PDA

View Full Version : It's about damn time!



ChiefB
01-29-2014, 02:02 AM
Retired CMSAF Roy and his sister service contemporaries have finally stepped up.

They have come out against the proposed across the board 1% reduction of the current retired pay COLA adjustment formula. They also have come out diametrically opposed to a recent statement of retired Senior Flag Officers condoning the reduction. I love it.

If passed, "the cost-of-living adjustment reduction to military retired pay included in the Bipartisan Budget Act goes into effect in December 2015"

“You don’t join the military to get rich. There are a lot of sacrifices. There are PCS moves. There are bullets flying overhead. We’re still fighting a war, and now we are talking about reducing the COLA? I don’t get it,” recently retired Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force James Roy said.

In interviews, Roy and the others denounced the reductions, calling them unfair to the average enlisted troops who often struggle to find decent-paying jobs when they leave the service.

The six senior enlisted leaders said they decided to speak out after four retired generals and flag officers issued a statement Jan. 13 voicing support for the cuts.

"Writing for the Bipartisan Policy Center, retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, retired Marine Maj. Gen. Arnold Punaro, retired Air Force Gen. Chuck Wald and retired Navy Adm. Greg Johnson said the planned reduction, which they later described in an op-ed piece in The Hill newspaper as “modest and reasonable reform,” is “an important first step in tackling” rising military personnel costs."

“Very generous health care and pension benefits for able-bodied, working age (38-62) military retirees — benefits that have no parallel in either the private or public sectors — cannot remain the same without causing damage to our war-fighting ability in an era of constrained resources,” they wrote in the editorial."

"But the senior enlisted advisers said the pending changes are an assault on what they consider a benefit they’ve already earned — the promise of retirement pay that will keep up with inflation."

Surprise, surprise... "None of the flag officers who spoke in favor of the cuts would be affected by the reductions. The three four-stars will earn, combined, more than $560,800 in retirement pay in 2014."

"According to Military Times calculations, a service member who retires as an E-7 with 22 years of service would see an average loss of $100,000 by the time he or she reached age 62, while an O-5 stands to lose $121,000."

Thank you, CMSAF Roy and your sister service contemporaries, it's about damn time.

See: http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140127/BENEFITS02/301270026/Top-enlisted-retirees-push-back-COLA-cuts

giggawatt
01-29-2014, 03:13 AM
So he finally decides to do something...after he retires.

ChiefB
01-29-2014, 03:43 AM
The Flag officers referenced in the above article have gone on to lucrative endeavors that undoubtedly keep them in touch with the retired enlisted force and their monetary plight.

After retirement, Gen. Jones was the Chief Executive of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for21st Century Energy. He earned a salary and bonus of $900,000 from the USChamber, as well as director fees of $330,000 from the Boeing Company and$290,000 from the Chevron Corporation.

MGen Punaro was the Executive Vice President of Science Applications InternationalCorporation (SAIC) and well as numerous board seats.

Gen. Wald Was the Director of Deloitte Services, LP and the Vice President ofInternational Programs for L-3 Communications Corporation.

Adm. Johnson founded Snow Ridge Associates, a consulting firm with no web site, sitson the Energy Security Leadership Council and gets $188,534 a year from CACI, International.

(Info provided by our old compadre' "TAK".)

Airborne
01-29-2014, 03:54 AM
So he finally decides to do something...after he retires.

...and affects his pocketbook directly...

wxjumper
01-29-2014, 05:08 AM
I love it. When I saw the statement from those general officers on the COLA reduction, my first thought is who are these fucktards to tell me what is reasonable and what is not when they receive ridiculous pensions, that most of the time are greater then their pay when they were AD! Glad to see the top Enlisted fire back with this rebuttal.

Measure Man
01-29-2014, 05:26 AM
The Flag officers referenced in the above article have gone on to lucrative endeavors that undoubtedly keep them in touch with the retired enlisted force and their monetary plight.

After retirement, Gen. Jones was the Chief Executive of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for21st Century Energy. He earned a salary and bonus of $900,000 from the USChamber, as well as director fees of $330,000 from the Boeing Company and$290,000 from the Chevron Corporation.

MGen Punaro was the Executive Vice President of Science Applications InternationalCorporation (SAIC) and well as numerous board seats.

Gen. Wald Was the Director of Deloitte Services, LP and the Vice President ofInternational Programs for L-3 Communications Corporation.

Adm. Johnson founded Snow Ridge Associates, a consulting firm with no web site, sitson the Energy Security Leadership Council and gets $188,534 a year from CACI, International.

(Info provided by our old compadre' "TAK".)

The Republican Party would say, "Don't be jealous that they worked hard for their money"

imported_KnuckleDragger
01-29-2014, 05:32 AM
Their opinions mean zilch to congress or the average American.

TJMAC77SP
01-29-2014, 03:17 PM
The Republican Party would say, "Don't be jealous that they worked hard for their money"

What would the Democrats say?

SomeRandomGuy
01-29-2014, 03:25 PM
What would the Democrats say?

The Democrats would say that we should drastically reduce their CEO/Management salaries so we can pay everyone a minimum wage of $15 an hour.

By the way this is actually what Republicans would say...

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m57/sethayates/943039_10153705488255515_343688551_n_zps2b063034.j pg

Measure Man
01-29-2014, 03:43 PM
What would the Democrats say?

Tax them.

USN - Retired
01-29-2014, 05:11 PM
The Democrats would say that we should drastically reduce their CEO/Management salaries so we can pay everyone a minimum wage of $15 an hour.

Who exactly is "we" ?





By the way this is actually what Republicans would say...

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m57/sethayates/943039_10153705488255515_343688551_n_zps2b063034.j pg

So,... Why is it okay for Beyonce to make $50 million and not okay for a CEO who has 3000 employees and $100 million in profit to make $5 million?

Should "we" also drastically reduce Beyonce's Salary?

SomeRandomGuy
01-29-2014, 05:20 PM
Who exactly is "we" ?

So,... Why is it okay for Beyonce to make $50 million and not okay for a CEO who has 3000 employees and $100 million in profit to make $5 million?

Should "we" also drastically reduce Beyonce's Salary?

Was just answering the question. In my sentence "we" is Democrats. The Democrats think it is unfair that CEOs make so much money. Admittedly, there is nothing they can do about it though. It is an odd double standard. The same people who complain about CEO salaries are usually perfectly ok with sports stars or entertainers getting paid ridiculous salaries.

In my opinion if you have the talent to be the best at your profession or craft you should be allowed to strive for whatever salary the market will bear. With that being said I think that people at the top get a little bit greedy. Look at NFL players. If you are a top QB you can make 20 Million per year (salary cap number). The total cap is around 130 million so on a team of 53 players one person is sucking up 15% of the avaliable salary. If you asked Peyton Manning if NFL players should take a 1% pay cut to reduce ticket prices he would probably be ok with it. It makes no differnce to him. If you ask the same thing to one of the guys making league minimum you would get a vastly differnet answer.

TJMAC77SP
01-29-2014, 07:25 PM
Tax them.

I'll give you that one.

TJMAC77SP
01-29-2014, 07:26 PM
The Democrats would say that we should drastically reduce their CEO/Management salaries so we can pay everyone a minimum wage of $15 an hour.

By the way this is actually what Republicans would say...

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m57/sethayates/943039_10153705488255515_343688551_n_zps2b063034.j pg

Can you give me the actual "Proud Conservative" who said that because I want to know which smallish company with 100 million in profits pays their CEO 5 million.........................

TJMAC77SP
01-29-2014, 07:28 PM
Was just answering the question. In my sentence "we" is Democrats. The Democrats think it is unfair that CEOs make so much money. Admittedly, there is nothing they can do about it though. It is an odd double standard. The same people who complain about CEO salaries are usually perfectly ok with sports stars or entertainers getting paid ridiculous salaries.

In my opinion if you have the talent to be the best at your profession or craft you should be allowed to strive for whatever salary the market will bear. With that being said I think that people at the top get a little bit greedy. Look at NFL players. If you are a top QB you can make 20 Million per year (salary cap number). The total cap is around 130 million so on a team of 53 players one person is sucking up 15% of the avaliable salary. If you asked Peyton Manning if NFL players should take a 1% pay cut to reduce ticket prices he would probably be ok with it. It makes no differnce to him. If you ask the same thing to one of the guys making league minimum you would get a vastly differnet answer.

Is that an official policy of the DNC? That CEO pay should be reduced?

USN - Retired
01-29-2014, 10:39 PM
Is that an official policy of the DNC? That CEO pay should be reduced?

It is the official policy of the DNC that the pay of white male CEO's should be reduced. That policy is part of the DNC's war against white males. Democrats believe that white males are incompetent buffoons who say stupid things and can not do anything right. At first, I could not understand why they think that way. After listening to Joe Biden and Harry Reid talk, I now understand why they think that way.

