posted
On the other hand, the United States has nationalized banks and insurance companies.
Even here in Canada we only have single-payer health insurance, so eh ... who can judge, maybe SenojRetep is right and America really is more left wing on some issues.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Sorry folks, Republicans don't have a chance. The core of America has had enough of Conservative Republicans. Look at the state of EVERYTHING. Republicans don't have much room to stand on anything, at all.
Obama is a socialist!
Republicans had to bailout banks after deciding not to police them at all, even after 22 Bank Bailouts in 28 years.
Obama is for Bigger Government!
The Government is much, much bigger now after 8 years of Bush, and the National deficit has doubled to 10 trillion under George W. Bush.
Republicans legislative from a very idealist vague conservative utopia that is bizarre with horrible results.
quote: This is just one of the many examples of how America is much more conservative than Europe. Every other industrialized nation has Universal Health Care, every one except the US and yet in the US its considered leftist to even propose increasing the number of people insured.
There is a dramatic difference between proposing to increase the number of people insured and a government run 'Universal' Health care. Obama is not mandating Universal Health care for everyone but he is mandating a business's payroll is at risk if he does not believe the business is paying enough for health care. Even if you choose not to take healthcare your employer will have to pay the government for your healthcare, meaning less money in payroll for your paycheck.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: When Barack Obama responded to the Ohio plumber who didn't want his taxes raised by saying that he wanted to "spread the wealth around," I wanted to tell the Illinois senator to spread his own wealth around.
Senator Obama, in a rare moment of candor, all but told "Joe the plumber" that his wealth should be seized in the name of equity. Their personal encounter this past Sunday played out one of the old themes of democratic politics: the appeal to the many to take from the few. It's traditionally an easy sell in democratic regimes.
Despite Obama's implication to the contrary, however, it doesn't represent much in the way of change.
posted
Amazing that ya don't have any complaints about the government being used to force you to pay around a quarter of your income to the financial sector, even if you haven't signed a single contract with any of their companies. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=bubble_and_bail
quote:Senator Obama, in a rare moment of candor, all but told "Joe the plumber" that his wealth should be seized in the name of equity.
That's a bit inflammatory. I don't personally see a problem with those who benefit the most from living in our society contributing more money to support it, while those who benefit less keep more as they work through tougher odds to try to build themselves up.
Keeping 60% of a million dollars a year is something I'd be absolutely thrilled to do. I'd vastly prefer that to my current combination of salary and tax rate.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senator Obama, in a rare moment of candor, all but told "Joe the plumber" that his wealth should be seized in the name of equity. Their personal encounter this past Sunday played out one of the old themes of democratic politics: the appeal to the many to take from the few. It's traditionally an easy sell in democratic regimes.
So, this person's problem is not Obama, but the progressive income tax system.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: On the other hand, the United States has nationalized banks and insurance companies.
Even here in Canada we only have single-payer health insurance, so eh ... who can judge, maybe SenojRetep is right and America really is more left wing on some issues.
I was thinking particularly of immigration issues (where people talking like Tom Tancredo are welcome on the Left or Right in many European countries).
And my point about Obama's health care proposal (which is not "nationalized" in a government-run sense, but more in a NCLB required standards sense) was that no national politician from either party was proposing something so closely resembling socialized helathcare in the 50s or 60s. It was included to support my refutation of Rabbit's claim that Obama is to the right of Republican platforms from that era.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
{quote]Amazing that ya don't have any complaints about the government being used to force you to pay around a quarter of your income to the financial sector, even if you haven't signed a single contract with any of their companies.[/quote]
I don't have a problem with the bailout, I have a problem with the stringlessness of it. It should have been a multiparty deal between the government, the banks, the automakers, and the energy concerns while the iron was hot and everyone's attention was peaked in an effort to give direction to the economy.
posted
I touched on this subject in an earlier rant, but recent comments by Sarah Palin have brought it back up.
