obama ratings hit new low

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I know this is hard for the corporate stooge party to understand, but the responsibilities of CEO and President of the United States aren't the same. Often (like now) they're diametrically opposed.

OK, just so I'm reading you right, you don't dispute that as a CEO he likely acted properly and within his powers to protect the company...from eventual bankruptcy?

I would suspect that, having different responsibilites and powers, he would be different as president as well. The difference is, Romney actually understands how the economy works. This is better than knowing how you wish the economy worked.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

OK, just so I'm reading you right, you don't dispute that as a CEO he likely acted properly and within his powers to protect the company...from eventual bankruptcy?

I would suspect that, having different responsibilites and powers, he would be different as president as well. The difference is, Romney actually understands how the economy works. This is better than knowing how you wish the economy worked.

And you know for certain that each company was facing bankruptcy? More likely scenario he wanted his 100 million in options to appreciate to 150 million and really could care less about the people he destroyed. Your thinking is flawed and right out of the early 80's. Profitable companies have been cutting employees for YEARS now so the upper crust could profit more not even giving 2 shits about the future when no one has any money to buy anything becuase they GOT THIERS. This unmitigated greed affects EVERYONE and EVERYONES children/grandchildren. AN economy can not sustain itself when 5% of the people have 90% of the wealth.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

And you know for certain that each company was facing bankruptcy? More likely scenario he wanted his 100 million in options to appreciate to 150 million and really could care less about the people he destroyed. Your thinking is flawed and right out of the early 80's. Profitable companies have been cutting employees for YEARS now so the upper crust could profit more not even giving 2 shits about the future when no one has any money to buy anything becuase they GOT THIERS. This unmitigated greed affects EVERYONE and EVERYONES children/grandchildren. AN economy can not sustain itself when 5% of the people have 90% of the wealth.

I don't know that for a fact. It just seems logical that a company would seek to survive and thrive as well as possible for as long as possible. On the flipside, they have to make sure that their products, goods, and/or services remain competitively priced, or the company will decline. Unless you have either a monopoly or a company whose products are vastly superior (i.e. Rolls Royce) you have to run a company efficiently with solid profits. In a competitive environment, it's rare for a company to make astronomical profits.

So I don't think my reasoning was flawed - but I did make the above assumptions.

Paraphrasing you, a country cannot sustain itself when the top earning 5% are paying 58.7%, or when 47% of the people pay no income tax.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2...ble-dip-scare/

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I don't know that for a fact. It just seems logical that a company would seek to survive and thrive as well as possible for as long as possible. On the flipside, they have to make sure that their products, goods, and/or services remain competitively priced, or the company will decline. Unless you have either a monopoly or a company whose products are vastly superior (i.e. Rolls Royce) you have to run a company efficiently with solid profits. In a competitive environment, it's rare for a company to make astronomical profits.

So I don't think my reasoning was flawed - but I did make the above assumptions.

Paraphrasing you, a country cannot sustain itself when the top earning 5% are paying 58.7%, or when 47% of the people pay no income tax.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2...ble-dip-scare/

There should be a flat tax with a cut off poverty line. If the top 5% control 70% of the wealth like they do now, they should be paying 70% of the taxes that the US collects.

Warren Buffet paid less of a percentage of income taxes than I did last year. That's ridiculous.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

There should be a flat tax with a cut off poverty line. If the top 5% control 70% of the wealth like they do now, they should be paying 70% of the taxes that the US collects.

Warren Buffet paid less of a percentage of income taxes than I did last year. That's ridiculous.

I agree wholeheartedly with a flax tax, no deductions and a poverty cutoff. It's all of those who benefit from the current gi-normous system who defend it. Rich guys who wrote those loopholes, and poor guys who actually get "refunds" in excess of taxes paid, even when taxes paid were zero.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Paraphrasing you, a country cannot sustain itself when the top earning 5% are paying 58.7%, or when 47% of the people pay no income tax.

"Buffett noted that his federal tax bill, including payroll taxes, came out to just 17.4 percent of his taxable income last year, a lower percentage than anyone else in his office."

Has Buffett just gamed the system? I'd like to know, because I see Republicans shouting all the time about how the rich are already paying a million percent, but it just makes no sense considering our tax revenues.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

"Buffett noted that his federal tax bill, including payroll taxes, came out to just 17.4 percent of his taxable income last year, a lower percentage than anyone else in his office."

Has Buffett just gamed the system? I'd like to know, because I see Republicans shouting all the time about how the rich are already paying a million percent, but it just makes no sense considering our tax revenues.

too many loopholes. I dont understand why the tea party has such a problem with eliminating loopholes.

[Antitrust32]

our next election is going to be like the New York paper's headline when the Jets fired Pete Carroll and hired Rich Kotite.

"Dumb and Dumber"

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

too many loopholes. I dont understand why the tea party has such a problem with eliminating loopholes.

If you posed the question to Tea Party members of going to a flax tax (instead of closing loopholes) I think you'd get a better response.

The loopholes closed would never be the ones guys like Buffet like. A flat tax instead of the current tax system would be a reset, and by definition would close all loopholes.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

too many loopholes. I dont understand why the tea party has such a problem with eliminating loopholes.

Take a wild guess.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Take a wild guess.

Because large corporations do not pay taxes, they collect them? Unless you are GE, in which case you just get to keep them.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Take a wild guess.

because they are bought out like everyone else in washington?

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by joeydb

OK, just so I'm reading you right, you don't dispute that as a CEO he likely acted properly and within his powers to protect the company...from eventual bankruptcy?

I would suspect that, having different responsibilites and powers, he would be different as president as well. The difference is, Romney actually understands how the economy works. This is better than knowing how you wish the economy worked.

Oh jeez, yeah, Romney knows how to fix the most complex economy in the world because he became successful by being a ruthless CEO of a venture capitalist firm and Obama doesn't even know how to make change of a dollar because he was a community organizer. We get it.

They're both dipshits with no idea or desire to create jobs. Enough with the talking points.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Oh jeez, yeah, Romney knows how to fix the most complex economy in the world because he became successful by being a ruthless CEO of a venture capitalist firm and Obama doesn't even know how to make change of a dollar because he was a community organizer. We get it.

They're both dipshits with no idea or desire to create jobs. Enough with the talking points.

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to be overly ideological here. Open question: what would be the best profession to have in order to prepare oneself for the presidency?

Evidently, a community organizer/Harvard law professor is not the answer. And you point out the potential unsuitability of a CEO of a venture capital firm. And Congress is full of mostly lawyers of all stripes.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Oh jeez, yeah, Romney knows how to fix the most complex economy in the world because he became successful by being a ruthless CEO of a venture capitalist firm and Obama doesn't even know how to make change of a dollar because he was a community organizer. We get it.

They're both dipshits with no idea or desire to create jobs. Enough with the talking points.

They all have Ideas Team. Make it expensive for companies to outsource. Do away with H1B program. Charge tarrifs on Imports vs Trade Balance. They certainly know what to do but it is suicide for them to do it. Thier money supply would be cut off.