PDA

View Full Version : It Happened


Twodogs
10-22-2009, 02:46 PM
111111

Fast_Eddie
10-22-2009, 02:54 PM
Not sure I have an opinion, but very interested to hear more about it. I'm also interested to hear the Constitutional provisions that you suggest they have violated. Not saying you're wrong, by the way. Just like to see what you're talking about. Hell, wouldn't be the first time an administration did something unconsitutional (Nixon, Reagan, Bush) but they usually try to hide it.

Grumpy
10-22-2009, 03:46 PM
Not sure I have an opinion, but very interested to hear more about it. I'm also interested to hear the Constitutional provisions that you suggest they have violated. Not saying you're wrong, by the way. Just like to see what you're talking about. Hell, wouldn't be the first time an administration did something unconsitutional (Nixon, Reagan, Bush) but they usually try to hide it.


Funny no dems in that paragraph above. Know why ? They are better at hiding it :p

Fast_Eddie
10-22-2009, 03:59 PM
No, I left them out on purpose 'cause I like them better.

merrylander
10-22-2009, 04:05 PM
It is my honest belief that there is no man nor no woman on the face of God's green earth worth more than $500,000 per year and there are damn few of them.

BlueStreak
10-23-2009, 12:00 AM
Sorry, I have nothing more substantive to say about it than this.

After decades of listening about how "overpaid and underworked" American Workers are?
And these people have NEVER BEEN worth the compensation they've been receiving. (Not IMHO.)
And now they're living high on the taxpayers dole?
And I'm supposed to feel SORRY for these assholes?
Nobody forced them to take the money, they went begging for it.
Well, I'm sorry, but if you dance to the music, you pay the piper.

Oh, pity, pity for the poor little rich boy. Only in Reagans America would we feel pity for the rich and piss
on our workers.

Fuck'em, I don't care.

Did I state my position clearly enough for you?

Dave

BlueStreak
10-23-2009, 12:04 AM
And NO. I don't miss that shithead in your avatar either.

Have a nice day,
Dave

BlueStreak
10-23-2009, 12:08 AM
Sorry about the angry outburst, but I lose it when conservatives try to garner sympathy for those thieves.

Charles
10-23-2009, 01:28 AM
If we're going to nationalize private industry, let's just lower our veil and do it.

The government loaned them money, they didn't buy them out. Makes the government just another stock or bond holder. If they don't like who's running things, or how much they're getting paid, they can vote in the next election...just like everyone else.

If we're to be a nation of laws, the government must abide by them also.

Chas

noonereal
10-23-2009, 05:48 AM
How anyone can justify the continuation of immoral pay for folks who would be in jail if they did the same things on the street is bizarre.

It shows the mass psychology of the right is very effective.
Sorry, but to side with the GOP in these regards causes me to think of the Moonies, the followers of Jim Jones, David Koresh...


Voting for policies that favor the obscene rich may leaves you with a warm and fuzzy feeling but the reality is that it just makes you their bitch; not one of them.

Stop voting against your own self interests.

Charles
10-23-2009, 07:04 AM
How anyone can justify the continuation of immoral pay for folks who would be in jail if they did the same things on the street is bizarre.

It shows the mass psychology of the right is very effective.
Sorry, but to side with the GOP in these regards causes me to think of the Moonies, the followers of Jim Jones, David Koresh...


Voting for policies that favor the obscene rich may leaves you with a warm and fuzzy feeling but the reality is that it just makes you their bitch; not one of them.

Stop voting against your own self interests.

If they have broken the law, I'm all in favor of putting them in jail.

And if the laws favor the obscenely rich, or the rich, or the poor, they should be changed. I do not approve of laws that favor anyone.

And BTW, I don't think that I've ever gazed upon the Beltway and felt warm and fuzzy.

Gotta hit it, with 3 lousy hours of sleep to boot, later.

Chas

noonereal
10-23-2009, 07:16 AM
If we're going to nationalize private industry, let's just lower our veil and do it.



So you are against Child Labor Laws, OSHA rules and consumer protections offered by the FDA?

Your current stance is consistent with those that opposed these bills.

piece-itpete
10-23-2009, 07:22 AM
If we're going to nationalize private industry, let's just lower our veil and do it.....

....If we're to be a nation of laws, the government must abide by them also.

