EPTRepublican nominations - Page 92
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
hummingbird23
Norway359 Posts
| ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On September 15 2011 00:57 xDaunt wrote: Turner's victory was mostly a function of Obama's growing unpopularity. I bet that there is some truth to Obama's general antipathy towards Israel turning off Jewish voters, but I doubt that it made a particularly big difference. There have been large elements of the democratic party that have been anti-Israel for decades now, and that has never stopped the Jewish vote from heavily favoring democrats. I don't see why it would change now. Democrats can spin the loss all they want. Quite frankly, I'd rather that they be dishonest with themselves about why they lost the NY09 race and what their problems actually are. My favorite quote so far is the DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, saying that "NY09 is a very difficult district for democrats." Hysterical! That'd be like a republican saying that Texas is a really difficult state for republicans to win in. If this is directed at me, then I think you're projecting a bit. I've already stated that I think the results indicate Obama is the underdog in 2012, especially given the margins of victory in last night's elections. Support for gay marriage is a liability for Democrats in many areas, and I'm disgusted by the fact that it is. Karl Rove credited gay marriage bans on several state ballots in 2004 as critical GOP get-out-the-vote efforts, and I'm sorry but that is both cynical and evil. This isn't a question of should federal taxes be 10 or 20% of GDP, should the minimum age for social security be 65 or 70, etc. This is about legal equality and human rights. I want last night's result to be about the economy, taxes, the individual mandate, whatever -- not about this country being even more socially backwards than I sometimes fear. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 15 2011 01:04 hummingbird23 wrote: How many Steve Jobs are there in society? I don't begrudge that man his wealth. Not one cent. Well, maybe for Apple's abusive practices. But a simple glance at Goldman shows that the correlate of wealth to value generated breaks down. Sure, Goldman's employees made enough money to pay themselves insane bonuses. But are you sure you want to argue that they each generated a thousand times as much societal value as a poor as hell postdoc trying to make ends meet while slaving away at the lab? Their living conditions aren't even on the same graph, unless you have a log scale. I purposefully chose Steve Jobs because he's a clear and obvious illustration of why and how highly paid individuals earn their wealth -- an illustration that everyone can understand. I'd also argue that he and Apple are a great illustration of why and how trick-down economic policy works, but I'll save that conversation for another time. However, the real point is this: any time a company is profitable and successful, regardless of how big it is, you can bet that the company's executives are earning their keep. As for Goldman Sachs, their executives create plenty of value (monetary value) to justify their pay. Sure, they have bad years now and then when the markets tank, but on the whole, they generate stupid amounts of money for their clients, and through their commissions, for their shareholders. If they help capitalize a successful start up business (which is where investment bankers make the big money), then their activities are also helping creating jobs and wealth outside of the limited circle of Goldman Sachs and its clients. With regards to the postdoc slaving away in the lab, what is he doing that merits significantly higher compensation? What value is he creating? If the answer is not much, then he's not going to make much more money than a starving artist, and, quite frankly, he doesn't deserve to. Inevitably, whatever people earn is a function of what they actually generate. If people aren't generating much, then they shouldn't be paid much. If they're generating a lot, they should be paid a lot. | ||
|
KiaL.Kiwi
Germany210 Posts
On September 15 2011 00:45 xDaunt wrote: I want to address the issue raised above of whether a CEO (or any other highly-paid individual) should be paid 1000 times as much as a median wage worker. When you consider the value that these individuals create for their companies, employees, and shareholders, the answer is "yes." Let me choose a really easy example to illustrate why this is so: Steve Jobs. Think for a moment about what Steve Jobs did for Apple. He made Apple the most valuable company in the world today, increasing its market cap 115x to its present value of ~$360 billion. He created tens of thousands of jobs for new employees. He made Apple's shareholders filthy rich. To sum it up, he created hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth. How does that not warrant commensurately high pay? People who are paid "extreme" amounts of money almost always are creating enough value to earn it. That's why I never begrudge someone's financial success. If they're doing well, they're probably bringing at least one person along for the