The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: Alpha Mare on October 23, 2009, 09:43:22 AM
-
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Treasury Department on Thursday ordered seven companies that received billions of dollars in government bailouts to halve total compensation for their top executives. But the big reductions will not apply to pay earned before November.
Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve unveiled a proposal Thursday that for the first time would police banks' pay policies to ensure they don't encourage employees to take reckless gambles like those that contributed to the financial crisis.
Unlike the Treasury plan, the Fed proposal would cover thousands of banks, including many that never received a bailout.
Speaking earlier at the White House, President Barack Obama welcomed Treasury's decision and said Americans' values are offended by excessive paychecks for executives whose companies were bailed out by taxpayers. He urged Congress to pass legislation to give shareholders a voice in executive pay packages.
Smaller companies and those that have repaid the bailout money, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., are not affected by the plan.
Chrysler Group LLC CEO Sergio Marchionne and other Fiat executives who work for both Chrysler and Fiat were exempted from the pay cuts as part of the agreement with the U.S. government for Fiat to take over management control of Chrysler and get a 20 percent stake in the company.
Elsewhere, Freddie Mac is giving its chief financial officer compensation worth as much as $5.5 million, including a $2 million signing bonus. The government-controlled mortgage finance company doesn't have to follow the executive compensation rules because it is being paid outside the TARP.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BGDDN02&show_article=1
They'll choose who "offends" our values and who doesn't.
Edited- forgot link.
-
Don't look now, but the Fed is extending their grasp of control of banking.
Fed outlines plan to police bank pay
The Federal Reserve would police banks' pay policies to ensure they don't encourage employees to take reckless gambles like those that contributed to the financial crisis, according to a proposal unveiled Thursday.
Unlike a Treasury plan to slash pay at certain companies that were bailed out with large sums of taxpayer money, the Fed proposal would cover thousands of banks, including many that never received a bailout.
Link (http://www.sanluisobispo.com/topnews/story/893641.html)
At what point will we see an end to this BS? Why not set pay limits on plumbers and electricians, college professors?
-
Don't look now, but the Fed is extending their grasp of control of banking.
Link (http://www.sanluisobispo.com/topnews/story/893641.html)
At what point will we see an end to this BS? Why not set pay limits on plumbers and electricians, college professors?
Chuckie Schumer is already talking about this.
They want to limit the maximum salary to $1,000,000 / year, but athletes and movie stars will be exempt from that limit.
-
Chuckie Schumer is already talking about this.
They want to limit the maximum salary to $1,000,000 / year, but athletes and movie stars will be exempt from that limit.
Maybe it's time for a limit on how much congress critters can make. Not just from their salaries, but total from investments and whatnot. That would put an end to people like Rangel not knowing how much they are cheating on their taxes.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BGDDN02&show_article=1
They'll choose who "offends" our values and who doesn't.
Edited- forgot link.
You know what? It does offend me that corporations receiving taxpayer money to stay afloat are paying top executives obscene amounts of money, throwing lavish parties, and so on and so forth. That's why I was against the bailouts to begin with, because now the public has a vested interest in what goes on at private corporations. I also have no pity; the corporations receiving aid never should have accepted it in the first place.
These bailouts were planned with this end in mind.
-
Well, I dunno.
Shelley-0 offended my values by being named a do-nothing hospital official and getting paid--what, more than a million bucks?--for it.
-
You know what? It does offend me that corporations receiving taxpayer money to stay afloat are paying top executives obscene amounts of money, throwing lavish parties, and so on and so forth. That's why I was against the bailouts to begin with, because now the public has a vested interest in what goes on at private corporations. I also have no pity; the corporations receiving aid never should have accepted it in the first place.
These bailouts were planned with this end in mind.
I agree on companies that received a bailout. But this won't stop there, as the Fed plan shows, or in the case of Freddie Mac. This is only the beginning.
-
Chuckie Schumer is already talking about this.
They want to limit the maximum salary to $1,000,000 / year, but athletes and movie stars will be exempt from that limit.
How does Hollywood vote again? :whatever:
-
I agree on companies that received a bailout. But this won't stop there, as the Fed plan shows, or in the case of Freddie Mac. This is only the beginning.
Oh certainly. Give a fascist an inch and he'll drag you a mile over shattered glass.
-
And they called the Republicans power-hungry? Oh my.
and you guys are right, this is just the beginning. America will never be the same if we don't do something to stop this madness.
-
So when do they decide that a network administrator makes too much money? Or a sales guy? Or anyone who receives a tax break, or stimulus money?
This fawked and unconstitutional no matter how you sell it.
-
O-dingdong offends my values yet I still see he's around shredding the REAL values of most Americans.
-
Don't look now, but the Fed is extending their grasp of control of banking.
Link (http://www.sanluisobispo.com/topnews/story/893641.html)
At what point will we see an end to this BS? Why not set pay limits on plumbers and electricians, college professors?
Oh, don't you fret your pretty little head on that--it'll be here on you and me soon enough.
-
Speaking earlier at the White House, President Barack Obama welcomed Treasury's decision and said Americans' values are offended by excessive paychecks for executives whose companies were bailed out by taxpayers. He urged Congress to pass legislation to give shareholders a voice in executive pay packages.
I'm offended by the salaries and benefits received by our congresscritters. I say they should be determined by the voters (shareholders) in this country. We can pay them exactly what they are worth....from state coffers, not fed tax dollars.
-
I'm offended by the salaries and benefits received by our congresscritters. I say they should be determined by the voters (shareholders) in this country. We can pay them exactly what they are worth....from state coffers, not fed tax dollars.
Agree with this eleventy-million percent.
-
I'm offended by the salaries and benefits received by our congresscritters. I say they should be determined by the voters (shareholders) in this country. We can pay them exactly what they are worth....from state coffers, not fed tax dollars.
Next up: they'll pass a law requiring employers to let the employees set their own pay, work hours, sick days, holidays and vacation time. Oh wait, that might be thrown in with the card check bill.
-
You know what? It does offend me that corporations receiving taxpayer money to stay afloat are paying top executives obscene amounts of money, throwing lavish parties, and so on and so forth. That's why I was against the bailouts to begin with, because now the public has a vested interest in what goes on at private corporations. I also have no pity; the corporations receiving aid never should have accepted it in the first place.
These bailouts were planned with this end in mind.
Hi,
While I agree with you in theory, I have some points to make. It is the stockholders, (the owners of the company) who should decide how much the executives get paid. HP has as part of their corporation documents that all executive pay has to be approved by the stockholders; whereas the directors of many major corporations decide compensation. If the government really wanted to do what is right they should pass a law that all executive compensation must be approved by the stockholders.
Second, many firms took bailout money after they were forced to buy banks, brokerage firms etc. that were failing.....but the government pressured them into buying them. If they government really wanted to fix things they could easily pass a law that says banks must be in the banking business, not the investment business, and brokerage houses do the opposite. The primary cause of the entire bust is the government forcing banks into making loans to people who could not pay them back. Thank Barney Frank, Pelosi, Reed, Dodd and BO who helped Acorn raise hell in all the bank lobbies. Lending money to people who cannot pay it back is just stupid, unless you are the government and want to punish the taxpayers by pushing a stupid social agenda.
And finally, the more the government fixes salaries, the more the best and brightest will go elsewhere.....that is something we do not need. How does the government that is quadrupling the national debt justify salary increases for all government employees when the rest of the country is being laid off or taking huge salary cuts?
How about passing a law mandating that the congressional retirement plan be dumped and all members of congress go on social security like the rest of us?
How about a law mandating that all government employees including congress, the executive branch etc. must be covered under the health care bill in congress, they are allowed no special treatment?
The market will fix itself if the government would get the hell out of the way.
regards,
5412
-
...
The market will fix itself if the government would get the hell out of the way.
Sir, I completely agree in particular with this sentiment, but also with your overall post. I also appreciated how you briefly touched on the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act via the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and the damage it's wrought on the financial industry.
Government interference in everything from the banking industry to the real estate industry has resulted in our current situation, and yet our stupid government stupidly thinks more government interference is the only thing that will save us. Stupid is as stupid does, I suppose.
-
Sir, I completely agree in particular with this sentiment, but also with your overall post. I also appreciated how you briefly touched on the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act via the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and the damage it's wrought on the financial industry.
Government interference in everything from the banking industry to the real estate industry has resulted in our current situation, and yet our stupid government stupidly thinks more government interference is the only thing that will save us. Stupid is as stupid does, I suppose.
Hi,
This came in today, part of a report I get called Casey's Daily dispatch. Thought you might appreciate it.
regards,
5412
Lessons Not Learned
Dear Reader,
This morning, Steve Hanke, professor of Applied Economics at John Hopkins University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, sent me his latest article for GlobeAsia, titled "Hu vs. Sarkozy." In it, he contrasts the socialist president of France with the rather more capitalist attitude of China's leader.
His theme - that the more a government meddles, the more it retards economic recovery - will strike no new chords with you, dear reader. Yet his concise language and clarity of thought in setting the historical context for where we are in the current crisis is well worth a quick read. And I quote:
Just reflect for a moment on the most frequently repeated lessons drawn from the Great Depression (1929-33). According to most accounts, the stock market crash of October 1929 was the spark that sent the economy spiraling downward. How could this be? After all, by November 1929, the stock market had started to recover, and by mid-April 1930, it had reached its pre-crash level. Contrary to the received wisdom, massive government failure - not the stock market crash - pushed the United States into the Great Depression. It was the Federal Reserve that ushered in that terrible nightmare. During the course of the Great Depression, the money supply contracted by 25%. This sent the economy into a deflationary death spiral, with the price level falling 25%.
The Federal Reserve was not the only culprit. In the name of saving jobs, the Smoot-Hawley trade bill became law in June 1930. That intervention increased U.S. tariffs by over 50%. It was quickly followed by the imposition of retaliatory tariffs in 60 other countries. In consequence, world trade collapsed and the unemployment rate in the U.S. surged from 7.8% in June 1930 to 24.7% in 1933.
In addition to the Smoot-Hawley tariff wedge, the Hoover administration and the Democratic Congress imposed the largest tax increase in U.S. history, with the top tax rate on income jumping from 25% to 63% in 1932. If these government policies weren't destructive enough, the Roosevelt administration's New Deal created regime uncertainty because major policies were being changed so rapidly. As a result, investors were afraid to commit funds to new projects and private investment collapsed.
Far from saving the patient, government intervention came close to killing it. But you wouldn't know it from listening to the current discourse about the Panic of 2008-09. Indeed, politicians and pundits throughout the world have unfortunately dialed back to the Great Depression and drawn on the false lessons of history for policy guidance and justifications for their mega-interventions.
David again. With that history lesson in mind, let's do a quick tally of how things now stand, shall we?
The Fed. Once again, the Fed is right in the middle of things - but this time around energetically expanding the monetary base in the hope that it will fix all that ails.
As you look at the chart of the monetary base just below, you'll see that after an initial round of explosive growth, the Fed slowed things down a bit. Interestingly, however, the latest data show the resumption of a steep upwards trajectory. This can be attributed to the Fed attempting to keep mortgage rates down -- and therefore the housing market from a final smack-down -- through accelerated purchasing of massive quantities of mortgage-backed securities. Regardless, whichever way you look at it, this is intervention writ large.
Taxes. Even without the slate of new and proposed taxes already in the works, simply allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire next year represents one of the largest tax increases in U.S. history. According to the Heritage Foundation, the resulting increase in tax bills will ring in at $2.4 trillion. Have a nice day, because next year the taxes on all your nice days are going up.
Trade Wars. To date, the administration has poured cement into the free-trade bucket through the "Buy American" provisions of the stimulus package and, more recently, tariffs on Chinese products. And, by doing so, it has set an easy-to-understand example for the world to emulate.
Far more potentially damaging, however, has been the deliberate decision to sacrifice the dollar in an effort to avoid the crash-bang-value discovery that would have occurred had the market been allowed its hard crash. As things now stand, we have the Chinese matching our dollar decline step by step, causing other export-reliant countries to follow suit or to begin making angry noises about fair play and the need to level the playing field.
In short, the U.S. government's competitive currency devaluation is moving the world briskly down the road toward the same raising of trade barricades engendered by Mssrs. Smoot and Hawley.
Legislative Limbo. From trying to kick-start a dying, union-dominated, heavy manufacturing industry. to padding the nests of some Wall Street brights while stripping those of others. to micro-adjusting bank fees. to playing doctor. to trying to legislate global climate. to. to. it becomes near impossible for even the most attentive investor to know where things stand and therefore, how to invest.
Sell my coal stocks? Buy nuclear? Or sell nuclear and buy ethanol? Invest in car companies, or steer clear because without Uncle Sam they'll fail anyway? But what if the good uncle continues giving? Then again, how long can Uncle Sam keep giving? And where's he going to get the money from? Buy real estate? But what if interest rates rise due to all the money being thrown about willy-nilly? Short commercial real estate? Or buy because the feds will step in, wallets open? Arrgh. ugh. gads!
I have, on occasion, been accused of being overly negative on the near-term outlook of the U.S. economy. I confess to that attitude, but only because unless and until the government stops pushing forward its latest round of economic "assistance," topped off with a large dollop of regulatory "relief," the way forward for the U.S. economy seems destined to first taking several steps back -- back to a point where the lessons of the Great Depression are once again learned.
In the meantime, we have to grab for what straws we can - prominently including precious metals, which will benefit as the dollar weakens, as it must, and which, held close to hand, have no counterparty liability. That and focusing on deep values in well-run companies, which, should you be unable to identify at any given moment, should leave you happy to remain liquid until such values again make themselves apparent
-
...
Sir, I very much enjoyed reading that. I was initially crafting responses to key points, but the article was so appropriate and so well-written that anything I would've contributed would have been redundant. I question the author's assertion that we're about to see a dollar collapse, but that's a minor point in the face of the coming economic onslaught.
Thank you for sharing.
-
Sir, I very much enjoyed reading that. I was initially crafting responses to key points, but the article was so appropriate and so well-written that anything I would've contributed would have been redundant. I question the author's assertion that we're about to see a dollar collapse, but that's a minor point in the face of the coming economic onslaught.
Thank you for sharing.
Hi,
I feel very strongly the dollar is going to collapse. If you look at the Alinsky playbook, not so sure that is not what BO wants. The theory is when it does, anarchy is next and then he and Acorn can come in and save the day. They are banking on the idea that people will gladly give up freedom for security.
I have having the best investment year in my life because I am in metals and foreign currencies. What really scares me is the number of folks my age who are going to see their entire life savings eaten up by inflation. I keep trying to tell them that they will see $100,000 Camry's before they die and they just don't get it.
Hopefully you are hedging your bets, there are several ETF's and other ways to do so.
regards,
5412
-
I agree on companies that received a bailout...
But many of those companies are being run by execs that were brought in AFTER the mltdown to help rebuild or gracefully close those companies.
They're getting ****ed for helping.
Many more banks never wanted bailout money but were forced to take it...now they're being unished too.
It isn't even a punishment, it's just a plain powergrab.
-
But many of those companies are being run by execs that were brought in AFTER the mltdown to help rebuild or gracefully close those companies.
They're getting ****ed for helping.
Many more banks never wanted bailout money but were forced to take it...now they're being unished too.
It isn't even a punishment, it's just a plain powergrab.
War has been declared on "the rich". Success is being punished. It's just not fair for one person to have more than another. [/DUmp mode]
-
War has been declared on "the rich". Success is being punished. It's just not fair for one person to have more than another. [/DUmp mode]
They dems/fascists did everything they could both legal and illegal to destroy Joe the Plumber because he asked a simple question and Obama slipped-up and told the truth.
