Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 10:45 AM) A biased moderator can play a huge roll in the outcome. They can cherry pick questions or challenge one of the candidates while supporting another. 2 vs 1 scenario. But most of the the time the moderator is basically ignored and for sure the questions are normally ignored. The first debate was like that.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 10:18 PM) Obama and Biden should have a big advantage in the next few debates. The remaining moderators are all loyal Democrats. For example, Martha Raddatz, whom is moderating the VP debate, had Obama as a guest at her wedding and Obama. Obama also appointed her husband chair of the Federal Communications Commission. Unless she asks Romney a loaded question ("Gov. Romney, the woman you killed from taking away her husband's job, and her healthcare along with it - how did that make you feel as you swam in your cash pool?") I think the moderators could be Joe Biden/Paul Ryan and it wouldn't matter. They're too good (or bad?) at bringing up their talking points in their answers.

Tax the black market!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 07:16 PM) Americans are racist!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 04:36 PM) She heard Chris Rock's bullet routine and thought it was a good idea. Based on the 15 seconds this morning on either NBC or WBEZ that I heard about this, the idea is simply that higher taxes=less gun/bullet purchases=less supply on the street. But again, that's assuming there's an issue with legal gun owners/buyers getting robbed of their guns. I've never heard of that before. I mean, how would gangs know which person to rob? And really, what's the percentage of a theft of a gun versus the number of guns out there? This seems like a lame tax with a lame ass justification ("won't someone think of the children!")

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 03:21 PM) You said it as "justification to raise taxes". I merely said that a possible outcome of having a gun, showing that a gun can protect you, or a gun cant hurt you. Still dont understand how that relates to taxes or anything else in your post. If you want to argue that no one has ever been disarmed before, we can, not sure that I care as I was merely stating a hypothetical situation where more guns are bad. I thought you were responding to my initial post about Preckwinkles belief that taxes on gun and ammo purchases would somehow curb gun violence. You said criminals could take guns from people. I assumed you were agreeing with her, so I responded by saying I wasn't aware that robberies involving the theft of guns was such a problem (if it's not a problem, her justification for the tax is bulls***). Clearly you were just talking about guns in general, whereas I was talking about her tax proposal and the lame justification for it.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 01:37 PM) A good portion of your response has nothing to do with anything I said. I have no idea what you are referring to about the taxes. I merely responded to the idea that more guns is a simple solution, when its clearly a far more complicated issue. Your second point is the only actual response. I think an argument can be made for your position, I disagree with it though. I believe that society should be able to create rules to protect the collective. And if the collective believes that the risks of having a gun in public outweigh the benefits, then the collective should be able to make those rules. Thus if Chicago wants to ban guns in public, they should be able to. And if Texas wants to allow machine guns in public, they should be able to. I see no real reason why local govt should not be able to set their own rules with regard to this issue. I guess I am just anti-big govt and outside of a few overarching ideas, I dont think the federal govt should interfere with local govt. You wrote this: QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 9, 2012 -> 03:36 PM) For sure, that way when the gang jumps you, not only can they steal your wallet, they get a free gun too, just hope that they dont shoot you with your own piece. I wrote my response. What's so difficult to understand? (And yes SS, I know that was Preckwinkle, I was just making an analogy using Rahm)

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 03:06 PM) It would be nice if you could quote accurately. The statement was on the differences in rate rates between the different brackets. You know the actual definition of a progressive tax code? Now, ~8% on the low end to 32% on the high end Then ~16% on the low end to ~ 70% on the high end So the ratio of tax rates has gone from about 4.5 times higher on the top brackets to 4 times higher, and this is the big tragedy? The progression of the tax code hasn't moved nearly as much as the extremists want to make it out to be, and you just proved it with a left wing paper. Congrats. Even though the reality is that a 100% tax rate on the richest American's wouldn't cover the deficit, this apparently is what is wrong with this country. I say tax the rich at 100% and add more to the government payroll. BOOM. Socialist dream come true and we'll all be dancing around maypoles.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 02:48 PM) Go ahead and leave. More opportunity for the rest of us. If you can find a better country that is cheaper than the US, go for it. But there is a reason why you are paying less taxes in those countries, and why the ultra-rich just dont run to them. Im not afraid of their threats, they arent going anywhere. This is the best country, thats why you pay to stay here. There are thousands of millionaires who would love to come to the US right now. More opportunity for the rest of us? We don't have the money to just pick up where they left off (they have it all apparently), especially when the growing tax burden gets shifted further down the ladder.