ride with them. Wealth isn't a zero-sum game. So we are back to anecdotal evidence? [...] * The company that owns the now-infamous Deepwater Horizon, the oil rig that caused immeasurable damage to the Gulf, recently applauded itself for the "best year in safety performance in our Company's history." The company, Transocean Ltd., rewarded its executives millions in bonuses for the achievement, according to the annual report it released yesterday. President and CEO alone took 4.3$ in boni. * "Banks that are getting taxpayer bailouts awarded their top executives nearly $1.6 billion in salaries, bonuses, and other benefits last year, an Associated Press analysis reveals. [...] Benefits included cash bonuses, stock options, personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, home security, country club memberships and professional money management, the AP review of federal securities documents found." * Even though the german health insurance company TK was struggeling for money and increased the insurance contributions of all their insurants dureing the financial crisis, managers rewarded themselves with a 10% increase in boni. [...] For every case were the gap may in some skrewed way seem acceptable - and I'd argue about that notion as well [especially since Apple is a controversial example imho, since the Apples profits rely not only on good technology but also on completly fuckin the customers with their business model - though that's another discussion] - there are opposite cases that show that complete failure on the top earning levels of the economy gets rewarded as well. How can you argue that those absurd levels of incomeare generally deserved or label them as "elite" when failing in many cases just means bigger boni anyway? All that anectodes aside - you dodged the real bullet anyway. The point I made isn't mainly about the relation between the top-100 and average wages (even though it is completly retarded as well), but mainly about the ridicolous rise that it made during the last 30 years, it's about management work magically increasing its worth by 30 times while the national average barely became 1.1% better. Though I doubt there's any magic about it if you take into account that people at the top are the ones who decide about the wages. It's a big red captcha screaming "wealth didn't trickle down, the rich just became richer" that completly crushes any kind of argument that asserts causal relations between a.) economic growth and wealth of average citiziens, b.) more money in the hands of the "job-creators"/companies equates more wealth for the average citizien over time. That's the reason people like me are so flubbergasted by the electorate of the republicans - most voters are shooting themselves into their own feet by voting for this party. Granted - we have similar problems in Germany, where a lot of the socially weak still flock to partys with neo-liberal finance ideologys - but over here those partys are at least trying to hide their agenda, while the republicans are openly admitting it. Edit: In answer to your newest post "If they're generating a lot, they should be paid a lot." - No one disagrees with that. But you do as if the 5 people at the top of the firm were the ones who are creating all those profits all alone by themselves - and that's just bullshit: its their employees, their engineers, their secretaries, the complete company with everyone in it that produces the wealth. Is it really that unimaginable to let those people working for you actually participate in the profits they create for you every day? You could have set me at the top of the switzer bank I first mentioned as well - I would have been able to screw up as heavily as those people - pissing away 200 billion €, crying till the tax payer has to save me and then going home with 9 million € in boni? Doesn't sound that hard. | ||
|
Brutefidget
United States64 Posts
| ||
|
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
On September 15 2011 00:57 xDaunt wrote: Turner's victory was mostly a function of Obama's growing unpopularity. I bet that there is some truth to Obama's general antipathy towards Israel turning off Jewish voters, but I doubt that it made a particularly big difference. There have been large elements of the democratic party that have been anti-Israel for decades now, and that has never stopped the Jewish vote from heavily favoring democrats. I don't see why it would change now. Democrats can spin the loss all they want. Quite frankly, I'd rather that they be dishonest with themselves about why they lost the NY09 race and what their problems actually are. My favorite quote so far is the DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, saying that "NY09 is a very difficult district for democrats." Hysterical! That'd be like a republican saying that Texas is a really difficult state for republicans to win in. There was a difference of 20,000 votes between the 2010 and 2011 election, almost all Democrats. The Orthodox Jewish community definitely had a large say in this. And while the Democratic party isn't as gungho about supporting Israel as the Republicans, there is not a large element within the party that is anti-Israel. It's the recent shindig with the Palestine border and the recently passed gay marriage that influenced this election. | ||
