View Full Version : Soros; In His Own Words
Rohirrim
11-16-2010, 12:42 PM
Since Soros has now become the Dark Lord, a new "terrorist threat" promulgated by Rupert Murdoch, perhaps we should try and understand why he would be perceived of as a threat by the rabid Right?
The present situation is comparable to that at the turn of the past century. It was a golden age of capitalism, characterized by the principle of laissez-faire; so is the present. The earlier period was in some ways more stable. There was an imperial power, England, that was prepared to dispatch gunboats to faraway places because as the main beneficiary of the system it had a vested interest in maintaining that system. Today the United States does not want to be the policeman of the world. The earlier period had the gold standard; today the main currencies float and crush against each other like continental plates. Yet the free-market regime that prevailed a hundred years ago was destroyed by the First World War. Totalitarian ideologies came to the fore, and by the end of the Second World War there was practically no movement of capital between countries. How much more likely the present regime is to break down unless we learn from experience!
Although laissez-faire doctrines do not contradict the principles of the open society the way Marxism-Leninism or Nazi ideas of racial purity did, all these doctrines have an important feature in common: they all try to justify their claim to ultimate truth with an appeal to science. In the case of totalitarian doctrines, that appeal could easily be dismissed. One of Popper's accomplishments was to show that a theory like Marxism does not qualify as science. In the case of laissez-faire the claim is more difficult to dispute, because it is based on economic theory, and economics is the most reputable of the social sciences. One cannot simply equate market economics with Marxist economics. Yet laissez-faire ideology, I contend, is just as much a perversion of supposedly scientific verities as Marxism-Leninism is.
The main scientific underpinning of the laissez-faire ideology is the theory that free and competitive markets bring supply and demand into equilibrium and thereby ensure the best allocation of resources. This is widely accepted as an eternal verity, and in a sense it is one. Economic theory is an axiomatic system: as long as the basic assumptions hold, the conclusions follow. But when we examine the assumptions closely, we find that they do not apply to the real world. As originally formulated, the theory of perfect competition -- of the natural equilibrium of supply and demand -- assumed perfect knowledge, homogeneous and easily divisible products, and a large enough number of market participants that no single participant could influence the market price. The assumption of perfect knowledge proved unsustainable, so it was replaced by an ingenious device. Supply and demand were taken as independently given. This condition was presented as a methodological requirement rather than an assumption. It was argued that economic theory studies the relationship between supply and demand; therefore it must take both of them as given.
As I have shown elsewhere, the condition that supply and demand are independently given cannot be reconciled with reality, at least as far as the financial markets are concerned -- and financial markets play a crucial role in the allocation of resources. Buyers and sellers in financial markets seek to discount a future that depends on their own decisions. The shape of the supply and demand curves cannot be taken as given because both of them incorporate expectations about events that are shaped by those expectations. There is a two-way feedback mechanism between the market participants' thinking and the situation they think about -- "reflexivity." It accounts for both the imperfect understanding of the participants (recognition of which is the basis of the concept of the open society) and the indeterminacy of the process in which they participate.
If the supply and demand curves are not independently given, how are market prices determined? If we look at the behavior of financial markets, we find that instead of tending toward equilibrium, prices continue to fluctuate relative to the expectations of buyers and sellers. There are prolonged periods when prices are moving away from any theoretical equilibrium. Even if they eventually show a tendency to return, the equilibrium is not the same as it would have been without the intervening period. Yet the concept of equilibrium endures. It is easy to see why: without it, economics could not say how prices are determined.
In the absence of equilibrium, the contention that free markets lead to the optimum allocation of resources loses its justification. The supposedly scientific theory that has been used to validate it turns out to be an axiomatic structure whose conclusions are contained in its assumptions and are not necessarily supported by the empirical evidence. The resemblance to Marxism, which also claimed scientific status for its tenets, is too close for comfort.
----------------------------------
ECONOMIC theory has managed to create an artificial world in which the participants' preferences and the opportunities confronting participants are independent of each other, and prices tend toward an equilibrium that brings the two forces into balance. But in financial markets prices are not merely the passive reflection of independently given demand and supply; they also play an active role in shaping those preferences and opportunities. This reflexive interaction renders financial markets inherently unstable. Laissez-faire ideology denies the instability and opposes any form of government intervention aimed at preserving stability. History has shown that financial markets do break down, causing economic depression and social unrest. The breakdowns have led to the evolution of central banking and other forms of regulation. Laissez-faire ideologues like to argue that the breakdowns were caused by faulty regulations, not by unstable markets. There is some validity in their argument, because if our understanding is inherently imperfect, regulations are bound to be defective. But their argument rings hollow, because it fails to explain why the regulations were imposed in the first place. It sidesteps the issue by using a different argument, which goes like this: since regulations are faulty, unregulated markets are perfect.
The argument rests on the assumption of perfect knowledge: if a solution is wrong, its opposite must be right. In the absence of perfect knowledge, however, both free markets and regulations are flawed. Stability can be preserved only if a deliberate effort is made to preserve it. Even then breakdowns will occur, because public policy is often faulty. If they are severe enough, breakdowns may give rise to totalitarian regimes.
---------------------------------------------------
There has been an ongoing conflict between market values and other, more traditional value systems, which has aroused strong passions and antagonisms. As the market mechanism has extended its sway, the fiction that people act on the basis of a given set of nonmarket values has become progressively more difficult to maintain. Advertising, marketing, even packaging, aim at shaping people's preferences rather than, as laissez-faire theory holds, merely responding to them. Unsure of what they stand for, people increasingly rely on money as the criterion of value. What is more expensive is considered better. The value of a work of art can be judged by the price it fetches. People deserve respect and admiration because they are rich. What used to be a medium of exchange has usurped the place of fundamental values, reversing the relationship postulated by economic theory. What used to be professions have turned into businesses. The cult of success has replaced a belief in principles. Society has lost its anchor.
Easy to see why the Kochs and Murdochs of the world would want to destroy this guy.
Rohirrim
11-16-2010, 12:43 PM
BY taking the conditions of supply and demand as given and declaring government intervention the ultimate evil, laissez-faire ideology has effectively banished income or wealth redistribution. I can agree that all attempts at redistribution interfere with the efficiency of the market, but it does not follow that no attempt should be made. The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. It claims that if redistribution causes inefficiencies and distortions, the problems can be solved by eliminating redistribution -- just as the Communists claimed that the duplication involved in competition is wasteful, and therefore we should have a centrally planned economy. But perfection is unattainable. Wealth does accumulate in the hands of its owners, and if there is no mechanism for redistribution, the inequities can become intolerable. "Money is like muck, not good except it be spread." Francis Bacon was a profound economist.
The laissez-faire argument against income redistribution invokes the doctrine of the survival of the fittest. The argument is undercut by the fact that wealth is passed on by inheritance, and the second generation is rarely as fit as the first.
