American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten;435702]There is absolutely a system in place, both in the US and worldwide, where the wealthiest individuals and corporations continue to amass more wealth and power. I've posted such facts and figures before, like the top 5% receiving 81.7% of the new wealth created over the past three decades.[/QUOTE]I just love Esten's choice of words such as "amass" and "receiving", each one designed to inflame the sensitivities of the LIV (Low Information Voter) by invoking images of wealth falling from the sky unfairly onto the hands of a few selected individuals.

Nevertheless, because I do not live my life in envy of the success of others, I read his comments differently, to wit:

[I]There is absolutely a system in place, both in the US and worldwide, where the [strike]wealthiest[/strike] [b]most[/b] [b]successful[/b] individuals and corporations continue to [strike]amass[/strike] [b]create[/b] more wealth and power. I've posted such facts and figures before, like the top 5% [strike]receiving[/strike] [b]creating[/b] 81.7% of the new wealth [strike]created[/strike] over the past three decades.[/I]

Esten, I've got some news for you: Wealth is not something that falls from the sky. Wealth is created as a result of human endeavors. I worked my whole life and I created some wealth for myself. If your lazy, clueless, crybaby LIV's would get of their collective asses and get to work, they too could create some wealth for themselves.

Wealth is not a zero sum game. There is no limit to the wealth we could all create for ourselves. If everybody worked, we could all be "rich" in whatever way each of us may define that word. We could all live in better houses, drive nicer cars, eat better food, enjoy better medical care, etc., etc., etc.

Thanks,

Jackson.

[QUOTE=Jackson;435707]Wealth is not a zero sum game. [/QUOTE]I just took a look at the Russell 3000 index, which represents 98% of the investable USA Equity market. Here are some trailing 12 month figures:

Sales: 13 trillion dollars (Compare to GDP of 16 trillion dollars).

Earnings: 1.13 trillion dollars (8.4% of Sales).

Dividends: 400 billion dollars (3% of Sales).

For every dollar in sales, 3 cents are paid as dividends to owners. Of this 3 cents received by shareholders, how much is re-invested in the economy? My guess would be north of 2/3 rds. This would mean maybe a penny out of every dollar of revenues gets spent by the owners, and is not re-invested.

So around 1% of any increase in revenues of business goes into the pockets of the owners of the private sector, money that they spend as they choose. The rest goes into growing the economy, and helps everyone. Wealth indeed is not a zero sum game in a capitalist "neoliberal" economy. Unfortunately, as Esten says, Obama is not a neoliberal. He believes in putting more and more money into government, which does not grow the economy.

You can argue about my assumptions, what percentage of dividends are re-invested and whether financials of public companies are representative of the private sector as a whole. But any way you slice or dice it, most of the benefits of wealth creation are not accruing to the holders of the wealth.

[URL]http://www.drhurd.com/index.php/Daily-Dose-of-Reason/Politics-Government/The-Post-American-Economy.html[/URL]

More reality that the progressives will deny.

Don B.

Not getting involved in the left right thing, still think they both suck.

[QUOTE] "There's this Fukuyamaist idea that history had ended after the Cold War and that if we could just tweak neoliberal democracy, everything's going to be fine forever; that somehow, this is like the final political form. I mean, this is ridiculous. And you can see it. There's no evidence of a political program anymore - in the world; in America. There aren't genuine politics. There's the media telling you that Barack Obama versus Mitt Romney is the epic clash of ideology when we both know they're globalist neoliberals. I mean, they both exist to preserve the interests of this relatively autonomous class of Goldman Sachs bankers." [/QUOTE]What I know is they are buying shit loads of this [URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/[/URL].

And doing this [URL]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/president-obama-new-steps-gun-control-article-1.1440413[/URL].

In my fevered brain it looks like preparing to suppress an insurgency. I'm afraid Jefferson was right;

[quote]Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.[/quote] I know he was specifically talking about education in the above quote but it's germane. There is simply no question that the US government is preparing for a much more invasive state given the powers under the NDAA and other legislation, the build up of surveillance infrastructure, and the preparation for domestic oppression by force.

