Obama assigns centrists to make radical economic moves

Why do so many conservatives seem to dislike government so much when it was God who established them in the first place. And then there are Scriptures like:

2 Pet 2:10
10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. (KJV)

 

There are bound to be some undesired side effects, however, I take them over another great depression.

 

If you are going to quote scripture it is appropriate that you use it in context. Unlike what you have done here.

 

I agree with you here but you know this is contrary to true free enterprise.

Minimum wage is a different subject. It's really a two pronged situation. I agree a high school kid living with Mom and Dad can get by on less but more and more you see people trying to support a home and family with a McDonalds pay check.

This is the 401K program Bush sold us when companies got rid of pensions. Remember when he said we can manage our money better that some company or the government? Turns out most every day workers like store clerks, waitresses, plumbers and electricians have no clue how to survive or invest in such a volatile environment. They also can't afford the service the professional investors use to make sense of the financial world. Now we have seniors having to return to work in their golden years when they should be enjoying a good retirement. But that's why average Joe has investments in the market.

This is the problem, we first of all give that person a salary. That is the compensation for the services they give. Yet these people are getting 5 and 10 times the negotiated salary as bonus and the investors are approving that bonus check. There is a place for regulation when the CEO decides his own bonus check.

I have no idea what any of this means. You describing taste on their pallets, motives etc... I guess all this means you don't trust our elected officials. What substitute do we have to bring these CEO's under control? Do we just let them continue to destroy the nations future unchallenged in the disguise of free enterprise? My solution is to put some check's and balances in place so we can clearly prosecute infractions just like we do any other form of theft. I also feel we should separate the board which is there for the investors from the executives and make them accountable for the companies return by compensating them with stocks and not salaries.

 

You know this isn't practice. Trying to get every 401K owner to attend every board meeting in those complicated blends of funds they invest in. So each company has a board of directors that is SUPPOSED to represent the investors. However, when the CEO is also chairman of this board, what protection does the investor have?

When an owner hires a million dollar quarterback the owner has control to balance the quarterbacks pay to his expected revenue for his investment. He negotiates and accepts the risk. When a company hires a new CEO, it is the board of directors who decides the CEO's compensation package and not the individual investors. In my view, the only way to fix this relationship and to make the boards compensation directly tied to the company profits. Until we do that there is no incentive for them to care about what decisions they approve or not.

Workers DO NOT own the jobs. The employer DOES own the jobs. They are free to eliminate the jobs if they decide they don't need them any more. They don't owe someone a living.

<snip>

Wealth envy is such a terrible sin for the less rich. Power is such a temptation.[/QUOTE]

This is the foundation of our differences, I believe the CEO and executives are workers just like the guy who cleans the toilet. The CEO is hired and fired. They don't "own" the company, they are employee's who receive a salary like any other employee.

Now the problem is this top group of employee's have authority to determine their own compensation and benefits? They can lay off 10K lower end workers just so they can get a larger bonus. It's insane, how did that guy at Fannie MAC get $18 Million for a few months of poor work? No oversight...

It is not wealth envy, I simple believe the wealth process should have oversight, a board that is directly accountable to the investors who are the true owners of the company. How about if we call that board, lets say, the board of directors? That a good title but oh, we have one f them. It is run by the CEO and is staffed by his friends who all make millions regardless if the company makes a nickel or not.

Again, I don't believe the CEO should also be chairman of the board and I believe the boards compensation should be directly tied tot he companies profits/success. I think those two little pieces of regulation will hold CEO feet to the fire and can assure the investors

 

Thanks Rev... :thumbs:

 

Bonuses, stock options, benefits, etc. are part of the negotiated compensation. It's what they require to do the work and it's what the owners through the Board of Director's Compensation Committee decides. They do get a sweet deal on the hopes they'll make a sweet difference for the owners and sometimes part of that deal is a bit of "no loss guarantee" to secure them over another. Wealth envy makes it difficult for others not in such demand to rationalize it. Yet, at the same time, most of us would scream bloody murder if we didn't have some allowances for likewise missing some our smaller goals.

