Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   Another wealthy CEO speaks out on the importance of keeping the peasants in their place   (cbsnews.com) divider line 213
    More: Obvious, Honeywell International, U.S., mortgage interest deduction, Scott Pelley, importance  
•       •       •

24652 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Nov 2012 at 11:07 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



213 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
Ehh
2012-11-21 02:19:02 PM  
The free market is great, unless you're a defense contractor charging $400 for a hammer, or you're a hospital charging thousands for a x-ray, but only if a huge piece of that profit goes to someone like the CEO of Honeywell, who candidly admits he isn't hiring right now, even to replace people who leave.

It's time for a maximum income limit. "Earn" more than that, and it gets taxed 91%. Doesn't matter how you earned it.

Fark these farksticks and their political party. Also:

Lets let Honeywell fend for itself in the open market.
Let cut military spending to a humane level - Not TWICE as much as the rest of the world combined.
Lets get rid of corporate welfare
Lets get rid of Medicare fraud
 
2012-11-21 02:24:11 PM  
i277.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-21 02:24:26 PM  

Tat'dGreaser: Didn't he just say you need to make cuts and raise taxes? Where is the "f*ck the poor" then?


He didn't say "raise taxes". He said "increase revenue". So he wants to eliminate deductions, probably the mortgage interest deduction, I'd bet.
 
2012-11-21 02:26:38 PM  

trippdogg: COTE: I wish I had made up this phrase -- cause it's so good -- but it's "capital is a coward." So when it comes to hiring, you know, I let people attrit. They retire, they leave for a variety of reasons, and I'm just not going to back-fill those jobs. I'm not going to hire for them. When I look at capital expenditures and I decide, should I build that new plant? Or should I modify it? Should I upgrade it? Should I invest in this new product? You know, maybe I'll hold back a little bit, I'll wait and see what happens, and that's happening across industry right now.

No, you are a coward. You have no new ideas and no real purpose, yet you refuse to step aside and give someone else a shot. You're just coasting to the grave, you dick.


Well in the first place, you have no idea if he's a coward or not. But typically, although there is the occasional Enron, cowards don't get to places like the top office at a corporation the size of Honeywell.
In the second place, unless you're his therapist, friend, family member, minister, bartender, or some such, you have no idea what his ideas are, new or otherwise.
In the third place, his purpose is to manage one of the world's larger companies. Possibly other purposes too, but I don't know the gentleman so I won't speculate. However, his purpose is his decision, not yours.
In the fourth place, His stepping aside is between him and the company that hired him. If you own shares of Honeywell, and you don't like what he's doing, by all means go to the next stockholders' meeting and demand his resignation. Otherwise.........
In the fifth place, nobody needs to step anywhere for you to "get a shot". See that big world out there? That's your shot.
In the sixth place, leaders of corporations don't get to coast. If you have knowledge of a coasting CEO (for real), please post it here so we all can short-sell the company.
In the seventh place, juvenile insults don't impress educated people.
In the eighth place, resenting successful people and coveting what they have is not a positive thing for anyone to do, even a Farker.  If you think he's done anything illegal, please call the DA. 

For the love of heaven, read some Milton Friedman before it's too late.
 
2012-11-21 02:29:36 PM  

Tat'dGreaser: vpb: That's a good point, since a lot of them are the ones who want to screw younger generations over.

Someone like him saying that we need to reform Social Security is like a fox telling you that you need to guard the hen-house. It needs to be reformed, but not by someone who wants to dismantle or loot it.

Very true, I'd say Baby Boomers caused this f*cking mess.

Eh, I don't know. Desperate times and all of that. I understand cutting the defense budget would help but what about all those jobs? Do we really want another couple hundred thousand people out of work all at once?


It's long-term gain vs short term hurt. Every dollar spent towards defense jobs are inherently less efficient for long-term growth than towards other programs or even in the private market.

Yes, there will be jobs lost due to it but thinking only short-term is what got us into this mess to begin with.
 
2012-11-21 02:34:06 PM  

Avery614: Ok, maybe someone can explain to this dumbass how Social Security will fail. At a $13 an hour job every 2 weeks the employee and employer combined will put about $112 into Social Security. Assuming you get no raises and never make any more than $13 per hour that would leave you with about $117,000 contributed to Social Security in your name. Now seeing how most people will make well in excess of $13 per hour for a majority of their life and many die before collecting all that has been contributed in their name or before even reaching benefit collection age I just don't see how it runs out.....what obvious flaw am I missing (besides the government likes to borrow money from it)?


The median personal income in the US is around $24k/year. That works out to be around $11/hr.

Accounting for inflation, $117,000 to live on for ~20-30 years is not a lot. Even at the income level they were making, it still means ~10 years before they run out of money.
 
