JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Musician Message Forum Rally To Support Gibson Guitars

Bill I agree with you yet again this is becoming a habit......we also have these problems or should I say used to have these problems till politicians brought out policies all but banning unions. Now companies can ride roughshod over their workers and industrial action is all but made illegal.
That is not the answer...the answer lies with sensible people doing sensible things to unite and fight for their rights, better pay and conditions. I know a lot of union guys and the vast majority are reasonable men who would never dream of doing the ridiculous things you have witnessed. In fact most of the union reps I know have great relations with their employers and show mutual respect and understanding so that most disputes are settled promptly and amicably. Of copurse respect is a two way street and sometimes it is the employers who will not listen to reason. Just because SOME unions adopt bad practice and are irresponsible does not make the principle of unions wrong. Unions should be accountable to their members and to the public.

Everyone wants to live in a COMMUNITY/ Society and have the benifits of the community's/ society's laws to protect their right to do what ever they damn well please to amass wealth...

Unfortunatly there are those who object to having pay for it... They use catch cries like left winger liberal commie to describe those who know to maintain the fabric of society and community the haves need to support the have nots. It is the price of society...

To have a society COSTS, there is no middle ground. To have a successful growing society, everyone needs to be relativly equal in their right to safe shelter, sustaining food and drink, education and distration, health care and to fair and just treatment. Without that society will eventually break down, people stop respecting the law. Minority groups get blamed for the ills of an unsupported society.... Injustice creeps in ...

Does the story sound familier?

Yes it is a totally unfair system for those who work hard to make something, but it is the price of law and order, it is the price of civilisation.

Instead of bitching about what is wrong and who is at fault how about comming up with a soulution to help society work as it needs to, that doesn't involve the the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer.

Jim has it right... if the prossecutors are right Gibson need to comply with the law no matter how unfair it seems, if Gibson is right then the prossecutors and their masters need to be held accountable...

Cheers

Noel

You have hit the nail on the head, Noel.

People argue about what is fair or "right" and lose sight of what is practical or sustainable.

I'd be willing to wager that if society came crashing down, the wealthy would have to spend MUCH more than they are spending now to insulate themselves from the hordes.

Scott

Those who argue that the rich should not pay "their share" because they provide jobs have it wrong, not only because society needs to function, but because the rich owe a debt to the society they have been allowed to "grow up" and operate in.

They built factories using roads, bridges, cities, developed land, infrastructure...and all that was paid for by the taxes of the people before them...and continue to benefit from a government that operates on annual budgets based on taxes. Some would argue, and the argument has merit, that the rich and large corporations actually influence government to pass laws for their sole benefit because they hire lobbyists, make large campaign contributions etc.

They also had an idea that was based on the work and research of others, with lots of that developed in public institutions. For example, there are huge spinoffs because of the American space program. You are using the internet today because it developed from a US Department of Defence project, then a publicly funded University research project. Very little is original thinking.

Now no one would argue that they should not be able to keep their fair share, but to argue that they should only pay a minimal amount because they create jobs is misleading and plain wrong.

Warren Buffet himself says taxes for the rich should go up. He says it is unfair that he pays less tax on his investment income that his secretary does. Buffett noted that he was taxed at 17.4 percent of his $46 million of taxable income last year, while his staff of 20 pays from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

Here's a good article to read
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/blog/daily-money/tax-rates-of-the-super-rich-not-as-high-as-those-making-much-less/2658/?tag=content;col1


It is also about the optics.

Winston Churchill noted that people can collectively carry huge burdens, as long as they see everyone is carrying their fair share.

But that is not happening. I noted before that America's middle class has been gutted and it is true...more riches have been shifted to the wealthy few in the last decade or so...the poor are far more poor now, and the middle class has slid backwards, with many losing their jobs and houses.

Corporate CEOs earn on average just over 300 times what the rank and file earns, (2006 numbers) and that number was 30 times a few decades back.

Check this study out,
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
It details wealth and income distributuion in the US

Now I don't have an answer, that is the job of the politicians, the people who elect them, and the rule of law. But I can see that if politicians only focus on their own political agendas, and corporate America keeps going on this path, then protests will keep spreading. Moreover, if they do not yield change, then it could very well end up, as Scott says, in anarchy. History has proven that revolution starts because those revolting do not see themselves as being treated equally, and in fact, subject to the chosen few, who do all they can to hang on to their power.

Now I don't think the USA is anywhere near that point yet, and it is still, despite its issues, a great place to live, BUT its problems, including poverty and the inequitable distribution of income and wealth, MUST be dealt with.

I can't believe some of the stuff I am reading here.
IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HAVES TO SUPPORT THE HAVE NOTS. EVER.

I just watch a very interesting show called I Cave Man. It was a reality show where a group of people were put into the countryside with literally nothing. They had minimal clothing and no tools. No food, they had to survive.
They were equally divided male and female.

By the middle of the show it became apparent who was going to be the haves and have nots. The haves were positive, kept working, kept trying to find food, they never gave up.
The gonna be have nots whined, laid around and did nothing, waited for the gonna be haves to do the work.
At one point they managed to make fire by the old rubbing two sticks together method. The few that kept trying to find food went out hunting. While they were gone the Whiners laid around and complained. They let the fire go out. It had taken them hours to get that fire going and the lazy buttheads let it go out.
When the hunters got back and saw the fire was out they were really angry. One of them even said He saw no reason why he should share his food with the lazy ones who let the fire go out.
He was RIGHT.
In the end the haves eventually killed an Elk with primitive weapons. They did share the food but I'm sure they were not happy about it.
As much as I have to admit it I probably would have done the same thing, on the show. I would know the experiment would soon be over. But in real life, under real circumstances, I'm not so sure.
I still say it. You don't work, you don't eat.