The stockholders get to select the members of the Board of Directors so they can "separate" them from the executives any time they want. All they have to do is get organized and go after it. Unfortunately, smaller investors don't own enough shares to run the show. But, in business, one share gets one vote. You decision making ability is proportional to your share of the ownership. That's exactly how all those suffering from wealth envy would want it to be if they owned or ran the company.

 

Is everything about capitalism perfect, completely fair, and without excess? No, absolutely not! But it works better than anything else especially if you have a healthy understanding and appreciation of it. I think the tweaking needs to be done in the market place through competition and within the ownership governance of the businesses - not by government bureaucrats who've consistently demonstrated their inability to manage even not-for-profit endeavors much less real business.

Executives are not "workers just like the guy who cleans the toilet"! Every communist country that has tried this as part of its revolutionary ideas has suffered greatly! Every man and every job is important but some more than others in one respect or another to the goals. Its true in every organization. Most executives actually do own a significant share of the company they manage so they have a vested interest in its success. Compensation is tied to profits! The metrics of what constitutes a profit are up to the owners. They may desire to milk a "cash cow" to build a new business and then dispose of the older one. They may want to run it into the dirt and lay off most employees. It's their right to do so just as it is yous if you start a business. You get to make the decision - not the local party committee.

Yes, if I own the company or if I run the company I can lay off people who actually do something worthwhile just because I want to even for a selfish reason. I can do this because I either own - it's mine - or I run it for the owners - it's theirs and they put in charge of it. The employer does not give any employer a right to a job for life. You have a right to pursue other employment or start a business of your own or team up with other workers to cut yourselves a better deal.

All this has worked very well in America for years and is the reason we're so prosperous, there's so much opportunity, and we're all relatively wealthy compared to other corners of the world where they try to use government to make everything equal and according to what some official determines is deserved or, rather, needed for the benefit of the state. If we start making crazy changes to what we're doing we'll end up just like them.

No one is enjoying the decline in 401k fund values although to what extent each is effected depends on the choices each made in their investments and the design of the plan. When they make good money everyone wants more. When they lose some people want someone else to pick up the tab! You can invest in certificates of deposit if you want essentially no risk. Even with the decline if value we're seeing today most long term career investors - those with a lifetime of investment - still have accumulated a significant amount of wealth and still have time to recover from the current down turn. It's less than it was a few months ago. It hurts. But it's not zero! It's also still yours, doesn't belong to the government - not yet anyway, and can be transferred to your heirs. Yes, pension plans are not what they used to be. That's disappointing for a lot of us. But as changes have been made older participants are typically "grandfathered" at the older terms. There's no guarantee with any investment, no right to indefinite supply of money, and not even a right to a life in retirement.

Don't let the present financial crisis cause you to sell your soul to the false ideals of socialism.

 

You mean that board where the CEO is also the Chairman? That isn't a negotiation, a negotiation would have someone with a vested interest representing the investors.

You missed out on addressing my proposed solution by continually suggesting I have wealth envy, I suggested that the board pay be directly tied to company success/profits would be a very simple fix and wealth envy will be an unnecessary term. My thinking is we'd all do well or we'd all go down the drain. In either case, we'd do it together which means one has no reason to "envy" the other.

 

Runaway inflation is a leading cause of depression.

I've lived through the Carter days, with it's double digit inflation. You don't have a clue how bad it can be.

Costs of everything you need or want increase 3 times faster than wages.

 

Actually, I was born in 62 so also lived through the Carter years. I do know how bad it was. I also know Volker received credit from most economist for bringing us out of that era/crises. He was kept on by Regan after Carter left office. He led us out by raising interest rates and enduring all the criticism for doing so.

I believe this shows the government can make impacting changes that are not all bad even if viewed that way at the time. To want government to get out of the way and do nothing in this time of great crises I believe is the wrong answer.

 

It is the ownership governance of the business that isn't working which is why I feel government does need to get involved. If ownership governance of the business was working, the Big 3 wouldn't have flown to DC in private jets to ask for a loan with no business plan. If ownership governance of the business was working, companies like AIG would know that the company being in risk of failure and having to be bailed out by the government isn't the time to hand out huge executive bonuses. Ownership governance of the business is not working so I believe we need regulation. I know you disagree but everyone is entitled to an opinion and the majority has spoken in the last election.