See what he said by "slow operation?" I won't argue that limiting gun access to convicted felons is a bad thing but what if the conviction was for growing weed twenty years ago? What about embezzlement, or other non-violent convictions? Then we continue to magazine capacity? What about styles of guns? The question is always the same, "What do you need X for?" Then Y, then Z? I'm telling you if something doesn't happen to change this trend, those of us that are 50+ won't even recognize the USA that our great grandchildren live in.

I maintain that the kid is correct, it's not a left / right thing, that's a distraction. It's a Goldman Sacs / Hunt Brothers thing, which eventually will include all the people like the guys here that have done "well" for themselves and generally argue for the conservative side.

Disclaimer; I'm not saying that making money and being successful are evil and agree with Cheese that people who have done "well" should be willing to do some good with it but in a manner that they see fit, rather than through legislation. I'm not saying that they have to, nor should be compelled to, I said I think they should. I think Gates and Buffet are great examples of this thinking and personally admire it. I do not wish to, nor will I debate it, it's my opinion and is unlikely to change.
Mis dos centavos.

[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;435710]Not getting involved in the left right thing, still think they both suck.


Disclaimer; I'm not saying that making money and being successful are evil and agree with Cheese that people who have done "well" should be willing to do some good with it but in a manner that they see fit, rather than through legislation. I'm not saying that they have to, nor should be compelled to, I said I think they should. I think Gates and Buffet are great examples of this thinking and personally admire it. I do not wish to, nor will I, debate it, it's my opinion and is unlikely to change.
Mis dos centavos.[/QUOTE]There is a difference between benevolence and altruism.

Don B.

[QUOTE=DonB;435711]There is a difference between benevolence and altruism.

Don B.[/QUOTE]But not nearly as much as the Objectivist's claim. If you read their stuff, one is good and the other terrible, I don't agree. I believe they have similar appearance through different motivations.

Some people have a natural altruism, they are rare, St Francis, this new Pope (I think, time will tell), are examples. They are driven to sacrifice to improve the circumstances of others. They are not bad people who are doing terrible which cause them to develop huge resentments and hate the people they helpt as Ayn would have us believe.

Benevolence is more of a choice, one chooses to develop the quality of compassion and help others. This is Gates and Buffet, they will never skip meals or make their children suffer from a desire to find the cure for malaria. Andrew Carnegie was certainly one of these men as well. I don't like it though when people say that one is better, that benevolent people are more moral. All of those guys are or were fiercely competitive people, Carnegie knew what an ABSOLUTE dick and brutal tyrant Frick was and did nothing until public sentiment after the Homestead massacre forced him. They do what they need to do to be able to look at themselves in the morning when they shave. If they didn't then the Gates Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation would have different names.

[QUOTE=DonB;435711]There is a difference between benevolence and altruism.

Don B.[/QUOTE]Just think Silvo Berlusconi (I am innocent, I am a victim). Sounds familiar?

And not too far behind, Jamie Dimon (not as sensational), but of the same DNA. JP Morgan, fined again $920 million, but laughing all the way to the boardroom. Like Kobe getting a technical foul, a $5,000 hamburger, that's all to it. Tax deductible, I believe.

Big contributors to the economy? As if the table is not pre-set up for them by the legislators. And we keep talking about a level playing field.

Not talking about your struggling mom-pop shop selling home-made guacamole dip or your start-ups. Detroit can take a lesson from Singapore about a business investment zone, look at Subic Bay's comeback from the dead.

No complaints from me, the ride on Wall Street has been very rewarding since 2008. Up for this year at 20%. Not sure who to thank, the AP Investor Board? Of course, Obama had nothing to do with it. Yes, it could all end tomorrow, World War III is just around the corner. Then I would have to make do with a ride on the Chao Praya Express Boat instead of my own yacht. But that's what life is all about, adjusting, mixing and changing as the world evolves and revolves. Nothing ever stays the same. (A BIG SIGH).

Really looking forward to it, big time. Kamakazi style tactics by the Tea Party.

