Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
Closed Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 54 of 54
  1. #41
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    Free ride? The head of GM lost his job because the President didn't like his plan.
    Because he came looking to the taxpayer for a bailout after driving (no pun intended) his company into the ground.

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    One of these big, bad execs probably pays 25-30% of his (or her) salary as income taxes. He then pays excise taxes on his expensive cars, on top of all his normal sales and property taxes. He probably pays property tax on more than one property, grandly supporting schools that he probably does not send his kids to, because he opts for a more competent and successful private system that costs extra. If he (or she) is a religious person, he probably donates another 10% or more to churches and charities.
    Why does it matter considering he drove a publicly held company into the ground adversely affecting hundreds if not millions of middle income households?

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    Yeah, I see how those big, bad execs are getting such a free ride. Be careful what you wish for...if you overly tax the successful, you will merely drive them to be less successful or to be successful elsewhere. Then, who will pay the taxes?
    Where would they go? Given their recent actions, the sooner they leave the better.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."


  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Because he came looking to the taxpayer for a bailout after driving (no pun intended) his company into the ground.
    He didn't go to the taxpayer, he went to the government. And the government was stupid enough to keep offering these bribes up.

    Why does it matter considering he drove a publicly held company into the ground adversely affecting hundreds if not millions of middle income households?
    It's called capitalism and competition. Not all companies are equal, only the best survive. If you are referring to stocks, they are gamble, not a guarantee.

  3. #43
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idiotboy
    He didn't go to the taxpayer, he went to the government. And the government was stupid enough to keep offering these bribes up.
    idiotboy proves his stupidity knows no bounds.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  4. #44
    Protective Economist Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Because he came looking to the taxpayer for a bailout after driving (no pun intended) his company into the ground.
    The government (Dems and Repubs alike) threw good money after bad. They gave a man 5 months to turn around a multi-billion dollar, multi-national company that had spent decades digging its grave with its union's assistance. That doesn't sound reasonable to me. That's like firing the captain of an aircraft carrier because he couldn't bring his ship from flank speed to full stop in 500 yards.

    Airlines go into bankruptcy for a year or two to turn around, and GM was supposed to do it in less than a year? Please.

    Should we be firing the head of the UAW since he is going to force so many out of jobs and, eventually, force the government to bail out his healthcare system?

    Why does it matter considering he drove a publicly held company into the ground adversely affecting hundreds if not millions of middle income households?
    It matter because you said "bankers and auto execs." It wasn't just the head of GM that upset you...it's anyone making a lot of money in those industries. Did you think the government should have fired the CEOs of the airlines that got bailouts after Sept. 11th and their companies went bankrupt, costing many their jobs? Should the government punish the CEO of Circuit City since it went out of business, laying of thousands? Where do we stop?

    You share so many people's disdain for white collar workers making big dollars. Do you have the same outrage for people acting, singing or playing games making even bigger paychecks?


    Where would they go? Given their recent actions, the sooner they leave the better.
    They can go anywhere with lower taxes. Or stop working as hard. Yes, some of them may have committed criminal acts or negligent acts. However, lumping all bankers and auto execs into one pot is foolish. The reality still stands that these wealthy people, the ones you disdain so heartily, are the ones who keep our governments afloat with taxes. They allow the near majority to enjoy NO or minimal tax rates. Someone has to pay that bill...and if the rich stop doing it, guess who has to.
    My comments are sometimes educated, sometimes informed and sometimes just blowing smoke...but they are always mine and mine alone and do not reflect upon anyone else (especially my employer).

  5. #45
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    The government (Dems and Repubs alike) threw good money after bad. They gave a man 5 months to turn around a multi-billion dollar, multi-national company that had spent decades digging its grave with its union's assistance. That doesn't sound reasonable to me. That's like firing the captain of an aircraft carrier because he couldn't bring his ship from flank speed to full stop in 500 yards.
    If he didn't want govt. involvement he shouldn't have asked for taxpayer monies.

