Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#1256 Nov 15, 2012
Aggie wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to not understand the purpose of a business. People do not risk their savings to start a business (and it is a huge risk considering how many businesses fail, leaving the business owner with a whole lot of debts to pay) so that they can supply jobs to Americans. People take the risks and bust their tails 24/7 to make that business succeed in order to provide for their families and hopefully become a success. If they are a success then they can turn around and grow their business and in doing so need to hire more employees to fill those jobs. That is the American dream and it works beautifully when our govt understands the benefits to ALL of capitalism and free markets. But when you have an administration that thinks that businesses should create jobs out of the goodness of their hearts and supply benefits a company cannot afford, it shows a basic misunderstanding of the real world and what has created what has been an amazing economy. I hate the idea of businesses leaving this country, you're right, it only hurts the country. BUT, I do not blame those who have worked hard to build something for refusing to just sit here and potentially watch everything they have built be destroyed by a govt that thinks it knows better how you should run your company.
Fine, you may consider it a falsehood to call Obama a socialist and I would agree it tends to stop any reasonable discussion in it's tracks. However, I really don't think you can deny many of his policies can be called nothing but socialist in their aims. The most obvious continues to be Obamacare, what else can you call it but socialized medicine. The govt mandates about fuel consumption and mileage that are laid on the car companies are another great example. The govt declares that by a certain date all automobiles must comply with certain standards. And who sets these standards, bureaucrats with no knowledge of how to build an automobile or how the engine runs. But they pick an arbitrary number out of the air that manufacturer's must meet and declare it mandated. This will increase the cost to the consumer, while making no difference in so called "man made global warming" - which is really just an excuse to control more of our lives. Oh wait, they have had to change the name to "man made climate change" since all their evidence of warming has been proved to be either wrong or false.
+1 another great post and analysis

"You seem to not understand the purpose of a business." It is amazing to me how many people don't have this knowledge or understand fiduciary responsibility "rules".

I had a rather interesting discussion with a former co-worker that told me the purpose of our Company was to provide employment to the various types of people we employed (sales, marketing, office, etc.). You should have seen the look on her face when I pulled out the original legal documents of our Company, including a "Statement of Purpose" that we, the founders, had adopted. Priceless!

All that being said, she was one of the clueless and uneducated that don't understand how the real world works.
Dan

Decatur, GA

#1257 Nov 15, 2012
Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>

First of all, your comments are a great example of a Straw Man argument,
Our good friend Merriam-Webster defines a straw man argument as follows: " a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted."

Which isn't what happened here. A lot of clueless and uneducated people get that wrong though.
Dan

Decatur, GA

#1258 Nov 15, 2012
Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>

Too many people think companies exist to provide employment, not provide a return on investment for the owners or shareholders. Wonder how they vote...
You think you're shedding some light that others are missing. You're not. People understand that companies exist for making profits for the owners. They get that. You're not seeing some obscure sliver of truth that nobody else gets.

What you are NOT getting is that here in America, we have an AMERICAN SOCIETY that can be anything it wants to be. The PEOPLE that live here can determine what they want that society to be. It's not asking too much that if a company wants to profit in our society, that they don't do so to the detriment of the people of that society, and that they behave as good citizens.

The my statement is ALSO basic and widely understood. The only people who don't get it are money-worshiping narcissists.
Dan

Decatur, GA

#1259 Nov 15, 2012
Aggie wrote:
<quoted text>
all their evidence of warming has been proved to be either wrong or false.
If you're using that as a cornerstone of your position, you better go searching for a new house.
Sharpshooter

Irving, TX

#1260 Nov 15, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You think you're shedding some light that others are missing. You're not. People understand that companies exist for making profits for the owners. They get that. You're not seeing some obscure sliver of truth that nobody else gets.
What you are NOT getting is that here in America, we have an AMERICAN SOCIETY that can be anything it wants to be. The PEOPLE that live here can determine what they want that society to be. It's not asking too much that if a company wants to profit in our society, that they don't do so to the detriment of the people of that society, and that they behave as good citizens.
The my statement is ALSO basic and widely understood. The only people who don't get it are money-worshiping narcissists.
"It's not asking too much that if a company wants to profit in our society, that they don't do so to the detriment of the people of that society, and that they behave as good citizens".

