The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

Except for when the federal government steps in and fines him out of business.

 

fines him out of business? what is this new flail even talking about anymore?

[Jenksismyhero]

SS you realize he didn't tell them "vote for Romney or you're fired" right? I mean, he said if Obama gets re-elected, and his policies get implemented, I will have no choice, because of the amount of money it's going to cost the business, to let people go and/or drop certain benefits. How is that not similar (not the same, but similar) to a union telling it's members that if they don't vote for Obama, Romney's policies will break up the union, take away collective bargaining rights and ultimately leave them without a job or with less pay? I get your point that a CEO has the power to make the happen whereas a union is only speculating it will happen, but it's basically the same type of action - fear mongering to get some votes. In one instance it's acceptable (for decades and decades) but in the other it's not?

Edited October 10, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Just think about this – most of you arrive at work in the morning and leave that afternoon and the rest of your time is yours to do as you please. But not me- there is no “off” button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have that freedom. I eat, live, and breathe this company every minute of the day, every day of the week. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. I know many of you work hard and do a great job, but I’m the one who has to sign every check, pay every expense, and make sure that this company continues to succeed. Unfortunately, what most people see is the nice house and the lavish lifestyle. What the press certainly does not want you to see, is the true story of the hard work and sacrifices I’ve made.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

 

Watching my dad open up his own business and 35 years later end up with a pretty good lifestyle, yeah I can agree with that statement. You have to admit that most people see old rich white guy and assume he was just handed everything, that he didn't spend the majority of his career in the lower or middle class before finally hitting it big.

[StrangeSox]

SS you realize he didn't tell them "vote for Romney or you're fired" right? I mean, he said if Obama gets re-elected, and his policies get implemented, I will have no choice, because of the amount of money it's going to cost the business, to let people go and/or drop certain benefits. How is that not similar (not the same, but similar) to a union telling it's members that if they don't vote for Obama, Romney's policies will break up the union, take away collective bargaining rights and ultimately leave them without a job or with less pay? I get your point that a CEO has the power to make the happen whereas a union is only speculating it will happen, but it's basically the same type of action - fear mongering to get some votes. In one instance it's acceptable (for decades and decades) but in the other it's not?

 

I covered this already:

You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.

 

Poor baby, if taxes are raised to the 90's levels and he has to provide health insurance (to his lazy, unproductive workers??), his motivation to work will be destroyed and you'll all be fired. Sure sounds like he's done some serious cost evaluations and not at all like he's pouting like a 2 year old who can't eat all the cookies.

 

Despite some attempts to gloss over his real motivation earlier in the letter, his concluding paragraph gives the game away. This isn't about some marginal rate increases that his accounting staff has looked at and has found that, gosh, we just won't be profitable! It's about being a Randian Ubermensch who will decide to "Go Galt" (lol no he won't really) rather than support the looters and the parasites because if he's forced to provide health insurance for his employees, he won't be able to literally buy anything he wants. Let's not pretend this is some small business struggling just to make ends meet here. This is a business that made its owner a billionaire. It has been plenty profitable for decades, decades when taxes were significantly higher. But if he can't build himself his Versailles because he has to pay for some dumb employees' health care, well, what's the point? Let them sip mojitos on a Caribbean beach.

 

To answer why it isn't similar, let me point out that I'm not saying the two things are not both political speech or that either should be disallowed. But what makes them distinctly different is exactly what you said--he has the ability and the desire to make others suffer through loss of employment if he doesn't get his way. Unions do not have that power, nor do they wish to harm their own membership base.

[StrangeSox]

Watching my dad open up his own business and 35 years later end up with a pretty good lifestyle, yeah I can agree with that statement. You have to admit that most people see old rich white guy and assume he was just handed everything, that he didn't spend the majority of his career in the lower or middle class before finally hitting it big.

 

for some reason the whole image didn't show:

 

http://www.greatcaricatures.com/articles_g...4_yourself.html

[Jenksismyhero]

I covered this already:

 

 

Poor baby, if taxes are raised to the 90's levels and he has to provide health insurance (to his lazy, unproductive workers??), his motivation to work will be destroyed and you'll all be fired. Sure sounds like he's done some serious cost evaluations and not at all like he's pouting like a 2 year old who can't eat all the cookies.

 

 

Despite some attempts to gloss over his real motivation earlier in the letter, his concluding paragraph gives the game away. This isn't about some marginal rate increases that his accounting staff has looked at and has found that, gosh, we just won't be profitable! It's about being a Randian Ubermensch who will decide to "Go Galt" (lol no he won't really) rather than support the looters and the parasites because if he's forced to provide health insurance for his employees, he won't be able to literally buy anything he wants. Let's not pretend this is some small business struggling just to make ends meet here. This is a business that made its owner a billionaire. It has been plenty profitable for decades, decades when taxes were significantly higher. But if he can't build himself his Versailles because he has to pay for some dumb employees' health care, well, what's the point? Let them sip mojitos on a Caribbean beach.

 

To answer why it isn't similar, let me point out that I'm not saying the two things are not both political speech or that either should be disallowed. But what makes them distinctly different is exactly what you said--he has the ability and the desire to make others suffer through loss of employment if he doesn't get his way. Unions do not have that power, nor do they wish to harm their own membership base.

 

This just comes down to your socialist arguments which we've had before, so i'll go jump in my bucket full of crabs.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

You asked what's different between his ostensible reasons (costs) and what unions say. It's not "socialist" to point out that, when you read the letter in full, it's clearly not some dispassionate statement of accounting facts, some sort of cost analysis that really does show that some new regulation or tax will mean that he has to cut wages or payroll or both. He concludes by clearly stating that his position, his reaction of shutting down the company would be an ideological one. If that doesn't show his true motivation, even on the cost basis, if you tax his profits more, that doesn't lead to cutting payroll. If that money stays in the company as an employee expense, it won't be subjected to higher taxes. Obama could raise his capital gains, corporate and personal marginal rates to 100% and it won't cost him a dime more to keep his employees' salaries at the same level. It's dishonest, but it's only meant as window dressing for his real complaint. That is in his final paragraph.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Watching my dad open up his own business and 35 years later end up with a pretty good lifestyle, yeah I can agree with that statement. You have to admit that most people see old rich white guy and assume he was just handed everything, that he didn't spend the majority of his career in the lower or middle class before finally hitting it big.

 

Can I just point out how silly it is to claim that once employees punch the clock they don't even think about work anymore?

[Jake]

A reminder to google image search the words "completely wrong"

[StrangeSox]

I weep for the hardships imposed on Mr. Siegel by the Obummer regime:

 

It's the Spruce Goose of homes -- American in its super-sized scope and confusion of styles. And the American Versailles differs from its historic namesake in a few key ways: It's still under construction, it's located in Florida, and it includes amenities like a bowling alley.

 

The American Versailles, if completed, will be, at 90,000 square feet, bigger than a 747 airplane hangar and will hold the distinction of being the third-largest house in the United States. Other features include nine kitchens, 30 bathrooms and two movie theaters. The home's mahogany doors and windows alone cost $4 million.

 

How can he possibly afford even this meager shelter if the top marginal rate is increased to 39.6%???

[MexSoxFan#1]

On a lighter note...DAT AZZ!!!

[Jenksismyhero]

You asked what's different between his ostensible reasons (costs) and what unions say. It's not "socialist" to point out that, when you read the letter in full, it's clearly not some dispassionate statement of accounting facts, some sort of cost analysis that really does show that some new regulation or tax will mean that he has to cut wages or payroll or both. He concludes by clearly stating that his position, his reaction of shutting down the company would be an ideological one. If that doesn't show his true motivation, even on the cost basis, if you tax his profits more, that doesn't lead to cutting payroll. If that money stays in the company as an employee expense, it won't be subjected to higher taxes. Obama could raise his capital gains, corporate and personal marginal rates to 100% and it won't cost him a dime more to keep his employees' salaries at the same level. It's dishonest, but it's only meant as window dressing for his real complaint. That is in his final paragraph.

 

I didn't get that from his email. I got from his email "i'm tired of this country taxing me and my business (and every other successful person/business) to death just because I have money. So, if that continues for another 4 years, i'm done." To bring the scales down a bit, if the City of Chicago implemented a driver tax for people that drive into the city to work, guess what, i'm out too. I'll find another job in the suburbs. I could easily afford to pay it, but i'll take a stand and say no, i'm tired of being taxed to death because you can't get your budget in order. You realize at some point that sort of stuff is going to have to stop? We can't tax our way out of this mess? There needs to be a fundamental change, and if he thinks telling his employees he'll just be done if it continues, well, more power to him.

 

It's socialist to point the finger at him and demand that he spend his earnings in a certain way, to make his employees more equal to him, simply because of the amount of money he's made over his lifetime. You act as though his business is 100% guaranteed to be successful for all eternity, that he will be set for life no matter what. Well, in this guys case we know that's not true. He was basically bankruptcy at one point and had to rebuild his little empire. I know you and Obama think it's his personal responsibility to give back his earnings to society, but not all people agree with that philosophy.

[Jenksismyhero]

Can I just point out how silly it is to claim that once employees punch the clock they don't even think about work anymore?

 

I don't think it's silly. I don't think it's 100% true, but are you really telling me the cashier at your local McDonald's or Kohl's or something thinks about work after they leave (and not, oh god I have to go back to the s*** hole tomorrow?) They're not concerned with "do we have enough money to cover payroll," "man we gotta sign a new client or i'm going to have to fire someone I really like." That's the point he was trying to make. It's his business and 100% of the responsibility to those employees is on him and the decisions he makes. That's not a concern of 99% of employees in the workforce.

[Jenksismyhero]

I weep for the hardships imposed on Mr. Siegel by the Obummer regime:

 

 

 

How can he possibly afford even this meager shelter if the top marginal rate is increased to 39.6%???

 

He's obviously the extreme. So what's your cut off? What is "so rich you're required to pay 90% back to society?" Conversely, what's your threshold? At what point are you not entitled? 50k/year? 100k/year? I'd love to know.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think it's silly. I don't think it's 100% true, but are you really telling me the cashier at your local McDonald's or Kohl's or something thinks about work after they leave (and not, oh god I have to go back to the s*** hole tomorrow?) They're not concerned with "do we have enough money to cover payroll," "man we gotta sign a new client or i'm going to have to fire someone I really like." That's the point he was trying to make. It's his business and 100% of the responsibility to those employees is on him and the decisions he makes. That's not a concern of 99% of employees in the workforce.

 

Most white-collar jobs these days expect employees to be available after standard work hours. He isn't some lone, noble man, working hard and diligently while the rest loaf about after their 8 hours. His point is a bulls*** framing of himself as a thankless man working harder than his mere employees. This is an email to company employees, which implies white-collar workers e.g. accounting department (an entire department to manage taxes!!!! argh!!!!), human resources, sales, etc. Not exactly your McDonalds cashier-type jobs. You're a lawyer, I assume you work more than 8-5 and think about work or answer emails or prepare briefs even if you're not in the office. Would you appreciate a similarly worded email from a partner in your firm telling you how hard he works while you loaf about as soon as the clock hits 5? Would you actually believe his bulls*** claims that he never has any time off, never enjoys weekends or holidays, no ski trips, no vacations, no time at the bar, no time on the golf course?

 

Further, I think your last two sentences hit on a fundamental misrepresentation of the stakeholders of the company and the "burden" that the CEO bears. 100% of his employees are concerned with the decisions he makes. They are directly impacted by them and more likely in a more significant manner. If the business goes bust, they lose their jobs. If sales quotas aren't met, raises are withheld or employees are let go. If he makes bad investments and squanders the company's funds (while still having millions of his own personal dollars!), they're all f***ed. when a company goes belly-up, many can lose their pensions or retirement plans/investments. Whole communities and towns can fracture and fall apart if the company was the main employer in the area. You can't ignore the very real stake that many people outside of owners/shareholders have in a company.

Edited October 10, 2012 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

He's obviously the extreme. So what's your cut off? What is "so rich you're required to pay 90% back to society?" Conversely, what's your threshold? At what point are you not entitled? 50k/year? 100k/year? I'd love to know.

 

Piketty-Saez have some good recommendations. Somewhere around 70% on the top rate is the most effective.

[StrangeSox]

In more Illinois-specific news, what the f*** is wrong with Joe Walsh's brain?

 

http://wonkette.com/486362/americas-favori...cking-out-dress

 

Edited October 10, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Most white-collar jobs these days expect employees to be available after standard work hours. He isn't some lone, noble man, working hard and diligently while the rest loaf about after their 8 hours. His point is a bulls*** framing of himself as a thankless man working harder than his mere employees. This is an email to company employees, which implies white-collar workers e.g. accounting department (an entire department to manage taxes!!!! argh!!!!), human resources, sales, etc. Not exactly your McDonalds cashier-type jobs. You're a lawyer, I assume you work more than 8-5 and think about work or answer emails or prepare briefs even if you're not in the office. Would you appreciate a similarly worded email from a partner in your firm telling you how hard he works while you loaf about as soon as the clock hits 5? Would you actually believe his bulls*** claims that he never has any time off, never enjoys weekends or holidays, no ski trips, no vacations, no time at the bar, no time on the golf course?

 

Further, I think your last two sentences hit on a fundamental misrepresentation of the stakeholders of the company and the "burden" that the CEO bears. 100% of his employees are concerned with the decisions he makes. They are directly impacted by them and more likely in a more significant manner. If the business goes bust, they lose their jobs. If sales quotas aren't met, raises are withheld or employees are let go. If he makes bad investments and squanders the company's funds (while still having millions of his own personal dollars!), they're all f***ed. when a company goes belly-up, many can lose their pensions or retirement plans/investments. Whole communities and towns can fracture and fall apart if the company was the main employer in the area. You can't ignore the very real stake that many people outside of owners/shareholders have in a company.

 

I'd know he was talking about the other stiffs in my office. Certainly not ME (*erases web browsing history*).

 

Still though, you're taking his point to an extreme that he clearly isn't expressing. He's sending this to his employees. Why not just call them stiffs if he was referring to them? Because he wasn't. He's referring to the people that suck from the government teet (the "unproductive"). The people that he's now EXPECTED to pay for in the form of higher taxes and fees. Not sure how you're missing that. He spends an entire paragraph talking about the shift in the role of government and entitlements.