Rohirrim
11-16-2010, 12:44 PM
In any case, there is something wrong with making the survival of the fittest a guiding principle of civilized society. This social Darwinism is based on an outmoded theory of evolution, just as the equilibrium theory in economics is taking its cue from Newtonian physics. The principle that guides the evolution of species is mutation, and mutation works in a much more sophisticated way. Species and their environment are interactive, and one species serves as part of the environment for the others. There is a feedback mechanism similar to reflexivity in history, with the difference being that in history the mechanism is driven not by mutation but by misconceptions. I mention this because social Darwinism is one of the misconceptions driving human affairs today. The main point I want to make is that cooperation is as much a part of the system as competition, and the slogan "survival of the fittest" distorts this fact.
Rohirrim
11-16-2010, 12:50 PM
IT is easier to identify the enemies of the open society than to give the concept a positive meaning. Yet without such a positive meaning the open society is bound to fall prey to its enemies. There has to be a common interest to hold a community together, but the open society is not a community in the traditional sense of the word. It is an abstract idea, a universal concept. Admittedly, there is such a thing as a global community; there are common interests on a global level, such as the preservation of the environment and the prevention of war. But these interests are relatively weak in comparison with special interests. They do not have much of a constituency in a world composed of sovereign states. Moreover, the open society as a universal concept transcends all boundaries. Societies derive their cohesion from shared values. These values are rooted in culture, religion, history, and tradition. When a society does not have boundaries, where are the shared values to be found? I believe there is only one possible source: the concept of the open society itself.
To fulfill this role, the concept of the open society needs to be redefined. Instead of there being a dichotomy between open and closed, I see the open society as occupying a middle ground, where the rights of the individual are safeguarded but where there are some shared values that hold society together. This middle ground is threatened from all sides. At one extreme, communist and nationalist doctrines would lead to state domination. At the other extreme, laissez-faire capitalism would lead to great instability and eventual breakdown. There are other variants. Lee Kuan Yew, of Singapore, proposes a so-called Asian model that combines a market economy with a repressive state. In many parts of the world control of the state is so closely associated with the creation of private wealth that one might speak of robber capitalism, or the "gangster state," as a new threat to the open society.
Rohirrim
11-16-2010, 12:57 PM
The whole thing is here: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/soros.htm
I don't know if I can agree wholeheartedly with his concept of "fallibility" but he raises interesting points. These are issues we have to start dealing with.
Obushma
11-16-2010, 01:05 PM
George Soros
http://www.nndb.com/people/293/000023224/
Born: 12-Aug-1930
Birthplace: Budapest, Hungary
Gender: Male
Religion: Atheist
Race or Ethnicity: White
Sexual orientation: Straight
Occupation: Business, Philanthropist
Party Affiliation: Democratic
Nationality: United States
Executive summary: Hungarian financial speculator
Hungarian-American immigrant who made his fortune in America, and provided seed funding for the Open Society Institute and the Center for American Progress. Gave $100M to Human Rights Watch and $1M to Media Matters for America in 2010. Widely but incorrectly credited by right-wing sources as having funded Air America Radio and virtually every other left-leaning or liberal cause.
Father: Tivadar Schwartz (attorney, d. 1968)
Mother: Erzebet Szucz
Brother: Paul
Wife: Annaliese Witschak (m. 1960, div., two sons, one daughter)
Son: Robert (b. 1964)
Daughter: Andrea (b. 1965)
Son: Jonathan (b. 1971)
Wife: Susan Weber (m. 19-Jun-1983, two sons)
Son: Alexander
Son: Gregory
University: BS, London School of Economics (1952)
Soros Fund Management
Quantum Fund (1969-2000)
Carlyle Group
Al Franken for Senate
American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Bilderberg Group
Center for American Progress
Citizens for a Moratorium on Federal Executions
Dean for America
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Drug Policy Alliance Board of Directors
Friends of Hillary
Gore 2000
Human Rights Watch
Institute for International Economics Board of Directors
International Academy of Humanism Laureate
International Crisis Group Executive Committee
John Kerry for President
McCain 2000
Media Matters for America
MoveOn.org
New Leadership for America PAC
Obama for America
Obama for Illinois
Open Society Institute Founder
Insider Trading Convicted 2002
Naturalized US Citizen 18-Dec-1961
Esperanto speakers
Hungarian Ancestry
Jewish Ancestry
Official Website:
http://www.georgesoros.com/
Rotten Library Page:
George Soros
Author of books:
The Alchemy of Finance (1988)
Opening the Soviet System (1990)
Underwriting Democracy:Encouraging Free Enterprise and Democratic Reform Among the Soviets and in Eastern Europe (1991)
Soros on Soros: Staying Ahead of the Curve (1995, with Byron Wien)
The Crisis of Global Capitalism: Open Society Endangered (1998)
Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism (2000)
George Soros on Globalization (2002)
The Bubble of American Supremacy: Correcting the Misuse of American Power (2003)
The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror (2006)
The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crisis of 2008 and What It Means (2008)
Mr.Meanie
11-16-2010, 01:05 PM
Where are these articles from? I don't know if I agree with everything he says here (in particular the idea that wealth accumulation isn't a form of social darwinism), but he makes some really good points. I would like to read this book.
Also, anyone portraying him as being some crazy, wild-haired fringe loonatic should be embarressed. Those are some really artfully constructed arguments, and they should be debated as such.
Obushma
11-16-2010, 01:12 PM
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/59675/George_Soros_the_NWO_has_already_set_sail/
<object id="dtvplayer" width="480" height="360"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.disclose.tv/swf/player.swf" /> <param name="wmode" value="transparent" /> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="flashvars" value="config=http://www.disclose.tv/videos/config/flv/59675.js" /> <embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="360" allowFullScreen="true" src="http://www.disclose.tv/swf/player.swf" flashvars="config=http://www.disclose.tv/videos/config/flv/59675.js"/></embed></object> <br><a href="http://www.disclose.tv" title="UFO Videos Conspiracy Forum">Disclose.tv</a> - <a href="http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/59675/George_Soros_the_NWO_has_already_set_sail/">George Soros-the NWO has already set sail Video</a><br>
Rohirrim
11-16-2010, 01:13 PM
IN The Philosophy of History, Hegel discerned a disturbing historical pattern -- the crack and fall of civilizations owing to a morbid intensification of their own first principles. Although I have made a fortune in the financial markets, I now fear that the untrammeled intensification of laissez-faire capitalism and the spread of market values into all areas of life is endangering our open and democratic society. The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat.
Easy to see why a lot of very powerful people would want to silence this guy.
Obushma
11-16-2010, 01:17 PM
IN The Philosophy of History, Hegel discerned a disturbing historical pattern -- the crack and fall of civilizations owing to a morbid intensification of their own first principles. Although I have made a fortune in the financial markets, I now fear that the untrammeled intensification of laissez-faire capitalism and the spread of market values into all areas of life is endangering our open and democratic society. The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat.
