Sport Bikes banner

101 - 120 of 125 Posts

·
RESIDENT ASSHOLE
Joined
·
8,497 Posts
jim schmidt said:
The notion was built on the idea of a rise in salaries, not profits.

Thats the problem it wont happen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
516 Posts
jim schmidt said:
1 and 2. I think a lot of poor people (and a staistical majority of the middle class) would be willing to take the chance. In a time when corporations post record profits, poverty is rising, and middle-class buying power is falling, it is sound economic policy to restore the balance.
Certain corporations, such as the oil industry, are posting record profits. But other industries, such as automotive companies, are seeing their bottom lines plummet. There's a reason Ford and GM are closing plants left and right in North America. Now part of automotives' problems are rooted in lackluster designs or in image (I personally think their quality is comparable to Japanese vehicles). Other problems are rooted in their benefits structure. Full pensions after 30 years, Jobs Bank, fully-funded medical coverage, etc., are all very costly to the parent corp. To maintain a competitive edge, they're already asking workers to take severe cuts. Raising the bar for the lower portion of the working force w/o affecting this proportion of the middle class will have negative ramifications. And frankly, these companies can't afford the increase right now. Sure, they're profitable this year, but many companies are coming off of a three-year slump in sales revenue. You can't up the bar after the finally get a year's reprieve to earn back some of the money they lost.

Raising the minimum wage isn't going to raise the economic standards for individuals in this country. Business investment, whether it be in plants, machinery, capital, etc., is what is going to directly fund the growth of jobs. Protectionist policies sound like a great idea until you look at the ramifications you see. We slap a tariff on something and the WTO retaliates (the Byrd Amendment is a perfect example). You help one industry at the cost to another. So a manufacturing company gets a reprieve and a sugar farmer feels the backlash. There's got to be another way. I personally don't know what it is...wish I did.

Clinton Years: Great economic prosperity, no doubt. Some attributable to him, and more attributable to Alan Greenspan. Note, Clinton also heralded in the stock bubble which put the country into a recession (in addition to 9/11). He was just lucky enough to get out at the peak. As president, your policies do affect the economy, but much of the time your image is a result of the economy which you don't necessarily have much direct control over. Some people hated Reagan for the early 80's, but appreciated the prosperity that followed in the late 80's. GW Sr. rode in on this one, then lost the 2nd election thanks to a recession pre-'92. His fault? Not really. Hell, half the economic policies that a president influences take up to two years to feel the effects of.

Corporate Salaries: Not a simple solution. Reform advocates would say that you pin an executive's salary to corporate performance. But how do you do that? Stock price is a poor indicator. Frankly, the balance sheet/income statement/cash flows and whatnot will give you an idea of performance, but liquidating equipment or shutting down plants also potentially show up positively on the books....it doesn't give you an accurate depiction of a firm's true market share. Other advocates say you should cap the executive salary at X times the average worker's salary. And how do you quantify paying executives less when pro athletes are pulling in multi-million dollar bonuses? Sure, as an underling it miffs you to see a CEO pulling in 20 mil per year (options included here). But when Mike Vick is pulling in a $9 million signing bonus in his junior year of college, just for being able to throw a pigskin, you really begin to wonder what we as society value. Personally, that CEO's decisions have the ability to have a positive or negative outcome of the lives of thousands of people. I think that's worth something. I'm not condoning golden parachutes here, but I think with executive compensation, beauty/ugliness is in the eye of the beholder.

And if I misunderstood you in my businessmen/Republican concept, I apologize. Time for homework....g'night ya'all.
 

·
Shitbike
Joined
·
9,822 Posts
hybrid said:
Thats the problem it wont happen
Agreed, the people the top are already used to making a lot of money, increasing worker wages would cut into that bottom line that they love so much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Discussion Starter #105
jim schmidt said:
I think a lot of poor people (and a staistical majority of the middle class) would be willing to take the chance. In a time when corporations post record profits, poverty is rising, and middle-class buying power is falling, it is sound economic policy to restore the balance.
Jim, You sure you aren't sitting in on a few poli sci lectures down at UMD? :popcorn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,600 Posts
jim schmidt said:
Are you saying that Republicans aren't the major impediment to any rise in the minimum wage? Not with a straight face, right?

Jeb is running for President.

Not in this State...Where we also have no State Income Tax
 

·
Show them to me...
Joined
·
5,983 Posts
bush said:
"If you knew anything about guns" was a pretty stupid comment, considering the present company in this thread. I'd have gotten the same reaction if I was in General Sportbikes and made a post that started out, "If you knew anything about motorcycles, you'd know they have two wheels and an engine."

I didn't mean to be rude, but the assumptions some people make just amaze me.
Actual, it was not an assumption. You said that democrats want to take our assault riffles. If you new what an assault riffle was, you would not have made that statement, because you would have known it to be wrong. If you know that assault riffles are full auto, as you claim, and you know anything about the gun ban, as you seem to claim, you would no that democrats are not rying to take away assault riffles. That leads to one of two things:

1. You do not know what an assault riffle is, so you made the statement "democrats want to take away your assault riffles" out of ignorance, seeing as how it is not true.

2. You do know what an assault riffle is, and you made the statement "democrats want to take away your assault riffles" as an outright lie, being that you know what an assault riffle is and you know that the so called assault weapons ban had nothing to do with them.
 

·
Shitbike
Joined
·
9,822 Posts
EEfz6 said:
Actual, it was not an assumption. You said that democrats want to take our assault riffles. If you new what an assault riffle was, you would not have made that statement, because you would have known it to be wrong. If you know that assault riffles are full auto, as you claim, and you know anything about the gun ban, as you seem to claim, you would no that democrats are not rying to take away assault riffles. That leads to one of two things:

1. You do not know what an assault riffle is, so you made the statement "democrats want to take away your assault riffles" out of ignorance, seeing as how it is not true.

2. You do know what an assault riffle is, and you made the statement "democrats want to take away your assault riffles" as an outright lie, being that you know what an assault riffle is and you know that the so called assault weapons ban had nothing to do with them.
I never said Dems were trying to take away assault 'riffles', simply because I don't know what a 'riffle' is.

bush said:
No, democrats wanted to take away your assault weapons.
And if you were following the demeanor of my posts that far back in this thread, you'd have realized it was a sarcastic response to 2001FZ1's anti-leftist posts. What was a major issue in the 2004 election? Republicans and their guns. What did every redneck uneducated Republican claim to be true? Democrats wanted to take their guns.

Which leads me to believe two things:

1. You are unfamiliar with sarcasm
2. You don't know how to properly spell 'rifle'

Are we done yet, or are the personal attacks going to continue for a while? I'd like to get back to the topic at hand.
 

·
Show them to me...
Joined
·
5,983 Posts
bush said:
I never said Dems were trying to take away assault 'riffles', simply because I don't know what a 'riffle' is.



And if you were following the demeanor of my posts that far back in this thread, you'd have realized it was a sarcastic response to 2001FZ1's anti-leftist posts. What was a major issue in the 2004 election? Republicans and their guns. What did every redneck uneducated Republican claim to be true? Democrats wanted to take their guns.

Which leads me to believe two things:

1. You are unfamiliar with sarcasm
2. You don't know how to properly spell 'rifle'

Are we done yet, or are the personal attacks going to continue for a while? I'd like to get back to the topic at hand.

The reason I am refering to that far back in posts is because I was in meetings all day yesterday and could not respond when I was acused of making a stupid comment. In fact, I made an educated comment to respond to a stupid comment you made which you now want to play off as sarcasm.

bush said:
No, democrats wanted to take away your assault weapons. The right to own pistols/shotguns/rifles wouldn't go anywhere, it would violate the second amendment.
Yes I can recognize sarcasm, and there is none there. Only a blatantly untrue statement. Either you made it from a lack of information, or it was a lie. Even us stupid rednecks engineers can see that. If you can't, it doesn't make us stupid.

Also, I find it amusing when someone resorts to pointing out someones spelling and/or grammer errors. Pretty much always a last ditch effort to belittle someone by someone else who is wrong. I will use a quote from my boss. I am an engineer. I do not spell, I design electronics. If you want someone to spell correctly, go find an english teacher.

Now yes, we may get back to the topic at hand as long as you have no more stupid comments on this topic.
 

·
RESIDENT ASSHOLE
Joined
·
8,497 Posts
While I dont care about the argument, I agree with the continued points on spelling.

I dont want to use the spell checker and if you understood the damn sentence, I did my job anyways.

Im college educated and lazy with a spell checker. SO WHAT?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,900 Posts
EEfz6 said:
1. You do not know what an assault riffle is, so you made the statement "democrats want to take away your assault riffles" out of ignorance, seeing as how it is not true.
I'm sorry, but there's something incredibly amusing about seeing the terms ignorance and assault riffle in the same sentence! :eek:nfloor :bitchslap
 

·
Show them to me...
Joined
·
5,983 Posts
BusaDave said:
I'm sorry, but there's something incredibly amusing about seeing the terms ignorance and assault riffle in the same sentence! :eek:nfloor :bitchslap
See post #111
 

·
Shitbike
Joined
·
9,822 Posts
EEfz6 said:
The reason I am refering to that far back in posts is because I was in meetings all day yesterday and could not respond when I was acused of making a stupid comment. In fact, I made an educated comment to respond to a stupid comment you made which you now want to play off as sarcasm.
And how would Democrats take away assualt weapons? I think it's idiotic to assume it was anything BUT sarcasm, since the right to own weapons is a CONSTITUTIONAL one. You're just as likely to see free speech revoked.

Also, I find it amusing when someone resorts to pointing out someones spelling and/or grammer errors. Pretty much always a last ditch effort to belittle someone by someone else who is wrong. I will use a quote from my boss. I am an engineer. I do not spell, I design electronics. If you want someone to spell correctly, go find an english teacher.
Well, I'm a programmer, and spelling makes all the difference. I still don't know what a riffle is.

Now yes, we may get back to the topic at hand as long as you have no more stupid comments on this topic.
:rolleyes
 

·
Show them to me...
Joined
·
5,983 Posts
bush said:
And how would Democrats take away assualt weapons? I think it's idiotic to assume it was anything BUT sarcasm, since the right to own weapons is a CONSTITUTIONAL one. You're just as likely to see free speech revoked.
Actually, assault weapons have already been taken away from the average Joe. Add that to the fact that what you were saying is basically the democratic line on the awb, which has been stated many times as how some people actually feel, and it very easily doesn't sound like sarcasm. I will say, however, that if you actually meant that as sarcasm, I will apologize for the misunderstanding.

bush said:
Well, I'm a programmer, and spelling makes all the difference. I still don't know what a riffle is.
I have done quite a bit of programming myself (writing software is sometimes a necessary evil to control the hardware we design). I am pretty sure that nothing I have written will be compiled. Therefor spelling does not matter. You new what I was talking about, therefor my spelling is irrelevant, and I will continue to not care if I spel not gud and do'nt usse gud gramr.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,587 Posts
I simply love the deduction that concealed weapons have lessened violent crime rates. What a maroon. I'd ask for the logic behind, but it's apparent. If less guns doesn;t dramatically reduce crime, and in turn the rates go way down around the same period that concealmetn goes up, then they must be linked in both directions. Nope, of course there was no problem that was shown to be dramatically increasing before the bans, and every criminal stopped in theri tracks upon the increase in ccws becasuse they knew they couldn't get away with it any more since they were armed with assault rifles to use against the concealed carry show stoppers. It's so friggin logical, I tell ya, all simple deductions like a puzzle. Hell, concealed weapons also lower the unemployment rate and a ban on assault rifles raises it.
 

·
RESIDENT ASSHOLE
Joined
·
8,497 Posts
Uh that rant makes absolutely no sense.

Taking gun rights away is only affecting honest law abiding citizens.

I live in a right to carry state and I can assure you, people think twice about fucking with others due to that right to carry policy.

CCW is fairly easy to obtain here as well.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,587 Posts
hybrid said:
Uh that rant makes absolutely no sense.

Taking gun rights away is only affecting honest law abiding citizens.

I live in a right to carry state and I can assure you, people think twice about fucking with others due to that right to carry policy.

CCW is fairly easy to obtain here as well.
Who are you afraid of anyway?
 

·
RESIDENT ASSHOLE
Joined
·
8,497 Posts
Tell you what.........have a hole punched into your abdomen and watch yourself bleed out like its a fountain and Ill tell you who Im not afraid of.
 

·
Shitbike
Joined
·
9,822 Posts
EEfz6 said:
I have done quite a bit of programming myself (writing software is sometimes a necessary evil to control the hardware we design). I am pretty sure that nothing I have written will be compiled.
I can relate. I only deal in interpreted languages like php/perl/bash, so nothing I write ever compiles. :)
 
101 - 120 of 125 Posts
Top