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 02:39 PM) The reason rich people should want to pay more taxes is that if this country falls apart, they are going to be the ones who lose the most. You pay your taxes so you get to keep your earned position in society. Its much better to pay an extra 1% than to have a revolution. Its not about fair, its about being smart. At the end of the day, all those pretty 0s in their bank account are worthless if there is no country to enforce the obligations. Its silly, but whatever. I guess the medium rich know the ultra rich will always pay, because they understand that when youre making $100mil, paying an extra $1mil is priceless compared to losing everything. Or what will happen is exactly what's happening in Spain, where the rich are leaving the country as fast as possible, negating pretty much every effort of Spain to rebound since they depend so heavily on those same rich people to operate.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 01:37 PM) Uh, his "point" was a big sob story to make you feel sorry for how hard he works, so much harder than everyone else! No, his point was this country is going in the crapper if we have to continue to rely on rich people to pay for everything.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 01:36 PM) He is explicitly referring to his own employees, while you claimed he was not. He is telling them that, while they may work hard, he works much, much, much harder, ever toiling away at the business. They have weekends and happy hour and 8-4 jobs, but not he! He is always selflessly working, never taking time off, not even to plan and visit his 90,000 square foot home or use his yacht. Think of the yacht! It sits alone, empty, unused, bobbing in waves like a forgotten bottle tossed to the sea. I know people who have started businesses, and I've seen the tail-end of people who worked literally for days straight without sleep for years in order to succeed. But we're not talking about someone struggling to start a business here, someone begging friends, relatives and banks for a small loan to get his company going. We're talking about a man who started a company decades ago and has made hundreds of millions of dollars off of it. A man who could live comfortably and extravagantly for the rest of his life without a single financial worry for him or the next several generations of his family. The wealthy are not immoral, greedy, selfish bastards cruising on easy street. The middle class are not immoral, greedy, selfish bastards cruising on easy street. The working poor are not immoral, greedy, selfish bastards cruising on easy street. They are all people like you and me; some are immoral, lazy, selfish, greedy, others are moral, hard-working, selfless and caring, and there is no strong correlation between the categories. I don't assume that those above me have some monumentally more difficult job, nor do I assume those below me have it easy. Do I think Zuckerberg has some cushy, easy job? No, I'm sure he works hard. But he also now has many millions of his own to fall back on if he fails. Do you think his job is sufficiently more stressful than the waitress working her second shift worried if she'll make enough in tips to cover the rent check due at the end of the week because her employer only has to pay her $2.15 an hour? [/b]If Paris Hilton was the owner of your lawfirm and sent that email, would you be so sympathetic with the concerns expressed? About how hard she's had to work, about how unfair it would be to take anything more from her for the lazy parasites, and that, if they do, she'll fire you all and run off to the tropics? This is precisely the problem with your take on this whole thing. This guy is not the equivalent of Paris Hilton. He was not just given his earnings. He worked for it - twice. I can see that and appreciate that. You apparently cannot. Yes, his "struggle" of having to lead that company is not the same as the struggle of a waitress working a second shift. But i'm not completely discounting the work involved in either case. You are. You seem to think he's just sitting on his yacht playing golf while making business decisions and raking in the money. That might be what he's done the last 5 years, but not the first 40. So i'm ok with him b****ing about having to pay for someone else given the work he put in for some many years.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 01:24 PM) Poor Mark Zuckerberg, he probably has the hardest life ever. He probably wishes he made 17.00 bucks an hour. That way when he went home he wouldn't have to worry about all those billions. We should start a charity for him. Yeah, that's not the point here. No one feels sorry for these guys, I certainly don't. The point is that Zuckerburg spent time creating and developing an insanely valuable business and continues to do so. You cannot equate his burdens from work with that of his employees.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 01:22 PM) I'm not sure what relevance this has to any of yours or ss2k5's earlier claims (that you both seem to have abandoned?), but P-S lays it out and I see no reason to dispute their findings. 70% or so for the current top tax bracket, whatever that cutoff happens to be. I don't have a specific number for the lower end, but I support a basic income. We're at historically low tax rates and historically high concentrations of wealth and income, yet it still isn't enough. Even one penny more in taxation would be too much, would be "taxing him to death." From P-S: I haven't abandoned anything. You're claiming this guy is so rich his statements about paying more taxes is absurd. I want to know not what he should be taxed, but at what income level you become so absurdly rich that you can no longer complain about having to pay higher taxes.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 01:13 PM) He is explicitly and repeatedly referring to his own employees. Yes, his role as CEO entails different responsibilities and tasks than the director of HR or the junior accountant. But he's not shouldering some terrible burden because of this difference in responsibilities. 