Down with evil corporations!!!

[MorningStar]

It doesn't sound like a bunch of whiny babies to me.

It sounds like a bunch of people getting together who know they don't like the way things are going now and want to change things, but have no coherent plan on how.

It's similar to the tea party in that regard. While individual tea partiers know they aren't happy with the way things are going and have specific plans on how they'd make it better, a lot are every bit as unfocused as this group.

In fact, many of the specific complaints they're arguing against are similar to the same ones the tea partiers are arguing. They may have different methodologies, or they may have similar ones. Frankly, I don't know. Where it comes to specific answers, about the only people on either side who have come up with concrete plans have been the people who like a man whose name sounds like Pon Raul(So as not to break the rule about specific candidates;)) and they have a wide variety of different plans, from the interesting to the downright insane.

The situation just reminds me of a few relatives of mine who had every opportunity, but didn't take it. Now they whine about everything the world owes them, evil corporations, etc. My cousin mooches off of my grandmother and had the nerve to smoke in her car while borrowing it. Of course, he doesn't seem to mind that those cigarettes and that car came from evil, greedy corporations. He's also been doing drugs and can't get a decent job now because he now has a felony on his record. He also ran up a bunch of debt buying music and his credit is so bad, he couldn't get his own apartment. My dad was going to help him go to college, but the boy has really blown it, blaming all of his problems on everyone else instead of his own choices.

I'm poor, but no one owes me anything and I happen to like corporations that give people jobs. A friend of mine hasn't had a job in her field for 5 years and she would give anything to be used and abused by Microsoft so she can see a doctor again and not have to pick and choose which bill she is paying this month.

[Tyler90AZ]

How do you respond to a lawyer, public worker, student etc. involved in the movement?

A friend of mine hasn't had a job in her field for 5 years and she would give anything to be used and abused by Microsoft so she can see a doctor again and not have to pick and choose which bill she is paying this month.

That is excactly what this movement is about for me.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Tyler90AZ

[Just_A_Guy]

With cold math, Tyler.

The fact is that if you cannot or will not support yourself, you cannot prosper simply by

. You may subsist. You may get lifesaving medical care, within certain limits. But you will not get life-enhancing medical care, and you will not prosper.

Too many entitlements chasing too few dollars.

[Tyler90AZ]

With cold math, Tyler.

The fact is that if you cannot or will not support yourself, you cannot prosper simply by

. You may subsist. You may get lifesaving medical care, within certain limits. But you will not get life-enhancing medical care, and you will not prosper.

Too many entitlements chasing too few dollars.

I'm actually a highly productive member of society, so I don't understand how that applies to me. Like any other group you will get bad apples.

Previous question still stands:

How do you respond to a lawyer, public worker, student etc. involved in the movement?

[Tyler90AZ]

Wal-Mart 2010 profits: $14.3 billion.

Wal-Mart 2010 employees: 2.1 million

Average per-employee share of annual profit: $6809.

So, if Wal-Mart gave all of its annual profits back to its workforce you'd see each employee get a $2.61/hour raise. Now, if that happened--if each and every employee of Wal-Mart earned at least $10/hour--do you think all the carping about Wal-Mart corporate greed would end? Of course not.*

That doesn't look like a $2.61/ hour raise. IF the profits are 14.3 billion and current employees make 2.1billion. Every employees wages would be multiplied by 7. Wow what a massive wage!!!

[prophetofdoom]

I think the Wallstreet protestors have some legitimate grievances. Their tendency towards socialism is because of their college indoctrination. However, conservatives saying our current capitalist system is great are ignorant too. We do not have true free market capitalism. We have monopoly-crony-capitalism. Yes, most Republicans will denounce socialism for the masses... but they love socialism for the corporations. "Privatize the profits and socialize the losses" is their motto.

Edited October 10, 2011 by prophetofdoom

[Vort]

Wal-Mart 2010 profits: $14.3 billion.

Wal-Mart 2010 employees: 2.1 million

Average per-employee share of annual profit: $6809.

So, if Wal-Mart gave all of its annual profits back to its workforce you'd see each employee get a $2.61/hour raise. Now, if that happened--if each and every employee of Wal-Mart earned at least $10/hour--do you think all the carping about Wal-Mart corporate greed would end? Of course not.*

That doesn't look like a $2.61/ hour raise. IF the profits are 14.3 billion and current employees make 2.1billion. Every employees wages would be multiplied by 7. Wow what a massive wage!!!

Tyler, we already know spelling isn't your strong suit. Add math to the list.

($14,300 million profit) / (2.1 million employees) = about $6810 per employee each year

$6810 per year / 2080 hours per year = $3.27 per hour

After all taxes and other withholdings, I would be surprised if it were even as much as $2.61/hour, as Dravin first suggested.

So if we totally wipe out Wal-Mart's profits (and with it, the incentive Wal-Mart's owners have to keep the company in business), we could offer each employee an extra two and a half bucks an hour.

Tyler, if you are honest and reasonably intelligent, you will quickly admit that you are wrong. Refusing to admit your error means you are not honest or not intelligent. If you insist that you are honest and intelligent and still dispute the above, it is up to you to show the math that makes your argument believable.

(By the way, it's 2.1 million employees, not $2.1 billion in employee salary. The latter would mean that Wal-Mart employees make only $1000 per year. Much as you might like to believe that, it's absurd. Perhaps reading is yet another weak point for you?)

[Backroads]

I'm actually a highly productive member of society, so I don't understand how that applies to me. Like any other group you will get bad apples.

Previous question still stands:

How do you respond to a lawyer, public worker, student etc. involved in the movement?

But Tyler, you claim to support those who do refuse to contribute to society. Do you really think people should make the choice of contributing/not contributing society and then in the same breath get to pick the consequence?

Since this movement seems to have no actual goals, I assume any lawyer, public worker, student, etc. has his/her own personal reasons for supporting it.

[Delanie]

Tyler, we already know spelling isn't your strong suit. Add math to the list.

($14,300 million profit) / (2.1 million employees) = about $6810 per employee each year

$6810 per year / 2080 hours per year = $3.27 per hour

After all taxes and other withholdings, I would be surprised if it were even as much as $2.61/hour, as Dravin first suggested.

So if we totally wipe out Wal-Mart's profits (and with it, the incentive Wal-Mart's owners have to keep the company in business), we could offer each employee an extra two and a half bucks an hour.

Tyler, if you are honest and reasonably intelligent, you will quickly admit that you are wrong. Refusing to admit your error means you are not honest or not intelligent. If you insist that you are honest and intelligent and still dispute the above, it is up to you to show the math that makes your argument believable.

(By the way, it's 2.1 million employees, not $2.1 billion in employee salary. The latter would mean that Wal-Mart employees make only $1000 per year. Much as you might like to believe that, it's absurd. Perhaps reading is yet another weak point for you?)

Vort, don't you understand that if Wal-Mart simply fired half of its employees, the rest of them could possibly make a much more impressive amount?

There. Wage increase problem solved.

Though I don't know what that will mean for the now-jobless bunch or how Wal-Mart will be able to staff itself enough to support the wages of the remaining employees...

[Tyler90AZ]

Tyler, we already know spelling isn't your strong suit. Add math to the list.

($14,300 million profit) / (2.1 million employees) = about $6810 per employee each year

$6810 per year / 2080 hours per year = $3.27 per hour

After all taxes and other withholdings, I would be surprised if it were even as much as $2.61/hour, as Dravin first suggested.

So if we totally wipe out Wal-Mart's profits (and with it, the incentive Wal-Mart's owners have to keep the company in business), we could offer each employee an extra two and a half bucks an hour.

Tyler, if you are honest and reasonably intelligent, you will quickly admit that you are wrong. Refusing to admit your error means you are not honest or not intelligent. If you insist that you are honest and intelligent and still dispute the above, it is up to you to show the math that makes your argument believable.

(By the way, it's 2.1 million employees, not $2.1 billion in employee salary. The latter would mean that Wal-Mart employees make only $1000 per year. Much as you might like to believe that, it's absurd. Perhaps reading is yet another weak point for you?)

Vort, you finally snagged me I misread as I am at work not focusing on this.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Tyler90AZ

[Tyler90AZ]

I think the Wallstreet protestors have some legitimate grievances. Their tendency towards socialism is because of their college indoctrination. However, conservatives saying our current capitalist system is great are ignorant too. We do not have true free market capitalism. We have monopoly-crony-capitalism. Yes, most Republicans will denounce socialism for the masses... but they love socialism for the corporations. "Privatize the profits and socialize the losses" is their motto.

