a "living wage." Stop jumping around! Pick one thing so we can discuss it.

As for corporations hoarding money: corporations (and executive boards, and C?? types) are all answerable to their bosses -- the shareholders. If the owners of a company wish to keep the income of the company within the company (to reinvest in the business, expand, do R&D, acquire other companies, or even saving for a rainy corporate day) what's your problem with that? It's not your money -- it's the company's money.

[Hugo Chavez]

How can you support Obama and Ron Paul? 

They're on the opposite ends of every single issue.

who cares.  I've tried to point out a million times that there is a broad range of political types who find enough in Paul to support him.  I voted for Obama but I'd much rather have Paul.  If a group of hippies want to vote Ron Paul because of his stance on civil liberties, why the hell not, let them and all Paul supporters should support that.  How many rightwingers show up to the polls with one issue in mind with who they pick?  Happens all the time, 2nd Amendment, pro-life etc...

[War-Horse]

I'm a Getbigger friend. The only thing bigger than my biceps is my stock portfolio (or depending on the situation, my cock).

But in all seriousness, why do you think that large corporate profits translate to living in poverty? Someone making more money than me doesn't translate into my living in poverty. Nor will giving a cut of corporate profits to the janitor magically make anything better. The actual value (i.e. the purchasing power) of the dollars in your checking account is important. The amount isn't.

WRONG. Americans spend almost all the money they make!  If the janitors wages go from $8hr to $15 then hes going to buy T.V's...hes going to buy more movie tickets...more food....mor everything. This means that the local business owners will get way more traffic then we're seeing now. But as it is the business wants to maximize profits...so it moves to a 3rd world country and decreases its payroll 400% instantly. And now everybody gets nothing. If you starve the middle class then the whole engine of america stops...as we see.....even the rich 1% will see that they helped destroy our country by hoarding money in offshore accounts instead of contributing to their own community and being a solution.  Greed will kill them all too soon, interesting irony.

[Soul Crusher]

WRONG. Americans spend almost all the money they make!  If the janitors wages go from $8hr to $15 then hes going to buy T.V's...hes going to buy more movie tickets...more food....mor everything. This means that the local business owners will get way more traffic then we're seeing now. But as it is the business wants to maximize profits...so it moves to a 3rd world country and decreases its payroll 400% instantly. And now everybody gets nothing. If you starve the middle class then the whole engine of america stops...as we see.....even the rich 1% will see that they helped destroy our country by hoarding money in offshore accounts instead of contributing to their own community and being a solution.  Greed will kill them all too soon, interesting irony.

LMFAO - where does the extra 7 dollars an hour come from?   

[War-Horse]

LMFAO - where does the extra 7 dollars an hour come from?   

Which came first the chicken or the egg? Somebodys gotta shoot first bro....whos most able??

[Soul Crusher]

Which came first the chicken or the egg? Somebodys gotta shoot first bro....whos most able??

LMFAO!!!   

[Roger Bacon]

Newt sounds like he wants a police state, Paul let's him have it  Ron Paul 2012 if not Obama my 1st choice as always !!

I hate Obama, but I'll certainly vote for him over Newt.

Good post, spot on.

[Dos Equis]

Newt was right, Paul was wrong.  The McVeigh example didn't make a lot of a sense, as Newt pointed out.  McVeigh succeeded.  We need to stop people like him and other terrorists, not deal with the aftermath of a terrorist attack.   

All this talk about Americans losing their liberties over the Patriot Act doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  No specific examples.  Just broad comments that have no factual basis. 

Foreign policy and national security are areas where Ron Paul is just flat out wrong, and part of the reasons he will never be president. 

[reppingfor20]

LMFAO - where does the extra 7 dollars an hour come from?   

the record profits they are having and cutting CEO and top exec's pay.  They are paying these employees the lowest amount possible just so they will work and do a somewhat decent job.  You act like the companies are just getting by 

[reppingfor20]

First of all, you're mixing apples and oranges. You've gone from advocating a profit-sharing scheme for employees to talking about a "living wage." Stop jumping around! Pick one thing so we can discuss it.

As for corporations hoarding money: corporations (and executive boards, and C?? types) are all answerable to their bosses -- the shareholders. If the owners of a company wish to keep the income of the company within the company (to reinvest in the business, expand, do R&D, acquire other companies, or even saving for a rainy corporate day) what's your problem with that? It's not your money -- it's the company's money.

