waitforufo

iNow, As jackson33 mentioned George Washington was against political parties and said so in his farewell address. It's interesting reading from the person most responsible for the success of our democratic republic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington's_Farewell_Address All, I personally don’t see a lot of need for parties with regard to most representative elective offices (house & senate). Parties seem to play a more important role in executive offices. Americans like having elected, not selected, executives. If we had lots of parties, under our current system, congress (either state or federal) would often be called on to select our executives. As T. Roosevelt said, the power of the president is primarily the bully pulpit. I think that power would be diminished for most selected presidents. That might not be such a bad thing, but govenement would move even slower than today. The electoral college system was put into place so that small states could have some say in the election of national presidents. This is particularly true when elections are close. This system, as we all know, has had its problems. Some would change it but I for one think the cure would be worse than the illness. Franklin said that we have a republic "if we can keep it." I think we forget sometimes just how fragile our republic is. Changes should be done with great caution. One change to our current system would be to require our executives to win at least 50 % + 1 vote of the popular vote. If several candidates run, and none wins the 50% +1, the top two are selected and another vote is held. Some states use this system. The problem I have with this system is that in a large field of candidates, more often than you would imagine, the nut job wins. Somehow nut jobs have a phenomenal ability to organize and get out the nut job vote. In a field of good viable candidates plus one nut job, sane people split their votes evenly over the good candidates. So the second election includes the nut job. This should be a simple choice but many people can think of that one hot button issue where that good candidate differs from them. So the nut job gets elected. When selecting executives, people can fall back on the party platform. This candidate may not agree with my hot button opinion, but the party does. This gives them cover to vote for the good person over the nut job. Party power, in my opinion, then flows from the elected executives. Perhaps only executives should be elected. House and Senate seats could be filled by a process similar to jury duty. Dr. DNA I eat oat meal, no sugar, for breakfast every morning while dreaming of Lucky Charms. Pangloss, George Bush funded embryonic stem cell research on a restricted set of stem cell lines. Bascule, Be careful what you wish for. Those "science-hating bible thumping homophobes" just might win every election. The two party system may be restricting them more than you think.

I agree with all the above particularly if government is trying to stop the correction. That’s just impossible. The government just doesn't have that kind of money. I hope they can stem panic and the stimulus cushions the blow.

Perhaps I am giving the impression that I'm happy about my posted comments on this topic. I am not. Yes I do think the "economy will benefit more in the *long term when the obsolete and corrupt companies that drove themselves, my colleagues' jobs and my 401K into the ground are replaced with newer and shinier companies." I also agree with the following statement from ParanoiA. The people running these companies receive those huge compensation packages for a reason. They are cut throat business people who will always exploit every advantage they think they have. That's why they were hired. If they perceive an ability to extort the president (more correctly the country) they will do it. Evidence that they are getting away with it. "Goldman, JPMorgan Won’t Feel Effects of Executive-Salary Caps" http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=azVLk.22AkLI So do I think we should just let these companies go bankrupt? Well, the economy is in a correction. Things like housing are overvalued. Banks, with strong encouragement of government, loaned money to people who could not pay it back driving the overvaluation of housing. This correction needs to take place. What we don't want is a banking panic. That would cause damage beyond the needed correction. Also we need a stimulus to keep people spending through the correction. This will not stop the correction, but should prevent needless constriction in spending (over correction) induced by future economic worry in the general populous. Finally, another thing we don't need is ramping up fear in the populous. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D965I5CG4&show_article=1

First, yes I have a problem with the government creating meaningless laws. Why give the impression that you are doing something when your not. Second, Obama is trying to get the economy going again. Part of that is keeping the financial system afloat, and the other part is to stimulate economic activity. These are closely related by not exactly the same thing. The companies lining up for bailouts have fiduciary responsibilities. Their primary fiduciary responsibility is to their shareholders. They are not worried about Obama's agenda. If they think bankruptcy is a better option than government bail out, that is what they will choose, regardless of the impact to the economy. The board and the chief officers of these companies believe that quality management is the key to meeting their fiduciary shareholder responsibility. That's why they have been paying those high salaries and bonuses. Also, how will they attract quality management in the future if they don't honor contracts to current management? As I said in earlier posts, I don't see how government action can cancel those existing contracts. So if Obama thinks its better for the economy to bail out these companies than let them go bankrupt he has to make the bail out offer attractive to those deciding to accept the bail out. You know, those same people he is trying to reduce their compensation. If he doesn't convince them, they won't accept his terms and the economy suffers. So if he wants to be remembered for his high principals that got in the way of economic recovery, he can join Hoover in the history books. With regard to acceptance of stock bonus, conditions like "after a set period that took into account how the company had been repaying the federal money" seem meaningless to me. They might as well say 'wink wink, nudge, nudge, you bad chief officers can't have those large compensation packages any more.' Like I said this is all just a PR gimmick.

All from that bastion of conservative thought - The LA times. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-obama-executive-pay5-2009feb05,0,399075.story http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pay-impact-2009feb05,0,4979583.story http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-endrun-execpay5-2009feb05,0,2040936.story Ouch, the tiger has sharp teeth.

I believe the proper question would be "where in the constitution is a governmental power to cap salaries enumerated?" If such power is not defined then they don't have the power. Reading the news this morning only reinforced my opinion that this salary cap idea is simply a PR gimmick. It will apply to almost no one. Also, executives can still receive huge bonuses in the form of stock, they just can't sell the stock until the bail outs are paid back. But ultimately who would decide when the bail outs are paid back? My guess is that lobbyists will help those decisions along as soon as heat is off the stimulus package. Look, management of these companies ultimately will decide what is best for their shareholders and for themselves. They aren't going to be looking at what is best for the country. If the bail outs make more sense than bankruptcy then they will choose the bailouts. If too many strings are attached, they will choose bankruptcy. If you don't think bankruptcy can be profitable to corporate CEOs, just look into the United Airlines bankruptcy. Employees, screwed (particularly when it came to their pensions). Shareholders, screwed. Chief officers of United Airlines, counting their cash and enjoying their pensions.

I can't imagine that the government can create a new law to make existing legally binding contracts null and void. No court would uphold it. I think they would have to do the later (bankruptcy), but the whole point of the bail out is to avoid bankruptcy. By the way I think CEOs that forced their current employers to pay the golden parachutes to accept bail out money would receive only praise within the business community. Their next jobs would probably just pay more. They would just move to companies not receiving bail outs. I see this compensation cap as a PR gimmick to make the stimulus package more palatable to the public. I agree with the idea in concept, but it's application is impractical.

The problem with these mandated caps is that the executives have contractual relationships with their companies. These are legally binding contracts approved by the company board of directors. Many of these contracts guarantee annual and/or quarterly bonuses based on specific measurable business metrics. So if the company meets those metrics, the bonuses must be paid. Often times the metrics used don't guarantee the health of the company. A common example would be improving revenue without a companion metric for improving profit. I don't know why corporate boards do such things but the do them often. So to receive a bonus an executive can increase revenue by selling inventory at fire sale prices. Large sales mean large revenue but each sale can be at a profit loss. The executive still gets the bonus. These contracts also generally include golden parachutes. That means if the executive is fired, they get a huge severance bonus. So let's say the board agrees to receive a government bail out and to caps executive compensation. Well now they have to get the CEO to renegotiate his contract. If the CEO says "no thanks, I like my contract as is" what are the going to do? Well they could fire the CEO. If they do that the have to pay out on the golden parachute severance package. Most CEOs dream of the day their employer has to make a golden parachute payout. Okay so they get fired and now they might have to accept a new job subject to the compensation caps. Well the big severance package should hold them over until the bail out restrictions are over. Then it will be back to the same old game.

