Got to love Bernie...

More ignorant babbling nonsense from the sewer rat. All we need to do is enact more regulations and they will enforce themselves, right? No need to worry about competence.

Here is a good example of "efficient regulation" from our super-competent regulators at the SEC. We should hire more of them!

https://youtu.be/FOKSkaQoF_I

Best line: "You couldn't find your backside with two hands if the lights were on!"

Bonus question: Which Bernie would be a bigger disaster as President - Sanders or Madoff?



. Originally Posted by lustylad

Who said anything about enforcing themselves? Another straw man from our resident straw man turd burglar. You do this on a regular basis. You take one example and extrapolate out an entire reason around it, regardless of whether it actually fits or not.

I've answered that question. The fact that you didn't like it isn't my concern. With the right regulations will come a more equitable living wage. Originally Posted by WombRaider

No, it isn't just a number, that's the problem. It's not as simple as you want it to be. It's not destroyed by simple logic. Why should CEOs make 475 times more than their lowest paid employee? Answer me that. And don't use the market as an excuse.

Here's a good example of regulations and exactly what I'm talking about.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0S008U20151006 Originally Posted by WombRaider

You said that CEO's shouldn't be allowed to make more than 12 times what their lowest paid employees make. Do I need to find the exact quote for you again? Simple math destroyed your statement in 2 seconds. Do I need to do the math for you again?

You're wrong again. A "living wage" must have a number to be defined. Define it or admit you're a coward. You've already admitted you're a racist hypocrite so adding coward to the list shouldn't be that difficult.

There are several factors that go into what a living wage would be. To just throw a number out there, as you so badly want, is not the answer. It's not about backing it up. It's inherently wrong that someone work 40 hours a week and still require government assistance for various things. Or is that how you like it? You complain about workers being on the dole, but you refuse to believe in a wage that would allow them to be self-supporting.

The fact that you think we are the greatest country in the world is part of the problem. You see nothing wrong with the status quo. We are failing ourselves in so many areas. We do nothing to address our failing education system, which is a laughingstock compared to other public education systems worldwide. No one is trying to destroy anything, idiot. Improvements must be made. If you can't see that, you're part of the problem and need to get the fuck out of the way. Originally Posted by WombRaider

No, you didn't. This is your stock evasive non-answer to keep going around in circles about nothing. Why don't you quote your previous post with the definition of "living wage" if you claim to have given it to us already?

(Pssst - Anyone wanna bet the sewer rat's next post will say "you don't get to tell me what to do! Go find it yourself, shitstain!" Keep on spamming and going nowhere.)

. Originally Posted by lustylad

Yes, I did. In post #16 of this very thread. There are various factors that would figure into a living wage. You can't just throw a number out there. The better question is why you think it's ok for someone to work 40 hours a week and live below the poverty line, requiring government assistance? Why is that ok with you? And before Budnuts goes on about bettering yourself or some other bullshit, the world needs fucking ditch diggers too, so come with another angle or shut the fuck up. There will always be ditch diggers, so why not pay them fairly?

You said that CEO's shouldn't be allowed to make more than 12 times what their lowest paid employees make. Do I need to find the exact quote for you again? Simple math destroyed your statement in 2 seconds. Do I need to do the math for you again?

You're wrong again. A "living wage" must have a number to be defined. Define it or admit you're a coward. You've already admitted you're a racist hypocrite so adding coward to the list shouldn't be that difficult. Originally Posted by Budman

Finding that number isn't as simple as you'd like it to be. It's not about being a coward, you fucking moron. And I like how you avoided MY question. Why is it ok for a CEO to make 475 times their lowest paid employee. FOUR HUNDRED and SEVENTY FIVE times. Jesus Christ. And even when the fuck up, they get a golden parachute. Doest THAT cost get passed on to the consumer??

Finding that number isn't as simple as you'd like it to be. It's not about being a coward, you fucking moron. And I like how you avoided MY question. Why is it ok for a CEO to make 475 times their lowest paid employee. FOUR HUNDRED and SEVENTY FIVE times. Jesus Christ. And even when the fuck up, they get a golden parachute. Doest THAT cost get passed on to the consumer?? Originally Posted by WombRaider

I've answered this question before but for the simple minded (that would be you) I will answer it again.

It's OK because it's their money. If they want to pay all of their employees $250K a year that's OK as well. Again, it's their money. What you want is the government to come in and tell them what they must do with their money. Typical left mentality. You believe you can spend other peoples money better than they can.

Here's a good example of regulations and exactly what I'm talking about.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0S008U20151006 Originally Posted by WombRaider

Calling for more government regulation is not the same as tinkering with the tax code, you moron. If you want that money to be repatriated, just lower the fucking US corporate tax rate.

.

I've answered this question before but for the simple minded (that would be you) I will answer it again.

It's OK because it's their money. If they want to pay all of their employees $250K a year that's OK as well. Again, it's their money. What you want is the government to come in and tell them what they must do with their money. Typical left mentality. You believe you can spend other peoples money better than they can. Originally Posted by Budman

Then we will never agree, because I don't think it's OK. I don't think it's OK to build something on the backs of the working man. You do. I want the government to level the playing field. Call it spending other people's money if you want, but as it exists, it's wrong. Very wrong.

Calling for more government regulation is not the same as tinkering with the tax code, you moron. If you want that money to be repatriated, just lower the fucking US corporate tax rate.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

Now you're parsing words. Tax regulations, tax code, whatever the fuck you want to call them. Instead of lowering the tax rate, why not close the fucking loopholes that allow it in the first place? Oh no, that'd be too easy and I'm sure you'll come back with some other bullshit about not being business friendly. Fuck them then, go do business elsewhere. It's what will happen eventually anyway. Production has moved. Everything else will follow.

Smart, labor-saving technologies? You must be referring to the Chinese Capitalism as a powerful change engine? You're drinking your own shit now. New better and more efficient ways of delivering and producing products? Yeah, by outsourcing everything and turning us into a service economy that produces jack shit. You're laughable in your delusion. Conservatism, by its very definition, is anything but seeking change or usurping the status quo. Originally Posted by WombRaider

No dumbass, labor-saving technologies are NOT the same as outsourcing. Outsourcing just reduces the cost of labor input, not the quantity needed per unit of output. Ooops, I'm speaking economics again! Find a translator to explain it to you, sewer rat. Smart labor-saving techniques can even allow US companies to keep their production at home - unless their unions refuse to cooperate in reaping the resulting productivity gains.

It's the free-market conservatives who drive change and churning and innovation in our economy. If the status quo-loving libtard unions had their way, our productivity would never get off the ground.

You're laughably delusional in understanding what makes the economy tick.

.

Instead of lowering the tax rate, why not close the fucking loopholes that allow it in the first place? Originally Posted by WombRaider

It's not a fucking loophole, you idiot. Corporations pay taxes to foreign tax authorities on the profits they earn in those countries. If they repatriated what's left, they would have to pay additional taxes based on the difference in rates. Why would they be stupid enough to do that? Better to keep it overseas and out of the greedy clutches of fucktards like you and Bernie. If the corporattions need money at home, it's cheaper to borrow here than to repatriate there. No biggie.

Here's a better question for you, sewer rat - instead of trying to tax and suck the lifeblood out of every successful business we have, why not just cut the spending that feeds the federal government's insatiable appetite for revenues in the first place?

.

Then we will never agree, because I don't think it's OK. I don't think it's OK to build something on the backs of the working man. You do. I want the government to level the playing field. Call it spending other people's money if you want, but as it exists, it's wrong. Very wrong. Originally Posted by WombRaider

You say that like it's slave labor. Employees are paid based on what value they bring to the company. They are free to take their talent elsewhere at anytime.

Finding that number isn't as simple as you'd like it to be. It's not about being a coward, you fucking moron. And I like how you avoided MY question. Why is it ok for a CEO to make 475 times their lowest paid employee. FOUR HUNDRED and SEVENTY FIVE times. Jesus Christ. And even when the fuck up, they get a golden parachute. Doest THAT cost get passed on to the consumer?? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Another point you continually ignore is that most employers are small businesses. The CEO making 475 times what their lowest paid employee is certainly isn't the norm. You can find extreme examples to try and bolster your point but the reality is that most companies are much more fiscally responsible.

You say that like it's slave labor. Employees are paid based on what value they bring to the company. They are free to take their talent elsewhere at anytime. Originally Posted by Budman

That's just it, they are NOT paid based on what they bring. The fact you don't see this is mind boggling. How is this value determined? Please, expound.

It's not a fucking loophole, you idiot. Corporations pay taxes to foreign tax authorities on the profits they earn in those countries. If they repatriated what's left, they would have to pay additional taxes based on the difference in rates. Why would they be stupid enough to do that? Better to keep it overseas and out of the greedy clutches of fucktards like you and Bernie. If the corporattions need money at home, it's cheaper to borrow here than to repatriate there. No biggie.

Here's a better question for you, sewer rat - instead of trying to tax and suck the lifeblood out of every successful business we have, why not just cut the spending that feeds the federal government's insatiable appetite for revenues in the first place?

. Originally Posted by lustylad

I'm for cutting. Start with the bloated military budget. The money is not profits they earned in other countries, idiot.

Another point you continually ignore is that most employers are small businesses. The CEO making 475 times what their lowest paid employee is certainly isn't the norm. You can find extreme examples to try and bolster your point but the reality is that most companies are much more fiscally responsible. Originally Posted by Budman

Exactly. And the playing field isn't level for small businesses.