A living wage and profit sharing, I mean sharing the profit the corporations are making in record numbers by redistrubuting that back to employees paychecks.  These corporations can only exploit the workers for so long. 

Also your second paragraph that is why a corporation should not be allowed to go public and have shareholders, the whole stock market, money changing business is corrupt and not good for employees, all corporations should have to remain private.  Stock market is a total sham and should be abolished, it is all corrupt and does nothing to help the average joe out.  Yes people can invest and earn money, but it is just gambling, the real people at the top are the ones who make the money because they know the insider stuff joe off the street doesn't know.

[Soul Crusher]

A living wage and profit sharing, I mean sharing the profit the corporations are making in record numbers by redistrubuting that back to employees paychecks.  These corporations can only exploit the workers for so long. 

Also your second paragraph that is why a corporation should not be allowed to go public and have shareholders, the whole stock market, money changing business is corrupt and not good for employees, all corporations should have to remain private.  Stock market is a total sham and should be abolished, it is all corrupt and does nothing to help the average joe out.  Yes people can invest and earn money, but it is just gambling, the real people at the top are the ones who make the money because they know the insider stuff joe off the street doesn't know.

And when the company loses money - can those losses be spread to the employees as well? 

[reppingfor20]

And when the company loses money - can those losses be spread to the employees as well?  

Yeah they can take their paycheck down from 15 $ an hour to 14 $ an hour.  Also the losses need to be spread to the CEO and exec's as well.  As you know, companies are making record profits, only company I know of now that is known to be going to lose money is netflix next year has come out and say it will lose money all of 2012, that is because of their greed though previously this year.

Either way, now days if a company even thinks it will lose money, they will lay off workers, out source, and cut pay to existing workers all before even thinking of touching the CEO's and exec's multi multi million dollar salaries.

[Soul Crusher]

Yeah they can take their paycheck down from 15 $ an hour to 14 $ an hour.  Also the losses need to be spread to the CEO and exec's as well.  As you know, companies are making record profits, only company I know of now that is known to be going to lose money is netflix next year has come out and say it will lose money all of 2012, that is because of their greed though previously this year.

Either way, now days if a company even thinks it will lose money, they will lay off workers, out source, and cut pay to existing workers all before even thinking of touching the CEO's and exec's multi multi million dollar salaries.

LOL - some compzanies are making record profits - most are not.  Talk to any main street business about their record profits and see what they tell you. 

[avxo]

A living wage and profit sharing, I mean sharing the profit the corporations are making in record numbers by redistrubuting that back to employees paychecks.  These corporations can only exploit the workers for so long.

It's not their damn money! They were hired to do a job! They get paid whether the company makes or loses money. The company owners (or shareholders for publicly traded companies) risk a lot more than a worker on salary and it's only reasonable their return is larger.

[War-Horse]

Obviously the system we have is screwed. So instead of openeing up to shareholders then profitsharing plans is the way to go. Imagine an employee thats proud and has incentive to build the company and speak well of it to others....totall opposite of now!!


Speaking of greed.  In 1960 the average CEO wage was 19 times his best paid employee. Now its 400 times!!  Only thing that changed is the level of greed and the business owners are killing themselves by hoarding money into offshore accounts and foriegn currency. Its close to TREASON in my opinion.

[avxo]

Obviously the system we have is screwed. So instead of openeing up to shareholders then profitsharing plans is the way to go. Imagine an employee thats proud and has incentive to build the company and speak well of it to others....totall opposite of now!!

Obviously? No, not obviously. Like any system, it's not perfect, but the solution isn't to replace it with something even worse.

Why mandate how profits are to be divided to companies and people who start companies up? Who are you to tell me how my company should be structured and to interject yourself in the compensation negotiations between myself and my prospective employees?

If a company wishes to do profit sharing today, it can implement it trivially. Why do you seek to enforce it at the point of the proverbial gun? Why do you think that you are qualified to determine how other people should live their lives and conduct their business?

Speaking of greed.  In 1960 the average CEO wage was 19 times his best paid employee. Now its 400 times!!  Only thing that changed is the level of greed and the business owners are killing themselves by hoarding money into offshore accounts and foriegn currency. Its close to TREASON in my opinion.

I agree with you that many CEOs are ridiculously overpaid and horribly underperforming to boot (e.g. HP's former CEO Léo Apotheker). At its core, a supply and demand situation. People to perform menial labor are a dime a dozen. Executives capable of running large companies aren't.

Personally, I think that shareholders of corporations should lead open revolts against the board that authorize some of these ridiculous compensation packages, and boot the board members off. But, by and large, they don't. Plenty of reasons: large institutional investors don't mind the status quo as long as the bottom line is good; smaller investors don't care to vote when they get proxies, and so on.

As for the offshore situation, it's certainly a bad situation but many companies are, sadly, stuck between a rock and a hard place. The fact is that the cost of doing business in the United States is ridiculous compared to the cost of doing business overseas. Between compliance with various rules and regulations bought and paid for by lobbyists and rules and regulations negotiated in the back rooms of Capitol Hill as part of a quid-pro-quo, and frivolous lawsuits by disgruntled employees, advocacy groups, class action shysters, and with the Party in China controlling their currency to put pressure on everyone else... Can you really blame them for going far, far away?

I'm not excusing them, do don't misunderstand. I readily avree that some companies are going to pursue the bottom line no matter what. Thats fine - companies are in business to make money. But that is half the story - the other half is what I described above.

I think that Congress should provide incentives for companies to do business in the U.S. and to repatriate their off-shore operations as much as is reasonable.

[Soul Crusher]

BINGO!!!! 

[Necrosis]

And when the company loses money - can those losses be spread to the employees as well? 

ya its called cut-backs im sure you have heard of this concept.

[reppingfor20]

Obviously the system we have is screwed. So instead of openeing up to shareholders then profitsharing plans is the way to go. Imagine an employee thats proud and has incentive to build the company and speak well of it to others....totall opposite of now!!


Speaking of greed.  In 1960 the average CEO wage was 19 times his best paid employee. Now its 400 times!!  Only thing that changed is the level of greed and the business owners are killing themselves by hoarding money into offshore accounts and foriegn currency. Its close to TREASON in my opinion.

Great idea!, employees would know that the company might actually care about them, instead of being just another number that can be axed to help shareholders.

[reppingfor20]

Obviously? No, not obviously. Like any system, it's not perfect, but the solution isn't to replace it with something even worse.

Why mandate how profits are to be divided to companies and people who start companies up? Who are you to tell me how my company should be structured and to interject yourself in the compensation negotiations between myself and my prospective employees?

If a company wishes to do profit sharing today, it can implement it trivially. Why do you seek to enforce it at the point of the proverbial gun? Why do you think that you are qualified to determine how other people should live their lives and conduct their business?

I agree with you that many CEOs are ridiculously overpaid and horribly underperforming to boot (e.g. HP's former CEO Léo Apotheker). At its core, a supply and demand situation. People to perform menial labor are a dime a dozen. Executives capable of running large companies aren't.

Personally, I think that shareholders of corporations should lead open revolts against the board that authorize some of these ridiculous compensation packages, and boot the board members off. But, by and large, they don't. Plenty of reasons: large institutional investors don't mind the status quo as long as the bottom line is good; smaller investors don't care to vote when they get proxies, and so on.

As for the offshore situation, it's certainly a bad situation but many companies are, sadly, stuck between a rock and a hard place. The fact is that the cost of doing business in the United States is ridiculous compared to the cost of doing business overseas. Between compliance with various rules and regulations bought and paid for by lobbyists and rules and regulations negotiated in the back rooms of Capitol Hill as part of a quid-pro-quo, and frivolous lawsuits by disgruntled employees, advocacy groups, class action shysters, and with the Party in China controlling their currency to put pressure on everyone else... Can you really blame them for going far, far away?

I'm not excusing them, do don't misunderstand. I readily avree that some companies are going to pursue the bottom line no matter what. Thats fine - companies are in business to make money. But that is half the story - the other half is what I described above.

I think that Congress should provide incentives for companies to do business in the U.S. and to repatriate their off-shore operations as much as is reasonable.

Companies are making record profits, they are not just getting by... your post is completely out of touch with what corporations are making now and not giving back to it's employees.

"Why mandate how profits are to be divided to companies and people who start companies up? Who are you to tell me how my company should be structured and to interject yourself in the compensation negotiations between myself and my prospective employees?"

Because it is the right thing to do and a law should be passed to make them do this.  Obviously the current situation is not working.  Corporations have gotten greedy and once they get greedy there is no going back unless they are forced to.