[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;435710]What I know is they are buying shit loads of this [URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/[/URL].[/QUOTE]Please realize that Forbes is a right wing media outlet, just like the Wall Street Journal. Steve Forbes is a long time outspoken Republican with a very pro-Wall Street bias, and WSJ is owned by the same company as Fox News.

I'm afraid the Forbes article you linked is pure conspiracy-mongering, which is actually a surprise to me that Forbes would stoop so low. Notice how smoothly the article goes from describing an ammunition purchase to statements like "stockpiling enough ammo for a 20-year war in the homeland"? Doesn't that strike you as odd? When even another right-wing media outlet (Breitbart) calls the Forbes article a myth, you know something is not right.

[QUOTE]
MYTH: The estimated 1.6 billion rounds purchased by DHS would sustain the military for over 20 years.
FACT: This myth was even reported by Forbes. While this number is comparable to rounds expended at the height of combat in Iraq, the actual ammunition produced for the military annually is, quite ironically, 1.6 billion rounds. Many conspiracy theorists are not accounting for ammunition expended in training.
A well-trained police officer will expend a minimum of 2,000 to 5,000 rounds per year, yet may never fire their weapon in defense. There is a significant disparity between rounds fired for training and those fired in a real world scenario.
Similarly, DHS agencies train quarterly, with an expectation of using 1,000 rounds per year per firearm for training and qualifications, while an officer may never fire a single round from their firearm on duty.

THE GREAT DHS AMMUNITION STOCKPILE MYTH
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/04/The-Great-DHS-Ammunition-Stockpile-Myth
[/QUOTE]

"[I]Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.[/I]"

The children in the US are subjected to 12 years of leftist brainwashing, altruism, etc.

Lenin would be proud.

Don B.

[QUOTE=DonB;435721]"Give me four years to teach the children and.

The seed I have sown will never be uprooted.

The children in the US are subjected to 12 years of leftist brainwashing, altruism, etc.

Lenin would be proud.

Don B.[/QUOTE]Marching with the Salvation Army at the Rose Parade?

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;435722]Marching with the Salvation Army at the Rose Parade?[/QUOTE]Nothing like a well thought out intellectual response.

I think you are proof of my point.

Don B.

[QUOTE=DonB;435724]Nothing like a well thought out intellectual response.

I think you are proof of my point.

Don B.[/QUOTE]Just trying to say that in the end, our lives will reflect how we treat our family members, friends & neighbors. That's all that really counts. Nothing ever really changes, at most, only for a short time. Civilizations come, and then, they go.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;435708]I just took a look at the Russell 3000 index, which represents 98% of the investable USA Equity market. Here are some trailing 12 month figures:

Sales: 13 trillion dollars (Compare to GDP of 16 trillion dollars).

Earnings: 1.13 trillion dollars (8.4% of Sales).

Dividends: 400 billion dollars (3% of Sales).[/QUOTE]It bears repeating: Democrats support capitalism, business, making money and getting rich. But we think there need to be some rules and regulations in place so the workers who also play a vital role in wealth creation get a fair shake, and that people have a reasonable shot (not a long shot) at getting ahead if they work for it. As far as small businesses, like Jackson's or Doppel's, we respect, admire and support them. If you find that laughable, that's only because you've been lied to by Republicans and right wing media to believe otherwise. Our critiques of capitalism are mainly reserved for big business and Wall Street.

Look at Tiny's numbers. He tries to downplay the dividends, saying they're only 3% of sales and they go to the owners. What's really going on is this: [B]35% of profits go to Wall Street. $400 billion a year.[/B] The vast majority of the "shareholders" are Wall Street financial firms and the very wealthy individuals they represent. Do they "earn" their dividend payments? Not really, they park huge sums of cash in investments with little risk (it's an insider's game, and these companies aren't start-ups anymore) and basically extract free money from the system. They make financial transactions on their computers, and collect regular 6 and 7-figure payments from corporations. Nice "work" if you can get it. The real work comes from the sweat and ingenuity of the company's workers and management.

And this folks, is how Wall Street leeches off the American worker. When you buy gas, when you buy an I-Phone, when you buy a computer, when you buy skin care products, toilet paper, cereal, when you get a loan or mortgage, etc etc (the list goes on and on), you are paying into a system where millionares and billionaires receive 35% of the profits generated. $400 billion a year, for basically doing nothing.

