Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 6/20/2003 7:13:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 7:25:45 AM EDT
There's not a lot he can do, but from a Keynesian point of view he's doing the right thing: cutting taxes, raising spending. The Fed's set interest rates very low, and is printing money. The dollar has fallen 22% since last year, that helps our exports. Honestly, I dont know what else the president can do. Everything is up to firms, workers and entrepreneurs. They're the ones who produce and create economic growth.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 7:30:21 AM EDT
As Raven said... not much he can do, the economy is cyclical. I knew that whoever will win the Gore vs Bush presidency will be blamed for a lousy economy to come. And so here it is. I think the Bush Administrations is trying everything in THEIR power to minimize what naturally occurs. Other than that... nothing.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 7:37:39 AM EDT
Mostly get out of the way (and get COngress out of the way) on the natural cyclical recovery that's ready to happen. The BEST way to "get out of the way" is to let people have access to their own money - cut capital gains rates (or elimiate them completely) allow borrowing from 401K plans with fewer restrictions, cut taxes, free up capital, etc. Money is the fuel that runs the economy. Free up the money!
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 7:40:29 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 7:40:48 AM EDT
As Teddy Roosevelt said, the Presidency is a 'bully pulpit', meaning the President influences public opinion, and not much else. Monetary policy is the Fed.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 7:40:57 AM EDT
Cut/reduce taxes. Gives people more money to spend thus more buying results and things go up from there.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 7:41:26 AM EDT
All good replies so far. The real question to ask is, "Why do people have the idea that the President needs to [b]do[/b] something about the economy?" He needs to cut taxes and then get out of the way. Capitalism doesn't [u]need[/u] the government to help it.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 7:45:38 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 7:47:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Old_Painless: The real question to ask is, "Why do people have the idea that the President needs to [b]do[/b] something about the economy?" .
View Quote
EXACTLY. Its the result of socialist Democrats having re-shaped the discussion so that any "conclusion" arrived at will favor their agenda. If you accept the premise that the Prez MUST do something about the economy, then the clonclusion will ALWAYS be the same - that gov't is the answer. When we all know that gov't is the PROBLEM.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 8:03:09 AM EDT
But boys, isn't it sad that if we went to the local mall and stopped the first 100 people we saw and asked them this question, how many do you think would know the correct answer?
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 8:03:44 AM EDT
Sell all m-14s as-is. (After paying your tax stamp, of course!) Put that money towards an advertising fund that exposes ALL companies that move overseas. Boycott those companies until they return.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 8:20:03 AM EDT
Bush is politically lucky to have had 911. Had it not been for that first domino, he'd be getting skinned alive by the press, who would blame him for the economy. Unfortunately, 90% of the population is worthless, and knows absolutely nothing. The dumbing down of education has produced voters in need of a leader, and nothing more. The economy has some major flaws, and the government is in a bind, as competitive interests play for dominance. There are too many factors at play for this thread, but suffice it to say, we are in deep trouble as an economic superpower. We have 'volunteered' to give up the foundation of any sound economy, MANUFACTURING. The globalists are winning, and many Republicans are de facto on board because using cheap offshore labor makes their corporate benefactors happy. Until manufacturing becomes a priority again, we will slide further and further away from a sound self sustaining economy. A service economy benefits few, as the multiplier isn't strong.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 8:29:49 AM EDT
Cut Taxes! Shitcan income redistribution via EIC. Just how the F^@K is anyone entitled to MORE money then they paid in??? The best thing would be to eliminate the IRS altogether, and institute a National Sales Tax. Give tax breaks to companies who keep their jobs here in the US.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 8:33:49 AM EDT
There's a lot he could do (along with congress' help) but he never will. He could: Close the borders, stoping illegal immigration. Stop NAFTA (that giant sucking sound) Shutdown the Fed Res and put us back on a gold/silver standard as the constitution states. Impose fair trade taxes/practices Downsize the Federal Govt by at least 3/4's Bring our troops back home and quit being the world police force. And the list goes on and on. The simple fact is that he never will do any of these things. But if he would simply return us to the Constitution/Bill o' Rights and put the Federal Govt back in the 10sq miles they were to operate in we'd all be better off. And yes this would be a really painful process for everyone but hey, 'no pain, no gain'.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 8:35:22 AM EDT
For one thing, I think we need to be patient. This economy is a HUGE ship and it takes a while to make a turn. People think it should happen as fast as their popcorn cooks in the microwave. This thread brought a thought to mind (I'm not an economist, nor do I play one in the movies). President A cuts taxes. President B raises taxes. President C cuts taxes. What long-term effect do these back & forth actions of successive administrations have on the economy as a whole?