Easy to see why a lot of people would want to silence this guy.
Yeah, he's pro Globalization, and I know at least 50% of America isn't.
Rohirrim
11-16-2010, 01:21 PM
Yeah, he's pro Globalization, and I know at least 50% of America isn't.
Obviously, any ideological libertarian, such as yourself, would see the views of Soros as totally antithetical to the point of being poisonous. That's a given. His attack his aimed almost straight down the barrel at that kind of rigid dogmatism.
In fact, he argues that rigid ideologies carry within them the seeds of their own destruction.
Obushma
11-16-2010, 01:23 PM
The man is for a one world government, sorry Ro, a lot more then libertarians have a problem with that.
Are you pro world government Ro?
Rohirrim
11-16-2010, 01:25 PM
The man is for a one world government, sorry Ro, a lot more then libertarians have a problem with that.
Are you pro world government Ro?
You need to read it again (if you read it at all). It has nothing to do with one world government. It is more concerned with global cooperation based on democratic principles.
Obushma
11-16-2010, 01:27 PM
You need to read it again (if you read it at all). It has nothing to do with one world government. It is more concerned with global cooperation based on democratic principles.
Im telling you, George Soros, is pro one world government/Globalization whatever you like to call it. So are you pro one world government Ro?
Mile High Shack
11-16-2010, 01:31 PM
Im telling you, George Soros, is pro one world government/Globalization whatever you like to call it. So are you pro one world government Ro?
I don't know if he is or isn't, but this sounds exactly like what Glenn Beck told you to think
Mr.Meanie
11-16-2010, 01:37 PM
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/59675/George_Soros_the_NWO_has_already_set_sail/
<object id="dtvplayer" width="480" height="360"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.disclose.tv/swf/player.swf" /> <param name="wmode" value="transparent" /> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="flashvars" value="config=http://www.disclose.tv/videos/config/flv/59675.js" /> <embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="360" allowFullScreen="true" src="http://www.disclose.tv/swf/player.swf" flashvars="config=http://www.disclose.tv/videos/config/flv/59675.js"/></embed></object> <br><a href="http://www.disclose.tv" title="UFO Videos Conspiracy Forum">Disclose.tv</a> - <a href="http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/59675/George_Soros_the_NWO_has_already_set_sail/">George Soros-the NWO has already set sail Video</a><br>
ugh. An anecdotal recap of someone else's experience talking to someone else's representative about what someone else believes, all thru a highly biased source. Can I get my 3 minutes back?
Mile High Shack
11-16-2010, 01:43 PM
ugh. An anecdotal recap of someone else's experience talking to someone else's representative about what someone else believes, all thru a highly biased source. Can I get my 3 minutes back?
anytime I see that douche bag's face, I won't listen to him anymore, I use to when people would say "look here is proof" but I gave up, he's a waste of time
He plays his listeners like puppets
Obushma
11-16-2010, 01:49 PM
I don't know if he is or isn't, but this sounds exactly like what Glenn Beck told you to think
No actually, the link that I posted above where it says the groups hes been affiliated with, and the books he's written has helped influence my decision. I'm sorry, but I have no support whatsoever for a one world government. Like Beck said, you look at a country whos currency has been devalued in the last 30 years and you're most likely to find Soros's name behind it.
I find it funny that Ro cant answer the question if hes pro world government or not. Ro, you been financed?
Rohirrim
11-16-2010, 02:00 PM
No actually, the link that I posted above where it says the groups hes been affiliated with, and the books he's written has helped influence my decision. I'm sorry, but I have no support whatsoever for a one world government. Like Beck said, you look at a country whos currency has been devalued in the last 30 years and you're most likely to find Soros's name behind it.
I find it funny that Ro cant answer the question if hes pro world government or not. Ro, you been financed?
No. You're doing one of Beck's little tricks. Put up a false hypothesis and then use it to discredit. It's like a push poll, which Rove invented. He called and asked voters whether or not they approved of the idea of Anne Richards having lesbians in her administration. It creates the false association of Anne Richards with lesbians. It's the kind of slime politics that Glenn Beck excels at. Anyway. Soros said nothing about world government in this piece and I doubt you can find many people on this planet, including me, who are for it. It's just another boogeyman tool in the right wing fear mongering grab bag.
Obushma
11-16-2010, 02:02 PM
No. You're doing one of Beck's little tricks. Put up a false hypothesis and then use it to discredit. It's like a push poll, which Rove invented. He called and asked voters whether or not they approved of the idea of Anne Richards having lesbians in her administration. It creates the false association of Anne Richards with lesbians. It's the kind of slime politics that Glenn Beck excels at. Anyway. Soros said nothing about world government in this piece and I doubt you can find many people on this planet, including me, who are for it. It's just another boogeyman tool in the right wing fear mongering grab bag.
Are you pro world government?
Obushma
11-16-2010, 02:08 PM
No. You're doing one of Beck's little tricks. Put up a false hypothesis and then use it to discredit. It's like a push poll, which Rove invented. He called and asked voters whether or not they approved of the idea of Anne Richards having lesbians in her administration. It creates the false association of Anne Richards with lesbians. It's the kind of slime politics that Glenn Beck excels at. Anyway. Soros said nothing about world government in this piece and I doubt you can find many people on this planet, including me, who are for it. It's just another boogeyman tool in the right wing fear mongering grab bag.
I just hope the people with tar and feathers get you before the jackboots get me.
epicSocialism4tw
11-16-2010, 08:51 PM
Are you pro world government?
Soros is unabashedly pro one world government.
Its one of his open society goals, and its common knowledge. It makes no sense for people like Rohirrim to try to deny that this is what this man is using his resources to promote.
A couple of Soros qoutes on the necessity of bringing the US and China more comeasurate in power in a "new world order", and more:
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ksy2yrUNd9Q?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ksy2yrUNd9Q?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-16-2010, 09:12 PM
Easy to see why the Kochs and Murdochs of the world would want to destroy this guy.
And it's no surprise that the usual sock puppets for Koch and Murdoch (read: McShillet, ThyNatural, et al) are swallowing the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
Obushma
11-16-2010, 10:03 PM
Soros is unabashedly pro one world government.
Its one of his open society goals, and its common knowledge. It makes no sense for people like Rohirrim to try to deny that this is what this man is using his resources to promote.
A couple of Soros qoutes on the necessity of bringing the US and China more comeasurate in power in a "new world order", and more:
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ksy2yrUNd9Q?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ksy2yrUNd9Q?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Ro's for it, and LABF is his little monkey so he'll follow behind on his leash.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-16-2010, 10:13 PM
Ro's for it, and LABF is his little monkey so he'll follow behind on his leash.
Says the loyal little Koch sock puppet.
Too funny! Ha!
Rohirrim
11-17-2010, 07:41 AM
Soros is unabashedly pro one world government.
Its one of his open society goals, and its common knowledge. It makes no sense for people like Rohirrim to try to deny that this is what this man is using his resources to promote.
A couple of Soros qoutes on the necessity of bringing the US and China more comeasurate in power in a "new world order", and more:
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ksy2yrUNd9Q?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ksy2yrUNd9Q?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
And in a couple of weeks, Glenn Beck will be jerking your chain about some new "threat" and you'll come right back in here squealing and squeaking like a guinea pig with its ass on fire.
I agree with you, though. It is much easier to sit in front of the boob tube and let GB shovel his bull**** directly into your brain than it is to read those long posts I put up. Why educate yourself when it's so much easier to let somebody do it for you? ;D
I don't know if he is or isn't, but this sounds exactly like what Glenn Beck told you to think
Do you think this really adds to the discussion in any way if you parrot this in every thread?
Mile High Shack
11-17-2010, 02:17 PM
Do you think this really adds to the discussion in any way if you parrot this in every thread?
it's not my fault most of you puppets believe everything he says
it's not my fault most of you puppets believe everything he says
A stupid, rash, and silly generalization. We could say you are all Olbermann puppets and both would be equally incorrect. So lets lose the ridiculous puppet talk and just debate the real issues like real men.
Mile High Shack
11-17-2010, 02:22 PM
A stupid, rash, and silly generalization. We could say you are all Olbermann puppets and both would be equally incorrect. So lets lose the ridiculous puppet talk and just debate the real issues like real men.
wouldn't know, I don't watch Olberman, seen a couple videos posted that I watched, but no, I don't watch MSNBC
so you are saying you don't think Glenn Beck speaks the truth eh?
Smiling Assassin27
11-17-2010, 02:50 PM
Hey, here's some REAL words from the puppet master just today:
According to multiple sources with knowledge of his remarks, Soros told those in attendance that he is “used to fighting losing battles but doesn’t like to lose without fighting.”
“We have just lost this election, we need to draw a line,” he said, according to several Democratic sources. “And if this president can’t do what we need, it is time to start looking somewhere else.”…
This dummy still thinks the reason Dems got slaughtered was 'messaging'. Nuff said.
wouldn't know, I don't watch Olberman, seen a couple videos posted that I watched, but no, I don't watch MSNBC
so you are saying you don't think Glenn Beck speaks the truth eh?
But you are still an Olbermann parrot because some of your views line up with his and because I said so. See how dumb it sounds.
I think Glenn Beck thinks what he thinks and each poster on this board has their own independent views, some that align with some his takes and some obviously that don't. I think we should grant a little more credit to our counterparts that the views expressed in these pages are formed with a modicum of independent thought.
Rohirrim
11-17-2010, 05:08 PM
Still no comments from the Right Wingers on the OP article? A whole bunch of hyperbole and hysteria about what Glenn Beck tells you it's all about, but no comment on the article itself.
Here's a wake up call for all the chicken littles: There is already a world order operating, at least as far as the financial world is concerned. And even in the vid that drama llama posted, does Soros say "one world government?" No. He says "one world financial order" which is already being expressed through the G20.
Atwater 27
11-17-2010, 09:03 PM
LMAO... A bunch of free market hating libs defending a billionaire speculator and hedge fund manager. You can't manufacture that kind of irony.
epicSocialism4tw
11-17-2010, 09:35 PM
Hey, here's some REAL words from the puppet master just today:
This dummy still thinks the reason Dems got slaughtered was 'messaging'. Nuff said.
Thats why he has dumped millions of dollars into operations to "influence" media.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-18-2010, 03:38 AM
LMAO... A bunch of free market hating libs defending a billionaire speculator and hedge fund manager. You can't manufacture that kind of irony.
But you can certainly manufacture a straw man with the best of them. :wave:
Obushma
11-18-2010, 08:02 PM
http://slapblog.com/?p=3871
This week, Mark Hemingway of the Washington Examnier reported that George Soros owns over 11,000 shares of OSI Systems, the parent company of Rapiscan, which manufactures the controversial TSA scanners. But a search today reveals that Soros has divested himself of all those shares.
First, Hemingway’s report from Tuesday:
As for the company’s other political connections, it also appears that none other than George Soros, the billionaire funder of the country’s liberal political infrastructure, owns 11,300 shares of OSI Systems Inc., the company that owns Rapiscan. Not surprisingly, OSI’s stock has appreciated considerably over the course of the year. Soros certainly is a savvy investor.
Media Matters, the liberal media watchdog funded by Soros, quickly seized on Hemingway’s article and mocked him, saying that 11,3000 shares are only “six one-hundredths of one percent” of the company’s total stock.
But a funny thing happened between Tuesday and Wednesday: the site detailing Soros’s OSIS investments now shows that Soros owns zero shares of the company.
So what happened between yesterday and today? Did the website simply update its information? Did it have the information wrong? Did Soros start feeling the heat and sell off his shares? Hemingway, who first reported the stock holdings, weighs in:
It would be nice if he did this as a response to public pressure, but it seems equally likely that as an investor he simply realized the political tide was turning against the company and the stock may drop as a result.
Either way, it’s all very interesting.
Mile High Shack
11-19-2010, 07:38 AM
But you are still an Olbermann parrot because some of your views line up with his and because I said so. See how dumb it sounds.
I think Glenn Beck thinks what he thinks and each poster on this board has their own independent views, some that align with some his takes and some obviously that don't. I think we should grant a little more credit to our counterparts that the views expressed in these pages are formed with a modicum of independent thought.
you have no independent thought, you believe everything Beck says
Mile High Shack
11-19-2010, 07:38 AM
The Daily Show just DESTROYED Beck last night, it was awesome
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-november-18-2010/the-manchurian-lunatic
Garcia Bronco
11-19-2010, 08:21 AM
LMAO... A bunch of free market hating libs defending a billionaire speculator and hedge fund manager. You can't manufacture that kind of irony.
This.
Mile High Shack
11-19-2010, 08:33 AM
This.
I don't think so, at least in my case, it's more of the overall hatred of Glenn Beck and all he stands for.
Rohirrim
11-19-2010, 08:39 AM
This.
Actually, this thread was an effort to turn our backs on Glenn Beck's fear mongering and discuss the ideas, not the man. But you rightards don't discuss ideas. You simply attack the man. Why? Because you are ideologues, steeped in dogma, who would never allow any info into your closed informational bubble that could challenge that dogma. That's why, in this forum, none of you ever debate the ideas. That's why you sit in front of the boob tube and suck up the **** that Glenn Beck feeds you like a bunch of trained seals. You remind me of the catholics of old who were intent on burning Galileo at the stake for questioning orthodoxy. Did they care whether his ideas might be right? Hell no. His ideas were blasphemy. That's all the zealot needs to know.
Atwater 27
11-19-2010, 04:17 PM
. But you rightards don't discuss ideas. You simply attack the man. .
This from a guy who attacks Glenn Beck, without discussing the ideas.:thumbsup:
And funny you compare us to people who burn those who present new, crazy sounding or unpopular ideas in the past... That is exactly what you would do to Beck if you had the chance. And he fits Galileo's role to a T.
Glenn has never been afraid to take on the establishment and go against the grain, he does it on a regular basis.
Atwater 27
11-19-2010, 04:18 PM
http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Opinion/389/516/2Joe-St.-LouisME.labels.jpg
BY taking the conditions of supply and demand as given and declaring government intervention the ultimate evil, laissez-faire ideology has effectively banished income or wealth redistribution. I can agree that all attempts at redistribution interfere with the efficiency of the market, but it does not follow that no attempt should be made. The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. It claims that if redistribution causes inefficiencies and distortions, the problems can be solved by eliminating redistribution -- just as the Communists claimed that the duplication involved in competition is wasteful, and therefore we should have a centrally planned economy. But perfection is unattainable. Wealth does accumulate in the hands of its owners, and if there is no mechanism for redistribution, the inequities can become intolerable. "Money is like muck, not good except it be spread." Francis Bacon was a profound economist.
The laissez-faire argument against income redistribution invokes the doctrine of the survival of the fittest. The argument is undercut by the fact that wealth is passed on by inheritance, and the second generation is rarely as fit as the first.
So this proves a couple points. One that my position on communism easily turning into fascism is supported by your boy Soros for the reasons I cited. Perfection is unattainable as he puts it.
In America there are mechanisms for wealth redistribution. The first is called hard work. The wealthiest men in the world are Americans who are first generation wealthy. Gates, Buffet, Ellison, Dell, none of these guys were born into wealth, they earned it.
The amazing rate at which the Dow Jones Industrial Average changes the 30 companies in its listing is proof positive that the wealth in the country is mobile at the company level.
Taking away the right to pass on the money you saved in your lifetime to your family is just pure evil. Just unAmerican and pure evil.
We have other mechanisms for wealth redistribution such as our progressive income tax structure, welfare, and the stock markets.
If Soros supports the redistribution of wealth so much why is he still a billionaire?
Mr.Meanie
11-19-2010, 04:58 PM
So this proves a couple points. One that my position on communism easily turning into fascism is supported by your boy Soros for the reasons I cited. Perfection is unattainable as he puts it.
In America there are mechanisms for wealth redistribution. The first is called hard work. The wealthiest men in the world are Americans who are first generation wealthy. Gates, Buffet, Ellison, Dell, none of these guys were born into wealth, they earned it.
The amazing rate at which the Dow Jones Industrial Average changes the 30 companies in its listing is proof positive that the wealth in the country is mobile at the company level.
Taking away the right to pass on the money you saved in your lifetime to your family is just pure evil. Just unAmerican and pure evil.
We have other mechanisms for wealth redistribution such as our progressive income tax structure, welfare, and the stock markets.
If Soros supports the redistribution of wealth so much why is he still a billionaire?
I think Soros would agree with you, that we currently have many methods of redistribution. His argument is against laissez-faire ideology.
I think Soros would agree with you, that we currently have many methods of redistribution. His argument is against laissez-faire ideology.
We all know regulation is needed and you let the frat boys party too much the party gets out of control. The worst criminals in the world wear ties.
But his is not an argument simply against laissez-faire idealogy which by itself is not an argument at all for redisribution of wealth from rich to poor, but rather one to curb unfair gains of the rich. He uses a laissez-faire argument which perhaps is fair and reasonable to justify unfair and basically criminal behaviour as the forced redistribution of assets like the eliminatino of inheritance.
But worse yet is he has no moral ground to stand on. First he has retained the vast majority of his wealth for himself. Second, some of the tricks Soros has pulled in these emerging markets to induce economic crises to pad his own pockets should really have put him behind bars.
Mr.Meanie
11-19-2010, 05:51 PM
We all know regulation is needed and you let the frat boys party too much the party gets out of control. The worst criminals in the world wear ties.
But his is not an argument simply against laissez-faire idealogy which by itself is not an argument at all for redisribution of wealth from rich to poor, but rather one to curb unfair gains of the rich. He uses a laissez-faire argument which perhaps is fair and reasonable to justify unfair and basically criminal behaviour as the forced redistribution of assets like the eliminatino of inheritance.
But worse yet is he has no moral ground to stand on. First he has retained the vast majority of his wealth for himself. Second, some of the tricks Soros has pulled in these emerging markets to induce economic crises to pad his own pockets should really have put him behind bars.
If you read the column from the OP, the entire argument IS against the concept of laissez-faire capitalism. It's not an argument on moral grounds, it's an argument on the potential threat laissez-faire capitalism poses to our society. Did you read the entire article?
I can't comment on his tactics in currency trading, and I'm not defending his philisophy on philanthropy. I'm just referring to what he wrote in the original article "The Capitalist Threat".
orinjkrush
11-19-2010, 06:00 PM
there's always somebody with the "answer".
so it was, so it shall be.
God help us from the prophets.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-19-2010, 11:09 PM
http://male-space.org/bush/thumbs/idrank-tee-t.jpg
Fixed.
If you read the column from the OP, the entire argument IS against the concept of laissez-faire capitalism. It's not an argument on moral grounds, it's an argument on the potential threat laissez-faire capitalism poses to our society. Did you read the entire article?
I can't comment on his tactics in currency trading, and I'm not defending his philisophy on philanthropy. I'm just referring to what he wrote in the original article "The Capitalist Threat".
Yes indeed I did read it. My point is he takes this somewhat valid argument of the threats of laissez-faire capitalism to justify changes to things that have nothing to do with laissez-faire capitalism.
His argument is basically laissez-faire does not work therefore forced redestribution directed by a global government will correct these inequities. I disagree with that whole premise.
The moral part is about the man himself having moral credibilty to make these arguments in the first place not his actual arguments. Read more about how he has made his vast wealth.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-20-2010, 01:45 AM
His argument is basically laissez-faire does not work therefore forced redestribution directed by a global government will correct these inequities. I disagree with that whole premise.
Except when the "forced redistribution" is from the middle class to the top 2%.
Then you're all for it.
Except when the "forced redistribution" is from the middle class to the top 2%.
Then you're all for it.
We have a fair tax system by any measure when almost half the people don't pay any income taxes and no regressive VAT taxes are in place.
Every citizen has the right to invent something clever and get rich. What more can you want?
Rohirrim
11-20-2010, 08:29 AM
We have a fair tax system by any measure when almost half the people don't pay any income taxes and no regressive VAT taxes are in place.
Every citizen has the right to invent something clever and get rich. What more can you want?
The overwhelming majority of Americans might not have the capacity to "invent something clever and get rich." What do we do with them?
The overwhelming majority of Americans might not have the capacity to "invent something clever and get rich." What do we do with them?
Every American has the capacity to invent something clever and get rich.
The incapacitated we should take care of. The able need to do what it takes to improve their own lot in life.
Take care of your immediate family and good friends when they need help and things will be fine.
Rohirrim
11-20-2010, 09:42 AM
Every American has the capacity to invent something clever and get rich.
The incapacitated we should take care of. The able need to do what it takes to improve their own lot in life.
Take care of your immediate family and good friends when they need help and things will be fine.
Not true at all. Watch the 60 Minutes episode about Newton, Iowa that was on a couple of weeks ago. The entire community was destroyed by economic policies and decisions they had no voice in, and that took place far beyond the borders of their town. When the family and good friends are also out of work, out of a home, and out of food, they can't offer much of a hand.
epicSocialism4tw
11-20-2010, 09:51 AM
Not true at all. Watch the 60 Minutes episode about Newton, Iowa that was on a couple of weeks ago. The entire community was destroyed by economic policies and decisions they had no voice in, and that took place far beyond the borders of their town. When the family and good friends are also out of work, out of a home, and out of food, they can't offer much of a hand.
Thats why there are ghosts towns in America.
There's nothing wrong with leaving. People have to make hard decisions all the time.
Rohirrim
11-20-2010, 09:59 AM
Thats why there are ghosts towns in America.
There's nothing wrong with leaving. People have to make hard decisions all the time.
Heck yeah! Get on down the road, folks. Let's go back to that joyful America of yesteryear!
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2008/11/05/RGAgrapesofwrath460.jpg
How can you keep on movin'
unless you migrate too?
They tell ya to keep on movin'
but migrate you must not do.
The only reason I travel
and the reason why I roam
is to move to a new location
and find myself a home...
Heck yeah! Get on down the road, folks. Let's go back to that joyful America of yesteryear!
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2008/11/05/RGAgrapesofwrath460.jpg
How can you keep on movin'
unless you migrate too?
They tell ya to keep on movin'
but migrate you must not do.
The only reason I travel
and the reason why I roam
is to move to a new location
and find myself a home...
Don't talk to the Christian like that. Don't you know he shares with all even his enemies.
epicSocialism4tw
11-20-2010, 10:30 AM
Heck yeah! Get on down the road, folks. Let's go back to that joyful America of yesteryear!
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2008/11/05/RGAgrapesofwrath460.jpg
How can you keep on movin'
unless you migrate too?
They tell ya to keep on movin'
but migrate you must not do.
The only reason I travel
and the reason why I roam
is to move to a new location
and find myself a home...
It happens.
And if you havent yet realized it, its happening right now.
Only in America do you have people who are too proud to move in with their families to get through hard times. Too proud to ask their neighbors for help. Too stubborn to see the writing on the wall. Too chained to sentimentality to seek better circumstances.
God help us if we have become so dependent on the government to culture the status quo that we cannot act in our best interest.
Not true at all. Watch the 60 Minutes episode about Newton, Iowa that was on a couple of weeks ago. The entire community was destroyed by economic policies and decisions they had no voice in, and that took place far beyond the borders of their town. When the family and good friends are also out of work, out of a home, and out of food, they can't offer much of a hand.
And you think the government giving them handouts will really help them?
The white goods manufacturing days in Iowa were numbered for a long time. They had a good 50 year run but you can't have Maytag and Amana in the same small state and expect that to last forever.
Newton didn't diverify their portfolio of employers during the good times and is paying the price now.
What Newton needs is a pro-small business government. Obama's anti-small business policies are the biggest impediment to Newton's recovery of that you can be absolutely sure. Lets raise the taxes on small businesses during a recession. Brilliant strategy.
elsid13
11-21-2010, 05:09 AM
And you think the government giving them handouts will really help them?
The white goods manufacturing days in Iowa were numbered for a long time. They had a good 50 year run but you can't have Maytag and Amana in the same small state and expect that to last forever.
Newton didn't diverify their portfolio of employers during the good times and is paying the price now.
What Newton needs is a pro-small business government. Obama's anti-small business policies are the biggest impediment to Newton's recovery of that you can be absolutely sure. Lets raise the taxes on small businesses during a recession. Brilliant strategy.
Once again we ask this question, what anti-small business policy has the Obama administration enacted???
TailgateNut
11-21-2010, 05:12 AM
Once again we ask this question, what anti-small business policy has the Obama administration enacted???
No wonder this clown (jjj) still believes that Bush didn't LIE US INTO A WAR which has cost thousands of lives and will have a price tag in the Trillions by the time we are able to extract oursellves.
elsid13
11-21-2010, 05:22 AM
No wonder this clown (jjj) still believes that Bush didn't LIE US INTO A WAR which has cost thousands of lives and will have a price tag in the Trillions by the time we are able to extract oursellves.
The problem that I have there is certain segment of the society that refuse to deal in facts and details and would rather throw out buzz words.
I understand people are pissed, I am to at many levels on the foolishness that cause the current economic struggles, but we need to pick are self's up and get back to fixing the underlying challenges.
Once again we ask this question, what anti-small business policy has the Obama administration enacted???
He passed Obamacare which will also raise the cost and regulation paperwork burden on small businesses without question and in an uncertain way as many of the requirements for 2014 are not fully known yet.
He is about to raise taxes on those claiming more than 250k on their personal income taxes, which most small businesses fall in that category.
TailgateNut
11-21-2010, 06:04 AM
He passed Obamacare which will also raise the cost and regulation paperwork burden on small businesses without question and in an uncertain way as many of the requirements for 2014 are not fully known yet.
He is about to raise taxes on those claiming more than 250k on their personal income taxes, which most small businesses fall in that category.
:spit:
I must have not received that memo. Even in the best of times my parter and I didn't hit that threshold on personal income.
But you keep spinning. It seems to make you feel good.
:spit:
I must have not received that memo. Even in the best of times my parter and I didn't hit that threshold on personal income.
But you keep spinning. It seems to make you feel good.
Not too shocking there.
Pretty much any small business with more than 3 or 4 employees will definitely need to making 250k in income.
TailgateNut
11-21-2010, 06:20 AM
Not too shocking there.
Pretty much any small business with more than 3 or 4 employees will definitely need to making 250k in income.
You clueless ****!
Spider
11-21-2010, 06:39 AM
Not too shocking there.
Pretty much any small business with more than 3 or 4 employees will definitely need to making 250k in income.
LOL ............ Does that also include if they hire illegals ?
LOL ............ Does that also include if they hire illegals ?
Can apply here the response for pretty much 80% of your posts: Huh?
elsid13
11-21-2010, 06:50 AM
Not too shocking there.
Pretty much any small business with more than 3 or 4 employees will definitely need to making 250k in income.
There is difference between personal income and business revenue and how they are taxed and governed. That seems to get lost on people making the argument about the current personal tax cuts debate.
Spider
11-21-2010, 07:08 AM
Can apply here the response for pretty much 80% of your posts: Huh?
well as soon as you learn the difference in personal tax and business tax , come and look me up ....... ;D
Spider
11-21-2010, 07:09 AM
There is difference between personal income and business revenue and how they are taxed and governed. That seems to get lost on people making the argument about the current personal tax cuts debate.
:thumbsup:
TailgateNut
11-21-2010, 08:23 AM
There is difference between personal income and business revenue and how they are taxed and governed. That seems to get lost on people making the argument about the current personal tax cuts debate.
Don't baffle JJJ with the differences between corporate profits and personal income.
During our better years we did millions of dollars worth of business, but I still didn't reap personal income in exess of a qtr million.
JJJ is a ****ing clown.
DenverBrit
11-21-2010, 09:41 AM
Not too shocking there.
Pretty much any small business with more than 3 or 4 employees will definitely need to making 250k in income.
LOL Thanks for the morning grin!
You do understand that the tax would apply to those making $250K in personal income, not gross revenue.
Lemme guess. You've never owned a small business.
TonyR
11-21-2010, 10:06 AM
He is about to raise taxes on those claiming more than 250k on their personal income taxes...
He is?
First of all the way this is going to be handled is far from final. They might delay it for another year or two, they might raise it to $500k or $1 million, etc.
Second of all congress will make the change, not the president. Civics 101 for you.
There is difference between personal income and business revenue and how they are taxed and governed. That seems to get lost on people making the argument about the current personal tax cuts debate.
Certainly not lost on me. Revenue and and net income are of course not the same. I had to explain this to Spider a few weeks ago.
How much tax depends on many things including whether it is a partnership or a sole proprietorship. Partnerships will see the income split amongst the partners.
The bottomline is many small businesses will be affected by an increase in taxes for those claiming over 250k in net income.
He is?
First of all the way this is going to be handled is far from final. They might delay it for another year or two, they might raise it to $500k or $1 million, etc.
Second of all congress will make the change, not the president. Civics 101 for you.
If you knew anything about civics you would know they both have to approve it.
Looking forward to the veto by Obama if the cuts are not extended to all income levels then. Won't hold my breath though.
LOL Thanks for the morning grin!
You do understand that the tax would apply to those making $250K in personal income, not gross revenue.
Lemme guess. You've never owned a small business.
Indeed I do understand that you British flunkie.
DenverBrit
11-21-2010, 10:43 AM
Indeed I do understand that you British flunkie.
No you didn't..........until it was explained to you.
Pretty much any small business with more than 3 or 4 employees will definitely need to making 250k in income.
Obviously you were clueless, otherwise you wouldn't have made that statement.
And what makes me a 'flunkie'? Pointing out your inability to understand simple business tax concepts? Hilarious!
TailgateNut
11-21-2010, 10:45 AM
Indeed I do understand that you British flunkie.
JJJ said "He is about to raise taxes on those claiming more than 250k on their personal income taxes, which most small businesses fall in that category".
Sure does seem like you undestand the difference.
Speaking of flunkies. Glass houses...and such...
No you didn't..........until it was explained to you.
Obviously you were clueless, otherwise you wouldn't have made that statement.
And what makes me a 'flunkie'? Pointing out your inability to understand simple business tax concepts? Hilarious!
Here is proof positive you don't have a clue about what you are talking about, pretty much as usual.
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=94361&page=5
Please see post 107.
DenverBrit
11-21-2010, 11:40 AM
Here is proof positive you don't have a clue about what you are talking about, pretty much as usual.
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=94361&page=5
Please see post 107.
This is the statement we were discussing.
Pretty much any small business with more than 3 or 4 employees will definitely need to making 250k in income.
Deflect all you want, but you demonstrated in this thread you didn't have a clue.
TailgateNut
11-21-2010, 11:49 AM
This is the statement we were discussing.
Deflect all you want, but you demonstrated in this thread you didn't have a clue.
and then a few posts later, the "weather" has changed to "many small businesses will be affected by an increase in taxes for those claiming over 250k in net income"
TonyR
11-21-2010, 12:17 PM
Deflect all you want, but you demonstrated in this thread you didn't have a clue.
He and dramaskillet use this tactic repeatedly. They either demonstrate a lack of understanding, or their argument gets crushed, or both, and then they twist and obfuscate in a pathetic attempt to save face. The only thing I haven't figured out is whether they're trying to fool us or themselves...
Rohirrim
11-21-2010, 12:25 PM
He and dramaskillet use this tactic repeatedly. They either demonstrate a lack of understanding, or their argument gets crushed, or both, and then they twist and obfuscate in a pathetic attempt to save face. The only thing I haven't figured out is whether they're trying to fool us or themselves...
They're slaves to ideology.
When Amanpour pointed to critics' claims that the very wealthy need tax cuts to spur business and capitalism, Buffett replied, "The rich are always going to say that, you know, 'Just give us more money, and we'll go out and spend more, and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you.' But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on."http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/21/warren-buffett-paying-more-taxes_n_786516.html
TonyR
11-21-2010, 12:32 PM
...Buffett replied...
Speaking of the Oracle of Omaha, I'm surprised I haven't seen any mention in this forum of his recent praise in a NYT Op-Ed of the way the government handled the economic meltdown. Of course JJJ and dramaskillet know better than Mr. Buffett...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/opinion/17buffett.html
DenverBrit
11-21-2010, 12:33 PM
and then a few posts later, the "weather" has changed to "many small businesses will be affected by an increase in taxes for those claiming over 250k in net income"
He changes on the fly, but denies he ever got it wrong.
It's a tactic that's difficult to miss.
DenverBrit
11-21-2010, 12:38 PM
He and dramaskillet use this tactic repeatedly. They either demonstrate a lack of understanding, or their argument gets crushed, or both, and then they twist and obfuscate in a pathetic attempt to save face. The only thing I haven't figured out is whether they're trying to fool us or themselves...
Based upon their philosophy: Lie at all costs, never admit a mistake, deflect when challenged.
They must be trying to fool themselves. ;)
Deflect all you want, but you demonstrated in this thread you didn't have a clue.
You seem to confuse the word deflection with complete refudiation of your statement.
epicSocialism4tw
11-21-2010, 01:16 PM
He passed Obamacare which will also raise the cost and regulation paperwork burden on small businesses without question and in an uncertain way as many of the requirements for 2014 are not fully known yet.
He is about to raise taxes on those claiming more than 250k on their personal income taxes, which most small businesses fall in that category.
Thank goodness the dem supermajority was neutered by the people or Cap & Tax would have also been passed.
and then a few posts later, the "weather" has changed to "many small businesses will be affected by an increase in taxes for those claiming over 250k in net income"
We can end this debate quite easily if you will honestly answer the following questions?
Was your company a partnership?
Did you have more than 4 employees besides yourself?
Did you ever claim more than 125k on your income during your good years?
This is the statement we were discussing.
Pretty much any small business with more than 3 or 4 employees will definitely need to making 250k in income.
Deflect all you want, but you demonstrated in this thread you didn't have a clue.
Just in case TGnut doesn't answer my questions here is my logic for my statement.
1. Someone with 5 employees plus himself will typically need to make at least 1 to 1.2m in revenue to be nicely profitable. Typically below 150k in revenue per employee will often encounter problems with cash flow, especially if the business requires purchased materials like in construction.
2. Someone making 250k of taxable business income will be paying roughly a 30% tax rate. So he is down to 175k take-home pay after tax.
3. A business that cannot or does not want to get additional bank loans, very common in today's recessionary environment, typically needs to fund future investments out of cash from his retained earnings and not with additional loans. He will also have to repay any principle on his loans (but not the interest) from this net income. Most entrepeneurs will reserve likely one third to half of their after tax income for future reinvestment in his business. So he is down to roughly 100k of comp he can use for his own life.
Bottomline is 250k pre-tax income is not much if you are trying to run a small business, especially if you have more than 3 or 4 employees.
The average salary for a small business owner in 2006 was $233k. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/itfacts/average-small-business-owner-salary-is-233600/11901
Obviously many of those are likely companies with only one or two employees so I will stand by my statement that many or perhaps even most of companies with 5 or more employees is likely in the 250k kill zone Obama is targeting.
DenverBrit
11-21-2010, 03:07 PM
Just in case TGnut doesn't answer my questions here is my logic for my statement.
1. Someone with 5 employees plus himself will typically need to make at least 1 to 1.2m in revenue to be nicely profitable. Typically below 150k in revenue per employee will often encounter problems with cash flow, especially if the business requires purchased materials like in construction.
2. Someone making 250k of taxable business income will be paying roughly a 30% tax rate. So he is down to 175k take-home pay after tax.
3. A business that cannot or does not want to get additional bank loans, very common in today's recessionary environment, typically needs to fund future investments out of cash from his retained earnings and not with additional loans. He will also have to repay any principle on his loans (but not the interest) from this net income. Most entrepeneurs will reserve likely one third to half of their after tax income for future reinvestment in his business. So he is down to roughly 100k of comp he can use for his own life.
Bottomline is 250k pre-tax income is not much if you are trying to run a small business, especially if you have more than 3 or 4 employees.
The average salary for a small business owner in 2006 was $233k. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/itfacts/average-small-business-owner-salary-is-233600/11901
Obviously many of those are likely companies with only one or two employees so I will stand by my statement that many or perhaps even most of companies with 5 or more employees is likely in the 250k kill zone Obama is targeting.
The $250k is for an individual's income for the year, not the pre tax cash flow before it's disbursed. The tax hike wouldn't affect any of those you describe in that scenario.
And the 'average' salary you quote, is for companies with 500 or less employees; ie. mid size businesses, not the mom and pop businesses you're discussing here.
The $250k "killzone," as you call it, would only apply if those 5 employees EACH made $250k in PERSONAL income.
elsid13
11-21-2010, 03:31 PM
Thank goodness the dem supermajority was neutered by the people or Cap & Tax would have also been passed.
You do understand that cap and trade is attempt to create free market solution on the free rider problem. I guess you aren't free market kinda of guy after-all.
Spider
11-21-2010, 03:42 PM
Here is proof positive you don't have a clue about what you are talking about, pretty much as usual.
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=94361&page=5
Please see post 107.
LOL you are so full of **** , I noticed you never did answer the Owner Operator question ........I wonder why :wave:
Mr.Meanie
11-21-2010, 04:01 PM
Just in case TGnut doesn't answer my questions here is my logic for my statement.
1. Someone with 5 employees plus himself will typically need to make at least 1 to 1.2m in revenue to be nicely profitable. Typically below 150k in revenue per employee will often encounter problems with cash flow, especially if the business requires purchased materials like in construction.
2. Someone making 250k of taxable business income will be paying roughly a 30% tax rate. So he is down to 175k take-home pay after tax.
3. A business that cannot or does not want to get additional bank loans, very common in today's recessionary environment, typically needs to fund future investments out of cash from his retained earnings and not with additional loans. He will also have to repay any principle on his loans (but not the interest) from this net income. Most entrepeneurs will reserve likely one third to half of their after tax income for future reinvestment in his business. So he is down to roughly 100k of comp he can use for his own life.
Bottomline is 250k pre-tax income is not much if you are trying to run a small business, especially if you have more than 3 or 4 employees.
The average salary for a small business owner in 2006 was $233k. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/itfacts/average-small-business-owner-salary-is-233600/11901
Obviously many of those are likely companies with only one or two employees so I will stand by my statement that many or perhaps even most of companies with 5 or more employees is likely in the 250k kill zone Obama is targeting.
I'm sorry, but I disagree here. In my experience, a well run small business with gross revenues of $3-4 million MAY net about $350k in profit. Most small businesses of this type are growing, and will put back every dime of profit into growth and operating capital. There is no way a small business with small revenues like that is distributing all of its profits, that just doesn't happen. The owners may take a decent salary and benefits, but they aren't sucking all of the lifeblood of their company out of it by taking large distributions.
In the case of pass-through entities like partnerships and LLC's, they will pay taxes on the $300k at the individual level per owner. Several owners would obviously take that number lower. And in most cases, the pass-thru entity will distribute enough funds to cover the individual tax liability.
And if anyone is out there running a small business with revenues of $4M as sole-proprietors, they are crazy, and they are already likely paying more in taxes anyway.
epicSocialism4tw
11-21-2010, 06:52 PM
You do understand that cap and trade is attempt to create free market solution on the free rider problem. I guess you aren't free market kinda of guy after-all.
Yeah...selling carbon is certainly what needs to happen in this country.
LOL you are so full of **** , I noticed you never did answer the Owner Operator question ........I wonder why :wave:
Anyone who reads post 110 will know how little you know.
Anyone who reads post 110 will know how little you know.
Since this is only post 100 guess we'll have to wait 10 more posts to find out what Spider says that is so reveling.
Since this is only post 100 guess we'll have to wait 10 more posts to find out what Spider says that is so reveling.
Uhh, from the linked thread there chief.
Uhh, from the linked thread there chief.
I'm a Bronco.
Spider
11-21-2010, 10:41 PM
Anyone who reads post 110 will know how little you know.
well then ..... why dont you just humor me and answer the question bout owner operators ....... after all you did state that revenue off of machinery is different
Spider
11-21-2010, 10:42 PM
I'm a Bronco.
LOL I nailed him with a question he cant google
elsid13
11-22-2010, 01:55 AM
Yeah...selling carbon is certainly what needs to happen in this country.
So you don't believe in using the free market to help.
epicSocialism4tw
11-22-2010, 07:43 AM
So you don't believe in using the free market to help.
Ha!
Nice spin.
Obushma
11-22-2010, 08:00 AM
So you don't believe in using the free market to help.
How does creating a carbon tax equate to using the free market for you. That's gotta be one of the stupidest things i've ever seen your fabian ass post.
LOL you are so full of **** , I noticed you never did answer the Owner Operator question ........I wonder why :wave:
Because the question made no sense.
Please feel free to explain it.