The President Obama Thread: "Election Year" Edition

[Matt]

And nothing in Lobo's post indicated that he is.

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by Matt

And nothing in Lobo's post indicated that he is.

I never said he did, I was merely making a general point that expanded on my previous post.

[Matt]

I wasn't talking to you.

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by Matt

I wasn't talking to you.

My mistake.

[Matt]

[Handsome Rob]

Originally Posted by The Overlord

I'm not really feeling sorry for the corporations when they pull stunts like this:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...cks/?mobile=nc

Or this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...-foxconn-audit

The claim that corporations need less tax burden so they hire more workers doesn't fly when some corporations lay off a large number of their workers and give the CEOs a big bonus or when they use sweat shop labor in countries run by dictatorships.

Frankly there is far less of a gap between CEOs and their workers in other countries then America. In Japan there is far less inequality between what the CEO makes and what the worker makes and I think that is good example for other countries to follow. There is far less talk of class warfare in Japan, because Japanese CEOs don't give pay themselves an insane amount of money. If a Japanese company needs to makes cuts, everything gets cut, including CEO salaries. Thus the Japanese public don't resent their own corporations as much, because they show some restraint and humility. That's what most American CEOs lack and thus they present themselves in very unsympathetic manner.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbi...210_949408.htm

I think the Boards of Directors should set CEO compensation--the Boards elected by the shareholders' votes. They have the ultimate responsibility for contracting with the CEO for his/her own pay. If the CEO is setting his/her own pay, that's the fault of the Board or the compensation committee. My opinion is that no one else, government or otherwise, has any say in what is "too much" for a CEO to make. If the shareholders don't like the actions of the board or the CEO, they can make the changes necessary with their votes.

That being said, I'm not arguing that lowering the tax burden will cause higher employment--it will give Company X the ability to do so, should that decision be made. But, a company's not going to hire unless it can justify that extra expense. A lower tax burden would also give the company the opportunity to pay higher dividends--every shareholder from the wealthy man who owns 20% of company stock to the little old lady with 100 shares would benefit from that. It would also give the company the ability to engage in more capital projects (like expansion) without having to finance as much of them, if any. That saves interest expense which could further contribute to the health of the company. Not to say that the corporation would do any of that, either. They may just sit on the money, keeping it as an insurance policy to handle the turbulence of regulation-happy feds and tax policies and proposals that seem to change on a monthly basis.

But, tax policy should not exist to reward companies or to punish them if they are deemed "too successful" because of their profit margins. Tax policy should be geared toward raising revenue for the government--nothing more. No rewarding favored businesses or industries. No punishing industries that aren't friendly toward the White House or Capitol Hill. All companies should be treated equally.

I just want people to realize that economic decisions have consequences beyond the immediate. "Raise taxes on corporations" won't have consequences limited to the immediate. If you want to go ahead with higher tax rates, go for it. But, at least be willing to acknowledge its effect on the bigger picture--the picture beyond "we raise taxes, we get more revenue" or "we raise taxes, and the big evil corporation won't get to keep as much profit."

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by Handsome Rob

I think the Boards of Directors should set CEO compensation--the Boards elected by the shareholders' votes. They have the ultimate responsibility for contracting with the CEO for his/her own pay. If the CEO is setting his/her own pay, that's the fault of the Board or the compensation committee. My opinion is that no one else, government or otherwise, has any say in what is "too much" for a CEO to make. If the shareholders don't like the actions of the board or the CEO, they can make the changes necessary with their votes.

I think if a CEO ends up wrecking a company, to the point that company is bankrupt and a needs a bailout to keep on going, that person shouldn't get a huge bonus. Heck I would say any company got a bailout from the government shouldn't get any kid.

If a CEO gets bonus for any short term gain, doesn't that encourage them to cook the books and get a short term high performance and then use a golden parachute to get out of the company after they left it to burn? It seems insane to reward people who engage in that type of action. Saying a CEO should be rewarded for any short term gains, no matter how damaging they are in the long term is insane. Frankly when a CEOs actions effect the rest of economy

Again I would say Japanese corporate culture is superior in this respect, the Japanese CEO bonus is more reasonable and is more tied with the long term gains, the CEO's fate is far more tied to company's well being in Japan. That is a superior corporate philosophy.