Palin had this to say at a fundraiser Thursday night in North Carolina:
quote:"We believe that the best of America is in the small towns that we get to visit, and in the wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation," she said.
"This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans," Palin added.
I had a little mini-rant awhile ago about how annoyed I get when Republicans make the inference that small town values are inherently better than the urban and suburban areas. Palin has made similar comments about how she's always been a working person or what not and everyone else is morally inferior.
So to see her illustrate the very thing that has been pissing me off about Republican insinuations over the last, I don't know, 30 years or so, to see it right there as blunt as could be; that set me off a bit. She basically just that if you don't live in a small town, you're not as American as the people who do.
She tried to "clarify" her comments the next day:
quote:"It's all pro-America. I was just reinforcing the fact that there, where I was, there's good patriotic people there in these rallies, so excited about positive change and reform of government that's coming that they are so appreciative of hearing our message, hearing our plan. Not any one area of America is more pro-America patriotically than others," she said.
I'm sorry but that's bull, just complete and utter crap. For a campaign that RIPPED Obama a new one when he made comments about people being "bitter" or what not a few months back, well I guess they've decided to go the other way. If that was fair game, then so is this: McCain/Palin thinks people in big cities have no values and are unAmerican.
Is that fair? Maybe not, but she's the one who said it, and it took an extremely small amount of modification to take what she said and turn it into that. If that isn't how small town mayor girl really feels, then she's lying to try and win rural votes, which is just as bad, and frankly I'm too pissed to give her the benefit of the doubt.
I don't want McCain or Palin to clarify, and I don't want them to "disavow" or "repudiate" those words. I want an apology.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"We believe that the best of America is in the small towns that we get to visit, and in the wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation," she said.
"This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans," Palin added.
...
I don't want McCain or Palin to clarify, and I don't want them to "disavow" or "repudiate" those words. I want an apology.
As a lifelong city-dweller or suburbanite, I have to agree. That's offensive. And there's no backing out of it. She specifically called it "the best of America." Well, you are certainly entitled to prefer living in a small town to other areas, but when you're on the campaign trail, appealing to Americans, it doesn't do to say some Americans are better than others.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Senator Obama, in a rare moment of candor, all but told "Joe the plumber" that his wealth should be seized in the name of equity. Their personal encounter this past Sunday played out one of the old themes of democratic politics: the appeal to the many to take from the few. It's traditionally an easy sell in democratic regimes.
So, this person's problem is not Obama, but the progressive income tax system.
I think Obama has been very forthright about this. Yes, he does believe that the wealthiest Americans should pay more taxes. And you can mince words to make that sound as evil as you like, but the fact is that people making $250,000 a year or more can afford to contribute to the foundations of society far more than those making $200,000 or less. What would you propose we do? Have a working class family of 4 making 50,000 pay half their money in taxes and let the guy making $1,000,000 pay 2.5%? (In case you're having trouble doing the math, that means they both pay $25,000.) Is that the sort of equality you want? Or would having them both pay 10% of their income somehow be fair? Because I have to think that $5k to a family making $50k is a lot more money than one hundred thousand is to a family making one million. In the first case, we're taking the money they may need to send their kids to college (and maybe get the chance to make a million dollars), the money they need to fix the roof, or to pay their health insurance premiums, or to replace their junked up car.
There is simply no way to make the tax burden of a working class family and a rich CEO "equal" in any meaningful way. Numbers are cold and unfeeling.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And you can mince words to make that sound as evil as you like, but the fact is that people making $250,000 a year or more can afford to contribute to the foundations of society far more than those making $200,000 or less.
Businesses making over 250,000 dollars create jobs. It gets complicated. I do personally think that the suburban lifestyle is unsustainable and the values are a little gross. `It's funny. I know a guy who grew up on the east coast, did a two year Master's at Cambridge and came back with a pronounced and persistent English accent. Now I just find it impossible to take him seriously. That's kind of how I feel about the suburbs. The cars, the commutes, the illegal immigrant help, if that sprawl is an America we are proud of, then we need to so some soul searching.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I grew up in the suburbs, and I missed out on the whole illegal immigrant help thing. A lot of the suburbs are populated by middle-class, blue collar families. I didn't know anyone with a housekeeper or nanny or who paid someone else to do the yardwork.
I agree that urban sprawl is undesirable, but you're unjustly accusing a whole lot of people of doing something illegal and immoral. Most of the people living in the suburbs I grew up in can't afford domestic help, illegal or otherwise. It's hardly a facet of the suburban lifestyle.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand, our English accents are impeccable.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:And you can mince words to make that sound as evil as you like, but the fact is that people making $250,000 a year or more can afford to contribute to the foundations of society far more than those making $200,000 or less.
Businesses making over 250,000 dollars create jobs. It gets complicated. I do personally think that the suburban lifestyle is unsustainable and the values are a little gross. `It's funny. I know a guy who grew up on the east coast, did a two year Master's at Cambridge and came back with a pronounced and persistent English accent. Now I just find it impossible to take him seriously. That's kind of how I feel about the suburbs. The cars, the commutes, the illegal immigrant help, if that sprawl is an America we are proud of, then we need to so some soul searching.
Companies above 250000$ do not make jobs unless it is profitable to do so, most of the larger companies ship jobs overseas because it is more profitable giving them tax breaks is rewarding them.
Same deal with oil companies.
Also, the reason for suburban sprawl is to act as a defencive means to reduce the damage of a nuclear attack, by making cities more spread out theyre essentially less attractive targets.
IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, have you ever lived in England for any period of time? At least for me, the need to communicate effectively and get along in the day to day necessitated or precipitated a change in the way I talked. There is a reason England has such pronounced regional shifts in accent, and it's not pretension in every case- though there's quite a bit of that. When I went back to California, people did notice a difference in the way I talked- not full on English, just a tonal and cadential shift, but that faded after a short time.
If you live in England, as an American, there are certain pressures on you that affect your speech. You want to avoid being misunderstood, or being made fun of, and you may want to draw attention away from your nationality, since that is a persistent topic of discussion when meeting people, and not always something you'd care to talk about with every English person you meet. There's also just the desire to pass, which can be very strong if you identify with the place in which you are living, and want to be at home there.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taxing businesses more does nothing but rise their costs, which causes them to raise the price of their goods and services which, in turn, results in inflation. Do you honestly think that businesses are just going to absorb the additional tax costs? They have all the power in the world to control their pricing and income. They will do everything in their power to improve the bottom line. That's what businesses are for.
Socialism and capitalism cannot effectively work together. As more capital is taken from the top and dropped to the bottom, the top will seek to regain that loss by increasing prices, which in turn drops the value of whatever is dropped to the bottom because, guess what, the cost of goods has increased in order to allow the top to retain its bottom line.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
There's an ultimate trade off between productivity in the national sense and taking care of the people in a national sense Socialism aims to give the most about of aid and care to the most amount of people, capitalism aims to increase ones share of wealth by any means necessary, easiest achieved at other's expense.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Taxing businesses more does nothing but rise their costs, which causes them to raise the price of their goods and services which, in turn, results in inflation. Do you honestly think that businesses are just going to absorb the additional tax costs? They have all the power in the world to control their pricing and income. They will do everything in their power to improve the bottom line. That's what businesses are for.
Socialism and capitalism cannot effectively work together. As more capital is taken from the top and dropped to the bottom, the top will seek to regain that loss by increasing prices, which in turn drops the value of whatever is dropped to the bottom because, guess what, the cost of goods has increased in order to allow the top to retain its bottom line.
I don't think it's quite that cut and dry. Given a minimal tax increase, the fact that raising the price on most products would decrease demand, and the desire to remain competitive, any resulting increase in cost would be insignificant on the national scale. It seems better to me than the alternative, anyway.
What would you propose?
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
If the middle class is being squeezed to the point where they can't afford to buy any of the crap those upper class businesses produce, then who are they going to sell that crap to, regardless of the price?
Irami -
The irony of a rural America dominated by small town factories and large farms all run by illegal immigrant labor finding a flaw with some extremely affluent neighborhoods having illegal immigrant help in the kitchen or with the laundry is beyond amusing to me.
How is our commute to work any different than having to drive 10 miles in some rural towns just to get from the farm to the center of town? Or having to drive 10 miles from the town to get to the local Wal-Mart to buy something the city center doesn't have?
Don't get me wrong, as a tree hugger, I hate sprawl (and by the way Blayne, it has almost nothing to do with a nuclear attack, especially given today's nuclear weapons' potency, it has to do with a 1950's ideal that involves a 2 car garage and a lawn), I think we should almost ALL be living in bigger more efficient cities and not spread out like this, but for tens of millions of people that ship has already sailed.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
If the middle class is being squeezed to the point where they can't afford to buy any of the crap those upper class businesses produce, then who are they going to sell that crap to, regardless of the price?
It's not that the price goes beyond reach, but that the price increases effectively mitigate any advantages given, resulting in a net 0 result. Basically, mixing the two does absolutely nothing but make the lower classes feel better for a week.
Personally, I think we should spend more time controlling wages for executives and others of their ilk. I see absolutely no reason whatsoever that a single person should be making 400 times what their employees make. Personally, I think we should be limiting wages to an amount that is, say, 50-100 times the average individual's salary in a particular company is. That in turn gives greater incentive to executives to raise wages and prevents the type of run-away wealth that is so common today. I mean, heck, we have a minimum wage. Why no maximum?
I should mention that I don't think this limit should be imposed on money in terms of stock or other bonuses, but rather for straight wages paid.
The people who make 250,000 dollars a year aren't bothering me. It's the people who make 20,30, and up to a billion dollars a year that bother me. Seriously, no individual (I don't care how hard they worked or sacrificed to earn that) deserves to make more than the GDP of Sao Tome and Principe (For those who don't know, that was 145 million dollars in 2007. And that's high-balling). But raising taxes for the rich and throwing it to the poor is a really crappy band-aid solution that will ultimately do nothing.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Personally, I think we should spend more time controlling wages for executives and others of their ilk. I see absolutely no reason whatsoever that a single person should be making 400 times what their employees make. Personally, I think we should be limiting wages to an amount that is, say, 50-100 times the average individual's salary in a particular company is. That in turn gives greater incentive to executives to raise wages and prevents the type of run-away wealth that is so common today. I mean, heck, we have a minimum wage. Why no maximum?
I should mention that I don't think this limit should be imposed on money in terms of stock or other bonuses, but rather for straight wages paid.
That's a great sentiment, and certainly one that I could get behind. Some companies do do that sort of thing — I think Ben & Jerry's had a 7:1 highest-to-lowest paid ratio at one point, but they did away with that when they were acquired (disclaimer: I'm going by memory here). (As an aside, in general I'm an advocate of companies being more open with how they compensate their employees. I don't understand the culture in the US that places such a taboo on talking about wages — it's anti-competitive.)
But imagine the loopholes that could be opened to exploit a maximum wage restriction. You pointed one out yourself in the second paragraph above. Not only that, but companies could split into two or more subcompanies, one of which has much higher average pay. If it could be done without loopholes, though, it sounds like a good idea to me.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I could tentatively support that idea for corporations. I'm less sure it's a good idea (or even really necessary for that matter) for partnerships or sole-proprietorships.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Taxing businesses more does nothing but rise their costs, which causes them to raise the price of their goods and services which, in turn, results in inflation.
I believe I spoke earlier about the notion of "cutting taxes in a vacuum". Which is to say, it sounds great if cutting taxes is just a disconnected concept that means people pay less money, and begins to sound less good when you look at the balance sheets and someone has to pay for the services the government offers, services which are often better provided by a government that looks to a different standard of effectiveness for providing those services than just dollars per unit.
To give just one example, one of the highest costs many businesses face once they get past a certain size is paying for health insurance for their employees. An effectively run government system that can negotiate as a large block with providers and pharmaceutical companies may well be able to provide those services cheaper than a for-profit system.
And then there's education (providing the foundations of a skilled employee base), transport (roads, public transportation for employees, shipping of products, etc.), the subsidies that make many raw materials possible and/or cost competitive, and so on.
To say raising taxes "provides nothing more" implies the revenue raised vanishes into thin air, and despite some rhetoric to the contrary, that's not the case. One can argue it's apportioned badly or unfairly, of course, but that's not the same thing.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You seem to forget that our government is particularly inefficient. This is a general rule for any large organization. The bigger it is, the more it costs to run. And the cost increases are not flat. They're exponential.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
If the middle class is being squeezed to the point where they can't afford to buy any of the crap those upper class businesses produce, then who are they going to sell that crap to, regardless of the price?
Irami -
The irony of a rural America dominated by small town factories and large farms all run by illegal immigrant labor finding a flaw with some extremely affluent neighborhoods having illegal immigrant help in the kitchen or with the laundry is beyond amusing to me.
How is our commute to work any different than having to drive 10 miles in some rural towns just to get from the farm to the center of town? Or having to drive 10 miles from the town to get to the local Wal-Mart to buy something the city center doesn't have?
Don't get me wrong, as a tree hugger, I hate sprawl (and by the way Blayne, it has almost nothing to do with a nuclear attack, especially given today's nuclear weapons' potency, it has to do with a 1950's ideal that involves a 2 car garage and a lawn), I think we should almost ALL be living in bigger more efficient cities and not spread out like this, but for tens of millions of people that ship has already sailed.
posted
It'd take I think the equivilant of a research paper to really get into it, but I think that's a false statement, or rather a false claim. First off there's absolutely no data in that link, it's a series of suppositions and post-hoc logic.
The zoning laws are an interesting question, but zoning laws are local, not federal, state, or even county level. They're city by city. You're telling me that nearly every single small city in America set up zoning laws that preclude the mixing of light commercial and residential zones because of a massive shadow conspiracy from the federal government to try and push people further and further away from city centers? I don't buy it. The suburbs weren't invented by the government, the were created by the private sector, popularized by pop culture, and largely paid for by GIs choosing to take home loans from the government instead of other benefits offered to them.
But then you get into the question of white flight. White flight happened in most urban areas due to a combination of factors. Between race riots and dwindling inner city jobs, whites wanted out of what they saw as an increasingly dangerous situation and an economically hopeless one. So they left, and when they got out, they used intimidation and by post 60's standards illegal lending practices to make sure that blacks couldn't get home loans to buy houses in the suburbs, and those that could were chased out by local mobs.
Add to that the fact that a powerful nuclear blast could cut right through a lot of suburbs. Even as people were pushing further and further away from big cities, bombs were made with larger and larger blast radii (radiuses?). A large bomb today could take out everything within a 7 mile radius of the center of the blast, for a 14 mile diameter. That's going to level any major city and a vast swath of the suburbs around it.
I just read an article the other day about how sprawl is actually slowing in a lot of places because younger unmarried singles, many with college degrees and decent salaries are moving back into city centers as a wave of revitalization washes over a lot of older cities. They're bringing money and jobs with them.
To sum up: there are a lot of perfectly valid reasons for why people started a slow exodus out of cities starting in the 50's. And you forget, by the way, that hundreds of thousands of people were removed from farms and other rural areas, where the majority of Americans in the 1940's still lived (well, left by choice is a better way to put it) and they all went to the major cities for jobs and what not. I'd love to see the numbers, but I'm willing to bet that if you looked at the stats of where people were living between 1920, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, and 50, you'd see a massive wave of exodus out of rural areas and into cities by the millions. They left those inner cities and went out into the suburbs for a different set of reasons, but they were good ones at the time (at least to them).
You'll have to find something a lot better than a wordpress blog with conspiracy theories to convince me of the veracity of a plan of the size and scope of which you're suggesting.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boris: yes, the government is inefficient (and, IMNSHO, this is good), and yes, wealth transfer creates something analogous to income effects for prices among poor people. However, there's plenty of research showing that, for many programs, that effect is far from a full replacement.
Of course, if there wasn't a 'floor' for well-being, there would be no reason for such transfers, but there is. The situations of some people are morally unacceptable. It is possible to improve those situations (again, lots of research on that) with wealth transfer of various kinds.
Btw, if your simplistic argument were true, it would never make any sense to give to charity.
Regarding controlling wages, I wasn't aware that "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was still so popular.
Here's a little thought experiment to understand why some wages are so high. Say we're talking about a very large company. The decisions of the CEO, especially over the course of a few years, can result in swings in value of the company of billions and billions of dollars. Wouldn't you pay millions and millions of dollars more for even a slight (percentage-wise) increase in the likely outcome of that? There is no great gap of ability between very, very high paid CEOs and many other people, but there is a great gap of responsibility, and the returns on having a slightly better CEO than the next company are enormous. Of course companies pay a lot for CEO in efforts to improve their chances of getting that slightly better one.
And in case anyone is ready to poo-poo the idea that that's why companies are paying so much, I can point you at some excellent papers that, whatever the 'real reason', the above is the effect: companies that pay more manage to get slightly better CEOs, who contribute, on average, for more than their salary to the value of the company.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: As an aside, in general I'm an advocate of companies being more open with how they compensate their employees. I don't understand the culture in the US that places such a taboo on talking about wages — it's anti-competitive.
Well Mike, this is because the American people are stupid. True story here. I worked with a gal who was very honest about having hated her last job. It was so bad that she asked for less than she had been making when she took the job with us.
One day, she couldn't find her keys and started going through everyone else's drawers. (Yeah, I never bought that part, either. But that was the excuse.) The only guy had his paystub in his.
She immediately began screaming that the company was sexist because he was making more than her. The guy was a former car salesman who was hired while we were very shorthanded and desperate for help. Of course he was making more than the gal who took a pay cut to get out of her last job.
Didn't matter. She was mad about it for months until I left. For all I know, she's still mad about it. I don't remember if we had other tellers at that point or if it was just the three of us, but that could have done massive damage in a larger setting. How much would it have cost the company to investigate her claims if she'd been the kind of person to actually back up her talk? Or if her complaining had been able to motive someone else into filing a lawsuit?
And that's why we're just told the average range of salaries in America.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would definitely not support a maximum wage. The trouble with the salaries of CEO's isn't that they make 400 times what some of their employees make, it's that they get that despite making piss poor business decisions that ultimately hurt their investors and ruin their companies. I also feel that businesses are too beholden to the stock market, which rises and falls based on the feelings of the American people. I mean, if a company is projected (and not by themselves, by financial "experts") to make 1 billion dollars more this year than they did last year, and they only make 900 million more, then their stock can take a nose dive despite record profits! The whole thing makes me insane. I don't know what the alternative is, I just know that I see a lot of things going on in the business world that don't make sense.
Oh...I could go on about this but the baby's crying so I better stop before I get in too deep.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christine, the reason the price 'dives' (and for the numbers you gave, a 'dive' would only be a few percent drop) is because the price had already gone up on the expectation that they would make a billion. The price can't stay at the level it is at because the company isn't worth as much only making $900 million as it would have been if it had made a billion.