Detriment to the people, how so? Behave as good citizens, how so?
Sharpshooter

Irving, TX

#1261 Nov 15, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You think you're shedding some light that others are missing. You're not. People understand that companies exist for making profits for the owners. They get that. You're not seeing some obscure sliver of truth that nobody else gets.
What you are NOT getting is that here in America, we have an AMERICAN SOCIETY that can be anything it wants to be. The PEOPLE that live here can determine what they want that society to be. It's not asking too much that if a company wants to profit in our society, that they don't do so to the detriment of the people of that society, and that they behave as good citizens.
The my statement is ALSO basic and widely understood. The only people who don't get it are money-worshiping narcissists.
While you're pondering your answers, just what is a fair profit margin for a business to obtain, and not be classed as money-worshiping narcissists? What is a "fair share" tax rate for all citizens and businesses to be expected to pay?
Dan

Decatur, GA

#1262 Nov 15, 2012
Sharpshooter wrote:
<quoted text>
"It's not asking too much that if a company wants to profit in our society, that they don't do so to the detriment of the people of that society, and that they behave as good citizens".
Detriment to the people, how so? Behave as good citizens, how so?
Credit Default Swaps, BP Gulf Spill, Predatory Credit Practices, Mon santo killing people, companies profiting using our stability and infrastructure, then moving funds out to avoid paying taxes,- you name it. Companies are constantly doing things that as a society we would be better off without, or at least would be better if they were practiced with some sense of responsibility.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#1263 Nov 15, 2012
I LOL when I read things where people say "we'd be better off without" when these strategies are perfectly legal and a good business practice.

It makes me wonder who(m) is to decide what would benefit society one way or the other...
Dan

Decatur, GA

#1264 Nov 15, 2012
Bill in Dville wrote:
I LOL when I read things where people say "we'd be better off without" when these strategies are perfectly legal and a good business practice.
It makes me wonder who(m) is to decide what would benefit society one way or the other...
Perfectly legal CERTAINLY doesn't always equate to "in societies best interest". Especially when those who have the most influence over what is "perfectly legal" are those with the most money and who also will profit the most. They just MIGHT choose profit over public good.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#1265 Nov 15, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Credit Default Swaps, BP Gulf Spill, Predatory Credit Practices, Mon santo killing people, companies profiting using our stability and infrastructure, then moving funds out to avoid paying taxes,- you name it. Companies are constantly doing things that as a society we would be better off without, or at least would be better if they were practiced with some sense of responsibility.
Without Companies you have no Jobs no stability and infrastructure only Government control. The stupidity on this thread is amazing.
oh my

Dawsonville, GA

#1266 Nov 15, 2012
out and about wrote:
hey,this it you showing your ignorance.have you always been so hard headed,,,worn blinders like mule?you really need professional help,from an the medical field(make sure he is a democrat)your sense or reasoning and understanding is completely gone.you really need help,jack.
Got Education ?
Aggie

Monticello, GA

#1267 Nov 15, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me ask you this then: Would you say that "business" is more important than people and lives and the welfare of our countries citizens?
Or would you say that people and lives are first priority in our society, and any business should have to adapt and function in an environment that makes people a priority over profit?
The structure of your question reminds me of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" strategy of formulating a question in such a way that the respondent is backed into a corner. I disagree with both premises you put forth. We are no longer in the days of the Welsh coal miners who truly were at the mercy of the only industry in town. Nor are we in the industrial north of the 19th century where employees were held captive by the company "dollars" they were paid in lieu of wages that could only be redeemed at the company store and where they were forced to pay rent in the company rental houses, thereby keeping the workers in perpetual debt. we live in a society of (currently) unlimited mobility. Companies no longer have a local pool of workers desperate to accept any conditions provided. If a business wants to keep good workers, they must treat them well and pay them a wage they consider reasonable. Otherwise, they will look elsewhere.(regrettably, we might well be losing that atmosphere if unemployment climbs the way it might due to current conditions - that can be laid directly at the feet of govt, not the companies). That being said, of course companies have a responsibility to treat their employees well, but their first responsibility is towards the people who made the jobs possible - the people who risked their hard earned money to take a chance on an idea that MIGHT prove profitable. Without those people in the first place, your question is moot, because there will be no jobs.
Never Ever

Dawsonville, GA

#1268 Nov 15, 2012
Thomas County Blogger wrote:
<quoted text>
On the contrary Jimminy Cricket... I and a lot of other Democrats do indeed know what "Socialism" is... real socialists don't want to be associated with either Republicans or Democrats.
I suggest you actually look up a definition of "socialist" before you start shooting off your opinion.
And I repeat, being a Democrat doesn't make a person (or a President) a socialist any more than being a Republican makes one a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Maybe to some people Democrats seem to resemble socialists... just like to some people Republicans resemble racists and Ku Klux Klan members. In both case I'm certain the resemblence is superficial and the person, whether Democrat or Republican is truly only an American without the negative attributes placed on them by the other party.
obama is the perfect definition of a socialist. Telling that you and many dems fail to recognize that. You must be on the receiving end of his handouts. Support him and his anti American, anti business, anti military, gay rights, pro infanticide, anti Christian agenda if you will. I will never accept him and his immoral agenda.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#1269 Nov 15, 2012
Aggie wrote:
<quoted text>
The structure of your question reminds me of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" strategy of formulating a question in such a way that the respondent is backed into a corner. I disagree with both premises you put forth. We are no longer in the days of the Welsh coal miners who truly were at the mercy of the only industry in town. Nor are we in the industrial north of the 19th century where employees were held captive by the company "dollars" they were paid in lieu of wages that could only be redeemed at the company store and where they were forced to pay rent in the company rental houses, thereby keeping the workers in perpetual debt. we live in a society of (currently) unlimited mobility. Companies no longer have a local pool of workers desperate to accept any conditions provided. If a business wants to keep good workers, they must treat them well and pay them a wage they consider reasonable. Otherwise, they will look elsewhere.(regrettably, we might well be losing that atmosphere if unemployment climbs the way it might due to current conditions - that can be laid directly at the feet of govt, not the companies). That being said, of course companies have a responsibility to treat their employees well, but their first responsibility is towards the people who made the jobs possible - the people who risked their hard earned money to take a chance on an idea that MIGHT prove profitable. Without those people in the first place, your question is moot, because there will be no jobs.
+1

good analysis, certainly better than my Straw Man argument comment, but we meant the same thing...
Aggie

Monticello, GA

#1270 Nov 15, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You think you're shedding some light that others are missing. You're not. People understand that companies exist for making profits for the owners. They get that. You're not seeing some obscure sliver of truth that nobody else gets.
What you are NOT getting is that here in America, we have an AMERICAN SOCIETY that can be anything it wants to be. The PEOPLE that live here can determine what they want that society to be. It's not asking too much that if a company wants to profit in our society, that they don't do so to the detriment of the people of that society, and that they behave as good citizens.
The my statement is ALSO basic and widely understood. The only people who don't get it are money-worshiping narcissists.
Okay, my apologies, i missed your response before posting my post #1167, so i was behind the curve. But my basic premise still stands. In a free market economy, who is going to determine what constitutes a company acting as a "good citizen" or who defines what acting "to the detriment of the people" involves. When you are talking about the tragic BP oil spill or the truly horrific Monsanto disaster, it is barely relevant to the discussion. It is not as though those tragedies were the result of standard practice. Horrible mistakes were made. Lives were lost and those companies faced/face both legal consequences and financial. But your original argument seemed to be based on benefits to employees and taxes versus profits. And you have already been asked what you considered "fair" - to which I would say, neither you, nor me and definitely not politicians who rarely have any knowledge of what it means to make payroll or BALANCE A BUDGET have any business making that determination. and the US already has the highest corporate taxes in the WORLD at 39%. How much more do they need to pay to be "fair".
Aggie

