[url]http://www.hoovers.com/free/co/secdoc.xhtml?ipage=2654562&doc=1&num=25[/url]
Our friends at the Securities Exchange Commission seem to think its more than a bake sale.....
Posted by tgl on 2004-09-10 13:42:04 +0000
Sure, eBay had $2 billion in revenue in 2003. They have a market cap. bigger than Microsoft I think...
That's an indication of the sales volume through eBay, it doesn't indicate how much money people are making selling through it. I don't know how eBay's commision rates work, is it a percentage of the overall selling price?
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-10 20:44:02 +0000
Can we all agree that it is more than 25 cents for brownies though?
There are whole sections of the e-bay bible book I got through qpb.com[url]www.qpb.com[/url]
a while ago[url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1592400078/qid=1094848966/sr=8-1/ref=pd_cps_1/104-0635438-8009506?v=glance&s=books&n=507846[/url]
The Publishers Weekly blurb (taken from e-bay and not from the SEC official document I posted earlier) "claims" that over 70,000 Americans earn their living selling on e-bay.
How many people do you know that set up card tables outside of shaws harassing customers are able to do so full time and pay all their bills?
Cheney is reaching here and its not the most mature of quotes, but the overall point I take away from this is that revenue IS generated by people who fall through the cracks of these (un)employment statistics both parties are throwing around currently....
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-10 20:47:06 +0000
[quote:ea20496352] If we only included bake sales and how much money kids make at lemonade stands, this economy would really be cooking," Edwards said in a statement. [/quote:ea20496352]
Also, as a side note, I personally wonder how many unemployed people have earned $$ in frivolous lawsuit settlements gleaned from Edwards....
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-10 21:08:24 +0000
[quote:bfe12d266d]Also, as a side note, I personally wonder how many unemployed people have earned $$ in frivolous lawsuit settlements gleaned from Edwards....
[/quote:bfe12d266d]
That's a joke, right?
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-10 21:36:54 +0000
Half joke / Half Inflammatory statement. I'm not a big fan of trial lawyers, but I also dont have anything to back this up with, more me wondering out loud...
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-10 21:42:46 +0000
Two can play that game:
I personally wonder how many asian teenage boys have been raped in the ass by Cheney...
Posted by tgl on 2004-09-11 14:31:11 +0000
I agree with Dawn here, the parroting of un-founded rumors is a smear campaign. There is no good granted to the political discourse.
You think Edwards has engaged in frivolous lawsuits? Then you need to prove it first before you "wonder aloud". Especially if you are "wondering aloud" to the press about false allegations about war medals, i.e., O'Neil, Dole, and Bush 41.
Back to eBay:
People live off of selling found items, Honor's friend Susan comes to mind. I can't imagine it's a particularly well-paying job. There is a whole culture of flea markets out there that probably gets under-reported economically. It's probably the same with eBay. To classify it as an economic engine for the sellers is generous.
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-11 14:37:10 +0000
Granted, none of this is unemployed revenue, but my biggest verifiable beef with Edwards is that he puts an increased chance that there will be no tort reform on the Kerry administration. Oh yeah, and all that CA money not coming from Hollywood is coming from trial lawyers.
[url]http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005367[/url]
[img:3ed5bcaaa3]http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/71804edwards.jpg[/img:3ed5bcaaa3]
In a Jan. 31 New York Times article, Adam Liptak and Michael Moss explored doubts about Mr. Edwards's lucrative specialty of blaming infants' cerebral palsy on mistakes by obstetricians, in particular their reluctance to perform caesarean sections. (C-section rates have skyrocketed under pressure from such suits, yet rates of cerebral palsy do not seem to have dropped as a result.)
In a Feb. 25 National Journal column, Stuart Taylor Jr. criticized Mr. Edwards's successful bid for $4 million in punitive damages against a trucking company after a crash, on top of $2.5 million in compensatory damages, Mr. Edwards's argument being that the company's practice of paying drivers by the mile had encouraged recklessness. (When he read the relevant passage of Mr. Edwards's book "Four Trials," Mr. Taylor happened to be sitting in the back of a taxi whose driver, like most cabbies, was being paid by the mile, an arrangement seldom deemed unconscionably careless.)
