Presidential Debate McCain vs Obama Round 2

[DarkArtist81]

agreed. I just looked it up last week from a debate with a co-worker. And it was WWI, not WWII as I said before correcting it.

A common goal to start up our factories again and build planes (I think) and boats and tanks and weapons to defeat our enemy.

Who'd we fight in WWI again? Was it Russia the first time mainly. And Germany in both WW's? Been awhile since history class.

WWI, France, England and Russia together with US fought the Central Powers. Which was made up of Germany and Austria-Hungary.

WWII was the Allied forces: England, France, and later Russia against Germany, Italy and Japan.

 

[hoodonit00]

Obviously, they will just pay the taxes out of the huge piles o' cash they have in their vaults (the ones where Scrooge McDuck swims for recreation). That is, after all, the common (mis)conception of corporations.

It never seems to occur to anyone that they will have to adjust for their increased tax burden by

A) Decreasing their workforce (or decreasing the rate of increase in the size of their workforce)

B) Decreasing the compensation of their workforce (or decreasing the frequency and/or amount of pay increases they offer)

and/or

C) Decreasing the price/quality ratio of the goods and/or services they sell, either by reducing quality, increasing prices, or some measure of both

No, they'll just dip in their vaults.

I keep trying and trying to get one of the pro Obama people to admit this, but no one will. I want to know how Obama can restart the economy when people will be paying more for cars, computers, electronics, clothes and food from Walmart. Electronics from Best Buy and Circuit City. Any big business. Look at what happened when oil went up. Gas goes up, food goes up, other goods go up. Economy started suffering BEFORE whats happening now because of higher fuel cost. Everyone one from the refineries on down had to RAISE their prices to offset the higher gas prices. Now again pro Obama people how is Obama going to save the economy when a big part of his campaign in raising taxes on all the companies that supply goods and services, food, cars and employment. What are they going to do to offset the extra taxes they will be paying under Obamas tax plan.

 

[hoodonit00]

Or they could reduce the compensation paid to their CEO's who make inordinate amounts compared to all the other employees.

Ok, honestly. Do you really see that happening?

 

[Darklord Dave]

Ok, honestly. Do you really see that happening?

If the boards of directors come to their senses - yes. Are any of these men that have run their companies into the ground really worth this money? Maybe 1 out of 10 is truly a visionary leader that can make a significant difference to the bottom line. The percentage that high level executives make over other workers has increased exponentially in the past few years. Are modern companies much more profitable and better run than they were 10 or 20 years ago? Ask Lehmann brothers stock holders.

 

[hoodonit00]

If the boards of directors come to their senses - yes. Are any of these men that have run their companies into the ground really worth this money? Maybe 1 out of 10 is truly a visionary leader that can make a significant difference to the bottom line. The percentage that high level executives make over other workers has increased exponentially in the past few years. Are modern companies much more profitable and better run than they were 10 or 20 years ago? Ask Lehmann brothers stock holders.

I agree it's not right, but it isn't going to change. You always defend Obama why don't you answer the question about what's going to happen when these big corporations start paying higher taxes instead of the joke that you posted.

 

[CelticPredator]

Yousa sayin....peeeople gonna dieeee annie?

 

[tomandshell]

Obviously, they will just pay the taxes out of the huge piles o' cash they have in their vaults (the ones where Scrooge McDuck swims for recreation). That is, after all, the common (mis)conception of corporations.

It never seems to occur to anyone that they will have to adjust for their increased tax burden by

A) Decreasing their workforce (or decreasing the rate of increase in the size of their workforce)

B) Decreasing the compensation of their workforce (or decreasing the frequency and/or amount of pay increases they offer)

and/or

C) Decreasing the price/quality ratio of the goods and/or services they sell, either by reducing quality, increasing prices, or some measure of both

No, they'll just dip in their vaults.

Or they could reduce the compensation paid to their CEO's who make inordinate amounts compared to all the other employees.

If those CEO's have any influence on the decision, I think I know how things will turn out. It's insane how much some of those guys are getting paid, and I don't think they'll let go that easily if they have anything to say about it. This solution makes too much sense for me to think that it might actually come to pass.