Bunch
01-29-2014, 11:47 PM
It is the official policy of the DNC that the pay of white male CEO's should be reduced. That policy is part of the DNC's war against white males. Democrats believe that white males are incompetent buffoons who say stupid things and can not do anything right. At first, I could not understand why they think that way. After listening to Joe Biden and Harry Reid talk, I now understand why they think that way.

No... We came to that conclusion after analyzing every single conservative goon out there.

imported_MERC8401
01-30-2014, 01:09 AM
The military is turning itself into another special intrest group. Nice.

imported_MERC8401
01-30-2014, 01:13 AM
Was just answering the question. In my sentence "we" is Democrats. The Democrats think it is unfair that CEOs make so much money. Admittedly, there is nothing they can do about it though. It is an odd double standard. The same people who complain about CEO salaries are usually perfectly ok with sports stars or entertainers getting paid ridiculous salaries.

In my opinion if you have the talent to be the best at your profession or craft you should be allowed to strive for whatever salary the market will bear. With that being said I think that people at the top get a little bit greedy. Look at NFL players. If you are a top QB you can make 20 Million per year (salary cap number). The total cap is around 130 million so on a team of 53 players one person is sucking up 15% of the avaliable salary. If you asked Peyton Manning if NFL players should take a 1% pay cut to reduce ticket prices he would probably be ok with it. It makes no differnce to him. If you ask the same thing to one of the guys making league minimum you would get a vastly differnet answer.

And is this coming from someone who believes we shouldn't raise minimum wage?

Max Power
01-30-2014, 02:01 AM
http://img.4plebs.org/boards/tg/image/1386/01/1386011306966.jpg

TJMAC77SP
01-30-2014, 02:29 AM
No... We came to that conclusion after analyzing every single conservative goon out there.

You keep using the inclusive "we". Is your position an official position of the DNC?

jshiver15
01-30-2014, 04:02 AM
Well . . that escalated quickly.

USN - Retired
01-30-2014, 05:55 AM
Well . . that escalated quickly.

I do enjoy provoking the liberals on this forum, but I have to admit that I had much more fun provoking the military housewives who used to frequent this forum a few years ago.

jshiver15
01-30-2014, 06:13 AM
I do enjoy provoking the liberals on this forum, but I have to admit that I had much more fun provoking the military housewives who used to frequent this forum a few years ago.
Well, who doesn't enjoy a good dependa smashing? Please note the double entendre of my question. Euphemisms are my favorite.

Drackore
01-30-2014, 12:36 PM
I rarely if ever do this, but can we get back on the topic at hand? I am very interested in watching and participating in ya'll debate on the 1%, the officers position, and the enlisted rebuttal to it.

TJMAC77SP
01-30-2014, 12:38 PM
.....((leaving the field))..............

Bunch
01-30-2014, 02:10 PM
I do enjoy provoking the liberals on this forum, but I have to admit that I had much more fun provoking the military housewives who used to frequent this forum a few years ago.

I like to provoke conservatives also... Since you all probably gonna be dead by 2040 might as well laugh at your face while you still around.

sandsjames
01-30-2014, 02:37 PM
I like to provoke conservatives also... Since you all probably gonna be dead by 2040 might as well laugh at your face while you still around.

I've got at least 40 more years so don't hold your breath...or do.

Juggs
01-30-2014, 07:39 PM
The Republican Party would say, "Don't be jealous that they worked hard for their money"

And the dems would say, but the saving will go to welfare, and the Eco system.

Juggs
01-30-2014, 07:41 PM
I like to provoke conservatives also... Since you all probably gonna be dead by 2040 might as well laugh at your face while you still around.

I've got more than till 2040 unless there is a large accident or cancer. I'm a 31 yr old and conservative leaning. Don't know where you got your 2040. Oh wait, you're a dem. You're great at pull numbers out of your ass. Ooooooohhhh

sandsjames
01-30-2014, 08:45 PM
I've got more than till 2040 unless there is a large accident or cancer. I'm a 31 yr old and conservative leaning. Don't know where you got your 2040. Oh wait, you're a dem. You're great at pull numbers out of your ass. Ooooooohhhh


I think he's trying to say that Conservatives are all old guys. He doesn't realize that not everyone under the age of 40 believes in no consequences for any actions.

Bunch
01-30-2014, 09:50 PM
I think he's trying to say that Conservatives are all old guys. He doesn't realize that not everyone under the age of 40 believes in no consequences for any actions.

That's not what I meant at all.

sandsjames
01-30-2014, 10:08 PM
That's not what I meant at all.

So you really think the Conservative party will be gone in 25 years? Actually, I wouldn't doubt it. We are losing many of our values. England still has a "Conservative" party but I'd dare to say that their Conservatives are more liberal than our liberals. We could go down that path if for no other reason than politicians will crumble to whatever they think will get them the "youth vote". Whether I agree with one side or the other, we need everyone from the far left to the far right. Even more than that I hope that neither the far left, far right, and everything in between give up their beliefs. I'd rather have a politician who really believes in what they say rather than one who just panders to the constituency.

USN - Retired
01-30-2014, 10:33 PM
If the Conservative party will be gone in 25 years, then the economy will collapse shortly thereafter. The economy could not long survive the Liberal government agenda of welfare, borrowing, taxing, and wasteful/pointless spending.

sandsjames
01-30-2014, 10:37 PM
If the Conservative party will be gone in 25 years, then the economy will collapse shortly thereafter. The economy could not long survive the Liberal government agenda of welfare, borrowing, taxing, and wasteful/pointless spending.

Sure it can. It happens in many other countries. It just makes everyone lower class to lower middle class.

Bunch
01-30-2014, 11:00 PM
So you really think the Conservative party will be gone in 25 years?

Yes. Conservatives are a dying breed. As more minorities enter the electorate and the republican demographic starts to die the conservative/GOP will become a permanent minority at first and then an irrelevant section of American politics.

Bunch
01-30-2014, 11:02 PM
If the Conservative party will be gone in 25 years, then the economy will collapse shortly thereafter. The economy could not long survive the Liberal government agenda of welfare, borrowing, taxing, and wasteful/pointless spending.

No it won't. If the country survived Bush it can survive anything.

GoatDriver57
01-31-2014, 03:26 AM
I like to provoke conservatives also... Since you all probably gonna be dead by 2040 might as well laugh at your face while you still around.

Being an optimist is a good thing especially for that coming period. Between '029-'037 there are high hopes the speeding space rocks does miss the planet, as calculations are going now, they are pretty dead on center to do earth a good shaking. Very good possibility no one will ever see the formal retirement of the 52 platform. Refurbished Atlas silos will cracker like egg shells. Sheila Jackson Lee's Mars colony will wilt in the desert.

USN - Retired
01-31-2014, 04:50 AM
Yes. Conservatives are a dying breed. As more minorities enter the electorate and the republican demographic starts to die the conservative/GOP will become a permanent minority at first and then an irrelevant section of American politics.

Given the current demographics of Muslims in our country, i.e. increasing immigration of Muslims into the US and high birth rate of Muslims in the US and given the current demographics of Christians in the US, declining birth rate of the Christian population, I suspect that our country may become an Islamic Republic in approximately 75 years.

Bunch
01-31-2014, 05:33 AM
Given the current demographics of Muslims in our country, i.e. increasing immigration of Muslims into the US and high birth rate of Muslims in the US and given the current demographics of Christians in the US, declining birth rate of the Christian population, I suspect that our country may become an Islamic Republic in approximately 75 years.

I'm confused... Is that suppose to be a bad thing? Is being a Muslim something shameful? Or perhaps should I be afraid of such a scenario?

The xenophobic force is strong with this one...

wxjumper
01-31-2014, 05:46 AM
I'm confused... Is that suppose to be a bad thing? Is being a Muslim something shameful? Or perhaps should I be afraid of such a scenario?

The xenophobic force is strong with this one...
You mean like how Democrats think being a Christian is shameful?

wxjumper
01-31-2014, 05:48 AM
I rarely if ever do this, but can we get back on the topic at hand? I am very interested in watching and participating in ya'll debate on the 1%, the officers position, and the enlisted rebuttal to it.
I agree with you. But since the AF Times moved this to the Pay and Benefits section, it was going to die out any way. So might as well go off topic.

Bunch
01-31-2014, 05:59 AM
You mean like how Democrats think being a Christian is shameful?