People are whining about Corporate America making too much money.
Jeez. What about athletes who make hundreds of Millions playing a stupid game. Why not protest at a basketball game.
They whine about loss of manufacturing jobs. Well where the hell do they think those jobs went?
American factory workers make $21.00 an hour. Chinese factory workers make $00.84 an hour.
Where should they be protesting?

As far as Gibson goes the law that was used is flawed. It has to do with Poaching endangered species. Not to protect Indian factory workers.

It is disgusting to me that too many people out there say the "Rich" aren't paying their fair share. About 95 percent of the posts I read on other boards say tax the hell out of somebody else but not me. Nobody bothers to check the facts about what taxes peope pay.

A few decades ago the powers that be decided to put a huge luxary tax on boats. It seems boats were the thing at that time. So the rich people who bought a boat would also pay a huge luxery tax. Well boat sales went thru the floor. Boat sales tanked an a lot of workers, regular people such as you and me lost their jobs. A real good plan.

But does anybody learn anything? Most likely not. That is why many a business is located in China now.

And now all those down and out by their own design, want the people that have all that money off shore, want the businesses to bring it back. But with Obama's plan to screw the so called rich, all that money is going to remain off shore.

I don't make the News, I just report it.

I see on Fox News this morning, 5 October, 2011, Harry Reid is considering putting a Sur Tax on Millionares. Back to the Boat Plan Harry?

So here are the facts Ray...also shown on my posting above

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/blog/daily-money/tax-rates-of-the-super-rich-not-as-high-as-those-making-much-less/2658/?tag=content;col1

Not that you do not make a valuable point. A sales tax WILL ALWAYS result in reduced sales of optional\discretionery\luxury items..in fact any item where demand is, in economic terms, elastic.

But the decision to source off shore was made by corporations chasing profits via reduced costs, not by some government policy...and the unions are not to blame for this...these companies made profits before, they just acted rationally and looked for ways to make more, or looked for ways to reduce prices to consumers, like Walmart does.

BUT NOTHING MATTERS UNTIL THE SHIP BEGINS TO LEAK. That is when people look for others to blame. And the boat is leaking now.



And Bill, you are right in that it is not the responsibility of the haves to support the have nots, but your argument only makes total\undisputable sense in a world where everyone is equally endowed with talent and opportunity and CHOOSES their lot in life.

We are all born, but only some have a full aresenal. Far too many people have limited physical and mental capabilities and a limited "birthright" ...all factors that limit their choices.

I saw Terry Bradshaw interviewed many years ago, and he was asked what made him a great quarterback. He asked the interviewer "have you seen the size of my hands"? Look at him and John Elway on Sundays and you'll see what he meant.

Athletes are born that way, with physical endowments that make them "naturals", and are then chosen by teams that develop their talent. The guys chosen in the middle or last have no chance...and shouldn't get the chance either.

By the same argument, people are "elevated" because of their talent and connections and birthright. It's simply how society works. Many Hollywood actors are born into the industry, for example, and because of it (and of course their talent and looks) are on the inside track.

Now I'm not arguing that "these folks" owe the rest of the world a living just because they "made it"...just that your argument and reality show example are not reflective of the real world.

Taxation is not based on owing others a living. It is about funding all kinds of government activities, where one responsibility of a civil society is to look after those less advantaged. And yes, there are those who take advantage, and those people should be dealt with, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, just get rid of the bad stuff in it.

And you cannot argue that just because you don't like certain government programs that your taxes should be cut. Everyone gains advantages from "the system" but not everyone gains everything. I don't benefit from lots of government programs, but that should not mean that I should not pay taxes that support them.

Maybe not, Bill - if they are willing to let the whole thing fall apart.

But if they feel that it is in their best interest to maintain a system that allowed them to prosper, they better develop some.

Scott

EDIT: John's post explains this better than I can.

John,
I have no problem with Welfare, helping the diavantaged. God knows I've seen it first hand. My daughter, lost her husband going on 4 years in Feburary. They had bought a house a few years back. Now she who wasn't working and her husband handled all the finances, was gone. So, she had to get out and find a job. She did get some help from SSI but some of it has now run out. She was way behind on the house payments and didn't have the money to catch up. So we borrowed the money to bring it up to date. We have our house and cars paid off but we had to borrow money on one of our cars.

My number 2 Grandson. We have bought a new set of tires for the car he and his wife have. He does work 3 days a week at Wal-Mart as basically a Janitor. Well, the Air Conditionar failed on the car, a 1996, I think, of which has one belt running everything was grinding. So we are paying to have that fixed. So, like it or not, things aren't as peachy here in "Millionare" land as you would think. But, I haven't given up. I know, that Million is just around the corner.

John
You make good points but IMHO that reality show was right on the money. It was indicative of the less "endowed" wanting to be cared for by the more "endowed" In this case the ones willing to work for it and the ones who were willing to let someone else work for it then share it with them.
In this case all the less "endowed" had to do was keep the fire going while the more "endowed" went out and killed a one thousand pound Elk with primitive weapons.
I have seen this through my whole life. Like Ray I have also borrowed to help the "Kids" when they needed it.

No one is saying the handicapped don't need help. No one is saying they shouldn't get help. But I was watching the Wall street protestors and I didn't see a single soul in a wheel chair. Mostly I saw young college age kids whining about how unfair they were being treated by the "Rich folks"

I don't buy it.

