Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia in 2010?

[Bill in Dville]

Snorkle wrote:

<quoted text>
...But I am not greedy enough to ruin my own country's economy for my own benefit, nor even in tough times like we have today, am willing to lay off employees just so I can make more money.

Highly unlikely your business will impact the country's economy.

Do you have investors or a bank loan? What do you do when your EBITDA isn't meeting the bank's loan covenant and the only way to make the number is by cutting staff?

[Bill in Dville]

Columbus Native wrote:

<quoted text>In the meantime, back at the ranch, we still have only 2 choices, Those who want disburse wealth to more people and those who want to give it to a few and hope they will "Trickle some down". Unfortuneatly the super greedy have taken over these past 35 years and I believe untill a third party arrises that Democrats are the ones to put money in more pockets.

Yep, we need a viable third party.

"Democrats are the ones to put money in more pockets."

Yep. It's called wealth redistribution. In many cases, taking from those that earned it and giving it to those that didn't...Expanding government control over the "sheeple" that will vote to get more stuff from the evil rich...

[Bill in Dville]

Snorkle wrote:

<quoted text>
...
You should be really happy that the Chinese will work for $2.00 an hour. That way your corporations can make even more profits for the top brass....

Isn't the purpose of (most) corporations to make money for their investors and shareholders?

[Local]

Bill in Dville wrote:

<quoted text>
"I pay gains tax when I sell stock and real estate."
You wouldn't under the FairTax..

And I'd love the hell out of it if I were to sell a $350,000,000 office building on the 3400 block of Wilshire Blvd in downtown LA when I "only" paid $150,000,000 for it three years ago, never mind I've taken the standard accelerated (five year) depreciation and mortgage interest from my gross income.

[Local]

Bill in Dville wrote:

<quoted text>
Isn't the purpose of (most) corporations to make money for their investors and shareholders?

Never mind how they get it or who pays?

[Snorkle]

Bill in Dville wrote:

<quoted text>
Highly unlikely your business will impact the country's economy.
Do you have investors or a bank loan? What do you do when your EBITDA isn't meeting the bank's loan covenant and the only way to make the number is by cutting staff?

Sure it does. Everyone's business adds up and effects the nation's economy. Your statement once again proves that you have an over-inflated ego for yourself and whatever cut-throat type of business you were in.

As for your second question: no, there is a big difference between in what I said about not cutting staff and what you are saying above. A responsible business may indeed be forced to cut jobs if it is absolutely necessary, and we all know that economic conditions can cause that to happen. However, too many large businesses make no effort at all to show any loyalty to employees. Those large businesses would rather cut their own throats just to show a profit for stockholders.

By the way, I'm not impressed with all the financial terms you throw around, and I doubt anyone else on here is either. I've never claimed to be a financial wizard, but I do know what EBITDA means. Being in a highly-technical field, I assure you that you would be lost with the technical terms I could throw around.

[Synergy]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
Seems you make your opposition's point much more credibly than your own.
A self-made multi-billionaire, who has demonstrated the proven business and investment knowledge and experience, advises on the class war that exists, primarily fought using the tax code, and informs us that wealth is being transferred via the tax code from the rest of us to the rich and powerful.
You then identify some of the reasons that this man's opinion and advice is, in fact, contrary to his own field-interest, which renders all that more credible.

Nope. Not at all. The point I was making is that he sees nothing wrong with being rich. Notice he isn't offering to pay any extra taxes that perhaps he "owed" through the years. When he does that, then I'll really listen to him. lol He has somethin like 40 billion or some such. Yeah....he REALLY relates to the middle and lower classes. AND you libs just lap it up. He WAS a BAD, EVIL, RICH man. NOW, he's a paragon of virtue. The cluelessness of the Obama worshippers is only surpassed by how gullible they are.
I will give him this...instead of sitting around and whinning about how unfair life was for him, he got out and did something about it.

[Bill in Dville]

Local wrote:

<quoted text>
Never mind how they get it or who pays?

Didn't answer the question, did you?

[Bill in Dville]

Snorkle wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure it does. Everyone's business adds up and effects the nation's economy. Your statement once again proves that you have an over-inflated ego for yourself and whatever cut-throat type of business you were in.
As for your second question: no, there is a big difference between in what I said about not cutting staff and what you are saying above. A responsible business may indeed be forced to cut jobs if it is absolutely necessary, and we all know that economic conditions can cause that to happen. However, too many large businesses make no effort at all to show any loyalty to employees. Those large businesses would rather cut their own throats just to show a profit for stockholders.
By the way, I'm not impressed with all the financial terms you throw around, and I doubt anyone else on here is either. I've never claimed to be a financial wizard, but I do know what EBITDA means. Being in a highly-technical field, I assure you that you would be lost with the technical terms I could throw around.