Chas

Agreed, why beat around the bush? Capitalism has worked very well for this country, but it does make winners and losers. Communism has proven to make losers and losers.

I wonder how many here have direct and indirect ties (accounts stock etc) to these evil banks. We are supposed to vote with our feet.

Pete

noonereal
10-23-2009, 07:24 AM
If they have broken the law, I'm all in favor of putting them in jail.

And if the laws favor the obscenely rich, or the rich, or the poor, they should be changed. I do not approve of laws that favor anyone.

And BTW, I don't think that I've ever gazed upon the Beltway and felt warm and fuzzy.

Gotta hit it, with 3 lousy hours of sleep to boot, later.

Chas

Many laws have been broken during the housing crises and no on is being prosecuted, this is a different issue.
Then you can add to that the rapping of the economy decisions made that are technically legal but against the best interest of the country.

I would indeed like to see prosecutions.

I would also like to exercise my vote as the owner of these banks that took my money to stay solvent and declare an end to obscene wages.
BTW it's a load of crap that they will loose the "best talent."

noonereal
10-23-2009, 07:29 AM
Agreed, why beat around the bush? Capitalism has worked very well for this country,



Really?

More kool aid?


What made this country great for you and I were the laws put in place to curb capitalism, not capitalism and certainly not corporatism.

Sorry Pete, this is the kind of post that makes me shake with frustration as this is not philosophical but rather fact.

piece-itpete
10-23-2009, 09:06 AM
While I agree we need some regulation, particularly regarding monopolies, systems that allow monopolies are not capitalist, or at the very least not free market economies.

In a very real sense government controlled industies are monopolies.

Pete

merrylander
10-23-2009, 12:01 PM
Me too, of the politicians that FORCED banks to make risky loans in the first place. Do you need a list?

Does it come from the same source as that BS? No banks were 'forced' to make bad loans and in any case the banks did not risk very much. They bundled the loans into derivatives, skimmed off their points and sold them.

BlueStreak
10-23-2009, 12:26 PM
Does it come from the same source as that BS? No banks were 'forced' to make bad loans and in any case the banks did not risk very much. They bundled the loans into derivatives, skimmed off their points and sold them.

That's how I understand it. It appears to me bad loans were knowingly made, then bundled and pawned off on investors. Which would be wholly and completely unethical, seems to me. And yet these crooks now think they are entitled to a fat bonus, compliments of the Americn taxpayer, when really they should be in prison receiving no compensation at all.

"Reverse Robinhoodism"---Stealing from the poor to give to the rich.
Welcome to 21st Century America. What a joke.

Dave

merrylander
10-23-2009, 02:13 PM
The right wing has been flogging that poor dead horse for the last eight years, give the poor thing a decent burial. Whose bright idea was it to kill Glass Steagal - dear old Phil Gramm, McCain's financial advisor.

The idea that the government could make bankers do anything they did not want to do is laughable.

piece-itpete
10-23-2009, 02:43 PM
Only in Reagans America would we feel pity for the rich and piss on our workers.

Sorry about the angry outburst, but I lose it when conservatives try to garner sympathy for those thieves.

but to side with the GOP in these regards causes me to think of the Moonies, the followers of Jim Jones, David Koresh...


You'all may be interested in Frontlines' 'The Warning', about a whistleblower who was ignored by Clinton, who allowed the derivatives market to be unregulated, the root of the banks close-to-failing (by their consensus anyway).

And yes, they make it clear it was Clinton. Although to be fair Bush didn't change it either. And then Obama still has Geithner and Bernake.

Pete

d-ray657
10-23-2009, 04:06 PM
Here's just a quick explanation. I have to head to work, but will be happy to provide additional info as needed when I return.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html

It's clear from the rhetorical vocabulary in that piece that it is a neutral unbiased reporter of unquestionably accurate facts and analysis. And I'll be receiveing an award from the Chamber of Commerce next week.

Regards,

D-Ray

Charles
10-23-2009, 04:46 PM
You'all may be interested in Frontlines' 'The Warning', about a whistleblower who was ignored by Clinton, who allowed the derivatives market to be unregulated, the root of the banks close-to-failing (by their consensus anyway).

And yes, they make it clear it was Clinton. Although to be fair Bush didn't change it either. And then Obama still has Geithner and Bernake.

Pete

Well, Mr. Pete...what exactly is your point? That there is plenty of blame to go around?

If that is your point, Sir...then I concur. 2nd place goes to the Dogman on bringing up the CRA. And credit for mentioning the repeal of Glass-Steagall goes to Rob. Since I don't want to retype this paragraph, I'll just give all of you a tie for 1st place...and a Nobel Prize in Economics to boot.

Now Noon, ol' buddy, please don't try to paint me as someone who wishes to roll back the child labor laws. The situation is so complex that I am unable to express myself fully in a couple of sentences, or even a couple of paragraphs. Besides, I am hardly an authority on this subject.

As much as I dislike government regulations, I will concede the point that a certain amount of them are necessary. But there are good regulations and bad regulations. And I consider the CRA to be a bad regulation.

I'll make a quick point and then butt out.

Several months ago I was talking to my banker and I asked him, "Why in the hell are the banks making no money down loans which exceed the appraised value of a property, with payments which won't even cover the interest, to people who don't have enough credit to buy birdseed for a kuku clock. But when I walk in the door, all I can get is 80%, and they look up my ass with a telescope. I have to furnish three years of tax returns, a statement of my net worth, plus a cover letter from my accountant which says I'm not lying...to the best of his knowledge. Like he would know."

And this is what Joe told me.

"It's the mortgage brokers who do that. By law, we can't. And I'll tell you something else. By law, we can only loan 80% of either the appraisal or the selling price...whichever is lower."

Since I'm hardly a Master of the Universe, please don't ask me to explain the nuances of this. I'm just telling you what he told me.

And I did build a house for some people who got their financing from an out of state internet mortgage broker, or whatever he actually was (Goddamn crook if you want my honest opinion)...it was a learning experience. In the future, in a situation like this, I will advise my customer that if they can't get a conventional loan at the local bank, then they can't afford to be building a new house. More than once. I could go on about this, but I'll cut to the chase.

I agree, we do need regulations. But the right ones, not the wrong ones.

Chas

A little icing on the cake. As I was typing this, I had a call come in from a "West Asst Mgt" (bill collector looking for one of my employees that should never had money loaned to him in the 1st place).

The message goes, "If you wish to hear this message in English, press "1" now."

Not sure how this call fits in with what I've been saying...but it fits in there somewhere.

And before you ask Noon...it is 4:00...even here.

Charles
10-23-2009, 04:54 PM
It's clear from the rhetorical vocabulary in that piece that it is a neutral unbiased reporter of unquestionably accurate facts and analysis. And I'll be receiveing an award from the Chamber of Commerce next week.

Regards,

D-Ray

I looked at the article, I I believe that it is factual. Not the 1st time I've read this.

While I'm guilty of the same thing, poking a sharp stick in the other guy's eye doesn't lead to a civil discourse.

Look beyond your agenda, it's a big world.

Chas

noonereal
10-23-2009, 06:17 PM
I agree, we do need regulations. But the right ones, not the wrong ones.
.

As usual we are closer to agreement than it seems on the surface.
If it were not so cumbersome to go into detail in such an exchange I'd bet we could even agree on how things ought to be run.

But then who would be wise enough to adopt our decree? :D

Charles
10-23-2009, 11:29 PM
As usual we are closer to agreement than it seems on the surface.
If it were not so cumbersome to go into detail in such an exchange I'd bet we could even agree on how things ought to be run.

But then who would be wise enough to adopt our decree? :D

Face it, we have more in common with one another than we will ever have with"the powers that be'..

Gottta go...I have run out of gas.

Good today, and a better tomorrow.

Chas

Know what, Noon, it for sure is 3:00 AM somewhere...at least in Moniteau County.

Audios compradre,

Chas

d-ray657
10-24-2009, 12:28 AM
I looked at the article, I I believe that it is factual. Not the 1st time I've read this.

While I'm guilty of the same thing, poking a sharp stick in the other guy's eye doesn't lead to a civil discourse.

Look beyond your agenda, it's a big world.

Chas

Chas, You make a good point about my knee jerk reaction.

Even expressed in a more civil manner, however, I believe it is fair to say that the rhetorical stance of the article diminishes its credibility.