2012-11-21 02:39:45 PM  
So I've spot checked this thread and haven't seen this: Has anyone considered that cutting services (to cut spending) and raising taxes aren't the only ways to create revenue? You can always spend less like as a**hat for the things you do spend on. The United States government is one of the least efficient (no data to back this up, just observations working as a fed for awhile) organizations ever. My experience is that we pay significantly more for what we get when it involves the government than we should. That's not "hey, we shouldnt fund medicare" thats "really, cant we do medicare better?"

The problem is when we cut budgets, we don't get better at spending the remaining money so we lose services.
 
2012-11-21 02:41:57 PM  

jofny: So I've spot checked this thread and haven't seen this: Has anyone considered that cutting services (to cut spending) and raising taxes aren't the only ways to create revenue? You can always spend less like as a**hat for the things you do spend on. The United States government is one of the least efficient (no data to back this up, just observations working as a fed for awhile) organizations ever. My experience is that we pay significantly more for what we get when it involves the government than we should. That's not "hey, we shouldnt fund medicare" thats "really, cant we do medicare better?"

The problem is when we cut budgets, we don't get better at spending the remaining money so we lose services.


I agree with your premise but I think your example is a poor one. I seem to recall reading that medicare is actually incredibly efficient. I could be wrong though,
 
2012-11-21 02:44:21 PM  

nmemkha: david_gaithersburg: Only 70% of every dollar is spent on entitlements according to the IRS website. If Dear leader can ignore the facts they we all can.

What else should the government spend its money on rather than the health and welfare for its citizens?


1) It's not the government's money
2) There's actually a charter of what they are and aren't supposed to be doing with said money

Taxation is absolutely necessary to cover the reasonable expenses of operating the government and allowing it to fulfill its requisite functions. It's not meant to be a sociopolitical tool to dictate haves and have nots, which is what's it's been creeping towards for decades now - on both sides.

If you want to have a legitimate discussion on the role of government, fine. But always recognize the ability of government to function derives from the people. That doesn't just cover its mandate, but its finances as well. It's our money just like it's our government. The government should no more be an independent "person" than a corporation should be.
 
2012-11-21 02:48:04 PM  

CornerPocket: For the love of heaven, read some Milton Friedman before it's too late.


What, is Milton Friedman the new go-to guy for Fark Independents™? Hayek is sitting by his phone all lonely now.
 
2012-11-21 02:51:00 PM  
Rich CEO's who think they hit a triple but were born on 3rd base. What the hell do they know?
 
2012-11-21 02:51:53 PM  
Where did any of you ever get the idea that a corporation exists as a social entity?
They exist to make money. Period. For better or for worse, that's what they, and every other corporation on the planet, -for lack of a better word- "Do". Right or wrong, they ARE allowed to make money.

Hate on them all you want, but if you're smart enough, persuasive enough, and feel like working 100 hours a week for the next 15-20 years, you too, could start up your own company, build it to the size where you could go public, and pay yourself a ridiculous amount of money. They don't owe you spit. You agree to work for them in exchange for money. Period. There is no justice in that, except for they are getting what they pay for, and you receive a stable income.

The golden rule has always been "he who has the gold, makes the rules." You want new rules? Go get some gold. It's not unattainable, but it is hard. That's why they have it and you don't.
 
2012-11-21 02:58:53 PM  

Marcintosh: EAT THE RICH


There are a lot more poor people than rich ones. What say we eat them instead? They'll go farther.
 
2012-11-21 03:05:47 PM  

Mouser: Marcintosh: EAT THE RICH

There are a lot more poor people than rich ones. What say we eat them instead? They'll go farther.


Too much fat. But the rih are too bitter, this is why the ones being eaten are the middle class.
 
2012-11-21 03:07:05 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Actually, those taxes are self-evidently passed along to and paid for by customers (i.e.: consumers) in the form of higher prices - otherwise the company would be out of business. Ref: Logic 101 & Economics 101.


Let me refer you to an advanced course in "So farking What?"
 
2012-11-21 03:13:30 PM  
"Our debt is higher as a percent of GDP today than it has been at any time in our history since the Revolutionary War, with the exception of the end of World War II, when we had a very good reason to be doing that. So we've got to do something."

Did I miss something? Are we not still involved in the longest war in the history of our country and saddled with debt from the bonus war that had jack shiat to do with anything?
 
2012-11-21 03:15:40 PM  

nmemkha: david_gaithersburg: Only 70% of every dollar is spent on entitlements according to the IRS website. If Dear leader can ignore the facts they we all can.

What else should the government spend its money on rather than the health and welfare for its citizens?


The aqueduct?
 
