Teddy kgb Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 Couldn’t they keep the stocks but distribute the profits? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyF0cker Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 Couldn’t they keep the stocks but distribute the profits?The stock means nothing until they sell it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyF0cker Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 Most of them have to borrow against their shares or take outrageous salaries to get their money out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddy kgb Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 Outrageous salaries don’t sound like a bad way to distribute to the masses......Rito used to say I have Communism type views but I really do think there needs to be a wealth cap.....on paper, possession or straight cash homie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyF0cker Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 The question is: who has a better chance at using that money to create new businesses, products, and jobs? The billionaire who built a business from the ground up or the guy getting a few hundred dollar monthly distribution from his success? The guy who gets the distribution is probably just going to spend the money and make already existing businesses even more wealthy while the billionaire will probably invest in other companies and business ventures that have a chance to innovate and succeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddy kgb Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 I thought the idea of spending money is what stirs the economy? Which President a while back gave every household like $330? With that in mind... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyF0cker Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 Spending money on products doesn't mean much of anything if you're spending it on things that are innovated and then manufactured elsewhere. That doesn't create many jobs here. Startups also need sources of capital to be successful and in most instances, banks aren't a viable option for them. Selling equity is though. And Joe Sixpack isn't gonna be funding those types of companies. They are risky investments. It was Bush that gave the tax rebates. Want to lower taxes? Fine by me. But you have to lower spending by the government at least as much if not more. Meanwhile, every Dem is proposing that the government spends a lot more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddy kgb Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 Bloomy spent 500million just fvcking around on a campaign trail, if he had that to burn then I have to believe that could have done a lot of Long Term Good somehow.....I’m not at allAbout a band aid fix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyF0cker Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 There's a reason that China is becoming more and more successful while they are developing into a more capitalist economy. And it's not because they distribute wages evenly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyF0cker Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 Bloomy spent 500million just fvcking around on a campaign trail, if he had that to burn then I have to believe that could have done a lot of Long Term Good somehow.....I’m not at allAbout a band aid fixHow many people did he employ in his campaign? How much of that money was spent with American advertising and media firms? Is it better when Bernie is spending a bunch of middle class and poor people's money instead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machiavelli Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 It's just 49% of all new wealth going to the 1% that completely skews everything. How do we seek a better system of shared prosperity while not damaging what works? There has to be a way to navigate these issues without accepting full scale communism or keeping the status quo. My biggest concern--and why I used to tune out Bernie -- is that implementation of "utopia" is a lot different than envisioning the ideal. But with our brightest minds, we should be able to do better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddy kgb Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 I’m not at all saying he blew it and didn’t help anyone financially, but that was short term pizza money for most who helped him, maybe a temporary part time job handing out flyers....like I said I’m thinking Long Term Help not a band aide.... Chick who showed up two days in a row at my house and didn’t realize it probably just wanted to buy a new pair of shoes, not diversify her portfolio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeman Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 Bloomy spent 500million just fvcking around on a campaign trail, if he had that to burn then I have to believe that could have done a lot of Long Term Good somehow.....I’m not at allAbout a band aid fixHe spent over $500 million just on ads, that doesn't count all the people he hired(at premium wages) in every state, he's also promised to pay them all through november. By the time he's done it'll prob be 7-800 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddy kgb Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 He could have cured Coronavirus and saved me 500 bucks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyF0cker Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 I’m not at all saying he blew it and didn’t help anyone financially, but that was short term pizza money for most who helped him, maybe a temporary part time job handing out flyers....like I said I’m thinking Long Term Help not a band aide.... Chick who showed up two days in a row at my house and didn’t realize it probably just wanted to buy a new pair of shoes, not diversify her portfolioAnd that's exactly my point. That created jobs. While it might not be the greatest job in the world, it's still extra income for some people. In the meanwhile, Bernie is just passing money from one middle class or poor person to the next (or to some media corporation). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyF0cker Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 It's just 49% of all new wealth going to the 1% that completely skews everything. How do we seek a better system of shared prosperity while not damaging what works? There has to be a way to navigate these issues without accepting full scale communism or keeping the status quo. My biggest concern--and why I used to tune out Bernie -- is that implementation of "utopia" is a lot different than envisioning the ideal. But with our brightest minds, we should be able to do better.The answer is: Take control of your own life and take risks if you want to succeed. Then you can stop blaming other people that they don't pay you enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddy kgb Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 Monkey.....you’re a bona fide genius, you can create, I’m a meathead that can turn a wrench and smart enuff to join a union. There’s good people who can’t do either and it’s not their fault, not everyone’s to blame for being under the poverty line.....jobs gotta pay more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machiavelli Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 The answer is: Take control of your own life and take risks if you want to succeed. Then you can stop blaming other people that they don't pay you enough. On a wide scale.....does this approach work? I don't think it has. On the flip side, I do understand that social programs have been routinely abused. Still, there should be a way to create upward mobility again on a massive scale. Study after study of people born/raised in bad environments proves that outcomes will always range a certain way. Why not try and solve those issues rather than issue blanket statements about people not trying hard enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyF0cker Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 On a wide scale.....does this approach work? I don't think it has. On the flip side, I do understand that social programs have been routinely abused. Still, there should be a way to create upward mobility again on a massive scale. Study after study of people born/raised in bad environments proves that outcomes will always range a certain way. Why not try and solve those issues rather than issue blanket statements about people not trying hard enough? You don't create upward mobility by taxing upward mobility. Blanket statements? Trying hard enough is the biggest key to success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeman Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 On a wide scale.....does this approach work? I don't think it has. On the flip side, I do understand that social programs have been routinely abused. Still, there should be a way to create upward mobility again on a massive scale. Study after study of people born/raised in bad environments proves that outcomes will always range a certain way. Why not try and solve those issues rather than issue blanket statements about people not trying hard enough? The way to solve the issue's is NOT to give them things, nor to help them, make things harder, not easier, easy money, food, shelter, medical care makes things worse, not better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machiavelli Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 What's better for the Nation: Unfettered capitalism with excessive greed or Taking a haircut and reinvesting it to lift more people up and better serve the nation as a whole? Push come to shove, I understand Trickle down type theories and do not want us to become full scale socialism/communism, but if we can figure out a way to take a lil bit and properly use it, why not explore?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyF0cker Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 What's better for the Nation: Unfettered capitalism with excessive greed or Taking a haircut and reinvesting it to lift more people up and better serve the nation as a whole? Push come to shove, I understand Trickle down type theories and do not want us to become full scale socialism/communism, but if we can figure out a way to take a lil bit and properly use it, why not explore?? Over 50% federal taxes are not a haircut. That's a gouging. And good luck turning that back around when it fails and millions of people rely on the government for their livelihood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machiavelli Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 You don't create upward mobility by taxing upward mobility. Blanket statements? Trying hard enough is the biggest key to success. In theory, yes. But in reality, the immature 17yr old underprivileged type youth born and bred in poverty isn't thinking big scale. Is there a way to help chart a better path for those who can become success stories instead of wind up in a life of crime, etc? Granted, I get that is still a personal choice, but people in certain dire conditions can also claim they have no choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyF0cker Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 I've said this about a million times... You don't motivate success by making people comfortable in poverty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machiavelli Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 Over 50% federal taxes are not a haircut. That's a gouging. And good luck turning that back around when it fails and millions of people rely on the government for their livelihood. The reason I want Conservative types to get behind ideas like this now is because it seems that all throughout history, Liberal ideas end up winning out. But it takes Conservatives to smooth them over. And rather than being stuck what we cannot get out of (because I do believe liberals are neurotic and always push for too far), if Conservatives adopted a way to explore stuff now, we can figure out the proper end game before it can be too late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.