[QUOTE=Esten;435726]Wall Street Leeches[/QUOTE]I agree with part of your post. While Wall Street's share of corporate profits would be in single digits, in the middle of the last decade profits from the entire US financial sector peaked at something like 35% to 40% of total corporate profits. See Figure 1:

[URL]http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1101&context=intl[/URL]

Banks, insurance companies and brokers don't make cars, construct houses, etc. They're the grease that lubricates the machine, not the machine. After the crisis of 2008/2009, their percentage of total profits plummeted. It may have been negative. Financial profits have since risen to about 20% of corporate profits, which still seems high. It's not as bad as the health care sector, which eats up 17% of GDP -- profits are only a small percentage of revenues -- but still 20% seems like an outsized percentage of the profits for the "grease".

Why? I'm not an expert on the industry so am not sure. Some of it is because of moral hazards created by government. For example, the government provides implied guarantees of derivative contracts. Then it allows a company like Bear Stearns that buys and sells these contracts to operate with equity that's only 3% of its capitalization. Actually, I remember looking at Citibank in 2008, and their tangible book value as a percentage of capitalization was 1.5%. And the government was supplying an explicit guarantee for Citibank's depositors and also an implied "too big to fail" guarantee to the stock and bondholders. The Fed's policies, keeping interest rates low, under Greenspan and Bernanke probably also had something to do with large financial profits. But, of course, low rates are also required to avoid bankrupting the government, now that the debt is north of 16 trillion.

There are fallacies in your post besides "35% of profits go to Wall Street". Democrats support small business with words and do the opposite with actions. Top marginal tax rates on successful small businesses range from 43.4% to 56.7%, depending on the state. Democrats fought tooth and nail to make that happen. For large corporations, the rates are lower, from 35% to 45%. Democrats are also more responsible than Republicans for making the tax and regulatory systems complicated. A complicated system is bad for everyone, but worse for small business, that doesn't have the legions of lawyers and accountants to take advantage of special write- offs and comply with thousands of regulations. Some Republicans are trying to do something about this, but no Democrats.

The last half of your post is riddled with misconceptions. I'll say the same thing you've said about some of my posts, maybe with good reason – it's so screwed up it really doesn't merit a reply. I'm not sure, but suspect pension funds and mutual funds own the largest percentage of corporate America. The fact that profits are a small percentage of revenues, and that most profits are reinvested, means zip to you. You don't like profits, if they have any association with a "millionaire or billionaire". All I can figure out is that you want the government to own the means of production, that is, you're a communist, but you won't admit it to yourself. Come out of the closet Esten. I wear the neoliberal badge you pinned on me with pride. It feels good.

Tiny, glad to see you owning up to your neoliberalism and (somewhat) acknowledging the outsized profits Wall Street rakes in. For myself, I just explained my position on capitalism and regulation in my last post, yet now you call me a communist. That's par for the course I guess, endless mischaracterization of people on the left. I have never posted supporting government ownership of the means of production. I believe in a strong private sector and a strong government. This includes some degree of redistribution when capitalism creates wild disparities in how prosperity is shared.

I agree the numbers in my last post are a simplification and likely overestimation of the profits accruing to Wall Street from dividends. Certainly pension and retirement funds are also big beneficiaries. It is hard to find good data on this, but no doubt Wall Street and the wealthiest Americans receive a huge chunk of corporate dividend payments. And dividends are only one example of "using money to make money". I'm not saying it's wrong, most people with money to invest would seek good returns as well. But let's stop pretending this vast wealth flowing to the top is "trickling down" and creating jobs and prosperity for everyone else.

Here's another estimate that puts outsized financial industry profits in the hundreds of billions ($280 billion):
[URL]http://www.voxeu.org/article/where-wal-mart-when-we-need-it[/URL]

We have a giant problem in this country with income and wealth inequality. Wall Street and corporate America are at the center of it. If you think that's OK you've become complacent, which is exactly where Wall Street wants you to be. Or perhaps more accurate, where neoliberal capitalists want you to be. Because some folks at the top understand the problem and agree we need to do something about it.