Give a person an opportunity is the only obligation we have. Some folks make it some folks don't.
I have a relative that started investing in income properties back in the early 70's. I also invested in income properties. For some reason he was successful, I wasn't. He is worth more than a Million now while I am still trying to pay off my house. I don't expect him to share a single dime of his money.
I don't know why he made it and I didn't. But I sure don't expect him to share it with me.
I guess he was just more endowed than I. Luck of the draw.

I still don't understand why no one is willing to take on the issue of our wage difference with China? Why every one wants to blame wall street for them not having a job. What do people want? Wall street to build a factory and go broke trying to keep people working?
The latest attempt at that should send out a signal. We gave Solyndra $500 Million and they went bankrupt trying to compete with Chinese companies making the same product for one tenth what it cost them.
The really sad thing is they knew they couldn't compete but to satisfy the whiners they did it anyway.

Sorry to hear about all those issues Ray. So many people are having exactly these kinds of problems, and I'm sure many are hanging on with the help of their families who do have some savings or equity left to borrow against.

And this is exactly what I meant when I said that the US middle class is being hollowed out. Your two family members personify that awful trend.

Hope you and your family pull through.

Thanks for the response Bill...glad we're not throwing stones

As far as the wage disparity, as I understand it, it's a couple of things.

One is, what is a living wage or a good wage in a country?, which has to do with purchasing power of the local currency.

Another is the exchange rate of currencies, which in China's case does not float as other currencies do, but is artificially set by government.

Another is the degree to which a country requires imports to manufacture things they then send abroad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index
Follow the link for a neat way The Economist looks at purchasing power and the relative valuation of exchange rates.

As far as blaming Wall Street, they are in fact to blame for much of the mess the world finds itself in, along with much of the American banking system. The rest of the blame is on the Bush administration that de regulated the financial system, and on the Obama administration (Bernanke et al) who "did not get it right". In hindsight (good old MM quarterbacking), they should never have allowed Lehman Brothers to fail because that was the final straw.

Wall Street packaged bad mortgage loans that banks passed on to them (remember when everyone could get an easy low upfront cost mortgage...even those with bad credit ratings??)and sold them all over the world as prime securities. When the world found out these financial instruments were basically worthless, no bank wanted to lend to another which basically caused the world financial system to close down. This caused first Bear Stearns to fail (it was rescued by JP Morgan...bought them for $2 per share) and the eventual failure of Lehman Brothers, and the almost failure of AIG.

We are still dealing with the repercussions today, and mark my words, those that caused it WILL be brought to account. It's just taking time, but I understand that the American justice system is currently preparing its cases.

And some of those protesting on Wall Street today are protesting because of it. Don't you find the fact that public monies used to bail out Wall Street were used to pay Wall Street executives millions and millions of dollars in bonusses absolutely repulsive??

Blame Bush
He did it. I'm so tired of hearing that one.
How about


or this



as far as bush goes the only thing he did was try to change the way Fannie and Freddie operated, in 2004, he was blocked by the democrats. Mainly by Dodd, Obama, and Kerry. Who were by coincidence the top three recipients of funds from Fannie and Freddie.

Like I said. The protestors are protesting the wrong people. And if heads are going to roll over the banking collapse I suggest they start with Carter and Clinton then move on to Obama.

As far as Wall Street execs getting money from our Bailout money goes I think if it was in their contract then it's their money. Heck we pay Senators and Congressmen for doing a crappy job why should Wall street be any different. Athletes get paid, win or lose. I think they are all over paid.
As far as the Bailouts go? They should never have gotten a dime.

John,
I would slightly disagree as to who is to blame for the economic mess we are in. The Talking Heads like to throw all the Blame on Wall Street, The Banks, and to some extent, the Brokers. Here we are talking about the Housing Mess and the resulting failures.

Now, back in 2004, my wife and I had a new house built. Now Paid off. No one from Wall Street, a bank, or Broker approached us and said, you need to buy a new house. Didn't happen. It was us that decided to have the house built. And that is how anyone that bought a house did it. I have a sister-in-law, my wife's sister that works in a bank and processed loans. At that time people didn't have to do anything to get a loan. The Banks were pressured by the Government to give the loans.

Now what bank do you think would give a loan if the person didn't qualify? Banks are closely regulated by the government who now relaxed those regulations so people that had no business getting a loan got a loan. And of course you see/saw the results.

It wasn't Wall Street, the Banks, or the Brokers that caused the problem. It was the people who bought houses they couldn't afford that caused the problem. But it is the Tax Payers that are left holding the bag. Now I understand the Regulations are tighter than a drum.

There's plenty of blame to go around, alright. Yes, the buyers are to blame - as are the banks and the mortgage bundlers.

The difference is this: the buyers have paid or are paying for their mistakes. Either they've lost their homes, seen their equity take a disastrous hit, or have declared bankruptcy and lost any hope of getting credit for the forseeable future.

Meanwhile the bankers and the bundlers come out smelling like a rose.

I think that's what folks are upset about.

Scott

Before I get too "far afield" let me step back a second and apologize to Lee Arten for this hijacking of his thread. One thing has led to another, and another... and another... LOL!
Sorry Lee!

Noel... I'm so pleased to see you posting again here at JPF.
You mentioned that having a society requires funding in the form of taxation (there are other ways) but generally, I agree with you. Our problem here in the "states" is the interpretation of what constitutes fair taxation.

We are held hostage between two extremes and our nation has strayed far afield from what the founding fathers had in mind. Now we are a "nanny state." Our unelected judges have begun to legislate from the bench. The majority rule idea behind any democracy is a joke here.

