Here's what's really wrong with this countries economy

[ELMER J. FUDD]

It's all about vantage point/perspective. Ceo's in other countries can't make as much as U.S. ceo's because the government is too involved and the laws too restrictive. Now ask yourself, do you ever want to be a ceo? I would. If you don't, the media has you right where they want you, settling for less.

I love how libs use buzz words like "crisis" when denouncing free market enterprise. Then they claim that capitalism doesn't work, that's why they came up with the bailout. In reality, the bailout interrupted the free market from correcting itself. Let the strong survive and the weak fail. What we are ending up with is a nation of weak.

It's like when a puppy mill over breeds and coddles generations of dogs to the point that the dog doesn't even do what it was originally bred to do. ''Breeding the breed out of the dog" Who wants a rottweiler that doesn't protect? Wake up guys.

[ELMER J. FUDD]

Elmo, your analogy about bullies brings a good point to light, but do you know what works even better than a teacher? A kid that can stand up to the bully and keep him in check before it even gets that far. Think of it this way, what would you rather do in a dangerous situation, call the police and have them handle it, or just take care of it yourself (knowing the laws have your back)? I know the 1st rebuttal would be that vigilante justice is a thing of the past, but when you think of it nowadays, can we really all afford to pay police to protect us? Most would rather have police handle a situation for them, but I'd bet the farm it's because of fear of repercussion by today's liberal laws should they've handled it themselves.

The crooks of society will get what's coming to them, don't hate on the successful.

I can't post it, but Adam Corolla did an interesting interview about how society is jealous of the successful.

Edited July 6, 2012 by ELMER J. FUDD

[ELMER J. FUDD]

Found the clean version.

http://wn.com/Adam_Carolla_Rant_OWS_CLEAN_VERSION

[Elmo]

You're right...just got to beat them in their own game. Until then, I'll continue to just pay the taxes for those who knowingly tanked corporations and took their golden parachutes until my time comes.

[Elmo]

"I love when people claim they love freedom but then start laying down their conditions to that freedom"

We are want to the most freedom we can get which is why I love this country but by dictionary terms of true freedom as being able to do what ever you want, true freedom won't cut it in society. I mean, the guy down the hall smells. He hardly takes out his trash. I'm going to go down the hall and shoot him in the face with a 12 gauge. I am free to do so. What do you mean I can't? You're denying my freedom to do so.

[dave6x6]

Elmo, Pretty heavy subject. Hope some day you might look at it from a different perspective. I'll just say don't throw the baby out with the bath. Also I like your goal in life. My dog thinks i'm wonderful but sometimes he still poops on my floor..LOL

[sits in trees]

and theres still a large % of the American public that really believes the government still runs the country, and what politicians are doing is in the best interest of the public.

[WNYBuckHunter]

"I love when people claim they love freedom but then start laying down their conditions to that freedom"

We are want to the most freedom we can get which is why I love this country but by dictionary terms of true freedom as being able to do what ever you want, true freedom won't cut it in society. I mean, the guy down the hall smells. He hardly takes out his trash. I'm going to go down the hall and shoot him in the face with a 12 gauge. I am free to do so. What do you mean I can't? You're denying my freedom to do so.

What does shooting someone in the face have to do with anything. What you are talking about is anarchy, not freedom. Just because someone is free does not mean they do not have to live within the boudaries of the law.

I have to agree with dave6x6 here, you are looking at this whole subject with a perspective that has obviously been blurred by drinking too much liberal Kool Aid.

[Elmo]

I don't think I'm being overly liberal. I'm against free loaders, I'm against the whole occupy wall street. Maybe I'm not expressing myself correctly. I wanted to hammer in a point hard and as a result, my responses might have ended up being harsh to which I apologize for. You should also be aware that I'm not sitting behind this computer angry and fuming. I actually have a smile on my face while I'm typing as I am taking this as a fun conversation/debate so I hope people don't get too riled up over this.

My point about freedom is that laws restrict some of it as it should. It seems sometimes when anyone mentions some kind of restrictions, people get angry. They say their rights are being taken away. To me, that's progression. Decades ago, some people felt women should have a right to vote. Many thought that would ruin this country. Now people look back at it as progression.

Regarding CEOs, (and I'll throw inside traders in there as well) find loops holes in the system and take advantage of it. I feel that isn't right and some of those loopholes should be closed. Those who play it right, should be paid. Those who don't shouldn't. Steve Jobs took Apple above Microsoft. He should be paid handsomely. Steve Eichen bankrupt Disney and he walked away with over $200 million. Hmmm... The guy who tanked Lehman Brothers. He knew the company was going under. He set himself up with a nicely before leaving. Think of it as a plane and he's the pilot. The whole time he was telling everyone everything is fine, have some complimentory wine, as he casually walks to the back and grabs the only parachute. Then he yells "You're all going to die" as he jumps out of the plane. Not cool. His parachute was built on all those investors who were not informed and continued to pump money into the system. Now sure, as a publicly trade company, they have to release their financial information but a good accountant and financial advisor can hide that while the inside guys set to jump ship.

[Elmo]

Elmo, Pretty heavy subject. Hope some day you might look at it from a different perspective. I'll just say don't throw the baby out with the bath. Also I like your goal in life. My dog thinks i'm wonderful but sometimes he still poops on my floor..LOL

That goal is why I'm having this debate. I forgot where I read it but it was a conversation that went like this:

pupil: "How do I become a better person?"

sage: "Find the one philosopher you completely disagree with...then read his book."

Edited July 6, 2012 by Elmo

[adirondackbushwhack]

You're right...just got to beat them in their own game. Until then, I'll continue to just pay the taxes for those who knowingly tanked corporations and took their golden parachutes until my time comes.

That is the politicians fault not the ceo's.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Steve Jobs was as big, if not a bigger crook than the others you just mentioned. Read up on the guy, he was a nut job and a thief. The tech he built Apple on (and others built Windows platforms on) was stolen from Xerox. He was a cut throat in business, and died the way he did because of his god complex.

Regardless, the only people that can complain about what a company or CEO does are that company's stock holders (owners). What their salaries are are no business of anyone else's. Is it my business to know what you make? Is it yours to know what I make? The answer to both is no, so why would it be any of your business to know or say what anyone else makes?

IMO, we should be more worried about what public sector employees are making. Government also has no place bailing out privately held businesses with taxpayer dollars,

[adirondackbushwhack]

I don't think I'm being overly liberal. I'm against free loaders, I'm against the whole occupy wall street. Maybe I'm not expressing myself correctly. I wanted to hammer in a point hard and as a result, my responses might have ended up being harsh to which I apologize for. You should also be aware that I'm not sitting behind this computer angry and fuming. I actually have a smile on my face while I'm typing as I am taking this as a fun conversation/debate so I hope people don't get too riled up over this.

My point about freedom is that laws restrict some of it as it should. It seems sometimes when anyone mentions some kind of restrictions, people get angry. They say their rights are being taken away. To me, that's progression. Decades ago, some people felt women should have a right to vote. Many thought that would ruin this country. Now people look back at it as progression.

Regarding CEOs, (and I'll throw inside traders in there as well) find loops holes in the system and take advantage of it. I feel that isn't right and some of those loopholes should be closed. Those who play it right, should be paid. Those who don't shouldn't. Steve Jobs took Apple above Microsoft. He should be paid handsomely. Steve Eichen bankrupt Disney and he walked away with over $200 million. Hmmm... The guy who tanked Lehman Brothers. He knew the company was going under. He set himself up with a nicely before leaving. Think of it as a plane and he's the pilot. The whole time he was telling everyone everything is fine, have some complimentory wine, as he casually walks to the back and grabs the only parachute. Then he yells "You're all going to die" as he jumps out of the plane. Not cool. His parachute was built on all those investors who were not informed and continued to pump money into the system. Now sure, as a publicly trade company, they have to release their financial information but a good accountant and financial advisor can hide that while the inside guys set to jump ship.

Illegal activity should be prosecuted but I don't think all ceo's should be punished for the actions of a few. Do you?

[adirondackbushwhack]

Steve Jobs was as big, if not a bigger crook than the others you just mentioned. Read up on the guy, he was a nut job and a thief. The tech he built Apple on (and others built Windows platforms on) was stolen from Xerox. He was a cut throat in business, and died the way he did because of his god complex.

Regardless, the only people that can complain about what a company or CEO does are that company's stock holders (owners). What their salaries are are no business of anyone else's. Is it my business to know what you make? Is it yours to know what I make? The answer to both is no, so why would it be any of your business to know or say what anyone else makes?

IMO, we should be more worried about what public sector employees are making. Government also has no place bailing out privately held businesses with taxpayer dollars,

Wait........ didn't you say it's nobody's buisness what you or anyone else makes? We must Be careful that we don't fall into the same type of political trap with salaries for gov workers. The polticians only complain about certain pay while raising the pay of others.

[Elmo]

Illegal activity should be prosecuted but I don't think all ceo's should be punished for the actions of a few. Do you?

I agree, which is why I think a base salary and heavily padded with incentives could work.

WNY: CEO of a publicly traded company has to expose their salary. It's part of the territory. As far as Steve Jobs go, I don't know enough about him so maybe I should have used him but my point was that the CEO's who do the right thing and boost the company should be rewarded. Those who don't, should not.

[virgil]

I love how libs use buzz words like "crisis" when denouncing free market enterprise. Then they claim that capitalism doesn't work, that's why they came up with the bailout. In reality, the bailout interrupted the free market from correcting itself. Let the strong survive and the weak fail. What we are ending up with is a nation of weak.

George Bush was a liberal?

[wooffer]

George Bush was a liberal?

How profound!

Edited July 6, 2012 by wooffer

[virgil]

Woofer, I'm sorry that you're not impressed. I was just trying to point out the fact that the claim was ridiculous. Sorry that facts can occasionally get in the way of a good story.

[Woodsman20]

Just to go back to an earlier post that the size and cost of our government has grown to a point where it actually adversely effects our economy, I would be curious on how many people agree with this?

And for those that agree, how do you ever see this being corrected given those that are in control would have to be those that vote to reduce the size and budgets of governments including their own benefits?

I ask because I actually believe that this is one of the primary drivers that effects many issues in our country. When you take into account the number of politicians required to support this country including the costs associated with each: Secretaries, publicists, security detail, admins, technical admins, advisors, “panels” not to mention vehicles, planes, transportation, fuel and everything else considered "perks". Then add in the "hidden costs" once they exit - ongoing security, pensions etc., it seems that it is high price tag to manage. There are also the intangible costs with regards to what can actually get done/accomplished within a presidential term – it is like trying to turn the titanic, our government is slow and similar to many legacy corporations. It would be interesting to see a specific scorecard by president of what a president accomplished within a 4 year term over the course of history to see possible correlations to certain variables: (size of the government, situations during presidency i.e. Wars, economic collapses and significant technological advances. etc..)

Don’t get me wrong, there is an obvious balance that needs to make sure there is representation of the people, for the people at the legislative level to promote democracy, free markets and a capitalistic economy but I struggle with the current design. Those that believe in the fundamentals of a “trickle down, capitalistic economy” this would seem like one of the primary drivers to stimulate the economy by reducing costs, increasing investments from the private sector in future developments and make us overall more competitive. It would have to be a balancing act and done with much care because the obvious risk is if it went too far it could easily turn into a regime of dictators.

What also always interests me is the significant differences from state to state in our tax structures … I always find this intriguing. I do a fair amount of traveling internationally and domestically and when traveling state to state or even worse county to county it is rare that the public services change. Any thoughts?

[ELMER J. FUDD]

Virgil, I know it's it's hard to see the whole picture when you have your head in the sand. If you believe enabling and coddling those that cannot perform is the way to prosperity, than so be it. I disagree with bailouts by our government. You act like we all think Bush is our hero or something. When I said "they'' came up with the bailout, I did not mean liberals created the bailout. I meant how in my experiences, liberals claim we needed a bailout.

Do you honestly think it's a good idea to keep getting the government involved in private enterprise? How's your summer going buddy?

[virgil]

Virgil, I know it's it's hard to see the whole picture when you have your head in the sand. If you believe enabling and coddling those that cannot perform is the way to prosperity, than so be it. I disagree with bailouts by our government. You act like we all think Bush is our hero or something. When I said "they'' came up with the bailout, I did not mean liberals created the bailout. I meant how in my experiences, liberals claim we needed a bailout.

Do you honestly think it's a good idea to keep getting the government involved in private enterprise? How's your summer going buddy?

My head is in the sand?... why, because I assumed that what you wrote is what you actually meant?

OK, my bad. You assumed an awful lot from by five-word post.

The rest of your post is a bunch of baseless assumptions intended to drag me into another silly debate- so, I'm gonna ignore them.

Summer's going well, though. Thanks for asking.

[ELMER J. FUDD]

Miss you too!

[Skillet]

I was gone for awhile. It's nice to come back and see that everybody's still playing so nice together.

[ELMER J. FUDD]

Woodsman, your right on the money. If the gov. could actually turn a profit weather as a small gov. or the one we have, things wouldn't be so bad. It creates a ponzi scheme so to speak. Have you ever met anyone that retired and had no issues getting the pension they were promised?

Edited July 6, 2012 by ELMER J. FUDD

[Culvercreek hunt club]

The free market is the only sustainable model. lets look at the crock that just came through in this health care law. It wasn't the big old bad CEO's that were the focus of this evil d'jour it was the insurance companies that were making absurd profits at the expense of the little guys. So in steps the Govt to make it all better. If they really had the inclination to make it better and fix what the insurance companies were doing why didn't they just start govt insurance as a seperate organization. offer insurance and present a product at what they feel is a resonable cost. If it was that great people would flock there and that would force the competing insurance company rates down. but they didn't becasue it isn't about insurance. It is about redistribution....providing something for nothing. If the govt could operate an organization at a break even it would be great, but they can't . Hell to post office can't do it and they had a monoploy on it for years..

Private companies should naot have manadated wages for their exec's. The govt should have nothing to say about it. The govt should also lat private companies fail with no bail outs. if the service is truely needed the void will be filled by a new company providing the service at a profit. if it doesn't it wan'st needed. fat , lazy and unproductive should not be rewared or financed and that is on a corporate or personal level.