Ray Johnson EsqAICP 's Comments
Page 1 of 7  first | prev | next 
Aug 20, 2009 | comments: 12
in reply to a comment by Marilyn M.
Ray Johnson EsqAICP Aug 22, 2009, 5:21pm EDT
Perhaps Obama should have let the world economy totally collapse as a result of Bush and the republican philosophies.

Try thinking for yourself and reading some political philosophy (classical) and economic theory. The FOX people are not political theorists, they are nothing more than hate mongers preying upon the fear of those who don't think for themselves.
Sep 20, 2008 | comments: 21
in reply to a comment by Mark G.
Ray Johnson EsqAICP Jun 15, 2009, 11:17am EDT

After the election I have just been working my as* off trying to keep my business going.  I'll be back.
Apr 9, 2009 | comments: 7
Ray Johnson EsqAICP Apr 9, 2009, 10:33pm EDT
One of the major problems is that the electorate is poorly informed and doesn't think for themselves. Politicians give them someone to blame and then feed them full of rhetoric that sounds informed, no matter how ill informed it is.

By the way, Eben, I'm not sure there is much of a pure market driven economy. And as for helping the poor, that simply is not a part of any market economy. There are no assumptions, it simply doesn't enter into the equation.
Apr 9, 2009 | comments: 7
Ray Johnson EsqAICP Apr 9, 2009, 5:42pm EDT
I agree with you. That is the problem. Tax and economic policies have been heavily stilted to the upper 2%.

Policies have favored the accumulation of wealth and power among the few. Anti-trust laws have been ignored resulting in businesses that are too big to fail. Individual initiative and small business are severely disadvantaged compared to the huge multinational corporations. When small business is frozen out the result is an oligopoly which results in inefficient allocation of resources.

I would argue that the capital structure actually increases more with a healthy middle class producing products than with income concentrated at the top spending on frivolous things and concentrating on the creation of wealth simply through financial transactions.

We are becoming a new feudal system with the wealth concentrated at the top. That was not exactly a time of economic prosperity.
Apr 2, 2009 | comments: 59
Ray Johnson EsqAICP Apr 9, 2009, 7:58am EDT
This Post should be marked: "Potentially stupid and uninformed"

If you have to go to Wikipedia to figure out what socialism is then you have been listening to too much right wing crap. The theory of free markets capitalism is nothing more than an illusion, promulgated those in control of the means of production. The country has become an oligopoly, designed to stifle free competition and to further concentrate wealth. To an extent, you are right, we are in danger of losing the republic, but not to socialism but to corporatism bought hook line and sinker by the republicans thinking they were preserving the free market system.
Apr 8, 2009 | comments: 6
Ray Johnson EsqAICP Apr 9, 2009, 7:22am EDT
The real threat is of course from Liechtenstein, San Marino, and Andorra, the new Axis of Evil. They hate us because of our freedom to not have health care and not tax the rich. Each of these three countries could mount significant fleets of corporate jets, converted to fighter bombers and could reign havoc across the country. (Assuming they can stop to get fuel in Greenland or Iceland if they can still buy jet fuel)

We need to stop this foolish and counterproductive policy of intelligence gathering and diplomacy and concentrate on those essential elements of our national defense. We need to be able to lock onto and destroy any potential attacker spawned by this Axis of Evil. It is just a matter of months, perhaps only weeks, before they could have the capability to mount a crippling attack.

While we are at it, our defenses against the marauding indians haven't been substantially upgraded in decades. We need to redouble our efforts at building new forts, and armoring our stage coaches.

Get real people, if you want to worry about someone, worry about the Chinese or the Russians, the only ones with the capability to inflict substantial conventional harm in the foreseeable future. Of course, China wood lose its primary trading partner and market for all the goods it produces, the United States of Walmart.

Regan managed to bring the Soviet Union to it's knees by driving it to economic disaster in the arms race. Reagan and Bush are now completing the job on the only remaining superpower, US.

They have the link at the bottom to "Report this as potentially inappropriate," they should have one that says: "Report this as stupid."
Mar 23, 2009 | comments: 19
Ray Johnson EsqAICP Mar 26, 2009, 8:37pm EDT
"Since when is it the President's job to decide how much executives are paid?"

So what, you prefer that the executives themselves decide how much they should be paid? there is no free market determining executive salaries.
Mar 26, 2009 | comments: 8
Ray Johnson EsqAICP Mar 26, 2009, 8:23pm EDT
Bad A.:

If you and your family cannot live comfortably on the measly salary of one million per year then you seriously need to look at your priorities. Is the social value of your work worth 20 times that of a teacher? What do you produce? What difference does your life make in this world?

If this trend continues, who will buy your products? The three million people in this country who can still afford it?

If your position is based upon a hope of the future then you are dreaming. Your chance of making a salary of one million per year is less than 1%.

I'm reminded of a saying: "Cocaine is God's way of telling you that you're making way too much F***ing money."
Mar 26, 2009 | comments: 8
Ray Johnson EsqAICP Mar 26, 2009, 5:14pm EDT
By the way, it's not class envy. It's political and economic reality.
Mar 26, 2009 | comments: 8
Ray Johnson EsqAICP Mar 26, 2009, 5:10pm EDT
I'm sorry if you feel that you will be deprived if your income would be insufficient if it would be only $1,000,000 per year. Maybe you should get a life and think of someone other than yourself.

If you think that the additional $4,000,000 per year will make you happier then you will be sadly disappointed.
Jan 24, 2009 | comments: 94
Ray Johnson EsqAICP Jan 24, 2009, 11:49am EST
A logical question would be: Is it cheaper to let some of the financial industry crash and then pick up the pieces or continue to prop it up. I have a feeling that most of the losses would be taken by the Chinese and OPEC.
Jan 24, 2009 | comments: 94
Ray Johnson EsqAICP Jan 24, 2009, 2:32am EST
Some rambling thoughts:

The past 28 years have shown that trickle down economics does not work. The result has been the concentration of wealth and a decline in family income. In order to maintain standards of living, debt was increased. Lenders were happy to feed this process in order to increase revenue, largely because of the long period of increasing home values and stock prices. When financial institutions were no longer willing to increase debt, the house of cards began to fall.

So what will and will not work to rescue the economy?

At this point, the biggest problem is a total lack of confidence. Consumers who have hit the debt wall begin to default. Those who have not hit the debt wall begin to contract expenditures and pay off debt. Companies , seeing the reduction in consumption by both these classes begin to contract and reduce costs to weather the upcoming storm. This contraction leads to reduced demand and layoffs. It becomes a reinforcing downward spiral. Tax revenues decrease, resulting in government cut backs, layoffs result in increased defaults and loss of health benefits. The increase in indigent patients combined with reduced tax revenues places health care facilities at risk.

Tax cuts will be of marginal value. For corporations, tax savings will be used to purchase other companies or held for contingencies. For the wealthiest taxpayers, tax savings will be hoarded in self preservation. For many middle class taxpayers the tax savings will be utilized primarily to reduce debt or socked away for contingencies. For the lowest wage earners, tax savings will in fact likely be used for additional consumption.

Simply increasing money supply will likely be ineffective, since there is little demand for lending.

The question is what will it take to increase consumer confidence. The likely answer is either an increase in wages or increasing employment. One problemis however that people have become so negative on financial institutions and corporations. Excessive compensation tends to decrease consumer confidence. It may be necessary to show that there will be a change in income distribution to instill confidence.

Ironically, the thing that many criticized President Obama for during the campaign, that all he can do is give a great speech, probably becomes one of the most important tools in the economic recovery arsenal.

It is critical that expenditures be highly visible, either in increasing employment or by creating noticeable improvement in peoples lives, such as infrastructure or health care.
Jan 24, 2009 | comments: 28
Ray Johnson EsqAICP Jan 24, 2009, 1:04am EST
With all Bush's disastrous screw ups he ought to be good for at least ten years. He arguably has accomplished more positive things in his first week than Bush did in his first year.
Aug 31, 2008 | comments: 19
Ray Johnson EsqAICP Oct 29, 2008, 10:20pm EDT
After the election and the inevitable split of the Republican Party, Sarah can take charge of the social conservative wing, which will undoubtedly be dubbed the "Know Nothing Party" regardless of the actual name chosen.
Oct 29, 2008 | comments: 28
Ray Johnson EsqAICP Oct 29, 2008, 10:12pm EDT
Barbara and Linda: check it out, don't just buy the hype. The EFCA is similar to the existing procedure, removing a couple of steps. Cards can be used now. Only now, once the cards have been turned in, the employer can force workers to attend "informational meetings" designed to intimidate workers and discourage unionization. Eventually, the employer may hold an election, maybe, after they fire the union organizers.
Oct 29, 2008 | comments: 63
Ray Johnson EsqAICP Oct 29, 2008, 10:04pm EDT
Hey Lynn, has ever occurred that maybe he is actually thinking before answering. Giving a thoughtful answer rather than merely uttering a sound bite? I like the thought of someone who engages his brain before speaking.
Oct 29, 2008 | comments: 9
Ray Johnson EsqAICP Oct 29, 2008, 9:59pm EDT
Syria was not the target audience for this message. The timing suggests that the target audience was the American people, particularly undecided or uncertain voters. Why else do it one week before the election other than an attempt to influence the election.
Oct 29, 2008 | comments: 28
Ray Johnson EsqAICP Oct 29, 2008, 9:55pm EDT
The program was a continuation of the masterful strategy of the Obama campaign since day one. Steady and consistent. And by the way, with the economy headed south, perhaps literally, someone who can give a good speech and motivate people is essential to recovery.
Oct 29, 2008 | comments: 63
Ray Johnson EsqAICP Oct 29, 2008, 9:51pm EDT
Try some logical thinking, don't just parrot mindless crap.
Oct 12, 2008 | comments: 11
Ray Johnson EsqAICP Oct 15, 2008, 10:37am EDT
Linda:

Maybe its not that you don't bother to check whether what you parrot is true or not, maybe you just don't care, knowing that there are lots of gullible people like you who believe everything they read, no matter how stupid.
Page 1 of 7  first | prev | next 
 
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Make New Friends | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16961, "Pacino"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.