July 3, 2009 at 5:34 am #55284
LOL, spot on rommel, spot on.July 3, 2009 at 6:16 am #55285July 3, 2009 at 1:25 pm #55286
To All Americans :
We have been living a steak and lobster lifestyle on a bread and water income for many years. Easy credit and free meal tickets for the masses can no longer be afforded. It is that simple. If you can’t afford lobster, eat bread. Can’t afford bread, don’t eat.
You betcha! And the government continues to allow this through legislation. Yes, through the Bush years as well.
I have ZERO credit card debt. I have a mortgage, which is almost paid off and a single small car payment. I pay for just about everything with cash. Go ahead and call me a barbarian, but you’d be surprised at just how much money you have when you do not have debt.
Rommel, my concern for the poor is of no consequence. I was simply bringing up a fact that will occur if this bill is passed through the Senate. From people that claim to be for the working man and the poor. Whether I do or do not care for the poor changes nothing in that bill. I know people now that do not put their Air on because of the cost.
The Republicans problem is, the say they want to provide the opportunity to achieve. The Dems like to promise entitlement. So what now? Hey I’ll be a DEM! It’s all rhetoric.July 3, 2009 at 2:02 pm #55287
When Bush took office, new bag houses were required for a great many coal burners as part of the Clean Air Act. This would have generated a huge demand for boilermakers, pipefitters, electricians, scaffold builders, ECT.. A large portion of these jobs would have been Union jobs and they would have all been good paying and long term jobs. The kind everyone (even you I bet) thinks that they deserve.
I do not believe I deserve or am entitled to anything beyond my rights under the Constitution. I simply believe I get what I deserve through my own actions.
As far as taking sides, I don’t think anyone that takes sides is ignorant enough to believe their side can do no wrong. Especially when they go against the interest of the people they represent. Chris Smith (R) in my district was one of the 8 that voted for Cap and Tax. I and many others will not be voting for him. If that means voting in a Dem, so be it. But a message has to be sent. I vote for my best interest, not a letter R.
What has recently bothered me about the Republicans is this. They are only fiscal conservatives when a Democrat is in power. The get people to flock to their sides by listening to Rush, Coulter, Hannity, and the like, but never practice what the preach! The two parties are the same. Only their rhetoric changes when they are out of power.
UNIONS!: Six Flags, Great Adventure is over 2 billion dollars in debt. Can’t blame the unions for that. However, unions are often their own worst enemies.
Unions are supposed to be for …
Good working conditions
There may be more, but at the moment I can’t think of it. Now look at those three. Fair pay does not mean twice your worth on the open market. Fair representation does not mean, do all in your power to protect the worst bums in the workplace. This, poor management, and a few other things combine to destroy a Union and a workplace.
Think of Europe going back to the Roman Empire all the way up to about the 19th Century. Compare that to say…..North and South America. Why did Europe advance so quickly in arms, armies and tactics while the far west were still throwing spears? Because they had to. Too little land, too many people. Constant warfare breeds it.
You can use the same premise with the union i am in. The Union pushes so hard that the company’s only concern is how to fight back. I’m not saying technology would not have been a factor anyway. But certainly not as quickly as it did. A full time Toll collector on the NJ turnpike makes 30 dollars an hour and has as much as 11 weeks vacation. And that’s not counting the 3 weeks in sick days. For what? Being a cashier? That is a lot by American standards.July 3, 2009 at 7:53 pm #55288July 5, 2009 at 12:35 pm #55289
The open labor market can not and never will set fair pay scales for workers. That is not it’s intended function and it never was. The open market is a cut throat bar where your brother is just as likely to stab you in the back as a stranger is to stab you in the chest. “I got your back bro!” doesn’t mean what you might think in the open market. Beware.
When it comes to “dime a dozen” jobs, you are correct. But that’s where Unions come in. Some amount of Unions are required to keep work places honest.
Fair pay isn’t the lowest pay one can offer and still staff a position.
Do remember it works both ways. A business too gets what it pays for. The lowest pay also means an uninspired workforce. Which can translate into a poor product.
Walmart is an excellent example. DO NOT GIVE THEM YOUR MONEY. Even if it costs you a little less to shop there, you ultimately pay more. The hidden costs are the welfare payments required by their employees.
I’m not fan of Walmart. They sell crap. Anything cheep is usually garbage. But why pick on Walmart? Why does everyone pick on Walmart and say nothing about McDonalds, Best Buy, Pathmark, Dunkin’ Donuts, etc….. By me, Walmart starts you at 10 bucks an hour. The rest I have mentioned, minimum wage. Should I not patronize any of these places?July 5, 2009 at 10:15 pm #55290July 6, 2009 at 2:38 pm #55291
The signs were advertising wages of $10 per hour starting out with a $ 200 or $ 250 bonus at the end of each week if all scheduled hours were worked.
SHAZZAM ROM !!! It sure must have been expensive to eat at those places.
Au contraire, not so. The prices were the same as anywhere else. So, this being the case, these burger joints can operate at a profit and pay much better than they do. Given the choice of less profit or being closed and having no profit at all, they opted for less profit.
Of course. That would be considered, maximizing your profits. In your scenario, they had to make it worth it to the employees. Most of the time that isn’t the case.
Granted, McDonalds isn’t suppose to be the top of the line in employment options but a great many adults are working in fast food places these days all the same. Mimimum wage is a training wage for kids in school not a respectable wage to pay an adult with responsibilies.
Unless they see some advantage to pay more, why would they?
Perhaps I have painted a better picture this time. Evertime someone mentions raising worker standards, the cry goes out that it will bankrupt the companies.
It will not bankrupt companies like Walmart, McDonalds and the like. But it could make it difficult for a smaller business. Can you see that? Raising the minimum wage will only in effect monopolize the bigger businesses. Here is what can happen by raising the minimum wage.
Before a place goes out of business they do one of two things. They either raise their prices or cut their work force. If they cannot raise prices and compete, that leaves cutting the workforce.
Take a bigger company like McDonalds. They pay people to maximize their profits. If they feel it is advantages for them to simply cut out several sites, they’ll do it. So what we really get in the end by raising minimum wage is a smaller workforce, strengthening franchises, or higher prices in some cases.
I really don’t know how you expect to change this. The only thing I could think of is to slash the corporate tax dramatically. Like 80% cut. Then raise the min wage. That would be advantages to both sides. I’m not so sure how small businesses would be effected, but something would have to be done.July 9, 2009 at 5:53 pm #55292July 10, 2009 at 5:21 pm #55293
Rommel, I know that we can lower the Corp. tax to 0% and they would not change their pay scale or product cost. I simply suggested a lower tax as an incentive to keep jobs here. Or in the case of a minimum wage spike so that they would not pass the cost on to the consumer with either price or job cuts.
Goldman Sachs: Ok Rommel, are you saying this is the norm? In your own article it said they paid, what was it, 6 billion the year before? So this year they had some huge tax credits, good for them. If I could pay 1% taxes I’d jump on it in a second. So why would I blame them? They worked within the system. Did they do anything illegal? Surely, you of all people would appreciate someone acting in a way that was advantageous to themselves. Within the rules of course.
Maybe if the US. wasn’t one of the highest Corp. taxers in the world, Goldman Sachs wouldn’t have to hide their money over seas. Ever think of that? It’s called competition. You see, what our Federal Gov. and state Govs do is set a tax. If that tax gets too high where people go elsewhere, they will find ways to STOP you, by law, from an alternative. No, they will not lower the tax and say, fair is fair, we’ve gone too far. Oh no. They will point the finger. Point it at Exxon, point it at Ceos, and the list goes on. The crazy thing about it is, people are on their side. No one ever points the finger at the government.
To Exxon. Sure they made a lot of money. But how much did they raise their profit margin? I really don’t know, I only assumed they maintained their profit margin for the most part. Remember our wonderful elected officials always saying they doubled, tripled their profits? They never once said their profit margin.
If it costs you 10 to make a product and you sell it for 11, you have a 10% profit margin. If it then costs you 30 to make that product, you need to charge 33 to maintain that 10% profit margin. But you have tripled your profits on a single sale.
Why do people get so obsessed with other people’s profits? Be more upset with how much money the government is taking from YOUR PROFITS. Not how much someone else isn’t paying the government. You have all these politicians making speeches about a windfall tax and bonuses to CEOS. People come out with their pitchforks and torches and they don’t realize their pants are down.
So Rommel, I pay 33% in taxes and Goldman Sachs pays 1%. Instead of saying “Thats BS, they should be paying 33% at least”, I say “That’s BS, I want to pay 1%”
And please, do not use the phrase “Fair share” when concerning a progressive tax system. That system is inherently unfair to begin with. Talk to me about a fair share when we have a flat tax.July 10, 2009 at 5:35 pm #55294July 11, 2009 at 4:11 am #55295
It’s time we paid our way and lived within our means.
I agree with pretty much all you said above this. It is time, but our current admin. seems to be trying to avoid it at all costs, litterally.
Perhaps it escaped you but the companies that are using offshore accounts to avoid their share of the tax burden, are doing this with the legislative blessings of the Republican Congress and George W. Bush. The outsourcing of our manufacturing and abuse of our tariffs was escalated under Ronald Reagan, another Republican. Then Clinton joined forces with the Repubicans to pass the NAFTA. See a problem here with supporting the Republicans? You should.
Who should I support? In case you have forgotten, we have a two party system. I dislike the Dems more, more often. But I will not vote for a Rep. for that reason alone. I’ve about had it with them too.
Outsourcing our manufacturing has been more damaging to our economy than the recent loss of tax revenue hidden offshore. Outsourcing has resulted in the loss of tax revenue, jobs for American familes and increased dependence on expensive and ineffective social programs.
An excellent observation sir. You seem to do well at pointing things out, but fall short on possible solutions. Do you have any suggestions? I would look for the root cause, then try to combat it from there. If it’s even possible.
Cutting taxes … Not even close. Not for you anyway. Plan on 50 percent to be the norm for your wage scale soon and then add all the incidental and hidden taxes.
I agree. There has always been a debate on whether or not we should replace our current tax system with a flat tax. I find that funny since we are likely to have both soon.
You asked for it, you got it! Toyota ?
Yes, I got one not too long ago.July 11, 2009 at 6:12 am #55296
The American System of Government was never suposed to be a Bi- Partistan System, somewhere along the line we lost touch that theres not only two solutions to the problem. Whereas I side with the party that is pro life (Republican), It does not mean theres not a different way of going about things…
Which brings up some interesting questions.
In the Near Future, will a new party arise, as there is a growing indepenant vote?
Will americans turn toward new types of Government such as, Facism, Socialism, Communism, and Marxism?
Will America still exist as America, or become a 3rd world sub-territory to China?
Theese are theoretical questions, that I have spent pondering over for many hours, as I am a Conservative Republican and listen to Rush Limbaugh, I have a very straightforward viewpoint, and was wondering if any other views existed on theese issues.
Would like hear all answers/ suggestions regardless on what party you associate yourself with!!
Just want a broader scope of American Politics.
Thanks KangaBunnyJuly 12, 2009 at 2:23 am #55297July 13, 2009 at 8:06 pm #55298
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.