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    Airlines go into bankruptcy for a year or two to turn around, and GM was supposed to do it in less than a year? Please.
    Are they asking for taxpayer bailouts?

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    Should we be firing the head of the UAW since he is going to force so many out of jobs and, eventually, force the government to bail out his healthcare system?
    Did the President of the UAW negotiate the contract with GM or the Feds?

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    It matter because you said "bankers and auto execs." It wasn't just the head of GM that upset you...it's anyone making a lot of money in those industries. Did you think the government should have fired the CEOs of the airlines that got bailouts after Sept. 11th and their companies went bankrupt, costing many their jobs? Should the government punish the CEO of Circuit City since it went out of business, laying of thousands? Where do we stop?
    Banking and auto execs are asking/demanding taxpayer bailouts. The CEO of Circuit City didn't do that. You're comparing apples to road signs.

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    You share so many people's disdain for white collar workers making big dollars. Do you have the same outrage for people acting, singing or playing games making even bigger paychecks?
    Are any of them asking for taxpayer subsidies? I have no problem with execs making billions of dollars. I do have a problem with execs getting paid 100's of millions for running companies into the ground and then demanding taxpayer funds to cover up their poor decision making.

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    They can go anywhere with lower taxes. Or stop working as hard. Yes, some of them may have committed criminal acts or negligent acts. However, lumping all bankers and auto execs into one pot is foolish. The reality still stands that these wealthy people, the ones you disdain so heartily, are the ones who keep our governments afloat with taxes. They allow the near majority to enjoy NO or minimal tax rates. Someone has to pay that bill...and if the rich stop doing it, guess who has to.
    Uh yeah? They can go anywhere with lower taxes? Like where exactly? Be more specific. If you believe the wealthy aren't sheltered in exemptions that ensure they aren't paying anywhere near the same share as you or I, you are living in a dream world. Plain and simple.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    If he didn't want govt. involvement he shouldn't have asked for taxpayer monies.


    Are they asking for taxpayer bailouts?


    Did the President of the UAW negotiate the contract with GM or the Feds?


    Banking and auto execs are asking/demanding taxpayer bailouts. The CEO of Circuit City didn't do that. You're comparing apples to road signs.


    Are any of them asking for taxpayer subsidies? I have no problem with execs making billions of dollars. I do have a problem with execs getting paid 100's of millions for running companies into the ground and then demanding taxpayer funds to cover up their poor decision making.
    I have a problem with this as well. Those knuckleheads should never have given one cent for any bailout.

    Uh yeah? They can go anywhere with lower taxes? Like where exactly? Be more specific. If you believe the wealthy aren't sheltered in exemptions that ensure they aren't paying anywhere near the same share as you or I, you are living in a dream world. Plain and simple.
    Everyone should pay the same percentage, eliminate all of the BS tax breaks. Problem solved.

  7. #47
    Protective Economist Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    If he didn't want govt. involvement he shouldn't have asked for taxpayer monies.
    That doesn't address the unreasonableness of the timeframe.

    Are they asking for taxpayer bailouts?
    Yes, the airlines did. Look at the news from 2001...concentrate on articles after September 11th.


    Did the President of the UAW negotiate the contract with GM or the Feds?
    That's not the issue. The issue is that the UAW forced the Big 3 into contracts that were financially unsustainable. They have culpability in the failure, yet there are few clammoring for Gettelfinger's head.


    Banking and auto execs are asking/demanding taxpayer bailouts. The CEO of Circuit City didn't do that. You're comparing apples to road signs.
    Why isn't your outrage over the fact the government is bailing out companies, rather than who is running them? Circuit City didn't even try to do Chapter 11...they went straight to Chapter 7. Thousands are unemployed. Silence, however...because most people in a capitalist economy understand sometimes companies go bankrupt.