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 8:52:28 AM EDT
1) dump the fed, return to the gold standard. 2) dump all income and property taxes, place high, but not prohibitively high tarrifs on imported goods. grant exception to all domestically manufactured goods, this would encourage companies to return to US soil. 3) since there is no income tax any more, dump the IRS, 4) with all the money floating around this board alone just waiting to spend on all those goodies we have been denied for the last ten years, allowing the AWB to sunset would be a pretty good shot in the arm to the economy alone. just a few things i came up with off the bat.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 9:01:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DriftPunch: Bush is politically lucky to have had 911. Had it not been for that first domino, he'd be getting skinned alive by the press, who would blame him for the economy.
View Quote
This really isn't true. Sept. 11 had a huge effect on the domestic and global economy. Without Sept. 11 the "recession" would have been over a while ago. Sept. 11 may have cost us over $1 trillion in real and potential economic output. I put "recession" into quotes because there have barely been two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, which is the traditional definition of a recession. We are very fortunate to be in a "recession" where the unemployment rate is just 6.1 percent. We have never been this lucky in recessions in the past 25 years. Of course some parts of the country have higher unemployment rates and so those areas really have a recession, while other parts of the country have very low unemployment rates (examples: 4.2 percent in Maryland, 4.1 percent in Minnesota). GunLvr
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 9:05:40 AM EDT
A lot of good points posted already; lower taxes to increase public spending, etc. But Bush also needs to DEMAND JUSTIFIED BUDGETS from every government tax-supported agency. No more of this "we got $x last year so we need $x+10% this year". I'm sick and tired of hearing these defacrats cutting Bush because he wants to revamp Head Start programs. They drag out that tired-old line, "It's for the children". Head Start spends $15,000 annually PER CHILD!!! That kind of money will buy tuition at ANY Ivy-League preschool. My sister-in-law is a regional director for Head Start in Oklahoma and she is hardly ever in her office. She's always at "Meetings" in Alaska, Washington DC or jetting-off to some other place to stay at the Hilton (on tax payers' money) to do some worthless crap that could have been accomplished with a conference-call at the most. Funny, there's always a state meeting in Tulsa just around Christmas each year too. They all take their tax-payer subsidized travel expenses and come to Tulsa to stay at the DoubleTree (swanky hotel) and go hang out at Woodland Hills Mall. Gee, if I could only get the taxpayers of the US to subsidize MY Christmas shopping trip each year! [soapbox]
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 9:13:44 AM EDT
reduce the length of the work week to 35 hours in order to create jobs lost to automation and productivity gains. also, make overtime double pay to keep employers from overtaxing their existing work forces.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 9:26:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ilikelegs: Well I think a few things that could be done would be to give a tax break on companies that keep jobs here in American instead of further feeding our enemies like China. Maybe try and turn our service based economy into a more production one.
View Quote
EXACTLY!!!! But, all I get are blank stares when I explain to people why a service-based economy isn't worth a crap.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 9:28:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By _twist: reduce the length of the work week to 35 hours in order to create jobs lost to automation and productivity gains. also, make overtime double pay to keep employers from overtaxing their existing work forces.
View Quote
Sorry buddy, but like it or not, even the threat of this type of thing is what sends jobs offshore.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 9:38:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By _twist: reduce the length of the work week to 35 hours in order to create jobs lost to automation and productivity gains. also, make overtime double pay to keep employers from overtaxing their existing work forces.
View Quote
You see, DoubleFeed, this is what I was talking about. Not to pick on _twist personally, but what has happened to the education system in this country that would turn out people that think that the President [u]could[/u] or [u]should[/u] do these types of things. Should the President have the power to "reduce the length of the work week to 35 hours", even if this bad idea were a good idea? Should the President have the power to "make overtime double pay", even if this absolutely terrible idea was a good idea? Where in the world would people get the idea that the Federal Government should have power to control these types of issues. I could just put my head down and cry. [>Q]
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 9:46:12 AM EDT
First, the gov't needs to reel itself in. The gov't should be concerened with matters of foreign trade, defense, and establishing standards. It needs to eliminate the income tax and Social Security taxes. Turn all matters such as welfare, social security over to private companies, the Gov't will have set the standards those private companies must meet. As a matter of foreign policy & trade, quit regulating American businesses out of business, make foreign companies meet the same standards as American companies for worker health, benefits etc. Eliminate foreign subsidies. Strengthen our military & intelligence community. In a nutshell, quit micromanaging the people, turn as much as possible over to private industry and let free enterprize work. This will cut our taxes. Keep this in mind, Steve Case built a multi-billion empire with AOL by only charging a a few million Amaericans $20 a month, Bill Gates built an empire in a similar manner. If the gov't worked just half as well as that, imagine how this country could be.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 9:50:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/20/2003 9:52:31 AM EDT by supernovatx]
Not to pick on _twist personally, but what has happened to the education system in this country that would turn out people that think that the President [u]could[/u] or [u]should[/u] do these types of things. Should the President have the power to "reduce the length of the work week to 35 hours", even if this bad idea were a good idea? Should the President have the power to "make overtime double pay", even if this absolutely terrible idea was a good idea? Where in the world would people get the idea that the Federal Government should have power to control these types of issues. I could just put my head down and cry. [>Q]
View Quote
I agree with you about the dumbed down amerikan but the Pres has the power now, it's just not invoked...yet. Yah...put your tin foil hats on but it's a fact: EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 9:50:42 AM EDT
Return the Federal Government to it's Constitutional limits, and let free enterprise do it's thing Mr. Bush! That's not gonna happen, so we will continue as socialist and the economy will get worse, and worse, and worse.......
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 9:56:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/20/2003 9:57:48 AM EDT by _twist]
Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Originally Posted By _twist: reduce the length of the work week to 35 hours in order to create jobs lost to automation and productivity gains. also, make overtime double pay to keep employers from overtaxing their existing work forces.
View Quote
Sorry buddy, but like it or not, even the threat of this type of thing is what sends jobs offshore.
View Quote
the price of labor is coming closer to negligable in terms of total overhead. the building of high-tech facilities is the most costly thing in new startup production right now. they can build their factories anywhere they want - it still means a reduction in the workforce because of the squashing of middle management and the growing efficiency of integrated systems. business does not need a large workforce any longer, but it's stuck w/ one. either it starts sharing the benefits of productivity gains brought on by management science and technology improvements or it accepts a police state. because slaves will revolt, the disenfranchised have nothing to lose, and money and power become a monolith to be toppled over time. i don't know if there is a solution given human nature and the existing infrastructure. hey, that's why i cleaned all my guns last night.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 9:59:13 AM EDT
He should have taken the billions we spent on that shit hole Iraq, and spent it on job inducement packages. But he is rich and don't care about the common folk.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 10:11:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/20/2003 10:14:31 AM EDT by _twist]
Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
Originally Posted By _twist: reduce the length of the work week to 35 hours in order to create jobs lost to automation and productivity gains. also, make overtime double pay to keep employers from overtaxing their existing work forces.
View Quote
You see, DoubleFeed, this is what I was talking about. Not to pick on _twist personally, but what has happened to the education system in this country that would turn out people that think that the President [u]could[/u] or [u]should[/u] do these types of things. Should the President have the power to "reduce the length of the work week to 35 hours", even if this bad idea were a good idea? Should the President have the power to "make overtime double pay", even if this absolutely terrible idea was a good idea? Where in the world would people get the idea that the Federal Government should have power to control these types of issues. I could just put my head down and cry. [>Q]
View Quote
i would say that formal education, especially public education, has little to do w/ my opinions. we are trying to understand a system that is many factors larger than we are able to comprehend. all i have is what i see, what i read, and what i believe. what i see is riots in mi, college educated friends w/o jobs, my parents working 80 weeks for no discernable reason, and my boss pushing for 60 from me because our parent company refuses to hire more people (oh, and i'm on salary - so no overtime for me!). i read that ceos are hundreds of times more compensated now than in 1950 (google 'ceo compensation trend' for some interesting reading). and i believe that comfortable people at the top never notice that they're sitting on a house of cards. edited to add: what the president does or does not have the power to do is irrelevant to my argument, and for that i apologize. my answer is to a more 'what do i think should be done?' type question.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 10:20:41 AM EDT
Bottom line, shrink the budget. How do we do that? ABOLISH FEDERAL TAX WITHHOLDING. Everybody will have to send a check, every three months, to pay their taxes. Aggressively go after those who don't pay. By next year, everybody wants a [b]huge[/b] tax cut, no matter what it takes. In the mean time, everyone has a lot more money to spend (or so they think) and the economy grows. Those that resist tax cuts because they don't want to lose their little pet programs will have to make huge budget cuts. My only caveat, protect the military from these cuts. Problem solved.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 10:21:16 AM EDT
Job inducement packages. What is a job inducement package? How could federal spending of billions induce jobs? Are you suggesting govt. sponsored projects along the lines of WPA, etc.? Why is it the governments role to induce jobs? How about the private sector? Socialism: It just doesn't work.
Originally Posted By cyanide: He should have taken the billions we spent on that shit hole Iraq, and spent it on job inducement packages. But he is rich and don't care about the common folk.
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 10:26:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 10:29:26 AM EDT
I understand what you are getting at here...people have their money for a little while and then make them cut the check so they actually have a feel for the money that they are earning. The problem is, I fear that the logistics involved in accounting for the money this way and "aggresively going after those who dont pay" would create a bigger monster out of the IRS than it already is.
Originally Posted By gus: Bottom line, shrink the budget. How do we do that? ABOLISH FEDERAL TAX WITHHOLDING. Everybody will have to send a check, every three months, to pay their taxes. Aggressively go after those who don't pay. By next year, everybody wants a [b]huge[/b] tax cut, no matter what it takes. In the mean time, everyone has a lot more money to spend (or so they think) and the economy grows. Those that resist tax cuts because they don't want to lose their little pet programs will have to make huge budget cuts. My only caveat, protect the military from these cuts. Problem solved.
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 10:36:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Zippy_The_Wonderdog: I understand what you are getting at here...people have their money for a little while and then make them cut the check so they actually have a feel for the money that they are earning. The problem is, I fear that the logistics involved in accounting for the money this way and "aggresively going after those who dont pay" would create a bigger monster out of the IRS than it already is.
View Quote
I don't think there would be much difference in accounting for the money. Continue with employer reporting and W2 forms. I just know that the phones of every congress critter out there would be flooded with calls demanding lower taxes. The only way to achieve that would be to cut spending. If they can't touch the military, then FINALLY they would start reducing the rest of the Govt (the rest is for the most part unnecessary anyway), including the IRS itself. Maybe a flat tax, no withholding? Even less accounting, less IRS needed. Just something to consider. It'll never happen.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 10:39:55 AM EDT
Restore confidence in the stock market by aggressively searching out and prosecuting those individuals who are declareing fradulant earnings and assets. A few made for TV trials like Martha Stewart and the Enron and Arthur Anderson staff are NOT going to be enough. People want to know that this business is over, the market has been purged and surviving companies are sound. That another scandle isn't just going to pop up in a week. That and get the damn Iraqi oil flowing already so we can start depressing energy prices.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 10:40:05 AM EDT
who is in control of big business? If the corporate mentality is to lay-off workers and send jobs over-seas that can be done? if more and more middle-class (and educated) american's are getting their income/benefits reduced how can they contribute to the economy? Big business is NOT doing their part to fairly compensate their workers with the end result of workers voting for democrats. If unemployment continues to rise then we will see history repeat itself and bush will be defeated. Republicans need to remember it is NOT big business that is responsible for their electoral success but the american people. If you give large tax reductions to the wealthy and the middle class sees their tax reduction nullified by an increase in state taxes you will see a lot of angry voters. Driftpunch... the founding fathers gave us the second amendment to protect the country from people like you... 90% my ass... by the way i AM a republican and my brother-in-law is a bush appointed lower court judge, don't even bother trying to call me a socialist... American democracy is about ALL americans having a voice in our goverment and prosperity!
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 10:53:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Originally Posted By _twist: i would say that formal education, especially public education, has little to do w/ my opinions. we are trying to understand a system that is many factors larger than we are able to comprehend. all i have is what i see, what i read, and what i believe. what i see is riots in mi, college educated friends w/o jobs, my parents working 80 weeks for no discernable reason, and my boss pushing for 60 from me because our parent company refuses to hire more people (oh, and i'm on salary - so no overtime for me!). i read that ceos are hundreds of times more compensated now than in 1950 (google 'ceo compensation trend' for some interesting reading). and i believe that comfortable people at the top never notice that they're sitting on a house of cards. edited to add: what the president does or does not have the power to do is irrelevant to my argument, and for that i apologize. my answer is to a more 'what do i think should be done?' type question.
View Quote
I want to ask if you are joking, twist, but I know you are not. What kind of job do your parents have that they work 80 hours a week? About the house of cards analogy - isn't everything that is run by the will of humans to continue a 'house of cards'? But let me get this straight - you want the economy to be healthier by reducing the participation (to 35 hours)make it so? I would love to be able to work about 50 - 60 hours a week. It would be much easier to pay my bills and actually buy stuff I aneed and want.
View Quote
of course i'm not joking. this is an issue that i take very seriously. maybe my ideas are unpopular, and it's certainly possible that they're ungrounded, but this is a discussion forum. knock me off my pedestal - i like to feel like i'm being enlightened, i have a real problem w/ thinking i know everything. first, my old man is the cio/coo (chief information officer/chief operations officer) of a technology corporation w/ ties to electric utilities. my mom works as the controller (cfo)for a private water utility. they work their asses off. they are both salaried so they don't see any overtime. they are well compensated, which is new to them, cause when i was growing up we lived in borderline poverty. but their jobs are killing them. i don't get any compensation for the extra 20 hours i work each week, i am salaried. i get paid the same for 30 hours as i would for 60... but i never work 30 hours. cutting working weeks to 35 hours means that companies have to hire more people. people are already taking part time jobs when they want full time and reductions in pay; all w/ no benefits to society at large. increase wages, cut hours - companies need to share the wealth if they want a stable country. what good is having a mansion if your security staff has to gun down pissed off looters every night? hey, maybe that's what you want. i don't really care, i suppose. my genes will live on, i'm bred to survive. this is a society, however, and to sidestep anarchy some changes need to be made. i would say the right to work is almost as important as rkba - but if they're are no jobs you get a lot of pissed off people. like i said, i don't know if there is an answer. but my new star b shoots like a champ. bring on the crazed poor!
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 10:55:03 AM EDT
Reagan cut the marginal tax rate from 50% to 38%, then to 28%. Eight years later, tax revenues had doubled due to economic growth which resulted. I might not be 100% exact on the figures, but close.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 11:07:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By _twist: i would say that formal education, especially public education, has little to do w/ my opinions.
View Quote
That's a good thing.
all i have is what i see, what i read, and what i believe.
View Quote
OF these three, what you see is the LEAST reliable source of info. Its "tied" with what you read for least reliable.
what i see is riots in mi
View Quote
Idiots abound. Don't sweat them. CERTAINLY don't change public policy because of them.
college educated friends w/o jobs,
View Quote
Cyclical aberration. Don't knee jerk overreact.
my parents working 80 weeks for no discernable reason,
View Quote
They do it for the same reason the REST of us do it. We're innately greedy, and that's not a bad thing. We ALL have the option of simplifying our lives, chunking some of what are in reality luxuries, and working 40 hours per week. But we're hard drivers, and we make our choices.
and my boss pushing for 60 from me because our parent company refuses to hire more people (oh, and i'm on salary - so no overtime for me!).
View Quote
Again, choices (see "parents") Salary is a sucky concept no doubt. But you still have choices - simplify and down size, find another job, tell the boss "Thanks for the offer, but I can't work late tonite" , become self-employed, etc.
i read that ceos are hundreds of times more compensated now than in 1950 (google 'ceo compensation trend' for some interesting reading).
View Quote
What's the agenda of the person writing what you read?? I dare say they are socialist ninnies that hate corporate America , and America in general. I encourage you to become self employed. Should ever the financial well-being of several thousand people rest on your shoulders, the Democrats stealing every other dime you make, you are PERSONALLY liable for the financial well-being of the company, shareholders want your head, and authors like the ones you appear to be reading are nipping at your heels calling you "over-compensated" (whatever the -pardon-HELL that means) you'll come to think - uhh, they couldn't POSSIBLY pay you enuf to be a corporate CEO.
and i believe that comfortable people at the top never notice that they're sitting on a house of cards.
View Quote
Prolly, but that's THEIR problem. UNLESS your talking about gov't.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 11:16:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 11:16:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: Salary is a sucky concept no doubt. But you still have choices - simplify and down size, find another job, tell the boss "Thanks for the offer, but I can't work late tonite" , become self-employed, etc.
View Quote
already working on the last option. critiques of the state of things are like shaking your fist at god. sometimes, you've got to let god know you're pissed, however.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 11:16:44 AM EDT
twist said: of course i'm not joking. this is an issue that i take very seriously. maybe my ideas are unpopular, and it's certainly possible that they're ungrounded, but this is a discussion forum. knock me off my pedestal - i like to feel like i'm being enlightened, i have a real problem w/ thinking i know everything.
View Quote
Okay, twist, I'll take you at your word. I'll address a few issues that you raise.
first, my old man is the cio/coo (chief information officer/chief operations officer) of a technology corporation w/ ties to electric utilities. my mom works as the controller (cfo)for a private water utility. they work their asses off. they are both salaried so they don't see any overtime. they are well compensated, which is new to them, cause when i was growing up we lived in borderline poverty. but their jobs are killing them.
View Quote
Sounds like a big problem. But the long hours are off-set by the higher standard of living, if I read you correctly. Would they rather have the high standard of living or easier jobs with less pay? It's their decision in this wonderfully free country.
i don't get any compensation for the extra 20 hours i work each week, i am salaried. i get paid the same for 30 hours as i would for 60... but i never work 30 hours.
View Quote
Same thing. You don't like the long hours? Then quit. Get another job. It's a free country.
cutting working weeks to 35 hours means that companies have to hire more people.
View Quote
Yes, and it also means a decrease in productivity. This will cause a loss of profit and the lay-offs of workers. It will also mean we will be unable to compete with off-shore workers that are willing to work 40 hour schedules.
people are already taking part time jobs when they want full time and reductions in pay; all w/ no benefits to society at large.
View Quote
Don't understand what you are saying here.
increase wages, cut hours - companies need to share the wealth if they want a stable country. what good is having a mansion if your security staff has to gun down pissed off looters every night?
View Quote
There are [u]no[/u] cases of security having to shoot looters on a nightly basis. Stick to facts when debating. In conclusion, it is a free country. Don't like your job? Then quit. There is someone that will be glad to get it.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 11:23:33 AM EDT
He is doing all he can now, given that the Dems are making every attempt to destroy the economy in order to improve their shitty chances of retaking the government in 2004. FWIW, the economy is cyclical. Employment, like inventory and plant and equipment investments FOLLOWS the market and investments. Employement should begin to climb as companies realize the (albeit small) gains from lowered taxes. It is going to take time...but we will put most everyone back to work. It AIN'T Dubya's fault! It is just the way thing is, folks!
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 11:26:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By _twist: already working on the last option. .
View Quote
Just a thought... As a CPA, I've met and dealt with ALOT of self-employed people. If 60 hours chaps your hide now, DO NOT become self-employed. 60 hours won't even cover a week of half days for the self-employed person. Course, all the money will be yours, and theres immensely more satisfaction, but 60 hours ain't nuthin'. Still, I whole heartedly encourage you to become self-employed. It'll COMPLETELY change your outlook on "justifiable compensation of CEO's." COMPLETELY.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 11:30:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By _twist: already working on the last option. .
View Quote
Just a thought... As a CPA, I've met and dealt with ALOT of self-employed people. If 60 hours chaps your hide now, DO NOT become self-employed. 60 hours won't even cover a week of half days for the self-employed person. Course, all the money will be yours, and theres immensely more satisfaction, but 60 hours ain't nuthin'. Still, I whole heartedly encourage you to become self-employed. It'll COMPLETELY change your outlook on "justifiable compensation of CEO's." COMPLETELY.
View Quote
i definately have no problems w/ working *100* hours a week - as long as it all benefits me. oh, i know that when i'm king i'll be evil as well. no one in power can afford to be good.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 11:34:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/20/2003 11:36:17 AM EDT by garandman]
Originally Posted By _twist: oh, i know that when i'm king i'll be evil as well. no one in power can afford to be good.
View Quote
I guess that's my point. There is NOTHING inherently "evil" about being rich, powerful, highly compensated, etc. "Evil" is a quality of the individual. Not a by product of their net worth. ______________ And as a note of my personal opinion, it REALLY pisses me off when socialist Democrats call EMPLOYERS "evil." Employers, for all their excesses, are the most beneficial people in society.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 11:41:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/20/2003 11:45:55 AM EDT by cyanide]
Originally Posted By Zippy_The_Wonderdog: Job inducement packages. What is a job inducement package? How could federal spending of billions induce jobs? Are you suggesting govt. sponsored projects along the lines of WPA, etc.? Why is it the governments role to induce jobs? How about the private sector? Socialism: It just doesn't work.
Originally Posted By cyanide: He should have taken the billions we spent on that shit hole Iraq, and spent it on job inducement packages. But he is rich and don't care about the common folk.
View Quote
View Quote
Damn you zippy dog, he could do more for the country and it is not [b]Socialism[/b] more in line of creative thinking, shit I have no particuliar idea in mind, but then I am not the POTUS. EDIT --- how are the eyes doing, it has been awhile now.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 12:06:47 PM EDT
i knew i shouldn't have chimed in... i'm trying to work and follow this thread at the same time. i don't want any of you to feel that i'm ignoring your arguments...
Originally Posted By Old_Painless: Sounds like a big problem. But the long hours are off-set by the higher standard of living, if I read you correctly. Would they rather have the high standard of living or easier jobs with less pay? It's their decision in this wonderfully free country.
View Quote
true, it is a free country. but it is also a rapidly evolving era. our freedoms are becoming broader and more at odds every day. i would argue that hard work is becoming an antiquated concept. we don't need to work hard to maintain a high standard of living. the corporate dream is one man turning a crank to produce all the goods in the world, and slowly the market is working towards that goal. it maximizes profits and cuts overhead - the standard of every good corporate tactician. but who does this benefit? less people doing more work = less people being compensated in the old economic mold. the economy is ripe and flowing for everyone but the working man - just ask shell, they doubled their operating profits this year. and i'm willing to bet they cut their workforce as well. (what do you know [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2853217.stm[/url])
Same thing. You don't like the long hours? Then quit. Get another job. It's a free country.
View Quote
yes it is. but i think i should see at least a portion of the time saving initiatives i've led in my company. i think eventually i'll automate myself out of a job.
Yes, and it also means a decrease in productivity. This will cause a loss of profit and the lay-offs of workers. It will also mean we will be unable to compete with off-shore workers that are willing to work 40 hour schedules.
View Quote
yes, we are a bunch of greedy bastards. profit is king and your employees that help you record profits are axed. human effort is becoming less necessary and that creates a rift between our ideology and reality. we believe every able bodied person should have a job, but we won't employ everyone because it cuts 2 cents off the shares of some rich asshole. hey that rich asshole deserves every cent he gets - it's called hard work. see, there is a rift here. and i have no workable answer for it. my answer will probably be to watch it all burn.
Don't understand what you are saying here.
View Quote
people are accepting part time jobs and decreased salaries in order to stay employed. i think an answer to this problem is to cut everyone's hours in order to mobilize our workforce. it's socialist, pinko thinking, i know. our population is way too big and our workforce is way too small - it leads to these kinds decisions. i don't like that it came out of my head any more than you do.
There are [u]no[/u] cases of security having to shoot looters on a nightly basis. Stick to facts when debating.
View Quote
[wearing a tin foil hat]not yet[/wearing a tin foil hat]
In conclusion, it is a free country. Don't like your job? Then quit. There is someone that will be glad to get it.
View Quote
if it means my survival, i'll kill this mystery man and eat him. steal his credit cards and buy myself a new 7.1 receiver. i need a new 7.1 receiver. seriously, though - it may be society, but it's based on individual interest. reconcile that dichotomy.
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 12:13:05 PM EDT
_twist - You may beleive otherwise, but your posts read like a college educated but brain washed individual. Sounds just like typical eggheaded gobbledy gook of professors who are so far removed from actually working in the real world, they beleive the socialism lite they taught you. My take. YMMV. You are intelligent no doubt. But the catch phrases you toss about betray you.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 12:13:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 12:17:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: And as a note of my personal opinion, it REALLY pisses me off when socialist Democrats call EMPLOYERS "evil." Employers, for all their excesses, are the most beneficial people in society.
View Quote
i agree whole-heartedly and was being snide for effect. everyone always knows what's good for everyone else - until they're on top and have to see how their decisions affect people.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top