They hate Joe but they love Obama for the exact same reasons. These libs know what they are doing is fascist in nature because they WANT to do it but they just don't want people to know that is what they are doing. Conservatives by contrast are proud to trumpet their policy agenda.
-
They dems/fascists did everything they could both legal and illegal to destroy Joe the Plumber because he asked a simple question and Obama slipped-up and told the truth.
They hate Joe but they love Obama for the exact same reasons. These libs know what they are doing is fascist in nature because they WANT to do it but they just don't want people to know that is what they are doing. Conservatives by contrast are proud to trumpet their policy agenda.
This inherent dishonesty is one of the major reasons I went form more left-leaning to more right-leaning the further in my 20's I got. This hidden agenda of liberals disgusts me and is underhanded and it takes advantage of people that liberals claim to champion(they don't). It plays on their simple ordering upstairs(and ordering that could be corrected by teaching what needs taught in schools including critical thinking and dispensing with the race/class/gender wars). Liberalism banks on enough people being blissfully ignorant to get to its ends and on playing to the lowest common denominator in the human playbook(jealousy and greed). Turned me off the more I thought about it over the years.
**And no, I'm not suggesting everyone is exempt from jealousy and greed, but they are instincts that can be modified and encouraged towards positive ends. I think capitalism with some regulation to reign in the naughtiness on both ends is a positive end of people and business fulfilling first their needs and then their wants and both 'animals' survive and prosper in it. I could go on and on, but I have to shuffle off and get some remaining elements for Halloween costumes.
-
The DUmmy Solution:
Union Yes (1000+ posts) Fri Oct-23-09 10:02 PM
Original message
A plan for controlling CEO/Exec pay AND bonuses.
If a CEO/Exec makes more than 7 times the lowest paid employee of said company then tax that CEO's income over the 7 times threshhold. Tax the income/comp over the threshhold at 90%.
Example:
A CEO is compensated $1 million for the year. The lowest paid employee makes $20,000 in that same year.
7 X 20000= $140,000
Meaning that said CEO's income from $140,001 to his/her $1 million total salary/comp would be taxed at a 90% rate.
His/her first $140,000 in earnings would be taxed at the normal marginal rate.(Which also needs to be raised on the superwealthy.)
Profits need to be divided equally among all workers of a company. Not just handed out to the top company officials.
American business has become one gigantic ponzi scheme that redistributes the wealth upward to the top income earners, the super wealthy.
This ponzi scheme has led us into the great American shame known as the wealth divide.
This ponzi scheme has left the remaining 80% of us Americans broke. With rampant unemployment and falling wages. Our economy can no longer sustain itself.
The fact that 80% of us are broke is why our economy is crumbling.
How can a nations economy sustain when 80% of the people can't afford to spend to support and grow our economy.
America has gone broke due to the greed of the super wealthy.
The ponzi scheme has got to stop.
Capitalism is Un-American.
Anyone remember Namaste Solar, the employee-owned company where Obama signed the Stimulus Bill? Even with government subsidies, the company admits they were failing. Now they receive cash grants for each project, thanks to their buddy in the WH.
-
Capitalism is Un-American.
The tenets of proper capitalism mirror the tenets of the American Republic. You could not possibly be more wrong, DUmmie.
-
Hollywood.
People getting paid million to play pretend.
-
War has been declared on "the rich". Success is being punished. It's just not fair for one person to have more than another. [/DUmp mode]
He based his whole campaign on 'division'- rich/poor, have/have not.
-
He based his whole campaign on 'division'- rich/poor, have/have not.
Nowhere is that made clearer than HERE. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1)
And if you look at CNN's exit polling, you'd see that. Among people with family incomes at or above $50K, the vote is damn near tied. Below 50K, it goes overwhelmingly to Obama--in fact, the lower the income, the more likely one is to be an Obama voter.
Class warfare, indeed--and he played it to the hilt. But what happens when he can't deliver?
-
The tenets of proper capitalism mirror the tenets of the American Republic. You could not possibly be more wrong, DUmmie.
Hi,
In America we have equal OPPORTUNITY, and no guarantee of equal SUCCESS. Like it or not there is a basic economic law of supply and demand. If supply is short and demand is high, the price goes up, reverse the situation, the price goes down. Guess what? That too, for most anyway, is the basis for how we are paid. If there were another 100,000 heart surgeons in the country, heart surgery would be a lot cheaper.
No human being on this planet should be guaranteed a damn thing just for showing up, and even more for seniority. Let me give you an example. I have a friend who took over a business that was doing a billion dollars in sales. Two years after he took over, he took them to $1,400,000,000 in sales, a 40% increase, plus he increased their gross profit margin by a full 2%.
If you have to figure that out, 2% of $1.4 billion is $28 million in increased profits as a result of his leadership. At the end of the year he got a million dollar bonus from top management. Think he didn't earn it??? Not too many folks are capable of doing that kind of thing but he is energetic, innovative, and a very smart guy who knows how to lead and motivate people. Because some union schlep makes $40,000/ year should have no bearing on what my friend made. If the union guy does not like it, or thinks it is unfair, let him go back to college, get his degree, work 80+ hours a week like my friend did for 25 years before he even had the chance to do what he did.
And guess what, I do not begrudge Hollywood stars for the money they make. You want to make a movie, you find a top star and pay him/her $15 million to play in the movie. It grosses $150 million and you end up making $50 million or more........I would call you a smart businessman. I know for a fact that George Steinbrenner nets a $50 million profit with the Yankees, despite a $200 million dollar payroll. I do not begrudge any of his players for their high salaries, they make their owner rich.
Better they should get it than Steinbrenner make even more money.
If folks do not like it, quit, get a better job, go into a different field, start your own business. Hell Colonel Sanders made a billion dollars after he was 70 years old by packaging his mama's recipe for fried chicken.....
Bottom line is simple. Because there are those who achieve, you have two choices, take from them and reward the underachievers, or encourage others to achieve, get rich and create even more jobs for Americans. Tis the latter process that has made us the greatest, most innovative country in the world. Our standard of living for all, even our poorest, is the envy of every country in the world. Our middle class live like kings compared to most other societies.
I have had it with the socialist, communist bullshit. It is a failed economic system, has never worked and never will.
regards,
5412
-
Unfortunately, 5412, we have passed some sort of event horizon with regard to the socialism/communism model. Whereas a few decades ago one would vehemently deny any charge of favoring that lunacy, now we have "intellectual leaders" openly agitating for it. Even worse is that capitalism, the lifeblood of any free and prosperous society, is viewed as some sort of necessary evil, if not outright condemned by the short-sighted left. We have barely a semblance of true, free-market capitalism currently. And yet, any economic problem or failure is somehow viewed as resulting from the evils of capitalism as opposed to the oppressive presence of an incompetent government in areas it has no business interfering.
We are headed to such great ruin in such a short amount of time that by the time the government gets through with us, the people will be begging for socialism, all the while ignoring the government's role in our failure in the first place.
And let's not forget, the only thing that ever saves any socialist utopia is a measured application of capitalism. Socialism is entirely predicated on destruction, so why is anyone surprised when destruction is the final result, every single time?
-
Unfortunately, 5412, we have passed some sort of event horizon with regard to the socialism/communism model. Whereas a few decades ago one would vehemently deny any charge of favoring that lunacy, now we have "intellectual leaders" openly agitating for it. Even worse is that capitalism, the lifeblood of any free and prosperous society, is viewed as some sort of necessary evil, if not outright condemned by the short-sighted left. We have barely a semblance of true, free-market capitalism currently. And yet, any economic problem or failure is somehow viewed as resulting from the evils of capitalism as opposed to the oppressive presence of an incompetent government in areas it has no business interfering.
We are headed to such great ruin in such a short amount of time that by the time the government gets through with us, the people will be begging for socialism, all the while ignoring the government's role in our failure in the first place.
And let's not forget, the only thing that ever saves any socialist utopia is a measured application of capitalism. Socialism is entirely predicated on destruction, so why is anyone surprised when destruction is the final result, every single time?
Hi,
I agree. The only solution I can see is term limits. Those in politics have turned stealing our tax dollars to buy votes into a friggin art form. You steal from achievers to reward those that don't and give it a catchy name like "social justice".
We went to watch my grandson (10) play football today. The neighborhood was a poor one and I said to my wife that the current administration would look at it and blame the rich, greedy white man for all the injustice. Yet when one looked closer he would notice many fancy BMW's, they all had cell phones, many had nice clothes, and those I spoke to were polite, and some seemed to be well educated.......and that was in a neighborhood right off Martin Luther King Boulevard. Drive into the slums in any country in central or south America, or in Africa and see how it compares.
The day our society learns to stop paying able bodied people not to work, and instead encourages them to work and get ahead, the level will rise for all. I got into a big argument with a liberal family member recently about the illegal immigrants. Their contention is they are doing jobs Americans don't want to do. No shit! Stop paying Americans not to work who are capable and see how quickly they start bitching about the illegals taking away their jobs. I do not know one person of means who did not start at the bottom for the minimum wage.....but the important thing was they worked and earned what they got. They learned, got smarter and moved up the ladder. If we pay folks who can work to stay home and do nothing the only thing it does is serve to keep certain politicians in office.
As a 16 year old I worked 80 hours a week for $1/hour, no overtime. Part of that job was shoveling horse manure and cleaning out stalls. That was one of many jobs I had that I learned full well what I did not want to do for the rest of my life, and that I had to figure out a way to work hard and get ahead. Maybe I am from the old school, and so be it, but I feel that is how the system is supposed to work.
regards,
5412
-
If you're from the old-school, then so am I as a man in my late 20's, and I wouldn't have it any other way. My wife and I are not financially well-off by any means. We put a lot of thought into decisions over things like eating out or buying a six-pack. This is also a temporary situation until I finish the requirements for my surveying license. After that, who knows, the possibilities are nearly endless. My point being, I have worked and am working very hard to provide for myself, my family, and our future. It enrages me to turn around and then be told that I'm selfish for wanting to keep the fruits of that labor, as if that's some kind of bad thing. Selfish? Absolutely. I do not recognize any man's need as some sort of moral imperative. How could I be charitable otherwise? Charity is by definition not achieved through compulsion. Instead of helping the unfortunate, the left has condemned them by telling them they have a right to something simply because they need it. Should we then be surprised when we see the poor get poorer, and the entitlement class balloon?
Term limits would be nice, but enacting them would be tantamount to asking politicians to cut off their own heads (although that's also a platform I could get behind). Ideally, the best politicians would be those who don't want the job in the first place.
I also am disgusted with the ignorance of the left regarding your point about what "poor" truly is. The truly poor from other countries risk life and limb, crossing shark infested waters, trudging across barren deserts, just for the chance to be as well-off as the poorest American. Those who aren't that lucky simply sit in their home countries and wait to die. I wish those who push for a socialist utopia within our borders could be given a one-way ticket to the country of their choice, on the condition that they may never return. I wonder how many would take that offer.
-
Ideally, the best politicians would be those who don't want the job in the first place.
Great post, Chump. And completely on target.
I believe anyone who aspires to "public office" has to have a screw loose anyway. There are those who are idealistic and truly believe they can "make a difference." These are the people who think that their brains and youthful vigor will carry the day.
Then they run into the status quo and quickly learn that if they aspire to make their career truly a career, well, they'll play the game by the party's rules - regardless how underhanded. And they toe the line - or they're gone. And being "gone" is not acceptable.
God bless that candidate that steps up and says, "This is not something I truly want to do, but I'm willing because I believe. I've been on this planet for a few years, have seen a few things, and have some ideas that I think will work. Here are those ideas, and here are my positions on the issues."
And then proceeds to do precisely what his/her electorate tells him to do, within the information that he has. If his electorate doesn't have all the information, he finds a way to get it to them.
If he's smart, he'll use the media as useful idiots, will play their game, but won't rely on them to get the message across.
-
If you're from the old-school, then so am I as a man in my late 20's, and I wouldn't have it any other way. My wife and I are not financially well-off by any means. We put a lot of thought into decisions over things like eating out or buying a six-pack. This is also a temporary situation until I finish the requirements for my surveying license. After that, who knows, the possibilities are nearly endless. My point being, I have worked and am working very hard to provide for myself, my family, and our future. It enrages me to turn around and then be told that I'm selfish for wanting to keep the fruits of that labor, as if that's some kind of bad thing. Selfish? Absolutely. I do not recognize any man's need as some sort of moral imperative. How could I be charitable otherwise? Charity is by definition not achieved through compulsion. Instead of helping the unfortunate, the left has condemned them by telling them they have a right to something simply because they need it. Should we then be surprised when we see the poor get poorer, and the entitlement class balloon?
Term limits would be nice, but enacting them would be tantamount to asking politicians to cut off their own heads (although that's also a platform I could get behind). Ideally, the best politicians would be those who don't want the job in the first place.
I also am disgusted with the ignorance of the left regarding your point about what "poor" truly is. The truly poor from other countries risk life and limb, crossing shark infested waters, trudging across barren deserts, just for the chance to be as well-off as the poorest American. Those who aren't that lucky simply sit in their home countries and wait to die. I wish those who push for a socialist utopia within our borders could be given a one-way ticket to the country of their choice, on the condition that they may never return. I wonder how many would take that offer.
Hi chump,
You have no idea how much your message hit home. I was married at 19, had three kids when I was 22. In those days you cleaned up after yourself, you did not walk away and let the government step in with aid to dependent children. I worked three jobs and went to night school for ten years. We had a $20/week grocery budget and if we had any money left over we would buy a carton of coke and split one at midnight when I came home from the late job. I barely remember my 20's other than we had three kids in diapers, a washer, no dryer, and there was no such thing as disposable diapers in those days. We had diapers hanging up and drying all over the house. You did what you had to do to survive.....and I was also in the Marine Corps reserve for a good portion of that time going for training on weekends and two weeks in the summer. I honestly never had a vacation until I was 25.....and damn few days off. That is not meant to be a complaint, but just a statement of fact. Young man you have a goal and the two of you are working together, sacrificing, and doing what you must to achieve that goal.
I recall one of many lessons I taught my children was that maturity was learning the concept of "delayed gratification". You may sacrifice fun in the short term for a greater reward down the road.
Sorry to get on my soap box, just want to say, good for you! I am one that believes that if a person can work, having a job is not an option, it is a requirement. I also have a grandson with cerebral palsy in a wheel chair. If those who can work did so, there would be more than enough left over to help the truly needy.
Stay focused, sounds like you are doing great.....more champ than chump to me......
regards,
5412
PS: If you have not done so, I suggest you read the post I made, second one down from the top. You can never, ever give up or give in, the goal is worth whatever it takes.
-
5412,
Thanks for the kind words. I've enjoyed the discussion; it's always nice to get perspective from others with similar values and similar experiences.
I am one that believes that if a person can work, having a job is not an option, it is a requirement.
Of course! To qualify that you could add, if one expects to eat and have shelter. I have no problem with someone's decision not to work. Go live in the woods (provided you're not trespassing) and eat roots and bugs for all I care. I may look at that person with disdain, but that's merely my opinion. However, it's an entirely different situation to choose not to work and then claim by right something that can only be obtained by working and producing. If one has a "right" to health care, then a doctor has no rights. He is a slave. Since we know that one's rights cannot violate another's, obviously there is no right to health care. You can have all the care you can afford and that someone else will sell to you, nothing more, nothing less. It's so painfully simple, yet beyond the grasp of even the most intelligent leftist.
I also have a grandson with cerebral palsy in a wheel chair. If those who can work did so, there would be more than enough left over to help the truly needy.
Amen. We would also not be fostering the sniveling, uncaring attitude of, "the government should do something."
If you have not done so, I suggest you read the post I made, second one down from the top. You can never, ever give up or give in, the goal is worth whatever it takes.
Is that in reference to the current economic and political climate or my personal goals?
-
O-dingdong offends my values yet I still see he's around shredding the REAL values of most Americans.
Apparently, collecting a bundle of cash for a book you didn't write doesn't seem to bother Barry O'llama. I wonder if Bill Ayers gets checks from Barry's book sales.
-
You know what? It does offend me that corporations receiving taxpayer money to stay afloat are paying top executives obscene amounts of money, throwing lavish parties, and so on and so forth. That's why I was against the bailouts to begin with, because now the public has a vested interest in what goes on at private corporations. I also have no pity; the corporations receiving aid never should have accepted it in the first place.
These bailouts were planned with this end in mind.
Let all the corporations fail and hit rock bottom. No bailout for them. What were they thinking?
Bailout=Government Take Over
We would be out of the recession by now.
-
I'm offended by the salaries and benefits received by our congresscritters. I say they should be determined by the voters (shareholders) in this country. We can pay them exactly what they are worth....from state coffers, not fed tax dollars.
Agreed.
-
Is that in reference to the current economic and political climate or my personal goals?
[/quote]
Hi,
More your personal goals. To me the experience was one of life's lessons...Right now my wife and I are looking at possibly relocating outside the country; particularly if we can't get health care. Then a little voice in the back of my head says, "hey wait a minute this is my country too, stay and fight..."
regards,
5412
-
Top employees leave financial firms ahead of pay cuts
Grass is greener where bonuses are sky-high
"There's no question people have left because of uncertainty of our ability to pay," said an executive at one of the affected firms. "It's a highly competitive market out there."
At Bank of America, for instance, only 14 of the 25 highly paid executives remained by the time Feinberg announced his decision. Under his plan, compensation for the most highly paid employees at the bank would be a maximum of $9.9 million. The bank had sought permission to pay as much as $21 million, according to Treasury Department documents.
That news drew scorn Thursday from employees at AIG Financial Products who said they had repeatedly offered to rework their pay arrangements but that Feinberg was unwilling to work with them.
"He has zero credibility with FP employees at this point," said one employee, who was not authorized to speak on the record. "It's a very demoralized workforce."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102204422.html?hpid=topnews
And a few of the DUmmies responses:
global1 (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-26-09 02:21 AM
Response to Original message
3. How Come No News Organization Has Done A Story On These Job Jumpers?......
How come we are not hearing from these top employees? Why aren't they being interviewed on cable news shows? Why aren't we seeing who and what these greedy SOB's are? Why aren't we embarrassing them? Exposing them? Calling them out for raping and pillaging our citizens.
I want these people to justify to us why they feel they are worth the money they are being paid and bonused by. I want to know who has their hand in my back pocket.
annabanana (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-26-09 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. I'd sure like to know where, exactly, they think they're going. . .
Who would hire such monumental screw-ups?.. Or are they all just going to take the money and run?
City Lights (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-26-09 07:18 AM
Response to Original message
10. Poor things!
What a bunch of whiners.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6857640
-
Dear DUmmies,
I heard Taco Bell is now going to cut pay of their employees as well. Good luck buying Cheetos and that new bong when you're only making 1/4 of what you were previously pulling down, when you could be bothered to come in. Or, you could just go across the street to McDonalds and maintain your lifestyle.
There, now that I've explained it in terms you'll easily understand, I'm glad I could be of help.
-
Dear DUmmies,
I heard Taco Bell is now going to cut pay of their employees as well. Good luck buying Cheetos and that new bong when you're only making 1/4 of what you were previously pulling down, when you could be bothered to come in. Or, you could just go across the street to McDonalds and maintain your lifestyle.
There, now that I've explained it in terms you'll easily understand, I'm glad I could be of help.
Why was GE exempted from this new rule? Will the media bailouts also be exempted?
-
Why was GE exempted from this new rule? Will the media bailouts also be exempted?
GE - top lobbying expense for a single company over last 10 years. Also in bed w/ this administration.... Of course they'll be exempt. Which makes me believe equal protection is being violated, but we know that COTUS means nothing anymore...
-
GE - top lobbying expense for a single company over last 10 years. Also in bed w/ this administration.... Of course they'll be exempt. Which makes me believe equal protection is being violated, but we know that COTUS means nothing anymore...
I believe GE is also a big supporter of the Cap and Tax scheme and will benefit greatly from it also.
-
I believe GE is also a big supporter of the Cap and Tax scheme and will benefit greatly from it also.
Yup... and they're lobbying for more forced investment in windmills since production is down...
-
Yup... and they're lobbying for more forced investment in windmills since production is down...
I just read where a wind farm is going to be built here in central Illinois, with the electricity being sent to the Chicago area. I have no problem with that, but it sure seems like building them closer to the end point, would be cheaper, but I'm sure NIMBY is happening.
-
I just read where a wind farm is going to be built here in central Illinois, with the electricity being sent to the Chicago area. I have no problem with that, but it sure seems like building them closer to the end point, would be cheaper, but I'm sure NIMBY is happening.