I can easily see the next few years being a time when the rich are taxed to pay for the lower class welfare system, while passing the actual costs on to the middle/working class. I need to either start a corporation or pop out another seven kids, because it looks to me like I'm in just the wrong place--not poor enough to take advantage of government aid, not rich enough to pass my economic burden on to someone else.

You'll have the guy selling the gallon of milk, the guy getting the milk for free with food stamps, and the guy like me, who'll have to pay $8 a gallon.

 

[LordAzrael]

Or they could reduce the compensation paid to their CEO's who make inordinate amounts compared to all the other employees.

Even if that did happen - it would have relatively little impact on either the profits of the companies or the tax revenue of the government (if they decided to tax 'high' executive pays).

As much as it is hard to justify - no one holds a gun to the head of a big corporate and says they have to pay it. If they could get pay a CEO much less they would. The harsh reality is that its demand and supply at work - there are relatively few people with the experience to undertake those roles, and due to the large demand for these people they can charge alot for those skills. Its supply and demand that is why your shop assistant only makes minimum wage - it doesn't require any special skills and any old person can do it.

Why don't we just tax all actors and entertainers - can you really justify the money any of them make either ?

 

[Mesa]

Even though it sucks that the CEO's who mismanaged their companies help lead us into this disaster are getting paid MILLIONS of dollars in bonuses, those large bonuses are not the reason we are in this mess. Just wanted to make that clear. If we took every CEO bonus distributed over past 5 years, I doubt it would equate to even 1% of the $700,000,000,000 bailout that was just passed. (I may be completely off on that assumption though)

But it does indeed rub salt in the wound to still award these guys for doing a crappy job.

Personally, I don't think we can legally touch their bonuses. They signed a contract with the company which is legally binding and for the government to come along and void that contract is a scary thought. Where we do recover some of that money is by holding hearings and investigations, and if the CEO's, and congressman (*cough* Barney Frank *cough*) are found to either be withholding information, providing misleading information (*cough* Barney Frank *cough*) and telling everything is fine while they themselves were liquidating all of their stock, then that is deceptive and fraudulent. You fine the guys found guilty a HUGE sum of money, recovering the cost, and throw those a-holes in jail.

Barney Frank probably wouldn't mind having to share a cell with Bubba though, so we could put him in a woman's penitentiary with a bunch of butch biker chicks.


Edit: And of course anytime a company has to ask for a bailout, before bailout is allowed to happen, all exsiting contracts should be ammended to eliminate golden parachutes. But what's done is done, and the government can't go back and take salary away from poor managers just because the public is pissed.

 

[Darklord Dave]

I'm not saying that reasonable compensation for top executives is a solution to anything, nor am I saying that unreasonable compensation was the cause of the current problems - it was more a symptom.

However the question was - if corporation have to pay higher taxes what's going to stop them from scaling back in employees and raising prices? I'm just saying that there are other fiscally responsible methods of maintaining and/or growing profits. Not overpaying the CEO could help.

On another note - could someone educate me which plan of Obama's is aimed at creating a welfare state? Aside from his healthcare plan - which is flawed but much better than a $5K tax credit while taxing the businesses that actually offer it to their employees - I haven't seen anything about increasing assistance to the lazy.

 

[LordAzrael]

On another note - could someone educate me which plan of Obama's is aimed at creating a welfare state? Aside from his healthcare plan - which is flawed but much better than a $5K tax credit while taxing the businesses that actually offer it to their employees - I haven't seen anything about increasing assistance to the lazy.

The World Poverty thing wouldn't be good. I'd bet you'll also see an expansion of the lending practices that led to the subprime crisis. Before you say - how could they be so stupid - if you note the first attempt at the bailout had a huge payout to ACORN - one of the entities that lobbied heavily to get the rules passed regarding "redlining" and racially profiling lending outcomes. And it seems the Dems have managed to pin the whole thing on the Republicans anyway so they don't seem to have any guilt over it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EyKiOE78yU

And the $5k tax credit thing - for most people this credit will cover the benefit provided for their company's. What will happen is that high level plans offerred to high level executives will now be taxed - rather than being a tax free fringe benefit.