As a debating strategy, I usually find it more effective to cite sources that have credibility with the person expressing the opposing viewpoint. Two of my four brothers serve to balance our family's political landscape with respect to my Lefty New York City brother and I, with our Missouri brother sitting at the fulcrum (see, trying to win points with my audience). In any event, I have prevailed in a discussion or two by citing material from the National Review.

Back to the topic; while there is plenty of blame to spread around for the economic crisis, greed appears to be the biggest culprit (with over-consumption running second).

Regards,

D-Ray

merrylander
10-24-2009, 07:25 AM
Chas your banker hit the nail on the head - mortgage brokers - and I do believe we are the only country that has them. We may also be the only ones who use Title companies. When I bought the house in Ottawa I went directly to my bank to get a mortgage, no title company (or insurance) was involved, closing costs $600.

When we got this home here in Glenwood, we first bought the land, then had the house built, between the mortgage brokers, title company etc. closing costs $22,000. Our system here was designed by thieves for thieves.

Charles
10-24-2009, 09:59 AM
Chas, You make a good point about my knee jerk reaction.

Even expressed in a more civil manner, however, I believe it is fair to say that the rhetorical stance of the article diminishes its credibility.

As a debating strategy, I usually find it more effective to cite sources that have credibility with the person expressing the opposing viewpoint. Two of my four brothers serve to balance our family's political landscape with respect to my Lefty New York City brother and I, with our Missouri brother sitting at the fulcrum (see, trying to win points with my audience). In any event, I have prevailed in a discussion or two by citing material from the National Review.

Back to the topic; while there is plenty of blame to spread around for the economic crisis, greed appears to be the biggest culprit (with over-consumption running second).

Regards,

D-Ray

You have a brother that left Kansas to settle in Missouri? Not that long ago that would have been considered an act of treason!!!!

Have a good day,

Chas

d-ray657
10-24-2009, 11:40 AM
You have a brother that left Kansas to settle in Missouri? Not that long ago that would have been considered an act of treason!!!!

Have a good day,

Chas

Nah, he moved from Oklahoma to St. Louis some 40+ years ago. I moved from Oklahoma to Kansas, work in Missouri and have crossed the state line regularly for the last 21 years. Missouri gets more of my income tax dollars than Kansas does. Also have bros in Texas, Seattle and NYC. I think that makes us a cosmopolitan family.

Regards,

D-Ray

Twodogs
10-24-2009, 12:57 PM
Hmm, I wonder what Pipefitter scale will end up being in the new America? Hell, maybe I "should" be backing this Prez??

d-ray657
10-24-2009, 02:57 PM
Hmm, I wonder what Pipefitter scale will end up being in the new America? Hell, maybe I "should" be backing this Prez??

If you think it is better for the country for the gap in income between management and labor to grow and for the middle class to shrink, you shouldn't support Obama. If you would like to see a growth in union membership which will bring even non-union wages up with it, leave the elephant behind.

Regards,

D-Ray

Twodogs
10-24-2009, 03:51 PM
And whenever Republicans are in office I can't catch up at work. When the Dems get the reigns, I barely scrape by with around 30 hours if I'm lucky. (and I'm the source on that)

d-ray657
10-24-2009, 05:51 PM
And whenever Republicans are in office I can't catch up at work. When the Dems get the reigns, I barely scrape by with around 30 hours if I'm lucky. (and I'm the source on that)

I might question the sample size of your study. :rolleyes:

I hope you get to spend some of that extra time in the toob spa. ;)

Regards,

D-Ray

Charles
10-24-2009, 06:22 PM
If you think it is better for the country for the gap in income between management and labor to grow and for the middle class to shrink, you shouldn't support Obama. If you would like to see a growth in union membership which will bring even non-union wages up with it, leave the elephant behind.

Regards,

D-Ray

I think that free trade has had more to do with the decline of the middle class than the decline of the unions.

Hand "Little Jimmy Hoffa" a baseball bat and send him to China. Maybe he can hook up with their mob. That's where he's needed the most.

And BTW, I am not trying to disparage the unions.

Let's switch gears for a moment and discuss "sustainable growth". The globalists have determined that the US, and the rest of the industrialized world, have to get by with less. In other words, we've had it too good for too long. And "green" is the lever with which they are using to achieve their ends.

Maybe they're right. Maybe not.