Originally Posted by Handsome Rob

That being said, I'm not arguing that lowering the tax burden will cause higher employment--it will give Company X the ability to do so, should that decision be made. But, a company's not going to hire unless it can justify that extra expense. A lower tax burden would also give the company the opportunity to pay higher dividends--every shareholder from the wealthy man who owns 20% of company stock to the little old lady with 100 shares would benefit from that. It would also give the company the ability to engage in more capital projects (like expansion) without having to finance as much of them, if any. That saves interest expense which could further contribute to the health of the company. Not to say that the corporation would do any of that, either. They may just sit on the money, keeping it as an insurance policy to handle the turbulence of regulation-happy feds and tax policies and proposals that seem to change on a monthly basis.

But that pokes holes in the whole argument that corporations need a lesser tax burden because they are the job creators, the argument you presented is not the one I am hearing from the GOP and various conservatives in the media. Its laughable to call any company that has massive layoffs while having huge profits a "job creator". Rick Perry calls himself a job creator and yet most of the jobs he created were at Burger King. Newt Gingrich said poor kids should start cleaning toilets. It seems like GOP is more interested in creating disposable service jobs that pay minimum wage and the employees can replaced at any time, instead of a career you can use to build a life and a family with.

Originally Posted by Handsome Rob

But, tax policy should not exist to reward companies or to punish them if they are deemed "too successful" because of their profit margins. Tax policy should be geared toward raising revenue for the government--nothing more. No rewarding favored businesses or industries. No punishing industries that aren't friendly toward the White House or Capitol Hill. All companies should be treated equally.

We judge individuals based on their actions, why not apply the same standard to corporations? If a corporation wants to act like a psychopath, instead of a responsible citizen, people are less likely to approve of self regulation for them.

Frankly I think a lot of corporations are trying to cannibalizing the middle class in America and the West. They ship all the manufacturing jobs to countries where they pay slave wages and have no regards for the workers safety. That's destroying the customer base in the west, people can't afford all this stuff if their jobs are increasingly shipped out to some country with no real labor laws.

If you think regulation is bad, tell me exactly how that IPhone factory in China, where the conditions are so bad the factory has to have to nets to prevent the workers from committing suicide. Is this the magical workplace that would exist without regulation? Working in prison like conditions for 31 cents in conditions similar to a medium security prison? Working for days on end and being forced to live the factory? China has no real labor laws and Apple didn't seem to have problems with this. Is that what corporations are planning on doing in the West without regulation and labor laws, turn people into economic surfs?

If certain corporations insisting on acting like children, they should be treated such, when they want to act like adults they can be treated as such. Our society is one of both rights and responsibilities, if corporations insist on the rights of an individual, they should be bound by the responsibilities of a individual. That's only fair.

If corporations want to be self regulated, then they should prove to the public that they will be responsible on their own. If they want the public to help them convince the government should get rid of regulations on them, then they should try to get the public on side by acting in a responsible manner.

Originally Posted by Handsome Rob

I just want people to realize that economic decisions have consequences beyond the immediate. "Raise taxes on corporations" won't have consequences limited to the immediate. If you want to go ahead with higher tax rates, go for it. But, at least be willing to acknowledge its effect on the bigger picture--the picture beyond "we raise taxes, we get more revenue" or "we raise taxes, and the big evil corporation won't get to keep as much profit."

There also consequences for corporations acting in a irresponsible manner, as Enron demonstrated. I don't believe in the government just giving a blank check to all corporations do what ever they want, many corporations have proven they are unable to handle that power properly. Their actions effect the whole economy and a giant corporation acting in a reckless manner often has devastating effects on the economy.

I am not saying this is perfect, the government can be just as untrustworthy as a corporation, their power must be limited as well. But its an imperfect world that requires an imperfect solution.

[8wid]

Originally Posted by Handsome Rob

Increased tax expense due to tax rates would likely be passed along to the consumer in terms of higher sales prices. And, since a gallon of milk costs a rich man the same as a poor man, that would have a regressive effect on the poor man. After all, the poor man has less disposable income with which to absorb the increase in the price of milk than the rich man does.