2012-11-21 03:16:59 PM  

Spam-I-Am: Where did any of you ever get the idea that a corporation exists as a social entity?
They exist to make money. Period. For better or for worse, that's what they, and every other corporation on the planet, -for lack of a better word- "Do". Right or wrong, they ARE allowed to make money.

Hate on them all you want, but if you're smart enough, persuasive enough, and feel like working 100 hours a week for the next 15-20 years, you too, could start up your own company, build it to the size where you could go public, and pay yourself a ridiculous amount of money. They don't owe you spit. You agree to work for them in exchange for money. Period. There is no justice in that, except for they are getting what they pay for, and you receive a stable income.

The golden rule has always been "he who has the gold, makes the rules." You want new rules? Go get some gold. It's not unattainable, but it is hard. That's why they have it and you don't.


Some of us also have ethical qualms against farking the little guy, so there's that. Also, we can just start murdering people like Angelo Mozillo, and jacking their shiat. That's more ethically viable than being a vulture capitalist.
 
2012-11-21 03:17:56 PM  

farm machine: Everyone contributed to the problem. Everyone needs to contribute to the solution. This includes the wealthy, the middle class and the poor. Looking at this from a class warfare perspective solves nothing. It only widens the divide and delays any meaningful resolution. We need to all pitch in to improve our current situation and provide a better future.


This is the internet. GTFO of here with this reasonableness!

Seriously, as much as I hate Mitt, I applauded him for saying that it's immoral to be running up the debt and passing it onto the next generation. Americans want more social benefits and lower taxes and don't care that their children will be ass-farked by it. Of course, this seems to be true of most first world nations. Humans are selfish most of the time, I guess.
 
2012-11-21 03:25:06 PM  

Jument: farm machine: Everyone contributed to the problem. Everyone needs to contribute to the solution. This includes the wealthy, the middle class and the poor. Looking at this from a class warfare perspective solves nothing. It only widens the divide and delays any meaningful resolution. We need to all pitch in to improve our current situation and provide a better future.

This is the internet. GTFO of here with this reasonableness!

Seriously, as much as I hate Mitt, I applauded him for saying that it's immoral to be running up the debt and passing it onto the next generation. Americans want more social benefits and lower taxes and don't care that their children will be ass-farked by it. Of course, this seems to be true of most first world nations. Humans are selfish most of the time, I guess.


"The debt" is not a restaurant bill that can be "skipped out" on. It's a rolling set of bills that come due throughout the year - things like paying back bonds issued 30 years ago, things like the Social Security checks (made up of my, yours, his, hers...recently-paid payroll taxes), so we'll be paying for things today, tomorrow and every day for the rest of the lifetime of the Republic.

We're paying off bills passed to us by the Boomers, who were paying The Greatest Generation's bills, who paid Woodrow Wilson's bills, who paid Grant's bills...

Our kids (well, yours) aren't going to have to rifle through a nation's worth of couch cushions to pay a $17 trillion bill. They'll pay for things the same way we did - a combination of selling bonds, collecting tax revenues and other fees, and some other things - and the idea is to keep from owing more than you'll collect in a given period (like when we almost defaulted last year. That was fun).
 
2012-11-21 03:25:19 PM  

jst3p: jofny: So I've spot checked this thread and haven't seen this: Has anyone considered that cutting services (to cut spending) and raising taxes aren't the only ways to create revenue? You can always spend less like as a**hat for the things you do spend on. The United States government is one of the least efficient (no data to back this up, just observations working as a fed for awhile) organizations ever. My experience is that we pay significantly more for what we get when it involves the government than we should. That's not "hey, we shouldnt fund medicare" thats "really, cant we do medicare better?"

The problem is when we cut budgets, we don't get better at spending the remaining money so we lose services.

I agree with your premise but I think your example is a poor one. I seem to recall reading that medicare is actually incredibly efficient. I could be wrong though,


fair. i didnt really intend my response to be accurate in detail , just gist. but even in efficient organizations (like medicare), id also question (based on my amature understanding of government funding and procurement and budgeting) arent stymied from doing a better job for less money by the mechanics of the govenment and that thats why the budget is so bloated.
 
2012-11-21 03:45:45 PM  

CeroX: Avery614: Ok, maybe someone can explain to this dumbass how Social Security will fail. At a $13 an hour job every 2 weeks the employee and employer combined will put about $112 into Social Security. Assuming you get no raises and never make any more than $13 per hour that would leave you with about $117,000 contributed to Social Security in your name. Now seeing how most people will make well in excess of $13 per hour for a majority of their life and many die before collecting all that has been contributed in their name or before even reaching benefit collection age I just don't see how it runs out.....what obvious flaw am I missing (besides the government likes to borrow money from it)?

Social Security doesn't work like that, and hasn't worked like that since about 10 years after it was implemented...

the money you "put in" to SS actually just gets dumped into the same giant GDP pot as your normal taxes and each year, the government pulls out what it needs to pay people on SS from the GDP. The rest goes towards whatever else the gov spends from the GDP...

The SS that is pulled out is just another Fed tax with a fancy monicker on it... and people on SS are really just on fed welfare programs without the food stamps. Just don't tell the people on SS or they might get all frothy about how they earned their right to SS benefits and being 60 years old is an excuse to no longer be a productive member of society, and receive special parking spots because "I PAID MY DUES!"

I wouldn't have a problem supporting the elderly if there weren't so many who take advantage of the system... Some people really need it, others are perfectly capable of still being productive members who refuse to work and insist they are entitled to special privileges because they happened to be a magical age...

Not dying of congested heart failure or diabetes before 65 is not a feat worthy of special discounts, free money, closer parking spots, or free health care...

You want to lounge around ...


Your a dickhead those people did earn retirement by putting in labour you have never dreamed of
 
2012-11-21 03:46:01 PM  

tekmo: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Actually, those taxes are self-evidently passed along to and paid for by customers (i.e.: consumers) in the form of higher prices - otherwise the company would be out of business. Ref: Logic 101 & Economics 101.

Let me refer you to an advanced course in "So farking What?"


So you're OK with what is in effect regressive taxation? LOL!
 
2012-11-21 03:51:02 PM  

Lunaville: So true. When we aren't engaged in any war what so ever, our debt should not be as high as it is. Now, if we had at some point chosen to go to war, if we continued to be engaged in some war, we would expect a high debt rate as war and debt go together hand-in-hand.


We are engaged in a war, Management and Finance's war on people that work for a living. Remember the economy is growing at most by 2% per year, their portion is growing 5-10% per year, currently they have 30%.

Do the math. At best working people tread water, at worst economic collapse of the middle class.
 
2012-11-21 03:53:57 PM  
Wow, people on this forum are idiots. Not literally, rather they are just smart enough to parrot reasons why they should work less and get more. Don't get me wrong, if you're doing so out of self interest (i.e. you're a defense CEO testifying before congress on why we need more military spending), that's justifiable. If you guys were on the streets doing this with signs and drawing media attention, you'd be schemers playing the long-game in your collective interest instead of just jealous/lazy and I'd respect your clear-minded resolve to get what you want.

However, biatching about it anonymously on the internet won't get you a damn thing and serves no purpose. Rather, it means you genuinely buy your own bullshiat. Here's some things I learned about the US today from this thread:

1) Despite entitlement spending being the vast majority of government spending, it's not an important cause of the deficit
2) It's more important that people have jobs than that they do productive work ("let's nationalize defense contractors and just idle their production while paying employees!")
3) It doesn't matter that the people (whether this means on average or average of everyone except the rich is irrelevant for the point) take more money from entitlements than they pay in, they "earned" it
4) It doesn't matter that, in aggregate, most entitlement spending (our biggest category of spending) goes to the poor and middle class, individual rich people make (insert huge amount of money) and therefore where we make the cuts is a moral issue and not a mathematical one
5) The military budget, about a third the size of the entitlement budget, needs major cuts, but infrastructure spending should increase by a vast amount. These are both part of the same deficit reduction plan (which I guess makes it the analog of the Republican "tax cuts to reduce the deficit" plan in sheer stupidity)
6) Waste is something you can eliminate if you just put your mind to it instead of a structural issue present across all times and societies due to human nature and the lack of oversight inherent in large enough organizations

Keep in mind I'm not accusing you of being Marxists. Marx was a smart guy who analyzed things well. You sound like you are vomiting up vaguely remembered bits of Marxist theory you learned from a formerly well read homeless guy you downed a fifth of Jack with last night and then projecting your insane jealousy on them. What you are doing is self-pitying whining. This wouldn't be so pathetic if it wasn't clear by your posts that 1) you put almost all thought you could've used to conceptualize how the economy works into learning incorrect versions of outdated social theories and 2) your "concern" is driven entirely by your view that you and people like you deserve more stuff.

Whine all you want about how poor you are and how miserable the sociopath overlords are making you, cast peoples' market based decisions as personal vices as much as you want, continue on with the fiction that you're broke and miserable. If I had the choice to be poor now or poor at any other time, I don't know how far back I'd be willing to go. Maybe the 1990s, pre welfare reform. Maybe the 1960s, with low unemployment and the great society. Maybe I'd like to stay now when my dollars, though there are slightly less of them in so called "real terms" (a flawed concept for reasons unrelated to this that have to do more with how CPI is calculated) I can use them to buy, for cheaper than ever, comforts most of which were inaccessible to our parents' generation, much less our great-great-grandparents'.

What I sure as hell wouldn't do is go back past the 50s. What point does this rant have? Very simple. People in the 1850s (to pick a random period in time) lived, on average, what we would consider a miserably deprived life even in the US, which was always rich in comparison to other nations. Yet they didn't revolt, there were no guillotines, and the plutocracy was far, far stronger than they could even dream of being today, and that's in a republic. You know what it takes for real, revolutionary change? Mass starvation level poverty and an utter hopelessness about the prospects of things getting better.
In other words, US today is not. Even. Close. Nobody's going to get up off their cheap but comfortable leather couch in their modest but air conditioned living room, turn off their big screen off brand TV and say to themselves "this is so hopeless I should take up arms and attempt to organize an overthrow of the government so that people like me can get something for once". Hint. You already did. You don't have to be happy with it, but even then it's a hell of a lot easier to go make something of yourself than it is to overthrow the current social system in favor of some non existant utopian ones where you get all the benefits of American capitalism (variety of goods, generally high incomes even for the "working poor") with none of the drawbacks. Believe it or not, most rich people didn't inherit a damn thing and made their fortune themselves. Those of you whining about how impossible it is are probably right, because you seem like useless, lazy morons.

Oh, how am I so superior to you while posting on Fark in the middle of the day? I'm just using the pre Thanksgiving lull at my lucrative job to entertain myself, don't worry, me and and all my clients will do excellent this year.

I don't understand any of you. I'm a refugee, most of my childhood friends in this country were poor, most of whom have stayed poor and most of whom have stayed my friends. There's two or maybe three guys I know who are genuinely fark ups. One refuses to do any schooling under any circumstances (not a money issue, a few of us more succesful ones offered to pay for it while he was unemployed) and doesn't even have a GED. Shame, but he had a hard life (single parent home followed by orphan at 15, no real education, homeless age 15-20, or sleeping on peoples couches and in their cars to be more precise). Still, even he could make something of himself. Another guy is just a dumbass. Works his job, but spends all his money on weed and Jordans, rents a basement room. Guy doesn't even have a real bed and half his room is BRAND NEW IN THE BOX Jordans which he doesn't even wear but collects. No, not for resale, he just has a personal collection. Anybody I know who was not a total dumbass finished high school (not hard in a city where sitting quitely and at least trying to do work while showing up most days puts you in the top third or above by default) and worked. Some started businesses, other got corporate 9-5 jobs, others had family in business. Almost all of them have over ten grand saved up and live a comfortable lifestyle with nice new cars every few years, a decent place to live and enough to blow off steam. And this is in New York where prices for almost everything are far higher than where the average American lives.

Moral is, you can sit on your ass and whine that other people have stuff you should have, or you can go and do your best to acquire said stuff. The people doing the former for some reason think they are morally superior to people doing the latter. I don't even need to dignify this notion with an argument.
 
2012-11-21 04:16:08 PM  

Here'sJohnny: I'm a refugee


You know, you dont have to live like one...
 
2012-11-21 04:27:43 PM  

Here'sJohnny: Wow, people on this forum are idiots. Not literally, rather they are just smart enough to parrot reasons why they should work less and get more. Don't get me wrong, if you're doing so out of self interest (i.e. you're a defense CEO testifying before congress on why we need more military spending), that's justifiable. If you guys were on the streets doing this with signs and drawing media attention, you'd be schemers playing the long-game in your collective interest instead of just jealous/lazy and I'd respect your clear-minded resolve to get what you want.

However, biatching about it anonymously on the internet won't get you a damn thing and serves no purpose. Rather, it means you genuinely buy your own bullshiat. Here's some things I learned about the US today from this thread:


Boy, it sure got quiet in here...
 
2012-11-21 04:33:47 PM  

Ruiizu: building a wall will just summon the Huns.

 

www.boomtron.com 

You know nothing, Ruiizu Snow
 
2012-11-21 04:41:27 PM  

Tillmaster: You do realize that some insurance companies won't allow you to re-fill a prescription until the previous one is nearly exhausted..


I do realize that that had almost nothing to do with my post. If you're going to die because you can't get your mail delivered on Saturday (I actually heard someone using this as an argument), the problem is probably with you.
 
2012-11-21 04:44:48 PM  
Private pensions have been pilfered as well. . .
 
2012-11-21 04:44:59 PM  

jofny: So I've spot checked this thread and haven't seen this: Has anyone considered that cutting services (to cut spending) and raising taxes aren't the only ways to create revenue? You can always spend less like as a**hat for the things you do spend on. The United States government is one of the least efficient (no data to back this up, just observations working as a fed for awhile) organizations ever. My experience is that we pay significantly more for what we get when it involves the government than we should. That's not "hey, we shouldnt fund medicare" thats "really, cant we do medicare better?"

