Maybe we should set up a P4P website for the politicians.
Printable View
Maybe we should set up a P4P website for the politicians.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tropheee @ Mar 19 2009, 02:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>RNC/DNC....I'm off to play around and then if I'm not to tired to play around again.Quote:
Maybe we should set up a P4P website for the politicians.[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tropheee @ Mar 19 2009, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>I think there was one. See Spitzer, EliotQuote:
Maybe we should set up a P4P website for the politicians.[/b]
Gee, I'm amazed that the Treasury's plan to form public/private partnerships to buy up toxic assets hasn't been a screaming success. You think those people running billions in assets aren't anxious to dance with Barney Fudgepacker and have their profits taxed away retroactively? Who is John Galt?
I'm a Capitalist at heart, but I must say that Wall Street has brought this pox upon themselves.....I think a little fudge packing is appropriate.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tropheee @ Mar 19 2009, 04:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>While I heartily agree, the relevant question is do you want retribution or recovery?Quote:
I'm a Capitalist at heart, but I must say that Wall Street has brought this pox upon themselves.....I think a little fudge packing is appropriate.[/b]
By all means recovery ASAP. However, Wall Street must understand, along with Congress, there is a price to pay for such irresponsibility. Otherwise history will continue to repeat itself.
If things don't improve soon, I'll be making plans to move to Galt's Gulch!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pjorourke @ Mar 19 2009, 03:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>''The government needs these companies to survive -- and buy back the government’s ownership stake -- more than they need the government. Most of these CEOs are already wealthy. They don’t need a job working for the government, which is what running a bank amounts to today.''Quote:
Who is John Galt?[/b]
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=new...id=a0olyim4out4
Do you actually believe this bs? The wealthy need the government to protect them from the people if the chit ever hit the fan. You sound as if you forgot what happened after "qu'ils mangent de la brioche."
I dare say that there will be a shift from brain to brawn at some point, Galt's Gultch would not suvrive a month without hard work. All that brain power without any brawn is teets on a boar.
http://www.umverteilung.de/
38 years of global redistribution:
1960: The poorest 20% of the world's population only had a share of 2.3% of the global income. The top 20% of the world's population earned 70.2% of the global income.
From these data we compute: Gini ≥ 54%, Symmetric ≥ 46%, high/low ≥ 30
(Source: UNDP, 1996)
1998: The poorest 20% of the world's population only had a share of 1.2% of the global income. The top 20% of the world's population earned 89% of the global income.
From these data we compute: Gini ≥ 70%, Symmetric ≥ 71%, high/low ≥ 74
(Source: Intl. Herald Tribune 1999/02/05 pg.6; own estimations 1999/04/03)
Update 2001/11/02 from The No-Nonsense Guide to Globalization (Wayne Ellwood; by the way: he gets 74:1 for 1997.)
After 38 years of globalization income inequality grew significantly, especially after 1980. Associated with growing income inequality is the redistribution of more power to less people. The result is concentration of power - as long as power is mainly determined by economical power. The response to that development is to return to times where power is linked to violence. This is happening right now.
From NYTimes article
BTW it is quite possible that the House bill would survive a court challenge. It might be seen as a "bill of attainder" which is unconstitutional. However, "Numerous court rulings have upheld retroactive tax provisions, particularly over short periods. The House bill applies back only to Jan. 1, 2009. The measure is also strengthened by the fact that it does not apply to just one company or group of individuals, and does not take aim only at past bonuses but also bonuses to be paid in the future, experts said."
You guys really need to get laid more often :rolleyes:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (atlcomedy @ Mar 19 2009, 10:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Word! Particularly WTFQuote:
You guys really need to get laid more often :rolleyes:[/b]
A final thought on the subject:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/c...toon032009.gif
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (atlcomedy @ Mar 19 2009, 09:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pjorourke @ Mar 19 2009, 09:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Quote:
You guys really need to get laid more often :rolleyes:[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WTF @ Mar 19 2009, 03:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Quote:
Word! Particularly WTF[/b]
Damn fellows Golf $60 , dinner La Griglia $120 , Shagging a co-ed and helping with tuition...priceless. I'm really not sure what else I could have done yesterday for the betterment of society, cure cancer maybe? lolQuote:
....I'm off to play around and then if I'm not to tired to play around again.[/b]
Speaking of shagging......
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118655/quotes
Austin Powers: Shall we shag now, or shall we shag later? How do you like to do it? Do you like to wash up first? You know, top and tails... *****'s bath? Personally, before I'm on the job, I like to give my undercarriage a bit of a 'how's your father'!