Monticello, GA

#1271 Nov 15, 2012
Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>
+1
good analysis, certainly better than my Straw Man argument comment, but we meant the same thing...
Actually, for some reason, the later posts didn't show before I made that post, so I didn't realize you had already responded so well, so I was frankly embarrassed for being redundant.
Dan

Decatur, GA

#1272 Nov 15, 2012
Aggie wrote:
<quoted text>
US already has the highest corporate taxes in the WORLD at 39%. How much more do they need to pay to be "fair".
I agree with some of what you posted, disagreed with other parts, and both make for some interesting conversation. Unfortunately, I'm about to get stuck in a meeting.

I will say this: If every company paid 39% of their gross revenue towards taxes I wouldn't complain about their monetary contribution. In fact, I'd argue that it's TOO high. Of course we all know that the 39% number doesn't reflect what's actually happening.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#1273 Nov 15, 2012
I'm getting out of the habit of responding to unregistered posters, but your comment about 39% of gross revenue is SEVERELY flawed...

Taxes are based upon taxable income, not gross revenue. There is a BIG difference, VERY BIG.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#1274 Nov 15, 2012
john wrote:
We want new bloodstream within the Throughout. H. United states senate. The 'NO' guy will not obtain anything at all carried out, as well as as well as brand new guy might be persistent therefore he may political election their mind.
You might want to call 911.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#1275 Nov 15, 2012
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, as long as you feel the need to go here.
1. Facts mean nothing to them - Yet you call Obama socialist - when it is FACT that he is not socialist. You're wrong.
2. Fighting tooth and nail to defeat the president can be done - in FACT it already has been done - and that's why the Republicans got trounced in the last election. If the GOP has ANY hope of staying relevent, they need to actually work with the rest of the country. Again - you're wrong.
3. All you need to do is get people active - just been done - people have been active - and America rejected your narrow-minded pandering to the rich and corporate - you're wrong again.
4. It's spelled D-I-R-E, not DIAR - and you want to discuss vocabulary? Again - you're wrong.
Give it a rest.
1. That's your opinion. Think Obamacare...Socialized medicine
2. Don't forget the midterm election.
3. Refer to #3.
4. You spelled "dire" correctly, but your thinking is wrong.(My opinion...well and the numbers but you all ignored that when you voted the failure back in.)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Brunswick Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Rupert Blackman has AIDs Wed me2youlol 3
Looking for info on Felisha Ponsell Wed me2youlol 4
Georgia hospital losing $2 million a year in mi... Wed northernboy62 1
Miles Crews Dec 2 just wondering 1
Teacher at MCA Dec 2 just wondering 1
Camden County arrests 14 registered sex offende... Nov 27 LonePalm Sux 8
Trial for (JR) Byron Nail (Aug '09) Nov 25 lynn 35
Brunswick Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Brunswick People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Brunswick News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Brunswick

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:34 pm PST

Bleacher Report 7:34PM
Toby Gerhart Injury: Updates on Jaguars RB's Ribs and Return
Bleacher Report 7:35 PM
Marqise Lee, Allen Hurns, Cecil Shorts' Post-Week 16 Fantasy Reaction
Yahoo! Sports 7:51 PM
Titans cling to 10-7 lead over Jaguars at halftime
NBC Sports 7:59 PM
Jaguars holding onto lead after 62-yard Jordan Todman touchdown run
Yahoo! Sports 8:22 PM
Jaguars hold off Titans late, win 21-13 in home finale