Another fallacy of the right wing propaganda machine. Almost 80% of democrats ID themselves as Christians. Is the right wingers who refuse to believe that you can be a democrat and a Christian. But what about those Muslims? Are you afraid of them too?

wxjumper
01-31-2014, 06:18 AM
Another fallacy of the right wing propaganda machine. Almost 80% of democrats ID themselves as Christians. Is the right wingers who refuse to believe that you can be a democrat and a Christian. But what about those Muslims? Are you afraid of them too?
80% of Democrats? lol, most of those Democrats only pretend to be devote Christians in order to get enough of the moderate vote to get elected (i.e. Obama)

Bunch
01-31-2014, 06:31 AM
80% of Democrats? lol, most of those Democrats only pretend to be devote Christians in order to get enough of the moderate vote to get elected (i.e. Obama)

Of course!! I forgot that right wingers feel that only they can lay claim to God and pass judgment on the faith of others who don't happen to share their political views. While at it please remember...

"Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?"

USN - Retired
01-31-2014, 09:09 AM
I'm confused...

I've noticed.


Is that suppose to be a bad thing...

Well,... you can forget about your little liberal fantasy of a Marxist utopia for our country. It just won't happen. The Muslims in our country are breeding like rabbits. In a generation or two, we will be under Islamic law (or will it be Sharia Law?)


Is being a Muslim something shameful?...

Most people in an Islamic Republic consider being a Christian to be shameful.


Or perhaps should I be afraid of such a scenario?...

Many people do enjoy living in an Islamic Republic. Many people in Iran are happy to obey Islamic laws. Perhaps you would enjoy being forced to obey Islamic laws. It will probably suck for the feminists though.


The xenophobic force is strong with this one...

When we become an Islamic Republic and are forced to obey Islamic laws, then you will understand the concept of xenophobia. I lived in Saudi Arabia for a few months. They are the most xenophobic people that I have ever seen.

Have you ever noticed that Muslims are very tolerant of other religions when they are in the minority, but they become very intolerant of other religions when they are in the majority?

Are you the banned "Joe Bonham"?

sandsjames
01-31-2014, 12:02 PM
Another fallacy of the right wing propaganda machine. Almost 80% of democrats ID themselves as Christians. Is the right wingers who refuse to believe that you can be a democrat and a Christian. But what about those Muslims? Are you afraid of them too?

Also a fallacy to believe that you can't be a minority and Conservative, or poor and Conservative.

Bunch
01-31-2014, 02:25 PM
Also a fallacy to believe that you can't be a minority and Conservative, or poor and Conservative.

Who has said that? It certainly wasn't me.

Bunch
01-31-2014, 02:29 PM
I've noticed.



Well,... you can forget about your little liberal fantasy of a Marxist utopia for our country. It just won't happen. The Muslims in our country are breeding like rabbits. In a generation or two, we will be under Islamic law (or will it be Sharia Law?)



Most people in an Islamic Republic consider being a Christian to be shameful.



Many people do enjoy living in an Islamic Republic. Many people in Iran are happy to obey Islamic laws. Perhaps you would enjoy being forced to obey Islamic laws. It will probably suck for the feminists though.



When we become an Islamic Republic and are forced to obey Islamic laws, then you will understand the concept of xenophobia. I lived in Saudi Arabia for a few months. They are the most xenophobic people that I have ever seen.

Have you ever noticed that Muslims are very tolerant of other religions when they are in the minority, but they become very intolerant of other religions when they are in the majority?

Are you the banned "Joe Bonham"?

Hey old man, turn off the Fox News and the Glenn Beck go outside and take a walk. Save some money and go on a cruise. Living in fear is a sad way to live a life. Muslims haven't conquer America yet but they certainly already conquered you.

sandsjames
01-31-2014, 02:39 PM
Who has said that? It certainly wasn't me.

Oh really?


Yes. Conservatives are a dying breed. As more minorities enter the electorate and the republican demographic starts to die the conservative/GOP will become a permanent minority at first and then an irrelevant section of American politics.

That's exactly what you said. Once old white guys die, the conservative party will become irrelevant.

Bunch
01-31-2014, 02:52 PM
Oh really?



That's exactly what you said. Once old white guys die, the conservative party will become irrelevant.

Yes I did imply that once the old white guys start to die "old fashioned conservatism" will die with them. But I never imply that minorities couldn't be conservatives. My comment about minorities does implies that the overwhelming majority of US (minorities) will ID or lean to vote democrat and that is understood as such by almost everyone who knows anything about politics.

I tought all of you would realize that I was speaking about core demographics and not about every single person in this country. I will try to slow down the pace so you can keep up.

GoatDriver57
01-31-2014, 03:23 PM
Hey old man, turn off the Fox News and the Glenn Beck go outside and take a walk. Save some money and go on a cruise. Living in fear is a sad way to live a life. Muslims haven't conquer America yet but they certainly already conquered you.

When (bold) appears, good indicator, 'Bunch' and his like kind are with empty magazines, next they'll return to the party with a pistol in hand to really show your a$$. South of the border, characteristically mental attitude. Bunch, would one save some money or just save money? Your subliminal line says the Muslims have a rope around your neck you are well in lock-step. Joe?

Bunch
01-31-2014, 03:41 PM
When (bold) appears, good indicator, 'Bunch' and his like kind are with empty magazines, next they'll return to the party with a pistol in hand to really show your a$$. South of the border, characteristically mental attitude. Bunch, would one save some money or just save money? Your subliminal line says the Muslims have a rope around your neck you are well in lock-step. Joe?

When (bold) appears, bad indicator, "GoatDriver57" and his kind are like living in fear all the time. They are blatantly xenophobic and will not be a bad guess to think they are racist too.

Juggs
01-31-2014, 03:49 PM
Hey old man, turn off the Fox News and the Glenn Beck go outside and take a walk. Save some money and go on a cruise. Living in fear is a sad way to live a life. Muslims haven't conquer America yet but they certainly already conquered you.

Yea then he will be accused by liberals for living lavishly and not giving to the poor.

sandsjames
01-31-2014, 04:15 PM
When (bold) appears, good indicator, 'Bunch' and his like kind are with empty magazines, next they'll return to the party with a pistol in hand to really show your a$$. South of the border, characteristically mental attitude. Bunch, would one save some money or just save money? Your subliminal line says the Muslims have a rope around your neck you are well in lock-step. Joe?

What?????

GoatDriver57
01-31-2014, 04:22 PM
What?????
Light bulb?????

sandsjames
01-31-2014, 04:35 PM
Light bulb?????

Nothing to do with a light bulb. Trying to decipher WTF you said. It looks like English but it's hard to tell. Some kind of broken language, that's for sure.

TJMAC77SP
01-31-2014, 04:56 PM
Yes I did imply that once the old white guys start to die "old fashioned conservatism" will die with them. But I never imply that minorities couldn't be conservatives. My comment about minorities does implies that the overwhelming majority of US (minorities) will ID or lean to vote democrat and that's is understood as such by almost everyone who knows anything about politics.

I tought all of you would realize that I was speaking about core demographics and not about every single person in this country. I will try to slow down the pace so you can keep up.

I think we will find that as minority groups gain in affluence they will start realigning their voting patterns...........assuming the Dems don't change their spending habits.

Bunch
01-31-2014, 04:59 PM
Nothing to do with a light bulb. Trying to decipher WTF you said. It looks like English but it's hard to tell. Some kind of broken language, that's for sure.

I will translate for you:

"Bunch you are a Mexican and you suck and you are dumb. You don't even know how to write in English. You are fool if you aren't afraid of Muslims."

sandsjames
01-31-2014, 05:04 PM
I will translate for you:

"Bunch you are a Mexican and you suck and you are dumb. You don't even know how to write in English. You are fool if you aren't afraid of Muslims."

Gotcha...

Bunch
01-31-2014, 05:13 PM
I think we will find that as minority groups gain in affluence they will start realigning their voting patterns...........assuming the Dems don't change their spending habits.

I think affluence has less to do with it. One thing that I have never understood about the GOP is how as an organization they fail to seize on clear opportunities. The Hispanic community was primed for GOP, as a community we are deeply religious, the majority with strong social conservative values.

Call the Democratic Party what you want but to combine whites, black, hispanics, Asians, poor, rich, middle class, religious types, non religious types, women, pro choice, pro gays, anti war and others without losing any significant portion of any said constituency, even when some of the agendas of said groups will conflict at times, is an amazing feat when it comes to outreach.

Bunch
01-31-2014, 05:34 PM
Are we having fun or not??!! Are you not entertained!!? Where are all this whiners and complainers who say this forums are boring? Just throw a "liberal" into water infested with conservative piranhas and watch what happens!!!

Measure Man
01-31-2014, 05:47 PM
I think we will find that as minority groups gain in affluence they will start realigning their voting patterns...........assuming the Dems don't change their spending habits.

The GOP loses on social issues.

I believe somewhere in their midst is a charismatic leader that will change the tone of the GOP...one that maybe stays conservative in their beliefs without feeling the need to "not accept" those lifestyles they don't agree with.