I'm a "rising tide lifts all boats" kind of guy. But it looks to me as though the tide is being lowered.

Personally, I would recommend getting used to getting by with less. That appears to be the direction that we're headed. And by design, not accident.

But look at the upside. Once you land in the poorhouse, you get a free cell phone!!!!!

Take the bad with the good.

Chas

d-ray657
10-24-2009, 06:40 PM
Some things we agree on there, Chas. I know that the Steelworkers are dispatching organizers to South American and elsewhere to train workers to organize for their own benefit. As you said, a rising tide . . .

Second, I realize that we need major lifestyle changes. If the rest of the world consumed like we do, sustainability wouldn't even be a dream. A lot of what I buy is used, and I really try to fix things before giving up on them. I don't need to eat as much as I eat; don't have to keep rooms warm that no one is sleeping in; and I could stand to walk on some of my short trips. Don't have a big flat screen, and don't watch enough TV to justify one. Sure as heck don't "need" one.

Regards,

D-Ray

JJIII
10-24-2009, 07:09 PM
"But look at the upside. Once you land in the poorhouse, you get a free cell phone!!!!!"

I'd be laughing if I wasn't crying. :(

BlueStreak
10-24-2009, 10:51 PM
If you think it is better for the country for the gap in income between management and labor to grow and for the middle class to shrink, you shouldn't support Obama. If you would like to see a growth in union membership which will bring even non-union wages up with it, leave the elephant behind.

Regards,

D-Ray

And whenever Republicans are in office I can't catch up at work. When the Dems get the reigns, I barely scrape by with around 30 hours if I'm lucky. (and I'm the source on that)

And this is why we need both.

If the Republicans had a totally free hand there might be a ton of work (Maybe), but we we'd all be back to workin' for a $1.50 a day, living in the company barracks behind the plant and shopping exclusively at the company store 'cuz the company script aint no good anywhere else. And the top .00001% percent of the population would control 103% of the nations wealth.
But at least we could take pride in the fact that we busted ass for every penny that we earned for them. And when they decide to throw a war, we would be glad to offer up our children as cannon fodder to protect them as "Great Americans" should do. And, as always, only whiney assed Jesus hating Liberals would be pussyfied enough to complain about this arrangement.

If the Dems had a totally free hand the minimum wage would be $250 an hour taxed at a rate of 99.9% and there would only be a hundred and twelve people actually working nation wide.The rest of us would be on welfare. Or homeless.
But, that's okay 'cuz the government cheese is delicious and the state run media says Americans have the highest standard of living in the entire country. (Double plus good, eh?) No one would complain, because Marijuana use would be mandatory and we would all be too stoned to care. Oh, and of course, there is the free cell phone.

So, in summary I would say that it is essential that we keep BOTH parties around to cancel each other out and hopefully keep the nation somewhat kinda in the center. Copeche?

(This post was submitted strictly as comic relief. The comments contained herein do not necessarily reflect the true opinions of the poster as the poster himself is often frightened and dismayed at his own opinions sometimes erupting into arguments even fistfights with himself much to the shock and dismay of Sabrina his girlfriend and Spot and Sadie his two elderly Dalmatians, who lose control of their bowls when such things occur.:eek:)

Dave

BlueStreak
10-25-2009, 05:57 PM
Shameless Bump.

After all it took me a half an hour to compose that crap.

Dave

BlueStreak
10-25-2009, 07:20 PM
This bump reminds me. Now they are talking (seriously) about mandating pay of high profile execs that DIDN'T take tarp money.:eek: Do any of you left leaning fellas see anything wrong about that?:confused:


I would have to ask each exec if he thinks I'M overpaid.
If the answer is "yes", then fuck him, I don't care.

Seriously,
If they didn't drink the cool-aid, they should be left alone.
Although I still have a hard time feeling sorry for them.

Just my .02,
Dave

BlueStreak
10-25-2009, 07:22 PM
Did you read my last post (#40)? I spent some serious time on that post trying to be funny.

merrylander
10-26-2009, 07:42 AM
As I have noted before I do not believe that there is a man or woman on this earth worth more than $500,000 per year, and there are damn few of them. We get by on $50,000 a year, what makes them so special? When I was working for a non-profit all of the members would send guys from Mahogany Row to all the meetings - to be polite I was not impressed. The majority had difficulty finding their arses with both hands.