 

[LordAzrael]

Well, this just in:

Palin Abused Power, Ethics Report Finds
"Troopergate" Probe Finds GOP Vice Presidential Candidate Unlawfully Abused Authority In Firing State Employee.

https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/10/politics/main4514596.shtml

A right wing review of the report.

https://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/134db782-50f0-42e5-8171-791804d9fbc1

also worth noting, as highlighted by Hugh

"For the record, no one ever said fire Wooten. Not the governor. Not Todd. Not any of the other staff," Monegan said Friday from Portland. "What they said directly was more along the lines of 'This isn't a person that we would want to be representing our state troopers.' "

"The personnel investigation began in April 2005, long before Palin became governor and months before her October 2005 announcement that she was running. The investigation into Wooten wrapped up in March 2006, before she was elected.

Troopers found four instances in which Wooten violated policy, broke the law, or both."

 

[customizerwannabe]

On another note - could someone educate me which plan of Obama's is aimed at creating a welfare state? Aside from his healthcare plan - which is flawed but much better than a $5K tax credit while taxing the businesses that actually offer it to their employees - I haven't seen anything about increasing assistance to the lazy.

There's nothing better about Obama's healthcare reform...unless you're looking for a free ride. I'd rather pay more to keep what we have. Cost is the last thing I'm worried about with this. Quality and timeliness of service is paramount. I'm really not worried about it. It'll take more than the 4 years at most he'd be in charge to get it up and running.

 

[Mesa]

There's nothing better about Obama's healthcare reform...unless you're looking for a free ride. I'd rather pay more to keep what we have. Cost is the last thing I'm worried about with this. Quality and timeliness of service is paramount. I'm really not worried about it. It'll take more than the 4 years at most he'd be in charge to get it up and running.

That's an awesome signature.

 

[barbelith]

What are they going to do to offset the extra taxes they will be paying under Obamas tax plan.

A rather shocking number of companies currently pay no tax whatsoever because of loopholes.

If they could get pay a CEO much less they would. The harsh reality is that its demand and supply at work - there are relatively few people with the experience to undertake those roles, and due to the large demand for these people they can charge alot for those skills.

You would be right if all CEOs were Steve Jobs. But the truth is they're not. CEO pay has nothing whatsoever to do with skill and experience. It's all about marketing the company itself as a big deal. If every CEO vanished overnight I think you'd be pretty surprised how long it would take for any impact to come out.

Why don't we just tax all actors and entertainers - can you really justify the money any of them make either ?

I would actually be fine with a windfall income tax. I'd cry all night if the $55 million Johnny Depp is getting to pretend to be a pirate "only" amounts to a million bucks cash in his bank account during a massive recession.

I'd bet you'll also see an expansion of the lending practices that led to the subprime crisis.

Is this based on anything concrete or just basic partisan fear?

And the $5k tax credit thing - for most people this credit will cover the benefit provided for their company's.

That's $5000 for a family plan. Average US family plan = $12000 or so.

There's nothing better about Obama's healthcare reform...unless you're looking for a free ride.

Who gets a free ride?

Cost is the last thing I'm worried about with this.

I thought you were a conservative?

 

[customizerwannabe]

Since you are on ignore can't see what you posted, but I'm sure it's worthy of.

 

[barbelith]

I almost wish I knew what you were responding to , but still...

Not surprising to see the guys who made that hilarious "conservative social group" walling themselves off here, too.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/theres-no-arguing-with-co_b_126805.html

Oh, right.

 

[Spartan Rex]

Not surprising to see the guys who made that hilarious "conservative social group" walling themselves off here, too.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/theres-no-arguing-with-co_b_126805.html

Oh, right.

Jealous cuz no one wants to hang with you?
Ah yes the Huffington post.
Which answers the question: What do rich divorcees who sound like a bad Zsa Zsa Gabor impersonator do after they score big in the divorce from their bi-curious rhino republican husband who leaves them for a dude?

A:Work out her "issues" by starting a left wing smear site.


Dont worry barb, I dont have you on my ignore list (yet)
Youre still good for a derisive guffaw or 3

 

[OK SITHLORD]

MacCain for the win!!!

 

[barbelith]

Ah yes the Huffington post.

Yale, actually.

MacCain for the win!

Case closed.