I think we should also question the ethics of the person who provided the photo to the media and the media for publishing it. Role models of the past had often behaved in ways their then adoring public would have frowned upon. I'm sure there were plenty of opportunities for individuals and the media to expose that behavior. In the past, it seems to me, people understood that society needed role models so they ignored behavior that would bring such people down. This I think was particularly true if the questionable behavior did not directly interfere the reasons for their being role models. Parents would like to make Michael Phelps a role model to their children based on his dedication and success in swimming sports. I'm sure most adults appreciate that Michael Phelps is an adult who makes decisions about his private life that they would not and hope their children would not. When they make those choices, I think most of us would appreciate if it were kept out of the media. A less extreme example would be President Obama's smoking habit. I would hope that the media talks little about it and never shows pictures of him smoking.

Forcing them to face the monster is excellent entertainment too. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged There is a name for governments that selectively apply the law. They are called tyrannies.

Tom Daschle served in both houses of congress starting in 1978 and ending in 2004. Sometime during those 26 years I'm sure he had the opportunity to influence the tax code of the United States. I have no sympathy for a person who is in part responsible for our tax code not being able to figure it out. Somehow I doubt our government would be so understanding if I were to make tax filing mistakes to the tune of $140,000. If that were me, my guess is that our government would be talking about a term in prison not a term as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Also, one would think that Democrats would be a little more interested in locking up some rich fat cat lawyer making over $2,000,000 working as a lobbyist representing people trying to take advantage of our country while driving around in a chauffeured limousine. Who made these tax laws? Do you really think it Republicans? I can assure you that Democrats insisted that unemployment insurance and Social Security taxes were paid for household help not Republicans. So of all people, Democrats should not make such mistakes. Also, contracted help like plumbers, lawn services and such pay their own taxes so those that contract their services don't have to.

Rampant with Democrats. As a tax payer I don't see the issue as rediculous regardless of party. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998 The above really was tax dodger tom.

"Well, I just assumed that nobody was paying taxes on their company provided chauffeured limousine. Do welfare moms pay income taxes to have their children bussed to school? I mean what's the difference?" - Tom Daschle

For a party that constantly points to Republicans as money grubbing pigs for not enthusiastically paying their fair contribution to society through taxation, this does seem rather strange. My favorite part of all of this it that when Democrats get caught not paying taxes, its portrayed in the media as an innocent misunderstanding. Of course it must be innocent, democrats love to pay taxes. There is just no way a Democrat would be intentionally trying to pay less than their fair contribution.

I couldn't agree more with the above comment. Often times however discrimination laws suffer from a similar fault. We are to consider "affected groups" as a class instead of as individuals. So when we say women are not paid equally for equal work, true as that may be, what does it have to do with the individual Lilly Ledbetter and her discrimination case? Was Lilly Ledbetter a powerful and competitive person? Was she aggressive about her compensation? As aggressive as those with the same job title? Perhaps she was more concerned with job stability. During periods of layoffs, management is more likely to keep lower paid well performing employees. Knowing this, perhaps she was less aggressive about her salary than others. This is all speculation on my part but it is at least plausible. Perhaps Lilly Ledbetter was simply not as attentive as she should have been about her compensation. Squeaky wheels get oiled. Perhaps she simply did not squeak enough. Why is that her employers fault?

I don't believe that most "equal opportunity" or anti-discrimination laws apply to small businesses or individuals. If I recall correctly, most such laws do not apply to companies with fewer than 50 employees. So Hooters, a national chain, may have a problem with only hiring young, female wait staff, but your local bar or tavern generally will not. The same would apply to a small local machine shop. If they want to only employ white males I believe that they will not run into problems with law. Also, if you sell your home yourself, you can be as discriminatory as you choose to be, but if you hire a real estate broker, they cannot be discriminatory even at your request. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Agreed, further discussion about strippers, hooters, etc. should stop. The case in question is also not involving a small business, so perhaps discussion about small businesses should also stop, particularly since I don't believe such laws generally apply to small business. The problem is that people are always paid differently. Discrimination is only one possible reason. (See my post #29) In a nation that prides it self in proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt should consider those other reasons. Those that do prove their case should be entitled recompense as provided by law.