BlueStreak
10-26-2009, 10:07 AM
As I have noted before I do not believe that there is a man or woman on this earth worth more than $500,000 per year, and there are damn few of them. We get by on $50,000 a year, what makes them so special? When I was working for a non-profit all of the members would send guys from Mahogany Row to all the meetings - to be polite I was not impressed. The majority had difficulty finding their arses with both hands.

If you really want a good chuckle read Lee Iacoccas books. The stories about firing armies of incompetent, useless execs will make your head spin. It amazes me that the auto industry lasted as long as it did with jackasses like that in charge for so long. Really. And I don't see that much has really changed in the intervening years. I'd go on, but this is an issue for another forum.

Dave

spasmo55
10-26-2009, 12:53 PM
Not sure I have an opinion, but very interested to hear more about it. I'm also interested to hear the Constitutional provisions that you suggest they have violated. Not saying you're wrong, by the way. Just like to see what you're talking about. Hell, wouldn't be the first time an administration did something unconsitutional (Nixon, Reagan, Bush) but they usually try to hide it.

Well Ed, that would probably take some interpretation by the Black 9.

Art 1 Section 10 prohibits the states from "Laws impairing the Obligation of Contracts"

10th Ammendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So the power of "Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts" is within the scope of the feds, yes?

piece-itpete
10-26-2009, 02:32 PM
In keeping with stars and bars threads, as my black friends would say, 'Why they have to be black?' :D

Pete

d-ray657
10-26-2009, 03:42 PM
Well Ed, that would probably take some interpretation by the Black 9.

Art 1 Section 10 prohibits the states from "Laws impairing the Obligation of Contracts"

10th Ammendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So the power of "Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts" is within the scope of the feds, yes?

Article I Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to the Congress or to the Executive Brance for that matter. It explicitly begins with the words "No State shall . . . pass any law Impairing the Obligations of Contracts."

Moreover, Article I, Section 8 gave the Congress the ability to regulate commerce.

The ability to regulate commerce has clearly authorized Congress the Power to enact the Fair Labor Standards Act, which I'm sure employers would argue impairs their contractual rights, because it requires a minimum wage and premium compensation for overtime. IThe FLSA has passed judicial scrutiny. If the government can set a floor, surely, it can set a ceiling, particularly when taxpayer money is invested in the bank. Similarly, there are several statutes governing the obligations of federal contractors - The Davis Bacon Act, the Service Contracts Act, etc. There is also a federal law requiring employers to re-employ servicemen. Certainly you have no issue with requiring the re-employment of those who have left employment to engage in military service.

I guess one of the reasons working class Republicans are so protective of the rights of fat cats is that they hold out the dream that they will someday have the same income as the fat cats. The odds of that happening are much lower than the odds of an employer firing someone for no reason, cutting wages for existing employees, or reducing benefits. Just look at a wage distribution chart and you will see that only a very small number reach the compensation level that the banking executives believe is their soverign privilege. http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2006/11/05/2005-us-income-distribution/

Just read a great line, in a discussion about executive pay: "These types in the West have done more damage to capitalism than Stalin could have hoped for."

Regards,

D-Ray

spasmo55
10-26-2009, 08:15 PM
Article I Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to the Congress or to the Executive Brance for that matter. It explicitly begins with the words "No State shall . . . pass any law Impairing the Obligations of Contracts."

Moreover, Article I, Section 8 gave the Congress the ability to regulate commerce.

The ability to regulate commerce has clearly authorized Congress the Power to enact the Fair Labor Standards Act, which I'm sure employers would argue impairs their contractual rights, because it requires a minimum wage and premium compensation for overtime. IThe FLSA has passed judicial scrutiny. If the government can set a floor, surely, it can set a ceiling, particularly when taxpayer money is invested in the bank. Similarly, there are several statutes governing the obligations of federal contractors - The Davis Bacon Act, the Service Contracts Act, etc. There is also a federal law requiring employers to re-employ servicemen. Certainly you have no issue with requiring the re-employment of those who have left employment to engage in military service.

I guess one of the reasons working class Republicans are so protective of the rights of fat cats is that they hold out the dream that they will someday have the same income as the fat cats. The odds of that happening are much lower than the odds of an employer firing someone for no reason, cutting wages for existing employees, or reducing benefits. Just look at a wage distribution chart and you will see that only a very small number reach the compensation level that the banking executives believe is their soverign privilege. http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2006/11/05/2005-us-income-distribution/

Just read a great line, in a discussion about executive pay: "These types in the West have done more damage to capitalism than Stalin could have hoped for."

Regards,

D-Ray

I stated that the power rested with the feds, did I not????

d-ray657
10-26-2009, 09:07 PM
I stated that the power rested with the feds, did I not????

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were citing it as support for the assertion that the administration violated the constitution by reducing the pay of executives who took bailout money.

Regards,

D-Ray

BlueStreak
10-27-2009, 12:16 AM
"I guess one of the reasons working class Republicans are so protective of the rights of fat cats is that they hold out the dream that they will someday have the same income as the fat cats. The odds of that happening are much lower than the odds of an employer firing someone for no reason, cutting wages for existing employees, or reducing benefits."

I agree, but I think that this is only a small part of it. In larger part I think they honestly fear that standing up to the bosses, especially when it comes to protecting wages/beneifts will only "anger the gods" and result in unemployment. This is not an unfounded fear, D-Ray, look at what has happened to manufacturing. I hear it on the factory floor all of the time, "A shitty job is better than NO job." The problem with this mentality is; Where does it end? I see the trend, anyone who doesn't is not paying attention.
The ever increasing use of temporary labor, (I've seen people stuck on a job for as long as four years as a "Temp".), the steady decline of unions, the shifting of benefit costs to employees, etc., etc.....what's next?
And, of course there are those who've bought into the "Trickle down" line of thought. A friend recently told me, "If we make sure the wealthy have enough to keep them happy, they will see that the rest of us have whatever we need. That's how it works." Man, is HE in for a rude awakening! Greed isn't listed as one of the "Seven Deadly Sins" for nothing.

"Just read a great line, in a discussion about executive pay: "These types in the West have done more damage to capitalism than Stalin could have hoped for.""

Love this line. It's so true.

Dave

merrylander
10-27-2009, 07:12 AM
One way to stop them shipping jobs offshore is to tarriff the products back to the level they would have cost had the work stayed here. Fair trade not 'free' trade.

piece-itpete
10-27-2009, 10:31 AM
"I guess one of the reasons working class Republicans are so protective of the rights of fat cats is that they hold out the dream that they will someday have the same income as the fat cats. The odds of that happening are much lower than the odds of an employer firing someone for no reason, cutting wages for existing employees, or reducing benefits.".....

I agree, but I think that this is only a small part of it. In larger part I think they honestly fear that standing up to the bosses, especially when it comes to protecting wages/beneifts will only "anger the gods" and result in unemployment. ....


Regards,

D-Ray[/QUOTE]

Do I want to lose my job? No. Have I shopped jobs? Yes. I'm a Rep partly because I have fought my way to a (fairly) decent paying job - with no HS diploma. I didn't stay at a sweep the floor / clean the toilet job and complain I wasn't making enough!! That's how steel and auto companies go out of business.

Pete

noonereal
10-27-2009, 10:44 AM
I'm a Rep partly because I have fought my way to a (fairly) decent paying job - [/QUOTE]

I don't follow? :confused:

What is the relationship?

noonereal
10-27-2009, 11:17 AM
Do I want to lose my job? No. Have I shopped jobs? Yes. I'm a Rep partly because I have fought my way to a (fairly) decent paying job - with no HS diploma. I didn't stay at a sweep the floor / clean the toilet job and complain I wasn't making enough!! That's how steel and auto companies go out of business.

Pete

Absolutely![/QUOTE]


As you agree,
Can you explain to me the "That's how steel and auto companies go out of business" part? I don't get that either.

d-ray657
10-27-2009, 11:25 AM
I beleive that the response will be something along the lines that union contracts don't sufficiently distinguish between lower skilled jobs and higher skilled jobs.

Many, however, believe that anyone working should be able to bring home enough pay to stay above the poverty level, and that executive pay should not reach 500 times the average pay of workers. This is particularly true when executives justify their pay by putting people on the streets.

Regards,

D-Ray

merrylander
10-27-2009, 12:03 PM
In most industrial countries the spread between labor and highest management is 40 times. Seems to me that ought to be fair enough.

What did in the steel and auto companies was plain old fashioned mis management. The steel companies did not re-invest and upgrade their mills while making big profits. Meanwhile, countries that had their mills bombed flat built new better mills.

The big three simply stopped listening to their customers, and though they turned that around some years ago people went for the imports even though it amounted to shooting oneself in the foot.

piece-itpete
10-27-2009, 12:24 PM
I'm a Rep partly because I have fought my way to a (fairly) decent paying job -

I don't follow? :confused:

What is the relationship?[/QUOTE]

I don't vote for the evil GOP because I'm afraid I'll lose my job! And if some guy figures out how to build a company that makes him $5 mil I'm ok with it.

Heck more than ok - that guy is doing a lot more to help us all than I am!!

And I hope my boss can afford a Rolls, no kidding. No money for him = no raise for me. My pay is generally a percentage of the money I generate, and that is largely true of everyone particularly in the long run.

Increasing productivity is the only true justification of increased pay. The only way we can sustain a higher standard of living over someone making $1/hr is to be many many times more productive than they are. And in general we still are - for now.

Unions? I got a job in a union shop, carpenters. Mostly good guys and the steward was a fair, tough man. But within 2 weeks I was told 'if we were in Vegas we'd have broken your fingers already'. I was young, I was hungry, I sure as heck wasn't scared of him and his cronies, of course I worked hard.

I've run machines, and I've fixed them too. If I ran a machine and it went slightly out of tolerance, I have to sit on my butt and wait 3 hours for a maintence man to turn a freakin screw? A drive through cities like Detroit show the fallacy of that system.

Where's the smilie that goes, blah blah blah? It'd sure suit me today :)

Pete

BlueStreak
10-27-2009, 12:51 PM
Do I want to lose my job? No. Have I shopped jobs? Yes. I'm a Rep partly because I have fought my way to a (fairly) decent paying job - with no HS diploma. I didn't stay at a sweep the floor / clean the toilet job and complain I wasn't making enough!! That's how steel and auto companies go out of business.

Pete[/QUOTE]

I understand that, Pete. Did you read the entire post?

Dave

merrylander
10-27-2009, 01:31 PM
Increasing productivity is the only true justification of increased pay. The only way we can sustain a higher standard of living over someone making $1/hr is to be many many times more productive than they are. And in general we still are - for now.



The productivity increase over the last five or six years far outstripped wage increases. Sure, you either figure how to make more widgets per hour or jack up the price, otherwise there is no pot from which to get the wage increase.

But if that other guy making $1/hr is doing it in China or India then you are simply asking us to degrade our standard of living to match theirs.

piece-itpete
10-27-2009, 02:37 PM
I understand that, Pete. Did you read the entire post?

Dave

I assume you mean about temps etc? You'll love this - I sold temp help for a while :)

Yes, I worked a lot of different jobs :yes:

One place used 50+ temps operating an entire assembly line (waffle makers etc) oversaw by a bare handful of... perms? I wouldn't have worked there if I could help it! Probably closed now.

Some used temps as a hiring pool. Some in the middle. Heck I worked as a temp many years ago. One nice thing - if I didn't like the job I'd quit it and temp co gave me another (if I gave them a couple days notice).

Btw, I reread your #40 and missed this gem the 1st time around - 'government cheese is delicious'. Can't stop laughing. Then you mentioned stoned all the time. Sounds vaguely familiar :D

The productivity increase over the last five or six years far outstripped wage increases. Sure, you either figure how to make more widgets per hour or jack up the price, otherwise there is no pot from which to get the wage increase.

But if that other guy making $1/hr is doing it in China or India then you are simply asking us to degrade our standard of living to match theirs.

So far they can't meet our productivity outside mostly basic stuff, although that will surely change. When they weather both their political problems and their coming currency crisis (both very serious) they will then have higher costs too :)

Plus we'll never had the superiority we had after ww2. I'm not much of a protectionist, we thought the cars in the 70s were bad!

Pete

merrylander
10-27-2009, 03:37 PM
WHo knows, what gave us the superiority after W II was the GI Bill, and they just ressurected it.

piece-itpete
10-28-2009, 07:33 AM
Heck Rob, agreed, who knows. It's really kinda a scary time I think.

Pete