[QUOTE]"There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning."

- Warren Buffett[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten;435726]And this folks, is how Wall Street leeches off the American worker. When you buy gas, when you buy an I-Phone, when you buy a computer, when you buy skin care products, toilet paper, cereal, when you get a loan or mortgage, etc etc (the list goes on and on), you are paying into a system where millionares and billionaires receive 35% of the profits generated. $400 billion a year, for basically doing nothing.[/QUOTE]And yet (and this is the paradox for liberals) without the Wall Street "leeches" (including employee pension funds) to provide and supervise the capital investments, you wouldn't be able to "buy gas, buy an I-Phone, buy a computer, buy skin care products, toilet paper, cereal, get a loan or mortgage, etc. etc. (the list goes on and on)."

Nevertheless, for argument's sake, let's accept Esten's figure of "35%" for what he describes as "[I]basically extract[ing] free money from the system[/I]", which I would describe as "[I]providing, allocating and supervising capital.[/I]" I suggest that if you think that 35% is too much to pay for "providing, allocating and supervising capital.", then think about what percentage we would "pay" (meaning lose) if the government was in charge of "providing, allocating and supervising capital."? 40%? 50%? 60%? What a fucking nightmare that would be.

Does anyone remember Solyndra?

Of course, Esten would have us believe that the solution would be that all of these aforementioned products and services should be provided by government organizations staffed by government employees, supervised by government bureaucrats and led by political appointees. But does anyone here really believe that the government could actually do a better and lower cost job of providing gas, I-phones, computers, skin care products, toilet paper, cereal, or loans or mortgages than the private market? Esten does, but I can only amuse myself at the thought of a government bureaucracy inventing, producing, marketing and servicing anything akin to the I-Phone.

Thanks,

Jax

Without government, at the federal, state and local level, it is my opinion that at least 20% of the people would not be employed. The private sector simply cannot produce goods and services at a competitive price if it has to employ the 20% who cannot produce anything but hot air and shuffle paper. To that extent, government provides a valuable service to the taxpayer who can produce something. Government is the employer of last resort that lets producers make I-phones, etc.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;435714]Really looking forward to it, big time. Kamakazi style tactics by the Tea Party.[/QUOTE]Me too!

I say "starve the beast"!

It's the ONLY way we'll ever stop the growth of entitlements.

That is, the only way short of a complete financial collapse, which is where we're headed now.

Let's do it!

Thanks,

Jax

[QUOTE=Esten;435742] For myself, I just explained my position on capitalism and regulation in my last post, yet now you call me a communist. That's par for the course I guess, endless mischaracterization of people on the left. I have never posted supporting government ownership of the means of production. I believe in a strong private sector and a strong government. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten;435742]What's really going on is this: 35% of profits go to Wall Street. $400 billion a year. The vast majority of the "shareholders" are Wall Street financial firms and the very wealthy individuals they represent. Do they "earn" their dividend payments? Not really, they park huge sums of cash in investments with little risk (it's an insider's game, and these companies aren't start-ups anymore) and basically extract free money from the system. They make financial transactions on their computers, and collect regular 6 and 7-figure payments from corporations. Nice "work" if you can get it. The real work comes from the sweat and ingenuity of the company's workers and management.[/QUOTE] If you want to eliminate the share of profit (i.e. dividends) paid to owners of corporations because that represents "free money" and instead allocate that small percentage of revenues to workers and management, what do you call it? Sounds like Communism to me.

You're deluding yourself. While you may think you believe in a strong private sector, the measures you favor weaken it.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;435758]If you want to eliminate the share of profit (i.e. dividends) paid to owners of corporations because that represents "free money" and instead allocate that small percentage of revenues to workers and management, what do you call it? Sounds like Communism to me.

You're deluding yourself. While you may think you believe in a strong private sector, the measures you favor weaken it.[/QUOTE]He is easily deluded.

Don B.

