Because, good bad or indifference, everyone is used to $10 medium or $15 large pizzas, not something costing 50% more. They haven't figured out a way of robots or automating pizza delivery (yet) so it's probably better(?) to have 10 kids making $10/hour than 5 (or less) kids making $20/hour. If pizzas were priced so that it becomes unprofitable except in the more affluent areas, then you would have 0 kids making nothing (which is what are seeing in many sectors).

Speaking of which, I have been on the bandwagon of wellness as a way of reducing health care costs (for companies and individuals). My company has won awards for its wellness program and last I checked, it is making a difference in cost.

There's a good article on cnn.com that talks about the high cost of disease management (which I can relate to) instead of focusing more in lower cost wellness management.

U.S. manages disease, not health - CNN.com

Thoughts?

So let me get this straight because I'm confused. See, I'm pretty sure the delivery guy's job did change from 1930 to 1970.

Let me paint a picture. This guy started off delivering pizza's in 1930. In 1935 he moved to pizza delivery shift supervisor and got a pay raise (and the delivery guy position was filled by somebody else). In 1940 he promoted up to pizza delivery store manager (and got a pay raise). In 1945 he bacame the district manager (and got a pay raise). In 1950 he moved to corporate (and got a pay raise). In 1955 he retired from the pizza industry.

So fast forward a bit. In 1970, he still pulling in a retirement check and the left is bashing him for being part of the "wealthy elite" and trying to take his hard earned money so that the 20-year old "pizza delivery guy" can make $75,000 a year from day one and be the equal with that old "elitist".

Or something like that. But what you are saying is that is incorrect. That the "pizza delivery guy" was getting wicked awesome salaries from day 1 from 1930 to 1970? I find that hard to believe. Unless we are starting from the depression and then stepping away from depression and back to standard normalized American prosperity. All in all, I think that chart misses the boat.

I was afraid the delivery guy example would lead to confusion. Don't think of a guy aging and increasing in salary. This is a snapshot of the same job from year to year.

I don't know how the chart misses the boat when it's just presenting productivity and wage data. It's showing the economy as a whole, not any specific indeividual.

How do you explain the huge increase in income for the wealthy? Why aren't their increases leading to people not buying pizza?

I think what your company does is great and more companies should. The problem is that gains in health probably don't lead to better bottom lines for insurance companies, so they focus on this only minimally. With the way people change healthplans, every insurance company is worried about paying for some other company's savings. There's a lot of money to be saved, but it will have to happen at a company level and a lot of companies don't want to put the time into that.

Stock prices and market - nearly 3000% increase since 1989 - and everyone from your university to my pension fund jumping into it to invest. These are the people whose compensation is tied directly to stocks (or paid in stocks), as well as the those many insta-millionaires in high techs. I have always been critical of those getting huge compensations for declining performance but I think those are in the minority. Far fewer people at the top of the pyramid (as a percentage of total labor cost), as it always have been throughout history. Dutch is correct in a sense that in this country, a lowly delivery guy can reach the top of pyramid. We don't want to reduce the incentive to make that happen.

Wonder what he wants? There's not another famine in North Korea is there?

Kinda glad I don't live in DC.

North Korea declares 1953 armistice invalid - CNN.com

Not all Bucc, the really wealthy don't bank on the stock market to make money. The thing is, it's really easy to make money when you have money, and it's really easy to use your money and status to keep your money and status. You can make the rules by participating in politics and lobbying, you can consolidate power by networking and sitting on the boards of your new friends businesses, and do things that nobody delivering pizzas and raising 2 kids can do or could ever do.

The idea of class movement is really controlled by those with the money, outside of a few outliers that make it and sell it. Just like the lottery we see that as opportunity even if the reality of it isn't there.

We aren't talking about pensioners or professors making good money and having good retirement plans we are talking about people with so much money, they earn 10k overnight because of earned interest on AA bonds (very low risk). You and I can't even come close to that.

The idea that someone can go from the lower end of the spectrum 15k to start all the way to a good leadership job 150k per year is upward movement, but it's not really a class change even though it is incentive for people to work hard, but realistically, he has no chance to make the top of the pyramid.

Like I said earlier, 250k shouldn't put you in the top 5%. It is because the amount of money earned at the upper levels is so grossly out of whack and so much is earned by so few.

I guess I focus too much on the new economy and Silicon Valley (and its offshoots) and the rise of high tech since the 1970s, since that's my field.

Isn't the just part of inflation?


Didn't I explain this? As molson pointed out:


People could sell their products all around the world these days, with much lower costs of barrier. Companies and entrepreneurs can move just as much product and services in emerging markets these days than they can here. At the same time, they'll focus their financial, operational, and talent resources on these markets, instead of scaling up staff here in the U.S.

Also, technology is much easier today, and reduces the need for big staffs. An app or website can replace a lot of standard skills. Skype, social media, and smartphones are disrupting marketing, communications, and the ability to access any information. Robotic and autonomous technology is only going to get bigger and more advanced. Also, travel is much cheaper than it used to be 30 years ago, such as airline tickets, "sharing" (Airbnb, zipcar, ect.), so it's easier and cheaper to conduct business globally. This is the future of our economy, and it's not going to be pretty unless you are pulling the cart.

But we don't have to see that as just.

This doesn't HAVE to be the case at all - its a choice society makes imho.

If you doubt this consider that 'economically' speaking keeping people in slavery makes far more sense from a capitalist perspective than having 'free' workers ..... or are you saying that moral judgements aren't important and everything should come down to pure economics?

(I for one think society should be designed to ensure a decent standard of living for all within it - that doesn't mean you can't have 'rich' people by any means nor incentives for people to succeed .... but it doesn't have to mean stamping down hard on the heads of the worst off either)

I don't think this is possible. The only way to move up to a different class is to advance beyond others in that class. Inflation will move with an increase in absolute dollars to the point where there are roughly the same number of people in each class. I don't know this for sure, but I believe inflation will keep the same percentage of people in each class. Bill Gates earning more money doesn't change the purchasing power of anyone since he can't really consume more. The only way to move people from the lower class to the middle class is to increase their income beyond those currently in the middle class...which creates a new lower class.

It's weird that there's a belief that the poor and/or middle class can't ever make more money because of inflation. Rising wages aren't necessarily immediately canceled out by inflation.

There will always be people better off than others and thus in 'essence' a lower class.

This in itself isn't an issue nor something which we should attempt to prevent HOWEVER its my opinion that lower class should still have an adequate standard of living such that they feel part of the larger society and not disenfranchised from it.

I definitely agree that that should be the focus. As well as creating greater opportunities to do even better than that minimal adequate standard of living for those who have more to offer society.

I wonder how that fits in with class mobility - like if you're a middle aged guy in a lower class, your odds of becoming upper middle class are almost zero. I'm not sure that's a terrible thing. But if that guy's kid has a decent public education, stability, and some kind of major talent/work ethic/intelligence, his chances of getting into the middle class are pretty decent (and it's worthwhile for society to increase those odds even more.) I'm not sure if that counts as "rising classes" or not. But I've always thought that was important for any society, to locate and elevate the talent wherever it is. The fact that we're fortunate enough to have a lot of wealthiest and most successful people in the world isn't a bad thing, the tax revenue generated by those people can be the means by which we create more of the opportunities.

Not immediately, but rising wages cause inflation. If you take someone in the lower class and double their salary, inflation won't take that away. If you take everyone in the country and double their salary, inflation will rise to leave you with very little difference aside from what you can buy from other countries. To improve your position, you need to get closer to, or above those who were above you.

I don't disagree with this, but I also don't know how to make it happen. It may be less of giving them an adequate standard of living and more reducing the barriers to obtain that standard of living. Break up the monopolies and the vertical integration and you make it easier for small businesses to survive. Tax the rich and give to the poor/middle, and you increase purchasing power and standard of living. Government would need to do something to level the playing field since unfettered capitalism will definitely not. Sadly, these are things that are a tough sell as the rich want to stay rich, and the middle are scared of becoming the new poor. The government taking control shatters the illusion of control that rich/middle think they have.

The rich and companies will just pass their tax hikes onto their consumers (the lower classes).

If you do it instantly, sure, but over time wages have gone up for the country as a whole and they haven't been cancelled by inflation. People get a lot more compensation now than they did in 1900.

Inflation-adjusted wages also aren't the only way to measure standard of living. I'd rather be middle class now than in my parents' or grandparents' day, even if they were closer wealth-wise to the 1% than I am now. Various technologies have made our lives a lot easier, and a lot of the stuff we spend disposable income on, like air travel, is a lot cheaper now. I live now like I would have imagined a rich person living when I was a kid.

Except for one thing, molson. You have to subtract all of your debts to get your true net worth. I suspect that my parents or your grandparents had a higher net worth and standard of living as a result since they didn't run up debts to pay for stuff and toys they couldn't afford.

I've seen this argument quite a bit, and I find it really curious. What would it really take to reduce the incentive of people to make it to the top? Let's take an extreme example that isn't even close to being proposed, like a 50% top tax bracket. Is there anyone who would suddenly not want to be rich under this scenario? If so, that kind of thinking just completely baffles me.

It shouldn't be that baffling as money isn't the only goal for people. Everybody makes an evaluation as to the amount of time/effort required against the benefits of the increased salary. At some point, the lost time with the kids becomes more valuable than the extra salary to provide for them. A higher tax rate does shift that tipping point. Having that tipping point shift could be a good thing, or a bad thing.

For those already at the top, the tax rate won't make them no longer want to be there, but it may affect those working their way up.

You really think it will affect the pizza deliveryman? He sees a 50% tax rate and decides that he's fine with being a pizza deliveryman because it's not worth it to move up? I agree that in certain scenarios people might make different decisions based on tax rates, but the proposition that people won't want to seek the American Dream because of higher taxes makes absolutely no sense to me.

Speaking for myself, I might work more or less overtime in the short term if my taxes changed, but it would take a drastic measure far beyond anything that has been proposed (and certainly far beyond my already extreme example of 50%) to reduce my incentive to move up the ladder and be more financially secure.

I think everybody already makes their own decision as to what is "enough" and when they can exit the rat race. The 50% tax rate won't cause people to stop moving up, but it will shift the position of how far they will move up to. I don't know how big that shift will be, and it may be a very small shift, but there will be a shift. In any cost/benefit decision, changing the level of cost without changing the level of benefit will change the tipping point.

The amount of shift probably also depends on the personality of the person in question. If the delivery guy doesn't care about family and only measures his worth by his salary, nothing will change. If the delivery guy values life more in the work/life balance, he may shift his goals from reaching a corporate director level to a store manager, or a corporate middle-manager. It is still a meaningful rise, but it is also a meaningful shift in goals.

Wow, Paul Ryan. I mean.. Just wow. Big national rollout of the GOP alternative to Obama's Budget (part II), and he says this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT3Px...layer_embedded


expect to see that quote in political ads about 9 billion times.

Beat me to it by 4 minutes foz. Aah the deliciousness of a Fruedian slip, a textbook gaffe.

A little humor.

O'Reilly: 'I'm sorry I said Alan was lying' - POLITICO.com

Healthcare really needs to be detached from employment.

Saw this one making the rounds this week. $83,000 for a scorpion anti-venom that costs $100 in Mexico. Fortunately the lady had insurance, so she only had to pay $25,000. The insurance (i.e., the rest of us through our premiums and taxes) picked up the rest.

Arizona Hospital Charges Woman $83,000 To Treat Scorpion Sting « CBS Las Vegas

I don't understand how giving the insurance companies millions more customers and more power is going to help. I don't understand why "more insurance for everyone!" is the response. At this point, I think we'd have better access to affordable healthcare in this country if we banned insurance completely and everyone had to make do with out-of pocket expenses and charitable organizations. The providers and drug companies would have to adjust. They wouldn't be selling a lot of $83,000 scorpion antivenums (especially when there's cheaper options). The wouldn't even be selling a lot for the $25k this lady had to shell out. I'm not advocating that, but I think it would be better than our current system.

But, isn't the insurer acting as a buffer for the patient in this case? They're obviously not doing a great job, but that $83K figure is a cost negotiated down by a large insurer. How do you think the price would compare if the individual patient had no one on their side setting the price, and is working with a doctor who's not telling her what the price is, while in the emergency room?

What price would it be if the health system was ran for the good of society rather than attempting to make a profit?

Health care is not and never will be a fair thing to have as a 'capitalist' venture imho .... the reasons are multiple:
* "Customers" often have no choice but to purchase items
* "Customers" have no real access to comparisons of prices easily, especially when a time critical decision is required.
* "Customers" have no knowledge in the areas involved and they're often hugely emotional decisions involving the well being of loved ones.
* "Customers" have no knowledge of the true cost or how badly they're being milked in any specific circumstance.

All of the above indicate why its ludicrous to have a 'for profit' health system (and don't get me started on what the Tory politicians are starting to do to the NHS in England) ...

Most individuals aren't going to be able to pay $83k for an antivenum. In an insurance-free country, hospitals just wouldn't get that from anyone. They'd get whatever the bankruptcy judge says they can get (probably pennies on the dollar). Might as well charge less to encourage more people to come to the hospital. The insurance company has the means to pay whatever. And people with insurance have a false sense of security that they'll be taken care of when they go to the hospital. The hospital could have charged $200k, they'd probably get it.

Though, if our government had a bigger role as a treatment cost provider (not as the provider itself or as a single payer deal, but just writing the checks), they'd probably be even worse at this, we see this with medicaid. Providers can just charge the government anything, they'll gleefully pay. Heck you can charge the government for services you didn't even provide, and get away with it 99% of the time.

The founder of a crappy, unhealthy pizza chain is against offering birth control? Kind of strange, isn't it?

Sometimes I hate when the media tries to report on the law. The Judge issued a PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. That means the law is suspended on Monaghan until a final ruling is handed down. In other words, the Judge hasn't yet ruled on the legality of the law requiring contraception to be provided for in health plans.

I was just thinking that too.

On this specific point we agree.

The devil is likely in the details ;)

Yay! Score one for the Constitution:

Federal judge rules surveillance provisions unconstitutional - Yahoo! News

Isn't that ruling from the notoriously nutjob federal district however? If so, I'd hold off on celebrating anything since they're so frequently overturned on appeal.

Hopefully the find this unconstitutional as well:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92C0EH20130313

I just don't see Rubio in 2016, not sure about Paul. My bet is on Jeb with the family legacy.

Rand Paul wins CPAC straw poll; Rubio close second - First Read

WTH is a Ben Carson?

If Hillary runs, I'd guess younger guys like Rubio, Jindal, Ryan, and Scott Walker might wait it out.

I think a "seasoned" governor like Mike Pence (IND), Bob McDonnell (VA), Sam Brownback (KS), Susana Martinez (NM), or John Kasich (OH) could sort of sneak in and possibly win.

Kasich is probably a stretch to be in with the others, but looks good on paper (I've always thought he comes off badly when speaking).

He's an African-American M.D. from Maryland that gained some fame for giving a speech at a national prayer breakfast w/ Obama in attendance that was perceived as political by some. Talked about what was wrong with education and healthcare.

Carson spoke at my college's graduation a couple of years ago. He had an ego the size of Texas. Instead of giving a speech to the graduates, he gave a political speech about the importance of conservatism. Regardless of political views, that's a speech that should be less about the speaker and more about the listeners.

edit: But I will say the guy has a hell of an impressive resume as a doctor.

Hmm ... that probably explains my lack of recognition then. Stuff like the n.p.b. usually tends to glaze my eyes over really quick.

What a dildo. Would have been a good graduation for the graduates to get up and walk out of IMO. Regardless of what the politics of the speaker were BTW.

Same here.

I read about it after the fact and he seemed to get some wind in his sails from the left (who thought he was inappropriate given the venue) and right (conservative radio loved him sticking it to Obama).

Carson basically is at rock star status at Hopkins.

I would be far more afraid of Rubio as a candidate than any of the others. He could make huge inroads into the youth and also the hispanic voting blocks. He's from Florida which would also make him popular with the older voting blocks.

Looking at everyone mentioned, I think he would be the one candidate that could truly win for the Republicans in '16.

A lot will change between now and 2016, but Hillary is way out in front of all the GOP prospects at the moment.

Of course if she hires Mark Penn again she has no chance.

I think Rubio will get smoked in the primaries because of poor management of his personal finances. He will have a tough time establishing his "conservatism," when he has had trouble staying above water in his personal life despite making over six figures for a number of years (while still relatively young).

I'm kind of curious about what a conservative doctor thinks is wrong with healthcare, and what he'd propose to do about it. The Republicans generally been so focused on opposition that they've gotten very little (if anything) out about alternative reform.

Fuck this.

Assuming its across the board (e.g. even the rich folks that have money in swiss bank accounts), I think the 10% is a small price to pay to prevent a Greek like tragedy.

Just coincidently, cruising on Amazon for my next book and found him

America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made This Nation Great [Paperback]
Ben Carson M.D. (Author), Candy Carson (Contributor)
4.8 out of 5 stars See all reviews (351 customer reviews)

That's the sort of extortion that works once.

Anybody who leaves any savings in any of those banks afterwards is insane.

I think its frankly a joke and should be totally illegal (and probably is - I'd be amazed if this isn't challenged in a big way) .....

Its frankly astounding in its setup especially that it targets its victims according to a purely unpredictable premise.

For instance if you're a multi-millionaire but every penny is invested in stocks then you pay nothing, if you're a single mother but have scaped together savings of $5,000 as an emergency fund then you pay up .... wtf?

PS - I've yet to see any articles clarify things fully; but the implications I've seen is this is only private individuals being taxed and corporations are getting away scot free?

These are only Cypriot banks and the money is going to foreign creditors.

Fuck that.

Anyone that doesn't run the bank tomorrow is insane.

The banks are already blocking people from withdrawing all their money, and branches are closed for a local holiday on Monday.

This is the kind of thing that could bring the EU down.

Man, the fact that Hillary is considered the front runner for the left, and these the uninspiring choices for the right, no wonder I'm frustrated with both sides.

It's basically theft of the private citizens and why you'll see a run on withdraws from the banks.

Which massively exacerbates the financial issues they were having in the first place. Honestly you have to wonder what the hell they were thinking, signs they might be willing to back off but surely the damage is done. Seems like Germany just wants their pound of flesh at this point.

and say hello to a run on banks in Spain, Italy, Greece, etc.

I do see the resemblance!

Producer: Claim of Obama-Satan likeness nonsense – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

I think that's way overblown.

Now having Satan have a clearly Arabic like accent is another story.

*heads to google*

That's totally an old Obama.

(/fanning the flames)


And in my googling, I saw that the actor is from Morocco, so I'd imagine he would have an Arabic accent.

EDIT: If they really wanted to go the full 9, they would have hired an actor with a Swahili accent.

If any of the other speaking parts had an Arabic accent I wouldn't care, but all the good guys have a British accent.

But I could go on and on about my problems with the series.

Its bringing the Bible stories to the masses in a format they would prefer over the written word. I'm okay with it. My daughter and I catch bits and pieces of it.

Would love to see him run. I chatted with him on a couple of occasions while we were in Baltimore at some staff holiday parties. Seemed genuine enough and had some really good ideas in regards to health care. I sometimes wonder whether either side consults doctors to get real input when developing their health care laws.

He does look like an older Obama.

It's also simplifying the story and making additions that aren't in the Bible. It's presenting an easier Bible rather than the difficulty of the real thing.

Like anyone reads anymore ;).

The Cypriot parliament unanimously rejected the proposed bailout. A Noble Proze winning economist born and raised in Cyprus explains the problem.

So wait...he's saying the banks should be held accountable and not the people? What a concept.

Has Syria crossed the line? Obama has a chance to escalate if true. If he doesn't, he will have -1 our credibility in the region.

'Suffocating in the streets': Chemical weapons attack reported in Syria - World News

What would you have us do?

Not specifically warn against using chemical weapons in the strongest terms unless there's some response that they're actually willing to make. And maybe they will have a response, and it certainly doesn't have to be full-scale invasion or anything, but warnings without any consequences probably isn't the best policy.

Obama:

"The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable"

Clinton:

"I'm not going to telegraph in any specifics what we would do in the event of credible evidence that the Assad regime has resorted to using chemical weapons against their own people," she said. "But suffice it to say, we are certainly planning to take action if that eventuality were to occur."

Edit: I get the sense that there's Chemical Weapons and CHEMICAL WEAPONS!!. Gassing a few dozen people in the street (if that's what happened here), might not count as the latter and might not warrant a response. If not, we can probably expect to see more of that.

Again, do what? What option enhances our security? Going to war because you got out too far over your skis doesn't make us any safer.

That's fine but then why threaten and then have your bluff called and credibility destroyed? What's Obama's strategy here in making these specific threats involving consequences? (Assuming that this is actually a chemical weapons attack and there will be no response at all.)

Edit: Though, the twist here appears to be that both sides are accusing the other of using chemical weapons. I don't know if Obama and/or Clinton have made specific threats directed at the rebels. And in any event, the white house is denying that any chemical weapons were used. Obviously neither the regime nor the rebels want to be perceived as using chemical weapons because that's considered some kind of big deal in the international community that could invoke a response - BUT if the U.S. doesn't care after all and its threats have no substance, that could change things. The White House of course have a plan in place for a smaller-scale chemical weapons attack in Syria, like they have a plan for everything. I am pretty confident it isn't "do nothing," otherwise there's no way Obama would have made that statement. Though it might be, "deny attack happened and hope it blows over if at all possible"

Then again, tear gas is technically a "chemical weapon", or at least chemical agent, and could produce the same vague results described above.

The question seems to become what was used (i.e. whether it was a banned substance)

Obama should not have made those comments unless he planned to really act. There are certainly ways to support the rebels without boots on the ground.

On the other hand, which rebels to support is probably the biggest issue unknown.

Islamic law comes to rebel-held Syria - The Washington Post

Making an empty threat is bad, but it pales in comparison to starting a war with no idea of the consequences both to us and whoever comes to power after us. Compounding one stupid thing with a much greater stupid thing doesn't make things better.

Oh I think Obama would have idea of consequences for acting and not acting. Starting a war with airpower and drones supporting the rebels don't sound too bad. It is what it is, Syria is never going to be friends with.

Are you a 100% pacifist, all wars are bad? I don't think escalating with Syria would be a "stupid thing".

No, I'm not a pacifist. The rebels appear to be largely led by elements extremely hostile to the West. Escalating the war and putting them into power probably doesn't help us long term. They make Morsi look like the paragon of democracy.

After Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, I'm surprised that the number one concern is still making sure we are feared. Yes, we could deal a serious blow to the Syrian government, but the question still remains, and then what? We haven't got a good track record of dealing with the aftermath of a quick military victory.

Think of this scenario. We bomb for a couple of weeks. At the end of the campaign the rebels still don't have the power to defeat the government. Now there are calls to escalate with troops. After all, we don't want countries to think we have lost our resolve. Do we continue to bomb indefinitely? Land troops? Withdraw?

For as much as I lean toward the pretty black glass solution in much of the middle east, I see no reason to get involved in Syria whatsoever. Shuffling the deck from one batch of evil lunatics to another batch of evil lunatics is a classic case of teaching a pig to read: it does you no good & annoys the hell out of the pig.

And after it was done and the Islamists took power you'd be right back here "pointing out" that Obama's intervention had led to Islamists seizing power and how that was probably his goal all along.

To be fair, I don't think that applies to Edward.

Fear isn't the end game in itself, I don't think Obama has taken a hard line on chemical weapons just so he can sound like a tough guy. But the threat of intervention is the only thing that's preventing chemical weapons from being an ordinary part of these skirmishes, and not just in Syria. It sucks, but I think the world would be a much, much suckier place if it was well known to everyone that nobody with the means to intervene would ever intervene unless they're directly attacked. That doesn't mean we have to draw the line at any chemical weapons deployment like the Obama administration has, but there has to be a real, credible line with consequences somewhere. And ideally it's a line that we don't hold all by ourselves, but is shared by a big part of the international community. Maybe chemical weapons is that line, I'm sure Obama knows what kind of support he'd have to intervene if they were really broken out.

If you believe this statement then you're an ignorant fool who learns nothing from the past.

There is nothing to gain in Syria, there is nothing to offset the negative image/PR/possible loss of life by engaging in Syria's INTERNAL war.

We are not the world's police force, nor are we their parents who must step in and teach them how to behave.

Entering into anything with/in Syria is an insipidly horrible idea.

For sure others would. Maybe I shouldn't have quoted him directly, I was just saying it in a more general sense.

That's different than,


I'm not sure I agree that threats from the West are the reason why chemical weapons aren't used regularly. Saddam used them, Iran used them, Syria might have used them. But, I agree a credible multi-nation response to use of chemical weapons would be beneficial. In this case, though, I don't really care about the reputation of the U.S. I want a foreign policy that strengthens the U.S. and I can't see any way in which a military response to a possible use of a small amount of chemical weapons benefits us in any way. Now, Obama maybe shouldn't make such general threats, but compounding mistakes isn't a good idea.

If you had said John McCain I'd happily agree.

General threats would be fine. "If Syria uses chemical weapons all options are on the table." Specific threats are a problem. "If you use these there will be consequences". It's not just about reputation, there's a practical problem if the president's word on these issues has no meaning. That changes thing with Syria, North Korea, Russia, China, everyone.

Edit: Syrians on the street are saying chemical weapons have been used more than once already. Maybe they're full of shit, but with Obama's threat on the table, the U.S. is in a position of having a motive to suppress/deny the existence of actual chemical attacks, in order to maintain their credibility and not have to get involved. It's not a great spot to be in - would it worth it to have to cover up the atrocities of foreign countries if intervention didn't "make us more safe" and thus wasn't worth doing? That becomes a question that we have to deal with when there's specific threats with no consequences. That being said, I don't think there was a "chemical attack" here at least how the U.S. defines that, or less the White House would have responded in some way. I don't think Obama would have said that if he wasn't prepared to to respond to chemical attacks, even if that just meant more overt background military support for the rebels or 1 day of air strikes.

"There will be consequences" is a pretty general threat. He doesn't say specifically what the consequences could be.

My thought on general was in saying any/all use of chemical weapons will lead to.... I think there's always a threshold at which use is unlikely to lead to repercussions.