Most of my professors state their bias at the beginning of class. The funny part is the liberal ones actually attempt at delivering an unbias education. On the other hand I have dealt with Republican professors who are not scared to spew what they believe the whole class period. I had one Libertarian professor I had to battle the whole class, he wouldn't get off his political views at all.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Tyler90AZ

[annewandering]

Bias. I would be more interested in a discussion that had people listening, and trying to understand anothers point of view without jumping in as fast as possible to tell us why they are wrong.

It is great we live in a land that allows us to have a chance to live well and even exceed that. What I would like even more is to live in a land modeled after the United Order where everyone could use their talents and abilities to improve the lives of all. Everyone would have all they needed and, if there was enough, to have more of the bonuses of life.

Why do we argue about lesser forms of government? Why arent we out there trying to make this into the government Joseph Smilth envisioned where everyone worked, to the best of their abilities, and everyone has the blessings this life could offer.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm actually a highly productive member of society, so I don't understand how that applies to me. Like any other group you will get bad apples.

I wasn't speaking of you personally; and apologize if it came off that way. My point was simply that you cannot equally spread "prosperity", as we Americans understand it, simply by re-distributing the existing wealth. There isn't enough wealth to do that. Even Jesus noted that we always have the poor with us. The best we can do is sustain basic needs (food, shelter, clothing, and possibly life-saving healthcare [if we can afford that, and our track record of that over the past sixty years isn't so hot]) while creating conditions where individual poor people can and do routinely rise above their poverty.

Previous question still stands:

How do you respond to a lawyer, public worker, student etc. involved in the movement?

Well, the common-sense approach (which I've been trying to outline) is to get them to calculate exactly what they want and how much it will cost. You then try to get them to compare that amount with the actual amount of funds available.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[annewandering]

For those of you who want to play around with balancing the national budget give this site a visit : Budget Simulator | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget Its kinda of fun and despite the fact that it seems to tie you down on on the first page it doesnt. Just keep hitting next

[FunkyTown]

For those of you who want to play around with balancing the national budget give this site a visit : Budget Simulator | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget Its kinda of fun and despite the fact that it seems to tie you down on on the first page it doesnt. Just keep hitting next

Wow! That was amazing Anne.

I was able to hit 60% of GDP and balanced the budget.

1) I wouldn't cut real infrastructure spending. The national highway system is vital to the American economy. I expanded spending there and even helped develop a better public transport system to help offset spiralling fuel costs.

2) I wouldn't pay off the debt via inflation.

3) I wouldn't raise taxes on those earning less than 250K/year.

4) I wasn't going to double-hit people by (EDIT)removing the ability to make(EDIT FINISHED) deductions for state taxes. I figure the more localization, the less bureaucracy and the less spiraling costs.

That said, I had to make some tough decisions:

* - I had to enact a 5% VAT tax.

* - I had to eliminate mortgage credit for 'High earners'. Sadly, I couldn't eliminate mortgage credit for people who own more than one house instead, as that would have been ideal. Housing costs need to come down, but I don't want to hurt people just paying off their own mortgage. Just those who buy houses and then rent them out at exorbitant prices.

* - I had to raise the retirement age to 67.

I was pretty happy. I gutted the albatross that is Medicare and replaced it with healthcare vouchers to reduce the bureaucracy. I allowed a public option for the health care bill. I reduced troop buildup in Iraq and sent home those people who had been called back to service after retirement. I even got to increase education spending, made research and development a priority by permanently setting those tax cuts, expanded our public transportation and highway options.

My favourite part of the budget allocation? Cutting those tacked on pet projects that are required to get any law to pass. Unfortunately, that means that my budget would never get passed.

Edited October 11, 2011 by FunkyTown

[Dravin]

Cutting those tacked on pet projects that are required to get any law to pass. Unfortunately, that means that my budget would never get passed.

Pork, the official meat of Congress.

[FunkyTown]

Pork, the official meat of Congress.

Yep.

Actually, I quite like that balanced budget program. It's brilliant. It forces people to face the realities of paying off the trillions spent in the last few years. Do you gut healthcare? That's a huge chunk. Do you remove benefits for veterans? Cut funding to schools? Let the national highway system fall to disrepair?

You can do all those things and still have to raise taxes to cover it by 2018. That's not ideal. Or you can use inflationary measures to pay it off, which makes the whole process easier but crushes the lower and middle classes. I highly recommend it. Try it, Dravin! Lemme know what compromises you had to make.

[Backroads]

Bias. I would be more interested in a discussion that had people listening, and trying to understand anothers point of view without jumping in as fast as possible to tell us why they are wrong.

It is great we live in a land that allows us to have a chance to live well and even exceed that. What I would like even more is to live in a land modeled after the United Order where everyone could use their talents and abilities to improve the lives of all. Everyone would have all they needed and, if there was enough, to have more of the bonuses of life.

Why do we argue about lesser forms of government? Why arent we out there trying to make this into the government Joseph Smilth envisioned where everyone worked, to the best of their abilities, and everyone has the blessings this life could offer.

I too think that the United Order is certainly the ideal way to live.

But with the type of people in the world right now, it really isn't feasible. Communism as a form of government doesn't have the hottest tract record and no one I have seen as a plan for getting past the Tragedy of the Commons.

You speak of everyone using their talents and abilities--which would be awesome. However, what do we do when people refuse to contribute their talents and abilities?

The way I see it, until we are all a little more perfect, the only solution is to have our United Order and kill/ostracize anyone who doesn't contribute.

[Dravin]

I highly recommend it. Try it, Dravin! Lemme know what compromises you had to make.

I ended up getting the debt down to 50% by 2018.

• Reduce Troops to 30,000 by 2013
• Allow All the Tax Cuts, Except for AMT Patches, to Expire
• Adopt the Discretionary Spending Growth Rates in the President's Budget
• Cut Foreign Economic Aid in Half
• Reduce Veteran's Income Security Benefits
• Cancel Missile Defense System
• Reverse "Grow the Army" Initiative
• Cancel Unobligated ARRA Funds
• Increase Highway Funding by 25%
• Cut School Breakfast Programs
• Raise the Normal Retirement Age to 68
• SS: Progressively Reduce Benefits, Protecting Low and Medium Earners
• SS: Use An Alternate Measure of Inflation for COLAs
• SS: Include all New State and Local Workers
• Health Care: Repeal Legislation, but Keep Medicare/Medicaid Cuts-$260B
• Health Care: Increase Cost-Sharing for Medicare
• Health Care: Raise Medicare Premiums to 35% of Costs
• Health Care: Establish a Public Option in the Health Exchange-$40B
• Health Care: Enact Medical Malpractice Reform
• Health Care: Increase the Medicare Retirement Age to 67
• Fed Medicare Funding to States: Reduce Funding, Removing Floor on Matches
• Eliminate Certain Outdated Programs
• Reduce Generosity of TRICARE
• Reform Federal Retiree Benefits
• Cancel NASA Missions to the Moon and Mars
• Expand Spending on Federal Research & Development
• Cut All Earmarks and Use Half of Savings for Deficit Reduction
• Increase Mass Transit Funding
• Increase User Fees Across the Board
• Sell Certain Government Assets
• Repeal LIFO Accounting Methods and Eliminate Oil and Gas Preferences in the Tax Code
• Increase Gas Tax by 10 Cents per Gallon
• Enact Five Percent VAT With Partial Rebate
• Gradually Increase Payroll Tax by One Percentage Point
• Raise Social Security Payroll Tax Cap
• Raise Cap to Cover 90% of Earnings
• Index Tax Code to Alternate Measure of Inflation
• Improve Tax Collection (Reduce Tax Gap)
• Tax Fringe Benefits as Regular Income
• Limit Mortgage Interest and Other Itemized Deductions for High Earners
• Curtail State and Local Tax Deduction
• Begin Excise Tax on High-Cost Plans in 2013 Instead of 2018

Obviously I'd have a ton of research to do beyond the little info buttons if I was actually in a position to be King of the US.

[beefche]

Oh wow, Dravin. You and I need to have a serious discussion on your political views when you get home. I have so many issues in your post that it's staggering.

Is this the beginning of the end for us???

[FunkyTown]

*faints*

I see you took nearly every tax increase. That's interesting and not something I'd have thought! And the gas tax is surprising as well. I was concerned that raising the price of gasoline even more might cause distribution problems. And you hit Social Security HARD.

Though, actually, it's heartening to know that we had quite similar ideas on what needed to be cut. You just hit Social Security and Veteran benefits harder than me and reduced NASA and military development funds.

I ended up getting the debt down to 50% by 2018.

