The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Curt Schilling says he's interested in running for Teddy's seat.

I doubt it ever gets that far, but that would be one interesting race.

that'd be an ugly slaughter. i'd be sad to see it so i hope he realizes that and doesn't

[DaddyTorgo]

word is that they might appoint dukakis to fill the seat until the special election - which would be a shame...i'd almost like to see him run in the special election for it...although he is what...76?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

The fact that they're thinking of naming anyone is shameful.

[DaddyTorgo]

eh - i think the fact they changed the rules back when Mitt was governor and now want to change them again is MORE shameful. I can sympathize with them wanting to have someone in the seat sooner. I certainly don't think it should take 5 months to fill the seat...that's just ridiculous. Particularly when there are issues of such gravitas being discussed in Washington.

and i didn't mean that Schilling would be slaughtered because he's a Republican. It'd be more because he's a) a carpet-bagger running for a seat that has a lot of history, and b) a celebrity-candidate in a state where we prefer our national representatives to be "policy wonks"

[Flasch186]

agreed. changing the rules to fit your needs is garbash!

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Well, maybe if the Bush administration hadn't lied to everyone about Iraq and hadn't poured a bunch of resources and energy into that wasteful endeavor things might have been going better in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was the "forgotten war" for a very, very long time thanks to the whole Iraq clusterfuck. This point was raised time and time again as an argument against the Iraq war and, shockingly, like pretty much every other argument against that war, turned out to be correct.

Much of the blame for the lack of progress in Afghanistan rests squarely on the Bush Administration's shoulders. While there are no guarantees, one would have to imagine that Afghanistan would be much better off today if the Iraq war had never happened.

So why don't we just pull all of our troops out of both countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) and just let it be?

[Flasch186]

cuz we'll have to go back

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

word is that they might appoint dukakis to fill the seat until the special election - which would be a shame...i'd almost like to see him run in the special election for it...although he is what...76?

I think they've just been keeping him frozen for the last 20 years. They knew his time would come.

[Flasch186]

I hope there isnt evidence of law breaking by the insurance companies in there.

Group: Insurers urged workers to fight reform - Yahoo! Finance

[ISiddiqui]

I love the whole "quasi-treason" meme against Reagan/Bush. But when stuff circulates about Ted Kennedy potentially talking to Yuri Andropov about making President Reagan look bad to help the Democrats in 1984, then it's obviously fabricated stuff, right?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Without starting a tax debate (which is a good debate to have)...in theory, it is progressive in that it is based on consumption. Those who have more wealth tend to consume more. But the marginal rate of taxation tends to bother some because it is lower than the current rolled up rate for the wealthy. But the idea is that you are able to make this tax work (or...fair if you will) because you would be getting markedly higher tax revenues from people who do not currently pay income taxes and encourage more jobs to come back to the states due to low (or no) corporate taxes.

I'm not trying to sell you on it...just pointing out that the assertion it is regressive for poor people isn't overly accurate as it has a tax rebate advancement for those qualifying up to the poverty level. I think a better argument is that it could raise the tax liability on the middle class...which is why I'm not 100% sold myself...but I think it is on the right track, in principle.

I'm definitely for simplifying the tax code and adding revenue from people who manage to escape their share when they have the means to pay it...as I'm sure most are.

But it is regressive. A guy making $40,000 a year is going to consume a much higher percent of his income than a guy making $10 million a year. There are people already struggling who aren't paying much, if any income tax. I don't see how taxing them something like 20% on everything they consume will be good for the country. I think it dramatically hurts the middle class and causes people to consume much less (thus hurting businesses).

A simple tax code fix for me is a flat rate with no deductions. Simply put you pay X% of your income to the government. No "bonus points" for having lots of kids or paying interest on a mortgage.

[CamEdwards]

I'm just surprised Steve thinks that the 426-111 whomping that Dukakis received in the Electoral College (or the 7,000,000 margin in the popular vote) would have been much different if the "ACLU thing" and the "Willie Horton thing" had never come up.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I never really understood why Iraq was so obviously the wrong war and Afghanistan was so obviously "right".

