9.5 WHOO-EEE, way to go DUDE
 

"HK" wrote in message
m...


Richard, how do you propose eradicating the greed of corporations and
their senior employees? I know one way...mandatory nearly confiscatory
taxes on ALL income, whatever the source, above a certain amount, strict
limitations on bonuses, and no deferral of income.

That might lead to a corporate executive class as incompetent as the one
we have now, though, eh?



We will never agree on this. You come from a background of union
organizing and restrictive ideas on business. Management is the enemy.

I come from a entrepreneurial spirit, arrived at following many years of
working for a weekly paycheck. My income was within a generally accepted
bracket for the technical discipline I worked in.

I woke up one day when I attended a dinner function at a major corporation
located nearby to us. We sat at reserved tables and one of the people at
ours was a 30 year veteran of the company. I asked him, "What was your
original job at XYZ Corp, 30 years ago?"

He answered, "I was hired as a purchasing agent."

"And what is your position now?" I asked.

His response: "Senior purchasing agent".



I feel people should have the right to go for the brass ring and earn as
much money as they desire as long as it is done legally and within generally
accepted moral standards, meaning you don't screw someone else to make
yours. It creates jobs, fuels the economy and generates disposable income
in the pockets of many. If that is trickle down economics, I'll take it,
thank you.


There are many large, public companies that continue in that tradition. In
fact most of them do.
The ones we hear about in the media are in the minority. A;so, don't ignore
the hand that the politicians in DC had in the mess created by some of the
actions of these "bad" corporations.

Why punish all for the actions of some?

Eisboch

9.5 WHOO-EEE, way to go DUDE
 

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...

Yes, Richard, I know. There are businesses that are operated
properly...for their owners.

Sorry, I don't trust "business" to "do the right thing" for anyone
other than its immediate owners and top executive employees. I might
start believing again if corporate salaries were limited to, oh, maybe
10 times the salary of the average non-executive worker at each
company.


Like it or not, business and capitalism is the lifeblood of our country
and economy.
The focus should be on eradicating special interests, crooked
politicians, greed in corporations and in the enforcement of laws.

The alternative is government controlled commerce and economy. Is
that what you advocate?

Eisboch

Richard, how do you propose eradicating the greed of corporations and
their senior employees? I know one way...mandatory nearly confiscatory
taxes on ALL income, whatever the source, above a certain amount, strict
limitations on bonuses, and no deferral of income.

That might lead to a corporate executive class as incompetent as the one
we have now, though, eh?

That's classic Marxism, Harry. Your true colors are showing.



Sorry, Lu, but it isn't. Obviously, you don't know anything about Marxism,
either. Or are you disputing that our corporate executive class is
incompetent?

Oh, but it is. See Eisboch's brilliant reply. Ditto for me.

9.5 WHOO-EEE, way to go DUDE
 

"HK" wrote in message
m...

Or are you disputing that our corporate executive class is incompetent?



I'll dispute that statement.

You are inferring that all corporate executives are incompetent.
That's not a fact. It's Harry Krause's personal opinion, likely
formulated by your association and work with union organizers.
It's your mantra.

Eisboch

9.5 WHOO-EEE, way to go DUDE
 

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...


Richard, how do you propose eradicating the greed of corporations and
their senior employees? I know one way...mandatory nearly confiscatory
taxes on ALL income, whatever the source, above a certain amount,
strict limitations on bonuses, and no deferral of income.

That might lead to a corporate executive class as incompetent as the
one we have now, though, eh?



We will never agree on this. You come from a background of union
organizing and restrictive ideas on business. Management is the enemy.

I come from a entrepreneurial spirit, arrived at following many years of
working for a weekly paycheck. My income was within a generally
accepted bracket for the technical discipline I worked in.

I woke up one day when I attended a dinner function at a major
corporation located nearby to us. We sat at reserved tables and one of
the people at ours was a 30 year veteran of the company. I asked
him, "What was your original job at XYZ Corp, 30 years ago?"

He answered, "I was hired as a purchasing agent."

"And what is your position now?" I asked.

His response: "Senior purchasing agent".



I feel people should have the right to go for the brass ring and earn as
much money as they desire as long as it is done legally and within
generally accepted moral standards, meaning you don't screw someone else
to make yours. It creates jobs, fuels the economy and generates
disposable income in the pockets of many. If that is trickle down
economics, I'll take it, thank you.


There are many large, public companies that continue in that tradition.
In fact most of them do.
The ones we hear about in the media are in the minority. A;so, don't
ignore the hand that the politicians in DC had in the mess created by
some of the actions of these "bad" corporations.

Why punish all for the actions of some?

Eisboch


Actually, I have a "mixed" background, career-wise, with both corporate
and union elements, and have had that "mixture" for decades. I still
consult with the union side (in fact, I spent most of yesterday meeting
with the presidents of three international unions on a new venture), two
of my largest clients these days are corporations in the financial
services sector.

I am unimpressed by much of what I seen in the "corporate world" these
days. Too many corporations and their senior execs are, as you say,
screwing "someone else."

Further, I think corporate salaries and perqs should be seriously
curtailed.

9.5 WHOO-EEE, way to go DUDE
 

Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...

Yes, Richard, I know. There are businesses that are operated
properly...for their owners.

Sorry, I don't trust "business" to "do the right thing" for anyone
other than its immediate owners and top executive employees. I
might start believing again if corporate salaries were limited to,
oh, maybe 10 times the salary of the average non-executive worker
at each company.


Like it or not, business and capitalism is the lifeblood of our
country and economy.
The focus should be on eradicating special interests, crooked
politicians, greed in corporations and in the enforcement of laws.

The alternative is government controlled commerce and economy.
Is that what you advocate?

Eisboch

Richard, how do you propose eradicating the greed of corporations
and their senior employees? I know one way...mandatory nearly
confiscatory taxes on ALL income, whatever the source, above a
certain amount, strict limitations on bonuses, and no deferral of
income.

That might lead to a corporate executive class as incompetent as the
one we have now, though, eh?

That's classic Marxism, Harry. Your true colors are showing.



Sorry, Lu, but it isn't. Obviously, you don't know anything about
Marxism, either. Or are you disputing that our corporate executive
class is incompetent?

Oh, but it is. See Eisboch's brilliant reply. Ditto for me.


You can hide behind Eisboch, who is no dummy, but you are. You claimed a
statement of mine was "classic Marxism." I say this again: you have no
idea what "classic Marxism" is.

9.5 WHOO-EEE, way to go DUDE
 

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...

Or are you disputing that our corporate executive class is incompetent?



I'll dispute that statement.

You are inferring that all corporate executives are incompetent.
That's not a fact. It's Harry Krause's personal opinion, likely
formulated by your association and work with union organizers.
It's your mantra.

Eisboch

I am sure there are some corporate execs who are competent.

9.5 WHOO-EEE, way to go DUDE
 

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...

Yes, Richard, I know. There are businesses that are operated
properly...for their owners.

Sorry, I don't trust "business" to "do the right thing" for anyone
other than its immediate owners and top executive employees. I might
start believing again if corporate salaries were limited to, oh,
maybe 10 times the salary of the average non-executive worker at
each company.


Like it or not, business and capitalism is the lifeblood of our
country and economy.
The focus should be on eradicating special interests, crooked
politicians, greed in corporations and in the enforcement of laws.

The alternative is government controlled commerce and economy. Is
that what you advocate?

Eisboch

Richard, how do you propose eradicating the greed of corporations and
their senior employees? I know one way...mandatory nearly confiscatory
taxes on ALL income, whatever the source, above a certain amount,
strict limitations on bonuses, and no deferral of income.

That might lead to a corporate executive class as incompetent as the
one we have now, though, eh?

That's classic Marxism, Harry. Your true colors are showing.



Sorry, Lu, but it isn't. Obviously, you don't know anything about
Marxism, either. Or are you disputing that our corporate executive class
is incompetent?

Oh, but it is. See Eisboch's brilliant reply. Ditto for me.


You can hide behind Eisboch, who is no dummy, but you are. You claimed a
statement of mine was "classic Marxism." I say this again: you have no
idea what "classic Marxism" is.

Oh, but I do. It was the subject of a grad school course I took in 1971. To
complete my term paper I studied the entire Communist Manifesto. Much of
your rants have their parallels in that document. Have you read it at all?

9.5 WHOO-EEE, way to go DUDE
 

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...


Richard, how do you propose eradicating the greed of corporations and
their senior employees? I know one way...mandatory nearly confiscatory
taxes on ALL income, whatever the source, above a certain amount, strict
limitations on bonuses, and no deferral of income.

That might lead to a corporate executive class as incompetent as the one
we have now, though, eh?



We will never agree on this. You come from a background of union
organizing and restrictive ideas on business. Management is the enemy.

I come from a entrepreneurial spirit, arrived at following many years of
working for a weekly paycheck. My income was within a generally accepted
bracket for the technical discipline I worked in.

I woke up one day when I attended a dinner function at a major
corporation located nearby to us. We sat at reserved tables and one of
the people at ours was a 30 year veteran of the company. I asked him,
"What was your original job at XYZ Corp, 30 years ago?"

He answered, "I was hired as a purchasing agent."

"And what is your position now?" I asked.

His response: "Senior purchasing agent".



I feel people should have the right to go for the brass ring and earn as
much money as they desire as long as it is done legally and within
generally accepted moral standards, meaning you don't screw someone else
to make yours. It creates jobs, fuels the economy and generates
disposable income in the pockets of many. If that is trickle down
economics, I'll take it, thank you.


There are many large, public companies that continue in that tradition.
In fact most of them do.
The ones we hear about in the media are in the minority. A;so, don't
ignore the hand that the politicians in DC had in the mess created by
some of the actions of these "bad" corporations.

Why punish all for the actions of some?

Eisboch


Actually, I have a "mixed" background, career-wise, with both corporate
and union elements, and have had that "mixture" for decades. I still
consult with the union side (in fact, I spent most of yesterday meeting
with the presidents of three international unions on a new venture), two
of my largest clients these days are corporations in the financial
services sector.

I am unimpressed by much of what I seen in the "corporate world" these
days. Too many corporations and their senior execs are, as you say,
screwing "someone else."

Further, I think corporate salaries and perqs should be seriously
curtailed.

And the union officials should have their salaries and perks curtailed.

9.5 WHOO-EEE, way to go DUDE
 

Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...

Yes, Richard, I know. There are businesses that are operated
properly...for their owners.

Sorry, I don't trust "business" to "do the right thing" for
anyone other than its immediate owners and top executive
employees. I might start believing again if corporate salaries
were limited to, oh, maybe 10 times the salary of the average
non-executive worker at each company.


Like it or not, business and capitalism is the lifeblood of our
country and economy.
The focus should be on eradicating special interests, crooked
politicians, greed in corporations and in the enforcement of laws.

The alternative is government controlled commerce and economy.
Is that what you advocate?

Eisboch

Richard, how do you propose eradicating the greed of corporations
and their senior employees? I know one way...mandatory nearly
confiscatory taxes on ALL income, whatever the source, above a
certain amount, strict limitations on bonuses, and no deferral of
income.

That might lead to a corporate executive class as incompetent as
the one we have now, though, eh?

That's classic Marxism, Harry. Your true colors are showing.



Sorry, Lu, but it isn't. Obviously, you don't know anything about
Marxism, either. Or are you disputing that our corporate executive
class is incompetent?

Oh, but it is. See Eisboch's brilliant reply. Ditto for me.


You can hide behind Eisboch, who is no dummy, but you are. You claimed
a statement of mine was "classic Marxism." I say this again: you have
no idea what "classic Marxism" is.

Oh, but I do. It was the subject of a grad school course I took in 1971.
To complete my term paper I studied the entire Communist Manifesto. Much
of your rants have their parallels in that document. Have you read it at
all?


snerk Know anything about tax rates during the Eisenhower era? Ike,
as everyone ones, was a classic Marxist. :)

9.5 WHOO-EEE, way to go DUDE
 

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:58:04 -0400, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...

Whoa, who woulda thunk that dead Reagan coulda tricked us inta
spending that nearly 2 trillion under Obama. I spose that just shows
how great Reagan was to force Obama to spend all that money and
accomplish nothing.
------------------------------------

The most significant current factor affecting the US economy/recovery right
now in both business and in private spending habits is the incredible,
unfathomable amount of spending and debt that this administration is willing
to commit to. It's the same, irresponible spending on credit philosophy
that got us into the situation we are in in the first place, except at a
grand, federal level and with inadequate income to pay the bills.

