Ron Paul 2008

[Snax]

But that last point begs the question of higher taxes for who?

Although I agree with Ron Paul's very constitutional stance on right and freedom, he would also seem to be arguing for the privatization of virtually everything - which means that instead of the costs of services and use of the commons being spread throughout all who benefit from them, the burden of actually making use of them would be largest on those who can least afford it. He's one of those folks that apparently believes that business can always do better than government and do it more efficienty, but that position always discounts the greed factor of CEOs and shareholders. In other words, while business can do better, it rarely does because shareholders and it's benefactors are always looking for ways to improve profits - often at the expense of actually improving services.

I aint buyin' it.

[thisisntjared]

Originally Posted by Snax

He's one of those folks that apparently believes that business can always do better than government and do it more efficienty

its true, even businesses that sell to the government (lockheed martin for example) are extremely inefficient in making products for the military because of the requirements placed on the product by the government.

the way our system is set up now, offers many ways to abuse it. i say monarchy: jared for king of burlington county, nj!

seriously though, you bring up a good point regarding the abuses from corporatism. THAT is where the government should get involved.

[Snax]

I should recant my point just a little bit by qualifying it with this: Non-profits are often very efficient and usually provide excellent service. Privately held, but limited to paying people for their employment and actual business expenses, there is no motivation to cheat on services or fatten the pockets of shareholders because we are all shareholders.

[bowtieguy]

Snax,

it apprears we agree on one thing tho. GREED, in public or private, is a serious issue. still, i don't trust the gov't to control anything.

if only companies and gov't would share wealth more. i did a very short stint w/ my local gov't's public works dept thinking i was set. well, $7.80/hr is why i left.

the company i work for now, pays execs 6 figures, not 7, which seems fair. also, our warehouse and fleet personell top out at $15/hr plus overtime. starting pay is 10-11. that's def fair(liveable) for my area.

to the point...if gov't and companies paid better(the capital IS there-this is America afterall), if they budgeted better, AND if we were taxed fairly, MANY of these problems would disapate! add to this a prez w/ the nation's best interest in mind...

oh, and require co.s to cover ALL employees w/ healthcare.

maybe i'm an idealist. i believe i'm also a realist.

[theclencher]

bowtie: oh shir the execs get PAID six figgers but do you know about the NON salary bennies especially stock options? prolly more liek sevenfiggers after all

[cfg83]

theclencher -

Originally Posted by theclencher

His *other* secret identity was revealed on the The Daily Show :

Attachment 1000

CarloSW2

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by theclencher

bowtie: oh shir the execs get PAID six figgers but do you know about the NON salary bennies especially stock options? prolly more liek sevenfiggers after all

Meh, stock options are a 90's thing.... It's now more profitable to award the stock itself Make money even when the prices aren't rising

[bowtieguy]

Originally Posted by theclencher

bowtie: oh shir the execs get PAID six figgers but do you know about the NON salary bennies especially stock options? prolly more liek sevenfiggers after all

actually it's quite believable since we're in relatively low profit food and related supplies. customers buy only what they need, unlike drug companies, for example, that cram their product down throats(literally).

stock is a slow, but steady performer as well. got a few shares by buying a little at a time(discounted), but it's not gonna make me rich.