 

And no, worrying about the direction of your company or your future with the company =/= worrying about/working to direct the company (Again, the point he was making). Two entirely different sets of burdens and responsibilities there.

[StrangeSox]

Another in a long line of "choice-for-me-but-not-for-thee," Scott DesJarlais, Pro-Life Republican Congressman And Doctor, Pressured Mistress Patient To Get Abortion

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Piketty-Saez have some good recommendations. Somewhere around 70% on the top rate is the most effective.

 

That's not my question. You seem to think you have (or should have) control over someone's income. So at what income level should you be required to pay 70% to support those below you? And what's the lower threshold for the amount of income you need to NOT make so that you can continue to receive that support?

 

Edit: to put it another way: what's "rich enough" for you?

Edited October 10, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

I'd know he was talking about the other stiffs in my office. Certainly not ME (*erases web browsing history*).

 

Still though, you're taking his point to an extreme that he clearly isn't expressing. He's sending this to his employees. Why not just call them stiffs if he was referring to them? Because he wasn't. He's referring to the people that suck from the government teet (the "unproductive"). The people that he's now EXPECTED to pay for in the form of higher taxes and fees. Not sure how you're missing that. He spends an entire paragraph talking about the shift in the role of government and entitlements.

 

Just think about this – most of you arrive at work in the morning and leave that afternoon and the rest of your time is yours to do as you please. But not me- there is no “off” button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have that freedom. I eat, live, and breathe this company every minute of the day, every day of the week. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. I know many of you work hard and do a great job, but I’m the one who has to sign every check, pay every expense, and make sure that this company continues to succeed. Unfortunately, what most people see is the nice house and the lavish lifestyle. What the press certainly does not want you to see, is the true story of the hard work and sacrifices I’ve made.

 

He is explicitly and repeatedly referring to his own employees.

 

And no, worrying about the direction of your company or your future with the company =/= worrying about/working to direct the company (Again, the point he was making). Two entirely different sets of burdens and responsibilities there.

 

Yes, his role as CEO entails different responsibilities and tasks than the director of HR or the junior accountant. But he's not shouldering some terrible burden because of this difference in responsibilities. 99% of the workforce isn't concerned with state tax filing paperwork that the accountants are., or the new router IT is installing for a new bank of IT phones, etc. etc. He's trying to paint himself as a martyr.

[Jenksismyhero]

He is explicitly and repeatedly referring to his own employees.

 

 

 

Yes, his role as CEO entails different responsibilities and tasks than the director of HR or the junior accountant. But he's not shouldering some terrible burden because of this difference in responsibilities. 99% of the workforce isn't concerned with state tax filing paperwork that the accountants are., or the new router IT is installing for a new bank of IT phones, etc. etc. He's trying to paint himself as a martyr.

 

And he specifically says I know a lot of you aren't stiffs! So which is it?

 

Dude, do you know anyone that's tried to start a business? The amount of risk and work involved for the majority of the time you're working? I don't think you appreciate at all the sacrifices involved there. It's A LOT different than working MOST 9-5 jobs. Do you think Jesse Eisenberg...er...the guy who started Facebook... has a cushy, easy work day trying to make sure he doesn't lose billions for his investors? That he doesn't totally crap out and make his millionaire employees suddenly poor? Come on. Think about athletes even. It's really easy to say "oh you play a game for a living" but the amount of crap involved in their day is not comparable to your average blue or white collar employee. Mo' money, mo' problems!

Edited October 10, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

That's not my question. You seem to think you have (or should have) control over someone's income. So at what income level should you be required to pay 70% to support those below you? And what's the lower threshold for the amount of income you need to NOT make so that you can continue to receive that support?

 

Edit: to put it another way: what's "rich enough" for you?

I'm not sure what relevance this has to any of yours or ss2k5's earlier claims (that you both seem to have abandoned?), but P-S lays it out and I see no reason to dispute their findings. 70% or so for the current top tax bracket, whatever that cutoff happens to be. I don't have a specific number for the lower end, but I support a basic income.

 

We're at historically low tax rates and historically high concentrations of wealth and income, yet it still isn't enough. Even one penny more in taxation would be too much, would be "taxing him to death." From P-S:

The graph shows clearly that income growth for the bottom 99% was highest in the 1933 to 1973 period when top income tax rates were high and the growth of top 1% was modest. Conversely, the growth of bottom 99% incomes has slowed down since the 1970s when top tax rates came down and top 1% incomes grew very fast.

[GoSox05]

Poor Mark Zuckerberg, he probably has the hardest life ever. He probably wishes he made 17.00 bucks an hour. That way when he went home he wouldn't have to worry about all those billions.

 

We should start a charity for him.