|
Szordrin
Switzerland151 Posts
On September 15 2011 00:45 xDaunt wrote: I want to address the issue raised above of whether a CEO (or any other highly-paid individual) should be paid 1000 times as much as a median wage worker. When you consider the value that these individuals create for their companies, employees, and shareholders, the answer is "yes." Let me choose a really easy example to illustrate why this is so: Steve Jobs. Think for a moment about what Steve Jobs did for Apple. He made Apple the most valuable company in the world today, increasing its market cap 115x to its present value of ~$360 billion. He created tens of thousands of jobs for new employees. He made Apple's shareholders filthy rich. To sum it up, he created hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth. How does that not warrant commensurately high pay? People who are paid "extreme" amounts of money almost always are creating enough value to earn it. That's why I never begrudge someone's financial success. If they're doing well, they're probably bringing at least one person along for the ride with them. Wealth isn't a zero-sum game. Apple rose, and no one lost? Every CEO is a Steve Jobs? How would you justifiy the UBS example or plenty of others not so successful companies. Even if the company makes losses, the first people fired are the ones with the lowest education (most of times), then, if the company lost money for 3 or 4 consecutive years, then maybe the CEO gets fired. All this time he earned a shitload of money, gets some millions as a goodbye present and walks away... (And thats just he CEO, most managers can/will most likely stay and still earn a ridiculous amount of money.) The incentive system is fucked up when management can set management salaries without interference from shareholders or anyone else. The question is why is it accepted? Althought it sounds a bit like conspiracy theory, its kind of a manipulation of the mass mind. By repeating over and over again the seemingly correct rules how the economy should work acceptance throughout the population is created. (not saying capitalism sucks or whatever, but at some point one has to ask whats the point of certain policies, deregulation etc.) | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 15 2011 02:09 TOloseGT wrote: There was a difference of 20,000 votes between the 2010 and 2011 election, almost all Democrats. The Orthodox Jewish community definitely had a large say in this. And while the Democratic party isn't as gungho about supporting Israel as the Republicans, there is not a large element within the party that is anti-Israel. It's the recent shindig with the Palestine border and the recently passed gay marriage that influenced this election. Let me clarify what I meant concerning the democrats and Israel. The anti-Israeli element within the democratic party isn't in the leadership so much as its within the liberal base. No democratic leader is going to overtly crap on Israel for obvious reasons. However, democratic -- particularly liberal democratic -- constituents generally do not favor a pro-Israeli stance. I think the teamliquid community is a perfect example. The average TL member is very liberal and, if an American, a democrat. Having looked at and participated in many threads on TL that concern Israel or the Middle East, it's very obvious that the majority of posters in those threads are anti-Israel. If you doubt me now, just wait for the thread that will be appearing within the next week concerning the Palestinian vote at the UN. So a more accurate version of what I was trying to say is that Jewish voters, knowing that democratic and liberal voters tend to be anti-Israel (particularly when compared with Republicans), traditionally have not let that fact stop them from voting predominantly for democrats. | ||
|
Traeon
Austria366 Posts
Althought it sounds a bit like conspiracy theory, its kind of a manipulation of the mass mind. By repeating over and over again the seemingly correct rules how the economy should work acceptance throughout the population is created. (not saying capitalism sucks or whatever, but at some point one has to ask whats the point of certain policies, deregulation etc.) Don't be afraid of saying it, there is definitely a manipulation of public opinion going on. Things which will only benefit the few rich and the politicians themselves are made to appear as something that's not only desirable for the average Joe but necessary. Also see Iraq and WMD's. Or, right now, Iran and nukes. No evidence whatsoever, but that doesn't (or didn't) stop politicians for promoting their agenda of invading these countries, making military contractors wealthy. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
