Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[paigetheoracle]

Once your starry-eyed view of capitalism and the free market would have been right. An entrepreneur saw a market niche, made a prospectus and sold shares. The company was set up. If the company prospered, everyone did well - the management, the employees, the shareholders. Share dividends usually paid rather more than securities, reflecting the risk that investors take.

 

The share price used to simply reflect the expected dividend: if securities paid 5%, you'd expect to get 7%-10% return on investment from equities. If the dividend is expected to be £1 per share, the share price would be £10-£14, varying with how "risky" the company looks. Some years ago the focus changed - investors weren't looking for dividends, they were looking for share price increase.

 

Nowadays there's increasing pressure on companies to beat the market. It used to be enough that a company traded profitably, but now they have to do better than that. So they cut costs where possible. They've always expected loyalty from their employees, but many show none in return. If they can make more money by outsourcing, they'll outsource.

 

Take Burberry for instance. A long-established UK clothing company, selling good-quality stuff to the well-off. In 2006 they closed their factory in Wales and outsourced to China. They'd just posted a 25% profit increase, but they still wanted more.

 

Tell me, questor:

 

1. Do you believe that employees should show loyalty and enthusiasm toward the company that pays them? It's pretty much a given - but shouldn't it go both ways?

 

2. Do you think all those workers in the Burberry factory are at fault? That they should have seen the possibility of outsourcing, and decided not to spend years building specialised skills?

 

3. How much profit is enough? Or is there no limit?

 

4. Companies set up executive share option schemes so that senior management would get a good payout if the company did well. Those executives have the power to make decisions such as outsourcing, which will hurt hundreds or thousands of their employees while earning themselves a hefty chunk of cash. Do you feel that is morally right?

 

Please note that nothing here is suggesting there should be government handouts. I'm just saying that modern corporations are beginning to act quite a lot like the old-time robber barons did in the Middle Ages. Everything for themselves, and let the peasants starve. That was legal too - but was it moral???

 

Thank you Britain! Here's more on the same subject from the country that has seen characters like Hitler, Bush and Palin before, including Maggie Thatcher, who ruined our society like GW has now done with the States. Robber Barons is right. The problem comes when either those at the bottom want more than the country/ company can sustain or those at the top do - only the middle way works best for all concerned.

 

What we have more than anything else happening here is a collapse of 'community' - across the States (town sophisticates versus country hicks) and the world: United we stand, divided we fall because of greed, stupidity and lack of common purpose. Strong speeches by the brainless might stir people up but will it ensure the country prospers? I don't think so.

[questor]

Donk, my replies to your questions:

1. Do you believe that employees should show loyalty and enthusiasm toward the company that pays them? It's pretty much a given - but shouldn't it go both ways

Yes, an employee should show loyalty or lose the job. What type of loyalty do you think a company owes an employee other than what is in his employment agrrement?

2. Do you think all those workers in the Burberry factory are at fault? That they should have seen the possibility of outsourcing, and decided not to spend years building specialised skills?

The workers were not at fault, but it is foolish in these days to expect a lifetime of employment with any company. Do you not think the skills learned could be used in other jobs?

3. How much profit is enough? Or is there no limit?

Do you have a limit on your current income? Do you never intend to earn more?

4. Companies set up executive share option schemes so that senior management would get a good payout if the company did well. Those executives have the power to make decisions such as outsourcing, which will hurt hundreds or thousands of their employees while earning themselves a hefty chunk of cash. Do you feel that is morally right?

The executive payouts seem exorbitant to me in many instances. I think the shareholders should curtail them, not the government. I also think the salaries of entertainers, baseball players and lawyers are many times exorbitant. Should the government also move into these fields?

Please note that nothing here is suggesting there should be government handouts. I'm just saying that modern corporations are beginning to act quite a lot like the old-time robber barons did in the Middle Ages. Everything for themselves, and let the peasants starve. That was legal too - but was it moral???

Businesses don't succeed because of their morality. They must produce their product at a profit or they go out of business, taking all workers jobs away. The marketplace is a perfect example of survival of the fittest. Profit

or die! It is not always fair, but in the larger corporations it is the only way.

This is why workers need as much education as they can get and should continually upgrade their skills in disparate fields. If you think it is bad now, wait until China and the developing countries fully compete in a global, competitive economy. All the Americans who lack multiple skills are going to be out of luck, and whining or beseeching the government will not help them.

This type person will become extinct as far as jobs are concerned.

The bottom line: You and you alone are responsible for your own future.

[Michaelangelica]

I think all Ozzies should sell out to the Chinese.

There are only twenty one million of us. While the environment is a litle on the used side. (Booksellers would use the word "foxed"?) It would still make a great wold class mine with no environment and other 'restrains of trade' laws needed.

Lets say Two trillion $? A Very good deal harbor bridge and Coobey Peddy Golf Course thrown in And that's not all! A free set of steak knives (made in China). This dived among 21 Million people.= a lot for all. No politicians, no defence forces, no work, no worries.

I think last I looked China's international reserves were US $157,66,700,000,000

(Mathematicians please check my figures here too many '0's?

International Reserves and Foreign Currency Liquidity - China,P.R.:Hong Kong

(How do you say that big number in words?)

India is also got a bit to spend too. The Arab countries (OPEC etc) -not APEC- have to have a few $s stashed too.

Then we just spend and spend the rest of our lives floating around the planet in a few super luxury mega boats with plenty of Fosters.

 

Think about it Yanks now looks like a good time to sell up, and move on.

 

God help the Democrats if they win.

[questor]

I think the Chinese have already bought up a good deal of our bank paper, but I think your idea has merit. US citizens need a good dose of reality about how precarious our world position is, and I think the DEMS are going to give it to us.

[Donk]

Hey c'mon people! Let's get back to talking about lipstick or abuse of power or healthcare proposals or going to war with Russia or something *relevant* to the topic of the thread!

 

Last warning before I forcibly rip this thread into 3 or 4 separate ones....

 

Thank you for your cooperation. :cheer:

 

Every man ought to be supposed a knave, and to have no other end, in all his actions, but private interest. By this interest we must govern him, and by means of it, make him cooperate to public good, notwithstanding his unsatiable avarice and ambition, :(

Buffy

Sorry, Buffy. But I was sorely provoked :D - I'd tried to post ontopic but got totally ignored.

 

There's a way to maybe get the thread back on track though. When questor says:

Businesses don't succeed because of their morality. They must produce their product at a profit or they go out of business, taking all workers jobs away. The marketplace is a perfect example of survival of the fittest. Profit or die! It is not always fair, but in the larger corporations it is the only way.

he's saying that morality can't apply in business. Is this really so? The Republican party is run by avowed Christians - can they really be in support of such unChristian behaviour? Or are they only Christians on Sundays and pirates the rest of the week? What would Jesus do?

[questor]

Donk, I don't need Buffy to speak for me. If a business wants to act in a moral fashion, there are no laws against it, and it would be better to do so. Christianity doesn't have anything to do with it, you make it sound like I'm in favor of beating the workers. I treated my workers with respect and was generous in their salaries because I wanted them to stay and the company could afford it. How would you suggest that a corporation treat their workers

as far as benefits, pensions, insurance and so forth? What do you think a company owes a worker who proves incompetent, or has bad work habits, or gets hurt on the job?

[Donk]

Donk, I don't need Buffy to speak for me. If a business wants to act in a moral fashion, there are no laws against it, and it would be better to do so. Christianity doesn't have anything to do with it, you make it sound like I'm in favor of beating the workers. I treated my workers with respect and was generous in their salaries because I wanted them to stay and the company could afford it. How would you suggest that a corporation treat their workers as far as benefits, pensions, insurance and so forth? What do you think a company owes a worker who proves incompetent, or has bad work habits, or gets hurt on the job?

You were speaking in favour of corporations who maximise profit no matter what the cost to the employees. If you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have said it. And Christianity should have a lot to do with it - if you're a true believer it influences every action you take. It used to influence mine, until I looked at what my fellow "believers" were doing to others. Faith doesn't survive a realisation like that.

 

A company owes what it says in the employment contract. That's the legal situation. Some companies manage to weasel out of those contracts. Should they be allowed to? Is there any place for non-contractual rights? You clearly believe there is, otherwise you wouldn't have treated your own workers so well. Respect on both sides gives a happy and productive environment. And if I had to choose, I'd rather be happy than rich :(

[jackson33]

Sorry, Buffy. But I was sorely provoked :doh: - I'd tried to post ontopic but got totally ignored.

 

There's a way to maybe get the thread back on track though. When questor says:

 

he's saying that morality can't apply in business. Is this really so? The Republican party is run by avowed Christians - can they really be in support of such unChristian behaviour? Or are they only Christians on Sundays and pirates the rest of the week? What would Jesus do?

 

Donk, in disagreeing with Buffy, your just not linking your argument with politics when in fact its a major issue.

 

Government, however you look at what should be National or State issues, makes no money. It requires a willing public to give up part of their income to support ideas/programs, which both parties propose different ideologies.

 

Obama or to be fair, the Democratic Party tends toward various forms of wealth redistribution. Obama has said he will take more from the top 2%, by eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts, increase spending on a host of programs designed to help the non-achievers or those dependent on government. McCain on the other hand, claims he will keep the Bush Tax cuts, trying to make them permanent, cut pork spending, hoping for an increase in the economy and/or tax receipts to the government.

 

For the sake of the investors in Business and the employee's, business cannot operate in this manner. Whether business is doing well or not so well, payroll and dividends to the investors have to adjust, where in government they can simply barrow money or increase taxes. Business is also restricted to competitive forces, price of product or service, where government is unrestricted. On the morality or religious tenner, business to exist has no choice to make money and regardless to their three forces, Investor/Labor/Customers.

 

As I recall Jesus said something like, 'pay unto Caesar his dues', so guess he would promote organized government, but IMO he would have made a lousy CEO or CFO of any company. As for you being happy rather than well off (don't understand what rich means to you) I hope you are NOT teaching this. It's inherent in the human spirit to achieve for whatever reason. Head of a Church, Corporation or the mom with a couple kids and a dog. By the way Governor Palin, is showing signs of achieving all three...taking heat for being Christan.

[paigetheoracle]

This might have been said already but I believe Obama has shot himself in the foot by not taking Hillary Clinton as his running mate. Firstly he's lost the support of die hard Hillary fans in the party (and maybe country). Secondly by picking a male, he's lost the female vote to Palin by the less discerning public (McCain made a bad mistake with personality by picking her but because she's a woman, that apparently has gained her popularity amongst white female voters: Report on 'wowowow' website).

 

This whole thing is about more than just Democrats versus Republicans. It has become a war of sophisticated city dwellers (the Cosmopolitan)versus crude country folk (in the UK that is Labour (industry) versus Conservative (farming)): Theists versus athiests (superstitious creationists versus logical scientists*): Masculine hardliners (right wing rednecks) versus liberals and feminists on the left: Youth versus age (the inventive and creative young versus the defensive old, trying to maintain their hold on the world or the old order versus the new): The future versus the past (actual versus potential - energy versus matter: Ignorance versus intelligence (those who want to let in the light of change and those who want to hide in the dark, protecting their certainty): Memory versus imagination: Tolerance versus fear: Obedient followers versus self-reliant individuals (pack animals i.e. dog people versus cool cats).

 

Why are the right wing so paranoid? (Bush, Palin, Hitler, Stalin - okay totalitarian, if you want to see it that way)Because the pretentious are afraid of being exposed as the frauds they feel they are, leading them to repress their own feelings and the actions of others around them because of the fear they have of freedom - their own and other peoples (distrust, not trust). This is why Thatcher 'was' dangerous, Bush 'is' dangerous, Palin 'could be', if McCain had to step down through ill health or simply died in office because of his age and the stress of the job (My reaction to her speech was the same as Whoopi Goldberg's - I thought I'd stepped into Mel Brookes film of 'The Producers', the Springtime for Hitler scene!).

 

As Einstein said 'Insanity is repeating the same action again and again, even though it failed the first time and expecting different results' Bush's time in office and possibly Palin's, if she gains power. Pretentious idiots of the world unite, you alone have no idea what is right (even if you are 'right' wing - all the wrongs in the world are caused by people who think they are right).

 

By the way the Bogeyman or Scape Goat for failures in the system used to be reds under the bed - now it's Osama under Obama!

 

* Personally I know who I'd vote for (which side my bread is buttered), if I had the choice, don't you under these circumstances?

[Zythryn]

Obama or to be fair, the Democratic Party tends toward various forms of wealth redistribution.

Possibly, however I would submit the modern Republican Party also tends towards various forms of wealth redistribution.

It is just that where the democrats seek to offer support for the poor, republicans seek to offer support for businesses.

So do you want your money redistributed to the poor, or to the businesses?

[jackson33]

Possibly, however I would submit the modern Republican Party also tends towards various forms of wealth redistribution.

It is just that where the democrats seek to offer support for the poor, republicans seek to offer support for businesses.

So do you want your money redistributed to the poor, or to the businesses?

 

If your referring to the US Federal Government, they have no authority to bail out, support or not support business, unless National Interest are involved. Likewise the original purpose for the Union, was never intended to redistribute wealth by force, to individuals...

 

States, County, City and Incorporated towns are each set up for both purpose and have causereason for such action. Each entity has some person or department to solicit business into their whatever, limited to what ever that government can offer (Land/Tax breaks etc). They each control the permits, building guidelines, zoning laws and do control what is allowed or denied access. Either through benevolence of Church's or civic organizations or some agency can and have since each began, done the job, the Federal has been taking over, slowly but surely.

 

Myself; I contribute to the Red Cross, for National concerns and to a few organization in the town I live, that specifically cater to different groups, some in time, some in money.

[Zythryn]

If your referring to the US Federal Government, they have no authority to bail out, support or not support business, unless National Interest are involved.

 

You should let them know that then. As I often hear politicians talking about offering aid to 'support' business.

The oil industry gets support through tax breaks. Farmers get support through subsidies. It goes on and on.

I suppose you could stretch the concept of 'National Interest' to fit any of these.

I am just saying that the government redistributes wealth in many ways. The target of the aid is where the difference is, as I see it.

[jackson33]

This might have been said already but I believe Obama has shot himself in the foot by not taking Hillary Clinton as his running mate. Firstly he's lost the support of die hard Hillary fans in the party (and maybe country). Secondly by picking a male, he's lost the female vote to Palin by the less discerning public (McCain made a bad mistake with personality by picking her but because she's a woman, that apparently has gained her popularity amongst white female voters: Report on 'wowowow' website).

 

This whole thing is about more than just Democrats versus Republicans. It has become a war of sophisticated city dwellers (the Cosmopolitan)versus crude country folk.

 

This is why Thatcher 'was' dangerous, Bush 'is' dangerous.

 

* Personally I know who I'd vote for (which side my bread is buttered), if I had the choice, don't you under these circumstances?

 

Palin, brought back into play a still rather large 'Conservative' voting block, where McCain had lost. McCain probably picked her, for political reason, as you suggest, however she does reflect and has on her own the sense of government reform.

 

I agree with you on your assessment of Obama's dissing of Clinton. She did get near, if not more actual votes (in the caucus/primaries) than he and has a loyal following not necessarily that will vote for him, independent and women, especially the older in both. If it had been Clinton vs. McCain, I would be hard pressed to vote republican but would have if she picked Obama for VP. Its thought by some Gore lost in 2000 for not using Bill Clinton and I think the same reason will prevail this cycle. Then the said comments from 'insiders', say Mrs. Obama would not go along with Clinton as VP, really shut out most independents leaning Democratic.

 

You are also correct, in that we have come to rural vs. urban society. The needs for each are so different, but think its out of need for assistance more so than desire and a simple just leave me alone, in the rural areas.

 

Many folks in the US, including myself, have great respect for Ms. Thatcher. She spoke and acted the same, whether the words where what we wanted to hear, we knew it was what she would support. This is rather rare in politics and particularly rare in American politics. Truman historically, would be be a better referance/comparison....

 

Our State Governor's have the most authority over our lives, than the federal, or similar to your Prime Minister. Your bread may be buttered better by them, if you lived here, than the President. He/She is dedicated to the affairs of the total and can butter no individuals bread. Its become of question of which will take the most, reduce that by cost of government and then determine who get some back...if Congress agrees.

[questor]

For those of you constantly worried about the poor, what is the definition of ''poor'', and do these people not receive welfare and/or tax breaks? How much is fair for a person who works to be forced to contribute to one who won't work? Consenting philanthropy is one thing, an outright gift with no service required in return is wrong. I am only talking about able bodied ''poor''

who wantonly use the safety net system. What would happen if all the able bodied receiving welfare were required to go to a vocational school to learn a trade before receiving their free money? What would happen if they had to undergo

drug rehabilitation or stop having multiple children. Would this ruin their lives?

Would it ruin society to demand a little quid pro quo?

[jackson33]

You should let them know that then. As I often hear politicians talking about offering aid to 'support' business.

The oil industry gets support through tax breaks. Farmers get support through subsidies. It goes on and on.

I suppose you could stretch the concept of 'National Interest' to fit any of these.

I am just saying that the government redistributes wealth in many ways. The target of the aid is where the difference is, as I see it.

 

The oil industry pays the same 'Corporate Tax' as any other business. Congress has decided, exploration is essential to National Security and does grant money for that. Farmers do get subsidized, for a number of reasons. Right now the big one is corn (their product) for ethanol production and R/A.

Some get grants for maintaining cattle or in fact growing or NOT growing certain products. Its an attempt to maintain some kind of consistency in agricultural production. No it really doesn't go on and on to any degree and much of the 'Farm Bill' is 'Food Stamp'.

 

The Federal does spend a great deal of money (around 1.5 trillion), through departments. NASA who receives funds through various department and a small amount directly from the budget, is a big spender. The Defense Department and National Security through many departments are big spenders. They follow set procedures to let these contracts and far in advance of any one administration and allocated funds come directly through Congressional Approval.

 

I do not agree with all thats said to be in the National Interest, nor should it be accepted by the public. This is the premise of the McCain/Palin campaign and Palin does have the Alaskan Check book on line, everything their legislature spends is listed and McCain has opposed pork spending back to and including the Reagan period. However IMO, if its in the National Interest, effects all 50 States, then the expense is warranted, even to a much smaller degree than done, to some social issues. Education and tiny amount that goes to each state, a still fair expense. An example the other direction, road construction (non-interstate) started out at about 5% and now near 95% and growing, with special projects always 100%. Remember gas/deisle taxes in many States are 2-3 times the federal, yet pay 1/10th or less the cost both taxes are collected for.

[Galapagos]

Edward Current on McCain's Key Demographic:

 

YouTube - McCain's Key Demographic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLQfRn7rJV0

 

Squirrel-meat-belt voters, unite!

[freeztar]

Here's an email that got forwarded to me today.

 

Don’t know if this is correct – but it SURE is VERY interesting…..and scary…..guess it all depends on what WE all want for our futures !!!

Can anyone of you check out the validity of this? THANKS! The one who forwarded it to me said she checked “snopes” and could not find anything….

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

> > > > Gary D. Burger

> > > >

> > > > Registered Investment Advisor Representative

> > > >

> > > > Managing Partner

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Tax bulletin from Wachovia, sent to me, please read

> > > >

> > > > All Wachovia Securities holders recently received a Tax News

> > > > Bulletin outlining the tax change proposals currently proposed in the two

> > > > Presidential candidates platforms.

> > > >

> > > > Of course, not everything here will become tax law, but the intent

> > > > is plain, and scary, especially for fixed-income retirees.

> > > >

> > > > This is from Wachovia, so it's not a political statemen t , please read

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > INTERESTING DATA JUST RECEIVED ON TAXES

> > > >

> > > > This is something you should be aware of so you don't get blind-sided.

> > > > This

> > > > is really going to catch a lot of families off guard. It should make you

> > > > worry.

> > > >

> > > > Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > CAPITAL GAINS TAX

> > > >

> > > > MCCAIN

> > > > 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples) McCain does not propose

> > > > any change in existing home sales income tax.

> > > >

> > > > OBAMA

> > > > 28% on profit from ALL home sales

> > > >

> > > > How does this affect you?

> &g t; > > If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on

> > > > taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size

> > > > your

> > > > home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from

> > > > your home will go to taxes.

> > > > This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the

> > > > income from their homes as part of their retirement income.

> > > >

> > > > DIVIDEND TAX

> > > >

> > > > MCCAIN 15% (no change)

> > > >

> > > > OBAMA 39.6%

> > > >

> > > > How will this affect you?

> > > > If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college

> > > > funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or

> > > > reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned

> > > > on taxes if Obama becomes

> > > > president. The experts predict that higher tax rates on dividends and

> > > > capital gains would crash the stock market yet do absolutely nothing to

> > > > cut

> > > > the deficit.

> > > >

> > > > INCOME TAX

> > > >

> > > > MCCAIN (no changes)

> > > >

> > > > Single making 30K - tax $4,500

> > > > Single making 50K - tax $12,500

> > > > Single making 75K - tax $18,750

> > > > Married making 60K- tax $9,000

> > > > Married making 75K - tax $18,750

> > > > Married making 125K - tax $31,250

> > > >

> > > > OBAMA

> > > > (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)

> > > > S ingle making 30K - tax $8,400

> > > > Single making 50K - tax $14,000

> > > > Single making 75K - tax $23,250

> > > > Married making 60K - tax $16,800

> > > > Married making 75K - tax $21,000

> > > > Married making 125K - tax $38,750

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Under Obama your taxes will more than double!

> > > >

> > > > How does this affect you? No explanation needed. This is pretty straight

> > > > forward.

> > > >

> > > > INHERITANCE TAX

> > > >

> > > > MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)

> > > >

> > > > OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax

> > > >

> > > > How does this affect you? Many families have lost businesses, farms and

> > > > ranches, and homes that have been in their fam ilies for generations

> > > > because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their

> > > > assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.

> > > >

> > > > NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA

> > > >

> > > > * New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square

> > > > feet

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > * New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already)

> > > >

> > > > * New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water,

> > > > electricity)

> > > >

> > > > * New taxes on retirement accounts and last but not least....

> > > >

> > > > * New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same

> > > > level

> > > > of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Thank You

> > > >

> > > > Robert D. Jenkins

> > > > Vice President - Investments

> > > > Chartered Retirement Planning Counselor

> > > > Wachovia Securities, LLC

 

Anyone feel like tearing it apart? ;)