----------------------------------
[filling out a form]
Austin Powers: Name? Austin Danger Powers. Sex? Yes please!
\
----------------------------------------
Vanessa Kensington: That's you in a nutshell.
Austin Powers: No, this is me in a nutshell: "Help! I'm in a nutshell! How did I get into this bloody great big nutshell? What kind of shell has a nut like this?"
----------------------------------------
Alotta Fagina: How dare you break wind before me
Austin Powers: I'm sorry I didn't realize it was your turn
---------------------------------------------------------
Austin Powers: I think you're shagedelic baby! You're switched on! You're smashing! You're shagadelic, baby!
------------------------------------------------------
JUST FOR PJ
Basil Exposition: Austin, the Cold War is over!
Austin Powers: Finally those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes, eh? Eh comrades? Eh?
Basil Exposition: Austin... we won.
Austin Powers: Oh, smashing, groovy, yay capitalism!
Gosh WTF, I didn't know you'd be so upset about me thinking of moving to Galt's Gulch. Really I just like Colorado.....fly fishing is a passion. I,m not "anti business" nor I'm I "government is the answer to all our problems". But when you 're talking about the basic necessities of life such as food, shelter, utilities, transportation and CREDIT, rules and regs are in order. Otherwise someone out of pure greed will manipulate markets - ENRON and now AIG. Its amazing to me that Wall Street does not want any government interference, but when the shit hits the fan they want to be bailed out, but then they don't want any conditions placed upon them concerning the use of bailout funds. Hell, the banks I deal with require plenty of conditions, why should it be any different for Wall Street.
Wall Street wrecked the credit markets and my livelihood has been directly impacted because they failed to consider and manage risk. They could not see beyond all the fees and bonuses they were making - "Greed tends to corrupt, and absolute greed corrupts absolutely." I have no sympathy and I am so tired of hearing "we have to pay the bonuses because we don't want to lose the talent". With that kind of talent who needs enemies.
Now that I have completed my purge, its time to get laid!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tropheee @ Mar 20 2009, 10:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Galt's Gulch is where all the smart Wall Street executive's and the people that support their theory of 'we can't live without them' are residing. Be careful they will just try and cheat you out of more money and try and convince you how smart they are.Quote:
Gosh WTF, I didn't know you'd be so upset about me thinking of moving to Galt's Gulch.[/b]
We are actually on the same page brother.......now I off to play some golf
PJ cartoon
ROTFL; brilliant
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tropheee @ Mar 20 2009, 10:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Thank GOD somebody else said this out loud as I've sure been thinking it!!! And I'd squeeze in between those two attempting to use OBE accounting methods to pay for a war of drifting - if not dubious - purpose & popularity....Quote:
...ENRON and now AIG....[/b]
Hubris! I know I sound like a broken record but that's what I keep coming back to... I am so fed up with the titans of industry AND the fools on the hill... world is far too full of morons who believe they are mensa material simply because they can wrap their hands around a few shekels of silver for a little while.
Where's our resident lyrist?
"You think that you're SO smart... but you don't have a FUCKIN' clue!..."
Hell, send them ALL to Gault Gultch. Then, maybe... just maybe... those of us who are left can get down to the nasty business of cleaning this mess up.
As for getting laid... LOVE to. Unfortunately, I've still got a few more miles to go & promises to keep today. Gives me time to calm down.
Definitely not the right frame of mind to take BCD... I think way too much of you ladies for that!!!! ;)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (discreetgent @ Mar 18 2009, 01:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>I quite agree! I'm thinking somewhere sunny and warm... CA might fit the bill. :DQuote:
I think the best way to discuss this, Ms. Cole, is to get a secluded room somewhere where you would show up without that sheet LOL.[/b]
I don't hold any illusions that the bill would have looked fundamentally different had the GOP been running the show, and yes, in pretty much any form it would take under either party - it pretty much amounts to socialism. That would be why I'm dead set against this, or any other tax-payer funded government bail out. Even though it's a bitter pill to swallow and a whole lot of people will feel the crunch, I think it's better to let the economy right itself than to "help" it along with billions in "stimulous". It's that whole butterfly/cocoon thing. The butterfly has to struggle mightily to free itself from the cocoon - and some don't have the strength to do so and die trying - but that struggle is what pumps blood into it's wings and enables them to strengthen and fly. If you "help" it out, it'll die shortly because it's wings won't work.
