Who NEEDS This Kind Of Income?

[RadiomanATL]

Why do we "need" you around?

 

[Wry Catcher]

As the forum's leading sociopathic kleptocrat chimes in, with the usual bigoted stereotypes and ad homs.

Good job, Vermin.

I wonder how many on the left spent time last weekend working with homeless people, or collecting money for charity? That's what I did. And there I am, one of the avaristic, bigots on the right. LMAO.

One data point proves...?

And yet your post suggests support for Odd-dude, whose total of substantive and intelligent posts are non-existent. One wonders what Odd-dude did this weekend, I'm sure he spent his hours helping the needy, feeding the hungry, and collecting warm clothes and clean blankets for the homeless.

For my part I spent it with my extended family at a BBQ in Sonoma. Great day though a bit hot; grilled steak, grilled chicken, grilled vegies, my wife's potato salad and my sister's homemade Strawberry Ice Cream (with fresh strawberrys, Sonoma grows much more than grapes). The only down side, CAL lost the first game to a very good Virginia team in the CWS. I'm hopeful we'll beat Texas A&M (from which my nephew is an alumni) on Tuesday.

 

[Warrior102]

Seriously!!!!!​

"It was the 1970s, and the chief executive of a leading U.S. dairy company, Kenneth J. Douglas, lived the good life. He earned the equivalent of about $1 million today. He and his family moved from a three-bedroom home to a four-bedroom home, about a half-mile away, in River Forest, Ill., an upscale Chicago suburb. He joined a country club. The company gave him a Cadillac. The money was good enough, in fact, that he sometimes turned down raises. He said making too much was bad for morale.

Forty years later, the trappings at the top of Dean Foods, as at most U.S. big companies, are more lavish. The current chief executive, Gregg L. Engles, averages 10 times as much in compensation as Douglas did, or about $10 million in a typical year. He owns a $6 million home in an elite suburb of Dallas and 64 acres near Vail, Colo., an area he frequently visits. He belongs to as many as four golf clubs at a time — two in Texas and two in Colorado. While Douglas’s office sat on the second floor of a milk distribution center, Engles’s stylish new headquarters occupies the top nine floors of a 41-story Dallas office tower. When Engles leaves town, he takes the company’s $10 million Challenger 604 jet, which is largely dedicated to his needs, both business and personal.

The evolution of executive grandeur — from very comfortable to jet-setting — reflects one of the primary reasons that the gap between those with the highest incomes and everyone else is widening.

The case of Dean Foods appears to bolster the argument that executive compensation moves with company size: The profits for Dean Foods in 2009 were roughly 10 times what they were in 1979, adjusted for constant dollars. Engles’s compensation has averaged 10 times that of Douglas.

“It’s a different company today,” company spokesman Jamaison Schuler said. He declined to comment further.

But back in the ’70s, something was holding executive salaries back.

Harold Geneen, the president of ITT, then one of the nation’s largest companies, told Forbes in 1975 that while he might be worth six times as much to the company as he was making, he hadn’t sought a raise.

Over at Dean Foods, Kenneth Douglas was likewise resistant to making more.

“He would object to the pay we gave him sometimes — not because he thought it was too little; he thought it was too much,” said Alexander J. Vogl, a members of the Dean Foods board at the time and the chair of its compensation committee. “He was afraid it would be bad for morale, him getting a big bump like that.”

“He believed the reward went to the shareholders, not to any one man,” said John P. Frazee, another former board member. “Today we get cults of personality around the CEO, but then there was not a cult of personality.”

Breakaway Wealth​

I would be happy to respond/comment on your posts if you'd put it in PLAIN TEXT, and not add all the color, pictures, crayola depictions, etc. that you add to your posts.
If you have a point - make it - in two to three sentences.
I don't have the time, nor the desire, to delve into your stupidity.
Thank you.

 

[boedicca]

A clear response to the question, the answer is the echo chamber cheers avarice, supports bigotry and holds a callous disregard for anyone in need.

It is the ABC's of the New Right.

Hmmmmm...wanting to keep what one earns and owns is Avarice, but wanting to take away from somebody what he has earned or owned is a Noble Effort to Hold Regard for Anyone in Need (except of course, anyone who earns or owns).

Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[California Girl]

As the forum's leading sociopathic kleptocrat chimes in, with the usual bigoted stereotypes and ad homs.

Good job, Vermin.

I wonder how many on the left spent time last weekend working with homeless people, or collecting money for charity? That's what I did. And there I am, one of the avaristic, bigots on the right. LMAO.

One data point proves...?

And yet your post suggests support for Odd-dude, whose total of substantive and intelligent posts are non-existent. One wonders what Odd-dude did this weekend, I'm sure he spent his hours helping the needy, feeding the hungry, and collecting warm clothes and clean blankets for the homeless.

For my part I spent it with my extended family at a BBQ in Sonoma. Great day though a bit hot; grilled steak, grilled chicken, grilled vegies, my wife's potato salad and my sister's homemade Strawberry Ice Cream (with fresh strawberrys, Sonoma grows much more than grapes). The only down side, CAL lost the first game to a very good Virginia team in the CWS. I'm hopeful we'll beat Texas A&M (from which my nephew is an alumni) on Tuesday.

Well, I don't know about Oddball, but my family are those 'weathly' Americans that y'all despise so much. So you feed your family, and I feed the homeless. I wonder which of us is doing our share to help our fellow man. I know I am.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Who needs Progressives? Where can we send them? Is there a country on the planet that will take them?

 

[Wry Catcher]

A clear response to the question, the answer is the echo chamber cheers avarice, supports bigotry and holds a callous disregard for anyone in need.

It is the ABC's of the New Right.

Hmmmmm...wanting to keep what one earns and owns is Avarice, but wanting to take away from somebody what he has earned or owned is a Noble Effort to Hold Regard for Anyone in Need (except of course, anyone who earns or owns).

Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up.

Shall we look closely at what you offer? I think we shall. Avarice as you know is defined as, "insatiable greed for riches; inordinate, miserly desire to gain and hoard wealth." It is not that someone wants to keep all that they earn, that is human nature - it is an excessive desire for and to keep wealth notwithstanding everything else.

What happened to the concept of Noblesse oblige? It seems the New Right feels no obligation as a consquence of their good fortune. But, very wealthy Americans and American Corporations seem to understand tokenism very well indeed.

 

[The Gadfly]

Seriously!!!!!​

"It was the 1970s, and the chief executive of a leading U.S. dairy company, Kenneth J. Douglas, lived the good life. He earned the equivalent of about $1 million today. He and his family moved from a three-bedroom home to a four-bedroom home, about a half-mile away, in River Forest, Ill., an upscale Chicago suburb. He joined a country club. The company gave him a Cadillac. The money was good enough, in fact, that he sometimes turned down raises. He said making too much was bad for morale.

Forty years later, the trappings at the top of Dean Foods, as at most U.S. big companies, are more lavish. The current chief executive, Gregg L. Engles, averages 10 times as much in compensation as Douglas did, or about $10 million in a typical year. He owns a $6 million home in an elite suburb of Dallas and 64 acres near Vail, Colo., an area he frequently visits. He belongs to as many as four golf clubs at a time — two in Texas and two in Colorado. While Douglas’s office sat on the second floor of a milk distribution center, Engles’s stylish new headquarters occupies the top nine floors of a 41-story Dallas office tower. When Engles leaves town, he takes the company’s $10 million Challenger 604 jet, which is largely dedicated to his needs, both business and personal.

The evolution of executive grandeur — from very comfortable to jet-setting — reflects one of the primary reasons that the gap between those with the highest incomes and everyone else is widening.

The case of Dean Foods appears to bolster the argument that executive compensation moves with company size: The profits for Dean Foods in 2009 were roughly 10 times what they were in 1979, adjusted for constant dollars. Engles’s compensation has averaged 10 times that of Douglas.

“It’s a different company today,” company spokesman Jamaison Schuler said. He declined to comment further.

But back in the ’70s, something was holding executive salaries back.

Harold Geneen, the president of ITT, then one of the nation’s largest companies, told Forbes in 1975 that while he might be worth six times as much to the company as he was making, he hadn’t sought a raise.

Over at Dean Foods, Kenneth Douglas was likewise resistant to making more.

“He would object to the pay we gave him sometimes — not because he thought it was too little; he thought it was too much,” said Alexander J. Vogl, a members of the Dean Foods board at the time and the chair of its compensation committee. “He was afraid it would be bad for morale, him getting a big bump like that.”

“He believed the reward went to the shareholders, not to any one man,” said John P. Frazee, another former board member. “Today we get cults of personality around the CEO, but then there was not a cult of personality.”

Breakaway Wealth​

The word "NEEDS" is completely irrelevant to this discussion, at least so far as America is concerned. We happen to have, under our constitution a republic where the law is that a person may legally make whatever salary, large or small, someone who hires him believes his services are worth. Nowhere in law or the constitution is it even suggested, that you, the government, or anyone else has any business deciding what that individual, or any other American "needs" to earn. The only place that concept belongs, is right where you got it from: "From each, according to his ability, to each, according to his needs." Classic Marxist dialectic at its finest and most basic, and rather transparent, I thought. Of course, given who posted it, no one here should be the least surprised. I've often said that the only difference between "progressive", as currently defined by the American Left, and "Communist;is the label; what's inside the package is, in fact, the Communist Manifesto". First, why don't you just call yourselves what you are, since everyone with half a brain already knows? Second, I know the Soviet Union is defunct (oh, how much THAT must pain you!) and even the Peoples' Republic of China isn't ideologically so pure anymore. Oh well, there's always North Korea, or if you prefer Communism Lite, the Socialist states of Europe, or perhaps that workers' paradise called Canada. Please, pick the destination of your choice, and move there; where you can have the kind of country and government you want. We aren't interested in failed dogmas and failed ideologies in America, so go peddle your Marxist drivel where someone may actually care to hear it!

 

[boedicca]

What happened to the concept of Noblesse oblige? It seems the New Right feels no obligation as a consquence of their good fortune. But, very wealthy Americans and American Corporations seem to understand tokenism very well indeed.

Are you advocating going back to a Monarchy?

Noblesse Oblige refers to the responsibilities of hereditary nobility, and are the (voluntary) price of extreme privilege. This hardly applies to middle class families in the U.S.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What happened to the concept of Noblesse oblige? It seems the New Right feels no obligation as a consquence of their good fortune. But, very wealthy Americans and American Corporations seem to understand tokenism very well indeed.

Are you advocating going back to a Monarchy?

Noblesse Oblige refers to the responsibilities of hereditary nobility, and are the (voluntary) price of extreme privilege. This hardly applies to middle class families in the U.S.

Are you intentionally dense? Nobelesse Oblige is a concept of the, yes voluntary, cost of privilege. Maybe a concrete thinker might believe the concept is obsolete, but some with great wealth, Bill Gates comes to mind, still feel an obligation to others.

I actually believe you simply have adopted an ideology without foundaton, you seem unable to defend your opinions without attacking me or others personally, using sarcasm or cliches.

As I've asked you and others for maybe the hundreth time, what policy(s) do you support which will reduce unemployment, one of our most crucial problems today?

 

[boedicca]

What happened to the concept of Noblesse oblige? It seems the New Right feels no obligation as a consquence of their good fortune. But, very wealthy Americans and American Corporations seem to understand tokenism very well indeed.

Are you advocating going back to a Monarchy?

Noblesse Oblige refers to the responsibilities of hereditary nobility, and are the (voluntary) price of extreme privilege. This hardly applies to middle class families in the U.S.

Are you intentionally dense? Nobelesse Oblige is a concept of the, yes voluntary, cost of privilege. Maybe a concrete thinker might believe the concept is obsolete, but some with great wealth, Bill Gates comes to mind, still feel an obligation to others.

I actually believe you simply have adopted an ideology without foundaton, you seem unable to defend your opinions without attacking me or others personally, using sarcasm or cliches.

As I've asked you and others for maybe the hundreth time, what policy(s) do you support which will reduce unemployment, one of our most crucial problems today?

I believe your head is wedged so firmly up your ass that you can lick your sternum.

And yet, like a broken clock, you actually posted something correct. Noblesse Oblige entails a "Voluntary" sense of duty.

That is not at all equivalent to the government seizing (with the implicit gun point) middle class incomes. By all means, donate your own money to the causes you choose. But don't advocate for higher taxes on others with some twisted Orwellian Noblesse Oblige sentiment. It rings hollow, even by your own corrupt definition of "harmony".

 

[Skull Pilot]

A clear response to the question, the answer is the echo chamber cheers avarice, supports bigotry and holds a callous disregard for anyone in need.

It is the ABC's of the New Right.

I bet rich people give more money to charity than you do.

 

[midcan5]

If a bank robber were to acquire great wealth robbing it would be wrong to all except other bank robbers, if a corporate board can redistribute its wealth and earnings to the top, it is right for some people, if the government redistributes society's wealth to the members of that society through work and other projects it is wrong to some, it seems like it really depends on where you stand in all these pictures. Surely Ken Lay or Bernie Madoff deserved their great wealth, surely.

"One percent of the nation owns a third of the wealth. The rest of the wealth is distributed in such a way as to turn those in the 99 percent against one another: small property owners against the propertyless, black against white, native- born against foreign-born, intellectuals and professionals against the uneducated and unskilled. These groups have resented one another and warred against one another with such vehemence and violence as to obscure their common position as sharers of leftovers in a very wealthy country." Howard Zinn 'APHOTUS'

If you respond to quotation, please refrain from ad hominem nonsense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Who needs Progressive Marxists?

They have failed every single time they've been given an opportunity to inflict their failed ideas on a nation and always at gunpoint.

Drop fucking dead.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Seriously!!!!!​

"It was the 1970s, and the chief executive of a leading U.S. dairy company, Kenneth J. Douglas, lived the good life. He earned the equivalent of about $1 million today. He and his family moved from a three-bedroom home to a four-bedroom home, about a half-mile away, in River Forest, Ill., an upscale Chicago suburb. He joined a country club. The company gave him a Cadillac. The money was good enough, in fact, that he sometimes turned down raises. He said making too much was bad for morale.

Forty years later, the trappings at the top of Dean Foods, as at most U.S. big companies, are more lavish. The current chief executive, Gregg L. Engles, averages 10 times as much in compensation as Douglas did, or about $10 million in a typical year. He owns a $6 million home in an elite suburb of Dallas and 64 acres near Vail, Colo., an area he frequently visits. He belongs to as many as four golf clubs at a time — two in Texas and two in Colorado. While Douglas’s office sat on the second floor of a milk distribution center, Engles’s stylish new headquarters occupies the top nine floors of a 41-story Dallas office tower. When Engles leaves town, he takes the company’s $10 million Challenger 604 jet, which is largely dedicated to his needs, both business and personal.

The evolution of executive grandeur — from very comfortable to jet-setting — reflects one of the primary reasons that the gap between those with the highest incomes and everyone else is widening.

The case of Dean Foods appears to bolster the argument that executive compensation moves with company size: The profits for Dean Foods in 2009 were roughly 10 times what they were in 1979, adjusted for constant dollars. Engles’s compensation has averaged 10 times that of Douglas.

“It’s a different company today,” company spokesman Jamaison Schuler said. He declined to comment further.

But back in the ’70s, something was holding executive salaries back.

Harold Geneen, the president of ITT, then one of the nation’s largest companies, told Forbes in 1975 that while he might be worth six times as much to the company as he was making, he hadn’t sought a raise.

Over at Dean Foods, Kenneth Douglas was likewise resistant to making more.

“He would object to the pay we gave him sometimes — not because he thought it was too little; he thought it was too much,” said Alexander J. Vogl, a members of the Dean Foods board at the time and the chair of its compensation committee. “He was afraid it would be bad for morale, him getting a big bump like that.”

“He believed the reward went to the shareholders, not to any one man,” said John P. Frazee, another former board member. “Today we get cults of personality around the CEO, but then there was not a cult of personality.”

Breakaway Wealth​

So we can assume from your post that you believe sports figures that get millions should not. That Actors that get millions should not and News people that get 20 million dollar contracts should not?

How about Soro's? Is his money different? How about the Kennedy's. How about the millions Obama is making with his wife? Or the Clinton's? Or is that acceptable?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Only government can accurately determine how much income any person truly needs

Bullshit!!!

How many times can you fill your stomach, in one sitting??

How many vehicles can you drive, at once?

How many homes can you live-in, at once?

Is it possible to be addicted to cash?? And...if so...why should the U.S. population be expected to support their addiction???

​

if you don't like how much a CEO makes then don't use their company's services.

Its pretty easy to not support "runaway wealth" as you put it. The govt should NOT have any role in this area.

 

[Skull Pilot]

When you go to a job interview and are asked, "How much do you want to get paid?"

Do you say, "Just enough to pay my bills." or do you say. "As much as I possibly can"?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

When you go to a job interview and are asked, "How much do you want to get paid?"

Do you say, "Just enough to pay my bills." or do you say. "As much as I possibly can"?

I say "a wage that is in line with the income level of the community" NOT

 

[blastoff]

Only government can accurately determine how much income any person truly needs

Complete idiocy.

But if it ever gets to that I want to be on record that whatever the gov't decides for me, it ain't enough. I'm not giving up the nice cushy lifestyle I've earned. I've been several rungs down the economic ladder and it's a whole hell of a lot nicer farther up top. So for those who don't have what they want and desire some of mine and others, tough shit.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Only government can accurately determine how much income any person truly needs

Complete idiocy.

But if it ever gets to that I want to be on record that whatever the gov't decides for me, it ain't enough. I'm not giving up the nice cushy lifestyle I've earned. I've been several rungs down the economic ladder and it's a whole hell of a lot nicer farther up top. So for those who don't have what they want and desire some of mine and others, tough shit.

frank loves sarcasm