Don't be afraid of saying it, there is definitely a manipulation of public opinion going on. Things which will only benefit the few rich and the politicians themselves are made to appear as something that's not only desirable for the average Joe but necessary. and you have proof of this of course anyway michelle bachmann has finally fallen to the vanity candidate she always was, and even Newt Gingrich is now (kind of) ahead of her. this is probably because of her ridiculous "gardasil causes mental retardation comment," and remember, this is supposedly the "anti-science" party primary. she's an opportunistic weirdo and republican voters know it now. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
It has been noted that the same thing could happen in MI or WI, although those are pure speculation at this point. If this passes, that's probably game over for Obama. He can't be -4 electors or worse in PA and realistically win. An interesting side effect is, would such a result shift public opinion further towards a national popular vote? (I actually like the Electoral College, but I couldn't support it in a form that was obviously manipulated for partisan gains. Besides this would make gerrymandering even more powerful.) | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
the end was completely disgusting. When they asked gingrich whether he would cut military in favor of balancing the budget. He's like "we're on the verge of a large military crisis..." What?... Way to switch gears... what about the crisis you've all been talking about in our country... the economic crisis... The mainstream republican imperialism still drives me nuts... gogo Ron Paul =/... Cain seems ok too. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On September 15 2011 02:16 xDaunt wrote: I think the teamliquid community is a perfect example. The average TL member is very liberal and, if an American, a democrat. Having looked at and participated in many threads on TL that concern Israel or the Middle East, it's very obvious that the majority of posters in those threads are anti-Israel. You know, I'll have to give one thing to you xDaunt, you are by far the most entertaining poster here. Watching you scrape by on rhetoric blinders is just so entertaining. I'm sure TL is such a haven for "libruls" and you're constantly the white knight of conservatism. Such a thrilling tale of the underdog educating the tyrants. Keep posting so I can see inside the minds of the misguided "conservatives" of this country. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 15 2011 02:40 aksfjh wrote: You know, I'll have to give one thing to you xDaunt, you are by far the most entertaining poster here. Watching you scrape by on rhetoric blinders is just so entertaining. I'm sure TL is such a haven for "libruls" and you're constantly the white knight of conservatism. Such a thrilling tale of the underdog educating the tyrants. Keep posting so I can see inside the minds of the misguided "conservatives" of this country. Don't mistake my motives. I'm not looking to educate anyone. In fact, I know that it's generally pointless to even try to change people's minds about this stuff. I post here because it entertains me. It's no fun making arguments in an environment where everyone agrees with me. But really, back to the point at hand: are you disagreeing that TL posters, even American TL posters, are predominantly liberal? I sure hope not. Hell, I present this thread as Exhibit A. I haven't done a count (and am not inclined to), but I'd guess that there are at least 5 liberal posts for every conservative post. | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
Whatever happens in that vote, the US had better listen to cooler heads and not cut off Palestinian aid. If they want to ensure Israel's safety, cutting off Palestinian aid would not serve that purpose. | ||
|
KiaL.Kiwi
Germany210 Posts
On September 15 2011 02:49 xDaunt wrote: Don't mistake my motives. I'm not looking to educate anyone. In fact, I know that it's generally pointless to even try to change people's minds about this stuff. I post here because it entertains me. It's no fun making arguments in an environment where everyone agrees with me. But really, back to the point at hand: are you disagreeing that TL posters, even American TL posters, are predominantly liberal? I sure hope not. Hell, I present this thread as Exhibit A. I haven't done a count (and am not inclined to), but I'd guess that there are at least 5 liberal posts for every conservative post. Really? That's a suprising statement from someone who tends to change the conversation, avoids the real arguments or just completly stops posting² as soon as your posts are confronted with facts/data/figures or specific requests to explain parts of your post. Take your last post - there's an ongoing debate on the increase of the gap between the income of an average worker and the top 1% (especially with perspective on the enourmous widening of that gap during the last 40 years) over the last two pages that was initiated by one of your posts, which would indicate that you are interested in debating this. But the moment your Steve Jobs post get answered by sensible counterarguments you begin derailing the topic by changing it to the percentage of conservatives vs. progressives on TL. Which isn't even an interesting topic - statistically younger people (e.g. members of a gaming community) tend to be progressive/liberal. So no suprise TL seems to be rather liberal - especially for someone who's as extremly conservative as you. (I'd actually argue that TL is pretty conservative in its values regarding lots of posts here, but that's from an european leftist perspective on America) Are you training for a political post somewhere? Lots of your posts here make the impression that you are using TL as drill ground to train spinning discussions  ²(happened in the "GOP staffer quits, writes tell-all" thread when all you're arguments were dismantled as wrong on the last 3 pages) | ||