My theory on why middle/poor American military families tend to vote Republican is just a theory... It has to do with core values. Republicans tend to favor a strong military, Dems tend not to. Those who favor a strong military are often the ones who understand that sometimes, unfortunately, it takes death to ensure freedom and that sometimes you can't always simply talk your way out of a situation. Not to sound trite but the Hitlers of this world don't respond to chit-chat. I don't think anyone really *likes* war, but those with the core values that support a strong military presence understand that sometimes it takes sacrifice to bring peace. Sort of choosing between the lesser of two evils. So that large chunk of middle/poor America splits down the line of core values - those who want a strong military presence and are willing to sacrifice for the safety it provides, and those who just want a handout and social programs galore. Tadum! You have middle/poor America dividing itself into Reps and Dems. Also, the families of soldiers don't often hold the same core values as the soldiers - otherwise they might be in the armed forces themselves. It's those families that often have the most emotional and distressing pleas to end wars - but they are speaking from the place of their own core values (and pain at having lost a son/daughter/etc) and not those of the soldier's necessarily. I know, I know, it's a lot more complicated than that. I did say it was just a theory.....
Unfortunately, I agree that most any Dem would have won in 2008 against most any Rep for all the reasons you state. It's a damn shame this is just a two party system... But despite the "any Dem" issue, the one that won the nomination and then the Presidency did so based on (IMO) class envy and socialism. Hillary would have probably also won, but her main thrust was much less based on those two items. Would I have been happy about that? No. My political ideology doesn't lean Democratic in any way I can think of.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Edrienne Cole @ Mar 20 2009, 02:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Sounds like I need to find an excuse to get out to CA. :DQuote:
I quite agree! I'm thinking somewhere sunny and warm... CA might fit the bill. :D
My political ideology doesn't lean Democratic in any way I can think of.[/b]
I can think of one way you might lean Democratic. Democrats are probably more likely to go along with decriminalizing the world of escorts than Republicans :P
re: Stimulus. The theory of cocoon and butterfly might be attractive under most circumstances. The problem we are having now is that there may not be enough resources for the larvae to even build the cocoon.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (discreetgent @ Mar 20 2009, 05:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>If you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you.Quote:
I can think of one way you might lean Democratic. Democrats are probably more likely to go along with decriminalizing the world of escorts than Republicans[/b]
P.J., that's one of the funniest cartoons I've seen in a long time! Thanks for posting it.
As bungled as the events leading up to the AIG bonuses were, and as outrageous as the whole thing seems, hasn't congress lost all sense of proportion? In the overall scheme of things, and set against the hundreds of billions the administration and congress are set to waste, $165 million of AIG bonuses hardly qualifies as a rounding error. Yet congress is investing large amounts of time and energy in attempts at retribution.
Wouldn't it have been nice if they had devoted this sort of energy and attention to last month's "stimulus bill?" Weighing in at approximately $800 billion, it's almost 5,000 times larger than the AIG bonuses. Yet congressional "leadership" rushed it to a vote before anyone could even read it, let alone debate any of its provisions. Not surprisingly, a large portion of it is a poorly designed, pork-festooned collection of boondoggles and political paybacks.
No wonder people are alarmed at what's going on in Washington.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Edrienne Cole @ Mar 20 2009, 01:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Quote:
Not to sound trite but the Hitlers of this world don't respond to chit-chat. I don't think anyone really *likes* war, but those with the core values that support a strong military presence understand that sometimes it takes sacrifice to bring peace. Sort of choosing between the lesser of two evils. So that large chunk of middle/poor America splits down the line of core values - those who want a strong military presence and are willing to sacrifice for the safety it provides, and those who just want a handout and social programs galore. Tadum! You have middle/poor America dividing itself into Reps and Dems.[/b]
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.
Hippocrates (c.460 - 400 BC)
Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
ohn F. Kennedy (1917 - 1963)
What are the facts? Again and again and again—what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history"; what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
Robert Heinlein (1907 - 1988)
I think this guy makes some pretty good points:
http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/judgme...what-waste-week
Instead of concerning themselves with the most critical issues of the day, our political "leaders" seem intent on spending all their time and energy on minutiae.
In a word: Politics
This is all about politics. Not economics, but simple politics. Don't let the facts get in the way of spin and how it helps one improve their own position.
No, putting on my PhD in Business (yes, I really have one) . . .
Market based economics are the only form that has a proven long term record. Now before everyone jumps in with flame throwers . . . There are very few true free markets. Most have some form of impairment that require some form of regulation to balance. Take the typical you make, I buy marketplace. You have more information than I about what you are selling - is it any good, will it work, will it last, etc. This makes an unbalanced market, hence we have warranties.
The problem we are facing now is when government (the body that enacts regulations to balance markets) lets politics trump their responsibilities. The US Congress is ultimately responsible for regulation as it has the power to enact legislation to "fix" things. And over the past 30 some odd years, it has shown to be less interested in truly "fixing" what ails Americans as changing the rules to make it run in a manner they like - and the they is Congress. There is a simple solution, but none of us have the guts to do it - do not re-elect them. Now I know what you are thinking - my guy is OK, but that other guy is bad. Well, look up tragedy of the commons - it is time for us to act, and do so decisively - turn out 80% of the incumbents in the next election. We deserve better. Not more politics, but better leadership, even if it means we don't get all we want all the time.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CyberProf @ Mar 21 2009, 08:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Absolutely! And the only thing "worse" than either is combining them! :D Similar to the Lewis Black bit about Democrats & Republicans. He says the only thing WORSE than a Democrat OR a Republican is when these two pricks decide to work together!!Quote:
In a word: Politics
This is all about politics. Not economics, but simple politics. Don't let the facts get in the way of spin and how it helps one improve their own position.[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CyberProf @ Mar 21 2009, 08:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>I don't know that I agree.. but rather then begin one more pissing contest... I'd simply point out that ALL economic AND political systems are.... wait for it... wait for it... MODELS!!! They are attempts to organize & explain a complex world of interactions & human behavior. They are NOT gospel. They don't have THE right answer for any situation. In many situations, they have no answer at all. All are built on premises & assumptions regarding the universe in which they exist and the type of people that inhabit it. Those can be - at best - incomplete or - at worst - unrealistic.Quote:
No, putting on my PhD in Business (yes, I really have one) . . .
Market based economics are the only form that has a proven long term record. Now before everyone jumps in with flame throwers . . . There are very few true free markets. Most have some form of impairment that require some form of regulation to balance. Take the typical you make, I buy marketplace. You have more information than I about what you are selling - is it any good, will it work, will it last, etc. This makes an unbalanced market, hence we have warranties.[/b]
I don't have a PhD but I have spent a fair amount of time studying economics and politics. The smartest thing I EVER heard I heard the very first day of my very first class. My "Intro to Poly Sci" prof said of the entire discipline, and I quote:
"Never, EVER swallow ANYTHING hook, line & sinker.... nothing I say... nothing anybody else says. ALWAYS question, challenge, and evaluate."
I've tried never to forget that.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CyberProf @ Mar 21 2009, 08:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>:D Which 20% would you keep?????Quote:
The problem we are facing now is when government (the body that enacts regulations to balance markets) lets politics trump their responsibilities. The US Congress is ultimately responsible for regulation as it has the power to enact legislation to "fix" things. And over the past 30 some odd years, it has shown to be less interested in truly "fixing" what ails Americans as changing the rules to make it run in a manner they like - and the they is Congress. There is a simple solution, but none of us have the guts to do it - do not re-elect them. Now I know what you are thinking - my guy is OK, but that other guy is bad. Well, look up tragedy of the commons - it is time for us to act, and do so decisively - turn out 80% of the incumbents in the next election.[/b]
Congress=Bad
MY Congressthing=good
Is not a new reality. It's been around almost a long as Congress itself. The problem with the "vote the bums" out approach is that if your district is the only one that actually does, all you've managed to accomplish is to screw yourselves. Your "new Congressthing" is going to have no juice. Crappy committee assignments. No chance to bring home the "bacon" - let's face it.. that's ALL a depressing large segment of the population wants from their Congressthing.
I think you'd stand a better chance of achieving the goal with a grassroots movement to amend the Constitution in favor of term limits. Now, the problem with term limits is where to set them. Long enough that you don't wind up with a legislative body with no institutional memory. Short enough that you don't wind up with a body full of career legislators. Where's the line? I dunno...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CyberProf @ Mar 21 2009, 08:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Do we really DESERVE better???? I used to think that. Now, I'm not so sure...Quote:
We deserve better. Not more politics, but better leadership, even if it means we don't get all we want all the time.[/b]
My personal experience with life is that once in a while I get "lucky" or "unlucky" but - most of the time, things happen pretty much as they should.