The problem is when we cut budgets, we don't get better at spending the remaining money so we lose services.


The answer is that's not necessarily true. Some areas of the government is incredibly inefficient and yes, we could make it better. But the example you're looking at -- medicare -- is actually one of the areas that are incredibly efficient. Overhead for medicare is actually lower than most private companies.

The problems with medicare are mostly unrelated to the government at all; they just pay for it. The problems with medicare is that medical expenses in the US -- with the way insurance is structured -- just cost way too much. The private market drives up the cost because that's just what naturally happens and the government foots the bill for those who can't get private insurance.

And if you look at the big ticket items (85% of the federal budget), the 3 main ones aren't really due to government inefficiency so much as it is a systematic problem. Social Security costs so much because there are just way too many retirees. Medicare costs so much because healthcare as a whole (private or government funded) costs too much.

Defense spending costs too much because we want big, expensive toys and are essentially the world's police force.

We either give up on those dreams or raise more money to pay for it.
 
2012-11-21 04:48:24 PM  
Here's Johnny - "Wow, people on this forum are idiots."

You're new here, aren't you?
 
2012-11-21 05:31:14 PM  
you libs don't think there is a problem coming with medicaid and especially medicare? the baby boomers are going to destroy this country with medicare/social security, it's a fact. it's simple math. keep putting your heads in the sands, you fools.
 
2012-11-21 06:13:02 PM  

AirForceVet: nmemkha: What else should the government spend its money on rather than the health and welfare for its citizens?

Defense. Didn't you notice the article is about the CEO of Honeywell, a defense contractor? 

/Raise taxes.
//The GOP cut taxes after starting a second war.
///Party of fiscal conservatives, my posterior.


Winner winner chicken dinner.
 
2012-11-21 06:13:58 PM  
Other than the omission of not mentioning cuts to the military budget, everything he said was spot on.
 
2012-11-21 06:20:03 PM  

ghare: Odd that the Honeywell CEO feels that not one dime can be cut from defense, because, you know, that's not part of the budget.


If you start wars in Afghanistan and Iraq it ain't.
 
2012-11-21 06:30:37 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So you're OK with what is in effect regressive taxation? LOL!


I'm okay with what is, in effect, user fees.

Look, if Carnival Cruise Lines chooses to pass its legitimate tax burden through to its passengers, that sure as fark makes more sense than Carnival Cruise Lines paying almost zero US taxes, while availing itself of all the benefits of doing business in the US.

What's "regressive" is Carnival Cruise Lines contributing almost nothing towards the shared social burdens of constructing and maintaining the infrastructure it uses, availing itself of the US justice system and law enforcement, benefitting from the US public health system, benefitting from the US security apparatus, etc.

Those things cost money. When companies don't pay their fair share, the public is forced to pay more.

Requiring somebody who can't afford to go on a Carnival cruise to pick up the tab for some additional fractional share of Carnival's social burden is what's really regressive, sport.

You play here, you pay here. Period.
 
2012-11-21 06:41:18 PM  
Conservative: government is not a job creator.
Conservative: you can't cut defense because of de jerbs.

Conservative: handouts to poor people encourage dependency.
Conservative: subsidies to profitable oil and gas corps strengthen our nation.

Conservative: work hard, and you will succeed.
Conservative: no choice but to move jobs to china.

Conservative: Fiscal responsibility is a very important value and taxpayer dollars cannot be spent without justification.
Conservative: terrorists! No amount of security is too much!

Conservative: existential threat. not concerned about catching bin Laden. Libs weak on defense and bow to foreigners.
Conservative: killing bin Laden was a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty!

Conservative: we believe in self determination and merit, not race based policies
Conservative: self-deport! Kenyan! Berf certificate! Urban! Black people in Maine!

I could go on all night.

Anyone figured out why the 2012 election turned out how it did?
 
2012-11-21 06:50:35 PM  

imgod2u: jofny: So I've spot checked this thread and haven't seen this: Has anyone considered that cutting services (to cut spending) and raising taxes aren't the only ways to create revenue? You can always spend less like as a**hat for the things you do spend on. The United States government is one of the least efficient (no data to back this up, just observations working as a fed for awhile) organizations ever. My experience is that we pay significantly more for what we get when it involves the government than we should. That's not "hey, we shouldnt fund medicare" thats "really, cant we do medicare better?"

The problem is when we cut budgets, we don't get better at spending the remaining money so we lose services.

The answer is that's not necessarily true. Some areas of the government is incredibly inefficient and yes, we could make it better. But the example you're looking at -- medicare -- is actually one of the areas that are incredibly efficient. Overhead for medicare is actually lower than most private companies.

The problems with medicare are mostly unrelated to the government at all; they just pay for it. The problems with medicare is that medical expenses in the US -- with the way insurance is structured -- just cost way too much. The private market drives up the cost because that's just what naturally happens and the government foots the bill for those who can't get private insurance.

And if you look at the big ticket items (85% of the federal budget), the 3 main ones aren't really due to government inefficiency so much as it is a systematic problem. Social Security costs so much because there are just way too many retirees. Medicare costs so much because healthcare as a whole (private or government funded) costs too much.

Defense spending costs too much because we want big, expensive toys and are essentially the world's police force.

We either give up on those dreams or raise more money to pay for it.


My intended comment was maybe a little more subtle than what I wrote. You hinted at it with "the way insurance is structured". You can attack some problems head on at great expense, or you can figure out how to use resources more effectively to achieve the end result. This is the efficiency I was talking about - the elegance and effectiveness of the solution/mechanics/implementation - vs the efficiencies to be found within a given solution set. Our elected officials (and us, for how we do/dont hold them accountable) and our federal bureaucracy do not solve problems elegantly (for the most part) - or even close - and so the cost of achieving a given result becomes exorbitant. One of the reasons (IMO) for the lack of elegance is directly rooted in the requirements/purchase/mandate/budget structures we've built and indirectly rooted in the typically short term perspectives we apply to long term problems.

The medicare example was a throwaway one and maybe a bad one on my part. Cybersecurity is a better one - hire lots of technical people to address the problem head on, vs. find a way to make the problem itself smaller.
 
2012-11-21 07:34:34 PM  

nmemkha: david_gaithersburg: Only 70% of every dollar is spent on entitlements according to the IRS website. If Dear leader can ignore the facts they we all can.

What else should the government spend its my money on rather than the health and welfare for its citizens?


FTFY. How 'bout what's in the Constitution and not much else?
 
2012-11-21 08:27:02 PM  
Honeywell CEO David Cote made news recently by calling for corporations to pay zero taxes in the United States, something he claims would boost the creation of jobs. But Honeywell has paid an effective tax rate of 2 percent in the last four years and cut 1,000 jobs in the U.S. during that time.

Cote argued that if corporations paid no taxes, they would reinvest that money in creating jobs -- an oft-repeated conservative and Libertarian claim that is rejected by almost all available evidence. Take Cote's own company, for instance. Honeywell is a profitable company. It made earnings of $825 million in 2011, an increase over the $708 million it made in 2010, and saw a related increase in the value of its shares, where profts on the shares from one year to the next were nearly $1.

During the last four years, Honeywell's effective tax rate was 2.0 percent, and that was only because it paid taxes in 2011. From 2008-2010, Honeywell had an effective tax rare of -0.7 percent. In the last two years, Honeywell cut 1,000 jobs in the U.S., while adding 11,000 jobs abroad. So despite paying basically no taxes in the U.S. in recent years, Honeywell continued to ship jobs overseas.

So much for lower taxes leading to more American jobs.

crooksandliars dot com
 
2012-11-21 08:40:30 PM  

fullyfarked: nmemkha: david_gaithersburg: Only 70% of every dollar is spent on entitlements according to the IRS website. If Dear leader can ignore the facts they we all can.

What else should the government spend its my money on rather than the health and welfare for its citizens?

FTFY. How 'bout what's in the Constitution and not much else?


I know this is going to shock you, but providing for the general welfare IS in the Constitution. Perhaps you should read it before saying what is and what is not in there.
 
2012-11-21 08:41:01 PM  

gibbon1: Lunaville: So true. When we aren't engaged in any war what so ever, our debt should not be as high as it is. Now, if we had at some point chosen to go to war, if we continued to be engaged in some war, we would expect a high debt rate as war and debt go together hand-in-hand.

We are engaged in a war, Management and Finance's war on people that work for a living. Remember the economy is growing at most by 2% per year, their portion is growing 5-10% per year, currently they have 30%.

Do the math. At best working people tread water, at worst economic collapse of the middle class.


sarcasm
 
2012-11-21 08:42:58 PM  

Here'sJohnny: Wow, people on this forum are idiots

I like to listen to myself blather.
 
2012-11-21 08:51:03 PM  

pedrop357: vpb: No it isn't. Our problem isn't spending it's revenue. We spend less than countries that are in better shape than we are. The problem is that we don't like to pay taxes like the Greeks.

Really?

You could steal (yes steal) 100% of all income over $1 million dollars and end up with about 700-1070 million, which would only wipe the deficit in some years. In many years, you'd STILL have to borrow. Also, you'd only get to do that once so it would amount to a single year deference, as who in there right mind would make a penny over $1 million if you they never see it?
700-1070

While I find his prose irritating as hell, this video covers the effect of "eating the rich" fairly well I think


No. Your numbers indicate that there are fewer than 700-1040 people with $2 million. If 1500 people had 2 million, that's 1500 million. There are over 3 million millionaires. Did you mean 7000-10400?
 
2012-11-21 09:50:08 PM  
He even sounded like mob guys. "If I don't see things goin' as I should like, well, maybe I hold back on some thinks, maybe I don't "back-fill" those job yous always talkin' bout. It would be a shame if something were to happen to them eh?

Sometimes making the right decision might involve hurting some people. It is unfortunate but true. The fact is that military spending is out of control. Whatever precentage you would have to cut medicare costs by to make it solvent, you could cut just half of that percentage from the military budget and still pay off medicare. Our military is so big it takes like the next three countries military forces combined to even be close in number, let alone actual firepower. Stop being so afraid of everything and lets spend those military funds in the USA and maybe use some to pay down our national debt.

God, I sound like a hippy.
 
2012-11-21 10:12:57 PM  
Another wealthy douchebag CEO speaks out on the importance of keeping the peasants in their place

FTFY, Subby.
 
2012-11-21 10:16:43 PM  
Why don't all you striking wal-mart workers and otherwise self proclaimed "victims" start taking a look at the world around you to understand what your prosperity really looks like in the eyes of the world's real victims of circumstance. You farking people live in the richest and freest nation on earth and all you do is biatch biatch biatch about those that have more than you. Well, take a dose of our own medicine and behold the real victims that for some reason don't begrudge any of you for having more than they do. And also keep in mind these souls are getting infinitely more help from these so called evil CEOs and captains of industry in donations than any of you supposed "victims" and "oppressed" could ever muster in 100 years. Remember this while you're in line on Black Friday buying shiat you don't need while complaining about everyone else not paying their "fair share".
Farking hell.
www.binarysneeze.com
 
2012-11-21 11:13:59 PM  

Beerguy: Why does NO ONE ever try to address the real issue?

The reason Medicare and Medicaid are so expensive is the same reason that working folks can't afford healthcare....the Hospitals charge $20 bucks for an aspirin and $500 bucks for a foam neckbrace.

A routine colonoscopy is about $1500 for a 30 minute procedure.

NO Politician ever asks. "why have healthcare costs risen to such ridiculous levels so fast, and what can we do to fix it?" They just want to try and find money to cover the costs instead of saying, "how can we fix the supply and demand problem with healthcare?"



THIS. Yes. Thank you! Absolutely the God's Honest Truth.
 
2012-11-22 12:24:37 AM  

tjfly: Why don't all you striking wal-mart workers and otherwise self proclaimed "victims" start taking a look at the world around you to understand what your prosperity really looks like in the eyes of the world's real victims of circumstance. You farking people live in the richest and freest nation on earth and all you do is biatch biatch biatch about those that have more than you. Well, take a dose of our own medicine and behold the real victims that for some reason don't begrudge any of you for having more than they do. And also keep in mind these souls are getting infinitely more help from these so called evil CEOs and captains of industry in donations than any of you supposed "victims" and "oppressed" could ever muster in 100 years. Remember this while you're in line on Black Friday buying shiat you don't need while complaining about everyone else not paying their "fair share".
Farking hell.

[www.binarysneeze.com image 500x400]


That seems like a devastating image. I don't know the actual story, but if it's a pair of orphans, with the older one taking care of his baby sibling... well... that's a devastating story.

However, while we should be thankful for what we've got, one perceived problem is that people like the CEO are extracting more than their fair share of the wealth. It's the leadership plus labor that delivers the product. Just like it's oxygen plus hydrogen that makes water. Leaders are rarer, certainly. But a leader without labor is useless, just as labor without a leader is useless. A perception is that leadership is highly organized and labor is highly disorganized, especially due to the destruction of (non-public) unions, and as a result, the leadership has been able to extract a greater and greater percentage of the wealth. While the working classes' standard of living is declining due to leadership actions (exporting jobs overseas, field stripping companies, loading them up with debt, taking their payouts, and leaving the company to burn, as well as clawing more of the wealth to themselves).

Combine that with the financial bailouts that were designed to keep the financial elites and their institutions awash in cash while the rest of the economy paid a heavy price in lost jobs and debt which will last for generations, and you have a situation where a CEO could say the sky is blue, and people would have to independently verify it.

That's the problem. Corporate leadership, and financial sector leaders in particular, have no credibility. The message may or may not be true. But having them deliver it means that few are going to believe it.
 
Displayed 50 of 213 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report