The right advocates less government. Really?

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I think there is something very wrong about those charts, but as usual, the liberals are drawing the wrong conclusions.

First, you have to understand that statistics can be misleading. One guy who cashes out in an IPO and makes a zillion bucks can skew such portrayals. I don't begrudge him his money and neither should anyone else.

But that's not the real issue. I think it is probable that the chart reflects the astounding increase in CEO compensation over the past 10 or 15 years, an increase that has dwarfed compensation in other industrialized cocuntries. Rather than a failure in social or government economic policy, it reflects a stunning failure of corporate governance. Plenty of business leaders from buffett on down have said the same thing, but CEOs are able to stack their boards with cronies who will backscratch each other. Institutional investors are either too cowardly to confront the CEOs or too conflicted over possible loss of business, so they cast shameful votes in favor of the same management that is ripping them and their fiduciaries off.

Now in the last few years we can add the hedge fund princes to the list of over-the-top earners. Is there anything wrong with their compensation? I would argue no. No one is forced to use their services, they are, for the most part, private companies and they are paid for results, unlike their corporate brethren.

However, the tax treat of investment manager comp, the"carried interest" sham, is a national disgrace. And guess who supported it? Liberal democrats.

This is exactly correct. EXACTLY! These very, VERY few people are bringing down the whole damn tent. Do we expect them to govern themselves? Obviously they haven't, and they won't. So what to do?
Listen, I despise government intrusion as much as anyone, but who else can control these greedy bastards? The entire country is at the mercy of a few hundred people. They are hording all the money and, AND this idea that these type of individuals will then wake up one day and say, hey, I'll share the wealth by creating jobs is utter nonsense. The haven't created jobs, and they won't anytime soon. Least not in this country.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

This is exactly correct. EXACTLY! These very, VERY few people are bringing down the whole damn tent. Do we expect them to govern themselves? Obviously they haven't, and they won't. So what to do?
Listen, I despise government intrusion as much as anyone, but who else can control these greedy bastards? The entire country is at the mercy of a few hundred people. They are hording all the money and, AND this idea that these type of individuals will then wake up one day and say, hey, I'll share the wealth by creating jobs is utter nonsense. The haven't created jobs, and they won't anytime soon. Least not in this country.

The government and "these greedy bastards" are increasingly the same group.

Anyway, you're going to run into problems using the "greedy" adjective, because there is a whole tradition in the US, stemming from reading only half of Adam Smith's work, that believes greed is good. And when you begin refuting that idea, then you're going to encounter the underlying belief that Man is more motivated by "desire for gain" than he is by "fear of loss", which has been proven false by everyone from clinical psychologists to amateur self-improvement gurus. Just wanted to mention some landmarks on the road ahead, not that you haven't seen them yet.

By the way, have you picked up a copy of The Big Squeeze? I recommended it before. It's good, but the bibliography is very good and worth the price of the book itself.

 

[pspr]

Quote from Ricter:

By the way, have you picked up a copy of The Big Squeeze? I recommended it before. It's good, but the bibliography is very good and worth the price of the book itself.

Must be about Clinton's girl friend.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

LOL! I'm not going quite that far, yet. This crap in the ME keeps blowing up,oil & gas go parabolic...we'll have more to worry about than who or who isn't paying for heath-care. This shit has me worried. Maybe just getting old, too old to fight the fight if it comes to that.

That's cause you know that fighting the good fight means little more than fighting for right to pick your new masters. And your new masters might well be worse than your old masters.

 

[Cache Landing]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Rip off the taxpayers?

Let me ask you, were you equally outraged when Haliburton got no bid contracts at the taxpayer expense?

The taxpayers are only getting ripped off if the negotiations are not fair.

So we allow workers to bargain collectively, and we reach a fair settlement.

The governor did not run on union busting, he did not state what he would do, the people were not informed of his agenda, nor has the governor been completely devoid of politics. I don't for a moment believe that the governor is doing what is in the best interest of his state...he is a politician!

The people of Wisconsin are not happy with the governor, according to the polls.

So is the governor truly representing the will of the people, or his own agenda?

Is he serving the will of the people or his own agenda?

This crap from the republicans when they win office, that they have a mandate to do whatever they want is nonsense.

Where is the job creation from the republicans since they have taken over?

The scorched earth republican way is going to fail. It is better to compromise, which the union workers have already been willing to do.

The governor is uncompromising, and that's the real problem.

I don't completely disagree with where you are coming from O777. But you need to be a bit careful in who you are talking about. The Governor is NOT elected to represent the people. Certainly, he is elected by the people, but as an executive. He, much like the President, is not required to act in accordance with majority wishes. His job is to make the hard decisions that might be unpopular. It is the job of the legislative branch to represent the people, not the executive branch. Thus, the Dem senators have every right to protest it as they are representing a certain group of people.

I can't support either party due to egregious offenses of both, but IMO, what we are seeing is exactly the way the system is supposed to work.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

I am going to disagree with your first premise.

A governor is elected statewide, a vote that is representative of the pool of voters.

Each state senator is elected by a county or district, representing only that portion of the state.

Same with presidents, they are elected by a majority of all voters...where senators and congressmen are elected by a state or district within a state.

So who really has an obligation to represent the interests of the whole state, or the whole country?

I say the executive branch, by virtue of how they are elected must and should represent the entire state or country, where the senators and congressmen can represent only their own state or district.

Quote from Cache Landing:

I don't completely disagree with where you are coming from O777. But you need to be a bit careful in who you are talking about. The Governor is NOT elected to represent the people. Certainly, he is elected by the people, but as an executive. He, much like the President, is not required to act in accordance with majority wishes. His job is to make the hard decisions that might be unpopular. It is the job of the legislative branch to represent the people, not the executive branch. Thus, the Dem senators have every right to protest it as they are representing a certain group of people.

I can't support either party due to egregious offenses of both, but IMO, what we are seeing is exactly the way the system is supposed to work.

 

[Cache Landing]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

I am going to disagree with your first premise.

A governor is elected statewide, a vote that is representative of the pool of voters.

Each state senator is elected by a county or district, representing only that portion of the state.

Same with presidents, they are elected by a majority of all voters...where senators and congressmen are elected by a state or district within a state.

So who really has an obligation to represent the interests of the whole state, or the whole country?

I say the executive branch, by virtue of how they are elected must and should represent the entire state or country, where the senators and congressmen can represent only their own state or district.

It seems you are confusing the idea of being elected by the people, and being elected to act in accordance with popular opinion.

A representative and a senator is the latter. That is why we have both district and STATEWIDE reps and senators. Each state has two people to represent the people of the entire state.

An executive has a single purpose. His fiduciary responsibility is not to determine majority wishes and act accordingly. It is to always act in a manner that is determined to be in the overall best interests of those he governs. The executive is there to make the tough choices, even when they aren't popular. If I were to take a poll of every person in my company whether they should receive a pay cut, the majority vote will never be "yes". It is up to the corporate executives to determine when it is actually in the best interests of the employees to cut pay.

Regardless of your opinion on the subject, what I'm saying is the way our government was setup. That's why they call it checks and balances. The majority opinion isn't necessarily the right thing to do, so we have a branch of g-ment that isn't obligated to act according to the popular opinion.