I understand the need for checks and balances but if the will of the majority is ridden roughshod... the pastrami will begin hitting the mixmaster in short order. Even to the extent of revolution. Let us hope it is a peaceful one.

Then there is the idea that rich people should pay a larger percentage of taxes than anyone else. To my way of thinking, this is straight out of Karl Marx. I am not rich and I hate paying taxes because the proceeds will be squandered by a government hell-bent to drive a once great nation into abject poverty. Like Ray, I favor charity but not for deadbeats.

We should all pay the same percentage... regardless of income.
(Please refer to my earlier post if you are just now joining this topic.)

Our economic problems began to surface when Government Owned Lending Institutions (Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) began to push lending to those poor unfortunates who could not qualify for a loan from any bank or agency. True, our government (again) forced banks and Credit Unions to begin playing this fools errand. Wall Street was sucked into the scheme at congressional insistence... and the collapse which ensued is history. Why, pray tell, should the Government be in the lending business in the first place?

Vote for me and I will padlock the doors of these two blood sucking behemoths, plus the IRS and several other useless government agencies. Additionally, I will move to change our constitution where judges, once they are appointed... will have term limits of no more than six years and will be forced to be elected (or not) by eligible voters for a second and final term. Next, I will privatize the US Postal Service. Our income tax system will be reduced to a simple percentage formula of 10% and the loopholes will be eliminated for everyone.

These are just a few of the things we need to get us back on track... where the American Dream is achieveable once again.

Both the left and right know how to squander money.
Neither have much to do with what left and right was a few short decades ago. Liberals were supposed to be for the common person/factory worker and the conservatives were supposed to be economic and social libritarians. After much of America's industry had been shipped overseas with the massive tax shelters and the left's social engineering for their special interests and private doner's from entertainers to others, what was once a great checks and balances system is gone with the wind.
Now companies that have ties to both major political parties want a bill so they will be exempted from business taxes and so their overseas tax shelters will be protected. That ought to be kept the furthermost in mind when it is talked about which entitlement program should be taken away or which economic class should be taxed. If any business should have their taxes exempted it should be local businesses that are for the most part holding the economy up.

As far as Gibson, I don't understand the details. I know I don't believe in ivory being used for instruments. But aside from that, from what I hear of it companies get away with a lot and it seems to be who can buy the politician or judge that wins out. So my biggest question is why is Gibson excluded?

Our system has been built around a big conflict of interests for the longest time.
Those protesting Wall Street should put all of those that have been using the public dollar to build their own nests and political favoritism in the cross hairs of their blame too..

Bill, I take it back. It WAS during the Clinton administration. The news source I had taken it from (it was a television documentary about the events) said it stemmed from the Bush years. But when I saw your posting, I dug deeper and found you are right.

The rest of my posting I stand by.

You can blame the little guy, or the brokers, and no doubt they share some of the blame, but Wall Street KNEW IT WAS BAD PAPER but packaged and sold it anyway, which was a direct and primary cause of the financial system meltdown.

As far as "they had a contract", yes, I agree, but they were financiers who caused the problem..how can ANY bonus be justified? They brought their own companies to their knees....how can ANY bonus be justified? Remember, bonuses are there to incite and reward good performance.

Plus the optics are horrible. Hundreds of billions of public monies went into these institutions to make sure they did not fail because the financial world was a mess, then hundreds of millions went right out into the pockets of those individuals who caused it.

We have the same problem........fat cats being paid billions in bonuses for a complete failure of their duties. Now the way I read it these bonuses should have been as a percentage share of profits made from their work...so if the business fails how come they still get paid bonuses?......which actually is paid for and comes from the bailout money. Talk about being robbed and then having to pay the robbers again for the privilege.
They should have instead been sacked and possibly imprisoned as a lot of their shenanigans were illegal.
We were told that the banks would simply move to another country.... and stop investing here.... so we had to kowtow to them. ....well bye bye and good riddance should have been the government reaction. Nationalising the banks would have meant proper regulation and all future profits would stay in the country to benefit all the population not just a few individuals.

Anyways I have changed my avatar to show my feminine side...and to show that due to the current financial climate to make ends meet I have had to diversify and take on other jobs rather than just singing....the latest is a washerwoman.

Big Jim
I love the new look. You should do very well in your new job.

John
I can't argue with you on those points. I think it deplorable that these people can keep making millions from these defaults and failures.

But, IMHO, this mess was caused by progressives and Socialist views. Trying to force the financial institutions to loan money to people who could never pay the debt. They allowed a system to get started where people were refinancing their home for more than they were worth which artificially increased the value of the real estate on paper.
People were buying houses with creative financing to get the lowest payment possible to make it appear they could afford the mortgage. Creative financing, ARM's, Interest only, etc. these mortgages would come due and the people could not make the new payment.
They had the illusion that they would simply refinance at a new lower rate or sell the house because it would be worth more. Banks were appraising the house for whatever they needed to make the loan. It was a house of cards.

Of course the slow and steady loss of jobs didn't help either.

As far as the financial institutions getting rich goes. Yes they did. It was their job to make a profit. And they did. Until the bubble burst. And it was inevitable.
But the blame isn't only on Wall Street. Our Government was right there in the mix and the people who fell into the keep up with the Jones trap were just as culpable.

But to say the only people who should be in prison is the Wall Street big cats is, IMHO, wrong. They need to start with the people who allowed them to do it and actually forced them to do it. But we don't do that. We find a scape goat and the guys that really caused it get a free ride. Then the people are happy because someone got punished. Even happier if it happens to be a rich guy. Then they go to the polls, or stay home, and let the same assholes stay in office who caused the problem to begin with.
Then those same assholes find companies like Gibson to use as a way to flex their muscles and make it seem like they are doing something good. Taking down another rich guy. It's a great system.

I just watched Michael Moore leading a rally at the Wall Street demonstrations. That's all I need to see. If anyone really takes that guy serious they deserve to get what ever comes their way.

Sorry Bill you cannot blsme that one on the public or government applying pressure to banks to give loans. From what I gather it was not the domestic loans for house purchase that crippled the banks but the bad commercial investments and bad or toxic commercial loans. They were lending billions to companies that were due to go under or in some cases did not even exist. T
House purchase loans are a no lose venture.
When a house purchaser defaults then the house becomes the property of the bank. All houses up until the crash had increased at an alarming rate in value so there was plenty of collateral there plus most folk were encouraged to have payment protection insurance. I fail to see how overlending to that market was the banks downfall.
Over the past few years the mailman has brought to just about every household in just about every delivery junk mail... most of which was from banks offering loans......so they hardly had a gun to their head to make them lend.

Sorry Bill you cannot blsme that one on the public or government applying pressure to banks to give loans. From what I gather it was not the domestic loans for house purchase that crippled the banks but the bad commercial investments and bad or toxic commercial loans. They were lending billions to companies that were due to go under or in some cases did not even exist. T
House purchase loans are a no lose venture.
When a house purchaser defaults then the house becomes the property of the bank. All houses up until the crash had increased at an alarming rate in value so there was plenty of collateral there plus most folk were encouraged to have payment protection insurance. I fail to see how overlending to that market was the banks downfall.
Over the past few years the mailman has brought to just about every household in just about every delivery junk mail... most of which was from banks offering loans......so they hardly had a gun to their head to make them lend.

Sorry Bill you cannot blsme that one on the public or government applying pressure to banks to give loans. From what I gather it was not the domestic loans for house purchase that crippled the banks but the bad commercial investments and bad or toxic commercial loans. They were lending billions to companies that were due to go under or in some cases did not even exist. T
House purchase loans are a no lose venture.
When a house purchaser defaults then the house becomes the property of the bank. All houses up until the crash had increased at an alarming rate in value so there was plenty of collateral there plus most folk were encouraged to have payment protection insurance. I fail to see how overlending to that market was the banks downfall.
Over the past few years the mailman has brought to just about every household in just about every delivery junk mail... most of which was from banks offering loans......so they hardly had a gun to their head to make them lend.

Sorry my pc went haywire and multi posted.....before I had even completed the post. but you will get the idea.

I guess that the 1/2 billion dollar "loan" to Solyndra, courtesy of the American tax payers doesn't count. Nor the Gov't bailouts to the banks and auto manufacturers.

The banks do retain foreclosed property, but can only resell it for a fraction of the original loan principle.

Actually I blame people with your attitude Bill.

You lump folk who through NO fault of their own would stave and freeze with out assistance in with the lazy good for nothings who don't want to do their share and expect others to do it for them. Your kind label the pensioners including veterns and service men and women who have given their lives and ability for lively hood as parasites in some crusade against the need to pay YOUR FAIR SHARE of the burden.

Yes there are parsites in our community. Some like to just sit at home and watch TV and do nothing they amount to probobly far less than 1% of the population. Their net impact although sizable is really miniscule in the big picture.

Then there are the other kind that make up a much greater percentage. These parasites are the greedy who use what ever means they can to amass as much as they can with out paying their due, or their share, the big corporates that screw the farmer by importing produce and selling it cheaper than he can produce, the companies that rape and pilligage natural resources leaving devestation behind them and land that can no longer produce, and water that is undrinkable. Those who won't pay fair wages so a person who works hard can afford to house, feed and clothe their family, those white collar criminals who avoid paying tax.

These are the true parasites that our communities would be better off without. We can survive the few lazy ones, its the greedy who truely screw our communities and make life unsustainable.

Noel

All I can say to that is that it doesn't happen in our country...property until the crash always rose in price so nobody but a fool would sell it at less than they paid for it.
If that is not the case in your country then more fool the bankers who loaned more thasn the assets were worth.
Re bailouts...well I have mixed feelings on this...sometimes it is chesaper to bailout than to throw thousands on the dole....but if the parasites had paid their way properly in the first place when times were good then we would have been able to bail them out. If they had worked ethically and responsibly then THEY would not have got themselves in the mess they did.

One question that I cannot find and answer to is where exactly did all those billions go.... cannot have just vanished...someone must have gained from the banks losses....and the money must be somewhere.

I suggest looking in some numbered Swiss or middle east or other tax haven bank accounts. When we now have multi national companies and money laundering on a scale never before seen...secrecy in accounting and banking must be made a thing of the past. Everyone regardless of who or where they are must be accountable for ALL their financial dealings and more important tax liabilities.
It really gets up my nose that some people no matter what the problem try to blame everything on the left or the lazy working class rather than the people who should be blamed and brought to justice......

Wow Noel, tell us how you really feel

You started with a quote from Bill that was correcting something I had posted...and he was right.

And blaming Bill and "his kind" for all the ills of society that you have listed??

The rest of it makes some sense.

I blame the sinners. Those with "1) haughty eyes, 2) a lying tongue, 3) hands that shed innocent blood, 4) a heart that devises wicked schemes, 5) feet that are quick to rush into evil, 6) a false witness who pours out lies, and 7) a man who stirs up dissension among brothers." -Proverbs.

They are the problem and they are us. We'll always have those problems until we all find the answer.

In the meantime, I have friends who work at Gibson. I support my friends. As for government and corporations, I trust some people to a degree, but I never trust any government or any corporation. I love people. It's a tough love.

Noel
Like most liberals you have taken my words and twisted them to suit your agenda.

I guess you missed the part where I said Handicapped persons need help and should get help. Or the part where I said everyone, including me, should pay their fair share. Of course my "Fair Share" is supposed to be the same as someone else's "fair share". But liberals don't believe that. They think folks that earn more than they do should have to pay more.

As far as taxes go. Well IMHO someone who pays 20 percent of there income is paying their fair share. It is a lie that millionaires don't pay more taxes than their employees. The IRS has given a number of about 19 percent for the top earners as the amount they pay. That means a person who makes 200 Million pays about 40 million in taxes. Liberals don't think that's enough. I don't agree. I think 40 million is a hell of a lot of money. That comes to about 4000 of me. It takes about 4000 people like me to equal the amount that one person pays.
And liberals don't think it's enough.

I am not a millionaire, I'm not even a thousandaire. I'm a retired carpenter who never made much more than I needed to pay my bills and buy a few toys.
I'm on fixed income. I don't consider myself a parasite, It MY money.
I am also a veteran. Through the luck of the draw I went to Germany for my tour while a few of my friends went to Vietnam. One came home in a box. Another came home with a damaged mind. I still mourn them. So don't you dare mention military service and sacrifice to me and say I don't care about the men and women who serve and die for your right to express your opinion. Whether I agree or not I won't lump you as "Your Kind".

That we need to protect our environment is a given. I am a Hunter and I like to fish. I was in favor of the free flow of the river initiative that eliminates Dams that are no longer needed to produce electricity. Unfortunately it hasn't been completely successful. It also pisses me off when I see what people do to the environment. I was a land owner in Michigan with river frontage and, believe me, the crap I use to find on my river bank and property was disgusting. You know who put the trash there. The same lazy assholes who sit around and wait for someone else to feed them.

I am NOT against drilling for oil on our own soil. I AM for drilling for Oil responsibly. Liberals don't want us to do anything that might change the landscape or even hint at developing our resources, Then they show up on the sidewalk of Wall Street and whine about the cost of their Gasoline.

I ran a business. I had one rule. I paid my employees first. As a result there were many weeks I didn't get paid. I also paid them well.
But It cost me about $34.00 an hour to put $15.00 per hour person on the job. The rest was overhead and most of that was taxes. Taxes in one form or another.
I went out of business because of two things. The economy and the IRS. That's right. My fair share put me out of business. When I closed my doors 6 people became unemployed. But I was paying my "Fair Share". Until I couldn't pay it any more.

So I have been in the shoes of the poor and the middle class. I am somewhere in between now.
I am against handouts. If you want to eat you should earn the food.
In other words; You don't work...You don't eat.

That doesn't say; if you CAN'T work.... you don't eat.

There is a difference. But liberals want to take the two quotes and make them the same.
That's the difference between us.

As far as the percentage of people who are the lazy parasites versus the people who are the rich parasites. Well I can say for certain. I do not personally know a single rich parasite but I do know quite a few Lazy parasites.

One more thing
Since this thread started because of the treatment of Gibson.

The reason Gibson was raided was because of a law that was put in place to help control poaching of endangered species of flora and fauna. The agency that raided Gibson used it as an excuse. The reality might be there was NO importing of illegal endangered species. It seems it had more to do with the handling of the wood rather than the wood itself.
One of our Government agencies enforcing another Governments laws.
IMHO this was another example of too much government, too much regulation. Liberals are probably jumping for joy because they think it's saving some tree and punishing a Greedy Corporation.
I see it as just another intrusion into our business by an out of control Government regulatory group.

Check out this documentary Bill..

http://www.filmsforaction.org/Watch/Overdose_The_Next_Financial_Crisis_2010/

Liberal over here is almost the same as republican in the States...

I'm a socialist and proud of it.

I know the quote of yours Bill was correcting something that was an error.

My point is that we could take every deliberatly lazy parrasite out and shoot them and make next to zero impact on the ills and state of our countries. People fixate on them so hard the real parasites the greedy lot are able to continue to ravage the resources of the world and get away with it and its killing us.

Over here the welfare cheats cost a lot less than to resource the police to catch them... That is how small that problem truly is. There are checks in place and when people are caught they are punished.

If you know individuals who are cheating welfare then turn them in... or like so many do you assume because they are on wealfare and you know nothing of their life or history or medical and mental state they are cheating the system?

Noel

Noel
We have people here who receive assistance and they really do need the help, for one reason or another through no fault of their own. And that is how it should be. But we also have people who live their whole life on assistance, their parents were on assistance and their children will be on assistance. They are parasites.

I also know people who are very good at gaming the system. They work under the radar for cash and get assistance.
On the other hand I know a couple people who could use some help and don't get it.
I don't know anything about your system. I do know about our system. We have generations of people who collect assistance and believe they are entitled to it.
And when they cheat they don't get caught or punished because no one cares or is looking for them. Politicians won't pass reforms because they will lose votes. Just like they won't do anything about the illegal immigration problem

I have personally seen Illegal immigrants sitting in the local assistance office getting food stamps and Money and then seen the same people at the corner store on Friday cashing their check from work. How many are doing it? Last reports indicated we have about 15,000,000 illegal immigrants here and the number is probably twice that. We have Hospitals closing their doors because these people use them for everything from colds to having babies. And they don't pay for it and have no insurance.

That their are crooks in the business world there is no doubt but IMHO there are far fewer crooks at the top than there are at the bottom.

Do the numbers Bill,

US population, 312 Million

Unemployed about 10% 31.2 Million

even if 10% of those collected welfare by cheating (and the figure is probobly closer to 1% than 10)... that is 3.12 Million welfare cheats.... what at $50 per week x 52 weeks $2600 per year is a bout 8.1 billion US$ yep that's a lot of $.... but compared to the profits made by big business by ripping off the system with government assisted legislation... folks who get paid millions a year to maximise profits by whatever means ..... it pales into insignificance....

****Edit**** I had welfare at about what is paid in Australia so I have corrected it.... to USA figure of $200 per monthe for a single person = $50 per week.

As I said if you can identify the cheats it's your duty to dob them in... but being the cause of the troubles you face their impact is so little it is almost a joke by comparison.

Cheers

Noel

Jim, I agree with this statement 100%. Especially the money laundering. Let's investigate. Who is going to investigate Solyndra? Certainly not the current justice Dept. It would make the administration look bad. An investigation may find the money coming back to a certain left wing political party.

Auto (union) bailout's as far as I know are being paid back, but I really don't know.

As far as the bank bailouts, they are sitting on the money, and loaning very little, waiting for a more stable economy and/or a new administration after 2012.
That's what happens when a Government prints money with no ASS to back it up. When congress appropriated this money they forgot one little detail. Require the banks to "spread the wealth". Well guess what?

Noel
The numbers you use are not even close.
We have several different "welfare" systems here and they pay more than $200.00 a month.
For one thing unemployment is 9.1 percent of the workforce. But welfare and unemployment are two different things. Unemployment is paid for by the employers. I know because I was an employer and I paid it.

We have people on welfare that are collecting a whole lot more than that. They also get food stamps and subsidized housing. Some get their utilities paid. And I can assure you it is more than 1%. And contrary to the rest of the world's beliefs they do get free health care and food.
Unfortunately the food stamps are often sold to get cash for drugs.

Now this isn't everyone. There are plenty of people who get help that really need it. And so they should.

The latest figures I heard were 15,000,000 illegals getting "welfare" That's 2.5 percent and they aren't even citizens.
We have 49,000,000 people getting food stamps. That is deplorable. We are in trouble and I don't think it is going to end any time soon. I really don't think most of those folks want to be collecting food stamps. Most would rather be working.
California estimated the welfare system in their state alone was well into the billions and it was bankrupting them.

Bill,

I searched the net for the $ figures so blame that... the 10% was over estimating to give worst case ... In 2006 the top 500 companies in the US paid their CEO's a total of $5.1 Billion...

In 2006, 500 people collectively got paid more than 1.6 million welfare recipiants.

You deny the facts.... even if it was double what I calculated how does 16 billion equate to the Trillions of the federal budget?... a drop... the reality is it is probobly closer to only 1.6 billion than 8 billion.

I am not going to waste my time anymore.... you make all these statements but back nothing up with checkable numbers..

Cheers

Noel

Noel, We, (Make that they) have been practicing Liberal Socalisim for the last 75 years now. Huge Social Programs. But now those that advocate these Programs, and Still do, can't see the forest for the trees. It has failed here just like it did in the old Soviet Union. Are you catching on yet? You must be from MissourI Right? We have to show you.

Noel, the problem with Liberals is sooner or later they run out of other people's money. The fact is we are going right back to the 1930's like it or not. All this was supposed to be fixed by those Big Social Programs. You see the results.

I'm honestly curious, Ray. How do you meet your own health care needs? Might be a model there that others could follow.

Scott

Noel I don't know why I waste my time.


Statements like this mean nothing. What difference does it make how much the CEO's are paid. People get paid for what the create and how much money they make for the people they work for. Look at Basketball, Football, and Baseball players. They make hundreds of millions for playing a game. But they generate billions for the owners of the clubs. Why aren't these people complaining about that?



???? I don't even know what this means.

You say I make statements and don't back them up?
All you have to do is google the things I said and you will get plenty of statistics to back it up.
Food stamps. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/07/us-food-usa-stamps-idUSTRE6465E220100507
Unemployment. You don't believe employers pay unemployment? I was an Employer. I paid it. It varies for every employer but it is funded by employers.

You can read the text here
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbenefitprograms/a/ucprogram.htm

A 9.1 percent unemployment rate is the number of people in the work force out of work. Not the percentage of the total population. The number of unemployed is about 15,000,000. It's also in the link above.

Right now most unemployed folks are getting a pretty good Check. My friend gets $700.00 every two weeks. What do you want me to do, send you a photocopy of the check? And he will get it for about a year depending of what the fed does.

The IRS has release the figure for the top earners. 400 billionaires pay 18.1 percent of their income. If the make 1 Billion they pay about $180 Million. That's one person paying $180,000,000. those are facts. I'm not making it up. The millionaires pay about 21 percent.
If you want my tax return I'll send you a copy. I paid about 11 percent.
How does that show ME paying more than the millionaires?

These are facts. They cannot be disputed. So I'm not sure what is is you are talking about.

Today is rally day. Nashvillians, show your support for Gibson. Here's the info:

http://gibsonrally.blogspot.com/

I'll be playing a bluegrass festival in Thompson Station TN, but all you rally-ers have my support, I'll be monitoring it when I can.


Mike

Well Scott,
I am retired from the Military. So where do I get my Health Care? You guessed it, the Military. But we have nearly a 15 Trillion Dollar Federal Debt. Our children, etc. are going to pay the bill eventually, one way or the other. Today unemployment is offically 9.1 Percent and realisticly more like 17 precent.

One of the gripes of the Liberals is Health Costs, Insurance, is extremely high. Now why is that. Printing more money by the Government. Lyndon Johnson was good at it. Inflation it's called.