Our liberal social reformers can try to justify it all they want. The fact
is the country can simply not afford it. Rational and economically
thoughtful people understand this and are very concerned.

Business is the lifeblood of this country as we know it. Without incentives
for it to grow and prosper, the USA will choke to death in social program
debt.

Laws should be enforced to prevent scams and illegal business activities,
but the only way to return this country to prosperity is to provide
incentives for businesses to grow. Instead, and as witnessed here by the
comments of our liberal anti-corporation friends, the "enlightened"
philosophy and "in thing' now is to crucify all business or corporate
entities. It's like ****ing in your own water supply.

Eisboch



I must have missed the part in which you explained why we should once
again "trust" business to do the "right thing" for working Americans and
their families. American businesses have sold us down the river by:

1. exporting jobs as quickly as possible

2. producing products that kill us or make us sick

3. running financial services companies in a manner that literally
bankrupted millions of families and made a retirement just about impossible

4. cutting back on health care benefits for workers, and resisting
efforts to enable national health care plans

5. hiring "foreign" workers to come to this country legally and displace
higher-paid American workers

6. hiring as many "illegal" workers as possible so as to have an easily
exploitable workforce

7. fighting regulations that ensure American-made content

8. fighting anti-pollution laws

9. pushing for more and more development at the expense of the environment

10.engaging in massive fraud whenever possible to screw the taxpayers

And so forth.

Yes, Richard, I know. There are businesses that are operated
properly...for their owners.

Sorry, I don't trust "business" to "do the right thing" for anyone other
than its immediate owners and top executive employees. I might start
believing again if corporate salaries were limited to, oh, maybe 10
times the salary of the average non-executive worker at each company.

Good list. Too bad politics blinds some people to reality.
Which makes you a commie to the other commies.
In a global economy the rules have changed, and the old rule of
"What's good for business is good for America" is defunct.
Here's something about capitalism from Wiki.
"The central axiom of capitalism is that the best allocation of
resources is achieved through consumers having free choice, and
producers responding accordingly to meet consumer demand."

Seems simple enough. And it worked well enough here before globalism
and debt and joblessness reared their heads.
What isn't said there but can be implied is that to be a consumer one
must have a stake in the game. Chips to play.
That normally mean a job. Then you're in the game.
Which gets into politics, which is local, whether in a city or a
country.
Politics establishes the rules of the game, and who can play.
Another issue not mentioned in that axiom is that in our political
system, another free choice is the vote.
The vote is more important than the economic system, and ultimately
determines the economic system, the rules, and who plays.
Commie China is capitalistic. No real vote.
In some countries considered "Socialist" citizens do have a vote.
Governmental systems are fairly complex without getting into the weeds
so I've kept it simple.
But here's the bottom line.
America has voted in Barrack Obama, and a bunch of other Democrats.
The people have spoken.
If the people feel that's not in their best interests and it was a
mistake, they'll be gone soon enough. I can live with all that.
No problemo. God, I love this country.
Time for a beer.
You guys keep arguing.
Maybe I'll have some popcorn too.

--Vic

9.5 WHOO-EEE, way to go DUDE
 

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:58:04 -0400, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...

Whoa, who woulda thunk that dead Reagan coulda tricked us inta
spending that nearly 2 trillion under Obama. I spose that just shows
how great Reagan was to force Obama to spend all that money and
accomplish nothing.
------------------------------------

The most significant current factor affecting the US economy/recovery right
now in both business and in private spending habits is the incredible,
unfathomable amount of spending and debt that this administration is willing
to commit to. It's the same, irresponible spending on credit philosophy
that got us into the situation we are in in the first place, except at a
grand, federal level and with inadequate income to pay the bills.

Our liberal social reformers can try to justify it all they want. The fact
is the country can simply not afford it. Rational and economically
thoughtful people understand this and are very concerned.

Business is the lifeblood of this country as we know it. Without incentives
for it to grow and prosper, the USA will choke to death in social program
debt.

Laws should be enforced to prevent scams and illegal business activities,
but the only way to return this country to prosperity is to provide
incentives for businesses to grow. Instead, and as witnessed here by the
comments of our liberal anti-corporation friends, the "enlightened"
philosophy and "in thing' now is to crucify all business or corporate
entities. It's like ****ing in your own water supply.