Also, it is rarely the projections of financial "experts" that create the expectations. Often times people who are buying and selling will build up expectations that are different from those of "experts". This is why you'll regularly hear things like "Despite meeting official projections, company X was down today after earnings did not meet expectations on the street".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was an excellent endorsement, very measured and respectful of both candidates. I think his arguments will resonate with a lot of moderate undecideds who have remaining concerns about Obama's "readiness" for the Presidency.
I was genuinely moved by Powell's statement on anti-Muslim bigotry. I understand why Obama hasn't made the same "so what if I am?" argument - if he wanted any chance at winning this election, he had little choice but to bluntly shoot down the rumor's factual inaccuracy and otherwise ignore it entirely. But it's wonderful to hear someone with a national profile confront the truly insidious part of the "Obama is a secret Muslim" smears: that it reduces an entire religion (and by extension, the ethnic groups associated with it) to a pejorative.
So hats off to Colin Powell, someone with whom I've had some profound disagreements, for having the courage to, in a political environment that has become toxic with anti-Muslim sentiment, point out that Muslim Americans are just as patriotic as Christian ones.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.
posted
I too am very glad to see General Powell talk about the anti-Muslim sentiment. I know Obama can't discuss it the way I would like him to, but the hatred and racism towards Arabs has been disgusting.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know Obama can't discuss it the way I would like him to, but the hatred and racism towards Arabs has been disgusting.
He very well can, and he chooses not to. When did it become permissible to coddle him and how long will it continue.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB--Obama left that possibility open during his "Thank you". He hinted that Powell may get a spot in the cabinet, or have free access to the President.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We really do need to stop coddling B. HUSSIEN O, a muslim terrorist lover who wants to socialize everything, distribute wealth evenly, and hates this country. He's stealing the election through ACORN and might be gay.
Can we please stop coddling him?
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The BIGGEST problem I have with our entire economy and it's mentality is the fact that a companies Employees and Workers are like cogs in a wheel and the important ones are the Stock Holders.
When I worked for Borders books for 5 years, I saw every benefit except pay stripped from the employees with the intention to boost the stock in tough times.
Look, I am the guy working full time at a retail store the day after thanksgiving to january 30th for 7.80 cents an hour. I am getting yelled at by upper class white women every 15 minutes, I'm mopping human feces out of the bathroom, I am getting called a racist by the guy we just caught stealing, and I've got the husband of a woman a manager offended 'waiting' in the parking lot.
And guess what. The company doesn't care about me, never thanks me, and always tells me i need to improve my performance to help boost the stock.
Employees are light bulbs, cheap and easy replace, Stock Holders are gods to always be given gifts.
THAT is exactly what's wrong with this country and economy.
We'll waste 100,000 hours of American's time to make some investors overseas super rich.
Meh. bring on armageddon.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I too am very glad to see General Powell talk about the anti-Muslim sentiment. I know Obama can't discuss it the way I would like him to, but the hatred and racism towards Arabs has been disgusting.
posted
Obama crushed his old fundraising record in September with an over $150 million haul. That's not far from twice what McCain was allotted for the entire Fall campaign. In addition, the DNC netted almost $50 million too, somewhat negating the usually strong RNC totals that help pad the candidate's real total spending bottom line.
I suspect with strong Obama fundraising, much of the DNC's money will go towards the ever competitive Senate races. If they feel like Obama has it in the bag, they'll want to make sure he has a Congress he can work with.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Obama crushed his old fundraising record in September with an over $150 million haul. That's not far from twice what McCain was allotted for the entire Fall campaign. In addition, the DNC netted almost $50 million too, somewhat negating the usually strong RNC totals that help pad the candidate's real total spending bottom line.
I suspect with strong Obama fundraising, much of the DNC's money will go towards the ever competitive Senate races. If they feel like Obama has it in the bag, they'll want to make sure he has a Congress he can work with.
True story, but this talk, (not yours mind you) of a filibuster proof senate seems unlikely. I'd probably say its undesirable to be honest. Republicans didn't enamor me a whole lot to the idea.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
