Republican nominations - Page 93

On September 15 2011 04:06 DetriusXii wrote:
http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/reports/contract-oversight/bad-business/co-gp-20110913.html
http://www.omaha.com/article/20110909/NEWS01/110909576

Two studies done how private contractors end up wasting money for the government when the government could do the same work in house. But I guess the free market is always perfect, so that these studies can't possibly be truthful or reliable.

On September 15 2011 03:58 xDaunt wrote:


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.

You heard it hear folks, the most vocal GOP supporter on TL only looks out for himself and doesn't want to contribute to society.

That was using GOP logic.

Two studies done how private contractors end up wasting money for the government when the government could do the same work in house. But I guess the free market is always perfect, so that these studies can't possibly be truthful or reliable.

On September 15 2011 04:57 Gsk wrote:American politics is comedy, guess that's why I'm following it with great interest.
How can people vote for some of these nutheads? Thinking mostly of Bachmann, if someone said what she said in my country (in europe really) they would get decapitated politicly.

On September 15 2011 13:06 KSMB wrote:

I know this whole circus looks quite startling from an outside perspective, but the whole thing will make more sense if you realize that an amazingly large fraction of voters here are really fucking stupid. What they are doing now is trying to collect as much support as possible from their amazingly stupid voter base, which means they are trying to out do each other in saying stupid things they think their voter base wants to hear. This typically involves science denial, pandering to religious delusions, attacking anything that can be mischaracterized as socialism, and above all a "fuck you I got mine" attitude. Bachmann went a little bit further than normal with her "HPV vaccine causes mental retardation" stupidity.

The alternative to the above scenario is that the candidates actually are stupid enough to believe the crap they are saying, which would make them as dumb as the people they are trying to convince to support them.

Both scenarios make me sad

On September 16 2011 00:48 AdrianHealey wrote:
Just a quick economic note: saying that x or y 'creates job' is not good. It's bad. Creating jobs is something we try to avoid, not something we try to encourage.

This is because there is never a lack of potential use of human labor. There is never a need for 'creating jobs'. Everybody can do a job tomorrow. However; most of those jobs would have very low productivity and thus very low wages.

Suppose that we could create the same amount of wealth tomorrow, but with half the labour force we have today. Should we do this? Of course! Because this would free up labor for even more wealth! (Wealth can also be more art, more video games, more services, more free time, etc.)

Obviously; in the real world, 'labor' is always owned by a concrete human being (accept in the case of slavery, one of the worst ways of social interaction *ever*), and thus can changes in the labor market have real effects on people. People losing their jobs, needing to adapt, etc. However; a care for these people, a care for people who lose their jobs should not let us distract from the fundamental principle: more wealth with less labour is always good.

On September 16 2011 01:32 xDaunt wrote:
In other news, it looks like no one -- not even democrats -- likes Obama's job bill:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44528419/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/

On September 16 2011 01:56 On_Slaught wrote:


People don't like it? I guess that means it is objectively bad and would never work.

On September 16 2011 02:03 Whitewing wrote:


Did you read why they don't like it?

Here, I'll post the reasons the article gives:

"“I think the American people are very skeptical of big pieces of legislation,” Senator Bob Casey, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, said in an interview Wednesday, joining a growing chorus of Democrats who prefer an à la carte version of the bill despite White House resistance to that approach. “For that reason alone I think we should break it up.”

"...which stem from Mr. Obama’s sinking popularity in polls, parochial concerns and the party’s chronic inability to unite around a legislative initiative, even in the face of Republican opposition."

"Some are unhappy about the specific types of companies, particularly the oil industry, that would lose tax benefits. “I have said for months that I am not supporting a repeal of tax cuts for the oil industry unless there are other industries that contribute,” said Senator Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana."

"A small but vocal group dislikes the payroll tax cuts for employees and small businesses. “I have been very unequivocal,” said Representative Peter A. DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon. “No more tax cuts.”

His voice rising to a near shriek, he added: “We have the economy that tax cuts give us. And it’s pretty pathetic, isn’t it? The president is in a box.”"

So yeah, most of the issues democrats have with the bill are that it should be broken up into smaller pieces instead of being one big bill (which actually makes no functional difference, merely a political difference), or that Obama isn't popular so they shouldn't support his bill, or that the Oil Industry shouldn't pay taxes (yeah, right), or that there are small tax cuts for small businesses and employees (paired with tax increases on big oil companies which is a net tax increase, something he's ignoring completely). Most of them don't have an issue with what the bill is doing, and those that do clearly haven't read it or haven't paid attention to what it actually entails on the whole.

Morons will be morons. I hate politicians.

Our political system disgusts me, people would rather score political points to stay in power than actually do anything about the shit hole that they keep making bigger and bigger that the rest of us have to live in.

WTB term limits.

On September 15 2011 01:39 xDaunt wrote:


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.