Corporate income tax expense, like payroll expense or supplies expense, is just another line item between revenue and net income--companies will factor in that expense when they determine the price at which to sell their goods or services.

Of course, they could keep the price the same but cut expenses in other areas to make up for it. Maybe they would lay off a few (or a lot of) employees. Maybe they'll drop a supplier (which might have a substantial negative effect on that supplier). Maybe they'll reduce corporate travel (which would have a negative effect on airlines, hotels, restaurants, etc.). Maybe they'll not lay off anyone but not have any raises that year and squeeze the bottom line of the lowest employees on the corporate ladder (secretaries, etc.) as gas and food prices are currently rising.

My point in all this is that it is not as simple as "raise corporate taxes = more government revenue, and that's all that happens." You have to look at the potential indirect effects of policy changes like that.

As far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't have a corporate income tax at all. I'd rather the American people have as clear a view of the governmental appetite as possible (which is one reason I support the FairTax). All the taxes the corporations pay (income, payroll, etc.) are embedded/hidden in the price of the goods and services we purchase, so we effectively pay it--the corporation just remits it to the government.

That does make sense, corporations always typically have a way to get back on the consumers for demanding they pay higher taxes. Your points make me agree with the idea that there should at least not be a higher corporate tax rate. There should be one instead in a higher income bracket to get the needed funds from billionaires, millionaires on a personal level instead of going after their companies. That way they can't pass on the cost to the consumers directly through some sort of price raise or layoffs of employees or moving operations to another nation and outsource.

I think the only way to bring further revenue back to the United States is to encourage domestic green manufacturing, increase the number of small businesses, withdrawal sooner than planned for Afghanistan, make social security an opt out program, cut military spending 10%, and probably give the powers of the Federal reserve to the Department of the Treasury.

[chaseter]

Easy ways to bring down the debt:

- make retirement for SS 69.

- have SS and Medicare be means tested. If you have over $1 million in assets then you don't get a check. Or, if you don't need it and return the checks, then you get reduced taxes.

- reform food stamps. Make it to where you can only buy fresh produce, milk, meats, diapers, etc. No junk food, candy, pizza, etc.

- you have to work part time for your local government to receive an unemployment checks. You can clean the side of the road, clean the streets, etc. No one deserves free money for doing nothing unless you are mentally or physically disabled.

- have a third independent party audit the federal government and eliminate waste. This means going from agency to agency and getting rid of useless positions and programs.

- reform the budget system. Currently, each agency is given a budget. If they come in under that budget, they waste that money at the end of the fiscal year. No joke. That is ass backwards.

- leave Afghanistan immediately.

- decrease military spending 10-15%.

- end the Obama extended tax cuts for everybody. Sorry...it has to happen. We aren't going to get anywhere by just taxing the rich and nearly half of this country pays no federal taxes. That simply cannot sustain itself.

- cut all aid to hostile countries. No more free **** for Iran and North Korea.

- decrease UN spending to match that of other countries. We pay way more than anyone else.

- lower the corporate tax rate by 10% and increase penalties for US based operatipms with overseas manufacturing and call centers.

- end corn and oil subsidies.

- decrease all federal pay by 5% until we get under 5% unemployment. Also freeze all salary increases until that point. If we all suffer in the private world, those that have the power to change that deserve to suffer as well until they fix it.

- campaign finance reform.

- end all pork and riders in all bills that have nothing to do with each other. If I am passing a law that deals with food then you can't put in funding for conservation of a dung beetle.

[Smashlilman]

Originally Posted by chaseter

Easy ways to bring down the debt:

- make retirement for SS 69.

- have SS and Medicare be means tested. If you have over $1 million in assets then you don't get a check. Or, if you don't need it and return the checks, then you get reduced taxes.

- reform food stamps. Make it to where you can only buy fresh produce, milk, meats, diapers, etc. No junk food, candy, pizza, etc.

- you have to work part time for your local government to receive an unemployment checks. You can clean the side of the road, clean the streets, etc. No one deserves free money for doing nothing unless you are mentally or physically disabled.