• Reduce Troops to 30,000 by 2013
• Allow All the Tax Cuts, Except for AMT Patches, to Expire
• Adopt the Discretionary Spending Growth Rates in the President's Budget
• Cut Foreign Economic Aid in Half
• Reduce Veteran's Income Security Benefits
• Cancel Missile Defense System
• Reverse "Grow the Army" Initiative
• Cancel Unobligated ARRA Funds
• Increase Highway Funding by 25%
• Cut School Breakfast Programs
• Raise the Normal Retirement Age to 68
• SS: Progressively Reduce Benefits, Protecting Low and Medium Earners
• SS: Use An Alternate Measure of Inflation for COLAs
• SS: Include all New State and Local Workers
• Health Care: Repeal Legislation, but Keep Medicare/Medicaid Cuts-$260B
• Health Care: Increase Cost-Sharing for Medicare
• Health Care: Raise Medicare Premiums to 35% of Costs
• Health Care: Establish a Public Option in the Health Exchange-$40B
• Health Care: Enact Medical Malpractice Reform
• Health Care: Increase the Medicare Retirement Age to 67
• Fed Medicare Funding to States: Reduce Funding, Removing Floor on Matches
• Eliminate Certain Outdated Programs
• Reduce Generosity of TRICARE
• Reform Federal Retiree Benefits
• Cancel NASA Missions to the Moon and Mars
• Expand Spending on Federal Research & Development
• Cut All Earmarks and Use Half of Savings for Deficit Reduction
• Increase Mass Transit Funding
• Increase User Fees Across the Board
• Sell Certain Government Assets
• Repeal LIFO Accounting Methods and Eliminate Oil and Gas Preferences in the Tax Code
• Increase Gas Tax by 10 Cents per Gallon
• Enact Five Percent VAT With Partial Rebate
• Gradually Increase Payroll Tax by One Percentage Point
• Raise Social Security Payroll Tax Cap
• Raise Cap to Cover 90% of Earnings
• Index Tax Code to Alternate Measure of Inflation
• Improve Tax Collection (Reduce Tax Gap)
• Tax Fringe Benefits as Regular Income
• Limit Mortgage Interest and Other Itemized Deductions for High Earners
• Curtail State and Local Tax Deduction
• Begin Excise Tax on High-Cost Plans in 2013 Instead of 2018

Obviously I'd have a ton of research to do beyond the little info buttons if I was actually in a position to be King of the US.

[Dravin]

Oh wow, Dravin. You and I need to have a serious discussion on your political views when you get home. I have so many issues in your post that it's staggering.

Is this the beginning of the end for us???

A lot of them are because of the limitation of options. For instance you have the one of increasing federal fees. Ideally I'd try to reduce expenses from something like the TSA and try to reduce and streamline it (finding a balance between 'protection' and cost). If I'm forced to have it though I have to fund it somehow. The thing gives you a lot of options but you don't really get to play God with the budget.

[Dravin]

*faints*

I see you took nearly every tax increase. That's interesting and not something I'd have thought! And the gas tax is surprising as well. I was concerned that raising the price of gasoline even more might cause distribution problems. And you hit Social Security HARD.

Though, actually, it's heartening to know that we had quite similar ideas on what needed to be cut. You just hit Social Security and Veteran benefits harder than me and reduced NASA and military development funds.

It's simple in my mind, if I can't eliminate a program I have to fund it through taxes (even if it's a reduced program I'm funding). As far as the gas tax, considering (out of the few increases I actually chose) I increased highway funding it makes a degree of sense. Or is my understanding that gas taxes (a portion at least) are earmarked to that purpose? Also, like I said, if I was more than passing some time I'd have some serious research to do.

[Backroads]

I don't even dare touch that budget... I don't care if it's fake... bad things could happen under my hands...

[annewandering]

I am actually quite excited to see you guys try this out. Now I have a suggestion. Try to do it as if you were on the other end of the political spectrum. Say you are conservative, see if you can balance it out as a liberal and if you are liberal try it out as a conservative.

I was pretty impressed to see that you CAN balance the budget and still be a human being.

On mine I gave the soldiers their benefits and even looked up stuff I didnt know to see exactly what they were. I increased taxes like on gas. I did not reduce SS, education or health spending. Probably the main income increasing I did was by not re Oking tax cuts. It was quite surprising to see I came in quite a bit under budget while keeping social programs, mostly, and doing some thoughts for the future.

Mostly it impressed me that we CAN balance it in a number of different ways and still come out ahead. That part was encouraging. The discouraging thing is that if we can do it why cant they? Or is it a case of they dont want to do it?