Obama assigns centrists to make radical economic moves

That's your scripture? Where is it exactly?

Oh, so quoting the constitution of far from answering what's in the constitution. At least post your version if you don't like mine.

 

Didn't say raising their taxes was a great idea, I said it won't hurt. And you can't show me how raising taxes on the top 5% will hurt.

Now think about it, you want to know how we'll pay for the $10 Bill/mo war and the economic stimulus package then say, "but don't raise taxes on the top 5%". :laugh: :thumbs:

Now that's what don't make sense... :BangHead:

 

No, but the guy who helped us through that crises and been brought in to advise us on this one. I just hope we can give him a chance. That what this moderate wants...

 

What? You seem a bit riled up and you're not making sense! Start a separate thread on the subjects you want to debate and, if interested and time permits, I'll be happy to go at it with you. This one is about the radical economic moves Obamanites have in mind.

 

No way do they relinquish private ownership by issuing openly traded stock! That's some more of that new thinking that seeks to dilute the importance of private property ownership. Public trading does means certain rules of agencies like the SEC have to be followed to make the trading of stocks honest. It doesn't make the company publicly owned or controlled! Being a stock holder makes you a part owner with many other stock holders. It does not make you the company's management. The stock holders together chose a board of directors who, in turn, oversee the company by placing key management to run the business on a daily basis according to whatever contract they establish with them. A common interest is often established by have a board chairman that is the chief executive officer. That power is not absolute nor is it contrary to good governance of the company. Stock holders are free to make their individual desires known and, if you've ever participated in a shareholder's meeting you'll know that they do. They have the power if they want to use it.

A company can get to the point of being worthless for a lot of reasons. Bad management is tops. Changing market needs is another. Excessive regulations take their toll. Over priced labor adds to the list of fatal blows. Economic conditions outside their individual ability also can cause failure. They have to have capital to operate and grow. If they do get to this point they can fail and fall into bankruptcy. There's no obligation for the public to save a failed company. The bankruptcy process tries to make the best of a bad situation and do so in an orderly manner.

You're advocating instituting something - connecting pay to profits or stock valve - that's already in place and is fundamental to business! You do know this don't you? Companies live to make a profit and increase their value. That's why the boards pay so much to get top executives they believe can pull it off. It's incredible to me that you'd suggest this "solution" when this is the way it works now!

Do you propose that the board violate the terms of their contract with the executive after the fact? That is unethical much less completely illegal! Executives are given big incentives to do good and some insurance to walk away even if they don't. We can argue all day about whether that's right or not but there are many parallels in many other aspects of work and life. It is up to the parties with the need and with the talent to work out the contract.

It's like paying big bucks for an athlete who ends up not performing the magic desired and then not honoring the terms of that contract. That would be wrong! It's like hiring a mechanic to repair some equipment agreeing to let him try to a particular fix that he tells you in advance should work but may not and then refusing to pay him if it doesn't. That would be wrong! It's like going in for surgery to remove a cancerous growth and then refusing to pay your bill because the cancer came back later. That would be wrong!

The government's duty to the people is to enforce valid contracts in court if the parties come to a disagreement. It is not the government's right to rewrite the contracts after the fact nor to stipulate the terms to the participants in advance short of those things necessary to make the legally valid and without duress.

The executives are free to travel by whatever standards are consistent with the policies that apply to them. You may desire to "punish" and executive thinking it would be productive but I think it would just have a negative effect on the attitude of the person and the effective use of their time. Further most executives are engaged in their work around the clock and travel a great deal. That's one reason they have corporate jets. It's a perk but it's also born out of efficiency. Would you have our new President drive his own car and fly coach class wherever he travels? Why not? He's just another human being like all the rest of us and times are difficult aren't they? No, we recognize the need and grant the perk. Cut the wealth and power envy and you'll feel better about yourself as well as those who live a bit higher up the food chain.

You probably fail to consider that most executives are also significant investors in the companies they manage so they definitely don't want to see the company fail or the stocks price do anything other than appreciate nor the dividends do anything but provide good returns. You may need to spend some time working with a few good businessmen to understand the challenges, the risks, and the amount of work it takes to get good results. You're picking out the failures and asking for new regulations to prevent them. That will not work! You can not regulate good management! You seem to be falling for the "evil big business" line as well as the "rich white man" line!

You're so wrong! Executives are directly accountable for results and, if they don't deliver them, they're out. If they do good they make lots of money. If they do bad, they may walk away with a nice severance package - once - but no one else is going to give them such a good deal again.

What you're saying is that government needs to do something. What I'm saying is that government needs to do less. Government is the main source of the present financial crisis and not the cure for it. We would not be here now if the government had not meddled in the home mortgage industry by twisting sound business practices for loaning money to fit desired social re-design goals.

