Another Liberal Myth Exploded

[Marxist]

You haven't revealed anything at all, and you're trying to call me uneducated and immature?

It's pretty obvious.

​

You're right...I should come with a warning label

Warning: The above person loves to

When you've had enough, press esc

Esc doesn't close most browsers, sorry.

 

[Marxist]

Again it's in the OP. Do you not even know what you posted? Wow.

You don't get a third strike.

I simply required clarification as to whether you are a liar or an imbecile.
Your fear of providing the 'proof' of your fabrication shows that you know you were lying.

Here is the quote that caused you so much anxiety:

"The AFL-CIO is comparing: a) the average salary of a small sample (350) of the highest paid US CEOs, out of a total CEO population in 2013 of 248,760 CEOs,...."


And from that quote, you've pretended that I "must know" how many were employed.
Said statement can only be compared to 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.'


You provided this eminently absurd statement:
"Still waiting to hear how many people are employed by the 350. You claim its a small sample so you must know."

'Must know'?

Really?

The phrase 'small sample' is related to this calculation: 350 out of 248,760, which is .0014069 percent.

Coincidentally, that happens to be exactly the same percent of brain you have as compared to a normal person.




Obviously, the phrase 'small sample' has absolutely nothing to do with the number of employees those CEOs have.


So...you are both a liar and an possessor of an intellect rivaled only by garden tools.
True?

Jesus christ, you will never let anyone disagree with you without calling them immediately wrong. Those 350 CEO'S more then likely employ a massive amount of the work force, and this seems to be including small business owners aswell, etc.. Absurd statement? You post uneducated bullshit, try to put "strikes" on others, and try to appear superior.

Appear??????

And now you're actually assuming you're superior.

I know I'm not perfect....but so close it's scary.

Defining perfect as what?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's pretty obvious.

​

You're right...I should come with a warning label

Warning: The above person loves to

When you've had enough, press esc

Esc doesn't close most browsers, sorry.

How does it feel to be the poster equivalent of Windows Vista?

 

[SAYIT]

Exploiting people's labor for your own profit isn't noble.

And at the end of the day that is why Marxist economies are doomed to fail. The "Worker's Paradise" is a fool's dream in which paying one's employees what the market dictates is "exploiting people's labor."
Frankly, too many of those who once worked for me were exploiting my capital.

Which ones are you referring to? A "marxist" economy wouldn't exist if communism was achieved, unless you count efficient use of surplus, guaranteed work, collective ownership of production. Workers paradise isn't a fools dream, it's something to strive for. Labor is exploited, constantly, although you don't follow the labor theory of value, so I wouldn't expect a capitalist to understand. They were exploiting your capital? Oh please. If a sweatshop worker produces $50 in products for the capitalist in an hour, leaving out where the base materials came from, and all of the labor used, the exploitation is real.

There's only one way to achieve your "worker's paradise" dream ... at the end of a gun. Like most "capitalists" I started out as an hourly wage earner but never whined about being "exploited." Like many I saved, looked for opportunities and when a good one came I borrowed what I could and jumped in with both feet. Making it work meant 80 hr work weeks but it created personal ownership of production and personal wealth ... something I wouldn't expect a socialist to understand or approve of.

 

[SAYIT]

Appear??????

And now you're actually assuming you're superior.

Yanno, I don't get the impression she thinks she's superior but I do get the sense that you think you are inferior. I must admit I agree.

 

[Brain357]

Still waiting to hear how many people are employed by the 350. You claim its a small sample so you must know.

Please quote my 'claim.'

It's in the OP.

Did you really start this rant not even knowing how many employees those 350 ceos have?

Please quote my 'claim.'


You've been asked nicely, twice now.

Again it's in the OP. Do you not even know what you posted? Wow.

You don't get a third strike.

I simply required clarification as to whether you are a liar or an imbecile.
Your fear of providing the 'proof' of your fabrication shows that you know you were lying.

Here is the quote that caused you so much anxiety:

"The AFL-CIO is comparing: a) the average salary of a small sample (350) of the highest paid US CEOs, out of a total CEO population in 2013 of 248,760 CEOs,...."


And from that quote, you've pretended that I "must know" how many were employed.
Said statement can only be compared to 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.'


You provided this eminently absurd statement:
"Still waiting to hear how many people are employed by the 350. You claim its a small sample so you must know."

'Must know'?

Really?

The phrase 'small sample' is related to this calculation: 350 out of 248,760, which is .0014069 percent.

Coincidentally, that happens to be exactly the same percent of brain you have as compared to a normal person.




Obviously, the phrase 'small sample' has absolutely nothing to do with the number of employees those CEOs have.


So...you are both a liar and an possessor of an intellect rivaled only by garden tools.
True?

Yes but the number of employees is very important. How can somebody not know that and still pretend to be so smart? In fact your whole post is really quite pointless without it as it tells us nothing of value.

 

[Brain357]

I'm fully aware he is getting gross amounts of money and paying less in taxes than if it was salary.

HE IS NOT getting gross amounts of money!
He is getting RSUs... that he can't sell until things happen... so where is the "gross amount of money"???

284 million is a pretty gross amount in my book.

284 million pennies is a lot. 284 million in RSUs means nothing until he CAN sell them which is WHY they are called RESTRICTED STOCK UNITS!

I will gladly take his RSUs if they are so valueless. Think he will give them to me? With the tax rate he will eventually pay its really more than 284 million compared to salary.

You couldn't do anything with them you idiot! They are specifically assigned to him.
You make NO sense regarding your "tax rate" comment.
Please explain your nonsensical statement!

Well if it was 284 million in salary he would have to pay income tax on it. What tax do you think he will pay on RSUs?

 

[Brain357]

Appear??????

And now you're actually assuming you're superior.

Yanno, I don't get the impression she thinks she's superior but I do get the sense that you think you are inferior. I must admit I agree.

You are a very poor judge of character obviously.

 

[Brain357]

284 million is a pretty gross amount in my book.

If you are not a stock holder its none of your business, sorry to burst your bubble.

So again what is better for the economy. 500 people making good money or one person making gross amounts of money?

Again, unless you are management or a shareholder it's none of your biz.

Really? So a slow economy is good for the country?

Paying people for their labor does not slow the economy.
What is good for the country is a noble cause.
What is best for an individual company is for ownership and management to determine and still none of your biz.
Get your mind off my wallet and your hand out of my pocket.

No but lots of inequality does slow the economy. So again what is better for the economy? 500 people making good money or one person making gross amounts of money?

 

[rdean]

What Democrats said take every worker in America and compare that to every CEO?

Oh wait. It's you. Figures. Nevermind. The tart isn't sweet, it's rotten.

 

[Marxist]

Exploiting people's labor for your own profit isn't noble.

And at the end of the day that is why Marxist economies are doomed to fail. The "Worker's Paradise" is a fool's dream in which paying one's employees what the market dictates is "exploiting people's labor."
Frankly, too many of those who once worked for me were exploiting my capital.

Which ones are you referring to? A "marxist" economy wouldn't exist if communism was achieved, unless you count efficient use of surplus, guaranteed work, collective ownership of production. Workers paradise isn't a fools dream, it's something to strive for. Labor is exploited, constantly, although you don't follow the labor theory of value, so I wouldn't expect a capitalist to understand. They were exploiting your capital? Oh please. If a sweatshop worker produces $50 in products for the capitalist in an hour, leaving out where the base materials came from, and all of the labor used, the exploitation is real.

There's only one way to achieve your "worker's paradise" dream ... at the end of a gun. Like most "capitalists" I started out as an hourly wage earner but never whined about being "exploited." Like many I saved, looked for opportunities and when a good one came I borrowed what I could and jumped in with both feet. Making it work meant 80 hr work weeks but it created personal ownership of production and personal wealth ... something I wouldn't expect a socialist to understand or approve of.

Violent revolution, yes. The majority cannot become capitalists, no matter how hard they work, it's impossible.

 

[Synthaholic]

I'm fully aware he is getting gross amounts of money and paying less in taxes than if it was salary.

HE IS NOT getting gross amounts of money!
He is getting RSUs... that he can't sell until things happen... so where is the "gross amount of money"???

284 million is a pretty gross amount in my book.

If you are not a stock holder its none of your business, sorry to burst your bubble.

So again what is better for the economy. 500 people making good money or one person making gross amounts of money?

Feel free to move to China, go live your communist dream working for the collective. What you bunch of dumb asses don't understand is that if you hire some dip shit retard CEO who is willing to work for peanuts the company is more likely to fail and then they will all be out of work. Secondly, any savings in CEO salary will go to stock holders not to the workers, they own the company its their property. The guy who mows your lawn isn't entitled to a share of the profits when you sell your house now is he. Well there you go.

If a Federal law was passed that said total compensation cannot be xx times greater than the average employee's compensation it would affect all equally.

 

[SAYIT]

If you are not a stock holder its none of your business, sorry to burst your bubble.

So again what is better for the economy. 500 people making good money or one person making gross amounts of money?

Again, unless you are management or a shareholder it's none of your biz.

Really? So a slow economy is good for the country?

Paying people for their labor does not slow the economy.
What is good for the country is a noble cause.
What is best for an individual company is for ownership and management to determine and still none of your biz.
Get your mind off my wallet and your hand out of my pocket.

No but lots of inequality does slow the economy. So again what is better for the economy? 500 people making good money or one person making gross amounts of money?

Lotsa people making what they are worth and most already are.

 

[SAYIT]

Exploiting people's labor for your own profit isn't noble.

And at the end of the day that is why Marxist economies are doomed to fail. The "Worker's Paradise" is a fool's dream in which paying one's employees what the market dictates is "exploiting people's labor."
Frankly, too many of those who once worked for me were exploiting my capital.

Which ones are you referring to? A "marxist" economy wouldn't exist if communism was achieved, unless you count efficient use of surplus, guaranteed work, collective ownership of production. Workers paradise isn't a fools dream, it's something to strive for. Labor is exploited, constantly, although you don't follow the labor theory of value, so I wouldn't expect a capitalist to understand. They were exploiting your capital? Oh please. If a sweatshop worker produces $50 in products for the capitalist in an hour, leaving out where the base materials came from, and all of the labor used, the exploitation is real.

There's only one way to achieve your "worker's paradise" dream ... at the end of a gun. Like most "capitalists" I started out as an hourly wage earner but never whined about being "exploited." Like many I saved, looked for opportunities and when a good one came I borrowed what I could and jumped in with both feet. Making it work meant 80 hr work weeks but it created personal ownership of production and personal wealth ... something I wouldn't expect a socialist to understand or approve of.

Violent revolution, yes. The majority cannot become capitalists, no matter how hard they work, it's impossible.

Ah ... the eternal yet baseless whiny socialist lament. The Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finance found that roughly half of all Americans owned stocks either directly or indirectly (pension funds, 401k, IRAs, etc.) in 2012.

 

[Marxist]

Exploiting people's labor for your own profit isn't noble.

And at the end of the day that is why Marxist economies are doomed to fail. The "Worker's Paradise" is a fool's dream in which paying one's employees what the market dictates is "exploiting people's labor."
Frankly, too many of those who once worked for me were exploiting my capital.

Which ones are you referring to? A "marxist" economy wouldn't exist if communism was achieved, unless you count efficient use of surplus, guaranteed work, collective ownership of production. Workers paradise isn't a fools dream, it's something to strive for. Labor is exploited, constantly, although you don't follow the labor theory of value, so I wouldn't expect a capitalist to understand. They were exploiting your capital? Oh please. If a sweatshop worker produces $50 in products for the capitalist in an hour, leaving out where the base materials came from, and all of the labor used, the exploitation is real.

There's only one way to achieve your "worker's paradise" dream ... at the end of a gun. Like most "capitalists" I started out as an hourly wage earner but never whined about being "exploited." Like many I saved, looked for opportunities and when a good one came I borrowed what I could and jumped in with both feet. Making it work meant 80 hr work weeks but it created personal ownership of production and personal wealth ... something I wouldn't expect a socialist to understand or approve of.

Violent revolution, yes. The majority cannot become capitalists, no matter how hard they work, it's impossible.

Ah ... the eternal yet baseless whiny socialist lament. The Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finance found that roughly half of all Americans owned stocks either directly or indirectly (pension funds, 401k, IRAs, etc.) in 2012.

No, literally, by definition, only a minority can be the capitalists, owning stocks, pensions? Oh come on, you know what I'm referring to, don't embarrass yourself. You show me one viable way capitalism can end poverty, one way capitalism can survive within the next 200 years.

 

[SAYIT]

And at the end of the day that is why Marxist economies are doomed to fail. The "Worker's Paradise" is a fool's dream in which paying one's employees what the market dictates is "exploiting people's labor."
Frankly, too many of those who once worked for me were exploiting my capital.

Which ones are you referring to? A "marxist" economy wouldn't exist if communism was achieved, unless you count efficient use of surplus, guaranteed work, collective ownership of production. Workers paradise isn't a fools dream, it's something to strive for. Labor is exploited, constantly, although you don't follow the labor theory of value, so I wouldn't expect a capitalist to understand. They were exploiting your capital? Oh please. If a sweatshop worker produces $50 in products for the capitalist in an hour, leaving out where the base materials came from, and all of the labor used, the exploitation is real.

There's only one way to achieve your "worker's paradise" dream ... at the end of a gun. Like most "capitalists" I started out as an hourly wage earner but never whined about being "exploited." Like many I saved, looked for opportunities and when a good one came I borrowed what I could and jumped in with both feet. Making it work meant 80 hr work weeks but it created personal ownership of production and personal wealth ... something I wouldn't expect a socialist to understand or approve of.

Violent revolution, yes. The majority cannot become capitalists, no matter how hard they work, it's impossible.

Ah ... the eternal yet baseless whiny socialist lament. The Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finance found that roughly half of all Americans owned stocks either directly or indirectly (pension funds, 401k, IRAs, etc.) in 2012.

No, literally, by definition, only a minority can be the capitalists, owning stocks, pensions? Oh come on, you know what I'm referring to, don't embarrass yourself. You show me one viable way capitalism can end poverty, one way capitalism can survive within the next 200 years.

Bullshit. Investing in America by investing in the machine (capitalism) is exactly how we create jobs. Whining about the "unfairness" of it all is the socialist's way of demanding we stop the train so he can get a better grip. Nobody here owes you anything, Princess. Grow up.

 

[Marxist]

Which ones are you referring to? A "marxist" economy wouldn't exist if communism was achieved, unless you count efficient use of surplus, guaranteed work, collective ownership of production. Workers paradise isn't a fools dream, it's something to strive for. Labor is exploited, constantly, although you don't follow the labor theory of value, so I wouldn't expect a capitalist to understand. They were exploiting your capital? Oh please. If a sweatshop worker produces $50 in products for the capitalist in an hour, leaving out where the base materials came from, and all of the labor used, the exploitation is real.

There's only one way to achieve your "worker's paradise" dream ... at the end of a gun. Like most "capitalists" I started out as an hourly wage earner but never whined about being "exploited." Like many I saved, looked for opportunities and when a good one came I borrowed what I could and jumped in with both feet. Making it work meant 80 hr work weeks but it created personal ownership of production and personal wealth ... something I wouldn't expect a socialist to understand or approve of.

Violent revolution, yes. The majority cannot become capitalists, no matter how hard they work, it's impossible.

Ah ... the eternal yet baseless whiny socialist lament. The Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finance found that roughly half of all Americans owned stocks either directly or indirectly (pension funds, 401k, IRAs, etc.) in 2012.

No, literally, by definition, only a minority can be the capitalists, owning stocks, pensions? Oh come on, you know what I'm referring to, don't embarrass yourself. You show me one viable way capitalism can end poverty, one way capitalism can survive within the next 200 years.

Bullshit. Investing in America by investing in the machine (capitalism) is exactly how we create jobs. Whining about the "unfairness" of it all is the socialist's way of demanding we stop the train so he can get a better grip. Nobody here owes you anything, Princess. Grow up.

So you admit capitalism relies on systemic poverty, cannot sustain itself, and creates a massive wealth gap without regulation? Jobs can exist without capitalism. It is literally unfair to billions of people, capitalism favors the capitalists.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

a. "...the AFL-CIO’s reported “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” of 331:1 is calculated by ignoring 99.9% of all US CEOs and 93.8% of all US workers.

Thus, we see that the ALF-CIO management are despicable and peddle in lies. It's a shame because there are those of who think that CEO salaries are too high and disproportionate and these type of hack releases dishonor and discredit our cause.

 

[TemplarKormac]

For those of you thinking CEO's earn too much, just remember, if you ever became the CEO of anything, you'll be the very thing you hate. Rich.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Exploiting people's labor for your own profit isn't noble.

And at the end of the day that is why Marxist economies are doomed to fail. The "Worker's Paradise" is a fool's dream in which paying one's employees what the market dictates is "exploiting people's labor."
Frankly, too many of those who once worked for me were exploiting my capital.

Which ones are you referring to? A "marxist" economy wouldn't exist if communism was achieved, unless you count efficient use of surplus, guaranteed work, collective ownership of production. Workers paradise isn't a fools dream, it's something to strive for. Labor is exploited, constantly, although you don't follow the labor theory of value, so I wouldn't expect a capitalist to understand. They were exploiting your capital? Oh please. If a sweatshop worker produces $50 in products for the capitalist in an hour, leaving out where the base materials came from, and all of the labor used, the exploitation is real.

There's only one way to achieve your "worker's paradise" dream ... at the end of a gun. Like most "capitalists" I started out as an hourly wage earner but never whined about being "exploited." Like many I saved, looked for opportunities and when a good one came I borrowed what I could and jumped in with both feet. Making it work meant 80 hr work weeks but it created personal ownership of production and personal wealth ... something I wouldn't expect a socialist to understand or approve of.

Violent revolution, yes. The majority cannot become capitalists, no matter how hard they work, it's impossible.

Ah ... the eternal yet baseless whiny socialist lament. The Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finance found that roughly half of all Americans owned stocks either directly or indirectly (pension funds, 401k, IRAs, etc.) in 2012.

Yep, and that's half the story. How many of this half of all Americans have little more than what they invested and how many have lost some of their principle?

Q. How do you spell insider trading?

A. W A L L - S T R E E T