99% of the workforce isn't concerned with state tax filing paperwork that the accountants are., or the new router IT is installing for a new bank of IT phones, etc. etc. He's trying to paint himself as a martyr. And he specifically says I know a lot of you aren't stiffs! So which is it? Dude, do you know anyone that's tried to start a business? The amount of risk and work involved for the majority of the time you're working? I don't think you appreciate at all the sacrifices involved there. It's A LOT different than working MOST 9-5 jobs. Do you think Jesse Eisenberg...er...the guy who started Facebook... has a cushy, easy work day trying to make sure he doesn't lose billions for his investors? That he doesn't totally crap out and make his millionaire employees suddenly poor? Come on. Think about athletes even. It's really easy to say "oh you play a game for a living" but the amount of crap involved in their day is not comparable to your average blue or white collar employee. Mo' money, mo' problems!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 12:40 PM) Piketty-Saez have some good recommendations. Somewhere around 70% on the top rate is the most effective. That's not my question. You seem to think you have (or should have) control over someone's income. So at what income level should you be required to pay 70% to support those below you? And what's the lower threshold for the amount of income you need to NOT make so that you can continue to receive that support? Edit: to put it another way: what's "rich enough" for you?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 12:36 PM) Most white-collar jobs these days expect employees to be available after standard work hours. He isn't some lone, noble man, working hard and diligently while the rest loaf about after their 8 hours. His point is a bulls*** framing of himself as a thankless man working harder than his mere employees. This is an email to company employees, which implies white-collar workers e.g. accounting department (an entire department to manage taxes!!!! argh!!!!), human resources, sales, etc. Not exactly your McDonalds cashier-type jobs. You're a lawyer, I assume you work more than 8-5 and think about work or answer emails or prepare briefs even if you're not in the office. Would you appreciate a similarly worded email from a partner in your firm telling you how hard he works while you loaf about as soon as the clock hits 5? Would you actually believe his bulls*** claims that he never has any time off, never enjoys weekends or holidays, no ski trips, no vacations, no time at the bar, no time on the golf course? Further, I think your last two sentences hit on a fundamental misrepresentation of the stakeholders of the company and the "burden" that the CEO bears. 100% of his employees are concerned with the decisions he makes. They are directly impacted by them and more likely in a more significant manner. If the business goes bust, they lose their jobs. If sales quotas aren't met, raises are withheld or employees are let go. If he makes bad investments and squanders the company's funds (while still having millions of his own personal dollars!), they're all f***ed. when a company goes belly-up, many can lose their pensions or retirement plans/investments. Whole communities and towns can fracture and fall apart if the company was the main employer in the area. You can't ignore the very real stake that many people outside of owners/shareholders have in a company. I'd know he was talking about the other stiffs in my office. Certainly not ME (*erases web browsing history*). Still though, you're taking his point to an extreme that he clearly isn't expressing. He's sending this to his employees. Why not just call them stiffs if he was referring to them? Because he wasn't. He's referring to the people that suck from the government teet (the "unproductive"). The people that he's now EXPECTED to pay for in the form of higher taxes and fees. Not sure how you're missing that. He spends an entire paragraph talking about the shift in the role of government and entitlements. And no, worrying about the direction of your company or your future with the company =/= worrying about/working to direct the company (Again, the point he was making). Two entirely different sets of burdens and responsibilities there.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 11:59 AM) I hope he takes the year off, and I hope Bulls FO is smart enough to tell Rose to not come back too early...we know Rose is a competitor and when he starts feeling good, he's gonna want to come back and help his team. Get that man away from the team and let him recover completely. Someone who's an orthopedist tell me i'm wrong, but I thought with ligament tears like that it's really not about just giving it rest. The more work on that knee you do, the better. Obviously you don't want to overdue it, but if he's back to a point where he can cut and change directions and everything, and it's not swelling or painful, you're really not increasing your chances of re-injuring the ligament simply from him playing basketball.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 12:13 PM) I weep for the hardships imposed on Mr. Siegel by the Obummer regime: How can he possibly afford even this meager shelter if the top marginal rate is increased to 39.6%??? He's obviously the extreme. So what's your cut off? What is "so rich you're required to pay 90% back to society?" Conversely, what's your threshold? At what point are you not entitled? 50k/year? 100k/year? I'd love to know.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 12:09 PM) Can I just point out how silly it is to claim that once employees punch the clock they don't even think about work anymore? I don't think it's silly. I don't think it's 100% true, but are you really telling me the cashier at your local McDonald's or Kohl's or something thinks about work after they leave (and not, oh god I have to go back to the s*** hole tomorrow?) They're not concerned with "do we have enough money to cover payroll," "man we gotta sign a new client or i'm going to have to fire someone I really like." That's the point he was trying to make. It's his business and 100% of the responsibility to those employees is on him and the decisions he makes. That's not a concern of 99% of employees in the workforce.