- have a third independent party audit the federal government and eliminate waste. This means going from agency to agency and getting rid of useless positions and programs.

- reform the budget system. Currently, each agency is given a budget. If they come in under that budget, they waste that money at the end of the fiscal year. No joke. That is ass backwards.

- leave Afghanistan immediately.

- decrease military spending 10-15%.

- end the Obama extended tax cuts for everybody. Sorry...it has to happen. We aren't going to get anywhere by just taxing the rich and nearly half of this country pays no federal taxes. That simply cannot sustain itself.

- cut all aid to hostile countries. No more free **** for Iran and North Korea.

- decrease UN spending to match that of other countries. We pay way more than anyone else.

- lower the corporate tax rate by 10% and increase penalties for US based operatipms with overseas manufacturing and call centers.

- end corn and oil subsidies.

- decrease all federal pay by 5% until we get under 5% unemployment. Also freeze all salary increases until that point. If we all suffer in the private world, those that have the power to change that deserve to suffer as well until they fix it.

- campaign finance reform.

- end all pork and riders in all bills that have nothing to do with each other. If I am passing a law that deals with food then you can't put in funding for conservation of a dung beetle.

One word.........lobbyist
http://www.care2.com/causes/fast-foo...llowances.html

Plus a lot of poor neighborhoods don't have access to fresh produce. Usually the Grocery stores that are near by that have fresh produce are 15 to 30 miles away and most don't have cars to make the trip. Most of those people shop at local hybrid convenience stores.

[chaseter]

All chain grocery stores carry fresh produce. Walmart carries fresh produce.

We have public transport that anybody can utilize and if you live 30 miles from a grocery store then you live in the boonies, which is not where the majority of the poor live. The poor don't live in the suburbs. To add to all of that, convenience stores cost more than grocery stores. So, you get less for your money. Fact of the matter is, you shouldn't be able to buy candy and terrible foods like frozen pizza bites or soda with tax payer funded food programs. It's a waste of money and it hurts our kids.

[Destructus86]

[QUOTE=chaseter;22965635]All chain grocery stores carry fresh produce. Walmart carries fresh produce.

We have public transport that anybody can utilize and if you live 30 miles from a grocery store then you live in the boonies, which is not where the majority of the poor live. The poor don't live in the suburbs. To add to all of that, convenience stores cost more than grocery stores. So, you get less for your money. Fact of the matter is, you shouldn't be able to buy candy and terrible foods like frozen pizza bites or soda with tax payer funded food programs. It's a waste of money and it hurts our kids.[/QUOTE]


ooooh! Someone with common sense. How exciting!!
I agree with this 100%

You are brilliant.

[Hobgoblin]

Why must people continue to compare people they dont like to Hitler? Dont they know how tired it is?

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...in-hitler?lite

[Schlosser85]

Hitler? That guy the Pope supported?

[Dr. Evil]

Obama to award Presidential Medal of Freedom to just retired Tennessee Women's Coach Pat Summitt:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/p...174913213.html

I'm not a fan of Women's Basketball, but her credentials speak for itself.

[dnno1]

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by chaseter

All chain grocery stores carry fresh produce. Walmart carries fresh produce.

We have public transport that anybody can utilize and if you live 30 miles from a grocery store then you live in the boonies, which is not where the majority of the poor live. The poor don't live in the suburbs. To add to all of that, convenience stores cost more than grocery stores. So, you get less for your money. Fact of the matter is, you shouldn't be able to buy candy and terrible foods like frozen pizza bites or soda with tax payer funded food programs. It's a waste of money and it hurts our kids.

Have you seen the price of fresh produce, and ingredients for home cooked meals lately? When tight on money you can get a lot more frozen pizzas, soups, and ramen noodles than you can a week's worth of produce and ingredients to make meals. Hell, its cheaper to eat out than cook a weeks worth of meals. Yes, that stuff isn't as good for you as the fresh home cooked stuff, but when you are poor you don't have a lot of options. Sorry, but no your plan would not work.

[terry78]

Healthy food always costs more than unhealthy food.

[LOBO3315a]

Fresh produce is cheaper than just about anything in the store. Ramen might be cheaper, but only just.