It is amazing in the short amount of time Pope Francis has been in place, how much he has changed the tone of the Catholic Church...to my knowledge, he hasn't actually changed any of the policies/tenets of faith/core beliefs or anything like that...he's just changed the tone. More like a "hey, if I think homosexuality is a sin, I'm not going to win people over by bashing them...I will show them kindness, compassion and love...help bring them to God, and let God convince them when they are good and ready"....sure, that's not going to happen with a lot of people, but the tone is much more uplifting and positive.

I think there is someone out there like that for the GOP...and I am looking forward to it.

TJMAC77SP
01-31-2014, 06:01 PM
I will translate for you:

"Bunch you are a Mexican and you suck and you are dumb. You don't even know how to write in English. You are fool if you aren't afraid of Muslims."

You're Mexican............? I never knew that.

Juggs
01-31-2014, 06:01 PM
Aaa yes the mantra of the dems. Tolerance, unless you disagree with us, then F*ck you, you racist gun toting, poor hating rednecks!!!

TJMAC77SP
01-31-2014, 06:10 PM
I think affluence has less to do with it. One thing that I have never understood about the GOP is how as an organization they fail to seize on clear opportunities. The Hispanic community was primed for GOP, as a community we are deeply religious, the majority with strong social conservative values.
Call the Democratic Party what you want but to combine whites, black, hispanics, Asians, poor, rich, middle class, religious types, non religious types, women, pro choice, pro gays, anti war and others without losing any significant portion of any said constituency, even when some of the agendas of said groups will conflict at times, is an amazing feat when it comes to outreach.


The GOP loses on social issues.
I believe somewhere in their midst is a charismatic leader that will change the tone of the GOP...one that maybe stays conservative in their beliefs without feeling the need to "not accept" those lifestyles they don't agree with.
It is amazing in the short amount of time Pope Francis has been in place, how much he has changed the tone of the Catholic Church...to my knowledge, he hasn't actually changed any of the policies/tenets of faith/core beliefs or anything like that...he's just changed the tone. More like a "hey, if I think homosexuality is a sin, I'm not going to win people over by bashing them...I will show them kindness, compassion and love...help bring them to God, and let God convince them when they are good and ready"....sure, that's not going to happen with a lot of people, but the tone is much more uplifting and positive.
I think there is someone out there like that for the GOP...and I am looking forward to it.

I would agree with most of the point from both of you. My mention of affluence of course refers to when these minorities raise their standard of living as most other groups have they will realize that there is a real effort at wealth redistribution being conducted by the Dems. You can cloak it in all sorts of names and attack those that point it out in as many different ways as well but the truth is as these groups realize they now have a real dog ($$) in the fight they will become more conservative both in domestic (fiscal) matters and foreign relations.
Having said that I agree the GOP needs a new direction and new leadership. Not a 180 degree turn to liberalism but a more inclusive stance (which they used to have). I am still hoping that the ‘compassionate conservative’ George Bush spoke of actually appears on the national stage. One that will tell the fringe elements of the party to STFU or go find another sand box to shit in.

GoatDriver57
01-31-2014, 08:17 PM
You're Mexican............? I never knew that.

TJ, sure you didn't. :). Some of the best known are Bunch types and all are conservatives and not from Kalifornya. Work & play with them awhile and one of non-native speakers of Spanish gets to know when its time to cap the everClear and call curtains.

sandsjames
01-31-2014, 08:44 PM
TJ, sure you didn't. :). Some of the best known are Bunch types and all are conservatives and not from Kalifornya. Work & play with them awhile and one of non-native speakers of Spanish gets to know when its time to cap the everClear and call curtains.


Please attempt to put together a coherent sentence, at least once.

Bunch
01-31-2014, 09:23 PM
You're Mexican............? I never knew that.

Hehehehehe... Have to admit I chuckled...good one...

sandsjames
01-31-2014, 11:01 PM
Hehehehehe... Have to admit I chuckled...good one...

I had no idea either...

TJMAC77SP
02-01-2014, 01:40 AM
TJ, sure you didn't. :). Some of the best known are Bunch types and all are conservatives and not from Kalifornya. Work & play with them awhile and one of non-native speakers of Spanish gets to know when its time to cap the everClear and call curtains.


Hehehehehe... Have to admit I chuckled...good one...

Regardless of the mirth I caused, I seriously had no idea of your ethnic background. I did assume you weren’t black mainly because you never claimed to be. Other than that I had no idea.

Bunch
02-01-2014, 02:46 AM
You're Mexican............? I never knew that.

Actually I'm not. But like Goat there is plenty people out there who thinks that if you happen to speak spanish you are from Mexico or like he said "from south of the border".

wxjumper
02-01-2014, 02:46 AM
I will translate for you:

"Bunch you are a Mexican and you suck and you are dumb. You don't even know how to write in English. You are fool if you aren't afraid of Muslims."Why are you so racist?

Bunch
02-01-2014, 02:49 AM
Why are you so racist?

I'm not. My friends sister cousin has a black friend so I'm covered. Why are you so judgmental?

wxjumper
02-01-2014, 02:53 AM
I'm not. My friends sister cousin has a black friend so I'm covered. Why are you so judgmental?

Just scanning these posts (no sane person would actually read all the rhetoric posted in this thread) and every time I scan past yours, you are making some some sort of racist comment against Mexicans, Blacks, and Muslims.

Bunch
02-01-2014, 02:55 AM
Just scanning these posts (no sane person would actually read all the rhetoric posted in this thread) and every time I scan past yours, you are making some some sort of racist comment against Mexicans, Blacks, and Muslims.

Hahahahahaha... You need to read better...

imnohero
02-01-2014, 03:28 AM
I'm not. My friends sister cousin has a black friend so I'm covered. Why are you so judgmental?

:popcorn:hypnotized:

TJMAC77SP
02-01-2014, 03:53 AM
Now I am really confused.


..........and at the same time not so confused. Some things have just come together.

USN - Retired
02-01-2014, 10:21 AM
Why are you so judgmental?

Why are YOU so judgmental?

USN - Retired
02-01-2014, 11:10 AM
Why are you so racist?

Bunch is definitely a strong supporter of the democrat's war against white men. He has been brainwashed by the democrats and programmed to hate all white men. I seriously doubt that he can be saved at this point. I pity him.

AJBIGJ
02-01-2014, 11:49 AM
Since the thread is officially hijacked into politics already, I figure I'll go ahead and double down.

In my honest personal opinion, I think politics in this country in the future will see a large migration in geography, in fact we're starting to see it already (Hannity purportedly leaving NY state for example).

As certain states and cities become more and more socialist-leaning or statist-leaning, those with Conservative or Libertarian tendencies, frequently outnumbered at the poll booth (because urban areas do seem to trend left over a period of decades) will continue to "vote with their feet" to states where they feel their vote will have an impact, this will also cause those states to become concentration areas of those of a certain philosophy, and those who might swing left may be frustrated out of those states as well to an extent, because the government philosophy in those states will feel somewhat less welcome among those ideologies.

The trick will be what occurs between the Federal and Politically "Right" State governments, I think left of center has probably outnumbered right of center in total population for a number of years now (depending where this arbitrary "center" is measured from). So I think the Federal government will always lean "progressive" at the very least. This will put them at odds with the more "conservative" states who will likely seek to nullify based on Federalist principles to mitigate some of the effects of the Federal government (as is currently the case with the ACA).

What that leads to will be anyone's guess, if you're personally interested in this type of thing, the dynamic will certainly be interesting as well!

Bunch
02-01-2014, 12:07 PM
Bunch is definitely a strong supporter of the democrat's war against white men. He has been brainwashed by the democrats and programmed to hate all white men. I seriously doubt that he can be saved at this point. I pity him.

Hehehehe... I'm a Christian ... I don't hate... I pray.

Bunch
02-01-2014, 12:52 PM
Since the thread is officially hijacked into politics already, I figure I'll go ahead and double down.

In my honest personal opinion, I think politics in this country in the future will see a large migration in geography, in fact we're starting to see it already (Hannity purportedly leaving NY state for example).

As certain states and cities become more and more socialist-leaning or statist-leaning, those with Conservative or Libertarian tendencies, frequently outnumbered at the poll booth (because urban areas do seem to trend left over a period of decades) will continue to "vote with their feet" to states where they feel their vote will have an impact, this will also cause those states to become concentration areas of those of a certain philosophy, and those who might swing left may be frustrated out of those states as well to an extent, because the government philosophy in those states will feel somewhat less welcome among those ideologies.

The trick will be what occurs between the Federal and Politically "Right" State governments, I think left of center has probably outnumbered right of center in total population for a number of years now (depending where this arbitrary "center" is measured from). So I think the Federal government will always lean "progressive" at the very least. This will put them at odds with the more "conservative" states who will likely seek to nullify based on Federalist principles to mitigate some of the effects of the Federal government (as is currently the case with the ACA).

What that leads to will be anyone's guess, if you're personally interested in this type of thing, the dynamic will certainly be interesting as well!