In my career I've seen a few executives get their walking papers because they didn't perform. The bigger they are the harder they fall. Yes, people are careful about speaking up - even at the lowest levels - but good managers and executives will have a mix of people under them including some that are very outspoken. If not so then their company will likely have another good reason to become a dinosaur and end up going out of business. Government isn't going to solve this problem because they specialize in political correctness and back slapping trades.

 

The Bible defines the roles of the individual, family, church, and state/ All are subject to God. Sometimes we like to just pretend only the church is subject to God. Some Americans have been working very hard to separate their institution of government from the very God that made it all possible to start with. The full details of this discussion are way beyond to scope of this thread. I suggest starting another one for any specific purpose you want.

Then work hard and take your pay, spend wisely or foolishly, save some of it or none of it, and let everyone else do the same with what is theirs. Cut the wealth envy!

It's sad - not funny! Perhaps you are just not reading all the pages? I think I'd prefer to make this issue a separate thread because it would get very deep in itself.

 

Assuming the above is correct, is this an early admission by Obama that the usual liberal economic strategy of "tax and spend" will not work in the first place?

But when the crises is over, he'll go right back to their traditional failed strategy and continue with his redistribution of wealth socialist agenda?

 

I took it to mean he is not as liberal as the right tried to scare us into believing during the election.

I don't know about this but I am all in favor of raising taxes on the top 5% since it's apparent our deficit will increase, like it or not. I know this won't be well accepted here but I consider that more responsible than all the tax cuts over the last 8 years while the deficit increased like it did.

 

Yes because the left deserves their money more than they do.

 

His moves might seem radical to some but they are highly endorsed by economist on both sides of the isle. From the OP;

 

Actually I advocated using the increased revenue's to reduce the deficit and get us off of borrowing from China. If that's a left agenda then so be it. :thumbs:

 

If you think they would use it to pay off the debt then you are sadly mislead.

 

So I guess only a conservative is capable of doing something right? Now there's a bipartisan spirit of cooperation. You're sure contributing to the solution.

 

Stay on task here. Pelosi and company want to expand government not pay off debt.

 

Read post 50, their proposed solutions and assessment of the economy has support from economic experts from both sides of the isle. But I guess you'd prefer we'd just "do nothing".

The "do nothing" economic policy makes as much sense as the energy policy of, "drill baby drill". :thumbs:

 

I'll bet there's dissent from both sides of the isle as well! There's lots of dissent right here. There's lots of dissent among a lot of people I know.

Having the government do nothing would be a welcome turn of events from having it try to do everything for everyone every time there's any disappointment. In fact, if they hadn't done something wrong by messing with home loans the mess we're in now might not have happened.

It would be the best things ever for Americans to take a big step back towards self-reliance without the expectation or hope of some kind of bailout from Bid Daddy in Washington.

Drill Baby, drill! That's what it's there for! God put it there for us to find and use. What's stupid is to leave it in the ground while buying it somewhere else! Keeping some reserve would be wise but there's plenty in the ground to use.

In fact, explore Baby, explore! There's more that's yet to be found. Then drill for it as well. It would help create some more jobs doing something worthwhile. Do it with private money! They're ready if the government will just get out the way.

Also, build those nuclear-powered electric generation plants now! Get rid of the fear-based regulations that choked off the industry in our country 30 years ago. Let investors put their money into. We can create a whole industry out of it doing something tangible and worthwhile. It would put lots of people to work. It would help drop the cost of electricity and make our heavy manufacturing costs a little cheaper.

 

Drill now, build refineries, build nuke plants, windmill farms, do it all. Makes perfect sense. There is just no reason not to do it. It wold immediately add jobs, and get the economy going.

 

You didn't really fall for that lie, did you?

Raising taxes on the "top 5%" won't even be in the same galaxy with the amount of money Obama is committed to spend. Everyone that pays taxes will pay more. Everyone. Guaranteed.

So we print more money, run trillion dollar deficits and raise taxes to see us through hard times?

Sound like a good liberal democrat plan to me.

 

You didn' show how raising Bill Gates taxes by 3% would hurt. If it's a lie then it should be easily disproved with facts.

No one said raising taxes on the top 5% could completely finance the proposed solutions. It's only a step in that direction. Why does the right have to keep stretching the truth by saying everyones taxes will be raised? You're only scaring yourselves or lending to your own spirit of fear which seems to be very satisfying to the right.

But the democrats are the only ones offering a solution. Their solutions are endorsed by economic experts from both sides of the isle. The right only offers criticism and reasons to be afraid.

It's like being in a burning building, one side just wants to yell fire and insist on letting the building burn. The other side suggest a solution where some of the building can be saved and we can get our safely. You criticize their suggestion but the rest of us notice they are the only ones with a suggestion.

 

They are the majority. It comes with the territory.

When they were in the minority, I remember that their sole legislative strategy was to oppose any Republican proposal, no matter what it was.