"Sure it does. Everyone's business adds up and effects the nation's economy. Your statement once again proves that you have an over-inflated ego for yourself and whatever cut-throat type of business you were in."

Your business, individually, likely won't impact the US economy. We're not talking about other businesses, not everyone is as altruistic as you...We were discussing YOU.

How so?

My professional experience is in healthcare related firms. Hardly cut-throat at all...

"As for your second question: no, there is a big difference between in what I said about not cutting staff and what you are saying above."

Oh, really? You make a blanket statement, now you want to make it specific?

"A responsible business may indeed be forced to cut jobs if it is absolutely necessary, and we all know that economic conditions can cause that to happen. However, too many large businesses make no effort at all to show any loyalty to employees."

Just like employees show loyalty to the employer? This isn't the 1970s any more. Are employers supposed to put the need of employees first over shareholders? You might want to research fiduciary responsibility before you answer.

"Those large businesses would rather cut their own throats just to show a profit for stockholders."

Again, you might want to research fiduciary responsibility (also for the board of directors) before answering.

"By the way, I'm not impressed with all the financial terms you throw around, and I doubt anyone else on here is either."

LMAO. What terms exactly? EBITDA? LMAO even more. ANY financial person and most people in upper management type positions that have dealt with bankers knows what that is. Maybe you're talking about capital gains taxes...

I'm certainly not trying to impress anyone in an anonymous message board. That being said, we are discussing taxes and business operations, aren't we?

"I've never claimed to be a financial wizard, but I do know what EBITDA means. Being in a highly-technical field, I assure you that you would be lost with the technical terms I could throw around."

Well, IF we were discussing your area of knowledge, you could throw around all the terms you want. I've learned not to opine on things I know nothing or very little about, so I likely wouldn't be participating. You should try it.

[Bill in Dville]

Local wrote:

<quoted text>
And I'd love the hell out of it if I were to sell a $350,000,000 office building on the 3400 block of Wilshire Blvd in downtown LA when I "only" paid $150,000,000 for it three years ago, never mind I've taken the standard accelerated (five year) depreciation and mortgage interest from my gross income.

IF my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle...

OK, you sell an expensive building. What tax forms will you file when there are no tax forms (at least for federal tax purposes)?

[Agreed]

chevy wrote:

<quoted text>
sorry your hourly rate factory job is so terrible
hang in there for awhile longer
Obama will make sure that all pay is equal so you will be making the same as the owner or ceo of your company
life will be good

Well, look at you and your broken crystal ball. I'm wiling to bet a weeks pay I make more than you period. I'm not a factory worker but there's nothing against that. Matter of fact I am in management dummy and I see it first hand. Now, why don't you hang in there and maybe Obama will fix your little red wagon. Since you think you know so much why aren't you out spending your $ from the "trickle down" economy instead of on here wasting time. Giddyup Mr. I Think I Know It All But Know Nothing, times a wasting!!

[Informed Opinion]

Synergy wrote:

<quoted text>Nope. Not at all. The point I was making is that he sees nothing wrong with being rich. Notice he isn't offering to pay any extra taxes that perhaps he "owed" through the years. When he does that, then I'll really listen to him. lol He has somethin like 40 billion or some such. Yeah....he REALLY relates to the middle and lower classes. AND you libs just lap it up. He WAS a BAD, EVIL, RICH man. NOW, he's a paragon of virtue. The cluelessness of the Obama worshippers is only surpassed by how gullible they are.
I will give him this...instead of sitting around and whinning about how unfair life was for him, he got out and did something about it.

We just look at this issue differently.

One of the most knowledgable, experienced, and successful folks in the business, tells you that he succeeded to the extent he did, in part, because the rules were unfairly rigged in his favor, and that you are being screwed. I take away from that that we need to "un-rig" the rules, to make the rules fair, so we don't get screwed.

You take away that we should leave the unfair rules in place, and use the unfair rules yourself to screw your neighbors.

[Informed Opinion]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>We just look at this issue differently.

One of the most knowledgable, experienced, and successful folks in the business, tells you that he succeeded to the extent he did, in part, because the rules were unfairly rigged in his favor, and that you are being screwed. I take away from that that we need to "un-rig" the rules, to make the rules fair, so we don't get screwed.

You take away that we should leave the unfair rules in place, and use the unfair rules yourself to screw your neighbors.

Sorry, that was inarticulate.

I should have said you don't seem to consider it screwing others, if they too have the chance to use unfair rules to their advantage.

