That might just be the biggest load of horseshit I've ever seen posted in a single sentence on this forum.

Those salaries and jobs both belong to/are at the discretion of the employer ... many of whom are better off having cut the albatross of unwarranted expenses of employees who too often simply didn't justify their continued existence.

We don't have a shortage of jobs, we've got an excess of people who simply cannot produce goods/services/value equal to their maintenance cost.

I agree that it is utopian (and inevitably, the way it's going to be without man's sin nature) and that a balance could theoretically be achieved. But in the meantime, one has to promote true charity (particularly faith-based) and private entrepreneurship against those that want to penalize them.

So you are supporting a strong centralized govt with a leader who is capable of cutting the chaff and other things that don't warrant their continued existence. It would certainly be efficient.

Meanwhile money and power continue to be consolidated by the few at the top. The few who provide the jobs and feel that they are truly more responsible for the country than anyone else.

Jobs that were not expendable before the economy collapse that was directly related to greed of the few who controlled the money and power.

Congress will still be Congress as long as the voters see politicans as a means to stop "them" from getting more of their money. It is much easier to keep and take power when there is a perceived enemy.

It seems that the most expensive things are used/enjoyed by most people. It is a shred Machiavellian move (or just human nature) that convinced every individual that their benefits are not the problem, it's those other (rich/poor) people.

(Just my opinion, and I am a little grumpy)

I agree there is a lot of dead weight in the salaries of most businesses, you can find it right at the top of the pyramid in some of the most useless pieces of flesh we've ever seen (just see one of them squirm in front of Congress and try and claim they don't make your stomach turn).

The problem with the modern business is it is detached from shareholder value. The majority of executives are in the game of liquidating the massive amounts of wealth built up into these businesses over decades into their hands. You can find numerous examples where they have basically sold out the shareholders for that purpose.

I don't think the companies are getting leaner in preparation to grow, they are getting leaner so they have more cream to skim off the top before they bail on the company altogether. I'm just hoping there are a few smart businesses that see the market share that will become vulnerable due to these actions and they will ratchet up employment to grab it.

The economy is not zero-sum, there is not some magical number of worth out there where anything above that is simply waste. I don't propose companies should load up on useless employees and make them play out scenes from Dilbert, but the greatest wealth in history accompanied the growth of the middle class and distribution of wealth. We can have the petty tyrant with his 99% of wheat and rice middle ages, or we can have the same person with 90% and abundant food, cars, computers, and luxuries beyond mention.

Believe it or not it is workers that grow the economy and make it a funner place overall to live, and the rich men get richer when they play into that instead of worrying about strategies to maintain their fiefdom. I want to be a billionaire of course, but if I had to choose between a billionaire in a stagnant economy with mass drudgery, or a billionaire where new products are always introduced and people are generally cheery, I choose the latter.

I think social liberalism & the like can be overseen effectively by government...it just needs a different structure than we currently have. The problem is when elected fools have no real or tangible accountability for bad policy, and the people have no real or tangible mechanism to counter-act such bad policy. Hence my "move it to the states" position as it at least has to be weighed against practicality, and if that fails, then accountability will follow.

They have tons of cash sitting around but until opportunity (or perceived opportunity) opens pops up...they simply don't need to expend that cash.

This is why I cannot believe we still have not made an energy policy that says we must be 90% independent by 2020...and here's how we'll start that. This is the type of government interventionist commitment that spurs businesses to move. When they see $2-3T in potential revenue to be expended in such an effort...you bet your ass they will begin trying to understand how to benefit from it & how they can invest to be positioned best for it.

I would just insert "long term" in front of shareholder value. Too much of of today's business is driven at this quarter's numbers and the effect on the stock price this week. Otherwise can't really argue with anything you wrote.

But there were at least two times when he could have changed the outcome. First, the debt ceiling could have been part of the tax negotiation last December. Second, he could throw out the hammer of the 14th amendment, even if he wouldn't really use it. Instead he's signaled over and over again that when pushed he'll bend. I never thought I'd see the day when a Democratic president agreed to gutting the New Deal with no concessions from the GOP.

That's where I think you have a mistaken view. I have no interest in penalizing the successful. I want more people to have the opportunity to be successful. I think a functioning safety net with a progressive tax system will lead to more people being able to spend which will make everyone more wealthy. I also believe in laws that make it more difficult for vast sums of wealth to be hoarded over time which makes it more difficult for new talent to rise to the top. In short, I think the government has a role to play in the proper functioning of a vibrant capitalist economy. That's not to say I agree with every law and regulation, but I think pulling the government off the field of play won't benefit anyone other than those with vast sums of money.

Where those lines will be will always be a guessing game and a moving target as the world changes and men make mistakes. But right now I don't see anything that would limit the successful about a return the the Clinton tax rates. In fact, if the deficit is a major concern I would think a combination of cuts and tax increases would lower the deficit more quickly.

Obama's no Democrat. He's a Corporatist. I'm done with him.

In other awful news:


At least when a bunch of data gets leaked we'll be able to assure ourselves by saying, "Nobody could have known."

Short term valuation is important because they are trying to liquidate their shares or justify various options or bonuses. So I think my message is still valid, they don't care about the value of the shares, merely how it relates to them extracting wealth out of the company.

He's a fucking moron. I have been done with him for a long time now. I am at the point where everything he represents makes me mad.

Ya'll going third party then? The Republicrats are hardcore corporate lapdogs.

That's my question too. I guess Nader will still be an option for you.

When you're ready for me to take over as dictator, just say the word. It'll be a sacrifice but I believe I'm up for it. Democracy, as we've devolved it over 200+ years, is a sad joke & unfortunately for us all the lowest common denominators have had too much sway for too long.


Many of those jobs were always expendable, although I wouldn't dispute that it was inertia (or outright laziness) rather than benevolence that kept that out there as long as it did.

I'll probably sit out the Presidential in 2012, but I can see voting for Obama as I'll be voting on most of the other races anyway. But I'm done with voting to best of two bad options. I want to know what the Dems stand for because right now I don't think they stand for anything. There are a handful that have priorities, but the overwhelming bulk of them are content to argue they aren't quite as bad as the GOP. I'm sure, "I cut Medicare, but not as much as the other guys wanted," will be a winning message.

If this deal goes through Obama and the current Dems will have done far more damage to the New Deal than any GOP president ever has. In fact I think there's a decent argument that a GOP president would face much stiffer opposition if he/she tried to do what Obama has apparently agreed to.

The party needs to be battered to find a spine. That process is going to suck when Bachmann is president, but what I'm getting right now isn't much better.

Ahh, Rome, how fondly we remember you. All Hail Caesar Jon!

Democracy would work better without all that democracy?

Honestly I am going to exercise my right to not even vote on national politics. I have been an independent always and will remain one.

No way. Obama pretty much has to say "I got Osama," and that should clinch the 2012 election.

It certainly seems to have helped get the GOP moving in the right direction, at least a little bit. Long way to go though, no shortage of treacherous dogs still to be weeded out.

In fairness...there is nothing stopping a state from enhancing any social safety net that (potentially) could be cut back. Then it would be on the tax base to collectively determine whether they will allow their society to devolve into barbarism or simply keep their voting base civil.

I believe in progressive taxation to a point as well. I just think that the way to fairly (in my view) collect it should be transparent & about choice.

{suggests reading that again}

What we currently have bears so little resemblance to what the F.F. seem to have intended that I'm surprised the earth hasn't shifted off its axis from them spinning in their graves at such a rapid rate.

If I'd only spent more time studying physics & whatnot I might be able to understand why that hasn't happened. I suspect it has something to do with them spinning in different directions or something.

Nobody gives a shit about Osama with nearly 10% unemployment. And, Bachmann is going to be able to say, Obama cut your Medicare, but I voted against that deal. Sure it's horseshit, but Karl Rove's group is already running ads hitting Obama for cutting Medicare. Barring a very unlikely recovery before next Fall, I would bet Obama is 40% or less for reelect against anyone but Casey Anthony.

Sounds like my argument for states having more direct control of social policies (and the democracy as it were having the ability to hold them accountable). :)

[steps down from soapbox]

Same was true for Health Care Reform and what turned out to be the Stimulus Bill (albeit a true stimulus could have been governmental direction rather than simply giving aid & tax cuts).

Nobody cared about either of those as priority compared to whether they would have a job. Dems blew it previously, now Repubs are busy blowing it believing the populace gave them a mandate to reduce social program spending and cut government. I firmly believe both parties were wrong in their (publicly-espoused) beliefs of what their elections meant and next round will be no different.

For the record, InTrade has Obama at 57-43 right now but there's a long way until election time.*

*And that's chance to win. That probably equates to a, what, a 51-49 actual voting spread?

SI

Oh God yes! Finally someone who put into words what I have been trying to say since 2008.


51 or 52 would be a landslide at this point. 57-43 seems really high, but I'm sure that pre-election we will end up closer to 51 or 52 to 48.

No, I mean a 57% chance to win right now is a win by a point or two in the election. It's a very close spread

SI

Good news for now ... will be interesting to read the analysis this week on winners and losers.

White House, congressional leaders reach debt deal - CNN.com

Washington strikes deal on debt ceiling - politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com

Great! We extended the amount they can spend. Wonder how long it will take to get to this new number after making these "huge" cuts?

Winners: Banks, corporations, the rich.

Losers: Basically everyone else.

Funny how the details of this deal are what a lot of the posters always bitch about in other threads (rich man steps on poor man's throat) but thought was so dire to do this time and "this time only". Well the bankers win again... congrats on encouraging their shell game! How long after returning to your abusive husband who convinced you "This time things are going to be different!" until he starts kicking the shit out of you again?

What did you think was a better solution panerd?

Grom the Washington Post:

That's one stinking shit-sandwich of a "deal."

Fuck you Obama. And fuck you elected "Democrats" who voted for this thing. And fuck you elected "Democrats" who didn't do fuck-all to fix it up.

So they fixed absolutely nothing. Wonderful.

Of course they didn't but did anyone really expect them to? If so, please explain why.

I catch a lot of shit for refusing to engage in the lesser of two evils debate. I also often get made fun of because I "have no answers". How long is it going to take for the people who say they are "done voting" to realize their continued vote (and they will be right back in the partisan bickering come 2012) is more damaging than mine. At least I am trying to get a third party viable, a vote for the lesser of two evils just continues the bullshit system. They are the same party folks, shills for big money and the military industrial complex. Yes I honestly believe that having a few Libertarians or Greens or whatever Nadar is calling himself nowadays would make a huge difference in calling out all sides on corruption and bullshit. Its pretty obvious most of the Democrats and Republicans have no interest in exposing themselves.

Actually...

I love how David Wu is a "winner" in that :D

Also, could someone explain to me why a guy who looks like he's DM'ing at Gencon this weekend in Grover Norquist has a bunch of the GOP running scared? It'd be like if, I dunno, Austan Goolsbee were making ever Dem sign a pledge that all bills were tax neutral to everyone making under $30K and somehow could scare all the Blue Dogs into going along. I just don't get it- how does he have a seat at the table?

I mean, at what point do you not hear the words uttered "Eff you, Grover Norquist. I'm the GD speaker of the House and I don't care about your pissant pledge because we have a chance to get so much more if we made a deal". I mean, not in public, as fighting among the ranks is never popular, but at least in private.

SI

Third party. I obviously like what the Libertarians have to say but to someone more liberal maybe the Greens or Nadar. Its all a game to them (bread and circuses, terror fear, economic fear) and the "lesser of two evils" is an important part of the game. Look at the mainstream analysis of this and the "winners and losers". The American people are the big losers, this does absolutely nothing to help fix the house of cards that is about to come tumbling down. It fixes nothing.

Nope, I didn't expect them to, but was sure hoping one side would blink and we'd get some real reform. A pipe dream, I know.

My guess is, is somehow he has leverage (giving them "campaign funds", dirty secrets, etc...) on these people who have signed his pledge. What I find more disturbing though, is these elected officials signing a pledge to a private citizen, when their duty is to represent their constituents. That should be raising some big red flags in my opinion.

No I totally agree with you. I too fall for the abusive parents stuff every once in a while. (Tea party being a recent example that had me going for a while, Obama and some of his anti-war stuff gave me some "hope" after the 2008 election) What's funny though is the two sides take turns beating the shit out of us and instead of going Menendez and killing them both we choose to turn on each other instead. This debt deal being the latest case of both parties just fucking everyone but somehow the mass media will spin it as D vs R and the usual suspects will line up on here and debate the talking points. I suggest anyone who thinks there is a difference between the two parties reads the actual cuts and then tell me what has changed and how things are any different now that we headed off "doomsday".

EDIT: My memory may be spotty on whether the Menendez brothers were justified or not so subsitute any abused kids the point still remians the same.

There is a very clear difference between the two parties to me: the Democrats take my money and give it to the "poor" and their cronies, while the Republicans take my money and give it to the "rich" and their cronies. Any last vestiges of difference went out the window during the Bush II spending sprees.

Except that there's very little of value to be found in the Libs & Greens except fertilizer.

Don't get me wrong, they're (relatively) honest about the horse manure they're selling, it's just that there's not many people are interested in buying their crap.

I have little respect for someone who would endorse Chuck Baldwin for President. As for Nader, he no doubt would be closer to me on the issues than Obama. But then so would Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or Randi Rhodes. And I wouldn't trust a single one of them with running this country.

More brilliant strategery from the WH.

I used to buy the Libs horse manure. But being a dairy farmer, I'm much more attracted to the bull manure that the Dems are selling now.

One things for sure, regardless if it's dem or repub, it all smells like shit.