Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   American Budget Cuts
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8491
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 2 of 350 (605479)
02-20-2011 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-20-2011 2:23 AM


Re: no brainer?
If we are serious about getting the budget under control then the UNNECESSARY items need to go first. This includes 45% of the Military budget, as a MINIMUM.
Nice sentiment, RAZD, but reality has a way of disrupting such things.
You are a Senator. Doesn't matter what flavor. You would have to agree to cut a good $8 billion from the defense contractors in your state throwing a good 30,000 of your constituents onto the unemployment queue.
Does that look good to you?
But then you could also increase the unemployment and re-training funding along with the additional people needed in the bureaucracy to staff it. A democrat's wet dream.
That $325 billion you want to cut is now buying a lot of food, shoes, education for literally hundreds of thousands of people in this country. And this doesn't count the thousands more that make the food, shoes and education that would not be bought and thus lose their jobs as well. Can one really so cavalierly cause so much pain for the sake of some personal political agenda?
Probably not.
If we could instantly move those thousands into similar paying jobs in some other private sector then I could agree with you. That is also not going to happen.
The reality of the level of pain you are proposing is not acceptable.
Edited by AZPaul3, : clearity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2011 2:23 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2011 9:09 AM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-20-2011 9:04 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8491
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 138 of 350 (606089)
02-23-2011 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
02-20-2011 9:09 AM


Kindred Souls?
Nice hypothetical, based on the argument from consequences and made up numbers. Why don't you make it 50,000 jobs?
You're right. A little more research indicates that my number was off by almost 4 times. Not 50,000 jobs, RAZD, but more like 150,000 to 200,000 jobs depending on location. Amazing what $8 billion will do for employment in a region. But remember your talking not one place but 40 times that. So your talking about throwing millions of Americans out of work.
According to Representative Boehner, if the cuts necessary to balance the budget result in some job losses, then "so be it"
Hey, Mr. Logical Fallacy, what's with this strawman Republican BS?
I'm not talking about some stupid, insensitive Republican's plans to cut thousands from the public payroll. I'm talking about your proposal to throw millions of people out of their private sector jobs.
I don't give a flyin' flip what some bozo Republican has to say about much of anything and I suspect neither do you. Keep with the theme here, RAZD
In addition, money spent on military budget is essentially just make-work welfare rather than jobs that provide a return to the society.
Are you really so ignorant of economics, RAZD? You think that when GD makes an Abrams tank or Lockheed an F-35 these things just sit out in their parking lot rusting away? Like any other manufacturer of any other product they SELL them, RAZD. They sell them for a pretty good profit at that. That pays wages, increases shareholder value, retained earnings, taxes into the local school, all the usual good stuff that does indeed feed right back into the economy.
You have a pension fund? Maybe a mutual fund? If so, RAZD, you financially benefit everyday from these private sector enterprises.
"Make-work welfare rather that jobs"? My ass. Pull your head out of it RAZD.
But this isn't about economics or budgets, is it RAZD.
Every piece of high end military armament made is a dead-end product designed to kill people ...
You have an agenda. The guns-v-butter thing.
I'll not argue that one here, but it does tie nicely into your Republican strawman.
Boehner writes:
If some of those jobs are lost, so be it."
RAZD writes:
That to me is a small loss in this world of overburdened military expenditures.
There you have it, RAZD. You share a strident, callous, insensitivity for your fellow citizens with the Republicans. Willfully blind to the suffering you propose for the sake of your political agenda.
Throw families into financial peril. Throw children into near poverty.
What is it with you political idiots? These aren't real people to you? They're just so much flotsam in the way of your goal?
Whether it's from the right or from the left it's always the same isn't it?
Fuck the millions of people. Fuck the millions of children.
As long as the agenda is moving forward FUCK THEM ALL!
Your proposal sucks, RAZD.
And just like Boehner's, so does your politics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2011 9:09 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by cavediver, posted 02-23-2011 7:08 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 176 by RAZD, posted 02-24-2011 7:09 PM AZPaul3 has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8491
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 144 of 350 (606100)
02-23-2011 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by cavediver
02-23-2011 7:08 PM


Re: Kindred Souls?
What's so stupid is that there are good arguments that can be made, but they are lost beneath the noise and bluster of naive hyperbole.
Yeah, well, I have the flu and I'm being emotional and intolerant of all things right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by cavediver, posted 02-23-2011 7:08 PM cavediver has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8491
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 179 of 350 (606338)
02-24-2011 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by RAZD
02-24-2011 7:09 PM


More Military Uselessness?
I would think you would applaud this level of prudence. You do know there are still 90 of these beasts still in service and, if the DoD has its way they will remain in service until the 2030s, a full 80 years after production ceased.
You call it "make-work" as some kind of derogatory. It is actually quite effective to be able to service, train and modify the remaining B-52s in service to do their jobs when needed. That is what the "bone yard" is for. And since each inch of the skin is covered with anti-corrosives and the insides sealed and flooded with gases you could hardly call this "rusting away".
If you bothered to do some research into this facility it is credited with saving us taxpayers 100s of millions of dollars a year while maintaining the quick return to operational readiness of their stock should we, the nation, deem it necessary.
But it is "military" and so, in your view, it is evil. Again the agenda regardless of the reality.
The rest of you post is too laden with emotion to be taken seriousl.
Nice way to avoid responding to the millions of "fuck 'ems" you want to hand the people of this country.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by RAZD, posted 02-24-2011 7:09 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8491
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 199 of 350 (606628)
02-27-2011 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Straggler
02-27-2011 7:08 AM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
The dividend is being paid, just not in the form of a "dividend check" but in the form of "retained earnings." The "share value" increases. Note I did not say the trading price of the shares on the market increased but the "book" value of each share.
Usually, the market will reflect this increased book value in a higher market price but the market, being a rather emotional beast, it may take a while for this to show up as other considerations in the market segment, the general economy, etc, have their effect on the "perceived" values of shares. Eventually, however, this increased book value will reflect in the share price.
Berkshire-Hathaway is kind of the poster child. Never a paid dividend in 40 years. No splits. The share price today is nearing $130,000 per share. Warren Buffett is a unique one-off case to be sure, but this does reflect the power of retained earnings (unpaid dividends) on a share's market price.
So, yes, if a company has no dividend (paid or unpaid) for long enough then its shares are a worthless pile of paper not long to bankruptcy.
Edited by AZPaul3, : added thought.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Straggler, posted 02-27-2011 7:08 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by crashfrog, posted 02-27-2011 2:16 PM AZPaul3 has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8491
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 220 of 350 (606678)
02-27-2011 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by crashfrog
02-27-2011 2:16 PM


Re: Paying yourself isn't paying
I'd like to try that on my next bill, I guess - "sorry, restaurant, tonight I'm going to pay my tab in the form of 'retained earnings.' You'll be pleased to note from my prospectus that I'm doing fine, and that my personal holdings just increased by exactly the sum of an excellent four-star meal!"
When you are the owner of the restaurant you can do that.
You seem to think a corporation is somehow some separate identity independent from its owners.
Anything that benefits the corporation benefits the stockholder whether that be just you and your Mom in your own family business or if you are just one of a half-billion joint owners across the planet.
Direct cash dividends and capital gains (unpaid dividends) are both investment returns on shareholder equity. That is what drives the market long term.
--------------------------------
Sorry to cut that short. Slight emergency on one of our systems.
Anyway, you are right that there is a lot of speculative "gambling" going on in the market but usually by those who do not look long term.
The major investors look more carefully at fundamentals like shareholder return, cost of sales, R&D budgets, etc. before they invest for even a short 1 year period.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by crashfrog, posted 02-27-2011 2:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by crashfrog, posted 02-27-2011 8:09 PM AZPaul3 has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8491
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 231 of 350 (606706)
02-27-2011 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by crashfrog
02-27-2011 8:09 PM


Re: Paying yourself isn't paying
Well, it is a separate identity independent of its owners. That's the point of incorporation - the establishment of a legal identity separate from the people who own and operate the company.
The corporate identity is legally treated as a separate individual for the purposes of conducting business. That means that only the corporation can obligate itself under contract, not any of its members. Any such contract is legally enforceable in the same manner as are contracts made by individuals. And any income it is due is payable only to the corporate identity, not to any member or group of members.
It does not separate the corporation from its ownership. To gain acceptance as a legal corporation one of the requirements in every state in the union is that the articles of incorporation clearly incorporate the ownership of the entity within the corporate body.
Your basic understanding of the corporate identity is akin to the creationist's understanding of the 2nd Law, seeing it as giving proof that disorder must alway increase thus no order can ever be achieved. Since the corporation is treated in contract law as a separate individual then it must be fully independent of anything and anyone. There is much more to it then you appear to acknowledge.
Someone who doesn't realize that probably doesn't have any business trying to contradict me on business matters. Just sayin'.
Oh. Well, then never mind.
Edited by AZPaul3, : correction

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by crashfrog, posted 02-27-2011 8:09 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by crashfrog, posted 02-27-2011 11:42 PM AZPaul3 has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8491
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 240 of 350 (606717)
02-28-2011 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by crashfrog
02-27-2011 8:09 PM


Re: Paying yourself isn't paying
Capital gains aren't "unpaid dividends", because capital gains don't come from the share issuer, they come from the market.
So you're saying that capital gains (realizing a net gain in share value over a period of time) is not a direct and necessary result of a company's retained earnings and increased book value of shares outstanding?
The value the market assigns the share is determined only by some secret voodoo performed by speculators and has nothing to do with any underlaying value of the share, in real dollars built up by retained earnings, that the owner would receive if the company dissolved?
It may be this crucial misunderstanding on your part that is clouding your understanding of these complex issues.
And the sky in your world is what color?
Frog, did you get your MBA off one of those matchbook covers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by crashfrog, posted 02-27-2011 8:09 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by crashfrog, posted 02-28-2011 12:32 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8491
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 245 of 350 (606724)
02-28-2011 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by crashfrog
02-27-2011 11:42 PM


Re: Paying yourself isn't paying
By this argument, the owner of a business can't commit the crime of embezzlement
That's right. A sole owner cannot be convicted of embezzlement against himself. If the business is not a sole proprietorship, then he is stealing from the rest of the ownership and that is embezzlement.
The corporation is always separate from the ownership, by definition of "corporation."
BS. You really are that stupid.
I'm done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by crashfrog, posted 02-27-2011 11:42 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by crashfrog, posted 02-28-2011 2:50 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024