UPDATE 1-Hedge funds warm to Apple; Omega re-enters, Soros buys more
[URL]http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/hedgefunds-filings-apple-idUSL2N0GF21U20130814[/URL]

Hedge fund guys like Leon Cooperman, David Einhorn, George Soros, Carl Icahn, and numerous others have purchased big stakes in Apple. What's behind their investment? Do they want to help a struggling startup get off the ground? Do they want to create jobs? Nope. Apple has an estimated $156 billion in cash and investments. Like many large corporations, Apple doesn't need any investment. What these guys are up to is clear. Making a buck. Free money in dividends and anticipated share gains.

[QUOTE]Icahn said Apple has the ability to do a $150 billion buyback now by borrowing funds at 3 percent. "If Apple does this now and earnings increase at only 10 percent, the stock - even keeping the same multiple currently - should trade at $700 a share," Icahn said.[/QUOTE]What a nice guy, Carl Icahn has a suggestion on how Apple can use it's financial position to help him (and his wealthy clients) get even richer. LOL! And then we've got guys like Tiny calling him an "owner" and trying to frame critics as communists. I haven't proposed any laws to force corporations to steer profits from dividends to workers. What I do strongly support however is the Buffett Rule, which makes a ton of sense. People making millions and billions off financial investments shouldn't get a special tax break. Warren Buffett had the good sense to recognize these folks shouldn't be paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries.

If you think these leeches are "job creators", you're a sucker for Wall Street and for the Republican Party.

[QUOTE=Jackson;435747]And yet (and this is the paradox for liberals) without the Wall Street "leeches" (including employee pension funds) to provide and supervise the capital investments, you wouldn't be able to "buy gas, buy an I-Phone, buy a computer, buy skin care products, toilet paper, cereal, get a loan or mortgage, etc. etc. (the list goes on and on)." [/QUOTE]

Only true when a company needs money to grow. For large profitable corporations, it's pure leeching.

[QUOTE]Nevertheless, for argument's sake, let's accept Esten's figure of "35%" for what he describes as "[I]basically extract[ing] free money from the system[/I]", which I would describe as "[I]providing, allocating and supervising capital.[/I]" I suggest that if you think that 35% is too much to pay for "providing, allocating and supervising capital.", then think about what percentage we would "pay" (meaning lose) if the government was in charge of "providing, allocating and supervising capital."? 40%? 50%? 60%? What a fucking nightmare that would be.[/QUOTE]

According to this mentality, you shouldn't complain no matter how much a company charges, because it would always be worse if the government provided the good/service. [size=3][b]ROTFLMAO !![/b] [/size] Thanks a good one, thanks. Nevermind that nobody is proposing the government do this. You've got the perfect excuse to suffer all manner of shoddy and exploitative practices from the private sector.

Washington Post (blog).

It is bullshit.

Ted Cruz launches faux filibuster as Senate readies spending bill vote.

It means nothing, It is not a Filibuster, it has no Votes to be voted on. It is just cold / hot air.

No votes will be cast.

He is Rookie, that knows nothing about how the Government Runs. A Tea Bager.

[URL]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57604284/mcconnell-bucks-cruz-wont-filibuster-budget-bill/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Esten;435771]Only true when a company needs money to grow. For large profitable corporations, it's pure leeching. [/QUOTE]

Not true. Large companies issue bonds, borrow money from banks, take payment via credit cards, use letters of credit for commerce, hedge costs and income, etc.

[QUOTE=Esten;435771] According to this mentality, you shouldn't complain no matter how much a company charges, because it would always be worse if the government provided the good/service. Thanks a good one, thanks. Nevermind that nobody is proposing the government do this. You've got the perfect excuse to suffer all manner of shoddy and exploitative practices from the private sector.[/QUOTE]

If you take the profits from the owners (shareholders) because they represent "free money", then who's left to do these things except government? People are going to risk money out of the goodness of their hearts? You have excessive confidence in government's ability to manage everything btw.

About your other post, it's like El Queso said, this is mental masturbation, the same thing over and over again. You trot out Warren Buffet. I say he's a self-serving hypocrite. You say dividends are free money and should be taxed heavily. I say they're essential for efficient allocation of capital. Apple provides an example, although perhaps not a good one. If it has a ton of cash it's just going to sit on forever, then the money is better used by companies with growth opportunities. The cash should be distributed to shareholders so they can re-invest. This doesn't make sense however if their shareholders pay a large tax on dividends, as you would prefer. I have no opinion on people like Icahn, one way or the other. What upsets you the most is probably that there's another rich guy about to make a profit, which is unconscionable. That money should go to government.