Again, I disagree. The CEO is hired and can be fired. He is an employee. It is the thinking that he is more than an employee that is getting so many companies in trouble. Anyone on the payroll is an employee and no employee should decide their own compensation package. This isn't communist thinking and I am sorry you disagree but you are seeing first hand why this is a bad idea.

Once a company is publicly traded it is then owned by the investors. The board is supposed to represent the investors. The board is supposed to be the oversight group between the CEO and the investors investment. The CEO also being Chairman of the Board is a conflict of interest pure and simple...

 

You are incorrectly equating the today's economic problem with corporate governance and implying that it is not working. America's strength has been built on the success of individuals and their businesses through the great blessings of God. To acknowledge that a system is imperfect is not to say it is totally flawed and needs to be thrown out in favor of something much more flawed. That's exactly the result we will experience if we try to replace free enterprise with government control. Recognizing that the free market does work - and works very well - when government regulations are minimized - not maximized - is not to say that rules need to enforced for a framework of justice. There's a big difference in a framework of justice that insures commerce will be conducted according to law - fundamental law - with recourse when it's not and a socialist system of government control that attempts to insure no one will loose any money and everyone will receive what they "deserve" according to some government agency. Self-reliance is an important quality of the American fiber of previous generations. We once did not look to the government to take care of us in our daily business.

You paint the picture that investors don't own the company because the Board of Directors aren't responsive to them. This is completely false and is evidenced everyday in the stock market and the attention the directors and executives give the analysts reports and to the value of their company's stock. It is being reflected right now in the drop in value of many stocks and the market as a whole. Investors have plenty of power and they use it without mercy! Companies that don't do well - like the "Big 3" - will see their stock values drop, their credit ratings drop, and their ability to raise capital evaporate. Investors are the ones that create the demand for highly compensated leaders and punish those they don't generate significant competitive improvement in stock holder wealth. That's what's happened to all companies that have failed. It can be vicious and it can hurt a lot of people. However, in the end, it has a way of punishing bad behavior and rewarding good behavior. It works better than anything the government can do!

What too many Americans apparently don't understand is that stock market investment is not the same as a savings account or cash stuffed in a mattress. There's no excuse for that given generations of compulsory education, a wide range of available information to everyone and anyone who's interested, a huge amount of required disclosure information from financial institutions, and the commonly known experiences documented in the historical record. There's no excuse! Of course, most Americans are the product of government schools. Perhaps they weren't paying attention in economics class because they we're busy memorizing other trivial and useless information. Stupidity is contagious in public schools. But now it's time to blame someone else! They say "No body told me I could lose money in my 401k account and I deserve better!" They go to their favorite politician vote peddler and get him to promise them he'll get "their" money back from someone else who does not "deserve better". Stupidity is contagious in Presidential elections.

Executives have always traveled in the "finest" style whether by horse and carriage, train, automobile, or airplane. There may be excesses but it is private business and their right to travel as they desire. Would you have someone else determine the class of airline ticket you could purchase to travel for a company you owned or for which you were a chief executive? I think most of us would be inclined to tell the person who attempted to so direct us to "mind their own business". That's as it should be. Corporate jets are a efficient means for transportation for those that make frequent unplanned trips to represent major corporations. It's no more extravagant that spending extra money for a first class cabin on a Caribbean cruise if that's how you want to spend to proceeds of your labor. The only problem is when you spend someone else's money wastefully without their approval. That's why we're so hard of public servants - like Congress - who make a career of world travel on everything except commercial airline at coach or business class fare.

The election results have not predetermined the legislative results we will see so don't get to cocky thinking the Obamanites will get everything they want. What they will get is a lot of opposition just like you will from me right here. Our design of self governance still has numerous checks and balances against the rise and fall of potential kings or saviors in disguise.

Again, there's a big difference in the employment status and value of a CEO and the person who cleans to toilets. Every man's value as a human being is equal - although sometimes we wonder - but not every man's value is equal in any given endeavor of man at any given time. Most executives work under a contract. Contracts, remember, are negotiated agreements made between two willing parties that document the terms of what each will provide for the other. These contracts often include salary, performance bonus, benefits, and termination. These very often include certain payments even if business goes bad and they get fired. The CEO does not get to determine his unilaterally decide his own compensation! The compensation is determined by supply and demand. Other employees may be paid a salary or may be paid wages without a contract. Most larger companies - the ones with the high dollar executives - also have good benefits, paid time off, some wealth sharing programs, and even some termination compensation for their employees in both these classes. If the workers have organized to form a union to represent them they may have additional terms negotiated with the company as a group contract. The person cleaning the toilet is most likely paid hourly - one hour's pay for one hour's work - and has little impact to company's success or failure beyond making sure the toilets are kept clean. Now this is a very important job but a lot of people can do it so the demand for skills isn't that high! If this person wants to enjoy the benefits of more highly compensated people then they need a remake of their skill set.

But, of course, the socialist and communist idea is that "no one deserves ..." or "everyone deserves ..." and this will appeal to the person who needs a remake but will not or, very often, is inherently unable to do so. They see the government as a way to force others to give them something they "deserve" but don't have a chance at getting. This is not the purpose of government as envisioned in God's design nor established by our Constitution. It's pure wealth envy of individuals! This is what the Obamanites have sold you and a lot of other Americans. It's what Wright preached with his "rich white men" line even to his million dollar income very rich half-black half-white man who will soon be President.

 

Conservatives respect all kinds of government - the government of one's self, government of the family, government of the church, government of the state, government of private organizations, etc. - and specifically the limited national government that we established and defined by our Constitution and founded on principles proclaimed in the Holy Bible. They clearly understand the need for a government that is empowered to use the sword for justice for things such as punishing criminals, waging war, maintaining order, holding up God's laws, respecting and co-existing with the other governments, etc. This is the type government that liberals so often seem to dislike so much. Conservatives certainly do dislike the "government" that some want to establish to replace that and they certainly will resist the evil desires of men to destroy from within what has been given to us by God's great blessing.

Beware of those who pull out of context a single verse from a paragraph, a chapter, a book, and a bible to make a political point favorable to them a the moment but perhaps not favorable at another. All scripture agrees with all scripture. The bible has much to say about the various institutions established by God and our duty to properly regulate them as they regulate us. Whether it be the family, the church, or the state there are limits to all and recourse for the injustices resulting therein from the imperfections of man. God's design was perfect. Our implementations are very faulted.

 

Volkers actions are credited with causing the longest lasting recession we've had in the last 50 years and It was government meddling that caused the hyper inflation in the first place.

You were a teenager and really don't have a clue what inflation does to the working families. Your statement saying you prefer double digit inflation to a depression is ignorance speaking. In a depression, there is no money to buy goods, and with hyper inflation, no matter how much money you have , there is never enough to buy goods.

There is no real difference.

So back to the question. How do we fund trillions of dollars in "bailouts" and "rescues" and "take overs"?

You seem to favor the idiotic solution of just printing more money. Any more bright ideas?

Here's a question for you? If it's such a good idea to raise taxes to fund a redistribution of income scheme in the first place, why does it matter what condition the economy is in?

Why doesn't the Redistributor just go ahead with his tax increases?

 

You have and are entitled to your strong conservative view but I believe most economist believe Volker was the hero. So much so Reagan kept him on for the initial portion if his administration. I think that speaks volumes.

So my teenage child doesn't realize the state of the current economy? If nothing else she hears me speak of it on a daily basis and she hears the word NO an awful lot just like I did as a teenager.

Secondly, you said "Runaway inflation is a leading cause of depression". I simply pointed out a time where we had runaway inflation and no depression. You can deny Volker's efforts but I must repeat, we had no depression.

As I stated before, the same way we finance this $10 Billion/mo war. Now you conservatives are all in favor of staying the course until "victory" is achieved in Iraq but you have no compassion for the potential devastation here at home. The conservatives selective compassion just amazes me but I am more amazed at how you disguise it as "American".

Because he is more partisan than I would be. He knows how it will take the right ad the left to pull us out of this situation and that no party has the absolute 100% correct philosophy to remedy this mess. The gains in proceeding with the tax increases overshadow the political losses from disenfranchising the right. Obama knows like I know, Rasing taxes on Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and tons of movie stars/professional athletes won't cause one job loss and won't reduce consumer consumption one little bit. They will continue to live their lavish lifestyles. The conservative scare tactics about raising taxes in a financial crises is normally true if he were to raise everyones taxes but could not be more wrong when he only plans to raise the top 5%.

The top 5% will continue to consume even in a great, great depression with 100% inflation and 100% interest rates.

 

Here we go again, scripture please...? Don't forget, we're not Israel, we are the benefactors of a NT that reached out to the Gentiles and the Rest of the World.

Now I don't see this preference of state governmental freedom in this portion of the constitution.

In fact, the constitution you site is the "The United States Constitution" and not the constitution of separatist states of America. We are the United States. You still harbor some of the southern civil war thinking. You must remember they lost.

 

You're as far off on these topics as you are on the radical economic moves.

A debate could be interesting but they are separate from the subject of this thread.

 

Gobbledegook.

You are making no sense whatsoever.

If a tax increase is such a good idea in a decent to good economic situation, why is it a bad idea when the economy is in the tank? You didn't even approach a coherent answer.

Maybe you're right on the inflation thing though, though. Carter type inflation may be a good way to correct the mortgage mess. The return of 13 % mortgage rates will certainly slow down the lending of money for bad mortgages...as well as good.

Is that what democrats want? To limit who is able to purchase a home to only those wealthy enough to afford the high interest rates? Or it that just your personal preference?

 

I agree the entrepreneurial spirit is that of an individual but they relinquish their individuality once they become publicly traded. Putting the company on the public market means it is now owned by the investors.

That’s just a continuation of this thinking “Conservatives respect all kinds of government - the government of one's self, government of the family, government of the church, government of the state, government of private organizations, etc. - and specifically the limited national government that we established and defined by our Constitution and founded on principles proclaimed in the Holy Bible.” You will have to show me this in the Bible.

This is where you don’t get it, it is too late when it get’s to this point. A company get’s to this point because the top executives and board of directors sat at the wheel while these things happen. And by the way, these executives and directors still get big checks no matter how bad the company does. All I’m suggesting is connecting the board of directors pay directly to the profits or stock value of the company. In my view, this simply means they have a vested interest in the company doing well. I don’t consider that a whole lot of regulation and don’t see why it wasn’t done a long time ago.

Again, you are missing my point, yes they get rid of the unproductive Board and executives once the ship sinks but the board and executives still get their millions of pay. I would just like to see the boards compensation tied to the success of the company so we are sure they have the investors interest at heart. :thumbs:

Again, the CEO doesn’t “own” the company. He works for the investors. And yes, if my investment is loosing money I would expect to see the executives I hired driving a rented car instead of a chauffeured limo. I would expect to see them flying business class instead of private jet. I would expect them to be a resourceful as possible in an attempt to change the companies bottom line.

This hits the nail exactly on the head, the executives don’t feel accountable to the investors who employ them. :thumbs:

All I am saying is we will do something instead of do nothing. And if the right puts up too much opposition I suspect they will be less represented after future elections. A lot of you conservative representatives abandoned the party theme to remain in office. Their true support is not the party faithful, it is the moderates like me. The people who vote both ways. Anyone who chooses to do nothing while the economy crashes won’t get my vote and I think we moderates made it clear where we stand on this subject.

I have no problem with this. All I am saying is in the end, the CEO is an employee just like the janitor. A more valued employee, certainly. But a employee just the same. He is hired and fired and is accountable just like the janitor. Now if I walk in the restroom and the toilets are stained then I speak to the janitor. I expect the same when we walk in the boardroom. However when the CEO is also Chairmen of the Board, it’s like the emperor with his new duds, no one wants to tell him… Now if the Board wasn’t headed by the CEO, I think someone would have the nerves to say you’re naked dude, they sold you a bill of goods…

I’m not looking for a handout, I am looking for the CEO and top executives to have a board representing the investors governing them. Oh, that’s right, we have one. It’s called the board of directors which is Chaired by the CEO. Now that makes a lot of sense??? I can clearly see how that governance works…

Again, scripture please… More God's a Republican and only loves the conservative voters rhetoric... God never told us to have compassion on the weak or to care for those who can't care for themselves... I must have added those pages to my Bible because you guys don't seem to have them. :laugh: