Promising start. It’s a description of economic conservatism, but whatever, you’ve got the idea right. Then you go and prove that you don’t mean a word of it.
So anything I earn through my hard work and abilities is not mine to pass on to my kids? Oh, no, I get it, this is class jealousy! That person had an advantage cuz his father was rich! You didn’t! We should use the government to take away that advantage by taking away their money and giving to other people who didn’t earn it through hard work and ability!
If they aren’t doing their job, the shareholders can fire them. Or are you saying that there is some way of knowing before you hire them that they are going to fail? Or maybe all CEOs should take no salary until they prove that they won’t fail? How dare they not altruistically work for free!
As it should be. The money that resulted in those capital gains a) provided the jobs for all those workers you’re whining about in the first place and b) was a risk. How about the flip side of the coin: We’ll tax capital gains at a higher rate, but if stocks go down, then the value lost can be recouped by the investor as a tax credit. You jake with that, or is only people who succeed who should be punished for it in your world?
Bullshit, bullshit and more bullshit. My economic interest is best served by the government getting out of the entitlement business altogether, both for individuals (beyond minimum humanitarian levels) and for corporations. Still, if forced to chose between the two, I’d much rather have corporations benefiting, because I can work for them, do business with them or buy their stock and share in their profitability. Individual welfare is simply money taken from me and given to someone else. If I want to do that I’ll donate to charity. Voluntarily.
You started off strong, but then you went and proved you didn’t mean it. Conservative economic philosophy is all about equal opportunity. Liberal economic philosophy seeks to use the government to ensure equal outcome. Theres a world of difference between the two, and you seem to have them confused.
You’re kidding me . . . Really, I’m generally not the “If yew don’t like it, GIT OUT” type, but if my viewpoint was so far out of line with the aspect of government that has perhaps the greatest impact on our day to day lives, I would’ve voluntarily left a long time ago. Do you know anything about the ideologies - historical and present - of our country?
Well I see that you implied you were joking, but then this…first of all, as if anyone that lives in the Midwest or anywhere else not with a pacific or atlantic coastline somehow are all a bunch of gun-toting, gay-bashing self-righteouss 700 club types.
Second of all, like there aren’t any gun-toting, gay-bashing self-righteous 700 club types in California or New York.
Californians elected Glen Davis, then outed him and elected friggin’ Ahnold. Those are the enlightened people we should be emulating!
Especially when Gary Coleman was a much more viable candidate!
I’m glad to see that you managed to pay attention long enough to read almost a fourth of what I wrote. I know that was difficult for you. A shame you didn’t understand it.
Let’s see if I can put this in words of one syllable for you: Lots of people from red states are “Dems.”
Dang. Used a two-syllable word. I hope you’ll be able to follow it anyway.
Since when, in the history of mankind, does the dissatisfaction of one man in his government necessitate HIM leaving. Many have and do, but if we all did nothing would ever change.
You mean the country with public schools, libraries, fire departments, govt mandated overtime after 40 hours, land grant colleges, social security, progressive income tax, County Extension Agents, and estate taxes?
The same one with the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson:
Who said he had to leave? All I said was that if I disagreed with something so fundamental to our system of government, I would take it upon myself to leave. You may be able to change the traffic light at that one annoying intersection just outside of town (or, say, our drunk driving laws, to use MADD as an example), but you’re not going to change the way Madison felt when he was pushing the Virginia Plan. Plenty of other governments agree with DanBlather, so moving there seems like the path of least resistence to me.
If the system worked then CEOs’ pay would be linked to their success. Many studies have shown this not to be true. The reasons are varied, but often come down to things like executive pay consultation firms being linked to the CEOs whose compensation they are recommending.
The day the news showed Obama parading around Germany like he was already president, while McCain was holding court outside Schmidt’s Fudge Haus really did it for me.
B) Be slapped down by a government more powerful than the one we have today
Note that it likely cannot continue on the same curve it has been on for the last few years due to all the attention and outrage it garners in the press and by the water cooler. And if it does continue, then the people making the money, practically by definition, deserve it. You can’t bleed a stone, so the money is coming from somewhere.
As a matter of fact I do, thanks to the public school I attended. Jefferson was concerned about a permanent aristocracy. If you don’t like my previous quote how about this: “There is an artificial aristocracy, founded on birth and privelege, without virtue or talents… The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provisions should be made to prevent its ascendency.” Or that communist Lincoln: “I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me, and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe. As a most undesirable consequence of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow. The money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.”
Damn, I got ripped off. My public school didn’t teach Misconstruing Presidential Quotes 101. Tell me, though, mighty and wise DanBlather, if most of the largest corporations in our country are publically traded, and millions of people own all that stock, then how is the wealth aggregated in the hands of a few?
And you’re still not quite sure what primogeniture is, are you?
Honest answer; I am conflicted. In general I think the market is the first place to look for solutions. There are times, however, where the market leads to bad results. It is clear that in the short term there is something seriuosly wrong with the system in place for executive compensation. The ratio between CEO pay and minimum wage has never been greater, and it does not seem to be tied to performance. One thing to do is wait it out and hope that it corrects itself. At the very least I think the president should be using his bully pulpit to address the issue.
As to where the money is coming from, I think it’s from the wages of the hourly workers. Real wages have been falling for years because of the reluctance to raise the minimum wage. Immigration, illegal and otherwise, is also putting a damper on wages.
I can get on board with some minimal form of government regulation in certain major industries that none of us can avoid (banking, insurance, transportation), or at least opening up the political dialogue, but that’s a far cry from “the role of govt is to provide a level playing field so that people get what they deserve based on their abilities and hard work, rather than the position in life they were born in.” I strongly disagree with that quote, and believe its connections to the real world are dubious, as well. Many poor people like and take advantage of the fact that they can use our system to become something far greater than what they started out with. Barack Obama was not born priveleged. The current CEO of McDonald’s started out flipping burgers in 1971.
Math is not your strong suit apparently. It is entirely possible to have a millions of people own stock and yet have the majority of assets owned by a relative few. Unlike elections, where each person has one vote, stockholders vote based on how many shares they own. The top 1% of the United States owns about 40% of the financial wealth, the top 20% own about 90%.
Well since it was defined in the larger quote I cited, I thought I didn’t have to define it for you. But here goes (sorry about the large words): “the legal system under which family wealth was preserved by the exclusive right of the eldest son to inherit”.
Nice non-sequitur. Do you even know what primogeniture is? It appears not.