If the Federal Government would get out of the Medical Business tomorrow, Unconstutitional by the way, Insurance Rates would drop like a rock. Maybe you have read that the more conservatives in Congress are trying to get spending under control. The Senate hasn't voted on a budget in what two years now? And the Jobs Bill. Harry Reid won't bring that up either. Know why? It is another failure of the liberals. I think I still have my health care. The health of the Nation is on life support. So where do you get your Health Care Scott?

We haven't had serious inflation for years. I think the reason that health care costs are so high is the same reason costs for any government program are too high - and that is that it is simply too easy to spend other people's money.

Where you and I differ, I suspect, is that I am not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water. The system could be put on track if politicians had the will.

Maybe you aren't willing to throw the baby out with the bath water though. Suppose the military said, we are going to give you the same amount of money for health care that we pay for your health care now - but you have to take that money and purchase your health insurance from a private (for profit) provider. Are you willing to do that?

Scott

P.S. The university I work at gives me a choice of several health care plans. They are OK but not as good as the plan that my wife (Gov't employee) has access to - so we purchase a family plan through her.

Scott,
Back in the 50's, maybe before your time, you could buy a pack of Lucky Strikes for maybe 20 cents. Today, maybe 5 dollars. I don't buy them so I'm of course not sure. They went up because of inflation. Today? Inflation no, Riseing Federal Debt yes. The basic question is are we making any progress? Back in the 60's a car maybe $3200.00. Today more like $i7,000.00. Why. Inflation. True not much inflation today, but that is like locking the barn door after the horse escaped. Groceries, Thru the roof.

No, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. That has already been done. Oh, I forgot. they do take about 96 dollars each month out of Social Security.

Obama's or Reid's latest plan is a Surcharge of 5 percent on Millionaires. Obama has done everything but what he needs to do to help unemployment.

He should: Repeal Obama Care in it's entirety,
Extend the Bush Tax Cuts for at least 10 more years,
Get rid of excessive regulation as needed.

Well, I suspect you and I will never have a meeting of the minds, Ray.

That's OK, plenty of folks feel like me and plenty feel like you.

In my opinion, fixing the deficit and fixing unemployment at the same time are mutually exclusive. When times are tough, government has to take on debt and spend. Deficits are handled once the economy starts moving again.

The problem I have with Republicans is that they never made any noise about the deficits and debt until the economy went south. Then they raise a fuss - which is exactly at the wrong time. They were wrong during the great depression and they are wrong now.

Obama's problem is that he wasted almost four years trying to negotiate with them. I sympathize, because that would have been my first inclination too. In hindsight, which is always 20/20, it was a mistake.

Scott

Well,
There have been plenty of people screaming about the Federal Debt over the years. Ross Peroit comes to mind. Conservatives and mostly Republicians but not all expect you to do it yourself. You have been given all the tools. You work at a University Right? Education is what every child has to do to be able to compete in the workplace. And we do have an education system in place, since the country was founded. So no one is left out. The last fiasco that caused fiscal problems was the housing crisis. Invented by who? And how did it work out?

Government, liberal policies, caused the problem but cannot see how to fix it.

If you want to cut down a tree you have to swing the Axe. You can't just phone it in. As long as people don't know who to vote for these problems will continue to happen. And do not expect the National debt to ever start to fall. People are going to ride that horse right into the ground before that happens. I hear Tutition is rising so even your job could be in jeporady. Sorry.

LOL - I put a LOT of thought into my votes. And I'm sure that, for a national election, they will be cancelled by yours.

Yeah, tuition is certainly increasing faster than inflation. Still, tuition in my state is below the national average so that's something for the kids, anyway. At my school, tuition increases are largely driven by cut backs in state funding. The school itself isn't coming out ahead.

We haven't seen any drop in enrollment - though that might happen if we have a double-dip recession.

My job could be in jeopardy if things really go south. No job is secure in this environment. Fortunately, I've spent every day for the past 25 years assuming that my job is in jeopardy (my parents grew up during the depression) so it likely won't be a huge surprise if it really is. If push came to shove, I could probably retire - but I don't want to - It's too much fun.

EDIT: I can't tell whether you are using "you" to refer to me specifically or just a general "you". In case it's the former, here are a few facts: My wife and I lived very frugally while we both earned advanced degrees. We didn't buy a house until we were nearly 40. And while we love the house, we could have afforded more. As is, we paid it off early. We pay cash for every car we buy too. As a result, we have zero debt. So while there was certainly some good luck involved and we were fortunate to have good guiding influences, we also were pretty careful and smart about things. We do have one annual splurge when we take a vacation - but it's always paid for in advance.

So I don't know if I can swing any ol' axe but I know how to swing my own

Scott

Gotta disagree on that one Scott. President Obama Say's that he is willing to negotiate. He said the same thing during the health care debates, but never even considered any of their ideas. The Dems with a super majority even literally locked the Reps out of the room and pushed a bill through that no one had time to read first.
He says that he wants to hear ideas from the other side, but in reality has no intention of considering another plan. His own party won't even bring his jobs bill for a vote because they know that it's a lost cause. His only idea is to raise taxes. He only wants to make it a campaign issue and not a real solid plan to put people back to work. He could save his job right now if he would really negotiate with the other side, but his base and socialist ideology will never allow it.

He's melting before our eyes. 2012 can't come soon enough.

Just for the record Obama never could or will be classed as a socialist with socialistic ideas...he is far too right wing for that......perhaps it is just that some of you are so far right you make Genghis Khan look middle of the road.