They're Dropping Like (their) Flies

As I have an aversion to people complaining without offering any solutions. Here's an idea: You want to give tax cuts to corporations? Fine. Create some real incentive. Instead of just handing them the damn tax breaks under this fantasy of job creation, make them prove they've added domestic jobs and helped stimulate our economy. I dunno, say one percentage point reduction for each percentage point they increase their labor force by? As fact, the tax breaks we're giving them now are not doing anything but reducing our government's primary revenue stream and putting more money in their CEO's pockets.

As fact, the tax breaks we're giving them now are not doing anything but reducing our government's primary revenue stream and putting more money in their CEO's pockets. Originally Posted by F-Sharp

The CEO's seem to be quite happy. The workers they lay off are not!

2009 Average CEO Pay at S&P 500 Companies

Salary $1,041,012
Bonus $203,714
Stock Awards $2,630,574
Option Awards $2,284,595
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation $1,790,703
Pension and Deferred Compensation Earnings $1,060,867
All Other Compensation $235,232
Total $9,246,697

Ok, how many of you hard-core, TEA sippin' Eccieites are in the $9 million a year category? Unfortunately, I do not fall in that category!

It never ceases to amaze me that many of our posters on these pages do not have a problem with the CEO's pay increasing at an exponential rate. All the while the workers who are lucky enough to still be employed, their pay remains stagnant! That seems to be a very strange set of priorities by some of our posters. Unless, of course the posters happen to fall in the $9 mil a year category. And to those who are fortunate enough to fall in the latter category, I can certainly understand why you want it all, at the expense of the workers!

I certainly am glad that I am not sippin' their high dollar TEA!

This isn't a new phenominon, Bigtex, as you know. Somehow, somebody convinced the workers of America that it was cool to vote against their self-interests, and unemployed factory workers in the Midwest lifted GWB to a second term.

Coincidentally (or was it) the audience for FOX News was growing by leaps and bounds during that time.

And the REAL fat cats are still laughing at everybody to this day.

That is my opinion. I have no solid evidence that they are really fat.

I have no solid evidence that they are really fat. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

There might not be any "solid evidence that they are really fat" but there seems to be plenty of evidence that the CEO's are laughing all of the way to the bank!

Where'd you get that graph, F-Sharp?

Interesting how the CEO's salaries took major dips around tbe times of major reforms to insurance, liability and tort laws in some of the larger states.

Of course while their salaries tracked the market (higher of course) the average American's income has been woefully flat over the past 15 years.

I wish mine had been so woefully flat!

This current Administration has spent more money than all previous administrations combined. Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

Gonna go out on a limb and say "Bullshit" to this one Care to post any proof?

If Obama care is so good how come the whole state of Nevada asked for a waiver?

This is the only portion of Obama care Nevada got a waiver from.


State-Mandated Policies: Approved Applications for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements
In some States, issuers are required to offer standardized policies with specific annual dollar limits established by State law. These State-mandated annual limits are below the minimum annual limit set by HHS. In such instances, States may apply for a waiver of the annual dollar limit requirements on behalf of issuers of State-mandated policies if State law required the policies to be offered by the issuers prior to September 23, 2010. Although the State may apply on the issuers’ behalf, the application must still satisfy the standard that compliance of the annual dollar limit requirements by the issuers would result in a “significant decrease in access to benefits” or a “significant increase in premiums.”

http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/alw_state_05132011.pdf

One of the worst things that could happen is that Sarah Palin would get the GOP nomination. She hides at Fox and uses Twitter and Facebook to issue her statements. She can get rid any critical posts or posts that question her positions. The longer she waits, the fewer real questions she has to answer. It doesn’t have anything to do with giving the election to Obama. Its about any possibility of her being President. She didn’t finish her term as Governor. She just wanted to make money and cash in on that 15 minutes of fame.

I believe you're going to have to call bullshit on most all of the reponses in blue italic type.

Perhaps Wyldeman hasn't figured out yet that in debates like this, opinions are welcome and encouraged, but outrageous claims need to be supported with hard research. OK?

WYldeman, if you want to source someone you believe in, nobody's going to think any less of you doing your homework. The source will have to pass muster but your personal opinion based on your mood that day will get called as Bulllshit. If that's not fun for you, then perhaps there are other places on ECCIE where your unfounded opinion may be of greater value.

Opposing opinions are necessary to launch debate so bring 'em. But bring them at a higher level than "Obama blows goats." If so, preoare to produce the goat.

We've seen anew day in the Sandbox. Adults, discussing the issues of the day as adults. We cAN HOLD OUR DISCUSSIONS TO A HIGHER STANDARD THAN THE TYPICAL, "LETS RUN THE NEW GIRL OFF ECCIE THREADS." OR, the "Is such and such really a cocksucker" thread.

We can be a light unto the nations on ECCIE an offer a place for real social discourse of and by adults...who happen to like fucking cute young providers.

Or we could start slamming each other on race,natinoality, education, IQ and basic ability to perform Minimal Required Mobility Activities.

I'm guessing we cnargue about the efficacy of our sources but don't come in here with your dick in your hand. Save that for another forum!

Fellas, does that about sum it up?

This current Administration has spent more money than all previous administrations combined. Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

Yeah, not even close. I've already posted the stats elsewhere and they're easily found. I think Wyldeman is one of those folks you see on the Yahoo forums. Everytime there's a politically charged article there is always people like Wyldeman positing propaganda and soundbytes in the comments section. Rarely is there any truth to those comments, but these GOP/Tea clowns run on the belief that if they repeat a lie long enough and loud enough the weaker minds among will eventually start to believe it. Think "birth certificate", "Obama is a Muslim", and "Obama's out of control spending". Fox News, the mouthpiece for the GOP is usually the source, and sadly it works on the factually challenged mental midgets currently roaming the countryside.

And does your analogy also include the Birther-in-Chief, Donald Trump?



Speaking of which, does anyone care to speculate on why some of the biggest names in the field have claimed they are not going to seek the 2012 Republican nomination for POTUS? So far, the list includes Mike Huckabee, Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Mike Pence, John Thune, Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan and Rick Perry.

Must be something harmful bring brewed in the "Tea" infested water! Originally Posted by bigtex

most have jobs and unlike the person in office now they seem to take their current job sorta seriously.

The only good Republican president was Eisenhower, a war hero.

Because no one could challenge his credibility on defense he was able to slash the Pentagon's budget requests time and time again, and there was nothing they could do about it.

He constantly criticized the military, defense contractors, and finally condemned the CIA by saying, "all they've left me is a legacy of ashes."

The Republicans can win handily if they find someone like that - someone who's been on the front lines of these wars and who can use his credibility to execute a withdrawl.

What this country needs is someone wearing a uniform who can say, "Enough!"

We now need someone in uniform....someone who looks commanding....someone who can cut through the deadlock of the failed experiment in democracy called the US Congress.

Someone who looks almost like a dictator.

This is emergency time, not because we've been threatened from without, but because we've lost our principles and are threatened by greed from within.

The greedy scoundrels who are bankrupting us and using public fear of terrorists to further their own rackets must be brought to heal the way Eisenhower was able to while in office. Unfortunately as soon as he left they were able to kill the one who followed him, and get away with it.*

*That of course left us with LBJ, who was the most effective president in history regarding legislative action, most of which I disagree with. Unlike Kennedy and Eisenhower however he was afraid to oppose the military and intelligence communities. Although he never believed in the things they did, he felt even as president he didn't possess the power to oppose them, and that's what they liked about him. He is taperecorded as early as 1965 saying that the US couldn't win in Vietnam, but in public he always said exactly the opposite. He was one of the worst presidents we ever had. He was totally unprincipled, and his lack of principle gave us Vietnam, and then Nixon, and on and on....