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 12:00 PM) You asked what's different between his ostensible reasons (costs) and what unions say. It's not "socialist" to point out that, when you read the letter in full, it's clearly not some dispassionate statement of accounting facts, some sort of cost analysis that really does show that some new regulation or tax will mean that he has to cut wages or payroll or both. He concludes by clearly stating that his position, his reaction of shutting down the company would be an ideological one. If that doesn't show his true motivation, even on the cost basis, if you tax his profits more, that doesn't lead to cutting payroll. If that money stays in the company as an employee expense, it won't be subjected to higher taxes. Obama could raise his capital gains, corporate and personal marginal rates to 100% and it won't cost him a dime more to keep his employees' salaries at the same level. It's dishonest, but it's only meant as window dressing for his real complaint. That is in his final paragraph. I didn't get that from his email. I got from his email "i'm tired of this country taxing me and my business (and every other successful person/business) to death just because I have money. So, if that continues for another 4 years, i'm done." To bring the scales down a bit, if the City of Chicago implemented a driver tax for people that drive into the city to work, guess what, i'm out too. I'll find another job in the suburbs. I could easily afford to pay it, but i'll take a stand and say no, i'm tired of being taxed to death because you can't get your budget in order. You realize at some point that sort of stuff is going to have to stop? We can't tax our way out of this mess? There needs to be a fundamental change, and if he thinks telling his employees he'll just be done if it continues, well, more power to him. It's socialist to point the finger at him and demand that he spend his earnings in a certain way, to make his employees more equal to him, simply because of the amount of money he's made over his lifetime. You act as though his business is 100% guaranteed to be successful for all eternity, that he will be set for life no matter what. Well, in this guys case we know that's not true. He was basically bankruptcy at one point and had to rebuild his little empire. I know you and Obama think it's his personal responsibility to give back his earnings to society, but not all people agree with that philosophy.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 11:41 AM) I covered this already: Poor baby, if taxes are raised to the 90's levels and he has to provide health insurance (to his lazy, unproductive workers??), his motivation to work will be destroyed and you'll all be fired. Sure sounds like he's done some serious cost evaluations and not at all like he's pouting like a 2 year old who can't eat all the cookies. Despite some attempts to gloss over his real motivation earlier in the letter, his concluding paragraph gives the game away. This isn't about some marginal rate increases that his accounting staff has looked at and has found that, gosh, we just won't be profitable! It's about being a Randian Ubermensch who will decide to "Go Galt" (lol no he won't really) rather than support the looters and the parasites because if he's forced to provide health insurance for his employees, he won't be able to literally buy anything he wants. Let's not pretend this is some small business struggling just to make ends meet here. This is a business that made its owner a billionaire. It has been plenty profitable for decades, decades when taxes were significantly higher. But if he can't build himself his Versailles because he has to pay for some dumb employees' health care, well, what's the point? Let them sip mojitos on a Caribbean beach. To answer why it isn't similar, let me point out that I'm not saying the two things are not both political speech or that either should be disallowed. But what makes them distinctly different is exactly what you said--he has the ability and the desire to make others suffer through loss of employment if he doesn't get his way. Unions do not have that power, nor do they wish to harm their own membership base. This just comes down to your socialist arguments which we've had before, so i'll go jump in my bucket full of crabs.

QUOTE (RZZZA @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 11:42 AM) "The consensus among several players and coaches after the first week of training camp is they’ve never seen Deng playing at such a high level, both shooting the ball well and going effortlessly off the dribble in addition to his fine defense." "Only Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Jerry Sloan, Bob Love, John Paxson and Tom Boerwinkle played with the Bulls longer than Deng. Deng ranks seventh all-time in franchise points scored, sixth in steals and 10th in rebounds. He is one of 14 players in franchise history to make an All-Star team." Stuff like that makes me happy. Lu is my fav player in the NBA Agreed. Unless Deng can become a consistent 25ppg all-star player and Rose can come back in March at 80%, I want this team to tank. No sense at all to fight for that 8th seed and be in NBA purgatory for another season.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 11:31 AM) Watching my dad open up his own business and 35 years later end up with a pretty good lifestyle, yeah I can agree with that statement. You have to admit that most people see old rich white guy and assume he was just handed everything, that he didn't spend the majority of his career in the lower or middle class before finally hitting it big.

SS you realize he didn't tell them "vote for Romney or you're fired" right? I mean, he said if Obama gets re-elected, and his policies get implemented, I will have no choice, because of the amount of money it's going to cost the business, to let people go and/or drop certain benefits. How is that not similar (not the same, but similar) to a union telling it's members that if they don't vote for Obama, Romney's policies will break up the union, take away collective bargaining rights and ultimately leave them without a job or with less pay? I get your point that a CEO has the power to make the happen whereas a union is only speculating it will happen, but it's basically the same type of action - fear mongering to get some votes. In one instance it's acceptable (for decades and decades) but in the other it's not?