Romney gave millions to charity. Biden gave $369

Iggy said:
I work for a living and actually pay my taxes.

These scrubs dont have jobs and are all about getting free handouts which is something I'm totally against.

I'm NOTHING like them.
Click to expand...



Yeah. Okay. If you say so. But like I said your attitude says different, so I'll go with that until I see otherwise. Not that it matters anyway.....
 
Alinoa said:
So how then is capitalism not evil again?
When you put the mighty dollar before someone's life..who is your god?

How is this a Christian concept?

Or do they just hope that by denying everyone who doesn't have insurance will kill off the parasites and then it would be justifiable to forget Christian values because no needy would need help at that point?
Click to expand...

I won't say capitalism is evil per se, but its definitely fatalist.
 
The Dark Knight said:
GM is number one over Toyota look it up. The US is also number one in clean energy look up.
Click to expand...

The success of the Japanese automakers contributed to the American automakers falling into a recession in the late 1970s. Unions and lobbyists in North America put pressure on the government to restrict the number of car imports. That is the only reason the three Japanese companies (Toyota, Nissan, Honda) haven't completely blown them out of the water. Count how many Honda Civic's, Toyota Camry's, and Nissan Altima's you see today. Then count how many Chevy Cruze's and Malibu's you see. Let me know who comes out the winner.

And I'm not talking about clean energy as a whole. I'm talking about energy efficient vehicles. Japan was making smaller, fuel-efficient cars since 1973. While dumb American automakers have been making giant SUV's and gas guzzling vehicles while gas prices were rising every year.
 
andreboba said:
Who would have financed this 're-structuring' of GM and Chrysler in 2009, other than the federal government??
Click to expand...

When you file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, you can go through normal bankruptcy proceedings. Nothing would have been financed because they could have received some debt relief. Plus, the UAW plan pays the American Autoworker $50/hour in wages plus benefits. You cannot be competitive at that level. Japanese automakers are making smaller, fuel-efficient vehicles. And the only reason the American automakers aren't completely dead is because we block the number of imports they can bring in. Otherwise you would see even more Honda Civic's and Toyota Camry's.
 
jameswilson1 said:
When you file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, you can go through normal bankruptcy proceedings. Nothing would have been financed because they could have received some debt relief. Plus, the UAW plan pays the American Autoworker $50/hour in wages plus benefits. You cannot be competitive at that level. Japanese automakers are making smaller, fuel-efficient vehicles. And the only reason the American automakers aren't completely dead is because we block the number of imports they can bring in. Otherwise you would see even more Honda Civic's and Toyota Camry's.
Click to expand...

To be fair Honda Civic's and Toyota Camry's ARE better cars than Chevys and Fords.
 
Alinoa said:
To be fair Honda Civic's and Toyota Camry's ARE better cars than Chevys and Fords.
Click to expand...

IMO that's debatable.
Maybe traditionally Hondas and Civics have been more reliable cars that required less repairs, but I don't think that's true today about GM and Chrysler mid size autos.

Can't bitch and whine about the state of the U.S. economy when Americans are buying foreign cars over domestic makers.

You don't see crap like that happening in the UK/Italy/Germany, or Japan and Korea.
 
andreboba said:
IMO that's debatable.
Maybe traditionally Hondas and Civics have been more reliable cars that required less repairs, but I don't think that's true today about GM and Chrysler mid size autos.

Can't bitch and whine about the state of the U.S. economy when Americans are buying foreign cars over domestic makers.

You don't see crap like that happening in the UK/Italy/Germany, or Japan and Korea.
Click to expand...

True, especially because GM now owns a huge minority share of Toyota and nearly half of Subaru. They have been sharing design technology and suppliers for years. That's why the Pontiac Vibe looks like the Toyota Matrix and my old Saab 9.2 hatchback looked just like a Subaru Outback without the sport styling and why GM employees and their children can get the GM discount on that car as well as GM brands.

jameswilson1 said:
I appreciate the discussion as well. I like sharing and debating differing viewpoints. I think my general feeling is that when a CEO is running a for-profit business, it is his responsibility to the company and shareholders to drive revenue and increase profits. Part of that might include laying people off when times are tough. This is the reality of small business owners and large corporations.

As far as employee owned companies, I agree that those can be very valuable. I don't think it makes sense for all companies, but I applaud the ones who have been successful with that model. WinCo Foods is a great example of that. My only concern with employee owned companies is that it can increase the employees' financial risk if the company does poorly. Many workers are not aware that they need to diversify their stock ownership to protect themselves. Employee stock ownership plans are great when the company does well. But if it goes bankrupt, so do they...

I'm all for the rights of workers. They are entitled to a fair wage, reasonable working hours, safety, etc. Many corporations offer benefits plans which include medical, dental, time off, etc. These are bonuses and not required for any employee. I think workers today think they are entitled to much more than they actually are. Everybody can always be fired from their job.
Click to expand...

With regard to the first point in bold, a CEO should be a worker like all the others, with his survival linked to the company's broader success. Unfortunately it's usually narrowly tied to shareholder satisfaction (i.e. constantly increasing quarterly profits). I would just argue instead that their are other, equally valid measures of a company's success than dividends. Rather than making a company make a lot of money overnight, I believe it is more valid to make a moderate profit over the longhaul.

With regard to the second boldface point, I agree that everyone should have a diversified portfolio. Being part of a workers' co-op that owns a company is no insulation from the global marketplace.

And on the final point, I think a CEO is just a worker as well. He/she should not be paid enormous multiples of what a rank and file worker makes. The European and Japanese compensation models are far more equitable and just. I believe that has a lot to do with why you see far more value investing and an orientation toward long-term viability in European and Japanese companies than you do in corporations governed by US-style capitalism.
 
Last edited:
andreboba said:
IMO that's debatable.
Maybe traditionally Hondas and Civics have been more reliable cars that required less repairs, but I don't think that's true today about GM and Chrysler mid size autos.

Can't bitch and whine about the state of the U.S. economy when Americans are buying foreign cars over domestic makers.

You don't see crap like that happening in the UK/Italy/Germany, or Japan and Korea.
Click to expand...

I think American automakers are building better automobiles than they have been in the past. But they are just now realizing the value in building more economical and fuel-efficient cars...Japan realized this 30 years ago. So they have a lot of catching up to do.

As far as Americans buying foreign cars over domestic makers, it just comes down to the product. Most people buy whatever meets their needs the most.
 
orejon4 said:
With regard to the first point in bold, a CEO should be a worker like all the others, with his survival linked to the company's broader success. Unfortunately it's usually narrowly tied to shareholder satisfaction (i.e. constantly increasing quarterly profits). I would just argue instead that their are other, equally valid measures of a company's success than dividends. Rather than making a company make a lot of money overnight, I believe it is more valid to make a moderate profit over the longhaul.

With regard to the second boldface point, I agree that everyone should have a diversified portfolio. Being part of a workers' co-op that owns a company is no insulation from the global marketplace.

And on the final point, I think a CEO is just a worker as well. He/she should not be paid enormous multiples of what a rank and file worker makes. The European and Japanese compensation models are far more equitable and just. I believe that has a lot to do with why you see far more value investing and an orientation toward long-term viability in European and Japanese companies than you do in corporations governed by US-style capitalism.
Click to expand...

I think companies who give charitable donations and make a societal impact should be applauded. But as a person who invests into a 401k for my retirement, those are just extras. I really only care about the company building revenue and profits so that the stock price grows. But to be fair I don't care about dividends either, I would rather them re-invest and continue to build the company.The company's financial success means that I can live comfortably and watch my grandkids grow up when I retire.

I think CEO compensation is a tough issue to debate. In some cases, CEO's are vastly overpaid and in some cases they deserve the millions they earn. I think it's a case by case basis. I think the European model makes it difficult to bring in top level talent.
 
jameswilson1 said:
I think companies who give charitable donations and make a societal impact should be applauded. But as a person who invests into a 401k for my retirement, those are just extras. I really only care about the company building revenue and profits so that the stock price grows. But to be fair I don't care about dividends either, I would rather them re-invest and continue to build the company.The company's financial success means that I can live comfortably and watch my grandkids grow up when I retire.

I think CEO compensation is a tough issue to debate. In some cases, CEO's are vastly overpaid and in some cases they deserve the millions they earn. I think it's a case by case basis. I think the European model makes it difficult to bring in top level talent.
Click to expand...

Why do you think they deserve the millions? They sure as fuck dont suffer the penalties for their decisions.
 
The Dark Knight said:
Why do you think they deserve the millions? They sure as fuck dont suffer the penalties for their decisions.
Click to expand...

The base salaries of executives are not the primary source of their income. The majority of pay coming in the form on stock options, giving the executives incentive to perform, and perform well. So when you see the obscene amount of money they make it usually means the company is performing well. Most regular employees are not tied to their performance, they just earn a salary. An employee can stay at a company for 25-30 years if they're good. A CEO's tenure is usually only around 6 years. A typical employee can clock a 9-5 shift and go home to his family. Major CEO's do 80 hour weeks, extensive travel means they have limited time with their families, and are typically doing capital raises or pitches to investors so that the company can bring in more capital so that the employees can have a job. There are CEO's who do not earn their paycheck and I agree that there are CEO's who don't suffer for their decisions. But again, I don't say across the board they do not earn their money. And I also believe that there are employees who are underpaid and under-appreciated for their work. But you can always choose to take your services someplace else.
 
Boy this thread has really gotten off topic lol.

Let me say this again, Biden only gave $369 dollars to charity. What a cheapskate! haha
 
Um

I hope that the people who are continually bitching about a 365 dollar charity donation gave at least 370 in donation in the past year.

If you aren't part of the solution then you're part of the problem.
 
Alinoa said:
Um

I hope that the people who are continually bitching about a 365 dollar charity donation gave at least 370 in donation in the past year.

If you aren't part of the solution then you're part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Bwhaha he makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and thats all he can give??? PATHETIC
 
Iggy said:
My point is that Biden is a cheapskate.
Click to expand...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/04/16/the-stingiest-politicians.html

BTW, this article is from 2010.

You know you're being a hypocrite??
On the one hand with most of us outraged by the Travyon Martin murder, you and Paniro decry the plight of Black on Black crime being a greater tragedy and deserving more attention, and now you point out that Biden donated 0.1 percent of his roughly $200K income to charity as offensive, yet somehow you find this slight more outrageous than a major corporation with hundreds of millions in profits paying NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.

I find it more acceptable that Biden didn't exaggerate his charitable donations on his tax returns, rather than someone like Sarah Palin who claimed to have 'donated' $4k in clothing to the Salvation Army(GTFOH Sarah. Clothes??lol) when she was governor of Alaska.

FWIW, Biden's charitable donations in 2009 were over $4k.
Get off his tip, Iggy.:smt025
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom