who are you to say how much someone is worth. oh thats right your a col in the army. a col who doesnt know how to fight a battle.





the only theives in this country are the ones that want to raise income tax. even a bank robber doesn't get away with that much money.



this should read. let's steal that money and give it to the middle income working families that didn't earn it.

Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Friday, November 02, 2007
When any corporate executives make excessive salaries or other compensation it come from the prices charged for their goods or services. Let’s recapture that money and give tax cuts to the middle income working families!!!!!!!


So you finally admit you are a socialist?
I am nothing of the sort. When someone can overcharge the users so they can be paid an outrageous compensation, there needs to be an offset to that abuse. NO ONE is worth $100 Million. In addition many of them receive most of that compensation as capital gains and only are paying 17% tax not the 34% rate on earned income. It is wrong and is a good example of the abuse and shift in the wealthy to the top income people that Bush and the GOP support. That must change. It is not socialism but balance and fairness.

Ah yes, you libeals and your "fairness".  You want to redistribute someones income because you think it's "fair".  What nonsense.  Nobody takes you seriously gene. 

Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Friday, November 02, 2007
It is not socialism but balance and fairness.


Ah yes, you liberals and your "fairness". You want to redistribute someone’s income because you think it's "fair". What nonsense. (Bush and the GOP have done more to redistribute income then anyone) Nobody takes you seriously gene. Just about 80% of All Americans who do not agree with the current policies. It may be that many on thus Blog side to not agree but the vast majority hold views similar to my views.

Reply By: danielost Posted: Friday, November 02, 2007
When someone can overcharge the users so they can be paid an outrageous compensation



You cannot over charge someone unless they let you. For instance if brad charges 50 dollars for galciv2 and everyone is still buying it. Then he isn't over charging. The only exception to this rule is a monopoly. And right now there is only one monopoly in this country and that is government. or as they say in civ 4 the fair price for a product is what ever the consumer is willing to pay for it.(that may not be an exact quote). THAT IS BS!


The OIL Companies overcharge us EVERY DAY and then pay their top executives’ outrageous salaries and their stock holders bigger and bigger profits. If you invest in a mutual fund you have no control of the outrageous compensation the top officials receive. If you want to invest you have no options and since all the funds do the same thing you can not just switch to funds that pay their top people more reasonable compensation.

And yet, if the field grade officer is an incompetent fool, $70,000 is as much a waste of money as the $100 Million going to another incompetent fool.

I'm sure your income far exceeds your needs Gene, I think the government should decide what your excess is and just take it away. Because that is what you demand the government does to others... but not you, of course.

OK, I take back what I said. Brad makes a good point and it's not fair to tag Artysim as a Col puppet.

I'm sorry Artysim. We may disagree but comparing you to Col was going a bit to far.

Sorry gene, but Bush has not taken any additional income away from me.  As a matter of fact, the best years I have had in taxes I have had under Bush and I'm not rich.  Try again comrade.





I'm sure people do want policies changed, nothing groundbreaking about that.  However, I don't believe America wants to head more into a socialist nanny state where we take income away from Americans to give to others.  That is ridiculous to even suggest it.

But keep going with your logic gene, it will only help us.

Complain about budget, then complain about how we need more social programs, and then try to convince people you want to balance the budget.  LOL!

We provide real life examples that we have lived of being able to make it on low incomes, and you say the average family can't make it on that amount. Gid's family should have a lot MORE expenses than the AVERAGE family, Gene. He DOES not. So, why do you CONTINUE to INSIST that an average family, with 4.5 less kids in it has MORE expenses than him?

I think this average family you're talking about has a lot more debt than the average family can afford, and that's why they're not making it.

The only situation I really feel bad about is a change in situation family, where someone lost a job or got an unexpected pay or benefits cut. I would support a charity that helps them, until they are able to readjust their standard of living to fit their new income level. Not until they can afford the same standard of living again.

The problem in America, though, is that a low standard of living is becoming outlawed.

Island Dog, if I may respond to the following;



What has been happening in the last few years has been that public money, your tax dollars, have been leaving public institutions and going into private hands far more than previous. This is money that needs to be spent on essential services regardless, but instead of being spent in a transparent manner a lot of it is now going to private companies on no-bid contracts, quite often on cost plus arrangements, meaning that the government has to pay more for the same service. What cost-plus means is that the contractor is guaranteed a certain percentage of profit, if he exceeds the agreed upon contract then the government will eat the costs with public tax dollars to ensure the contractor gets his 20% profit.

This is not because private industry is providing a wonderful service that the gov. is incapable of.... it's because for the private companies this is a wonderful opportunity to make a massive amount of profit, all being paid for by your taxes, and it is being implemented because it marches in lockstep with the ideology that all government functions should be performed by the private sector (but, of course still paid for with public money, right?)

A prime example is Blackwater security. They only have approximately 1000 plus combat arms folks in Iraq but if you look at the costs per contractor the U.S government is paying through the nose for each and every one several times the amount of money it takes to keep one uniformed service member in the field... where is the logic in that?

Also, the massive amount of support services that have been contracted out under Rummy when he was SECDEF is astounding. KBR has always been a support contractor for the U.S military but nothing like what's recently happened. In the last few years just about every and any non-combat role that can be imagined has been largely outsourced which is part of the reason why you now have Burger King running outlets on U.S bases in Iraq. You might think that's a great thing but keep in mind that it is costing way more than the services previously provided "in house" and it's all being paid for with public money!

Gene is intellectually dishonest. It has already been shown to him how the budget could be balanced in any number of ways without even cutting programs or raising taxes (simply slow the rate in which spending increases and the problem goes away).

I have shown that without violating the promises made by the Government, cuts alone will not balance the budget. I have also shown WHY to keep those promises the idea of “slowing the rate at which spending increases” is not possible. Given the Baby Boomers and the ever increasing Debt, MOST of the mandatory spending will need to increase substantially and thus “slowing spending” for those items (Interest, Social Security and Medicare) is not possible UNLESS the Government fails to keep the promises made to the retired and the people who have purchased the Debt of this country. The portion of the Budget that is not the result of promises is about $800 Billion and the vast majority of that $800 Billion is being spent on Defense and Homeland Security which can not be cut without jeopardizing our security. In fact unless the Iraq War Ends NOW we will be spending more on Defense and we will be spending more on Homeland Security.

Thus the “solve the budget problem by slowing the spending is a smoke screen. If it were not for the Boomers and if we had kept the Debt at the $1 Trillion dollar level that is was in 1981, we could balance the budget by “slowing spending” Such is NOT THE CASE and anyone that makes such an argument must be on DRUGS!

i don't know if anyone else remembers but i do. that trillion dollar debt in 81 was a smoke screen. the government was printing money to make the debt look smaller than it was.

Reply By: danielost Posted: Friday, November 02, 2007

The OIL Companies overcharge us EVERY DAY and then pay their top executives’ outrageous salaries and their stock holders bigger and bigger profits.



Then stop buying their product. There are electric cars and bicycles.


That is the type of response that proves you and anyone else with s similar position is not interested in a debate. We do not have the option to stop using oil and gasoline. We may become LESS dependent in the future but I will not see the day when we will not NEED oil and this the Oil Companies have a strangle hold on the consumer and that needs to be offset by the Government!