Here in the UK the only redeeming feature about radio are the 'government' stations (the BBC). Everything else is formulaic, commercial shite with sub-zero creativity. If it wasn't for the BBC my radio would be on the street, free for the nearest taker.
And as I don't own a TV I do not have to pay TV license, making BBC free for me. 'Certainly slanted' is a label I could give to many other stations before I glued it to the BBC.
Second, you're habit of ignoring direct questions, thus having to explain a thought of your own, not one taken from another's quote, is very telling. Parrot-like if you will.
Exactly! Like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.
Taxes should be collected only to fund legitimate government programs, not as a way redistribute wealth (see BHO), to punish the successful, (see the entire Socialist/Democratic platform since the JFK cuts), reward the politically favored (see various subsidies such as corporate welfare). It should evenly collect taxes in a manner that makes every citizen contribute equally, as a percentage of their contribution to society. Flat tax, anyone?
BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.
Last edited by Sunray Minor : 17th October 2008 at 11:26.
Taxes should be collected only to fund legitimate government programs, not as a way redistribute wealth (see BHO), to punish the successful, (see the entire Socialist/Democratic platform since the JFK cuts), reward the politically favored (see various subsidies such as corporate welfare). It should evenly collect taxes in a manner that makes every citizen contribute equally, as a percentage of their contribution to society. Flat tax, anyone?
GF,
Please tell me, where did Mr. Blankfein's wealth come from ? Is he "politically favored" ? What has been his "contribution to society" ?
Oct. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s Lloyd Blankfein, whose $70.3 million paycheck made him Wall Street's most highly compensated chief executive officer last year, could still earn tens of millions annually under the bank-rescue plan run by his former boss, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
Executive-pay packages will be restricted for the nine banks receiving a $125 billion infusion of U.S. funds to restart lending, said Paulson, who earned $37.8 million in 2005, his last full year as Goldman's CEO. The investment is part of a $700 billion bailout plan approved by Congress this month.
You can repeat the questions for Mr. Paulson should you care to do so.
As a man concerned with social progress, income levels and generally wishing for more government direction in the economy, you might like to read this on occupational licensing and its effects on income, which are greater than unionization.
Then again, the mantra of the Left is, "don't confuse me with the facts, I've made up my mind". Or is that just your mantra.
Not sure what you're on about, but I guess I'm all for the richness and complex variety that makes up this great land. Elmer Gantry, witchcraft and all.
I'm not for some government bureaucrat sitting in a high falutin' office deciding that because there was 27 minutes of this particular flavor over here, then we need to offset that with 13.5 minutes there and another 13.5 over here....ok, now we're even. Is it five o'clock yet? Let me see, another three minutes and I can go home. Where was I? Oh yes, I heard that guy say something bad on that channel, need to offset that there.... (can't wait for my government pension to kick in....)
His "wealth", more accurately his compensation that Goldman, Sachs paid him, came from the clients of Goldman, Sachs who invested with the firm. Goldman, Sachs, the most successful and profitable Wall Street investment banker, evidently believes he is worth it. (Read Blankfein's biography and you might actually like him-came out of NYC's housing projects, pure hard work and talent led him to the top of GS.) Just like my employer pays me what they believe my services are worth to its business. As long as my employment opportunities remain as they are, I continue to work there. I have changed employers 5 times as better combinations of terms and conditions became available. I am the most loyal employee money can buy.
Is GS "politically favored"? Not any more or less than any large successful and influential bank. After all, Bob Rubin ran GS and he was Clinton's Secretary of Treasury. Do you think his income was not warranted? Is it any of our business what these executives are paid? Obviously, if the they take the "gold" from Uncle Sam, them's that have the gold, make the rules. Warren Buffet thinks GS is worth $5 billion, so a pretty good endorsement for me.
His contribution to society is running a bank, just as your bank's president's contribution is. Or your contribution was safely separating airplanes or mine is flying them. An employer cannot long pay employees more than their production is worth. The average CEO now lasts about 3 years before being shown the door.
This from Greg Mankiw's blog about taxes, income and the future:
Quote:
"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked [Senator Obama], complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."
"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
This exchange with "Joe the plumber" was discussed in last night's presidential debate.
My sense is that most liberals will instinctively agree with Senator Obama here. The last sentence, which I put in bold, is as good a summary of the Rawlsian notion of distributive justice as you are likely to find from a major political candidate.
Senator McCain took exception to Obama's statement, but he did not fully explained why. My guess is that McCain would agree with this passage from Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia:
The term "distributive justice" is not a neutral one. Hearing the term "distribution," most people presume that some thing or mechanism uses some principle or criterion to give out a supply of things. Into this process of distributing shares some error may have crept. So it is an open question, at least, whether redistribution should take place; whether we should do again what has already been done once, though poorly.
However, we are not in the position of children who have been given portions of pie by someone who now makes last minute adjustments to rectify careless cutting. There is no central distribution, no person or group entitled to control all the resources, jointly deciding how they are to be doled out. What each person gets, he gets from others who give to him in exchange for something, or as a gift. In a free society, diverse persons control different resources, and new holdings arise out of the voluntary exchanges and actions of persons. There is no more a distributing or distribution of shares than there is a distributing of mates in a society in which persons choose whom they shall marry. The total result is the product of many individual decisions which the different individuals involved are entitled to make.
The current election is in part a referendum on Rawls versus Nozick.
It is a free country. People EARN what they are paid, it isn't a gift from some central distribution office that makes some people lucky and others unlucky. The politics of envy is a Democrat staple, they just want to tell people, "you are a victim and that rich guy over there is to blame for your situation." And nothing is further from the truth! Their situation is the result of their decisions. In the case of "Joe the plumber", he wants to work hard, be successful and not be penalized for it.
Yes, in America, "the market" decides.
GF
Last edited by galaxy flyer : 17th October 2008 at 05:01.
So "the market" should decide ? I'm just trying to figure out where we draw the line.
See GTF, here's the problem with that question. If I say yes, I think the market is generally a better judge of what consumers want to listen to, then you'll post a hundred and fifty links to Paul Krugman columns where he moans about market interference in the government's financial business.
I just don't have the bandwidth for any more Krugman...nothing personal, really.
BTW, did you catch the one about the Swedish chairman of the Nobel Literature committee saying that American authors won't ever win the Nobel because they are too insular and provincial? Doesn't that get the dander of a good Southern boy like you up? Won't you come to the defense of fellow southerners like Tom Wolfe, Ernest Gaines, and Tom Robbins?
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1
* The sixth would pay $3
* The seventh would pay $7
* The eighth would pay $12
* The ninth would pay $18
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers', he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."
Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so:
* The first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers, how could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
* The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)!
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free.
Once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20', declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right', exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money among all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Kevin Garnett is the NBA's highest paid player at $24.5 million p.a. What is his contribution? Is playing a game for 6 months worth $24.5 million to society? Who decides what his pay is? Answer those questions and you can answer the question regarding Lloyd Blankfein or Oprah Winfrey. Speaking of which, can you imagine what she gets? Is she worth it? Not to me, but I don't pay her.
GF
Earl, that's been done before, but the point of "tax havens" is a good one. Having visited a number of tax havens, it is amazing how rich a location can get by providing a tax haven. Let's see, Switzerland, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Isle of Man, Channel Islands, the Canaries.
Point is for Pilots that if welfare man gets elected will the expats send and spend their money here in the USA as now?
Obama wants to spread the wealth around and give it to his lazy work challenged supporters.
As his wife said for the first time I am proud of America!!!
What she really meant was that we will all get free money soon and not have to work for it and for this I am now proud of America!
This idiot is bad news for the USA!!
But typical for these lazy types.
They now have someone that will give them more free handouts!!
Every day we hear more of his true intentions.
TC,
Get real, Fannie May and Freddie Mac and their financial slights of hand are what caused this melt down as much as anything. Have you noted, and it has been pointed out on this thread many times, the republicans wanted the lending criteria changed to a more realistic chance of the banks getting their money back many times, and every time the Democrats blocked the moves.
I could say the Dems could not organise a piss up in a brewery, but the politicians are not there to organise either a fcuk in a knock shop, or a piss up in a brewery, thats to difficult for any of them, unless of course the tax payer is footing the bill.
"They are both rich and want to keep their money(??)."
They do this by backing a man who tells the voters he is going to tax the wealthy to hell and back???
Prospector, I only have 200yds left on the Penn (nice American reel manufactured in the USA too). Can you start swimming back to the boat please, I don't want to put my Heineken down and have to start the engine.
You don't even have to bait the hook to get a rightie nutter nowadays.
Quote:
Everytime one of the Trillion Trio (Bush, Bernanke or Paulson) open their mouths on TV you can wipe a Trillion off global markets.
And thats a fact Jack!
Why do you think Bozo (Bush) has been bunkered down and has virtually dissappeared? Leadership in a crisis? This is "My Pet Goat" revisited.
I actually was unimpressed by BO yesterday. But, and a big BUT no-one can put Palin near the Oval office. If McDuck had any brains he'd ditch the bitch and run with Lieberman, he'd shoe it in and rightly so.
Last edited by Track Coastal : 17th October 2008 at 08:42.
Oh, sorry, I forgot. We already have a "cockamamey government scheme" in place. I wonder, which is more toxic ?
Linear Mode
