Politics

[BGIF]

This CEO conversation is always a little ridiculous. Imagine, for example, we had to hire someone to save the world from an asteroid. The country would pay that person a billion dollars if they demanded it.

But you'd be an idiot to say that if they get paid a billion dollars, a janitor should get paid a million dollars, since "there's no way saving the world is 1,000 harder than being a janitor! The guy saving the world doesn't work 1,000 harder!"

The two are totally unrelated. They're both in different roles adding different values to the person paying them. There's absolutely no reason to link the two other than class warfare.

41 would demand that ALL janitors be paid a billion dollars before the encounter with the asteroid. It's only fair that ALL janitors get paid the same regardless of the nature of their work.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

41 would demand that ALL janitors be paid a billion dollars before the encounter with the asteroid. It's only fair that ALL janitors get paid the same regardless of the nature of their work.

I remember once when I was 15 and it was $.29 hamburger day at McDonald's -- their janitor fought an asteroid that day...

 

[Ndaccountant]

Whether it is paid today or five or 10 years from now, it is still compensation that has significant financial value, no? If he doesn't make that next year is really beside the point in my opiinion. I think the point is this: Large companies by and large do not value their employees. When they shower their CEO's with such retention bonuses, it makes their low pay for their average employees even more striking. And when the current CEO says things like this ...

“Some people took those jobs because they were the only ones available and haven’t been able to figure out how to move out of that,” Bill Simon, CEO of Walmart U.S., acknowledged in an interview with The Associated Press.

If Walmart employees can go to another company and another job and make more money and develop, they’ll be better,” Simon explained. “It’ll be better for the economy. It’ll be better for us as a business, to be quite honest, because they’ll continue to advance in their economic life.”

... he acknowledges that there is not a long-term home at Walmart for current employees and they have little value. It demonstrates that they have no intention of ever paying their employees a fair wage. Essentially, he is saying, "fuck 'em, we'll just hire the next desperate sucker willing to accept crappy wages."

Random question for you.

Do you believe that every job offered in this country ought to provide enough compensation so that if someone chose to work that position their whole life, they would be middle class?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I posted an article by (ND prof) Pat Deneen in the economics thread earlier today, but it's relevant here as well:

To summarize a complex argument, Polanyi (and more recently, Brad Gregory in his masterful work, The Unintended Reformation) described how economic arrangements were “disembedded” from particular cultural and religious contexts in which economic arrangements were understood to serve those moral ends—and hence, that limited not only actions, but even the understanding that economic actions could be considered to be undertaken to advance individual interests and priorities. As Polanyi describes, economic exchange so ordered placed a priority on the main ends of social and religious life—the sustenance of community order and flourishing of families within that order. The understanding of an economy based upon the accumulated calculations of self-maximizing individuals was largely non-existent, and a “market” was understood to be a part of the whole, an actual physical place within that social order, not an autonomous, even theoretical space for the exchange of abstracted utility maximers.

Polanyi describes how the replacement of this economy required concerted and often violent reshaping of the existing life-world, most often by elite economic and State actors disrupting and displacing traditional communities and practices. It also required not only the separation of markets from social and religious contexts, and with that move the “individuation” of people, but their acceptance that their labor and nature were nothing more than commodities subject to price mechanisms, a transformative way of considering people and nature alike in newly utilitarian terms. Yet market liberalism required treating both people and natural resources as these “fictitious commodities,” as material for use in industrial processes, in order to disassociate markets from morals and “re-train” people to think of themselves first and foremost as individuals separate from nature and each other. As Polanyi pithily described this transformation, “laissez-faire was planned.”

Point being, this stuff strikes you as unfair, 41, because the global market has been disembedded from the social and religious contexts in which markets operated for most of human history. It's not immoral, but amoral; everything has been commoditized, and the skills of autonomous individuals are worth whatever the labor market says they are.

I don't see any way to get this particular genie back in its bottle, at least not at a national/ global level. An increased minimum wage makes sense if you're looking just at Wal-Mart, but there are a lot of other businesses that rely on unskilled labor that would get crushed by it. And it would merely be a stop-gap measure anyway; the types of workers you're interested in helping are those most in danger of losing their jobs entirely to automation in the near future.

Rather than saddling business with market-distorting social regulations, why not just address it directly at the Federal level with a Basic Income? It would be more comprehensive and efficient, while also minimizing the paternalism.

 

[chicago51]

It kind of occurred to me that everyone is sort of right.

Yes the CEO is very high compared to the average workers salary.

However as pointed the compensation per employee really is not totally outrageous per RDU's point.

I'd pretty much say both points are true.

CEOs pay is much higher mostly due to the insane growth in the size of corporations. Obviously a CEO over a company of 500,000 employees is gonna earn more than a CEO over 10,000.

I think income discrepancy for better or worse is just another consequence of 30+ years of not enforcing our antitrust laws.

 

[GoIrish41]

You still simply cannot grasp that "fairness" is a fundamentally subjective concept and accordingly can never be achieved.



Just calling it how it is. Your post screamed jealously of the Walmart heirs, and your posting in general screams jealously of anyone given a leg up by being born into a family where someone's hard work or good fortune gives them a leg up. Don't know how this is insulting, it's a more a critique of the content of the paragraph I quoted.

Towards employee compensation, the attitude you're expressing is endemic of non-military, non-law enforcement government employees I've encountered. Most of them expect the world to be run like the government where the gap between GS-1 and GS-15 is minuscule relative to the equivalent difference in corporate America.* We've had this discussion quite a bit in my family between people who fall on different sides of the fence, and it's an interesting topic. There's not a simple solution because the concept of what is "fair" and "good" varies ostensibly person to person.

*There are others that think pay grades and a lack incentives aren't fair because they don't reward the best workers, especially since so many promotions are entirely political because there isn't a "bottom line" being worried about.

It is kind of silly to suggest you don't understand how something could be insulting when the post that you were responding about mentioned that another poster saying the same thing was insulting. lol

Is it just my posting, or are all of the posters who mention fairness also bet wetters who cry themselves to sleep at night wondering why they weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouth? If you are reading my posts that way, you are looking for opportunities to assign your pre-conceived ideas onto what I'm saying. I am a person who cares a great deal about fairness. Subjective as that may be, I don't think it is even in dispute that a company who pays a single person what they pay more than 1,000 average employees even should be argued in terms of fairness. If you disagree, then disagree. You won't convince me that I'm wrong by pointing out what you learned in a philosophy class in college. I've been to those classes too, and I know what faiirness looks like. That ain't when the 1,000 who get shit wages can barely keep food on their tables while the top execs at the same company make more money in a year than they can spend in a lifetime. (NOTE: Right here you can suggest I'm being jealous toward the CEO but will refuse to acknowledge that I'm far more focused on the thousand). Many of us can step outside our own self interest and feel for those who don't share our good fortune and luck. It's called empathy. Your approach when you come across an instance of empathy is to twist it into something as base as jealously and mock people who show it as weak. Whatever. If that makes you feel smart keep it up, but just know that you are reading it the wrong way. I could give a shit about material things and don't have an envious bone in my body. I am happy for those with good fortune, but not as disappointed as I am for those who don't share in it -- especially those who work hard to bring it about.

I began working for the government (Department of the Army) after my first career in the Navy so I am military and government. I guess your post suggests that I am somehow immune to your insulting (there is that word again) description of government employees. Still, the broad brush with which you paint government employees pigeonholes millions of people into a category of your own design. If it is easier for you to think of these things in terms of ignorant stereotypes, than I guess I can't help you. But, I work with people of every race, economic background, education level (from PhD to HS grad). Some of the PhDs could make a great deal more money not working for the government, but they choose to serve their country in ways that capitalism cannot reward. For example, the scientists who I work with are world renown for working safely with the most dangerous chemicals known to man for the purpose of research and development. What they learn goes into the design of detection, protecton, and decontamination gear that saves lives. They do this to protect soldiers in the event of an attack (such as the one in Syria last year) or from IEDs utilizing hazardous industrial chemicals (like those that were used in Iraq and Afghanistan). What they do also has a huge crossover to first responders and those in harm's way outside of the context of the military (like those who responded during 911). We get paid through a pay for performance compensation system that rewards hard work and dedication and is not in any way tied to longevity. We also receive very little direct funding from the government and have to go out and bid for work from government agencies as well as private industry. Many also accept salaries below those we could make in the private sector. Not everyone is motivated by greed.

 

[chicago51]

41 would demand that ALL janitors be paid a billion dollars before the encounter with the asteroid. It's only fair that ALL janitors get paid the same regardless of the nature of their work.

?

Point being, this stuff strikes you as unfair, 41, because the global market has been disembedded from the social and religious contexts in which markets operated for most of human history. It's not immoral, but amoral; everything has been commoditized, and the skills of autonomous individuals are worth whatever the labor market says they are.

I don't see any way to get this particular genie back in its bottle, at least not at a national/ global level. An increased minimum wage makes sense if you're looking just at Wal-Mart, but there are a lot of other businesses that rely on unskilled labor that would get crushed by it. And it would merely be a stop-gap measure anyway; the types of workers you're interested in helping are those most in danger of losing their jobs entirely to automation in the near future.

Rather than saddling business with market-distorting social regulations, why not just address it directly at the Federal level with a Basic Income? It would be more comprehensive and efficient, while also minimizing the paternalism.

I was a bit skeptical of basic income but I have become a believer because of its efficiency factor you bring up.

The way I see it we can roll SS, Medicare, Medicaid, housing assistance, food stamps, etc into two programs: 1) Basic Annual Income around 150 of percent of the poverty line maybe a bit extra for single parents with kids. 2) Catastrophic Healthcare which could cover doctor visit a year, preventive care, and major medically necessary hospitalization expenses while leaving the rest to some sort of insurance.

 

[GoIrish41]

This CEO conversation is always a little ridiculous. Imagine, for example, we had to hire someone to save the world from an asteroid. The country would pay that person a billion dollars if they demanded it.

But you'd be an idiot to say that if they get paid a billion dollars, a janitor should get paid a million dollars, since "there's no way saving the world is 1,000 harder than being a janitor! The guy saving the world doesn't work 1,000 harder!"

The two are totally unrelated. They're both in different roles adding different values to the person paying them. There's absolutely no reason to link the two other than class warfare.

Nobody is suggesting paying a janitor a million dollars. But minimum wages should keep pace with the cost of living so that nobody works full time and can't afford to feed their kids. That's all I'm saying. Not that janitors should be able to afford a summer home at the Cape.

 

[Emcee77]

This CEO conversation is always a little ridiculous. Imagine, for example, we had to hire someone to save the world from an asteroid. The country would pay that person a billion dollars if they demanded it.

But you'd be an idiot to say that if they get paid a billion dollars, a janitor should get paid a million dollars, since "there's no way saving the world is 1,000 harder than being a janitor! The guy saving the world doesn't work 1,000 harder!"

The two are totally unrelated. They're both in different roles adding different values to the person paying them. There's absolutely no reason to link the two other than class warfare.

But this is attacking a strawman. I mean, I realize that it is a common argument from the left, but I agree that it is patently meritless.

But that doesn't mean that CEO pay is justified. It depends on whether you agree that a CEO compares to the superhero-like character who can save the world from an asteroid, or whether you believe that a lot of a CEO's success stems from being in the right place at the right time, and/or that another CEO might well be just as successful in the same circumstances. I don't think it's crazy to believe that the value a CEO provides is frequently exaggerated. Strong and effective leaders are necessary, but the organization's success may not owe as much to them as is popularly believed. I always think of that as the War and Peace theory:
What Are Leaders Really For? - Duncan Watts - Harvard Business Review
If you disagree with that, then you hate great literature. What a Philistine. (lol)

 

[IrishLax]

I posted an article by (ND prof) Pat Deneen in the economics thread earlier today, but it's relevant here as well:



Point being, this stuff strikes you as unfair, 41, because the global market has been disembedded from the social and religious contexts in which markets operated for most of human history. It's not immoral, but amoral; everything has been commoditized, and the skills of autonomous individuals are worth whatever the labor market says they are.

I don't see any way to get this particular genie back in its bottle, at least not at a national/ global level. An increased minimum wage makes sense if you're looking just at Wal-Mart, but there are a lot of other businesses that rely on unskilled labor that would get crushed by it. And it would merely be a stop-gap measure anyway; the types of workers you're interested in helping are those most in danger of losing their jobs entirely to automation in the near future.

Rather than saddling business with market-distorting social regulations, why not just address it directly at the Federal level with a Basic Income? It would be more comprehensive and efficient, while also minimizing the paternalism.

This is exactly the kind of thing the discussion needs to be about if there is going to be one.

 

[BGIF]

Figures don't lie but ...

Figures don't lie but ...

Great read. I was particularly struck by this paragraph, which we have discussed at length in this thread.:

In the nineteen-fifties, the average American chief executive was paid about twenty times as much as the typical employee of his firm. These days, at Fortune 500 companies, the pay ratio between the corner office and the shop floor is more than two hundred to one, and many C.E.O.s do even better. In 2011, Apple’s Tim Cook received three hundred and seventy-eight million dollars in salary, stock, and other benefits, which was sixty-two hundred and fifty-eight times the wage of an average Apple employee. A typical worker at Walmart earns less than twenty-five thousand dollars a year; Michael Duke, the retailer’s former chief executive, was paid more than twenty-three million dollars in 2012. The trend is evident everywhere. According to a recent report by Oxfam, the richest eighty-five people in the world—the likes of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Carlos Slim—own more wealth than the roughly 3.5 billion people who make up the poorest half of the world’s population.

In the 1951 Mickey Mantle made $7,500. ARod makes $29,000,000. The entry salary in MLB is $500,000. Minor league baseball players make Mantle's $7,500, TODAY.

Andrew Carnegie stated that he didn't want to make more than $50,000 a year. When he sold his steel empire he got $230 million, worth $13 trillion in today's dollars, while the average steelworker was making $2.70 a day ... for a 12 hour day.

Babe Ruth made more than the U.S. President 90 years ago. Every major MLB, NFL, and NBA player today makes more than 125% of the President's salary.

Of course when we take White House accommodations, Camp David, Hawaii vacation expenses, Air Force One and Two, The Secret Service details for the man and family, wife's trips abroad all at taxpayer expense, lifetime security, lifetime salary ... how many thousand times more is the President compensated than a Private coming home in a body bag?

How many thousands more times is ex-President Clinton compensated a year for speaking engagements than the lowest paid worker on his staff?

 

[BobD]

The helmsman doesn't make as much as the captain, which isn't a problem. The problem occurs when either undervalues the importance of the other.

 

[IrishLax]

Is it just my posting, or are all of the posters who mention fairness also bet wetters who cry themselves to sleep at night wondering why they weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouth?

It's just you.

I began working for the government (Department of the Army) after my first career in the Navy so I am military and government. I guess your post suggests that I am somehow immune to your insulting (there is that word again) description of government employees. Still, the broad brush with which you paint government employees pigeonholes millions of people into a category of your own design. If it is easier for you to think of these things in terms of ignorant stereotypes, than I guess I can't help you. But, I work with people of every race, economic background, education level (from PhD to HS grad). Some of the PhDs could make a great deal more money not working for the government, but they choose to serve their country in ways that capitalism cannot reward. For example, the scientists who I work with are world renown for working safely with the most dangerous chemicals known to man for the purpose of research and development. What they learn goes into the design of detection, protecton, and decontamination gear that saves lives. They do this to protect soldiers in the event of an attack (such as the one in Syria last year) or from IEDs utilizing hazardous industrial chemicals (like those that were used in Iraq and Afghanistan). What they do also has a huge crossover to first responders and those in harm's way outside of the context of the military (like those who responded during 911). We get paid through a pay for performance compensation system that rewards hard work and dedication and is not in any way tied to longevity. We also receive very little direct funding from the government and have to go out and bid for work from government agencies as well as private industry. Many also accept salaries below those we could make in the private sector. Not everyone is motivated by greed.

This is your worst characteristic. You're so obsessed with your self-righteous take on things and being holier than thou and proving your moral superiority that you fail on epic levels sometimes to actually read the words in front of you.

What I said was "Towards employee compensation, the attitude you're expressing is endemic of non-military, non-law enforcement government employees I've encountered. Most of them expect the world to be run like the government where the gap between GS-1 and GS-15 is minuscule relative to the equivalent difference in corporate America."

Let's actually break this down for a second to it's bare bones... all that post really says is "Your attitude is one I've found maintained by most Government employees who expect the pay difference between floor and ceiling to be much smaller than it is in corporate America."

-I never say that opinion is invalid or that I disagree with it, in fact I say that it's discussed at length in my family and is "interesting" with "no simple solution."
-Why is it discussed in my family? Because there are a lot of non-military, non-law enforcement government people in my family (mostly teachers, some others).
-There is nothing insulting about that statement whatsoever towards any of the groups.

This like back in the name discrimination debate where my only original premise was that I wouldn't hire someone with a dumb name like Dickweed to professionally represent my company... and you wanted SO BADLY to make it about race and other protected forms of discrimination that you not only lost the fairway but weren't even on the same golf course after you were done warping it.

 

[BGIF]

The helmsman doesn't make as much as the captain, which isn't a problem. The problem occurs when either undervalues the importance of the other.

So as long as the captain (who can do the helmsman's job but not vice versa) keeps handing out gratuitous attaboys and no awshits all is well.

 

[GoIrish41]

I posted an article by (ND prof) Pat Deneen in the economics thread earlier today, but it's relevant here as well:



Point being, this stuff strikes you as unfair, 41, because the global market has been disembedded from the social and religious contexts in which markets operated for most of human history. It's not immoral, but amoral; everything has been commoditized, and the skills of autonomous individuals are worth whatever the labor market says they are.

I don't see any way to get this particular genie back in its bottle, at least not at a national/ global level. An increased minimum wage makes sense if you're looking just at Wal-Mart, but there are a lot of other businesses that rely on unskilled labor that would get crushed by it. And it would merely be a stop-gap measure anyway; the types of workers you're interested in helping are those most in danger of losing their jobs entirely to automation in the near future.

Rather than saddling business with market-distorting social regulations, why not just address it directly at the Federal level with a Basic Income? It would be more comprehensive and efficient, while also minimizing the paternalism.

I Would love to discuss this but in this forum it would only lead to accusations of rampant socialism.

 

[IrishLax]

I Would love to discuss this but in this forum it would only lead to accusations of rampant socialism.

It's funny because that's exactly what I asked you to discuss and you came back with dismissive rhetoric and "read through thousands of posts."

 

[BobD]

So as long as the captain (who can do the helmsman's job but not vice versa) keeps handing out gratuitous attaboys and no awshits all is well.

I disagree, most "captains" cannot do the "helmsman's" job. Many have no clue what the other does. Both positions are important.

Respectfully I'd say your comment highlights the problem corporate America has right now.

 

[GoIrish41]

It's just you.



This is your worst characteristic. You're so obsessed with your self-righteous take on things and being holier than thou and proving your moral superiority that you fail on epic levels sometimes to actually read the words in front of you.

What I said was "Towards employee compensation, the attitude you're expressing is endemic of non-military, non-law enforcement government employees I've encountered. Most of them expect the world to be run like the government where the gap between GS-1 and GS-15 is minuscule relative to the equivalent difference in corporate America."

Let's actually break this down for a second to it's bare bones... all that post really says is "Your attitude is one I've found maintained by most Government employees who expect the pay difference between floor and ceiling to be much smaller than it is in corporate America."

-I never say that opinion is invalid or that I disagree with it, in fact I say that it's discussed at length in my family and is "interesting" with "no simple solution."
-Why is it discussed in my family? Because there are a lot of non-military, non-law enforcement government people in my family (mostly teachers, some others).
-There is nothing insulting about that statement whatsoever towards any of the groups.

This like back in the name discrimination debate where my only original premise was that I wouldn't hire someone with a dumb name like Dickweed to professionally represent my company... and you wanted SO BADLY to make it about race and other protected forms of discrimination that you not only lost the fairway but weren't even on the same golf course after you were done warping it.

What you are missing is that when you make a sweeping generalization about what most people in a certain group think based on your limited experience, it can be offensive to people in that group. Would you trust a political poll that was taken with the number of people who work for the government who you actually had that conversation with? Pretty unscientific don't you think. You are setting up a stereotype of government employees based on extremely limited information and further you are using that information to inform other opinions. And when you did this, I was compelled to defend the literally thousands of government employees that I know, who have all manner of political and economic opinions. Nobody likes to be cast into a group -- especially by someone who is not very well informed.

Indeed, you did ask me to give some examples of other ideas. Excuse me not stepping into what experience with you has taught me was a trap to continue pointlessly arguing about semantics of posts and being told over and again how wrong headed I am for believing what I believe. Furthermore, you might want to consider that you are not the only poster on this board and that I might have been referring to someone else when responding to Whiskey's post. Leppy would have called me a socialist for the rest of the night if I acknowledged that Whiskey's idea had merit. We would at this moment be talking about pulling oneself up by the bootstraps and John Smith's credo that if you don't work you don't eat.

Thank you so much for telling me what my worst trait is. Coming from a person who has never met me, that means a lot to me. If explaining why I feel the way about something seems preachy to you, I'm terribly sorry for putting you through the agony of reading my posts.

 

[ACamp1900]

Thank you so much for telling me what my worst trait is.

So... this seems like a great place for me to jump in.........

 

[IrishLax]

What you are missing is that when you make a sweeping generalization about what most people in a certain group think based on your limited experience, it can be offensive to people in that group.

Yeah... what a horrible sweeping generalization... oh wait:
-I clearly qualified my statement to say that it only applied to people I had encountered... by, you know, clearly saying "endemic of... employees I've encountered."
-Put an asterisk on it as an additional qualifier and stated that even in that group of people, there were many with different view points and that it was an interesting discussion topic.

Thank you so much for telling me what my worst trait is. Coming from a person who has never met me, that means a lot to me. If explaining why I feel the way about something seems preachy to you, I'm terribly sorry for putting you through the agony of reading my posts.

I guess the implied premise that I was saying this was your worst posting trait was lost here. Normally, I'd find this hard to believe since the entire thing was about posting... and I directly state that it is with respect to reading and responding to a post in the sentences you're referring to. But I guess in the end this just further reinforces the point that you make no discernible effort to attentively read what's in front of you, intelligently understand what's being conveyed, and respond logically.

 

[connor_in]

 

[GoIrish41]

Double post. See below.

 

[GoIrish41]

What I said was "Towards employee compensation, the attitude you're expressing is endemic of non-military, non-law enforcement government employees I've encountered. Most of them expect the world to be run like the government where the gap between GS-1 and GS-15 is minuscule relative to the equivalent difference in corporate America."

Let's actually break this down for a second to it's bare bones... all that post really says is "Your attitude is one I've found maintained by most Government employees who expect the pay difference between floor and ceiling to be much smaller than it is in corporate America."

You want me to respond to the words in front of me but when i respond to you saying "most government employees who expect ..." you act as if i`m somhow misreading you actual words. Got it.

Aditionally you use words like endemic which describes a disease or condition among a group of people and expect me to ignore the meaning of the word when you intentionally use it for effect. I am reponding to your words. But you are criticizing me for failing to do so. I don't have the energy or will to have a discussion with you.

And while we are pointing out bad traits perhaps you should consider that you can be insulting, whether you intend to be or not. You are more interested in arguing he said she said than actually contributing productively to the discussion at hand. This is a discussion board not an arguing board. The fact that you brought up a months old argument suggests to me that you are keeping score in a game that only you are playing. For the record i'm not interested in the types of arguments that you seem to enjoy. Someone can state that they take offense to something and you want to argue about how it wasn't offensive instead of just saying sorry i offended you, it is just more fodder to be argued about. Clearly we don't comunicate well with each other so perhaps its best that we just stop trying to do so.

 

[IrishLax]

You want me to respond to the words in front of me but when i respond to you saying "most government employees who expect ..." you act as if i`m somhow misreading your actual words. Got it.

Yeah... you are misreading it lol... as I clearly enumerated in freaking bullet points. With every post you just reinforce exactly what I'm saying.

Additionally you use words like endemic which describes a disease or condition among a group of people and expect me to ignore the meaning of the word when you intentionally use it for effect. I am reponding to your words. But you are criticizing me for failing to do so. I don't have the energy or will to have a discussion with you.

Yet here you are, continuing to type away.

And while we are pointing out bad traits perhaps you should consider that you can be insulting, whether you intend to be or not. You seem more interested in arguing he said she said than actually contributing productively to the discussion at hand.

Funny this all started by me saying "I can only speak for myself, I'd be much more interested to read and discuss your pragmatic solutions to this perceived problem (i.e. an increase in minimum wage or whatever else you can think of)."

This is a discussion board not an arguing board. The fact that you brought up a months old argument suggests to me that you are keeping score in a game that only you are playing. For the record i'm not interested in the types of arguments that you seem to enjoy. Clearly we don't comunicate well with each other so perhaps its best that we just stop trying to do so.

Only reasonable thing you've said in awhile. I'll go back to generally not posting in this thread, and will never again respond to a non-football post you make.

But seriously man... it takes two to tango. It's beyond comical that you're "not interested" in these types of arguments... yet you perpetuate them ad infinitum. All you had to do at any point is not hit reply and it's done. But whatever, my rep bar is better for it.

Happy politicking.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

What you are missing is that when you make a sweeping generalization about what most people in a certain group think based on your limited experience, it can be offensive to people in that group. Would you trust a political poll that was taken with the number of people who work for the government who you actually had that conversation with? Pretty unscientific don't you think. You are setting up a stereotype of government employees based on extremely limited information and further you are using that information to inform other opinions. And when you did this, I was compelled to defend the literally thousands of government employees that I know, who have all manner of political and economic opinions. Nobody likes to be cast into a group -- especially by someone who is not very well informed.

Indeed, you did ask me to give some examples of other ideas. Excuse me not stepping into what experience with you has taught me was a trap to continue pointlessly arguing about semantics of posts and being told over and again how wrong headed I am for believing what I believe. Furthermore, you might want to consider that you are not the only poster on this board and that I might have been referring to someone else when responding to Whiskey's post. Leppy would have called me a socialist for the rest of the night if I acknowledged that Whiskey's idea had merit. We would at this moment be talking about pulling oneself up by the bootstraps and John Smith's credo that if you don't work you don't eat.

Thank you so much for telling me what my worst trait is. Coming from a person who has never met me, that means a lot to me. If explaining why I feel the way about something seems preachy to you, I'm terribly sorry for putting you through the agony of reading my posts.

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck...

And saying "I'm offended by xyz" is just the new age way of saying, "I'm a wuss and you're a meanie."

All in all, happy to see that I can hit the road for work for three days and come back to some action!

 

[GoIrish41]

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck...

And saying "I'm offended by xyz" is just the new age way of saying, "I'm a wuss and you're a meanie."

All in all, happy to see that I can hit the road for work for three days and come back to some action!

We missed you Lep. Nobody slings the right wing mud quite like you. lol

 

[Cackalacky]

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck...

And saying "I'm offended by xyz" is just the new age way of saying, "I'm a wuss and you're a meanie."

All in all, happy to see that I can hit the road for work for three days and come back to some action!

 

[RDU Irish]

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/carl-icahn-letter--a-watershed-moment-for-stockholder-participation-152659853.html

"Carl Icahn is a prominent activist investor and the chairman of Icahn Enterprises L.P. This letter originally appeared on his website Shareholders Squaretable."

 

[connor_in]

A brief history of Obamacare delays - David Nather and Susan Levine - POLITICO.com

Boehner: 'What the hell is this, a joke?' | TheHill

Harry Reid: People Aren't Educated on How to Use the Internet | Washington Free Beacon

 

[chicago51]

A brief history of Obamacare delays - David Nather and Susan Levine - POLITICO.com

Boehner: 'What the hell is this, a joke?' | TheHill

Harry Reid: People Aren't Educated on How to Use the Internet | Washington Free Beacon

The healthcare rollout has been a PR disaster.

That said soon or later the GOP is actually going to talk about ideas and not just sling mud at Obamcare.

Other than Rand Paul occassionally nobody of consequence from that party really offers any ideas to address problems facing this country.

The one exception being outgoing retiring House ways and means chairman David Camp has a half way decent tax reform proposal but sadly his own party leadership has dismissed it.

As for the ACA there is a lot of corpratist bull in the bill. However was the days of pre existing contitions, life time limits that kicked people offf the rolls, an no limits in annual out of pocket cost that bankrupted folks much better? You got something better I'm all ears as I'm not a fan of elements of the ACA but how is going back to the way things where somehow better?