I can see how such a scenario might happen but I think is a very remote possibility. I was reading an article the other day that was highlighting the fact that less than 10% (maybe 5%, I will try to track it down) of the US population has moved out of their home state to another. The article went to say that the majority of college students go to state colleges for obvious reasons and even the vast majority of those who attend out of state colleges return to their home state. The article really open my eyes because since we live in this military bubble I was in the belief that moving is normal and that it was very common but the article reflected the opposite of that. Moving is just hard psychologically for a person even harder for a family, we are talking about losing daily contact with family, very close friends, friends, your children friends and school, and other people you have know for all your life. The majority of people get really frightened when they envisioned that.

IMO when people end up moving they don't do it because of politics they do it because of opportunities. People are going to go where the jobs are and if the jobs are in New York then we go to New York. Tell me how many republicans Wall St types you think will move to Montgomery? How many Sillicon Valley Techs will be moving to Boise? People like Hannity can choose to leave because they already made it. I work in Chicago and constantly interview people in this area and people here are from all over. Indiana, Wisonsin, Iowa, Ohio, Michigan... What all of them have in common? It's not that they came here looking for a place rich in conservative fiscal policies, pro gun laws or anything like that, they came here seeking job opportunities.

I think you and me have discuss this before and I say again if conservative/libertarians economic policies win out at the state level it will show one day and people that are willing to move will flow to where the jobs are.

AJBIGJ
02-01-2014, 02:27 PM
I think you and me have discuss this before and I say again if conservative/libertarians economic policies win out at the state level it will show one day and people that are willing to move will flow to where the jobs are.

I think this will be a major factor involved however it's sliced. I wasn't necessarily worried about the Wall Street Bankers, they know how to game the system to the extent where you can set all the tax rates at 95% and they can probably figure out a way to slice it to less than 20%, those who move money for a living, well it's common sense. I don't imagine Warren Buffet's sudden interest in charity in recent years was entirely coincidental, he knows how to leverage those deductions, and so do many of his near peers. In fact I think a lot of what we could refer to as the "1%" crowd probably is ideally located to accomplish their goals and to exploit the opportunities presented there.

As far as which policies win at the state level that is where I think it will be interesting to see things play out. Dynamics shifted in Wisconsin and North Carolina, as I'm sure they will in New York and Virginia, with shifts (albeit only slight in NY's case) in ideologies. I personally see it as being what Federalism was intended to do, let the strong survive, let the weak learn from the strong.

As far as which demographics shift the most, well I think it fair to say our Section 8 residents are not exactly what we would refer to as particularly "mobile" when it comes to this type of thing. I have developed a new following, Mike Rowe of "Dirty Jobs" fame, because I think he does bring up an interesting point, there are actual locations right now in the US where the number of employment opportunities actually exceed the number of employment seeking individuals in the area. I think our country is bought and sold on this philosophy that more education = more opportunity, when the reality seems to be more frequently that all it accomplishes is lingering debt and overqualification for the same job opportunities (for those that are willing to even take advantage).

In Sean Hannity's case, I'm sure location is purely incidental to the politics and the recent statements made by the governor and prominent mayor. I was thinking more along the lines of what types of things make urban localities so volatile economically, Detroit's population was more than halved since its heyday in the 1950's. I'm sure there's more to things than simple politics, but it is fair to consider why a million individuals were willing to migrate away from one of the greatest economic powerhouses of this country over a span of barely half a century.

I think it will be an interesting study to see where the feet move and what the politics become in the area they settle.

GoatDriver57
02-01-2014, 09:45 PM
Now I am really confused.


..........and at the same time not so confused. Some things have just come together.

Took time off to work on my goat and get back and see there are more confused here than just TJ. Bunch,, win their trust and let them know you aren't racist.
I will versuchen mein Bestes, um meine Zeilen so zu strukturieren, TJ manchmal verstehen. I have 11 more plugs to change on the goat, bye.

TJMAC77SP
02-01-2014, 11:08 PM
Took time off to work on my goat and get back and see there are more confused here than just TJ. Bunch,, win their trust and let them know you aren't racist.
I will versuchen mein Bestes, um meine Zeilen so zu strukturieren, TJ manchmal verstehen. I have 11 more plugs to change on the goat, bye.

Did you mean "mein Schreiben"? Otherwise your post again confused me.

Doing hair replacement on your pet?

imnohero
02-01-2014, 11:09 PM
I have 11 more plugs to change on the goat, bye.

What a strange comment...So I have to ask:

what kind of goat has more than 11 plugs?

TJMAC77SP
02-01-2014, 11:10 PM
what kind of goat has more than 11 plugs?

............Which is why I asked my question?

((my second question))

imnohero
02-01-2014, 11:21 PM
wikipedia tells me that there are many things that are (or were) referred to as "goat" or "goats" besides the animal and the car:

The Goats, a music band
TV and movie references
A steam locomotive

just to name a few. I'm more curious now than ever.

TJMAC77SP
02-02-2014, 02:18 AM
wikipedia tells me that there are many things that are (or were) referred to as "goat" or "goats" besides the animal and the car:

The Goats, a music band
TV and movie references
A steam locomotive

just to name a few. I'm more curious now than ever.

Maybe, like Sheldon on Big Bang Theory, Goatdriver is a train enthusiast. I don't know enough about trains to know how many cylinders they have. Or, it could be that he is indeed doing hair replacement on his pet.

TJMAC77SP
02-02-2014, 02:18 PM
The Democrats would say that we should drastically reduce their CEO/Management salaries so we can pay everyone a minimum wage of $15 an hour.

By the way this is actually what Republicans would say...

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m57/sethayates/943039_10153705488255515_343688551_n_zps2b063034.j pg

We never did get the source of this "quote".

sandsjames
02-02-2014, 03:17 PM
We never did get the source of this "quote".


How true. We rarely hear these complaints about movie stars, athletes, singers, other entertainers, etc. The focus is always on the CEOs, who actually have the livelihood of thousands of people in their hands.

TJMAC77SP
02-02-2014, 07:05 PM
How true. We rarely hear these complaints about movie stars, athletes, singers, other entertainers, etc. The focus is always on the CEOs, who actually have the livelihood of thousands of people in their hands.

It reflects the advertising campaign (some might use the term propaganda) used in the last election. Romney is a deep-seated family guy with no real skeletons in his closet so the only think left was to attack his wealth. Never mind that no substantial allegations were produced which showed he acquired the wealth in any way that wasn't proper. Of course the debacle emanating from Wall Street in 2008 fueled the ease with which the average (relatively uninformed) voter accepted this bullshit. Hell, my own mother parroted back the bullshit line about "doing away with social security as we know it".

I must say though that my real point is that I don't buy the 'quote'. It is a instagram meme which reflects no actual quote or facts for that matter. I want to hear about the CEO of a company employing 3000 people with sales of $100 million that gets paid $5 million in compensation. I realize I am ignoring the point of the meme but it struck me as painfully obvious that it was born of ignorance.

GoatDriver57
02-02-2014, 08:06 PM
............Which is why I asked my question?

((my second question))

Yep! TJ, these goats (HEMIs) have 16 plugs and it takes very careful time to R & R each one, especially the difficult two under the brake booster. Gotta love them, when they all are sparking, sound so more better than these four banging rice-burners we hear screaming on the blvd.

The game; Fox is doing a jam show today and the salsa is good too.

TJMAC77SP
02-02-2014, 11:05 PM
Yep! TJ, these goats (HEMIs) have 16 plugs and it takes very careful time to R & R each one, especially the difficult two under the brake booster. Gotta love them, when they all are sparking, sound so more better than these four banging rice-burners we hear screaming on the blvd.

The game; Fox is doing a jam show today and the salsa is good too.

So.........you aren't doing hair replacement on the family pet?

BTW: Your engine being a hemi has nothing to do with the number of cylinders but glad to hear it. Never been a muscle car guy myself but I get it.

imnohero
02-02-2014, 11:51 PM
2 plug per cylinder, TJ.

TJMAC77SP
02-03-2014, 03:57 PM
2 plug per cylinder, TJ.

I figured that out. Still nothing to do with it being hemi.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-03-2014, 04:34 PM
I figured that out. Still nothing to do with it being hemi.

... and if it is newer design of the "Hemi" engine, it is actually closer to having polyspherical chambers.

Of course, you probably knew that already, because you are TJMAC77SP and you spent all of the 1980s sitting on the ramp in your patrol car reading comic books and auto trader magazines.

imnohero
02-03-2014, 04:38 PM
I figured that out. Still nothing to do with it being hemi.

Clearly not a car guy.

TJMAC77SP
02-03-2014, 08:13 PM
... and if it is newer design of the "Hemi" engine, it is actually closer to having polyspherical chambers.