|
Saji
Netherlands262 Posts
Debate results at the 3:05 minute mark: "Now also at tonight's event the people took a straw poll to see who the frontrunners might be. Now before the debate those frontrunners were Ron Paul, Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann. But then they also took a poll after the debate and there were some changes ... Ron Paul stayed at the top, but Rick Perry dropped out of the top three and then Michelle Bachmann was the second and Herman Cain was third. So also we're seeing some changes after this event." | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 15 2011 03:33 KiaL.Kiwi wrote: Really? That's a suprising statement from someone who usually trys to change the conversation, avoids the real arguments or just completly stops posting² as soon as your posts are confronted with facts/data/figures or specific requests to explain parts of your post. Take your last post - there's an ongoing debate on the increase of the gap between the income of an average worker and the top 1% (especially with perspective on the enourmous widening of that gap during the last 40 years) over the last two pages that was initiated by one of your posts, which would indicate that you are interested in debating this. But the moment your Steve Jobs post get answered by sensible counterarguments you begin derailing the topic by changing it to the percentage of conservatives vs. progressives on TL. Which isn't even an interesting topic - statistically younger people (e.g. members of a gaming community) tend to be progressive/liberal. So no suprise TL seems to be rather liberal - especially for someone who's so extremly conservative as you are. (I'd actually argue that TL is pretty conservative in its values regarding lots of posts here, but that's from an european leftist perspektive on America) Are you training for a political post somewhere? Lots of your posts here make the impression that you are using TL as drill ground to train spinning discussions ²(happened in the "GOP staffer quits, writes tell-all" thread when all you're arguments were dismantled as wrong on the last 3 pages) Hah, I promise that I'm not training to become a political operative or even a politician. A lot of people have told me that I should do it, but I'm not really interested because it's not worth the hassle. I simply just like to argue. I obviously attract a lot of attention with my posts and I could spend all day providing detailed responses to every post. I simply don't have the time or inclination to do so. If there's a good, thoughtful post directed at me, I'm probably going to respond it. If some troll follows me around everywhere I go and posts one rubbish post after another (kwizach), I'm probably going to just ignore him. If I feel like an argument has run its course, then I'm happy to let someone else have the last word. I don't feel like I always must have the last word. As for the executive income thing and your response to my posts, I chose not to respond because I think the argument ran its course and I didn't really see the point in responding, not because I don't have a response or felt like I was "losing." I already set forth my position and am happy to rest on it. Nothing you said refutes what I said as far as I am concerned. Those news stories? So what? It doesn't change the fact that the companies obviously believe that their executives did enough to merit the bonuses. That's their business. Your argument about the difference in the rise between executive income and median income? Again, I don't really care. I'm comfortable letting the market set wages, which obviously is happening. Besides, it's not as though the standard of living has remained the same during that time period. Most everyone lives better now than they did thirty years ago due to improvements in technology. As for you being "flubbergasted by the electorate of the republicans" and thinking that republican supporters are constantly shooting themselves in the foot, I just think you're wrong. I'm a working professional who falls squarely into the middle class. My boss is clearly in the upper class. I do not want the government to raise taxes on him, regulate his business, or do anying else that is going to impede his ability to make money because I know that those costs will be passed down to me in the form of reduced compensation (or loss of a job). Of the two parties, I know that democrats are far more likely to implement legislation that will harm my boss, and therefore harm me. I understand that a lot of people are incapable seeing that connection. Nonetheless, it doesn't change the reality of the situation. | ||
|
ikl2
United States145 Posts
| ||
|
Traeon
Austria366 Posts
| ||
| ||
