What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

ScoobyDoo said:
And I'm sure that's why CEO's pay increases exponentially while the average workers pay goes down or stays flat compared to inflation.

I'm here to tell you that that's as unsustainable as entitlements.
Click to expand...

As a greater % of CEO compensation is tied to corporate performance than ever before (which wasn't the CEO's idea) and most of those are vested over 3 years, you will see a tail effect of improvements in the performance of companies coming out of the recession and the stock market rising. None of that gets somebody else a job nor raises their salary, so the outcome of that model (disproportionate gains) will likely persist. To the degree employees are invested in the company's 401k, they will see some of that benefit, don't know the 401k adoption percentage nor the average company match. To the degree that companies subsidize health insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, pay for education, provide subsidized daycare, and provide 401k's and other retirement benefits such as pensions, you could suggest they are substituting that for larger wage increases.

Based on what I read about union contracts, it seems the unions and their members may agree with that method, put value into benefits such as parental leave, sick time (PTO), longer vacations, health benefits and pensions instead of into the bi-weekly paycheck. If it is subsidized by the company, the worker doesn't receive it as taxable income. If that is the output of collective bargaining, I'm not sure that is the CEO screwing the working man out of his deserved wages.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

ScoobyDoo said:
And I'm sure that's why CEO's pay increases exponentially while the average workers pay goes down or stays flat compared to inflation.
Click to expand...

You've heard of unintended consequences? You can thank Congress for this result, Scooby.

I don't know how long ago it was, maybe 2002 or even earlier, a bill was passed that said executive compensation above $1 million annually would no longer be tax deductible to corporations unless it was incentive-based. My bet is that if you care to research the subject, you'd find that the rate of increase in CEO pay after that law was passed would greatly exceed the rate of increase in CEO pay from before the passage of that law.

Much of reported CEO pay is not even cash compensation at all, it comes in the form of stock options. Except for the crash in '08, we've seen persistently rising stock prices throughout the '00s and certainly from 2009 onward (and give credit to that to Ben Bernanke's money printing. with interest rates at 0.1% people have to go somewhere for yield, and stocks have been bid up to artificially high levels since there is no competition for yield from savings or bonds these days).

So you want to blame someone for increasing CEO pay, blame Congress for trying to rein in CEO pay in such a heavy-handed manner. They are making more because their incentive-laden contracts reward them for successfully achieving stated goals.

Now, I'm sure there is all sorts of chicanery going on (Enron and Tyco come to mind) in how incentives are defined and measured. Still, it was Congress who invited them to engage in it.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

5mn_Major said:
If hunters want to shoot where hunters are...feel free. Enter Darwin. On the other hand, most camping families don't want hunters shooting near their kids. I wouldn't expect those who get their thrills from shooting guns to understand this.
Click to expand...

How many campers, on average, are shot annually by hunters? Thanks in advance for your prompt answer.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

XYZ said:
How many campers, on average, are shot annually by hunters? Thanks in advance for your prompt answer.
Click to expand...

According to the dfw, 9 in CA alone the most recent six months reported. Approximately the number in a mass gunman rampage.

Now a question for you...how many innocent casualties are acceptable?
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Anyone else think Mary Jo White looks like a tiny version of Janet Reno?
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

unofan said:
That's nice. Some of us have lives. I said I'd answer when I have time in front of a real keyboard. Sorry if I'm not rushing quickly enough for you.
Click to expand...

That's a little passive-aggressive don't you think, sweets?
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

5mn_Major said:
According to the dfw, 9 in CA alone the most recent six months reported. Approximately the number in a mass gunman rampage.

Now a question for you...how many innocent casualties are acceptable?
Click to expand...

More children die every year in gun accidents than have been killed in all school shootings combined. Most of us are fully versed in our rights (in this case, the 2nd Amendment) but somewhat less well informed when it comes to our responsibilities. One of which, it seems obvious, should be to keep loaded weapons out of the reach of children.

Meanwhile, in Chicago, three shot to death early this morning. One of the victims was the last of four siblings, all of whom have been gunned down.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...west-side-south-side-20130126,0,1739616.story

Nothing Senator Feinstein is proposing would even be noticed by these shooters, let alone deter them. Ironically, Ms. Feinstein burst onto the national stage after the assassinations of Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk in San Francisco. A former supervisor named Dan White gunned them down. And he didn't use an "assault" weapon. I don't doubt Ms. Feinstein's sincerity. I doubt the efficacy of what she's proposing.
 
Last edited:
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

unofan said:
That's nice. Some of us have lives. I said I'd answer when I have time in front of a real keyboard. Sorry if I'm not rushing quickly enough for you.
Click to expand...

Still waiting... and you've had two days, yet seem to have enough time to post other stuff, such as this message, on here...
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

FlagDUDE08 said:
Still waiting... and you've had two days, yet seem to have enough time to post other stuff, such as this message, on here...
Click to expand...

Glad to know I'm so in your head that the first thing you do when you wake up is check this board. Apparently in your paranoid little world they don't teach that patience is a virtue. First you give me crap for posting from my phone instead of a "real computer," but then you give me crap for not waiting until I had time at home to post from a real computer. What a sad little pathetic life. Then again, since you apparently don't have a wife, pets, kids, or anything else other than posting on this board, I guess I shouldn't be too shocked.

You want to know what I would find acceptable? In the real world? With a country as rich, powerful, and blessed with as many resources as the U.S.? There's no excuse not to provide a safety net for those less fortunate members of society. Not only is it simply the "right" thing to do, but it allows entrepreneurs the freedom to take some risks without worrying that they'll die on the street if it doesn't work out and it prevents crime more than any 2nd amendment solution ever would (people starving on the streets have nothing to lose).

The problem is your question could take volumes to answer, because there's no inherent one-size-fits-all solution that could fit on a t-shirt which is what I know you're trying to pin me down to. What would create satisfaction? There's no universal answer. One goal should be to encourage productivity, and things like the EITC already do so. Frankly, I'd be just fine with government "make-work" programs for those who could work but either cannot find employment or willingly choose not to. If that means digging holes and filling them back up in order to get benefits, so be it.

Of course, then you have scenarios like the single mother with 3 kids. If they're school age or older there's less problems, but if you force her to work while she's got a 2-year-old, then she has to find child care which eats into any benefit she'd be getting and cause a whole host of other problems. And yes, it's all fine and dandy to say she shouldn't have had those kids to begin with if she didn't have the ability to properly care for them, but this is the real world we're dealing with, complete with both nymphomaniacs on one hand and a large religious population that still treats birth control and abortion as icky things that should be witheld from those who can't afford it themselves on the other. Never mind that a lifetime supply of birth control is far, far, cheaper than the average birth these days.

And that's just one random hypothetical example. Government disability programs are certainly abused and stretched to cover conditions beyond what most normal people would think they should cover (just this month, agency rulings have stated that food allergies are now to be treated as disabilities requiring accommodations). Of course, Congress intentionally expanded the scope of disability in the late 2000's because it felt that courts were excluding too many people. So it comes down to where you draw the line, since I think most of us would agree a guy who is hit by an uninsured drunk driver and becomes a parapelgic should probably get help, but the construction worker faking a back injury should not. Since we're never going to find that perfect sweet spot, wherever you draw that line will screw someone over. Either society takes the hit by paying for people who shouldn't get benefits, or individuals take the hit because they are legitimately disabled but unable to get benefits.

Personally, I view it as more acceptable for society to take the hit in the aggregate than it is to screw over otherwise innocent members of society. I might pay an extra $100/year in taxes because of X amount of waste. That's negligible compared to someone who might lose $15,000 in benefits because society doesn't want to deal with, or is angry about, the fraud/waste/red tape associated with those benefits. And I say this as someone who deals with these kinds of cases all the freaking time. I know there's a ton of bullshiat claims out there, especially on the mental/psychological side of things. But if we have to put up with that so that the guy who just lost his wife and kid in a car wreck can take time off to deal with his depression, or the truly mentally ill can seek treatment without being stigmatized and losing their jobs, so be it. And if someone on food stamps has a beer every once in awhile, I'm not going to throw a tizzy over that, either.

You point me to any organization, corporation, business, government, team, random group of people organized to perform a task that doesn't waste anything, and I'll tell you I have a bridge to sell you. The only thing that makes government waste seem so much worse is that it's ostensibly your money and it's a larger organization because it must cover everyone. It's an annoyance, and I'm all for reasonable measures to curtail it. But it's always going to be there, and cutting off John's benefits because Jake is a moocher isn't the solution.
 
Last edited:
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

unofan said:
Glad to know I'm so in your head that the first thing you do when you wake up is check this board. Apparently in your paranoid little world they don't teach that patience is a virtue. First you give me crap for posting from my phone instead of a "real computer," but then you give me crap for not waiting until I had time at home to post from a real computer. What a sad little pathetic life. Then again, since you apparently don't have a wife, pets, kids, or anything else other than posting on this board, I guess I shouldn't be too shocked.

You want to know what I would find acceptable? In the real world? With a country as rich, powerful, and blessed with as many resources as the U.S.? There's no excuse not to provide a safety net for those less fortunate members of society. Not only is it simply the "right" thing to do, but it allows entrepreneurs the freedom to take some risks without worrying that they'll die on the street if it doesn't work out and it prevents crime more than any 2nd amendment solution ever would (people starving on the streets have nothing to lose).

The problem is your question could take volumes to answer, because there's no inherent one-size-fits-all solution that could fit on a t-shirt which is what I know you're trying to pin me down to. What would create satisfaction? There's no universal answer. One goal should be to encourage productivity, and things like the EITC already do so. Frankly, I'd be just fine with government "make-work" programs for those who could work but either cannot find employment or willingly choose not to. If that means digging holes and filling them back up in order to get benefits, so be it.