Eisboch


I must have missed the part in which you explained why we should once
again "trust" business to do the "right thing" for working Americans and
their families. American businesses have sold us down the river by:

1. exporting jobs as quickly as possible

2. producing products that kill us or make us sick

3. running financial services companies in a manner that literally
bankrupted millions of families and made a retirement just about impossible

4. cutting back on health care benefits for workers, and resisting
efforts to enable national health care plans

5. hiring "foreign" workers to come to this country legally and displace
higher-paid American workers

6. hiring as many "illegal" workers as possible so as to have an easily
exploitable workforce

7. fighting regulations that ensure American-made content

8. fighting anti-pollution laws

9. pushing for more and more development at the expense of the environment

10.engaging in massive fraud whenever possible to screw the taxpayers

And so forth.

Yes, Richard, I know. There are businesses that are operated
properly...for their owners.

Sorry, I don't trust "business" to "do the right thing" for anyone other
than its immediate owners and top executive employees. I might start
believing again if corporate salaries were limited to, oh, maybe 10
times the salary of the average non-executive worker at each company.

Good list. Too bad politics blinds some people to reality.
Which makes you a commie to the other commies.
In a global economy the rules have changed, and the old rule of
"What's good for business is good for America" is defunct.
Here's something about capitalism from Wiki.
"The central axiom of capitalism is that the best allocation of
resources is achieved through consumers having free choice, and
producers responding accordingly to meet consumer demand."

Seems simple enough. And it worked well enough here before globalism
and debt and joblessness reared their heads.
What isn't said there but can be implied is that to be a consumer one
must have a stake in the game. Chips to play.
That normally mean a job. Then you're in the game.
Which gets into politics, which is local, whether in a city or a
country.
Politics establishes the rules of the game, and who can play.
Another issue not mentioned in that axiom is that in our political
system, another free choice is the vote.
The vote is more important than the economic system, and ultimately
determines the economic system, the rules, and who plays.
Commie China is capitalistic. No real vote.
In some countries considered "Socialist" citizens do have a vote.
Governmental systems are fairly complex without getting into the weeds
so I've kept it simple.
But here's the bottom line.
America has voted in Barrack Obama, and a bunch of other Democrats.
The people have spoken.
If the people feel that's not in their best interests and it was a
mistake, they'll be gone soon enough. I can live with all that.
No problemo. God, I love this country.
Time for a beer.
You guys keep arguing.
Maybe I'll have some popcorn too.

--Vic


Some of the right-tards on the "over the top" websites are talking about
an armed revolution as the only way to put the conservatives back in the
driver's seat. I'd like nothing better than to see the righties take on
the feds. Hell, I'd borrow a uniform from the good humor man and join in
the fight against right-wing insurgents. I wonder what the bounty would be.

9.5 WHOO-EEE, way to go DUDE
 

HK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:58:04 -0400, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...


Whoa, who woulda thunk that dead Reagan coulda tricked us inta
spending that nearly 2 trillion under Obama. I spose that just shows
how great Reagan was to force Obama to spend all that money and
accomplish nothing.
------------------------------------

The most significant current factor affecting the US
economy/recovery right now in both business and in private spending
habits is the incredible, unfathomable amount of spending and debt
that this administration is willing to commit to. It's the same,
irresponible spending on credit philosophy that got us into the
situation we are in in the first place, except at a grand, federal
level and with inadequate income to pay the bills.

Our liberal social reformers can try to justify it all they want.
The fact is the country can simply not afford it. Rational and
economically thoughtful people understand this and are very concerned.

Business is the lifeblood of this country as we know it. Without
incentives for it to grow and prosper, the USA will choke to death
in social program debt.

Laws should be enforced to prevent scams and illegal business
activities, but the only way to return this country to prosperity is
to provide incentives for businesses to grow. Instead, and as
witnessed here by the comments of our liberal anti-corporation
friends, the "enlightened" philosophy and "in thing' now is to
crucify all business or corporate entities. It's like ****ing in
your own water supply.

Eisboch

I must have missed the part in which you explained why we should once
again "trust" business to do the "right thing" for working Americans
and their families. American businesses have sold us down the river by:

1. exporting jobs as quickly as possible

2. producing products that kill us or make us sick

3. running financial services companies in a manner that literally
bankrupted millions of families and made a retirement just about
impossible

4. cutting back on health care benefits for workers, and resisting
efforts to enable national health care plans

5. hiring "foreign" workers to come to this country legally and
displace higher-paid American workers

6. hiring as many "illegal" workers as possible so as to have an
easily exploitable workforce

7. fighting regulations that ensure American-made content

8. fighting anti-pollution laws

9. pushing for more and more development at the expense of the
environment

10.engaging in massive fraud whenever possible to screw the taxpayers

And so forth.

Yes, Richard, I know. There are businesses that are operated
properly...for their owners.

Sorry, I don't trust "business" to "do the right thing" for anyone
other than its immediate owners and top executive employees. I might
start believing again if corporate salaries were limited to, oh,
maybe 10 times the salary of the average non-executive worker at each
company.

Good list. Too bad politics blinds some people to reality.
Which makes you a commie to the other commies.
In a global economy the rules have changed, and the old rule of
"What's good for business is good for America" is defunct.
Here's something about capitalism from Wiki.
"The central axiom of capitalism is that the best allocation of
resources is achieved through consumers having free choice, and
producers responding accordingly to meet consumer demand."

Seems simple enough. And it worked well enough here before globalism
and debt and joblessness reared their heads. What isn't said there but
can be implied is that to be a consumer one
must have a stake in the game. Chips to play.
That normally mean a job. Then you're in the game.
Which gets into politics, which is local, whether in a city or a
country.
Politics establishes the rules of the game, and who can play.
Another issue not mentioned in that axiom is that in our political
system, another free choice is the vote.
The vote is more important than the economic system, and ultimately
determines the economic system, the rules, and who plays.
Commie China is capitalistic. No real vote.
In some countries considered "Socialist" citizens do have a vote.
Governmental systems are fairly complex without getting into the weeds
so I've kept it simple. But here's the bottom line.
America has voted in Barrack Obama, and a bunch of other Democrats.
The people have spoken.
If the people feel that's not in their best interests and it was a
mistake, they'll be gone soon enough. I can live with all that. No
problemo. God, I love this country.
Time for a beer.
You guys keep arguing.
Maybe I'll have some popcorn too.

--Vic


Some of the right-tards on the "over the top" websites are talking about
an armed revolution as the only way to put the conservatives back in the
driver's seat. I'd like nothing better than to see the righties take on
the feds. Hell, I'd borrow a uniform from the good humor man and join in
the fight against right-wing insurgents. I wonder what the bounty would be.

You would look dashing in a good humor man uniform.

9.5 WHOO-EEE, way to go DUDE
 

J i m wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

Obama didn't create a failed economy...he inherited it.

That excuse is only good for so long, and it's getting dated.
Every new administration inherits problems and issues and they deserve
to be judged and held accountable on how they respond to them.

Obama had many good qualities as a global representative of the US
compared to the previous administration, but the shine and glitter is
becoming tarnished, especially in his domestic economic policies.
His solution to all ills is to promise to throw more money at them.
Problem is, there's no money to be thrown and the public, even a
growing number of those who were mesmerized by the hope and change
rhetoric are waking up and realizing it. His community organizer
background is proving to be naive, wishful thinking in the real world
of global politics and economics.

Nice guy and all, but he's going to get his clock cleaned if he
doesn't wake up.


Eisboch

All that glitters is not gold in Obama's case. He doesn't have a clue
what money represents, but he is doing a hell of a job destroying the
value of money. I vote we go back to the bartering system where goods
and services are traded for goods and services of like value.

How many chickens will it take for me to get that new Tiara?

9.5 WHOO-EEE, way to go DUDE
 

On Jul 3, 8:12*pm, D K wrote:
J i m wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

Obama didn't create a failed economy...he inherited it.

That excuse is only good for so long, and it's getting dated.
Every new administration inherits problems and issues and they deserve
to be judged and held accountable on how they respond to them.

Obama had many good qualities as a global representative of the US
compared to the previous administration, but the shine and glitter is
becoming tarnished, especially in his domestic economic policies. *
His solution to all ills is to promise to throw more money at them. *
Problem is, there's no money to be thrown and the public, even a
growing number of those who were mesmerized by the hope and change
rhetoric *are waking up and realizing it. His community organizer
background is proving to be naive, wishful thinking in the real world
of global politics and economics.

*Nice guy and all, but he's going to get his clock cleaned if he
doesn't wake up.

Eisboch

All that glitters is not gold in Obama's case. He doesn't have a clue
what money represents, but he is doing a hell of a job destroying the
value of money. I vote we go back to the bartering system where goods
and services are traded for goods and services of like value.

How many chickens will it take for me to get that new Tiara?

Harry, where do you find such stuff? I aint never seen such armed
revolution stuff.

9.5 WHOO-EEE, way to go DUDE
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
...

Yes, Richard, I know. There are businesses that are operated
properly...for their owners.

Sorry, I don't trust "business" to "do the right thing" for anyone other
than its immediate owners and top executive employees. I might start
believing again if corporate salaries were limited to, oh, maybe 10 times
the salary of the average non-executive worker at each company.


Like it or not, business and capitalism is the lifeblood of our country
and economy.
The focus should be on eradicating special interests, crooked politicians,
greed in corporations and in the enforcement of laws.

The alternative is government controlled commerce and economy. Is that
what you advocate?

Eisboch

Employers are exporting jobs because we have priced ourselves out of the
manufacturing market. Mostly because of an inflated dollar and high
taxation.

9.5 WHOO-EEE, way to go DUDE
 

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...

Yes, Richard, I know. There are businesses that are operated
properly...for their owners.

Sorry, I don't trust "business" to "do the right thing" for anyone
other than its immediate owners and top executive employees. I might
start believing again if corporate salaries were limited to, oh, maybe
10 times the salary of the average non-executive worker at each
company.


Like it or not, business and capitalism is the lifeblood of our country
and economy.
The focus should be on eradicating special interests, crooked
politicians, greed in corporations and in the enforcement of laws.

The alternative is government controlled commerce and economy. Is
that what you advocate?

Eisboch

Richard, how do you propose eradicating the greed of corporations and
their senior employees? I know one way...mandatory nearly confiscatory
taxes on ALL income, whatever the source, above a certain amount, strict
limitations on bonuses, and no deferral of income.

That might lead to a corporate executive class as incompetent as the one
we have now, though, eh?

That's classic Marxism, Harry. Your true colors are showing.



Sorry, Lu, but it isn't. Obviously, you don't know anything about Marxism,
either. Or are you disputing that our corporate executive class is
incompetent?

If were are taxing incompetence, then start with 99% taxation on Congress
critters and no benefits.

9.5 WHOO-EEE, way to go DUDE
 

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...

Yes, Richard, I know. There are businesses that are operated
properly...for their owners.

Sorry, I don't trust "business" to "do the right thing" for anyone
other than its immediate owners and top executive employees. I
might start believing again if corporate salaries were limited to,
oh, maybe 10 times the salary of the average non-executive worker
at each company.


Like it or not, business and capitalism is the lifeblood of our
country and economy.
The focus should be on eradicating special interests, crooked
politicians, greed in corporations and in the enforcement of laws.

The alternative is government controlled commerce and economy.
Is that what you advocate?

Eisboch

Richard, how do you propose eradicating the greed of corporations
and their senior employees? I know one way...mandatory nearly
confiscatory taxes on ALL income, whatever the source, above a
certain amount, strict limitations on bonuses, and no deferral of
income.

That might lead to a corporate executive class as incompetent as the
one we have now, though, eh?

That's classic Marxism, Harry. Your true colors are showing.



Sorry, Lu, but it isn't. Obviously, you don't know anything about
Marxism, either. Or are you disputing that our corporate executive
class is incompetent?

Oh, but it is. See Eisboch's brilliant reply. Ditto for me.


You can hide behind Eisboch, who is no dummy, but you are. You claimed a
statement of mine was "classic Marxism." I say this again: you have no
idea what "classic Marxism" is.

Oh, but I do. It was the subject of a grad school course I took in 1971.
To complete my term paper I studied the entire Communist Manifesto. Much
of your rants have their parallels in that document. Have you read it at
all?


snerk Know anything about tax rates during the Eisenhower era? Ike,
as everyone ones, was a classic Marxist. :)

There were lots of deductions during Ike's time. Our effective tax rates
are higher now, as the list of deductions has shrunk and changed.