    Are any of them asking for taxpayer subsidies? I have no problem with execs making billions of dollars. I do have a problem with execs getting paid 100's of millions for running companies into the ground and then demanding taxpayer funds to cover up their poor decision making.
    Hmmm...the current CEO of GM has a salary of $2.3 million. Wagoner, the prior CEO, had a salary of $2.2 million in 2008. Even in 2005, his bonuses and other compensation totaled about $8.5 million. Where are the 100s of millions?

    Oh, Wagoner's salary when he got fired? $1 per year.


    Uh yeah? They can go anywhere with lower taxes? Like where exactly? Be more specific. If you believe the wealthy aren't sheltered in exemptions that ensure they aren't paying anywhere near the same share as you or I, you are living in a dream world. Plain and simple.
    Cayman Islands and the Bahamas are two. No income tax.

    I'm in a dream world? You are in denial. FACT: 1% of the people pay 39% of the federal income tax. FACT: 5% of the people pay 60% of the federal income tax. FACT: 40% of the people pay NO federal income tax. FACT: with the exception of the decline after September 11th, federal income tax revenues increased EVERY year of the Bush administration.

    You can extend the issue further...a wealthy person generally owns a more expensive home, so pays more property tax. He/she buys more stuff, and more expensive stuff, so pays more sales tax. The only thing that throws it off is the FICA deductions because people are not taxed on income over $98,000. Reason? They cannot earn benefits on more. You and I, though, as pensioned public safety professionals actually get the short end on any FICA payments. The WEP/GPO ensures we do not get the full benefits from any Social Security credits we may earn in off-duty work.

    Research the facts. The issue is not one of too little tax money. The issue is one of too much spending.
    My comments are sometimes educated, sometimes informed and sometimes just blowing smoke...but they are always mine and mine alone and do not reflect upon anyone else (especially my employer).

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    That doesn't address the unreasonableness of the timeframe.

    Yes, the airlines did. Look at the news from 2001...concentrate on articles after September 11th.


    That's not the issue. The issue is that the UAW forced the Big 3 into contracts that were financially unsustainable. They have culpability in the failure, yet there are few clammoring for Gettelfinger's head.


    Why isn't your outrage over the fact the government is bailing out companies, rather than who is running them? Circuit City didn't even try to do Chapter 11...they went straight to Chapter 7. Thousands are unemployed. Silence, however...because most people in a capitalist economy understand sometimes companies go bankrupt.



    Hmmm...the current CEO of GM has a salary of $2.3 million. Wagoner, the prior CEO, had a salary of $2.2 million in 2008. Even in 2005, his bonuses and other compensation totaled about $8.5 million. Where are the 100s of millions?

    Oh, Wagoner's salary when he got fired? $1 per year.




    Cayman Islands and the Bahamas are two. No income tax.

    I'm in a dream world? You are in denial. FACT: 1% of the people pay 39% of the federal income tax. FACT: 5% of the people pay 60% of the federal income tax. FACT: 40% of the people pay NO federal income tax. FACT: with the exception of the decline after September 11th, federal income tax revenues increased EVERY year of the Bush administration.

    You can extend the issue further...a wealthy person generally owns a more expensive home, so pays more property tax. He/she buys more stuff, and more expensive stuff, so pays more sales tax. The only thing that throws it off is the FICA deductions because people are not taxed on income over $98,000. Reason? They cannot earn benefits on more. You and I, though, as pensioned public safety professionals actually get the short end on any FICA payments. The WEP/GPO ensures we do not get the full benefits from any Social Security credits we may earn in off-duty work.

    Research the facts. The issue is not one of too little tax money. The issue is one of too much spending.
    Now you do know that facts are not part of the Liberal agenda. He will not answer you and if he does it will be a totally irrelevant response. Every time I through out fact and beat him down he comes back with BK. That is his answer to everything.

  9. #49
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    That doesn't address the unreasonableness of the timeframe.
    Which could have been avoided had they not requested taxpayer bailout funds.