[QUOTE=Esten;435771]You've got the perfect excuse to suffer all manner of shoddy and exploitative practices from the private sector.[/QUOTE]Esten should travel around Central and South America and see the results of government subsidized "import substitution".

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;435781]Not true. Large companies companies issue bonds, borrow money from banks, take payment via credit cards, use letters of credit for commerce, hedge costs and income, etc. [/QUOTE]In many cases this is just more leeching. For example, the company borrows money to buy back stock, the stock price goes up which benefits the hedge funds, and the company now additionally pays interest to a financial institution. The latter also probably paying a dividend. So the financial industry latches on to the profitable corporation to tap it's cash in multiple ways.

Do a search on "Hedge fund targets" and see all the companies hedge funds have targeted. One study found: [I]"We further find that employees of target firms experience a reduction in work hours and stagnation in wages despite an increase in labor productivity."[/I] (ref. forum.johnson.cornell.edu/faculty/hk722/papers/real_effects_activism.pdf). Remember, increase in productivity = forced to work your ass off even harder.

Like I said, Wall Street leeches off the American worker. If you think this is somehow good for the economy, you're deluded. We can implement measures like the Buffett Rule that can help offset the leeching to some degree, while preserving the profit motive of legitimate investors, and using the tax revenues for more productive purposes.

[QUOTE=Esten;435788] [I]"We further find that employees of target firms experience a reduction in work hours and stagnation in wages despite an increase in labor productivity."[/I] (ref. forum.johnson.cornell.edu/faculty/hk722/papers/real_effects_activism.pdf). Remember, increase in productivity = forced to work your ass off even harder.[/QUOTE]Productivity = output of goods and services per unit of labor.

Increase in productivity = the only way to increase output (and prosperity) if the amount of available capital and labor are fixed.

Work your ass off even harder = accomplish more

Improvements in technology = the primary reason for increased productivity

You mentioned hedge funds that make companies borrow money to buy back stock or equity. I share your concerns about certain hedge and private equity funds that cause some American corporations to take on too much debt. And I lay the blame squarely on government, primarily Democrats, for creating a tax system that rewards debt (interest is fully deductible from income) while penalizing equity (distributions to shareholders, i.e. dividends or "free money", are double taxed). That's what drives these deals, not trying to get more out of American workers.

Actually, Wall Street executives and hedge fund managers have traditionally supported Democrats more than Republicans. There are reasons why and they have nothing to do with which party they think would be best for the general public.

As to your bigger point, leeching, you'll recall that I agreed with you as to the share of profits of the financial industry. Your and my analysis of the causes and the way to fix the system are very different however. I believe the causes are perversions of the free enterprise system and have provided several examples. I think you believe free markets are the problem.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;435773]Washington Post (blog).

It is bullshit.

Ted Cruz launches faux filibuster as Senate readies spending bill vote.

It means nothing, It is not a Filibuster, it has no Votes to be voted on. It is just cold / hot air.

No votes will be cast.

He is Rookie, that knows nothing about how the Government Runs. A Tea Bager.

[URL]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57604284/mcconnell-bucks-cruz-wont-filibuster-budget-bill/[/URL][/QUOTE]Tea bagger? You should be above that WT69. Leave the obnoxious, vulgar insults of your political opponents to the experts, like Bill Maher, Barack Obama and Rachel Maddow: [URL]http://theweek.com/article/index/202620/the-evolution-of-the-word-tea-bagger[/URL].

You may be right. A 21 hour filibuster and then he votes to advance the legislation he's protesting. I voted for Cruz. Now I'm thinking I should have voted for the libertarian.

[QUOTE=Esten;435771]Only true when a company needs money to grow. For large profitable corporations, it's pure leeching.