Of course, you probably knew that already, because you are TJMAC77SP and you spent all of the 1980s sitting on the ramp in your patrol car reading comic books and auto trader magazines.

Well I did spend a lot of time sitting on my arse in the 80's but as imnohero has pointed out and I have said I am no car guy (although I don't quite know why my pointing out the hemi designation has nothing to do with the number of sparkplugs led to that statement). No comic books or car trader for me. I tended towards fiction in the Tom Clancy style.

AJBIGJ
02-03-2014, 08:49 PM
I must say though that my real point is that I don't buy the 'quote'. It is a instagram meme which reflects no actual quote or facts for that matter. I want to hear about the CEO of a company employing 3000 people with sales of $100 million that gets paid $5 million in compensation. I realize I am ignoring the point of the meme but it struck me as painfully obvious that it was born of ignorance.

Not that far-fetched, GM's new CEO nets slightly less than $5M it seems, which actually lends argument to the gender wage gap because her male predecessor left with double that (and even slightly exceeds that with his pension. Even though she took the job with 33 years of experience with the company and her predecessor had zilch in the auto industry.)

TJMAC77SP
02-03-2014, 09:35 PM
Not that far-fetched, GM's new CEO nets slightly less than $5M it seems, which actually lends argument to the gender wage gap because her male predecessor left with double that (and even slightly exceeds that with his pension. Even though she took the job with 33 years of experience with the company and her predecessor had zilch in the auto industry.)

The reason I say born of ignorance is because in the corporate world, $100 million in sales and a workforce of 3000 does not generally warrant a $5 million annual paycheck. It takes something like GM's sales to get that. Again, the 'quote' is bullshit.

AJBIGJ
02-03-2014, 09:50 PM
The reason I say born of ignorance is because in the corporate world, $100 million in sales and a workforce of 3000 does not generally warrant a $5 million annual paycheck. It takes something like GM's sales to get that. Again, the 'quote' is bullshit.

Ah, I interpreted the reverse case, my mistake, I was under the impression people were implying $5 M is low balling the compensation.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-03-2014, 09:52 PM
Well I did spend a lot of time sitting on my arse in the 80's but as imnohero has pointed out and I have said I am no car guy (although I don't quite know why my pointing out the hemi designation has nothing to do with the number of sparkplugs led to that statement). No comic books or car trader for me. I tended towards fiction in the Tom Clancy style.

Actually it is related in a roundabout way, the the hemispherical head increases the size of the combustion chamber and allows the air to flow in one side and out the other (as opposed to reverse flow, where the air flows in, stops, and reverses direction). The Hemi is a cross-flow setup and you gain efficiency and power; however, the drawback can be an increase in un-combusted air-fuel mixture in the exhaust valve. To combat this, later designs of the Hemi incorporated dual spark plugs on each cylinder.

AJBIGJ
02-03-2014, 09:57 PM
The reason I say born of ignorance is because in the corporate world, $100 million in sales and a workforce of 3000 does not generally warrant a $5 million annual paycheck. It takes something like GM's sales to get that. Again, the 'quote' is bullshit.

Although I should state, not necessarily the reverse being far-fetched, totally depends on the type of business in question. Berkshire Hathaway only employs about 12K employees, and I presume people have heard of its CEO (or would understand 5 seconds into a google search).

TJMAC77SP
02-03-2014, 11:09 PM
Actually it is related in a roundabout way, the the hemispherical head increases the size of the combustion chamber and allows the air to flow in one side and out the other (as opposed to reverse flow, where the air flows in, stops, and reverses direction). The Hemi is a cross-flow setup and you gain efficiency and power; however, the drawback can be an increase in un-combusted air-fuel mixture in the exhaust valve. To combat this, later designs of the Hemi incorporated dual spark plugs on each cylinder.

Right, ok. I understand that but the term hemi still refers to the shape of the combustion chamber alone.

TJMAC77SP
02-03-2014, 11:17 PM
Although I should state, not necessarily the reverse being far-fetched, totally depends on the type of business in question. Berkshire Hathaway only employs about 12K employees, and I presume people have heard of its CEO (or would understand 5 seconds into a google search).

Well, the same search would lead you to the return on investment that BH and other venture capital and private equity companies earn. I would compare that to sales and that number far exceeds $100 million. By the way, should have read more on Google. Buffet only takes a salary of around $100 K each year. The rest of his millions made every year is in capital gains (which is why he only paid the famous 17% income tax rate and my biggest disagreement with Mitt Romney).

Absinthe Anecdote
02-03-2014, 11:56 PM
Right, ok. I understand that but the term hemi still refers to the shape of the combustion chamber alone.

I explain all that to you, and you give me a snotty reply like that?

You are very welcome Sandsjames.

imnohero
02-04-2014, 12:06 AM
AA, just skip it. TJ is very invested in being right all the time, even about things he admits he doesn't know about.

TJMAC77SP
02-04-2014, 02:04 AM
I explain all that to you, and you give me a snotty reply like that?

You are very welcome Sandsjames.

Did intend to be snotty.

TJMAC77SP
02-04-2014, 02:05 AM
AA, just skip it. TJ is very invested in being right all the time, even about things he admits he doesn't know about.

So what part of hemi not being related to the number of spark plugs was I wrong about? What else specifically have I been wrong about (and not admitted it)?

AJBIGJ
02-04-2014, 11:46 AM
Well, the same search would lead you to the return on investment that BH and other venture capital and private equity companies earn. I would compare that to sales and that number far exceeds $100 million. By the way, should have read more on Google. Buffet only takes a salary of around $100 K each year. The rest of his millions made every year is in capital gains (which is why he only paid the famous 17% income tax rate and my biggest disagreement with Mitt Romney).

Which is what allowed him to make the comparison with his secretary's salary back when he made his little dubious "Go ahead and tax people like me" spiel a couple years. If his earnings were all income tax based he would not be paying a lower percentage of his income overall than his secretary by a LONNNNG shot (this is also why I'm extremely suspicious of individuals of his stature who develop a sudden interest in charitable givings, would make such a claim as "Go ahead and tax people like me more!", and whose primary expertise is in moving money around to maximize its returns for himself). The point was occasionally relatively small workforces may be required to operationally support businesses with very high revenues, which are the types of organizations that also pay their CEOs a large salary whether it be via direct income or capital gains or some other variation of compensation. We were discussing total compensation to begin with, at least in what I read of it. Whether his income is tied to direct salary or capital gains or whatever the case is a side issue.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-04-2014, 12:03 PM
AA, just skip it. TJ is very invested in being right all the time, even about things he admits he doesn't know about.

I think so, I explained to him the correlation between dual spark plugs and the Hemi, because he asked, and then, he points out that he didn't say anything wrong.

He obviously isn't a car guy.

TJMAC77SP
02-04-2014, 02:25 PM
Which is what allowed him to make the comparison with his secretary's salary back when he made his little dubious "Go ahead and tax people like me" spiel a couple years. If his earnings were all income tax based he would not be paying a lower percentage of his income overall than his secretary by a LONNNNG shot (this is also why I'm extremely suspicious of individuals of his stature who develop a sudden interest in charitable givings, would make such a claim as "Go ahead and tax people like me more!", and whose primary expertise is in moving money around to maximize its returns for himself). The point was occasionally relatively small workforces may be required to operationally support businesses with very high revenues, which are the types of organizations that also pay their CEOs a large salary whether it be via direct income or capital gains or some other variation of compensation. We were discussing total compensation to begin with, at least in what I read of it. Whether his income is tied to direct salary or capital gains or whatever the case is a side issue.

Well, his earnings are income based but the difference lies in how the IRS taxes varies types of income. I personally think that all income should be in one category. The capital gains tax rates are generally lower than 'normal' tax rates. The argument in support being that this encourages investments. I think that is bullshit. What would people like Buffet and Trump do with their money if capital gains were taxed at the rate your income gets taxed at...........the same.....they certainly wouldn't stick it in their mattresses.

Anyway, MY point was that a company employing 3000 people and with sales totaling $100 million is not going to pay their CEO $5 million per year.

If you are going to lump all of Buffet's earnings into one lump sum then you must do the same with the earnings of BH and that would be a lot more than $100 million thus still within the point I was making.

TJMAC77SP
02-04-2014, 02:32 PM
I think so, I explained to him the correlation between dual spark plugs and the Hemi, because he asked, and then, he points out that he didn't say anything wrong.

He obviously isn't a car guy.

Well, since this thread long ago went down the rabbit hole we might as well keep going.

Actually no imhero isn't right (other than I am self-admittedly not a car guy). I said I wasn't trying to be snotty but if you want to ride imnohero's fail then so be it.

What you explained has nothing to do with the designation of what make an engine hemispherical (Hemi). Dual spark plugs are in one type of Hemi engine and in fact appear in non hemi engines as well. Most hemi engines remain single spark plug per cylinder. THAT and that alone was my point in reference to Goat's original post regarding his working on his goat.

imnohero
02-04-2014, 02:54 PM
Did intend to be snotty.