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-13 05:23:39 +0000
Just to be the complete GOP jerk:
rLadew's hesitation and stalling of a truthful discussion of Cheney's anal raping of teenage boys shows just how far reaching it is. All of us would like him to come clean, and either deny or admit to the charges of anal rape. Mr. Cheney, we, like the vast majority of Americans, find anal rape to be a serious offense, and you should not avoid the issue, nor cover up your past crimes. So again we ask: How many teenage boys did you, Mr. Cheney, rape in the ass? America deserves an answer.
Sorry, it's the Rove way, and frankly, it bores me...
I know little about Edwards' trial past.(Were you comparing an 18 wheeler to a taxi?) The trucking company incident's $4 million was too big, and I believe the State of NC started an award cap after that case, something we might all want (as long as it adjusted for inflation) Still he was one of my least favorite VP choices. (Dean, Graham, Biden, or McCain)
Posted by tgl on 2004-09-13 13:54:20 +0000
Just to be the complete GOP jerk (II):
What happened to cogent "eBay as economic liberator for struggling Americans" thread? Are we switching the debate to un-founded smear in order to skip the queasy fact that Americans are not better off than they were four years ago?
The WSJ article could easily have read:
Cheney & Co.
Bush's No. 2 isn't the worst kind of busniessman, but his backers are.
Politicians are money-grubbing whores, on both sides of the aisle, this is one charge that goes both ways.
18 wheelers vs. taxis:
It's an argument of risk. A guy falling asleep at the wheel of an trailer truck on I-80 is going to do considerably more damage than a taxi cab in the city. Especially if he's carrying a load of chemicals.
Back to unemployment:
I agree that people make livings that are not recorded by the unemployment statistics. What sort of livings are they, though? Do you really want to rely on your eBay sales to put food on the table? People living beneath the so-called poverty line ($18k/year) has increased by 1 million this year (to 4 million people). Income has stayed relatively stagnant as well. Considering inflation and increases to health care costs, the economy is not rebounding for the average American.
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-13 15:55:25 +0000
[quote:9d64ea9071]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
If we only included bake sales and how much money kids make at lemonade stands, this economy would really be cooking," Edwards said in a statement.
Also, as a side note, I personally wonder how many unemployed people have earned $$ in frivolous lawsuit settlements gleaned from Edwards....
[/quote:9d64ea9071]
this is the post that veered me off of e-bay, I was just saying that Edwards attacking Cheney's e-bay comments (while I personally think Cheney's e-bay comments were reaching a little bit) was a bit oversimplified giving a bake sale analogy when you look @ e-bay's 10 K.
I did get a little mean (and sidetracked I might add) about the trial lawyer thing, but this is a sore spot / peeve of mine. I feel as a whole this country has too many lawsuits and too many people not taking responsibility for themselves and their own actions when its easier to blame someone else. Being a health care professional myself, I have seen the sky high malpractice insurance, I have seen people / docs I know of be unjustly accused of not doing evertyhing they could do to help a patient and his or her best intrest. Sticking it to the professionals that are doing their best to help us out as patients isn't a good idea. If you've had a bad healthcare outcome, tying up the courts and raising everyone's health care premiums just so you can feel some "closure" doesn't solve anything and makes health care in this country more difficult.
Now: back to e-bay, so we can keep this thread in line: there are many other battles Cheney should choose over this one( such as supporting state rights in gay marriages (which probably wont happen seeing as how the republicans feel they need all the bible thumpers on their side), terrorism, national security, CONSTRUCTIVE ideas on how (or even if in the long run to proceed in Iraq).
the last 4 years the republicans have spent $$ like drunken sailors (or me in a record store ;0 > which highly concerns me and other people that view themselves as fiscal conservatives. Bush did support steel Tarrifs as well as Farm subsidies which also brought the deficit skyhigh. I know the Steel Tariffs were repealed, but my point here is that Bush has a lot of problems he needs to work out if we are talking about the economy.
If I dont leave the thread at this, I will probably veer off again.... we'll see what happens...
Posted by tgl on 2004-09-13 16:10:48 +0000
[quote:340b90eabc="rladew"]this is the post that veered me off of e-bay, I was just saying that Edwards attacking Cheney's e-bay comments (while I personally think Cheney's e-bay comments were reaching a little bit) was a bit oversimplified giving a bake sale analogy when you look @ e-bay's 10 K.[/quote:340b90eabc]
It may be an oversimplification, but eBay's 10 K indicates good news for eBay not necessarily for those trying to sell something through it.
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-13 16:27:17 +0000
[quote:b23e89fe69]People living beneath the so-called poverty line ($18k/year) has increased by 1 million this year (to 4 million people). Income has stayed relatively stagnant as well. Considering inflation and increases to health care costs, the economy is not rebounding for the average American.
[/quote:b23e89fe69]
As a human being, it is my responsibility to help those that have less than I do, but this is not the government's responsibility. The government cant get rid of poverty by taxing people more, punishing people who save and invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds and other securites.
Social responsibility committees at churches, personal volunteer time, and donations to groups such as United Way , WUNH, Boston Creative Music Alliance, and NPR are things I have done to ensure this.
What's the sense in getting the gov't more involved (and us as taxpayers) when the gov't cant force any individual to behave compassionately? We as people should treat others with respect so other people will follow the example. A government that "makes" you do this is patronizing at best.
Its not just the repeal of the 2% wealthiest tax cuts that economic conservative people are railing against here.
For example, I just set up a 529 savings plan for Maddie. In 2024, when Maddie will be 18(!) the estimate cost for 4 years @ a university is around 250,000 K. With a 529, I can save money that I have earned through my own hard work and save it tax deferred as long as when I take it out, it goes towards college expenses. Kerry voted against these education savings plans 3 times in the senate. Health savings accounts, as well as day care tax free accounts have also been established in 2001 after Bush took office. I can now have expenses such as Maddie's daycare and Jackie's glasses / contacts be reimbursed. I make about 30K a year, and all of these savings plans where I get to choose more of waht to do with my own money benefit me, a member of the working class, not this 2% of wealthy heartless bastards.
Posted by tgl on 2004-09-13 17:13:52 +0000
C'mon, you're putting words in my mouth! I haven't advocated any of these government programs...yet. I guess you're giving me "deep background" on your politics, which is welcome.
My point is that the economy isn't working for many people right now. While indicators may point to a rebounding economy, there has yet to be a "trickle down" to the majority of Americans. The Adminstration hasn't or won't realise this., and their supposed to be the ones that are in touch with the average American.
--------------------
The government shouldn't be responsible for corporate profits either. We (the American Taxpayer) bailed out the Savings & Loans, bailed out the Airline Industry, have made Big Pharmaceutical richer, etc., etc.
Government, as the way we organize our society, should be interested in people in poverty, education, public health. Everyone making less than 50K a year depending on the emergency room for health care just isn't a good idea. It may even hurt those who can pay for private care by clogging up the emergency services. If we can't get the people educated properly, we'll be a nation of Wal-Mart clerks and burger flippers, isn't that a societal concern that is best remedied through Government? Bush agrees, BTW, otherwise why does he support sending funds to faith-base initiatives?
I'm not saying that the means Government uses is the best, just that there are problems in society that need to be fixed and effect all of us, making it in our interest to fix them.
It's great that you have the extra money to save in all these Government approved savings accounts. It's nice to have tax-deferred accounts for saving money for "important" expenses, I do that too. What about all the people don't make enough money to save anything?
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-13 17:21:46 +0000
[quote:7d9d764ef7]It's great that you have the extra money to save in all these Government approved savings accounts. It's nice to have tax-deferred accounts for saving money for "important" expenses, I do that too. What about all the people don't make enough money to save anything?[/quote:7d9d764ef7]
Is that a robin hood argument?
there should be a base level of care people can get, but along with that there needs to be INCENTIVE for people to earn, learn and contribute to our society. It's not a matter of having extra $$ to save either. I have to pay for daycare, OTC and prescription drugs, copays, vision stuff anyways those are all expenses, not luxuries, so I am just trying to put it in a place that my ultra wealthy 30K income cna be reduced so I dont have to pay as much on it in taxes.
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-13 17:26:33 +0000
I hate corporate welfare just as much, if not more than social welfare. Enron, Healthsouth, et al. give me the creeps. I just feel putting more cooks in the kitchen in the Whitehouse wont do the job to fix the problem.
Posted by tgl on 2004-09-13 18:30:07 +0000
[quote:e6ea67fdc3="rladew"]Is that a robin hood argument?[/quote:e6ea67fdc3]
I don't think so. I'm just saying savings accounts are great if you are able to generate savings. Lots of people can't do that right now. No one is becoming wealthy on welfare (didn't we reform that, btw? aren't welfare roles dropping?).
[quote:e6ea67fdc3="rladew"]there should be a base level of care people can get, but along with that there needs to be INCENTIVE for people to earn, learn and contribute to our society.[/quote:e6ea67fdc3]
I really think that most people want to work (look at all the immigrants to this nation that come here just for that), you've lost me on what the incentive might be. Feeding, clothing, and sheltering your family seems to be a healthy incentive.
[quote:e6ea67fdc3="rladew"] It's not a matter of having extra $$ to save either. I have to pay for daycare, OTC and prescription drugs, copays, vision stuff anyways those are all expenses, not luxuries, so I am just trying to put it in a place that my ultra wealthy 30K income cna be reduced so I dont have to pay as much on it in taxes.[/quote:e6ea67fdc3]
Right! The couple hundred bucks you've saved in taxes are being eaten on health care costs! If we had a reasonable health care system that was predicated on keeping people healthy, not on generating profits...
I know! I know! The profit motive helps to drive down costs, it's just that the primary way of driving down costs is to kick poor people out of the system.
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-13 18:57:30 +0000
[quote:1efca22d08]I really think that most people want to work (look at all the immigrants to this nation that come here just for that), you've lost me on what the incentive might be. Feeding, clothing, and sheltering your family seems to be a healthy incentive.[/quote:1efca22d08]
So ultimately, you believe the government has a responsibility to do this. Is that correct?
I just feel we as a community and we as individuals have an obligation and a responsibility to do this, not sending $$$ I have no way of tracking or ever seeing again to DC....
at least w/ state taxes I see new schools (2) in Merrimack and local roads being worked on. If it directly benefits me and more importantly the community I'm in Im more likely to buy this argument, but sending it to Washington? forget it.
Posted by tgl on 2004-09-13 19:05:15 +0000
[quote:0ed1f5e23d="i"]I really think that most people want to work (look at all the immigrants to this nation that come here just for that), you've lost me on what the incentive might be. Feeding, clothing, and sheltering your family seems to be a healthy incentive.[/quote:0ed1f5e23d]
[quote:0ed1f5e23d="rladew"]So ultimately, you believe the government has a responsibility to do this. Is that correct?[/quote:0ed1f5e23d]
No, I was enumerating the incentives for people to work. I never said it was government's responsibility to do any of those things for anyone's family. I was addressing your claim of an incentive for people to earn, learn and contribute to society. I thnk we're on the same page, here.
I _did_ say that in a society there are social problems that need to be addressed, the government (by which we organize society) is a reasonable way of addressing them.
Posted by tgl on 2004-09-13 19:08:06 +0000
[quote:213691b1b1="rladew"]I just feel we as a community and we as individuals have an obligation and a responsibility to do this, not sending $$$ I have no way of tracking or ever seeing again to DC....[/quote:213691b1b1]
The United States budget is an open book. You _can_ track expenditures, something you can't reliably do with private organizations.