According to this mentality, you shouldn't complain no matter how much a company charges, because it would always be worse if the government provided the good/service. Thanks a good one, thanks. Nevermind that nobody is proposing the government do this. You've got the perfect excuse to suffer all manner of shoddy and exploitative practices from the private sector.[/QUOTE][URL]http://www.drhurd.com/index.php/Daily-Dose-of-Reason/Politics-Government/Harry-Reid-s-Conspiracy-Theory.html[/URL]

Esten, et al will not agree with this.

Don B.

Why, No posts in the last few days. Come on, Cop to it, you backed the Wrong party?

Boehner says he does not have enough Votes to pass a clean CR. He Lies. What is needed is 216.

95 Demos have signed agreements to vote for it and 22 Republicans have stated that they will vote for a clean CR.
That makes 217 votes for a clean bill.


Exon who is the cock sucker?

Ted Cruz, a Canadian trying to bring down the USA Government!

Who is the home grown Terrorist!?

Where is his Passport?!!


Is the party falling apart.

Paul Ryan?

The rookie Ted Cruz is screwing the Party and the Country.

Boeh-ner is kissing ass. (Boner)

[URL]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/04/boehner-likened-to-crying-baby-in-new-ad/[/URL]

[URL]http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/republicans-lose-ground-vs-obama-in-the-shutdown-blame-game/[/URL]

[URL]http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109[/URL]

[URL]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/07/shutdown-aversion-republicans-may-have-just-lost-the-house.html[/URL]

Last time I checked 95 + 22 = 117.

Must be that new math where you get 217.

When I reached for the wine.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;436003]Last time I checked 95 + 22 = 117.

Must be that new math where you get 217.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;436001]

Ted Cruz, a Canadian trying to bring down the USA Government!

Who is the home grown Terrorist!?

Where is his Passport?!![/QUOTE]Which would you prefer Canadian or Kenyan?

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;436001]
Is the party falling apart.
[/QUOTE]Nope just exposing the RINO(s).

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;436001]
The rookie Ted Cruz is screwing the Party and the Country.
[/QUOTE][I][b]“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”[/b].~ Samuel Langhorne Clemens[/i]

[URL]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/19/ted-cruz-releases-birth-certificate-and-is-apparently-a-canadian-citizen-but/[/URL]

[URL]https://www.google.com/search?q=obama[/URL]'s+birth+certificate&newwindow=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=mcVVUvGzE87_qAHXk4 HwAw&ved=0 CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=955&dpr=1.

[QUOTE=Punter127;436007]Which would you prefer Canadian or Kenyan?

Nope just exposing the RINO(s).

[I][b]“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”[/b].~ Samuel Langhorne Clemens[/i][/QUOTE]

So what's you point? Nobody cares about this BS.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;436009][URL]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/19/ted-cruz-releases-birth-certificate-and-is-apparently-a-canadian-citizen-but/[/URL]

[URL]https://www.google.com/search?q=obama[/URL]'s+birth+certificate&newwindow=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=mcVVUvGzE87_qAHXk4 HwAw&ved=0 CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=955&dpr=1.[/QUOTE]Apparently Cruz really scares you guys. (he should) And if this is the best you've got to use against him, I think your little low on ammo amigo.

Oh BTW, congratulations you have now lowered yourself to "birther" status. To the best of my recollection you are the first "birther" on the forum.

October 17.

I am sure you all have met and known people who are very inflexible. I have a friend who once he made up his mind to wash his car, he could not be persuaded to change his plans even if the Penthouse centerfold was waiting for him.

You know, all about principles, but no common sense.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;436022]October 17.

I am sure you all have met and known people who are very inflexible. I have a friend who once he made up his mind to wash his car, he could not be persuaded to change his plans even if the Penthouse centerfold was waiting for him.

You know, all about principles, but no common sense.[/QUOTE]Your example has nothing to do with principles. Further I think you are confusing common sense with pragmatism.

Don B

"October 17".

Americans deserve better!

[I]"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."[/I]~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006.

[QUOTE=Punter127;436026]"October 17".

Americans deserve better!

[I]"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."[/I]~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006.[/QUOTE]Not that I am a Obama fan, but that kind of hits the nail on the head!