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    Yes, the airlines did. Look at the news from 2001...concentrate on articles after September 11th.
    Maybe because the impacts of a terrorist attack that utilized airplanes is a different scenario than a poor business model of the US auto industry.

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    That's not the issue. The issue is that the UAW forced the Big 3 into contracts that were financially unsustainable. They have culpability in the failure, yet there are few clammoring for Gettelfinger's head.
    Could be the blame lies with the CEO who agreed to a contract with the UAW that was unsustainable.

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    Why isn't your outrage over the fact the government is bailing out companies, rather than who is running them? Circuit City didn't even try to do Chapter 11...they went straight to Chapter 7. Thousands are unemployed. Silence, however...because most people in a capitalist economy understand sometimes companies go bankrupt.
    I'm not a fan of the bailouts. I'm a lesser fan of watching companies and banks go broke and tank both the US and world economies.

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    Hmmm...the current CEO of GM has a salary of $2.3 million. Wagoner, the prior CEO, had a salary of $2.2 million in 2008. Even in 2005, his bonuses and other compensation totaled about $8.5 million. Where are the 100s of millions?
    Cumulative salaries for the execs of bailed out companies.

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    Oh, Wagoner's salary when he got fired? $1 per year.
    Given his poor decision making he was overpaid.

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    Cayman Islands and the Bahamas are two. No income tax.
    And they don't do that now?

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    I'm in a dream world? You are in denial. FACT: 1% of the people pay 39% of the federal income tax. FACT: 5% of the people pay 60% of the federal income tax. FACT: 40% of the people pay NO federal income tax. FACT: with the exception of the decline after September 11th, federal income tax revenues increased EVERY year of the Bush administration.
    Born mostly by folks making less than $250K/yr. Republicans always play this game when they start talking about taxes. They start talking about taxes, and then they add the word "income taxes." Payroll taxes are much more regressive. They fall much more aggressively on poor people. So do sales tax. So Republicans always talk about income taxes are so weighted against the rich. That is actually the most progressive part of our taxes.


    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    You can extend the issue further...a wealthy person generally owns a more expensive home, so pays more property tax. He/she buys more stuff, and more expensive stuff, so pays more sales tax. The only thing that throws it off is the FICA deductions because people are not taxed on income over $98,000. Reason? They cannot earn benefits on more. You and I, though, as pensioned public safety professionals actually get the short end on any FICA payments. The WEP/GPO ensures we do not get the full benefits from any Social Security credits we may earn in off-duty work.

    Research the facts. The issue is not one of too little tax money. The issue is one of too much spending.
    See above posts.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Born mostly by folks making less than $250K/yr. Republicans always play this game when they start talking about taxes. They start talking about taxes, and then they add the word "income taxes." Payroll taxes are much more regressive. They fall much more aggressively on poor people. So do sales tax. So Republicans always talk about income taxes are so weighted against the rich. That is actually the most progressive part of our taxes.
    Do you not agree that every dollar taken away from the wealthy is one less dollar they have to invest in businesses? As it is now, the government has taken the money and is investing in the businesses. And the sad part is they aren't applying the same rules to everyone. AIG execs get their bonuses and GM execs get pink slips. WTF!!!! With this kind of inequality on a relatively small scale do you really want these people determining your health needs? I can see it now. For the next four years there will be no authorized abortions and fertility will be funded to its fullest, change of administration. For the next four years, abortions will be fully funded and no Alzheimerís payments. This country has enough problems without adding politics to the health care system.

  11. #51
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idiotboy
    I can see it now. For the next four years there will be no authorized abortions and fertility will be funded to its fullest, change of administration. For the next four years, abortions will be fully funded and no Alzheimerís payments. This country has enough problems without adding politics to the health care system.
    Gotta love arguments based on hypotheticals.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  12. #52
    Protective Economist Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Which could have been avoided had they not requested taxpayer bailout funds.


    Maybe because the impacts of a terrorist attack that utilized airplanes is a different scenario than a poor business model of the US auto industry.


    Could be the blame lies with the CEO who agreed to a contract with the UAW that was unsustainable.


    I'm not a fan of the bailouts. I'm a lesser fan of watching companies and banks go broke and tank both the US and world economies.


    Cumulative salaries for the execs of bailed out companies.


    Given his poor decision making he was overpaid.


    And they don't do that now?


    Born mostly by folks making less than $250K/yr. Republicans always play this game when they start talking about taxes. They start talking about taxes, and then they add the word "income taxes." Payroll taxes are much more regressive. They fall much more aggressively on poor people. So do sales tax. So Republicans always talk about income taxes are so weighted against the rich. That is actually the most progressive part of our taxes.



    See above posts.
    You're not even being logical. AIG caused much more financial damage than GM. So did the people, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTS, that bought derivatives from AIG that they did not understand. Yet your anger is with bankers and auto companies. Of course, this doesn't even address the large marjority of Americans drunk on debt and living well above their means. Yes, the airline collapse had a different nexus, but the overall situation was similar. They had unsustainable business models that could not adjust in a rapidly evolving economy, hindered by untenable labor agreements. There was no outcry that they filed for bankruptcy after getting federal help...or presidential intervention in their leadership.

    It is asinine to place all the blame for the auto industry solely on the companies. The UAW would SHUT DOWN auto companies that failed to meet their demands; that's not exactly an equal negotiating position. The UAW insisted on contracts that paid people well-above what their skills required. The contracts required the auto companies to pay laid off employees, even though they weren't working. Yes, the auto execs failed to react to changes in buying patterns. It is not solely their fault that cars are priced beyond what most people can pay in cash or that it is nearly impossible for them to shut down plants in response to consumer preference.

    Give FACTS showing that the less wealthy pay more taxes than the wealthy. I gave facts; I challenge you to do the same. Payroll taxes, what most of us know as Social Security and Medicare taxes (unless a locality has a payroll tax) are DIRECTLY linked to supposed future benefits (supposed because I doubt the system will survive 20 more years). Rolling those into the overall tax burden is not compatible with the overall discussion of who pays taxes. Benefits are not earned over $98,000 (that might have gone up to $99,500 this year, but my number is pretty close). If you want to pay benefits above that level, then it is fair to tax and include FICA. Of course, these are supposed to be in "trust funds" to pay for future expenses, even though the federal government has spent it all. The reality is that NO ONE actually gets a decent return on the FICA payments, excepting of course those who draw SSI and other forms of Social Security without ever paying in.

    I'll even extend a greater challenge: what percentage of YOUR income do you feel you should be paying to local, state and federal government to support our nation? What percent to you think the average American should pay? Do you think all Americans should pay roughly the same percent, with some fluctuation for personal habits (for example, a smoker or drinker will pay excise taxes that a non-smoker/drinker will not)?
    My comments are sometimes educated, sometimes informed and sometimes just blowing smoke...but they are always mine and mine alone and do not reflect upon anyone else (especially my employer).

  13. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Posted by firemanjb "You're not even being logical."

    ROFLMAO!!!! You could have stopped right there.

    But the funniest thing is expecting him to support a system that is fair, like the one you propose.

  14. #54
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    1,306

    Default Obama calls Kanye 'jackass'

    Finally,
    President Hussein and I agree on something.

    Obama calls Kanye 'jackass'
    Last edited by txgp17; 09-16-2009 at 06:57 PM.
    The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Step by Step Rescue Knot?
    By fvfd305 in forum Specialized Rescue
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-11-2007, 02:43 PM
  2. Little direction if you will...
    By parkerx209 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-27-2006, 10:17 AM
  3. i need some direction
    By jamie82 in forum Fire Explorer & Jr. Firefighting
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-10-2005, 10:45 PM
  4. Stabilization: A Step by step procedure
    By rmoore in forum University of Extrication
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-15-1999, 01:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts