Reading and listening to the reports about the supposed Sapling plan to stimulate the economy and help people is his usual nonsense. Here are SOME of the problems: 1) Every state budget will be in deficit this year (yep, all 50 of them), and Sapling's little skip down the yellow brick road will do nothing to help and will actually hurt them. Not only the states but the cities, because if dividends become non-taxable, guess what happens to bonds and securities issued by municipalities that have gotten away with paying lower interest rates but being non-taxable. Can everyone say "stampede to sell them" 2) As in the past, Sapling thinks funneling more money to the wealthiest Americans will encourage them to spend more. As John Breaux correctly stated, give the lower class and middle class more money, and THEY will spend it because they have to in order to purchase better food, make home improvements, upgrade the family car by purchasing a new one, etc. But John B., what about all that money that the rich would sink into Persian rugs and collectables? 3) It is amazing how a senseless buffoon likes Sapling must really believe that no one is going to point out that ONCE AGAIN he has whipped out the GOP Mastercard -- he keeps wanting to increase spending (military, etc.) yet apparently wants to reduce the sources of revenue. Here is the formula again for the mentally-impaired rightwingers in this country Budget surplus or deficit = revenue - expenditures Oh, but Sapling and the rest of the dimwits trying to foster this scam will once again bring up the standard GOP con phrase "dynamic scoring" which means, "oh, but revenue will increase because the economy picks up due to our genius of an economic plan". These guys apparently don't have enough brains to make change for a quarter properly.
>>People don't buy muni's because of the return but for stability. Cutting the dividend tax doesn't affect the volatility of the stock. People will still want the safety of muni's. They buy them for stability AND the fact that a nontaxable rate security that is lower in yield is FAIRLY equivalent to a higher yield of a taxable security (particularly for highest tax bracket investors). And of course, cutting the dividend rate will stabilize the stock price even more. IN GENERAL, the higher the dividend rate(same dividend rate, nontaxable), the more stable the issue. That is why utilities are considered in most times to be conservative, stable, low beta stocks. >>Not taking people's money is not funneling it to them. Typical left-wing view of the world where Tom thinks he has more right to someone's money than they do. Actually, it is since the wealthiest Americans already get the lion's share of tax writeoffs. The LAUGHABLE statement by the fringe rightwing nuts is how high the tax bracket for the wealthiest is. What they fail to mention because then they would have to worry about being truthful is that the tax rate is AFTER deductions. >>Again, more socialist, wealth redistribution drivel. Just give people more money. Never-mind they didn't earn it. ROTFLMAO!! Oh, so you think the corporate BOD in American companies EARNED their money??????? ROTFLMAO!! As usual. honesty and integrity isn't worth much to you is it? The fact that American executives earn a ridiculous ratio in salary to the average worker in their own companies vs. the same comparison in other countries OR even the comparison vs. what the difference used to be in US corporations just a few years ago doesn't bother you right? It is a matter of fairness and earning the money I agree. But corporate welfare, self-voted stock options, and ripping off the workers to pay bonuses to the higher ups isn't fair to most people. But then, I don't think you really care about earning it, do you? If they got the money, they must have earned it, right? BTW, on your fishing analogy, let me give you one. Let the fishing contest begin between the corporate big cheeses and the average worker, but let's have them fish out of the same lake shall we? Instead we have the corporate bigwigs stocking their pond (voting themselves stock options, bonuses, etc.) with fish while they pollute the competitors lake (phony accounting practices, etc.). No wonder the executives come out with the lion's share of the rewards. But, you don't call THAT a transfer of wealth, right? LOL!!!!
Uh, Skippy, most people don't end up 'earning' their positions >>People aren't born "workers" (proletariat in your world) and people aren't born "executives" What is the color of trees on your world. If you don't think people don't have inborn advantages based upon family connections, etc. you are more clueless than I thought. Do you HONESTLY, HONESTLY think that Sapling (if he had been born into another family without the connections the Bushes have had for decades) would have come remotely close to attaining elective office? You have GOT to be kidding. Same thing with the corporate "good old boy" network. The reason the term glass ceiling is used for women and minorities is that studies have PROVEN by statistics that they have a much less chance of getting to the top, NOT due to qualifications, ambitions, etc., but simply due to the system and bias. Oh, and why do women earn about 30% less for doing exactly the same job with exactly the same experience and performing it in exactly the same way. So, you can try to scam the board with your little feudal lord nonsense, but anyone intelligent knows crap when they look at a latrine. >>It's harder to find someone that can run a fortune 500 company than it is to find someone who can dig a ditch. Total garbage. It is HARDER to find someone who is COMPETENT to run a Fortune 500 company ..... As far as finding the caliber of person currently running most of them, a ditch digger or McDonalds drive through employee could probably do a better job, certainly more competent. I love how Wendy Gramm who had an accounting background and set on the board of Enron CLAIMS she knew nothing about all the accounting fraud. Would you like to tell us how SHE was EARNING her salary? I anxiously await your explanation. Same with Kenneth Lay who said he knew nothing about all their problems. Exactly what do you believe are the responsibilities of a CEO then? Oh wait, let me guess, he is just responsible for digging ditches, right, but should get paid like an executive? >>Like most socialists, you act as if all people are equal when they are not. You are the TYPICAL HYPOCRITICAL elephant man. You scorn people to take personal responsibility for THEIR lives but give corporate welfare recipients a pass on taking responsibility and being held accountable for their own decisions. You SAY that people in those positions EARN their wealth, yet you don't mention the fact that THEY and BOD members VOTE THEMSELVES stock options, give themselves bonuses, etc. So, the bottom line is they DON'T earn their money, they give themselves corporate perks which have no strings attached to job performance. As I've said before, I'm more of a TRUE FREE ENTERPRISER than almost anyone on this board. I reject YOUR lack of holding people accountable for their actions and actually believe people should earn the compensation they get. I also believe in LEGITIMATE competition in the marketplace not backroom deals or extortion of customers like Billy Gates has been convicted of (bundling of independent products and forcing customers to buy some products they did NOT want in order to have access to products of his they did want). So, the bottom line is, you are HYPOCRITICAL elephant man who doesn't have a clue what true free enterprise or earning a salary is. Instead, you are for the corporate welfare and undeserved bonuses and stock options for executives whose main "achievements" lately has been to run companies into the ground. Hey guy, if you say pay what they earn, then they OWE the shareholders a hell of a lot of money in overpayment. Start with Enron executives who IF YOU BELIEVE THEM knew nothing about their own company, yet were drawing hundreds of thousands of dollars in salary every year. You just got blitzed, Sparky -- better head back to single A ball.
>>Oh, and why do women earn about 30% less for doing exactly the same job with exactly the same experience >Because they should be cooking me dinner. Yeah, how are your bearskins and your clubs holding up. You do know fire has been invented, right? >>That's because they run the company. Who else is going to do it? Maybe we should have a government bureaucracy decide? That is the stupidest post you have ever made, and that is saying something. Here's a novel idea. Why don't we let the shareholders VOTE on it? And I don't mean some vague executive incentive plan like the shareholders currently vote on. I mean specific exercies prices for options, limited time period for exercising them, etc. I hate to inform you, but the shareholders OWN the company. >>And you can stop using Enron as an example of all corporations. It's not. Every time someone mentions business, you mention Enron. Get a new villain. OK, great, we will move on to others. How about WorldComm? How about Xerox? How about Global Crossing? How about a bunch of dot.coms? How about Reliant Energy? How about TXU? How about Imclone? How about Arcadelphia or whatever that cable company is called? That's quite a few villains, and there are plenty more less famous ones. ALL of the above companies either grossly misreported revenues, earnings, or both. In some cases, downright embezzlement, insider trading, etc. occured. So, if you think you can con people into believing Enron was a fluke, you are nuts! The rest of your post is your usual drivel when you get your butt kicked on an issue, which is most of the time. Make sure you take your bats with you to single A ball, because guy they are all in great shape. You can't even catch up to a fastball throw right down the middle of the plate. Too much stuff for you and not enough upstairs, guy!