I hate windfarms. I drive through IA and NE a lot and they riddle the country side. Theoretically, that's really not an issue. But they kill more birds than Exxon could ever hope to, and it takes over 30 sq miles to put out the same electricity as a nuclear plant... But the NIMBY crowd, including the elites, is definitely affecting everythign these days.
-
I hate windfarms. I drive through IA and NE a lot and they riddle the country side. Theoretically, that's really not an issue. But they kill more birds than Exxon could ever hope to, and it takes over 30 sq miles to put out the same electricity as a nuclear plant... But the NIMBY crowd, including the elites, is definitely affecting everythign these days.
I don't have a problem with wind farms, but they are not a reliable source of power. They have to be backed up by traditional power plants which nullifies any gain from wind power. Europe has the right idea in going with nuke plants.
-
I don't have a problem with wind farms, but they are not a reliable source of power. They have to be backed up by traditional power plants which nullifies any gain from wind power. Europe has the right idea in going with nuke plants.
I concur. Britain - one of the windiest places on earth - is failing w/ wind power. T. Boon Pickens abandoned his investment. I'm so frustrated at seeing all of these idle windmills as I drive down I35 or I80.
But since we're not allowed to recycle nuclear material, we have to have storage... which Yuka Mountain was supposed to handle, but I heard Obama nixed that. How sad is it that we're getting our ass handed to us on energy by the French?
-
I concur. Britain - one of the windiest places on earth - is failing w/ wind power. T. Boon Pickens abandoned his investment. I'm so frustrated at seeing all of these idle windmills as I drive down I35 or I80.
But since we're not allowed to recycle nuclear material, we have to have storage... which Yuka Mountain was supposed to handle, but I heard Obama nixed that. How sad is it that we're getting our ass handed to us on energy by the French?
I posted in another thread that coal plants produce more radioactive waste than nuke reactors do.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
-
Don't count T Boone out yet.
T. Boone Pickens seeks stimulus funds to convert trucks to natural gas
WASHINGTON – T. Boone Pickens said Tuesday that he's seeking as much as $28 billion from the economic stimulus plan to convert heavy-duty trucks from diesel to natural gas engines.
Pickens' latest lobbying effort comes as congressional Democrats negotiate details of the $800 billion package of tax cuts and government spending.
Pickens wants to see a pilot program that would convert about 350,000 heavy-duty trucks from diesel to natural gas engines. The effort would cost $75,000 per vehicle and create about 454,470 jobs, according to Pickens.
Pickens said he discussed his request Tuesday with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller.
A Pelosi spokesman refused to provide details of the "private conversation."
http://current.com/items/91164876_t-boone-pickens-seeks-stimulus-funds-to-convert-trucks-to-natural-gas.htm
Oh yeah, and Pelosi invested in Boone's energy plan last year.
-
Don't count T Boone out yet.
http://current.com/items/91164876_t-boone-pickens-seeks-stimulus-funds-to-convert-trucks-to-natural-gas.htm
Oh yeah, and Pelosi invested in Boone's energy plan last year.
If running trucks on natural gas is a worthwhile endeavor, then why haven't the auto makers just built them that way? Wait, I know, that wouldn't allow Pickens to suck money from the government teat. It would likely drive the price of natural gas higher for those that use it to heat their homes. :censored:
-
I hate windfarms. I drive through IA and NE a lot and they riddle the country side. Theoretically, that's really not an issue. But they kill more birds than Exxon could ever hope to, and it takes over 30 sq miles to put out the same electricity as a nuclear plant AT THEIR PEAK... But the NIMBY crowd, including the elites, is definitely affecting everythign these days.
EDIT: Fixorated for you. And that's not even a larger nuclear power plant. Most of the ones today were built during the 70's and have outputs anywhere between 700-900 MWe. Larger/newer ones such as us, Palo Verde, and Watts Bar are putting out 1250 MWe. Consistently. 100 percent, 100 percent of the time.
Can wind power make that promise?
-
I don't have a problem with wind farms, but they are not a reliable source of power. They have to be backed up by traditional power plants which nullifies any gain from wind power. Europe has the right idea in going with nuke plants.
Ah, job security. Ain't it wonderful?
-
If running trucks on natural gas is a worthwhile endeavor, then why haven't the auto makers just built them that way? Wait, I know, that wouldn't allow Pickens to suck money from the government teat. It would likely drive the price of natural gas higher for those that use it to heat their homes. :censored:
If it is anything like the LP gas used in some farm tractors through the 60s then it is the least efficient fuel option there was.
Less BTU/gallon compared to gasoline or diesel.
Excessive costs of transportation and storage in pressurized tanks made it unfeasible unless very close to a source.
Diesel as a "heavy" fuel is ideal for heavy duty engines as it is slow combusting and therefore much more fuel efficient.
For comparisons of the different fuels in the same model tractor. http://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/000/0/6/64-john-deere-4020-tests.html
No doubt in 2009 there have been advances in engine technology and ignition that may offset the differences some but you simply can`t alter the basic characteristic of the fuel.
-
EDIT: Fixorated for you. And that's not even a larger nuclear power plant. Most of the ones today were built during the 70's and have outputs anywhere between 700-900 MWe. Larger/newer ones such as us, Palo Verde, and Watts Bar are putting out 1250 MWe. Consistently. 100 percent, 100 percent of the time.
Can wind power make that promise?
Thanks for the correction, Sparky. I was thinking that when I typed it but forgot to add it in. Spot -on..