I said I wasn't trying to be snotty but if you want to ride imnohero's fail then so be it.


Better go back and edit that one, TJ.

AJBIGJ
02-04-2014, 02:59 PM
Anyway, MY point was that a company employing 3000 people and with sales totaling $100 million is not going to pay their CEO $5 million per year.

At $100 Million in sales, no, you're right then, it is not really numerically feasible. My point was revenues are not necessarily tied to the number of people working for the company by itself, depending on the types of products or services delivered. Simple math though. If revenues are higher, operational costs lower, and human resource cost already low (fewer people employed = lower cost) then higher salaries for upper management are quite feasible, especially if you factor in the Capital gains.

TJMAC77SP
02-04-2014, 03:04 PM
Better go back and edit that one, TJ.

I wasn't trying to be snotty to AA. No need to edit anything.

You working on those examples?

TJMAC77SP
02-04-2014, 03:05 PM
At $100 Million in sales, no, you're right then, it is not really numerically feasible. My point was revenues are not necessarily tied to the number of people working for the company by itself, depending on the types of products or services delivered. Simple math though. If revenues are higher, operational costs lower, and human resource cost already low (fewer people employed = lower cost) then higher salaries for upper management are quite feasible, especially if you factor in the Capital gains.

I get your point.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-04-2014, 03:33 PM
I wasn't trying to be snotty to AA. No need to edit anything.

You working on those examples?

I'm just screwing with you; you can be as snotty as you want, but it is obvious you aren't a car guy, and that you are heavily invested in being the winner of each and every internet squabble that you find yourself entangled in.

You can pretend to be the winner of this particular squabble and bask in the warm after-glow of a masterfully crafted retort, but keep on your toes, because, imnohero is watching.

TJMAC77SP
02-04-2014, 03:52 PM
I'm just screwing with you; you can be as snotty as you want, but it is obvious you aren't a car guy, and that you are heavily invested in being the winner of each and every internet squabble that you find yourself entangled in.

You can pretend to be the winner of this particular squabble and bask in the warm after-glow of a masterfully crafted retort, but keep on your toes, because, imnohero is watching.

I can't say that I don't want to win but I characterize my real flaw as the near inability to let a relatively minor thing go. Particularly when I recognize that the argument is being pursued for completely different purposes than the minor point itself (not in our case here but others....I'll let you figure it out).

I am fully aware that these internet squabbles change nothing. PYB left here in a huff without changing one single bassackward thought he ever had or spewed. JoeB will remain an unrepentant and naïve liberal until he comes slam against the real world (if that truly happens). The others here that use the intellectually flawed tactic of hypberbole will continue to do so without ever changing their mind or thought process. So be it. I enjoy the mental gymnastics that is the MTF (well I used to enjoy it more...)

Measure Man
02-04-2014, 04:16 PM
The argument in support being that this encourages investments. I think that is bullshit. What would people like Buffet and Trump do with their money if capital gains were taxed at the rate your income gets taxed at...........the same.....they certainly wouldn't stick it in their mattresses.

Well, it depends.

Let's say you have $100,000 in the bank, earning, oh, 3%.

Now along comes an investment. As with any investment, in entails some risk. The upside...this investment could grow by as much a 12% this year. The down side, it could lose 6%.

So, since you already have a guaranteed 3%, your true investment cost is a possible gain of 9% or a possible loss of 9%.

So, if that 12% gain is taxed at 50%, the upside is now 6%....or true investment payout of only 3% for you (slightly more if you want to count the tax against the bank interest), against a possible 9% loss. While it may be true that if a person has many investments, that 9% loss could be deducted from capital gains elsewhere and therefore not be a big of a loss as is represented...but that only works of you have other gains to write down against.

As I recall though, the real inequity is CEO salaries comes off of the form of their compensation...that they might not be paid too much in a wage, but the stock options and things like that they get as compensation are not taxed like income...even before any capital gains and losses. So, like for working this month, maybe they get $20,000 in income that is taxable...and another $20,000 in stock...that stock they receive is taxed a lot lower than if it were income. And of course, from there they get capital gains on that stock (or loss), that is also not taxed like income.

TJMAC77SP
02-04-2014, 04:51 PM
Well, it depends.

Let's say you have $100,000 in the bank, earning, oh, 3%.

Now along comes an investment. As with any investment, in entails some risk. The upside...this investment could grow by as much a 12% this year. The down side, it could lose 6%.

So, since you already have a guaranteed 3%, your true investment cost is a possible gain of 9% or a possible loss of 9%.

So, if that 12% gain is taxed at 50%, the upside is now 6%....or true investment payout of only 3% for you (slightly more if you want to count the tax against the bank interest), against a possible 9% loss. While it may be true that if a person has many investments, that 9% loss could be deducted from capital gains elsewhere and therefore not be a big of a loss as is represented...but that only works of you have other gains to write down against.

As I recall though, the real inequity is CEO salaries comes off of the form of their compensation...that they might not be paid too much in a wage, but the stock options and things like that they get as compensation are not taxed like income...even before any capital gains and losses. So, like for working this month, maybe they get $20,000 in income that is taxable...and another $20,000 in stock...that stock they receive is taxed a lot lower than if it were income. And of course, from there they get capital gains on that stock (or loss), that is also not taxed like income.

So you agree that capital gains should be taxed as any other income? I didn't want to do the math.

BTW: Do you know how the bank can pay 3% on deposits (although the average interest on savings accounts is .06 to a high of 1%)? ......................Investments.

Measure Man
02-04-2014, 05:01 PM
So you agree that capital gains should be taxed as any other income? I didn't want to do the math.

Well, my reason for replying was to explain why it isn't completely BS that lower captial gains taxes encourage investments.

There are some inequities in how wealthy people are taxed compared to the rest of us...but capital gains tax breaks encourage a lot of investment from the middle class as well


BTW: Do you know how the bank can pay 3% on deposits (although the average interest on savings accounts is .06 to a high of 1%)? ......................Investments.

The numbers used were for illustrative purposes.

Yes, I get that...the whole point is that if capital gains were taxed, it will necessarily slow down economic activity as it cuts into the upside of an investment, without necessarily reducing the downside...making all investments somewhat less attractive...that doesn't mean the money is going to be put into a mattress, it just means that activity will slow.

TJMAC77SP
02-04-2014, 05:06 PM
Well, my reason for replying was to explain why it isn't completely BS that lower captial gains taxes encourage investments.



The numbers used were for illustrative purposes.

Yes, I get that...the whole point is that if capital gains were taxed, it will necessarily slow down economic activity as it cuts into the upside of an investment, without necessarily reducing the downside...making all investments somewhat less attractive...that doesn't mean the money is going to be put into a mattress, it just means that activity will slow.

I just don't buy it (completely) but as I am not a car guy I am also not an economist.........macro econ was a bit of a effort for me. I can't say empathically that it wouldn't slow down but I just don't see alternatives for these people with huge investments.

I also think it goes along with spreading the pain with regard to fixing the economy. One side says increase tax on the richest but doesn't want to cut anything from entitlement programs. The other side protects every tax break and shelter and says entitlement programs have to be fixed (not eliminated as is often cited). It is a cake and eat it too response from both sides.

sandsjames
02-04-2014, 05:17 PM
Money that has already been taxed should not bet taxed again. If I buy something for 50k, I have paid tax on that. If I sell it for 75k that 25k profit should be mine as the original money was taxed, as was the sell that the new buyer paid the 75k for. If that 25k profit is taxed then the money is, in essence, being taxed 2 (and can strongly be argued 3) times.

Measure Man
02-04-2014, 05:20 PM
I just don't buy it (completely) but as I am not a car guy I am also not an economist.........macro econ was a bit of a effort for me. I can't say empathically that it wouldn't slow down but I just don't see alternatives for these people with huge investments.

The alternative is safer, long-term investments...why take short-term risk on something innovative if you're only going to lose half your gains anyway?


I also think it goes along with spreading the pain with regard to fixing the economy. One side says increase tax on the richest but doesn't want to cut anything from entitlement programs. The other side protects every tax break and shelter and says entitlement programs have to be fixed (not eliminated as is often cited). It is a cake and eat it too response from both sides.

There is a definite balance. I know I come across as a liberal a lot, but I do have some reservations, particularly at the state level, with taxing businesses and the rich...especially small business. It will only drive them away. At the same time, I see it as bit of an injustice that they often pay less, percentage-wise, than a working class family.

As far as entitlements...I am sure there is some fraud in the system, and maybe some folks who would rather not work and just draw their check...I don't believe it is as widespread as the conservative-types would lead you to believe. I know better men than me that are unemployed. As a contractor and at-will employee, I worry about it all the time.

AJBIGJ
02-04-2014, 07:07 PM
The alternative is safer, long-term investments...why take short-term risk on something innovative if you're only going to lose half your gains anyway?

There is a definite balance. I know I come across as a liberal a lot, but I do have some reservations, particularly at the state level, with taxing businesses and the rich...especially small business. It will only drive them away. At the same time, I see it as bit of an injustice that they often pay less, percentage-wise, than a working class family.

As far as entitlements...I am sure there is some fraud in the system, and maybe some folks who would rather not work and just draw their check...I don't believe it is as widespread as the conservative-types would lead you to believe. I know better men than me that are unemployed. As a contractor and at-will employee, I worry about it all the time.

I think what you state here is key, unfortunately the progressive income tax scaling we use now is a big part of the issue. With Cap gains set at a standard 15%, of course an executive with income tax at 39% is going to want to shift most of their salary over to the 15% rate. It is also important to understand that purchasing of business stocks is a great mechanism for expansion of a business (which usually is accompanied by more jobs). The alternative is of course liabilities (debt) and usually it is desirable to strike a balance of both mechanisms to acquire capital. Of course if we scaled Capital Gains up with the higher earners (maybe dragged it to 30%) the higher earners would get taxed more as a whole, but the riskier alternative to expansion would be the preferred choice to grow their business, and will likely cause a business to shy away from expansion (and job creation) that it would otherwise have chosen to engage in. So even the businesses that do not move their business and jobs away to avoid the tax rates would be hampered in their operations. I do see a lot of Laissez-Faire economists advocate the elimination of the Capital Gains tax altogether alongside duties and tariffs for such a reason, as it would maximize the potential expansion of the economy (and make up the immediate deficits in tax revenues through future economic expansion. If we coupled this with a flat tax or fair tax system, income parity itself would exist, the differential would be based only upon how much of an individual's income is salaried and how much of it is based on assets. There is also that global economy loophole. Entrepreneurs go where they feel they can run their businesses most effectively for the lowest cost, and their provided employment opportunities follow.

imnohero
02-04-2014, 07:19 PM
The idea that business will invest money that is not paid in taxes is at least temporarily on hiatus. Businesses are sitting on cash (something like 3-4 trillion) and not reinvesting it into the business or economy. This has been going on for a few years now.

When I asked my economics professor in college the other day if it was just me that was a) noticing this and b) "what's the deal?" She answered that it was definitely not just me...there was an econ summit last summer that was consumed with this very phenomenom and b) no one knows why...it would seem that corporations are not "acting rationally" relative to economics.

AJBIGJ
02-04-2014, 10:02 PM
The idea that business will invest money that is not paid in taxes is at least temporarily on hiatus. Businesses are sitting on cash (something like 3-4 trillion) and not reinvesting it into the business or economy. This has been going on for a few years now.

When I asked my economics professor in college the other day if it was just me that was a) noticing this and b) "what's the deal?" She answered that it was definitely not just me...there was an econ summit last summer that was consumed with this very phenomenom and b) no one knows why...it would seem that corporations are not "acting rationally" relative to economics.

Not sure why it is an area of confusion, retention of it implies there's a market uncertainty which makes businesses apprehensive to invest their cash reserves, kind of like normal people reigning in spending if/when they anticipate a period of strife. The only variable in my mind is what is the most prominent thing at its source. I do think many probably are seeing the ACA business mandate on the horizon and are considering riding out that particular uncertainty, but there are also future budget talks/ debt ceiling debates in the near term (and notice the level of frequency lately). The simplest economic explanation is that these businesses feel their going interest is best served by being very risk averse for the time being.

giggawatt
06-16-2014, 06:31 PM
This thread has a bit of everything. May as well talk about the World Cup.

Soldiers should make more than soccer players.

Rusty Jones
06-16-2014, 06:41 PM
Yep. We should all be multimillionaires.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2014, 07:10 PM
LOL

I forgot all about this thread.

If ever there was a classic example of TJ's over obsessive nit-picking, it was that whole exchange about spark plugs and Hemis.

lOL

TJMAC77SP
06-16-2014, 08:17 PM
LOL

I forgot all about this thread.

If ever there was a classic example of TJ's over obsessive nit-picking, it was that whole exchange about spark plugs and Hemis.

lOL

I am baffled what recent post caused that mental link to pop into your head but..............

Nit-picking?

That is your synonym for pointing out pretty obvious errors?

Interesting. So if in the act of supporting a position you were to say something completely not true (either in error or purposefully) one should ignore such an error and just press on with the discussion?

I guess that would be politically correct.

I have notice a definite penchant for that kind of thinking when failed arguments are coming to a close (or should be anyway).

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2014, 08:26 PM
I am baffled what recent post caused that mental link to pop into your head but..............

Nit-picking?

That is your synonym for pointing out pretty obvious errors?

Interesting. So if in the act of supporting a position you were to say something completely not true (either in error or purposefully) one should ignore such an error and just press on with the discussion?

I guess that would be politically correct.

I have notice a definite penchant for that kind of thinking when failed arguments are coming to a close (or should be anyway).

Post #131

Get a sense of humor... You even admitted to not being able to let minor things go at the end of that exchange...

Measure Man
06-16-2014, 08:44 PM
Given the current demographics of Muslims in our country, i.e. increasing immigration of Muslims into the US and high birth rate of Muslims in the US and given the current demographics of Christians in the US, declining birth rate of the Christian population, I suspect that our country may become an Islamic Republic in approximately 75 years.

Even if, demographically, this were true, which I don't believe it is...certainly not with 75 years!

Isn't this all the more reason for all of us to steadfastly insist on a separation of Church and State....or will Conservatives be just fine with "Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion" when Muslims are the majority?

sandsjames
06-16-2014, 08:59 PM
Even if, demographically, this were true, which I don't believe it is...certainly not with 75 years!

Isn't this all the more reason for all of us to steadfastly insist on a separation of Church and State....or will Conservatives be just fine with "Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion" when Muslims are the majority?

Same argument is made about minorities. Middle class white men has been saying for years that in a few years there will be no more white people because of "interbreeding".

Measure Man
06-16-2014, 09:09 PM
Same argument is made about minorities. Middle class white men has been saying for years that in a few years there will be no more white people because of "interbreeding".

Not inclined to look up the numbers, but I'd guess we're a lot closer to being a brown country than we are to being a Muslim country.

In fact. wasn't it just within the last year or two that whites became less than 50% of new births in the country?

I do believe we are heading toward a white minority (if you group all non-whites together)...but I think we are much much farther from a Muslim majority....never even heard that projected before. I think whites remain a plurality for the foreseeable future...that we may become less than 50% of the populaiton, but still larger than any other ethnic group. I do think you'll find Muslim majorities in some small cities maybe (Dearborn, MI)...though I don't think they are yet, they are getting there in some cities?

sandsjames
06-16-2014, 09:16 PM
Not inclined to look up the numbers, but I'd guess we're a lot closer to being a brown country than we are to being a Muslim country.

In fact. wasn't it just within the last year or two that whites became less than 50% of new births in the country?

I do believe we are heading toward a white minority (if you group all non-whites together)...but I think we are much much farther from a Muslim majority....never even heard that projected before. I think whites remain a plurality for the foreseeable future...that we may become less than 50% of the populaiton, but still larger than any other ethnic group. I do think you'll find Muslim majorities in some small cities maybe (Dearborn, MI)...though I don't think they are yet, they are getting there in some cities?

If I wasn't so PC, I'd make a joke about buying stock in Kool-Aid...but I am, so I won't.

TJMAC77SP
06-16-2014, 10:33 PM
Post #131

Get a sense of humor... You even admitted to not being able to let minor things go at the end of that exchange...

Stop being so overly sensitive. I didn't know we were playing Six Degrees of Separation. Post 131 didn't have anything to do with me. In fact I can't even get it down to six degrees.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2014, 10:39 PM
Stop being so overly sensitive. I didn't know we were playing Six Degrees of Separation. Post 131 didn't have anything to do with me. In fact I can't even get it down to six degrees.

I hope you are double trolling me, if so, masterful troll, if not, sadly obtuse.

Post 131 brought this back to the top of the stack today with a comment about the thread having it all.

I looked back at the hilarity of you not being able to admit you were wrong about Hemis and dual spark plugs.

That's a triple troll to you smarty pants. :)

TJMAC77SP
06-16-2014, 10:45 PM
I hope you are double trolling me, if so, masterful troll, if not, sadly obtuse.

Post 131 brought this back to the top of the stack today with a comment about the thread having it all.

I looked back at the hilarity of you not being able to admit you were wrong about Hemis and dual spark plugs.

That's a triple troll to you smarty pants. :)

Actually a quadruple troll given your choice of words. I didn't admit to being wrong because I wasn't.

Speaking of hilarity.................can't give up on some 'minor' point?