Kinda like laissez faire on steroids.

[Synergy]

chevy wrote:

<quoted text>
You are right. Most people would not agree with me. Afterall, they re-elected Obama. They must agree with him in that all corporations are greedy monstors, rich people (if they are conservatives) are selfish and otherwise bad, everytone should receive the same pay and this country doesn't have a spending problem. I understand.
I don't look down on you or anyone else. I admire you for owning your own business.
I am sorry you feel that way and I am sorry you have been infected by the Liberal media and your skewed opinion of what drives this coutnry's economy. That's what makes the world go around, isnt it?

+1 Great post.

[Synergy]

Bill in Dville wrote:

<quoted text>
The misinformed will continue to vote Liberal.

True. Don't you just love how they are ALWAYS correct and everyone else is a product of Fox News? So predictable and hilarious.

[Bill in Dville]

Synergy wrote:

<quoted text>
True. Don't you just love how they are ALWAYS correct and everyone else is a product of Fox News? So predictable and hilarious.

+1

Especially when they don't know what the heck they're talking about...

[Synergy]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
We just look at this issue differently.
One of the most knowledgable, experienced, and successful folks in the business, tells you that he succeeded to the extent he did, in part, because the rules were unfairly rigged in his favor, and that you are being screwed. I take away from that that we need to "un-rig" the rules, to make the rules fair, so we don't get screwed.
You take away that we should leave the unfair rules in place, and use the unfair rules yourself to screw your neighbors.

Wonder WHY he took advantage until he was around 75 or so and THEN decided to become so noble???? Seems to me he would have stepped up years and years ago if he was so concerned.

Your last sentence is not true. I'm not thinking that the laws shouldn't be changed. I'm just not sure HOW they should be changed. I can tell you this....I'm not so eaten up with bitterness and envy that I blame corporations for all that is wrong with this country. Certainly, the middle class taxes need some work, however, the rules for corporations need to work in such a way that they don't kill the incentive of the corporations to want to stay here and at the same time encourage those which have left to want to come back. Just don't see how we can have the same rules for the private sector that we have for corporations.
I have NEVER witnessed such hatred and divisiveness between the classes, races and political parties. Only one common denominator as far as I can see. His plan is working to perfection. You might say, "Well, good for him". My answer is, "How is this divisiveness working so far?"

[Synergy]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, that was inarticulate.
I should have said you don't seem to consider it screwing others, if they too have the chance to use unfair rules to their advantage.
Kinda like laissez faire on steroids.

I don't proclaim to be anyone's moral compass. If the law says it's legal, then don't complain if you decide not to pursue what is available to you.

[chevy]

Agreed wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, look at you and your broken crystal ball. I'm wiling to bet a weeks pay I make more than you period. I'm not a factory worker but there's nothing against that. Matter of fact I am in management dummy and I see it first hand. Now, why don't you hang in there and maybe Obama will fix your little red wagon. Since you think you know so much why aren't you out spending your $ from the "trickle down" economy instead of on here wasting time. Giddyup Mr. I Think I Know It All But Know Nothing, times a wasting!!

Oh yeah?

Well, my dad can beat up your dad.

My dog's better than your dog.

I just have one question re your incredibly dumb post: What exactly is "management dummy"? Are you by any chance in the mannequin business?

Giddyup?

Little red wagon?

You funny man

[Informed Opinion]

Synergy wrote:

<quoted text>I don't proclaim to be anyone's moral compass. If the law says it's legal, then don't complain if you decide not to pursue what is available to you.

That logic would mean that when the law allowed slavery, we shouldn't criticize those who elected to enjoy the financial benefits if owning their fellow human beings.

After all it was legal to keep others in chains, take their labor, occasionally rape their wives and daughters, and maybe kill off the troublemakers.

Legal isn't the same as moral.

There was a time when it was even more legal for corporations to collude and conspire to create monopolies, prevent competition, force Americans to live at the complete mercy of the "Trusts", and drive anyone not part of the "club" into financial ruin.

Hey it was legal, so what if millions lives in abject poverty so that Standard Oil and its monopolistic cohorts could make billions.

Legal isn't the same as fair.

There was a time when 50,000 Americans were sent to die in a faraway war, which the government already knew was unwinable, while those who make billions for the war enjoyed their profits and the sons of the wealthy and powerful stayed safely far from danger.

Legal isn't the same as right.

Hey, I'm no moral leader, I take advantage of the corrupt system whenever I can, as does almost everyone else. But, that doesn't mean we should not criticize it's faults.

Real Americans seek to improve their country by criticizing it's policies when they are wrong.

That's not complaining, that's caring.