Our economy's in the crapper. Our political system is inherently wired to maintain the status quo. Our people more readily identify with one or more subunits - be they political, ethnic, religious, cultural, or economic - than they do with the whole. Our educational system turns out "adults" that have no sense of history or world perspective... but a HELL of a lot participation trophies. Yet, we're the greatest country in the world.... nee the HISTORY of the world!!!!
A notion I find more incongruous with each passing day...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sisyphus @ Mar 22 2009, 10:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>I agree that economic theory (actually most academic theory) is not the be all and end all.Quote:
Absolutely! And the only thing "worse" than either is combining them! :D Similar to the Lewis Black bit about Democrats & Republicans. He says the only thing WORSE than a Democrat OR a Republican is when these two pricks decide to work together!!
I don't know that I agree.. but rather then begin one more pissing contest... I'd simply point out that ALL economic AND political systems are.... wait for it... wait for it... MODELS!!! They are attempts to organize & explain a complex world of interactions & human behavior. They are NOT gospel. They don't have THE right answer for any situation. In many situations, they have no answer at all. All are built on premises & assumptions regarding the universe in which they exist and the type of people that inhabit it. Those can be - at best - incomplete or - at worst - unrealistic.
I don't have a PhD but I have spent a fair amount of time studying economics and politics. The smartest thing I EVER heard I heard the very first day of my very first class. My "Intro to Poly Sci" prof said of the entire discipline, and I quote:
"Never, EVER swallow ANYTHING hook, line & sinker.... nothing I say... nothing anybody else says. ALWAYS question, challenge, and evaluate."
I've tried never to forget that.
:D Which 20% would you keep?????
Congress=Bad
MY Congressthing=good
Is not a new reality. It's been around almost a long as Congress itself. The problem with the "vote the bums" out approach is that if your district is the only one that actually does, all you've managed to accomplish is to screw yourselves. Your "new Congressthing" is going to have no juice. Crappy committee assignments. No chance to bring home the "bacon" - let's face it.. that's ALL a depressing large segment of the population wants from their Congressthing.
I think you'd stand a better chance of achieving the goal with a grassroots movement to amend the Constitution in favor of term limits. Now, the problem with term limits is where to set them. Long enough that you don't wind up with a legislative body with no institutional memory. Short enough that you don't wind up with a body full of career legislators. Where's the line? I dunno...
Do we really DESERVE better???? I used to think that. Now, I'm not so sure...
My personal experience with life is that once in a while I get "lucky" or "unlucky" but - most of the time, things happen pretty much as they should.
Our economy's in the crapper. Our political system is inherently wired to maintain the status quo. Our people more readily identify with one or more subunits - be they political, ethnic, religious, cultural, or economic - than they do with the whole. Our educational system turns out "adults" that have no sense of history or world perspective... but a HELL of a lot participation trophies. Yet, we're the greatest country in the world.... nee the HISTORY of the world!!!!
A notion I find more incongruous with each passing day...[/b]
I'm not sure that they (theories that is) are even an attempt to explain things.
The higher the level I studied at, the more I became convinced that theory is just a starting point. It's a starting place to focus and from which to digress or build upon. That makes academic theory important..because any journey you take, has to have a beginning.
The problem is that people tend to want to be pro or anti theory...and that is rarely the intention of an academic.
The theory is there to stimulate you and make you think and be passionate about your beliefs and find the ability to arm yourself with evidence to support your ideas. There were very few models, concepts, theories in either my undergrad or masters that I embraced wholeheartedly...and it certainly wasn't because I thought I had the answers...it was because I knew if it was that black and white it would be implemented efficiently and effectively.
As a marketing gal, I always used to joke that the hardest thing to market would be America.
Now before you all jump on me and thrash me....it's because this country is a complex market of consumers.
America is the great melting pot of the World. State policy differs, cultures differ, ideals differ and probably more so in this country than anywhere else in the World due to the sheer number of people here and the differences from state to state. Gaining a strong majoraty for anything in this country is fraught with complications for all those reasons. America is a collective of very different states that join to form one country...sort of like the intent of the Euopean Union. The EU struggles like hell to make any agreeable decisions and they are supposed to be aligned socially, politically and economically. It's bullshit trying to combine the cultural pathways (many of which are steeped in deep tradtion and values) to form a union...and to some extent I do feel that same struggle here. I think (and just my opinion) that having state laws and federal laws fragment this country rather than unify it. I don't see a greater purpose in doing this. It seems to create small communities (states) that have little connection with other communities (states)...how can that be good for anyone? I don't have any answers and I dont even see a best fit....I'm guessing I'm just sharing thoughts which are probably irrelevent anyway....
C
In general, term limits for legislators are the stupidest idea that's come out of the political process in this country. (And that's saying something.)
The legislators are supposed to be working for us citizens. How well would your company work if you told your employees, "You are in a position of great power in the company. I can't fire you unless I catch you committing a serious crime. At the end of two (or 6) years, I'm going to fire you no matter how good or bad your performance has been."
Term limits mean that there is no incentive for good behaviour or punishment for bad behaviour in a legislator's last term.
Geez. These firms have hundreds of billions of our tax dollars that they have borrowed. If the firms go down the tubes we don't get repaid.
The people working at top positions will make a big difference in whether the firms make it.
Suppose you're a smart Wall Street executive, trader, or finance guy who can make a big difference in the profitability of a company. Are you going to be willing to work at AIG or one of the other companies that owe us billions? If you're currently working at AIG, are you going to stay there, or are you going to take an offer from one of the other companies that want to hire you and aren't taking bailout money? When you work at a non-bailout company, aren't you going to be doing all you can to attract business to your firm at the expense of AIG?
Might you just skip the US altogether and work in London or the Far East?
There's also the claim that the bonuses are going to the guys who screwed things up. Do you know that? It's said that it was mostly CDSs or Credit Default Swaps that brought down AIG. Maybe 10% of the bonus recipients were involved in those decisions. I think AIG stopped writing CDSs in 2005, but couldn't get out of the contracts. How many of these bonus recipients were part of CDSs in 2005? How many of the people getting bonuses made big money in their own areas while the CDSs brought AIG down?
Folks, the "guilty" parties got their big bonuses years ago when the bad decisions where made and the boom was in full swing. Going after the current bonuses just cripples the ability of the companies to operate now and repay their government loans.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gneissguy @ Mar 22 2009, 02:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>You miss the point entirely. Holding office should not be a career. That is the problem. The Barney Franks of the world that have never held a real job in their lives are the problem.Quote:
In general, term limits for legislators are the stupidest idea that's come out of the political process in this country. (And that's saying something.)
The legislators are supposed to be working for us citizens. How well would your company work if you told your employees, "You are in a position of great power in the company. I can't fire you unless I catch you committing a serious crime. At the end of two (or 6) years, I'm going to fire you no matter how good or bad your performance has been."
Term limits mean that there is no incentive for good behaviour or punishment for bad behaviour in a legislator's last term.[/b]
I would agree with you if the Congress was General Electric or Procter & Gamble but it isn't!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (atlcomedy @ Mar 22 2009, 04:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>The Barney Franks of this world would be even more corrupt, stupid, or just arrogantly pursuing their own agenda if they knew their gravy train was going to end at the end of their current term due to term limits. They'd be in a powerful job with no "performance review" at the end of the term.Quote:
You miss the point entirely. Holding office should not be a career. That is the problem. The Barney Franks of the world that have never held a real job in their lives are the problem.[/b]
The only way these guys are answerable to the public is by having to stand for reelection.
You'd also have a melee of new political unknowns with no public service history running for election every election cycle.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gneissguy @ Mar 22 2009, 06:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Debating this with you is pointless....Quote:
The Barney Franks of this world would be even more corrupt, stupid, or just arrogantly pursuing their own agenda if they knew their gravy train was going to end at the end of their current term due to term limits. They'd be in a powerful job with no "performance review" at the end of the term.
The only way these guys are answerable to the public is by having to stand for reelection.
You'd also have a melee of new political unknowns with no public service history running for election every election cycle.[/b]
I want political unknowns....good people with a history of success and good judgement from the private sector coming in an serving their community or country and then cycling back to a private sector role....
You can have Barney Frank....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gneissguy @ Mar 22 2009, 01:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>"aint nothing good going on in England right now.Quote:
Might you just skip the US altogether and work in London ?[/b]
The IMF got one thing right when they released their "bulletin" pre-president elect in '08, "The World is in a recession and England will bear the brunt of it."
I'm watching it crumble from here...I hear the bricks falling :unsure:
C
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gneissguy @ Mar 22 2009, 02:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Term limits are an attempt by the populace to take the elections back from the political class, who consider safe districts their god given right. A better idea is geographically contiguous congressional districts (preferably set by courts) that follow natural terrain or existing political boundaries. These 90+% safe red/blue districts are the primary reason that the House is such a clown act (the Senate is only marginally better) where there is no need for compromise or looking at issues from a broader perspective.Quote:
In general, term limits for legislators are the stupidest idea that's come out of the political process in this country. (And that's saying something.)
The legislators are supposed to be working for us citizens. How well would your company work if you told your employees, "You are in a position of great power in the company. I can't fire you unless I catch you committing a serious crime. At the end of two (or 6) years, I'm going to fire you no matter how good or bad your performance has been."
Term limits mean that there is no incentive for good behaviour or punishment for bad behaviour in a legislator's last term.[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pjorourke @ Mar 22 2009, 06:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>I think that's part of it. I would also like to see a return to the time when the legislative session - and the compensation for serving - were more commensurate with legislator being a PART TIME job... not a professional career.Quote:
Term limits are an attempt by the populace to take the elections back from the political class, who consider safe districts their god given right. A better idea is geographically contiguous congressional districts (preferably set by courts) that follow natural terrain or existing political boundaries. These 90+% safe red/blue districts are the primary reason that the House is such a clown act (the Senate is only marginally better) where there is no need for compromise or looking at issues from a broader perspective.[/b]
It's a pipe dream, I know... But I really would like to see Congressmen function the way they were intended to function.
1. Go to Washington
2. Pass the bills.
3. Go HOME
4. GET BACK TO YOUR REAL JOB
Somewhere along the way holding office became the ends rather than the means...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sisyphus @ Mar 22 2009, 09:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Bingo!Quote:
4. GET BACK TO YOUR REAL JOB
Somewhere along the way holding office became the ends rather than the means...[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pjorourke @ Mar 22 2009, 06:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Wouldn't single term or x term legislators with political newbies make things worse in some ways? You'd have unknown people running for office, and the winner would be who spends the most money on ads, political consultants, etc. The winner would be:Quote:
Term limits are an attempt by the populace to take the elections back from the political class, who consider safe districts their god given right. A better idea is geographically contiguous congressional districts (preferably set by courts) that follow natural terrain or existing political boundaries. These 90+% safe red/blue districts are the primary reason that the House is such a clown act (the Senate is only marginally better) where there is no need for compromise or looking at issues from a broader perspective.[/b]
1) A guy with lots of money to start with.
2) A guy who sold out to others with lots of money. or
3) The guy chosen by the political power brokers in the party who can get out the money and other political support to elect the next unknown.
Actually sounds a lot like the current system, but at least the voters get a chance to kick the scoundrels out after their first term and keep the better guys.
Apparently, the people in Massachusetts like Barney Frank. They keep electing him. Wouldn't they be likely to elect someone just as bad if we had term limits?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gneissguy @ Mar 22 2009, 10:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>That seems hard to conceiveQuote:
Apparently, the people in Massachusetts like Barney Frank. They keep electing him. Wouldn't they be likely to elect someone just as bad if we had term limits?[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Camille @ Mar 22 2009, 11:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>I certainly think that's the case in the social sciences... it's way of coping and BEGINNING to develop some understanding of complex systems...Quote:
I agree that economic theory (actually most academic theory) is not the be all and end all.
I'm not sure that they (theories that is) are even an attempt to explain things.[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Camille @ Mar 22 2009, 11:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>I would agree. Because the systems & behaviors attempted to be explained are complex & changing, so are the theories.Quote:
The higher the level I studied at, the more I became convinced that theory is just a starting point. It's a starting place to focus and from which to digress or build upon. That makes academic theory important..because any journey you take, has to have a beginning.[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Camille @ Mar 22 2009, 11:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>And therein lies the rub.... where's the line between a hypothesis to be tested & a pre-conceived notion to be supported. Are the researchers developing a theory that explains the data; or, cherry-picking data to support the theory?Quote:
The problem is that people tend to want to be pro or anti theory...and that is rarely the intention of an academic.
The theory is there to stimulate you and make you think and be passionate about your beliefs and find the ability to arm yourself with evidence to support your ideas.[/b]
Not sure what's happening in the UK these days, but among our other challenges is the increasing politicization of higher learning...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Camille @ Mar 22 2009, 11:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>I opted for an eclectic approach... where I could synthesize pieces of varying theories w/o resulting in conflicting assumptions or premises, I did so. Where I could not, I discounted the efficacy of a given theory as a particularly good "fit"... at least under certain circumstances.Quote:
There were very few models, concepts, theories in either my undergrad or masters that I embraced wholeheartedly...and it certainly wasn't because I thought I had the answers...it was because I knew if it was that black and white it would be implemented efficiently and effectively.[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Camille @ Mar 22 2009, 11:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Nothing to trash... marketing ourselves to the rest of the world has proved difficult throughout our history. Just ask anybody who has worked at USAID; or the Marines in Ramadi.Quote:
As a marketing gal, I always used to joke that the hardest thing to market would be America.
Now before you all jump on me and thrash me....it's because this country is a complex market of consumers.[/b]
We were founded on "freedom"... yet we owned slaves and denied significant segments of our population the right to vote. We were founded on "pursuit of happiness"... yet we operated in what was effectively a closed society for a very long time. We oscillate between free market & trade on one hand AND protectionism & government intervention as it suit our purpose. We've found it difficult to articulate "why we fight" for every conflict we've been in since WW2.
About the only thing we've consistently "stood for"... at least until recently... is pragmatism of thought & opportunity for most through adaptation & absorption. That can be difficult for other cultures to understand. I'm not sure most of us understand ourselves.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Camille @ Mar 22 2009, 11:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>The great melting pot of the World has been our history or at least our history according to the American Myth. It's NOT our birthright NOR is by necessity our future... that's sort of what concerns me. I now need to prepare myself to be jumped by all those whose view is that is SOLELY the fault of the "new type" of immigrants. That's ok... it's my karmic burden & I'll bear it. I'll bear it gladly because I don't think it's an argument entirely w/o merit. There ARE a group of folks coming here now that DON'T seem to be as interested in "fitting in" as we've been schooled to believe previous generations of immigrants were.Quote:
America is the great melting pot of the World. State policy differs, cultures differ, ideals differ and probably more so in this country than anywhere else in the World due to the sheer number of people here and the differences from state to state. Gaining a strong majoraty for anything in this country is fraught with complications for all those reasons. America is a collective of very different states that join to form one country...sort of like the intent of the Euopean Union. The EU struggles like hell to make any agreeable decisions and they are supposed to be aligned socially, politically and economically. It's bullshit trying to combine the cultural pathways (many of which are steeped in deep tradtion and values) to form a union...and to some extent I do feel that same struggle here. I think (and just my opinion) that having state laws and federal laws fragment this country rather than unify it. I don't see a greater purpose in doing this. It seems to create small communities (states) that have little connection with other communities (states)...how can that be good for anyone? I don't have any answers and I dont even see a best fit....I'm guessing I'm just sharing thoughts which are probably irrelevent anyway....
C[/b]
Maybe that's true. Maybe they ARE just here for what they can get and want to get it while giving as little as possible. Can't imagine where they would have gotten an idea like THAT from????
Or, maybe what we've been taught is part of the American Myth. Perhaps the assimilation of previous generations of immigrants was more fraught with discrimination & difficulties than we remember or were taught.
Then again... maybe they're not as interested in trying to fit because we're not as interested as we used to be in remaining true to our ideals; or, at least in perpetuating the Myth. Who knows??? That's a whole other discussion.
I find your comparison of the American experience to the EU to be interesting. While it is certainly true that the countries who make up the EU have a much deeper set of historical & cultural barriers to union than the colonies did... we weren't without ours as well. It should be noted that we didn't get it "right" straight out of the gate. The Articles of Confederation was a disaster. Even so, it was "nip & tuck" as to whether the Constitution would even be adopted. It took the first great act of "lobbying" & "spin control" (aka, The Federalist Papers) to carry the day. It has taken another bloody civil war & a fair amount of tinkering to hold it together since.
AND THAT was coming off a vicious & costly war against a common enemy. Namely....um...er...well, you!!! :P
So, I wouldn't throw in the towel on the EU just yet. I do think it's an idea whose time has come. All you guys need is a common enemy. Namely...um...er...well, US! :P
Ok, ok...the Chinese!!!!! :D
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pjorourke @ Mar 22 2009, 11:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>You think that's hard to believe, try wrapping your head around the fact that MY home district just loves, loves, LOVES... Stenny Hoyer!!!Quote:
That seems hard to conceive[/b]
Personally (and I have personal knowledge of which I speak), I think of him much as Truman thought of Nixon. To wit:
"He's a Godamn shifty-eyed liar!!"
But we keep sending him back. It's like staying in a loveless marriage...
It sucks... until you consider the alternative...
What would become of the children?????