for those who care more about the facts than name-calling:
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
He makes more sense to me than anyone else running.
If you are in or want to be in the middle class, you better go for Bernie.
Couldn't read the article on this computer, but listening to the communist S.O.B. convinces me not t vote for him. Unfortunately with what the dems are offering I will be forced to vote republican again.
One excerpt from the article:
"It is fiscally irresponsible that the U.S. Treasury loses about $100 billion a year because corporations and the rich stash their profits in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and other tax havens."
That is a flat out lie. If the IRS has even a suspicion of such behavior they prosecute. All banks doing business thru US banks (there are few that don't and the so called tax havens definitely must do so) must report all bank accounts of US citizens. This in on the order of the lies Harry Reid told about Mitt Romney. On this lie alone I would not vote for Sanders.
Excerpts from a NY Times article on old lying Bernie.
“BURLINGTON, Vt. — When he came to Vermont in the late 1960s to help plan the upending of the old social order, the future presidential candidate Bernie Sanders brought with him the belief that the United States was starkly divided into two groups: the establishment and the revolutionaries. He was a revolutionary.
“The Revolution Is Life Versus Death,” in fact, was the title of an article he wrote for The Vermont Freeman, an alternative, authority-challenging newspaper published for a few years back then. The piece began with an apocalyptically alarmist account of the unbearable horror of having an office job in New York City, of being among “the mass of hot dazed humanity heading uptown for the 9-5,” sentenced to endless days of “moron work, monotonous work.”
“The years come and go,” Mr. Sanders wrote, in all apparent seriousness. “Suicide, nervous breakdown, cancer, sexual deadness, heart attack, alcoholism, senility at 50. Slow death, fast death. DEATH.’ “
Sounds more like his tour in the Senate.
“In a piece titled “Reflections on a Dying Society,” he declared that the United States was virtually going to hell in a handcart. Its food was laden with chemicals; its environment was being ruined; the threat of nuclear annihilation or “death by poison gas” was increasing; people were suffering from malaise and “psychosomatic disease”; citizens were being coerced and duped by the government and the advertising industry; and the economy was based on “useless” goods “designed to break down or used for the slaughter of people.”
“The general social situation, to say the least,” he wrote, “does not look good.’”
Bernie, we are still here. The environment is cleaner and that we are living longer is proof.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07...0s-vermont.html?_r=0
In short, just another radical leftist -- perhaps, a bit more to the left than Obama or just less cautious.
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Dire submits for our edification an excerpt from a little piece written by Bernie Sanders:
“In a piece titled “Reflections on a Dying Society,” he declared that the United States was virtually going to hell in a handcart. Its food was laden with chemicals; its environment was being ruined; the threat of nuclear annihilation or “death by poison gas” was increasing; people were suffering from malaise and “psychosomatic disease”; citizens were being coerced and duped by the government and the advertising industry; and the economy was based on “useless” goods “designed to break down or used for the slaughter of people.”
“The general social situation, to say the least,” he wrote, “does not look good.’”
Dire next advises:
Bernie, we are still here. The environment is cleaner and that we are living longer is proof.
Yes we are, and things are getting better. That piece by Bernie was written over 40 years ago, as the environmental movement was just beginning. The reason for the environment is cleaner is that the spate of new environmental laws and regulations produced in the 70s and 80s have effectively cleaned up many of the problems that were damaging human health and the natural environment. Sanders and others who promoted such reforms are to be praised for their efforts.
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Dire submits for our edification an excerpt from a little piece written by Bernie Sanders:
“In a piece titled “Reflections on a Dying Society,” he declared that the United States was virtually going to hell in a handcart. Its food was laden with chemicals; its environment was being ruined; the threat of nuclear annihilation or “death by poison gas” was increasing; people were suffering from malaise and “psychosomatic disease”; citizens were being coerced and duped by the government and the advertising industry; and the economy was based on “useless” goods “designed to break down or used for the slaughter of people.”
“The general social situation, to say the least,” he wrote, “does not look good.’”
Dire next advises:
Bernie, we are still here. The environment is cleaner and that we are living longer is proof.
Yes we are, and things are getting better. That piece by Bernie was written over 40 years ago, as the environmental movement was just beginning. The reason for the environment is cleaner is that the spate of new environmental laws and regulations produced in the 70s and 80s have effectively cleaned up many of the problems that were damaging human health and the natural environment. Sanders and others who promoted such reforms are to be praised for their efforts.
______________________________________
Bernie is just another watermelon greenie -- red on the inside. EPA is now just another large bureaucracy -- almost unanswerable to the public or congress, ignoring FOIA requests, making regulations without the required scientific study and cost.benefit analysis.
The article gives a good idea of Bernie's mindset and why Obama was so careful to cover his own tracks.
I've listed a number of democratic socialist hellholes, plus couple doing well, but living on borrowed time -- financed by oil -- requesting our Democrat posters which we should emulate -- so far, even the crickets are sleeping. Rather amusing in a dreary way.
From Dire concerning the offs**** tax dodges.
That is a flat out lie.
It's not a lie, it's modern "creative accounting"
Originally Posted by jtdavis:
From Dire concerning the offs**** tax dodges.
That is a flat out lie.
It's not a lie, it's modern "creative accounting"
__________________________________________
JT, it was and is a flat out lie. About 12 years ago, the IRS put into effect laws concerning US citizens and legal residents with bank accounts outside the US. All such accounts had to be reported by the banks or suffer extreme penalties, The penalties were so harsh many US expatriates found it impossible to open or even keep existing accounts. (I noted at the time there were an extraordinary number of Democrats in those refused). About two Swiss bankers went to prison for holding classes in the US about how to dodge taxes. The IRS offered a short amnesty period for those who wished to pay taxes, interest and penalties, but avoid a prison sentence. So many applied that the amnesty was extended.
Corporations may legally offs**** profits from overseas operations, individuals may not.
So, yes, Barnie, with his fellow senator Harry Reid, are both liars.
So, yes, Barnie, with his fellow senator Harry Reid, are both liars.
-----------------
don't vote for them then. Vote for some of the top percentage people that wants to keep economic things as is(the top 1/2 of 1% keeps getting more and more). As for me, I'll vote for someone who might help the middle class.
jt, proportionally how much do you think your tax rate will rise..??
Originally Posted by jtdavis:
So, yes, Barnie, with his fellow senator Harry Reid, are both liars.
-----------------
don't vote for them then. Vote for some of the top percentage people that wants to keep economic things as is(the top 1/2 of 1% keeps getting more and more). As for me, I'll vote for someone who might help the middle class.
________________________________________________
The US is suffering the worst recovery in 100 years. I'll vote for a competent person who will not stand in the way of the economy improving and remove obstacles, where possible.
BERNIE SANDERS FOR PRESIDENT OF GREECE!
jt, proportionally how much do you think your tax rate will rise..??
-------------------
My rate, not a bit.
====================
Dire, since Reagan and his trickle down economics, the middle class has been left out of any recovery. Something has got to change for the blue collar working class. Also, in my book, if you are making $150,000 per year, you aren't middle class. The average household income is about $50,000 per year, someone making 3 times the average is not middle class.
Originally Posted by jtdavis:
jt, proportionally how much do you think your tax rate will rise..??
-------------------
My rate, not a bit.
====================
Dire, since Reagan and his trickle down economics, the middle class has been left out of any recovery. Something has got to change for the blue collar working class. Also, in my book, if you are making $150,000 per year, you aren't middle class. The average household income is about $50,000 per year, someone making 3 times the average is not middle class.
________________________________________________________
JT, the period between Nixon and Carter introduced stagflation -- stagnant wages with extremely high rise in the cost of almost everything. That theft of buying power ended under Reagan. The economy boomed.
The left believes that taking from one group and giving to another via the government will improve the lot of the lower to middle class.
I've listed a number of nations that went that route -- with spectacular failure, plus a couple living on borrowed time.
Originally Posted by jtdavis:
jt, proportionally how much do you think your tax rate will rise..??
-------------------
My rate, not a bit.
====================
Dire, since Reagan and his trickle down economics, the middle class has been left out of any recovery. Something has got to change for the blue collar working class. Also, in my book, if you are making $150,000 per year, you aren't middle class. The average household income is about $50,000 per year, someone making 3 times the average is not middle class.
________________________________________________
JT,
You and other proglodytes, on this forum, are obsessed with the income of others. Then, a marker of leftists is extreme envy and jealousy of anyone who earns a dollar more than themselves.
My father, a WWII vet, was employed at TVA at the lowest rung, but rose to middle management. Ultimately, he entered upper management, after I left home. During my youth, I mowed lawns for pocket money like most of those my age. From my father, I learned how to work on a car from oil change to rebuilding engines; how to build a house from foundation to roof, including wiring and plumbing; and how to drive fast and shoot straight, in short, the skills most of the greatest generation possessed. I financed my way thru college working at a McDonalds, joined the army (one tour in Nam and a short tour in S. Korea), returned and used a year of the GI bill to obtain an MBA,
IOW, I improved my lot as millions have done in this nation. If, your life choices and skills fell short, that is not my fault. I feel no obligation of reduce myself to raise anyone else by force of government. I do accept an obligation by nature and religion to ensure none starve or are homeless.
Dire, you are dealing with a man that has said that even if he was given the choice, he would not turn down money, even after he had all he needed, even if it meant someone else would have a job. But he constantly whines about others, well Republicans, with money! The Koch brothers especially upset him while he totally ignores soros.
Originally Posted by Bestworking:
Dire, you are dealing with a man that has said that even if he was given the choice, he would not turn down money, even after he had all he needed, even if it meant someone else would have a job. But he constantly whines about others, well Republicans, with money! The Koch brothers especially upset him while he totally ignores soros.
_____________________________________
Best, I do this as much as shaming as anything. I remember reading in Norway (socialists living on borrowed time) that one can see on the internet what everyone makes, but not how their neighborhood schools rank. A Norwegian stated, "we hate anyone who makes one kroner more than ourselves." That was a definition of final stage socialism, if I ever heard it.
Lefties have no shame.
IOW, I improved my lot as millions have done in this nation. If, your life choices and skills fell short, that is not my fault. I feel no obligation of reduce myself to raise anyone else by force of government. I do accept an obligation by nature and religion to ensure none starve or are homeless.
-------------------------
Dire, because I was a blue collar worker, you assume my knuckles drug the ground when I walked. That's not necessarily the case. Count high school, college, trade school, military and apprenticeship training, I was in school for 21 1/2 years. After becoming a journeyman, I was in some type training every year. Yes, I improved my skills and I earned a good income. I agree with your last sentence.
The company I started with in the 70's, the CEO made 5 times what a journeyman craftsperson made. Now, the CEO makes about 71 times what the journeymen make. Why is this correct? The CEO got fired from his last job.
Dire, you are dealing with a man that has said that even if he was given the choice, he would not turn down money, even after he had all he needed, even if it meant someone else would have a job. But he constantly whines about others, well Republicans, with money! The Koch brothers especially upset him while he totally ignores soros.
----------------------
Same tired Best bs. As I have stated, I didn't have that choice. You haven't answered why the top percentage gets the lions share of income increases. The reason you haven't answered is because you can't.
Originally Posted by jtdavis:
The company I started with in the 70's, the CEO made 5 times what a journeyman craftsperson made. Now, the CEO makes about 71 times what the journeymen make. Why is this correct? The CEO got fired from his last job.
I'm behind you 100% jimbo, cause I know if you were CEO you would say,
oh you don't, I'll never accept more money than a journeyman.
I'm behind you 100% jimbo, cause I know if you were CEO you would say,
oh you don't, I'll never accept more money than a journeyman.
-------------------
Jack, I don't expect to read a rational post from you,never have, never will.
The CEO deserves more pay than a blue collar worker. I have never said otherwise.
Why did the CEO's pay go up 62 times what he got in the 70's and the craftsman's pay went up 7 times what he made in the 70's? That ratio of raises is not right.
Originally Posted by jtdavis:
I'm behind you 100% jimbo, cause I know if you were CEO you would say,
oh you don't, I'll never accept more money than a journeyman.
-------------------
Jack, I don't expect to read a rational post from you,never have, never will.
The CEO deserves more pay than a blue collar worker. I have never said otherwise.
Why did the CEO's pay go up 62 times what he got in the 70's and the craftsman's pay went up 7 times what he made in the 70's? That ratio of raises is not right.
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by jtdavis:
I'm behind you 100% jimbo, cause I know if you were CEO you would say,
oh you don't, I'll never accept more money than a journeyman.
-------------------
Jack, I don't expect to read a rational post from you,never have, never will.
The CEO deserves more pay than a blue collar worker. I have never said otherwise.
Why did the CEO's pay go up 62 times what he got in the 70's and the craftsman's pay went up 7 times what he made in the 70's? That ratio of raises is not right.
++++
Rationality is definitely not Jack's strong suit. Logical relationships give Jack enormous trouble, since the circuitry in that gnarly little wad of shriveled tissue he uses for a brain is not wired in a normal fashion.
I talk to both of you the way a suck up communist supporter should be talked
to, especially you condung, obum specifically targeted the stupid americans
to vote for anything he does, because you're too stupid to know better.
Originally Posted by jtdavis:
IOW, I improved my lot as millions have done in this nation. If, your life choices and skills fell short, that is not my fault. I feel no obligation of reduce myself to raise anyone else by force of government. I do accept an obligation by nature and religion to ensure none starve or are homeless.
-------------------------
Dire, because I was a blue collar worker, you assume my knuckles drug the ground when I walked. That's not necessarily the case. Count high school, college, trade school, military and apprenticeship training, I was in school for 21 1/2 years. After becoming a journeyman, I was in some type training every year. Yes, I improved my skills and I earned a good income. I agree with your last sentence.
The company I started with in the 70's, the CEO made 5 times what a journeyman craftsperson made. Now, the CEO makes about 71 times what the journeymen make. Why is this correct? The CEO got fired from his last job.
___________________________________________________
The usual suspects wanted to punish CEO's in the 1990s and now the CEO's cry all the way to the bank:
Bill Clinton had what he thought was a great idea to curb the soaring paychecks of the nation's executives. It was 1991, shortly after the launch of his Presidential campaign, and he had just read a best seller on corporate greed by compensation guru Graef Crystal.
Clinton's brainstorm: Use the tax code to curb excessive pay. Companies at the time were allowed to deduct all compensation to top executives. Clinton wanted to permit companies to write off amounts over $1 million only if executives hit specified performance goals. He called Crystal for his thoughts. "Utterly stupid," the consultant says he told the future President.
THE SHAME GAME
Now, 13 years after Clinton's plan became law, the results are clear: It didn't work. Over the law's first decade, average compensation for chief executives at companies in Standard & Poor's 500-stock index soared from $3.7 million to $9.1 million, according to a 2005 Harvard Law School study. The law contains so many obvious loopholes, says Crystal, that "in 10 minutes even Forrest Gump could think up five ways around it."
From the Internal Revenue Service to corporate boardrooms, Clinton's remedy has become the biggest inside joke in the long history of efforts to rein in executive pay. It has allowed companies to take deductions for executive pay tied to goals as vague as "individual achievement of personal commitments" (BellSouth Corp.(BLS) or improving "customer satisfaction" (Dell Inc. (DELL)). Energy giant AES Corp. (AES) for a time demanded that its top people maintain a workplace that was "fun."
Stanky, you tell me why a CEO who is good enough to get fired from his last job deserves a 5 million dollar package.
I see you can post something 20 something years old.
Originally Posted by jtdavis:
Stanky, you tell me why a CEO who is good enough to get fired from his last job deserves a 5 million dollar package.
I see you can post something 20 something years old.
______________________________________________________
It's still the same IRS rule, no one has changed it.
WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats are losing patience with the Securities and Exchange Commission over the agency's failure to implement a new CEO pay rule.
Democrats have been pushing the SEC for nearly five years to move forward with the rule, which Congress required the agency to develop under the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law. The rule would mandate that companies publicly disclose the ratio of their CEO's pay to the median earnings of workers at the firm.
More than three years after Dodd-Frank passed, the SEC finally proposed the rule in September 2013. But the agency has refused to finalize it for more than 18 months -- about nine times longer than the standard 60-day comment period.
"This is just another example of the SEC not acting on the authority we gave them under Wall Street reform," Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) told HuffPost in a statement on Friday. "Since the legislation was signed into law, efforts by the SEC to implement these reforms have moved at a crawl."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...-gett_n_7012126.html
Also which CEO are you talking about? If it's TVA's, it could be what the administration wants. Something that sorta works in goobermint must be ended.
Originally Posted by jtdavis:
IOW, I improved my lot as millions have done in this nation. If, your life choices and skills fell short, that is not my fault. I feel no obligation of reduce myself to raise anyone else by force of government. I do accept an obligation by nature and religion to ensure none starve or are homeless.
-------------------------
Dire, because I was a blue collar worker, you assume my knuckles drug the ground when I walked. That's not necessarily the case. Count high school, college, trade school, military and apprenticeship training, I was in school for 21 1/2 years. After becoming a journeyman, I was in some type training every year. Yes, I improved my skills and I earned a good income. I agree with your last sentence.
The company I started with in the 70's, the CEO made 5 times what a journeyman craftsperson made. Now, the CEO makes about 71 times what the journeymen make. Why is this correct? The CEO got fired from his last job.
________________________________________________________
At no time did I disparage blue collar workers. From your posts, I note a certain disdain for all professionals. As to the CEO, can't comment without info. Simple ratios are not enough. I posted that the CEOs of Fannie/Freddie salaries was increased about 667 percent. The two entities responsible for greatly increasing the cost of housing and introducing near worthless bonds based on mortgages. Yet, no Democrats commented,
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by jtdavis:
IOW, I improved my lot as millions have done in this nation. If, your life choices and skills fell short, that is not my fault. I feel no obligation of reduce myself to raise anyone else by force of government. I do accept an obligation by nature and religion to ensure none starve or are homeless.
-------------------------
Dire, because I was a blue collar worker, you assume my knuckles drug the ground when I walked. That's not necessarily the case. Count high school, college, trade school, military and apprenticeship training, I was in school for 21 1/2 years. After becoming a journeyman, I was in some type training every year. Yes, I improved my skills and I earned a good income. I agree with your last sentence.
The company I started with in the 70's, the CEO made 5 times what a journeyman craftsperson made. Now, the CEO makes about 71 times what the journeymen make. Why is this correct? The CEO got fired from his last job.
________________________________________________________
At no time did I disparage blue collar workers. From your posts, I note a certain disdain for all professionals. As to the CEO, can't comment without info. Simple ratios are not enough. I posted that the CEOs of Fannie/Freddie salaries was increased about 667 percent. The two entities responsible for greatly increasing the cost of housing and introducing near worthless bonds based on mortgages. Yet, no Democrats commented,
________________________________________________________________
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...ate-c_b_5294840.html
I might note that the pay disparity jt is railing about is much less than average.
JT,
I attempted to be understanding. But, no more. There are several items you overlook considering CEO's pay packages.
Its not your money!
Its not my money!
Its not the other employees' money!
Its definitely not the government's money!
Its the investors' money!
And, they are free to spend it any damm way they please.
One of the few items I appreciated in Dodd-Frank was the requirement CEO and other large pay packages be approved by the investors and not, as previous, the board of directors.
Not only in the Judeo-Christian, but other religions and philosophies, envy is considered on of the most soul destroying emotions. I purged myself of such many years ago. Envy appears to be one of the few things that binds leftists together globally. Enjoy, for it appears to be one of the few things to give you pleasure. Pity!
I attempted to be understanding. But, no more. There are several items you overlook considering CEO's pay packages.
Its not your money!
Its not my money!
Its not the other employees' money!
Its definitely not the government's money!
Its the investors' money!
And, they are free to spend it any damm way they please.
One of the few items I appreciated in Dodd-Frank was the requirement CEO and other large pay packages be approved by the investors and not, as previous, the board of directors.
==================================
But lefties think it should be their money. Money they get for doing nothing but existing. No matter how much money they have or are scamming off the government, they will take more. What do they do with that money? They sure as **** don't use it to do what the lefties claim they'll do, better themselves, but no matter, they have it pretty darn good already. You won't get jt and the rest of the lefties to admit that, they're too busy doing what you posted, envying and wanting what others have.
JT,
I attempted to be understanding. But, no more. There are several items you overlook considering CEO's pay packages.
Its not your money!
Its not my money!
Its not the other employees' money!
Its definitely not the government's money!
Its the investors' money!
And, they are free to spend it any damm way they please.
One of the few items I appreciated in Dodd-Frank was the requirement CEO and other large pay packages be approved by the investors and not, as previous, the board of directors.
Not only in the Judeo-Christian, but other religions and philosophies, envy is considered on of the most soul destroying emotions. I purged myself of such many years ago. Envy appears to be one of the few things that binds leftists together globally. Enjoy, for it appears to be one of the few things to give you pleasure. Pity!
-------------------------------
Dire, I've had the mispleasure to attend various "war room" meetings, management meetings and such. I've also noticed that when the questions are asked that the bosses can't or won't answer, they storm out of the room and slam the door. Sorta like your last post. I don't know if it's to intimidate the others or if it is just because the question was asked that showed how much they really knew.
Go ahead and take the gloves off (like you said in your post), I'm living in dread.
Best, Dire, Stanky and anyone I missed. Please tell me what justifies the pay difference between workers and CEOs.
Stankys chart lists 45 times in 1970. If that were so today, the CEO would be getting over 2 million per year. From where I'm at, that's a good salary and if it's a good CEO, it's deserved. His chart also states that today the ratio is 1,723 times. That sure is a big number. Can you justify it?
Dire, I've had the mispleasure to attend various "war room" meetings, management meetings and such. I've also noticed that when the questions are asked that the bosses can't or won't answer, they storm out of the room and slam the door. Sorta like your last post. I don't know if it's to intimidate the others or if it is just because the question was asked that showed how much they really knew.
==================
If that really happens, which I doubt, most likely they leave because it becomes apparent they can't talk any sense with people like you, so why stay and be insulted, which I'm sure is happening.
Originally Posted by jtdavis:
Best, Dire, Stanky and anyone I missed. Please tell me what justifies the pay difference between workers and CEOs.
Stankys chart lists 45 times in 1970. If that were so today, the CEO would be getting over 2 million per year. From where I'm at, that's a good salary and if it's a good CEO, it's deserved. His chart also states that today the ratio is 1,723 times. That sure is a big number. Can you justify it?
=============
I've told you a hundred times what justifies it. They are offered the pay, they take it. They work for it. That is more justification as you getting paid what you're paid. Just as you won't turn it down, they don't turn it down. You think it's OK for you, wrong for them. Now you tell me why it bothers you so much? It's not your money. What do you think they should do for the pay and who should decide what they're paid? If their pay is cut, where do you think the money should go that is not paid out? I don't think a lot of workers are worth what they're paid either, but you don't see me obsessing about it or stewing because I can't get my hands on it.
Originally Posted by jtdavis:
Best, Dire, Stanky and anyone I missed. Please tell me what justifies the pay difference between workers and CEOs.
Stankys chart lists 45 times in 1970. If that were so today, the CEO would be getting over 2 million per year. From where I'm at, that's a good salary and if it's a good CEO, it's deserved. His chart also states that today the ratio is 1,723 times. That sure is a big number. Can you justify it?
__________________________________________________
I actually posted that graph from a not very reliable lefty website for laughs and giggles to see if you would actually believe it. Even if it were, what's that to you. I suspect that you made more than10 times as much as your counterparts in China and the rest of the orient; shouldn't you feel guilty for that? From a little more reliable source:
https://img.washingtonpost.com...ilder.png&w=1484
Instead of going after the CEOs jt, why aren't you calling for some accounting from the ones that really are getting your/my money and doing nothing for it, except pumping out more kids for you and me to support? The only way it makes sense that you don't do that is what Dire posted, envy and greed, and wanting what others have.