They are way cheaper than Doritos, bugles, pork rinds.

Ramen + frozen veggies = healthy meal and very cheap. Also, working out doesn't hurt and it's free.

[moviedoors]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

Have you seen the price of fresh produce, and ingredients for home cooked meals lately? When tight on money you can get a lot more frozen pizzas, soups, and ramen noodles than you can a week's worth of produce and ingredients to make meals. Hell, its cheaper to eat out than cook a weeks worth of meals. Yes, that stuff isn't as good for you as the fresh home cooked stuff, but when you are poor you don't have a lot of options. Sorry, but no your plan would not work.

Seriously. My wife and I hit our lowest point last summer. We were so close to coming up short on rent and getting into a very dire position. It was one of the most frightening and nauseating experiences of my life. Do you think I was worried about making sure I hate healthy, farm fresh produce and meats? **** no I wasn't. We had to feed ourselves on next to nothing. We had to keep every possible last penny and that meant I sparingly ate Ramen noodles, hot dogs, Banquet chicken pot pies, and microwave burritos, and that's it, for two weeks. I couldn't worry about eating right when I was in danger of losing the roof over my head. Hell, it was a luxury when we just barely got back on our feet and I could buy some frozen pizzas.

[Schlosser85]

We had to feed ourselves on next to nothing. We had to keep every possible last penny and that meant I sparingly ate Ramen noodles, hot dogs, Banquet chicken pot pies, and microwave burritos, and that's it, for two weeks. I couldn't worry about eating right when I was in danger of losing the roof over my head.

Truth.

I eat cheap hot dogs from Circle K and Mac & Cheese from Aldi on a regular basis. Do I do it because I'm so crazy about cheap hot dogs and Mac & Cheese?

No, I do it because the hot dogs are a dollar and the Mac & Cheese is 45 cents a box.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by LOBO3315a

Fresh produce is cheaper than just about anything in the store. Ramen might be cheaper, but only just.

They are way cheaper than Doritos, bugles, pork rinds.

Ramen + frozen veggies = healthy meal and very cheap. Also, working out doesn't hurt and it's free.

Eating fresh produce alone is not necessarily nutritious or a balanced diet. You still need some protein. Now granted, you can get that from peanuts and beans, but lots of people eat meat, which can be expensive sometimes.

[Handsome Rob]

Labor Dept. Withdraws Farm Child Labor Rule

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/26/am...ld-labor-rule/

Under pressure from farming advocates in rural communities, and following a report by The Daily Caller, the Obama administration withdrew a proposed rule Thursday that would have applied child labor laws to family farms.

Thank goodness they tucked tail on this. According to another link from this article:

Under the rules, most children under 18 could no longer work “in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials.”
“Prohibited places of employment,” a Department press release read, “would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions.”

You gotta love the nanny state leftists and the way they want to tell everyone how to live and enforce it with regulation . . . for their own good, of course. As if some Ivy League douchebag with a weekly manicure appointment knows better how to run a safe farm than a third or fourth generation farmer with dirt and calluses on his hands who is trying to pass on farming to his own son or daughter.

And this takes the cake:

The new regulations, first proposed August 31 by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, would also revoke the government’s approval of safety training and certification taught by independent groups like 4-H and FFA, replacing them instead with a 90-hour federal government training course.

And though some will lament that more federal regulations weren't put in the books (cuz teh regs are awesomez!), I find laughably pathetic the idea that the federal government could somehow educate children better than 4-H (100 years old with a history of teaching this type of material) or the Future Farmers of America, which has been focusing on the future of farming and training farmers since 1928.

[LOBO3315a]

Originally Posted by dnno1

Eating fresh produce alone is not necessarily nutritious or a balanced diet. You still need some protein. Now granted, you can get that from peanuts and beans, but lots of people eat meat, which and be expensive sometimes.

Canned Tuna, Salmon, Sardines are all excellent, cheap sources of protein.

[Franklin Richards]

I was in the FFA. I learned how to make a wooden nail holder, how to weld a trailer, and parliamentary procedure. It really isn't a comprehensive training program. It's like woodshop in highschool.


I learned real farming from my family.