As a manager who determines raises and promotions, a couple of things to perhaps consider. People are motivated to become more productive because they believe increased productivity will lead to: 1) A better job title 2) Better pay People generally consider that the two go hand in hand but they often don't. In my experience, they don't based on the employee. Some employees are vary motivated by title. Title motivation can be so great for some that if they had to choose, they would choose a better title over better pay. I have had several employees directly tell me this. Managers are under pressure to keep salaries under control. Promotions are therefore often used to provide motivation without increasing salaries. In my experience, people who make it known that they are pay motivated are paid more. This is particularly true if those people are talented and express a willingness to change jobs for better pay. Now I don't know Lilly Ledbetter. But if she was a title motivated person who expressed a desire for company loyalty and job stability, it would not be surprising for her management to pay her less than others working at the same title. Under such circumstances, why would her lower pay be discriminatory? In fact, isn't it possible that her former employers are being punished for giving her what she wanted?

Creation of man. What use would a supreme being have with mathematics? How would it help or hinder such an entity? Mathematics is simply a tool used by mankind to understand nature.

Perhaps a bad example, but I believe my point is still a valid contribution.

I always thought that the term "belief" was used in science when the position supported was arrived at more by inductive instead of deductive reasoning. Proofs provided by deductive reasoning or by exhaustion (and some other means) are complete and therefore provide complete knowledge. No need to say "I believe", one simply knows. Proofs by induction are supported by all known observations, but since all observations have not been tried or made, who knows? For many years people said I believe I can make a map where no two shapes sharing a common border will also have the same color. They believed this because every attempt made proved this theorem correct. With the advent of computers this theorem was proven by exhaustion. Now they can say I know. Europeans for many centuries believed that all swans were white. All that they had see were white. Through induction they believed they could say with certainty that all swans were white. Then they found black swans in Australia. Theologians by the way spend a lot of time trying to understand their beliefs. Through this study they often change their belief systems.

Okay I'm still waiting, but obviously they would shower us with extraterrestrial super technology which will bail us out of all our current and future problems. That's why I am eagerly waiting for their arrival. Unfortunately, there is no sign of them yet.

Thanks for the information on the Maori and Australian aborigines. By modern standards however (yes, I realize that some will take this as racist), these cultures would be considered primitive and with only small groups of people living together under most circumstances. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that as societies grow in size, density, and complexity, social intoxicants may permit people to live more easily in harmony. Perhaps it is easier for people living in small groups in primitive rural settings to isolate themselves when feeling antisocial. Also, their need for social unity may be more apparent to them. When human density increases, social unity becomes more abstract, and the ability to find isolation decreases. Also, people living in more primitive settings are generally in a more natural human environment. By this I mean they are closer to the environment in which humans evolved. As our societies become more technologically advanced, the further we remove ourselves from our natural environment, the more stress this causes on our mental well being. By drinking alcohol (smoking marijuana, opium, etcetera) we are simply self medicating to reduce this stress. By participating in such activity in a social setting, we may also create social bonds with others in similar situations, and resolve conflicts created by our self created unnatural environment. This of course all conjecture on my part. It just seems that human history, particularly involving the origins of what most would consider successful modern societies, include social intoxicants. Why is this?

Do human societies exist that do not have some form of social intoxicating drug? Even very primitive societies seem to find some way of getting high. The earliest artifacts, art, and writing of most human cultures describe people getting high. This is particularly true when it comes to alcohol. I wonder if sophisticated societies would have evolved at all without alcohol or some other social drug. In our modern times there are groups that prohibit such recreation but generally they still turn a blind eye to the taboo use and such drugs are generally easy to find. Societies that do the best at avoiding alcohol (Muslims for one) seem to have more problems then ones that celebrate use (western cultures).

If nuclear power has so many problems, how is it that the French pull it off so well? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

Criminalizing victimless behavior is a form of tyranny. Tyranny generally leads to violence in the populous. In response to this violence, tyrants generally attempt to disarm the populous through additional tyrannical laws. Generally they give the same reason for disarming the public. "It's for your safety." "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - B. Franklin