Of course, then you have scenarios like the single mother with 3 kids. If they're school age or older there's less problems, but if you force her to work while she's got a 2-year-old, then she has to find child care which eats into any benefit she'd be getting and cause a whole host of other problems. And yes, it's all fine and dandy to say she shouldn't have had those kids to begin with if she didn't have the ability to properly care for them, but this is the real world we're dealing with, complete with both nymphomaniacs on one hand and a large religious population that still treats birth control and abortion as icky things that should be witheld from those who can't afford it themselves on the other. Never mind that a lifetime supply of birth control is far, far, cheaper than the average birth these days.

And that's just one random hypothetical example. Government disability programs are certainly abused and stretched to cover conditions beyond what most normal people would think they should cover (just this month, agency rulings have stated that food allergies are now to be treated as disabilities requiring accommodations). Of course, Congress intentionally expanded the scope of disability in the late 2000's because it felt that courts were excluding too many people. So it comes down to where you draw the line, since I think most of us would agree a guy who is hit by an uninsured drunk driver and becomes a parapelgic should probably get help, but the construction worker faking a back injury should not. Since we're never going to find that perfect sweet spot, wherever you draw that line will screw someone over. Either society takes the hit by paying for people who shouldn't get benefits, or individuals take the hit because they are legitimately disabled but unable to get benefits.

Personally, I view it as more acceptable for society to take the hit in the aggregate than it is to screw over otherwise innocent members of society. I might pay an extra $100/year in taxes because of X amount of waste. That's negligible compared to someone who might lose $15,000 in benefits because society doesn't want to deal with, or is angry about, the fraud/waste/red tape associated with those benefits. And I say this as someone who deals with these kinds of cases all the freaking time. I know there's a ton of bullshiat claims out there, especially on the mental/psychological side of things. But if we have to put up with that so that the guy who just lost his wife and kid in a car wreck can take time off to deal with his depression, or the truly mentally ill can seek treatment without being stigmatized and losing their jobs, so be it. And if someone on food stamps has a beer every once in awhile, I'm not going to throw a tizzy over that, either.

You point me to any organization, corporation, business, government, team, random group of people organized to perform a task that doesn't waste anything, and I'll tell you I have a bridge to sell you. The only thing that makes government waste seem so much worse is that it's ostensibly your money and it's a larger organization because it must cover everyone. It's an annoyance, and I'm all for reasonable measures to curtail it. But it's always going to be there, and cutting off John's benefits because Jake is a moocher isn't the solution.
Click to expand...

I posted it every day because I firmly believe the left to dodge questions like the one I had, because it then exposes that they don't actually have a plan, and only happened to win office because of a true lack of leadership.

You decided to bring up a case of a single mother with three children. Does this mean that the ends justify the means? We should be rewarding someone who can't keep their legs closed when they know that they cannot accept the consequences of what they did, while punishing those who can actually accept responsibility? One big thing is that you are not giving people a reason to accept responsibility for their actions. As any person with half a brain will tell you, "With privilege comes responsibility." This leads me to the fact that you didn't answer the last part of my question. What should these people give in order to receive what they receive?
 
Rover said:
Pirate I do have proof, and here it is:

Simply put, the Republican party operates to this day under the concept of Reaganomics, while the Democrats operate under Clintonomics. What do I mean by that?

Reaganomics is the notion that across the board tax cuts for the wealthy pay for themselves and also pay for massive defense spending increases. I'm not being partisan on that, that's what he put into law. Furthermore, this is the EXACT same platform Mitt Romney ran on, some 32 years after Reagan was elected. Like it or not Reaganomics is a failure. All you get is massive deficits, an economy overly dependent on defense spending, and money being parked overseas.

Clintonomics is the idea that some level of spending must be maintained and tax levels have to be at the right levels to fund it, even if that means raising taxes. There is no over reliance on the defense sector to prop up domestic industry. Clintonomics led to a balanced budget and a boomingn economy because the US had its financial house in order.

So, fast forward to today. Obama and Dems are proposing eliminating some special interest tax deductions (carried interest, oil and AG subsidies, etc) to generate additional revenue and then offset it equally with some spending cuts (amongst the ideas are chained CPI, etc). That's pretty Clintonian, and is the right approach to take. IMHO, budget changes need to generate about 500Bn a year in deficit reduction and the rest needs to come from growth. Right now we're at about 400Bn a year (100 prior year cuts mostly end of wars, 100 sequester, 130 payroll tax expiration, 70 upper income tax hikes). Get 50Bn a year from tax code changes, 50Bn from spending cuts and that's about all the economy can sustain.

GOP plan is to cut 1T a year out of spending. You tell me, realistically, which plan has a better chance of succeeding if both were enacted.
Click to expand...

You know, you pretty much prove my point....the policies of 20 years ago are better than the policies of 30 years ago, blah, blah blah...we don't have the same global economy, the same average age, the same industrial base, the same debt, the same revenues, the same military situation, the same immigration mix as either of this periods etc. but you know we should repeat one of them now?

You are trying to prove VHS was better than beta max while the world is going blu ray.

If the republicans are idiots, what does it mean to have a better policy than they? Sucking less than the other guy doesn't mean your policies are correct. Like I said, we plunge off the left side of the bridge instead of the right. Big ****ing deal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top