Aside from the issues about how we got there (which are major issues), what's the difference?

The Iraq administration had actually killed tens of thousands of people with WMDs. The Taliban has closer ties to actual terroists, but had far less to actually offer them.

What will "victory" in Afghanistan accomplish that victory in Iraq won't? The goal is a stable democratic state in both instances.

And I say that even wishing, in retrospect, that we went harder at Afghanistan and ignored Iraq. But I don't even know why I feel that way.

Neither war changes much. If anything it just helps breed another generation of extremists with pure hatred toward the U.S. I mean we ultimately killed some bad guys but not enough to fix any problems we may have had.

The goal of Afghanistan was to root out an extremist group that had been responsible for the death of thousands of Americans. To protect our country from future attacks. You could make the case that they would continue to be a threat to us if no action was taken. Iraq was neither though. Not a threat and did nothing to us.

Ultimately both wars will be viewed upon by history as mistakes. Misguided attempts to avenge 9/11 with no realistic long term plans in place. You can't force these people into stable democracies, nor can you bomb them into liking you.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

The problem with this is well, why should a guy making $40,000 pay the same amount in income tax as a guy making $5,000,000? I mean, the idea that everybody pays the same amount of percentage in tax sounds good until you actually look at it.

Then again, I'm the guy who wants to scrap 95% of the current tax code since 95% of people don't use it and actually install more tax brackets. After all, the problem isn't the page the brackets are printed on, it's the other 10,000 pages or so.

Well for simplicity sake, a flat tax is amazingly simple.

I don't mind a progressive system and tax brackets. I do think that more people need to start "pitching in" for things. We have a large percent of the country not paying a dime in income tax, and many others not paying much. Perhaps if more people had money at stake, they may be more upset about reckless spending.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Dukakis may not have won, but it sure would've been closer. Yes, there were gaffes that were self-inflicted (the rape question at the debate - a stupid question, but he did freeze up and the whole tank thing), but anyway.

Here's the great thing. The same coalition that lost in a landslide twenty years ago - minorities, college educated whites, and labor union members - just elected the first black man as President. The GOP managed to grab power and shift the Overton Windows vastly to the right thanks to a short demographic windows and incompetence in the Democratic party. But, unless things change quickly, it may be a self-inflicted wound for the future of America that's getting less White and less Christian every day.

It may be, but remember, people were saying much the same thing after Johnson won election in 1964. Hell, it took the Democrats less than 20 years to win a presidential election after the Civil War was concluded. I don't think we're in a new Jacksonian era of one party leadership now, but if it makes you feel better to think about the Democratic dominance to come once America becomes less White and less Christian, I won't stand in your way.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Dukakis may not have won, but it sure would've been closer. Yes, there were gaffes that were self-inflicted (the rape question at the debate - a stupid question, but he did freeze up and the whole tank thing), but anyway.

Here's the great thing. The same coalition that lost in a landslide twenty years ago - minorities, college educated whites, and labor union members - just elected the first black man as President. The GOP managed to grab power and shift the Overton Windows vastly to the right thanks to a short demographic windows and incompetence in the Democratic party. But, unless things change quickly, it may be a self-inflicted wound for the future of America that's getting less White and less Christian every day.

It may be, but remember, people were saying much the same thing after Johnson won election in 1964. Hell, it took the Democrats less than 20 years to win a presidential election after the Civil War was concluded. I don't think we're in a new Jacksonian era of one party leadership now, but if it makes you feel better to think about the Democratic dominance to come once America becomes less White and less Christian, I won't stand in your way.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

It may be, but remember, people were saying much the same thing after Johnson won election in 1964. Hell, it took the Democrats less than 20 years to win a presidential election after the Civil War was concluded. I don't think we're in a new Jacksonian era of one party leadership now, but if it makes you feel better to think about the Democratic dominance to come once America becomes less White and less Christian, I won't stand in your way.

It does kinda sound suspiciously like the "permanent majority" but in the other way, doesn't it?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Well, I'll think America will be a better a more racially diverse and less Christian nation no matter the party in control.

As far as LBJ is concerned, LBJ knew he was throwing away the South when he signed the Civil Rights Bill. Also, quite bluntly, if LBJ gets out of Vietnam and/or Sirhan's shot misses, who knows what happens?

And yet even after signing the Civil Rights Act, LBJ won Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, Florida, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia. He absolutely clobbered Goldwater in an election that makes Dukakis's results in '88 look downright competitive.

You're also making my point... in 1965, conventional wisdom said the Republican Party was done for. By 1968, conventional wisdom had been turned on its head.

But I suppose the Democratic Party could keep riding the wave of electing representatives from the various factions of identity politics and keep on winning an eternal majority. In 2016 they can run a female, in 2024 they can run a Hispanic, 2032 an Asian, 2040 a Pacific Islander, etc. By the end of the century I'm sure we'll probably be running an Agnostic-Armenian-Biracial-Bisexual-Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Survivor-American for president. After all, hyphenated-Americans are the best kind of Americans, right?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Well, the true problem is that over the past thirty years, we've gotten back to pre-Depression era income disparity. I mean, conservatives always say, "you just wanna the tax the rich." I say, "well yeah, they've got all the bleeping money."

The interesting this is that it wasn't that way before. From Post-WWII to about 1974 or 1975, the top 20% income only rose about 25%-ish while the bottom 80% rose about 90% in the same time period. Since 1975-ish, it's basically flipped. I mean, to paraphrase Warren Buffet, "there is a class war, and my side is winning."

I think the income disparity is from a lot of things. But one of them is that we are also coming across a massive intelligence disparity. This isn't like the guy making minimum wage is somehow getting screwed out of being a millionaire. It's often times the millionaire is just much smarter and much more motivated these days.

I do concede that there are other factors such as the wealthy having gamed the system. But I still contend that if you filled a room with a mix of incomes from top to bottom, a 5 minute conversation with the person would let you know quickly which one is making money and which one isn't.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Thirty years ago, the CEO:average wage gap was about 45:1. Now it's abou 400:1. Have CEO's gotten ten times smarter in the past three decades or have the rules been changed to make it hell of a lot easier for the rich to become richer? Did the middle class suddenly get dumb in the mid-70's? Is that why their real wage incomes have barely kept up with inflation?

C'mon now.

Where are you getting your data from? The median income in this country is just over $32,000. That would mean that by your accounts, CEOs are making on average nearly $13,000,000 annually. That is well above any statistic I've found.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Goofed on the number. Was looking at a study from 2003.

PolitiFact | Biden points out disparities between CEO and average worker pay

You're also basing average wage against an extremely small portion of the United States population. How many CEOs are there? Why not make an argument that the gap between top athletes and the average wage worker has dramatically gone up over the last 40 years?

I'm not sure what solution you'd want either. It's a relative free market and people have a right to earn as much as they possibly can.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Um...because the athlete doesn't run a company usually employing thousands of people?

Also, as far as a solution, the US seemed to run fairly well with high marginal tax rates. Quadruple IRS enforcement funding and send people after real tax cheats, eliminate loopholes, and maybe, CEO's would be more interested in long-term growth at a company instead of spiking the stock for the next earnings report.

I guess I'm just against punishing those who worked hard to become succesful.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Only making say, $3 million a year instead of oh, I don't know, $10 million a year is punishment? I'll sign up for that every day and twice on Sundays! There are perfectly rich, happy, and successful people in other countries without the massive inequality we have in this nation.

Then again, I'm a social democrat. About two and a half steps away from being a Commie. So, there ya' go.

It's not about what you feel is sufficient to be happy. It's about taking something away from someone who earned it. Incentive to succeed creates innovation.

The Yankees have a lot of World Series Championships. Their fans should be perfectly happy with just a couple of those. So we should probably not allow them to compete in the playoffs, correct? I mean it's not about what you earn through hard work, it's about making sure everyone gets a piece of the pie regardless of how talented or hard working they are.

I guess I'm for a little more self-sufficiency in today's society. If I use my hands to build a nice chair, I shouldn't be forced to share it with everyone on my block.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Well, the true problem is that over the past thirty years, we've gotten back to pre-Depression era income disparity. I mean, conservatives always say, "you just wanna the tax the rich." I say, "well yeah, they've got all the bleeping money."

The interesting this is that it wasn't that way before. From Post-WWII to about 1974 or 1975, the top 20% income only rose about 25%-ish while the bottom 80% rose about 90% in the same time period. Since 1975-ish, it's basically flipped. I mean, to paraphrase Warren Buffet, "there is a class war, and my side is winning."

You might want to look at who these rich are. For every Bill Gates, you have a thousand small business guys making 200+K. It seems that many think the top 5-10% is a bunch of trust fund babies buying yachts every weekend. And, we should just tax the heck out of them because they've had a silver spoon all their life.

If you look at the GDP growth and overall economic "boon" we've faced since 1980, a larger income gap was unavoidable. The creation of profitable entrepreneurs with the increase in the number of million dollar plus companies meant that thousands and thousands of middle class people had become "the rich". You also had a massive increase in larger successful companies which meant more high level executives (again, many coming from middle to upper middle class backgrounds). It's amazing that this concept is frowned on by those on the left. America allows for numerous people to quit their 40K a year job, start their own business and eventually make 400K+ if they are smart about it. However, this will indeed cause the income gap to stretch larger and larger.

It's almost like the left would prefer that all the 200K to $1 mil+ business owners would just quit and go work for the city making 45K a year. That gap between the haves and have-nots would be lower and we'd all feel better about the country.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

It's weird. So, everybodies who rich did all on their own with no help at all from the government and everybodies whos poor has just failed at life, right?

Not at all. But for the most part, those making more money have bettered themselves in ways others haven't to get where they are. Many of these CEO's you dislike didn't just step out of high school and into a $10 million a year job. Look at the resumes of these CEO's. Harvard MBAs and decades of experience working under people at companies with long hours. Why punish someone who did all that work and made smart decisions with their life?

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

But yes, I realize it's a controversial belief in America in 2009, but I believe it's more important that all citizens have health care, that all citizens can have a full education up to whatever they choose to do, everyone has housing whether they can afford it or not, and that if someone falls on hard time, we as a people through our government help them get back on their feet. If that means somebody has to make do with only 3 houses and 5 cars, so be it.

You can accomplish certain things like health care without ripping off wealth individuals. The problem with your plan is you take away the motivation of individuals to better themselves and innovate. Many of society's greatest advances came from people who were motivated by riches. Why reward complacent and unmotivated people? Shouldn't they be the ones you want to motivate the most?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Actually, during the best economic times in American history for the actual middle class (appx. 1945-1970-ish), that didn't happen. It's not like small businesses and mom 'n' pop's were much more healthy during the 50's and 60's and even the 70's before the Wal-Mart and Home Depotizaition, and Best Buy-tian of America. Shopping districts actually looked...different in different cities!

The difference is it's now a global economy. Instead of opening up a corner store in Iowa making $40,000 a year, small business people make iPhone apps from their home in Iowa that they sell to kids in Japan and make $500K a year. The income earning potential is light years ahead of where it was in the 1960s.

Also, the growth of the top 1/10 of one percent (.10) even greatly outpaced the rest of the top 1%.

You're talking about the best of the best businesses. If the 5,000th best small business is making $1 million, imagine what the top small business makes? What you're saying is akin to complaining that Tom Brady makes too much money compared to Luke McCown. The best should make a lot more. Why does that upset you so much?

Also, I'd be pefectly fine with keeping those at $250,000 to $500,000 at around the same tax bracket. But, then I'd add more tax brackets. At $500,000. $1,000,000. $5,000,000. And so on.

That's fine, but you will still complain about the difference in wages between the top X percent and the middle class. The point is that for us to have a thriving economy that gives the growth some want to pay for national health care and numerous other items, it takes having an extremely wealthy top 10%. Without the successful small businesses and even middle to large corporations, the US economy won't work.

So, if your goal is a smaller gap between the middle class and the top 10%, the only way it happens is if the top 10% lose a ton of money (which will also severely impact the earning potential of the middle class). If the top 10% lost 500K a person and the middle class lost 10K, the gap would be a lot smaller. Of course, we probably be headed for a massive depression - but the income gap would be tighter so we could use that to help justify our misery.

[JPhillips]

Arles and Rainmaker might be correct if the salaries of CEOs were set by a well functioning, rational market, but oftentimes they aren't. Look how CEO salaries are set, not through a competitive process but by the dictate of corporate boards. These boards are often full of conflicts where the CEO being evaluated sits on boards that will eventually evaluate the evaluators. Where does the board get the info upon which it makes compensation decisions, executive compensation consulting firms. Firms that are hired by the CEO and board and who have a very strong financial incentive to maximize the CEO compensation. In short compensation for CEOs of public companies is a rigged game.

But even if it weren't, there's very little evidence to show that CEOs of public companies are chosen strictly on merit. The reality is a whole lot of success is based on luck, to which family were you born, which college did you get into(often not strictly on merit), what kind of co-workers you were assigned to work with, etc. It's impossible to argue that all or even a majority of CEOs are chosen through a strict merit based system. Life just doesn't work that way. Some people get the breaks and some don't, but I don't think you'd argue that final outcomes are always the best option.

So given that there isn't a functioning market for CEO compensation and given that the selection of those at the top of the economic ladder has a lot to do with luck, why is it any more punishment to raise taxes say to the Clinton level than it is to allow a system that grossly rewards those with the power to do so?

[ISiddiqui]

This discussion reminds me of that episode of "The Simpsons" (yes, I'm not using it for fact or anything, so don't worry), where Homer thinks it'd be great to run the nuclear power plant and then finds he's working 90 hour weeks and while "on vacation" is stuck inside doing all sorts of paperwork. The idea that CEO's don't do much and make a ton for it is not really bourn out by things. They work far more hours and, yes, harder than most 9 to 5 workers.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But it is regressive. A guy making $40,000 a year is going to consume a much higher percent of his income than a guy making $10 million a year. There are people already struggling who aren't paying much, if any income tax. I don't see how taxing them something like 20% on everything they consume will be good for the country. I think it dramatically hurts the middle class and causes people to consume much less (thus hurting businesses).

A simple tax code fix for me is a flat rate with no deductions. Simply put you pay X% of your income to the government. No "bonus points" for having lots of kids or paying interest on a mortgage.

The equality in income tax % is intended to be flat (or "Fair")...the % of sales tax on items is where it needs to be progressive. I think where the plan needs to be refined is in the classifications of item types. You shouldnt tax bread at 20% sales tax...you tax it nominally <5% (if at all). In the example of people who make $40k/yr, they should be buying more bread than yachts. You also "need" bread...you do not need yachts. There will certainly be gray area items but there always are in making rules.

Even though I realize "classifying" items can sound like a slippery slope...we do this already. We just don't have the full tax loading in one spot. We put some on the raw materials...some on the manufacturing process of it...we put some on the distribution method of it, etc. I think simplification of the tax code is where things need to get to. And making it more simplified...makes it more equal across all income classes in terms of "gaming" the system.

Of course, something like this never happens barring a fundamental shift in the economic stature of this country (for the worse)...or government representatives making legislation which is not in their personal interests.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Arles and Rainmaker might be correct if the salaries of CEOs were set by a well functioning, rational market, but oftentimes they aren't. Look how CEO salaries are set, not through a competitive process but by the dictate of corporate boards. These boards are often full of conflicts where the CEO being evaluated sits on boards that will eventually evaluate the evaluators. Where does the board get the info upon which it makes compensation decisions, executive compensation consulting firms. Firms that are hired by the CEO and board and who have a very strong financial incentive to maximize the CEO compensation. In short compensation for CEOs of public companies is a rigged game.

But even if it weren't, there's very little evidence to show that CEOs of public companies are chosen strictly on merit. The reality is a whole lot of success is based on luck, to which family were you born, which college did you get into(often not strictly on merit), what kind of co-workers you were assigned to work with, etc. It's impossible to argue that all or even a majority of CEOs are chosen through a strict merit based system. Life just doesn't work that way. Some people get the breaks and some don't, but I don't think you'd argue that final outcomes are always the best option.

So given that there isn't a functioning market for CEO compensation and given that the selection of those at the top of the economic ladder has a lot to do with luck, why is it any more punishment to raise taxes say to the Clinton level than it is to allow a system that grossly rewards those with the power to do so?

This.

The argument that CEO salaries are something that's been earned in a free market will not work until there's actually a free market involved. Does anyone think that with true competition there would not be an intense slashing of salaries in the upper management of corporations? That there would not be a committed, educated, qualified person to run a company willing to take a significant amount less than what's being given to these guys and gals?

This is not even to get into the government loopholes for corporations. I am all for the sentiment of what Rainmaker and others are saying about not taking things away from those who work hard and earn it. But what we have for corporations is not anything approaching a free market, and so it's difficult to say what they've "earned" versus what the system has been tilted to provide for them.

[ISiddiqui]

Though how exactly are CEO's not competiting in a free market? Have government pressures prevented it? Private hurdles are consistent with a free market.

[Autumn]

Issidiqui, exactly what was posted above. Their salaries are not set by a competitive market, they're set by other CEOs, essentially. There is no incentive for them to make them competitive, as that would be lowering their own salary in the future. I think everyone would be happy to have their peers choose their salaries, wouldn't they? We'd all be making much more money.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Issidiqui, exactly what was posted above. Their salaries are not set by a competitive market, they're set by other CEOs, essentially. There is no incentive for them to make them competitive, as that would be lowering their own salary in the future. I think everyone would be happy to have their peers choose their salaries, wouldn't they? We'd all be making much more money.

Once again, as there is no government intervention, how is that not a free market? Its like saying that getting hired by big companies involves a Board of Directors getting involved and therefore it isn't free.

Besides there are PLENTY more than other CEOs on your average Board of Directors. Usually other companies' CEOs are a minor part.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Lack of government intervention does not equal free market when it comes to monopolies.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Lack of government intervention does not equal free market when it comes to monopolies.

I think you have strange definitions of both free market and monopoly.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

When a company or group of people have a monopoly over a situation, would you call it a "free market"?

[ISiddiqui]

It is incredibly and exceedingly strange to call the system of CEO compensation as a "monopoly". I think any economics professor would laugh you out of the room.

Secondly, yes, as long as there is not government intervention, the creation and sustaining of monopolies is not anthetical to a free market.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I was only responding to the fact that a lack of government intervention infers free market in the general sense, not in this specific CEO argument.

Secondly, yes, as long as there is not government intervention, the creation and sustaining of monopolies is not anthetical to a free market.

I'll certainly give you creation, no doubt. But if someone has a monopoly, how in the world can you call that a free market? It arose DUE to the free market, but the market run by the monopoly is not free at all.

[ISiddiqui]

Free market means the absense of government regulation. It does not mean perfect competition. That's something else entirely (and, of course, not attainable and pretty utopian due to asymetrical information). People tend to conflate the two, but make no mistake, anti-trust laws do not make a free market, but are in fact a measure that makes the market less free (though more competitive).

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Yeah, you're right I was certainly conflating the two. So do we want to strive for "free market," then, or rather "perfect competition?"

[molson]

Originally Posted by Autumn

That there would not be a committed, educated, qualified person to run a company willing to take a significant amount less than what's being given to these guys and gals?

Sure, though they wouldn't be as committed, as educated, or as qualified. If you dramatically slash pay you're going to get much worse people. Pretty simple.

A good CEO is probably underpaid in today's environment. It's a very tough job.

Companies that choose to pay tons to crappy CEOs get their own punishment eventually. But many other companies have obnoxiously paid CEOs that lead the company to success and more than pay for themselves.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Yeah, you're right I was certainly conflating the two. So do we want to strive for "free market," then, or rather "perfect competition?"

The later. We want a good deal of aspects of a "free market", but tempered by sensible (sensible being the key word here) government regulation to allow for a more competitive marketplace (anti-trust laws, FCC competitiveness regulations, etc) and also sensible (that word again) government regulation on increasing the information available to consumers (you can't have more perfect competition with wide disparity in asymetric information).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So your brother believes that a reduction of troops is essential to finishing off this conflict?

The liberal base wanted a drawdown of troops, which is exactly the opposite of what's needed.

You're talking about Iraq. I'm talking about Afghanistan. I've quoted, for you, Obama saying he would send more forces to Afghanistan. Quote, for me, the "liberal base" saying they expected forces to be drawn down in Afghanistan. Note that several members of FOFC in this thread who are ostensibly part of the "liberal base" expected more forces to be sent to Afghanistan.

Give me some hard evidence to contradict all that, or stop talking. And if they best you can do is quote Cindy Sheehan then your view of Obama's "liberal base" is not mine and we have nothing further to talk about on this subject.

I'm talking about his unwillingness to fund the troops and fund the surge in Iraq when it was obviously needed to save lives.

You call this hypocrisy? Fuck you. When the GOP controlled Congress in the early days of Iraq they repeatedly neglected to fast-track appropriations for up-armored HMMVs, additional body armor, and other material support for troops on the ground, believing, for ages, that "it would be over soon". PEOPLE DIED BECAUSE OF THIS.

By the time the votes on the surge came around most of this had been corrected and the troops had the equipment they needed, and a vote on the surge could be a vote on the principle of continuing the war.

Your memory on this is seriously fucking selective, MBBF.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm not going to justify how we got in Iraq, but to ignore the fact that the surge turned out to be a very effective method in Iraq is silly.

Without Al-Sadr's cease-fire and the Sunnis in Anbar province deciding they had had enough of Al-Qaeda, the surge would not have been as successful as it was. Let's not re-write history here.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

We've put it back into a position where it's relatively stable. They now have the opportunity to work those things out should they choose to do so. We can only hold their hand for so long.

And so, post-surge, Obama announced a plan to drawn down troops and let Iraq govern itself. Exactly what part of his policy here do you have an issue?

Originally Posted by molson

You're right that prior to Iraq, Afghanistan seemed settled. So what exactly did Iraq take resources from? Would we have just maintained a massive occupying force in Afghanistan? Is that what people think we should have done, or more relevantly, is that what they wanted us to do at the time? I don't remember Democrats arguing for a massive occupying force in Afghannistan at the time.

I'm not sure I would agree that Afghanistan was "settled" at the time of the invasion of Iraq. I'm thinking out loud here too (as you said), but at the time the Taliban was ousted and the Karzai government was installed. It would seem the other step to take would have been to assist the Karzai government to gain full security control over Afghanistan as early as possible - an operation that still required significant manpower, and that was exactly the moment manpower was taken away. This is to say nothing of the manpower (CIA) that was diverted from the search for bin Laden to the search for WMD in Iraq.

It's impossible to know what Bush would have done without Iraq, of course, but one thinks the logical solution in Afghanistan at that point would have been along the lines of establishing the reach of the government to all parts of Afghanistan, killing a few more AQ leaders, and then calling it a day.

Originally Posted by molson

And that because of that lack of a defined strategy - I don't think not going to war with Iraq would have made any difference.

It's funny, people crap all over the Bush administration when it comes to how the war was fought in Iraq, but assume that without that, they would have waged a perfect war with a defined strategy in Afghanistan. Isn't it likely that things would be messy there regardless?

Hey, I'm right there with you - I'd assume the Bush administration could have made a hash of invading Toronto.

Nevertheless, it appears the key problem in Afghanistan has been the Karzai government's inability to provide security in all parts of Afghanistan. Part of the reason for this, clearly, was the inability (which continues) of NATO to provide enough material support for the Karzai government. This has had two knock-on effects: the Karzai government has had to make deals, and cede power, to elements not necessarily 100% aligned with them and it has also allowed the Taliban to move back into areas where a power vacuum was not filled by the central government.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It does kinda sound suspiciously like the "permanent majority" but in the other way, doesn't it?

Despite the GOP's ability to implode themselves in the past two electoral cycles, and apparent drive to brand themselves as a bunch of nutjob fundies from the Southeast, any casual student of U.S. history knows that no majority is permanent. The GOP will, at some point, rise from its current difficulties and will win the White House and both houses of Congress again at some point. Now, I don't know how this will happen, and unfortunately our leading GOP lights on the board (Hi Cam!) seem more inclined to throw out snark than postulate a road to recovery for the GOP, but I assume it will happen.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Free market means the absense of government regulation. It does not mean perfect competition. That's something else entirely (and, of course, not attainable and pretty utopian due to asymetrical information). People tend to conflate the two, but make no mistake, anti-trust laws do not make a free market, but are in fact a measure that makes the market less free (though more competitive).

I'm not interested in the terms, then. My point was that the contention by some that high upper management salaries being totally "earned" is not quite accurate in this system. CEOs and others earn an abnormally high amount because the system is gamed in their favor, not simply because of the value they bring to a firm.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I'm not interested in the terms, then. My point was that the contention by some that high upper management salaries being totally "earned" is not quite accurate in this system. CEOs and others earn an abnormally high amount because the system is gamed in their favor, not simply because of the value they bring to a firm.

And I would completely disagree with that. CEO salaries have risen as the immense profits of the companies has exploded. I don't see the whole Board of Directors necessarily all looking out for excutive officers thing that others are seeing.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by molson

Sure, though they wouldn't be as committed, as educated, or as qualified. If you dramatically slash pay you're going to get much worse people. Pretty simple.

A good CEO is probably underpaid in today's environment. It's a very tough job.

Companies that choose to pay tons to crappy CEOs get their own punishment eventually. But many other companies have obnoxiously paid CEOs that lead the company to success and more than pay for themselves.

No, I don't think this is true. Upper management salaries are artificially high becuase of a sort of collusion (and please let's not debate if I'm technically using this term correctly). I'm contending that management salaries would decrease signfiicantly while still drawing the same level of talent if a true sense of competition was introduced. My point is not that there are bad CEOs and good ones, my point is htat all of the CEOs and upper management are getting paid more than they would if there were not a lot of structures in place to inflate their salaries.

Lots of people have tough jobs. That doesn't mean they get paid accordingly. We don't get paid according to how tough our job is, we get paid based on our qualifications and the supply and demand at the position.

[ISiddiqui]

So why exactly where CEOs not getting paid so much in, say, the 1950s, with the SAME EXACT system in place?

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And I would completely disagree with that. CEO salaries have risen as the immense profits of the companies has exploded. I don't see the whole Board of Directors necessarily all looking out for excutive officers thing that others are seeing.

And CEO salaries have risen at a disproportionate rate. Yes, they should share in the value of the company they have helped to create, but their salaries have risen more than the value of the company, while the majority of the company stays stagnant or goes backward.

In addition, CEOs of companies whose value has gone backwards continue to have rising salaries as well. Their salary is not tacked to company performance.

The board of directors thing seems obvious to me. The people deciding executive salaries are often executives at other firms, or on a career path to becoming an executive. Their interest has little to do with saving company money and maximizing efficiency, but with creating a market where executives like themselves make money. What do you think athlete salaries would look like if the salaries were decided by a group of pro players or pro and college hopefuls? Would they be trying to make the club lean and mean or would they be looking forward to thier future payday?

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So why exactly where CEOs not getting paid so much in, say, the 1950s, with the SAME EXACT system in place?

You're suggesting that the business regulation environment is the same now as it was in the '50s?

[ISiddiqui]

I mean, seriously, Boards of Directors are not going to pay their executive officers a ton of money because they like them. They are just in it for making insane amounts of money themselves. And one way to make insane amounts of money is to hire a really visionary and brilliant CEO. Hence they'll offer large amounts of money/stock options to hire the next Steve Jobs, etc.