Molson, please comment on my post about where I stand on things be it in agreement with me, or as a slam. thanks

You might want to let his liberal base know that's actually a part of winning a war. I don't think moderates and conservatives are the ones complaining about adding troops outside of the hypocrisy when compared to his earlier rhetoric as a senator.

Please see Will, George

this from July 6th


Obama, McCain split over Afghan strategy - The Boston Globe

July 15, 2008:

I don't understand the request.

I just have my perception, I could be wrong.

fair enough.

Given that it was a conservative President, supported by a gung-ho conservative base, that completely fucked up two wars, I'm not sure it's the left that's in dire need of education at this point.

But, you know, point taken. I'll let my brother, part of Obama's liberal base, who just happened to serve in Iraq, know that you think he doesn't know what it takes to win a war.

I never really understood why Iraq was so obviously the wrong war and Afghanistan was so obviously "right".

Aside from the issues about how we got there (which are major issues), what's the difference?

The Iraq administration had actually killed tens of thousands of people with WMDs. The Taliban has closer ties to actual terroists, but had far less to actually offer them.

What will "victory" in Afghanistan accomplish that victory in Iraq won't? The goal is a stable democratic state in both instances.

And I say that even wishing, in retrospect, that we went harder at Afghanistan and ignored Iraq. But I don't even know why I feel that way.

Pragmatism. As far as Al-Qaeda and the war on terror goes, a stable regime in Afghanistan does more for the US than a stable regime in Iraq.

Afghanistan harbored someone who directly attacked us and refused to hand him over.

...and Coulter, Anne

...and Buchanan, Pat

...and Blankley, Tony


Sweeping generalizations are bad, mmkay?

Could be, but I have no idea why.

Even Michael Moore supported the Afghanistan war. Even though, on paper, it's a tougher war to win than Iraq. I'm not convinced that if there was no Iraq, Afghanistan would be like Denmark at this point.

And that guy's not there anymore (at least in the part that's really "Afghanistan".) Hasn't been for years.

If that's all the war is about - why haven't we invaded Pakistan?

And how do you "win" a war you started because someone wasn't handed over? Aside from the obvious, get them to hand him over, which doesn't seem like a relevant goal right now.

IMO once the Karzai government was established we had "won" and we should have started getting out. Now we're in a situation where we'll eventually lose to some degree because we can't define victory. There isn't any way to eliminate the Taliban or to ensure a stable democracy in Afghanistan. One of the lessons of history that the U.S. is loath to learn is when to declre victory and go home.

Agreed - I think the war was really about revenge, which is fine, certainly everyone wanted that at the time. Kill as many taliban as you can and leave. If they come back, kill some more.

It's not like Iraq, where the military goal (in theory) is occupation, and if you leave too early, you have to go and occupy again, which is a messy job.

We're coming up on 8 years Afghanistan. We'll definitely surpass the Soviet war there, in terms of length. All because the Taliban wouldn't hand over OBL? Really? I think in time, the Iraq war will have proved to have accomplished more.

Why is this relevant? Were we given a choice of Afghanistan or Iraq?

I'm sorry, but it was pretty cut and dry to everyone. AQ attacks the U.S. AQ is clearly based in Afghanistan where they have carte blanche to operate without restriction by the local rulers, the Taliban. U.S. demands that the Taliban hand over bin Laden & AQ. Taliban refuses. U.S. invades.

The goal was to depose the Taliban, oust AQ from the country and capture key AQ leaders, such as bin Laden. This goal was compromised by the misadventure in Iraq siphoning needed forces from the campaign.

That's the facts. Anything else is simply revisionist history.


Now that's a ridiculous statement. That's like saying you're not convinced that Matt Sanchez will be like Peyton Manning this year, when really all the Jets need him to be is Joe Flacco.

Without Iraq, there's a pretty good argument (based on the non-availability of specific forces at specific times) that the above goals could have been achieved by now. Afghanistan may not have been Denmark by now, but it certainly could have been Pakistan-lite by now.


He's been in the border regions of Pakistan for a while because up until recently Pakistan didn't enforce its rule in those regions, so he had more freedom there than in Afghanistan. Were Pakistan to exert more influence in that region and the Taliban make advances in parts of Afghanistan, I'm sure he'd be back over what's a pretty immaterial border at this point.


Don't be obtuse. Surely you've read about the recent successes by joint U.S.-Pakistani operations in the Pakistani border regions?

We already fought a (covert) war in Afghanistan, and leaving once the basic goal was finished was a mistake that pretty much led to the current state the country is in now. Leaving now and letting the Taliban expand would be pretty dangerous and stupid, IMO.

Oh come on, this isn't rocket science.

The goal of the Afghanistan war has always been to create a situation where it's impossible for AQ to operate with impunity in that country. This goal should have been quickly achieved by the deposition of the Taliban and installation of a government strong enough to deny the Taliban (& AQ) re-entry into the region, but was short-circuited by the Iraq adventure, so that government never got the head-start it needed on the provision of security.

The goal remains the same, but it is considerably tougher now.

Oh and I'm pretty sure Obama promised to bomb the fuck out of Pakistan if they didn't help us or got in our way. I remember McCain criticizing him for saying that during the debates.

If that's all the war was about, we would've just lobbed some missiles in.

I admit that my Denmark comment was a silly exageration, but now THAT'S a ridiculous assertion.

You said that the "the was to depose the Taliban, oust AQ from the country and capture key AQ leaders, such as bin Laden".

Wasn't this all done, as far as practically possible, before the Iraq war even started? If not, how much longer, past 2003, would it have taken (without Iraq)?

These military objectives are so vague and they can't ever really be accomplished. If we didn't go to Iraq, we would still be in Afghanistan today, chasing vague military objectives. We might have left in the meantime (for home, instead of Iraq), but we wouldn't have extinguished Islamic fundamentalism and the Taliban completely.

The hope would be that the country would have been stable enough to keep the Taliban's resurgence at bay itself.

That's pretty much what we did.

The problem is that our strategy didn't quite match up with our objectives.

If you wanted the Taliban gone forever, you have to occupy. If you're only concerned with killing them, and reducing their danger to the world, missles would do just fine.

What does whether it was or not have to do with the Iraq war?

Well, in order to stabilize Afghanistan you would need manpower which we didn't have because they were fighting elsewhere.

I wonder if the American people would have stomached a lengthy occupation in Afghanistan. As much as Iraq diverted our resources, it did the same for Al-Qaeda and related groups. Without Iraq, Afghanistan would have been the site of the holy war and islamic resistence, just as it was in the 80s. It would have been a bloodbath.

And if it wasn't, we wouldn't have had so much more manpower there anyway, regardless of Iraq.

So either Afghanistan would have been drawn out and bloody, or it would have been secure, in which case we wouldn't have sent more troops there anyway (until later, during the next Taliban uprising)

Well, I certainly feel we would have had significantly more. Whether it would have been 'enough' is up for debate, and the question is really unanswerable.

How do you square these two statements?

Prior to Iraq, the Taliban & AQ were ousted and there certainly wasn't much in the way of holy war or Islamic resistance. Perhaps we should have left then, and let Karzai be the dictator he always was going to be, but Bush surely couldn't leave without catching bin Laden (though, again, it was Rumsfeld's incompetence that led bin Laden get away).


Anyway, I still don't think it's wise to compare the two. If you summarily left Iraq, for instance, you probably ended up with an Iranian client state. But honestly, I think the good money is still on Iraq being effectively an Iranian client state in a few years, if it isn't already.

If you summarily leave Afghanistan now, the Taliban probably take it back, and that both a) gives AQ a base of operations again (they really don't have much of one now, now that the Iraqis kicked them back out of Iraq) and b) destabilizes Pakistan, which no one in the region wants.

It's more apples and oranges than apples and apples.

So your brother believes that a reduction of troops is essential to finishing off this conflict? I'm thankful that he served our country, but I'll agree with Obama anyday from a strategy perspective. We need more troops. I'm only opposed to the increase use of contractors, which I didn't even like under Bush. I'm not opposed to the increase.

The liberal base wanted a drawdown of troops, which is exactly the opposite of what's needed.

Also, people are quoting Obama's comments from the campaign in response to my hypocrisy comment. I'm not talking about his campaign comments when I call out his hypocrisy. I'm talking about his unwillingness to fund the troops and fund the surge in Iraq when it was obviously needed to save lives. The surge worked despite Obama's unwillingness to support it.

the base wanted a drawdown in Iraq.

Which was obviously the wrong approach. The surge did wonders for that situation. A reduction of troops in 2006-2007 as Obama and other democrats wanted would have left us with two messes rather than one. I'm not going to justify how we got in Iraq, but to ignore the fact that the surge turned out to be a very effective method in Iraq is silly.

I was talking now, after the campaign. You know the one in which you predicted MCCain would win, how awesome a pick Palin was to get the 'win' and quoted polling data showing the tide had turned.

Obviously the surge worked...thank god.

How do you jive talking about "his liberal base" and than quote him from the Senate before the "base" even knew he'd be their choice to run for Pres.? Your choice of timeline is convenient.

The surge certainly reduced violence, but the big political questions weren't resolved. The Kurds are still almost a separate state and the Sunni's haven't been integrated into the security apparatus and there have been a number of high casualty attacks since the U.S. left the cities. It's still very much an open question whether the surge permanently changed the dynamics in Iraq or was merely a temporary reprieve.

Yes, but you know as well as I do that we'd never change those dynamics. We've put it back into a position where it's relatively stable. They now have the opportunity to work those things out should they choose to do so. We can only hold their hand for so long.

You can't equate the resistance to the Soviets with anything the U.S. might have faced. Without the support of the CIA the Afghan resistance was little more than a nuisance for the Soviets. They were only able to bloody the Soviets to the degree they did because of U.S. purchased weaponry, primarily surface to air missiles. There is currently nothing like that level of state support for any resistance. They can hold out for years, and I don't think we can accomplish much more than we already have, but I don't think it could ever get as bloody as it did during the eighties.

I would see that more of an excuse of "hey, this is going to take time to correct because the hole we are in is so deep". I mean, the man hasn't even been in office a year yet.

SI

Ya, I'm definitely talking in inconsistencies here, as I don't fully understand it, just talking out loud.

You're right that prior to Iraq, Afghanistan seemed settled. So what exactly did Iraq take resources from? Would we have just maintained a massive occupying force in Afghanistan? Is that what people think we should have done, or more relevantly, is that what they wanted us to do at the time? I don't remember Democrats arguing for a massive occupying force in Afghannistan at the time.

Without that massive force (which would have invited fierce, ongoing resistence, of course), then the Taliban would have regrouped and become a problem again anyway, right? We left for Iraq, but without Iraq, wouldn't we have just left for home?

I think what you're getting at is that our strategy after the Taliban was deposed and Karzai installed wasn't clearly defined. (and still isn't)

The campaign rhetoric was just over-the-top though, both from Obama and his supporters. Everything's so practical and reasoned now in comparison. Which is good, it just makes me resent that campaign so much more. He came in promising the world and has unsuprisingly settled for what's actually possible.

Renedition is awful! (but we'll still do it). We will immediately begin a phased withdraw from Iraq! (eventually, but now that I talk to these generals, it's going to take longer than I thought, let's go with the regular plan that everyone agreed with anyway). We will close GITMO (geez, there was some stuff I didn't consider here too, this is going to take some time). We will reform our legal process for foreign prisoners! (Hmm, civilian courts were a bad idea after all, let's not change much), torture is bad! (let's investigate the previous administration to make them look bad, but not actually do anything to reduce torture going forward)

And yes, it hasn't even been a year, and this is based somewhat a prediction on how the next 2-3 years will go.

So your point is that candidates make promises during campaigns that either they can't or don't intend to keep?

That sounds right.

And that because of that lack of a defined strategy - I don't think not going to war with Iraq would have made any difference.

It's funny, people crap all over the Bush administration when it comes to how the war was fought in Iraq, but assume that without that, they would have waged a perfect war with a defined strategy in Afghanistan. Isn't it likely that things would be messy there regardless?

Yes.

I also want to make the point that the sky is blue.

But seriously, it's still painful to see people buy into the rhetoric, and it still causes me to hate those that intentionally mislead them.

Isn't the point that Obama was supposed to be different, and that all these things were items Bush was bashed for but Obama seems to be admitting were maybe the right thing to do anyway?

Well, to be fair you would have to distinguish between that which Obama has chosen to continue, and that which he tried to change and failed for political reasons (mainly Gitmo/due process).

And isn't attacking the bright eyed liberals who saw Obama as different kind of aiming at low hanging fruit?

I think the point is that it's easy to throw stones at the currently military situation/strategy in a campaign, but the reality was that Bush/McCain/Obama were all going to take roughly the same steps in regards to Iraq or Afghanistan - regardless of campaign rhetoric.

To be honest, it doesn't really bother me all that much as I didn't see too many plausible options in 2007 or 2008 to try something different. It didn't make sense to immediately close Gitmo, redo the "Cheney" holding policy in regards to interrogation, go to civilian courts for foreign prisoners and withdraw from Iraq on a quick timetable. Most conservatives were not in favor of these policies and were tarred and feathered by those on the left for not seeing the simple changes that need to be done.

Then, Obama comes in and keeps the exact same policies and the answer is "Well, what else is he supposed to do. Nothing practically can be done." :banghead:

Yes - that's why Obama promised more than he could deliver, and that's the problem. This rhetoric wasn't qualified as, "as long as politics don't get in the way". Which of course, no candidate would ever say, so maybe we should just assume that level of deceit and not be upset by it.

#2 yes, but those people, many of them first-time voters, really carried Obama into the white house. Targeting that group is smart election strategy, but I wish that's not what it took to win elections.

By the way, reviewing Obama's campaign promises, I've decided this one is my favorite:

"Obama and Biden will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years"

They're ambitious, I'll give 'em that....but how would they even know they've secured "all loose nuclear material"? Does North Korea's count?

I guess I don't see the "most conservatives were not in favor of these policies."

And for what it's worth, I still think he should close Gitmo, redo the "Cheney" holding policy in regards to interrogation, ensure some degree of due process for detainees, and get out of Iraq as quickly as is feasible.

And this is where I disagree and Molson didnt 'see'...

I think something can be done and I am disappointed in the admin's decisions when it comes to rendition, Gitmo, and the courts regarding those being held.

Curt Schilling says he's interested in running for Teddy's seat.

I doubt it ever gets that far, but that would be one interesting race.

that'd be an ugly slaughter. i'd be sad to see it so i hope he realizes that and doesn't :(

word is that they might appoint dukakis to fill the seat until the special election - which would be a shame...i'd almost like to see him run in the special election for it...although he is what...76?

The fact that they're thinking of naming anyone is shameful.

eh - i think the fact they changed the rules back when Mitt was governor and now want to change them again is MORE shameful. I can sympathize with them wanting to have someone in the seat sooner. I certainly don't think it should take 5 months to fill the seat...that's just ridiculous. Particularly when there are issues of such gravitas being discussed in Washington.

and i didn't mean that Schilling would be slaughtered because he's a Republican. It'd be more because he's a) a carpet-bagger running for a seat that has a lot of history, and b) a celebrity-candidate in a state where we prefer our national representatives to be "policy wonks"

agreed. changing the rules to fit your needs is garbash!

So why don't we just pull all of our troops out of both countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) and just let it be?

cuz we'll have to go back

I think they've just been keeping him frozen for the last 20 years. They knew his time would come.

I hope there isnt evidence of law breaking by the insurance companies in there.

Group: Insurers urged workers to fight reform - Yahoo! Finance

I love the whole "quasi-treason" meme against Reagan/Bush. But when stuff circulates about Ted Kennedy potentially talking to Yuri Andropov about making President Reagan look bad to help the Democrats in 1984, then it's obviously fabricated stuff, right? ;)

But it is regressive. A guy making $40,000 a year is going to consume a much higher percent of his income than a guy making $10 million a year. There are people already struggling who aren't paying much, if any income tax. I don't see how taxing them something like 20% on everything they consume will be good for the country. I think it dramatically hurts the middle class and causes people to consume much less (thus hurting businesses).

A simple tax code fix for me is a flat rate with no deductions. Simply put you pay X% of your income to the government. No "bonus points" for having lots of kids or paying interest on a mortgage.

I'm just surprised Steve thinks that the 426-111 whomping that Dukakis received in the Electoral College (or the 7,000,000 margin in the popular vote) would have been much different if the "ACLU thing" and the "Willie Horton thing" had never come up.

Neither war changes much. If anything it just helps breed another generation of extremists with pure hatred toward the U.S. I mean we ultimately killed some bad guys but not enough to fix any problems we may have had.

The goal of Afghanistan was to root out an extremist group that had been responsible for the death of thousands of Americans. To protect our country from future attacks. You could make the case that they would continue to be a threat to us if no action was taken. Iraq was neither though. Not a threat and did nothing to us.

Ultimately both wars will be viewed upon by history as mistakes. Misguided attempts to avenge 9/11 with no realistic long term plans in place. You can't force these people into stable democracies, nor can you bomb them into liking you.

Well for simplicity sake, a flat tax is amazingly simple.

I don't mind a progressive system and tax brackets. I do think that more people need to start "pitching in" for things. We have a large percent of the country not paying a dime in income tax, and many others not paying much. Perhaps if more people had money at stake, they may be more upset about reckless spending.

It may be, but remember, people were saying much the same thing after Johnson won election in 1964. Hell, it took the Democrats less than 20 years to win a presidential election after the Civil War was concluded. I don't think we're in a new Jacksonian era of one party leadership now, but if it makes you feel better to think about the Democratic dominance to come once America becomes less White and less Christian, I won't stand in your way. :)

It may be, but remember, people were saying much the same thing after Johnson won election in 1964. Hell, it took the Democrats less than 20 years to win a presidential election after the Civil War was concluded. I don't think we're in a new Jacksonian era of one party leadership now, but if it makes you feel better to think about the Democratic dominance to come once America becomes less White and less Christian, I won't stand in your way. :)

It does kinda sound suspiciously like the "permanent majority" but in the other way, doesn't it? ;)

And yet even after signing the Civil Rights Act, LBJ won Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, Florida, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia. He absolutely clobbered Goldwater in an election that makes Dukakis's results in '88 look downright competitive.

You're also making my point... in 1965, conventional wisdom said the Republican Party was done for. By 1968, conventional wisdom had been turned on its head.

But I suppose the Democratic Party could keep riding the wave of electing representatives from the various factions of identity politics and keep on winning an eternal majority. In 2016 they can run a female, in 2024 they can run a Hispanic, 2032 an Asian, 2040 a Pacific Islander, etc. By the end of the century I'm sure we'll probably be running an Agnostic-Armenian-Biracial-Bisexual-Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Survivor-American for president. After all, hyphenated-Americans are the best kind of Americans, right?

I think the income disparity is from a lot of things. But one of them is that we are also coming across a massive intelligence disparity. This isn't like the guy making minimum wage is somehow getting screwed out of being a millionaire. It's often times the millionaire is just much smarter and much more motivated these days.

I do concede that there are other factors such as the wealthy having gamed the system. But I still contend that if you filled a room with a mix of incomes from top to bottom, a 5 minute conversation with the person would let you know quickly which one is making money and which one isn't.

Where are you getting your data from? The median income in this country is just over $32,000. That would mean that by your accounts, CEOs are making on average nearly $13,000,000 annually. That is well above any statistic I've found.

You're also basing average wage against an extremely small portion of the United States population. How many CEOs are there? Why not make an argument that the gap between top athletes and the average wage worker has dramatically gone up over the last 40 years?

I'm not sure what solution you'd want either. It's a relative free market and people have a right to earn as much as they possibly can.

I guess I'm just against punishing those who worked hard to become succesful.

It's not about what you feel is sufficient to be happy. It's about taking something away from someone who earned it. Incentive to succeed creates innovation.

The Yankees have a lot of World Series Championships. Their fans should be perfectly happy with just a couple of those. So we should probably not allow them to compete in the playoffs, correct? I mean it's not about what you earn through hard work, it's about making sure everyone gets a piece of the pie regardless of how talented or hard working they are.

I guess I'm for a little more self-sufficiency in today's society. If I use my hands to build a nice chair, I shouldn't be forced to share it with everyone on my block.

You might want to look at who these rich are. For every Bill Gates, you have a thousand small business guys making 200+K. It seems that many think the top 5-10% is a bunch of trust fund babies buying yachts every weekend. And, we should just tax the heck out of them because they've had a silver spoon all their life.

If you look at the GDP growth and overall economic "boon" we've faced since 1980, a larger income gap was unavoidable. The creation of profitable entrepreneurs with the increase in the number of million dollar plus companies meant that thousands and thousands of middle class people had become "the rich". You also had a massive increase in larger successful companies which meant more high level executives (again, many coming from middle to upper middle class backgrounds). It's amazing that this concept is frowned on by those on the left. America allows for numerous people to quit their 40K a year job, start their own business and eventually make 400K+ if they are smart about it. However, this will indeed cause the income gap to stretch larger and larger.

It's almost like the left would prefer that all the 200K to $1 mil+ business owners would just quit and go work for the city making 45K a year. That gap between the haves and have-nots would be lower and we'd all feel better about the country.

Not at all. But for the most part, those making more money have bettered themselves in ways others haven't to get where they are. Many of these CEO's you dislike didn't just step out of high school and into a $10 million a year job. Look at the resumes of these CEO's. Harvard MBAs and decades of experience working under people at companies with long hours. Why punish someone who did all that work and made smart decisions with their life?


You can accomplish certain things like health care without ripping off wealth individuals. The problem with your plan is you take away the motivation of individuals to better themselves and innovate. Many of society's greatest advances came from people who were motivated by riches. Why reward complacent and unmotivated people? Shouldn't they be the ones you want to motivate the most?

The difference is it's now a global economy. Instead of opening up a corner store in Iowa making $40,000 a year, small business people make iPhone apps from their home in Iowa that they sell to kids in Japan and make $500K a year. The income earning potential is light years ahead of where it was in the 1960s.

You're talking about the best of the best businesses. If the 5,000th best small business is making $1 million, imagine what the top small business makes? What you're saying is akin to complaining that Tom Brady makes too much money compared to Luke McCown. The best should make a lot more. Why does that upset you so much?

That's fine, but you will still complain about the difference in wages between the top X percent and the middle class. The point is that for us to have a thriving economy that gives the growth some want to pay for national health care and numerous other items, it takes having an extremely wealthy top 10%. Without the successful small businesses and even middle to large corporations, the US economy won't work.

So, if your goal is a smaller gap between the middle class and the top 10%, the only way it happens is if the top 10% lose a ton of money (which will also severely impact the earning potential of the middle class). If the top 10% lost 500K a person and the middle class lost 10K, the gap would be a lot smaller. Of course, we probably be headed for a massive depression - but the income gap would be tighter so we could use that to help justify our misery.

Arles and Rainmaker might be correct if the salaries of CEOs were set by a well functioning, rational market, but oftentimes they aren't. Look how CEO salaries are set, not through a competitive process but by the dictate of corporate boards. These boards are often full of conflicts where the CEO being evaluated sits on boards that will eventually evaluate the evaluators. Where does the board get the info upon which it makes compensation decisions, executive compensation consulting firms. Firms that are hired by the CEO and board and who have a very strong financial incentive to maximize the CEO compensation. In short compensation for CEOs of public companies is a rigged game.

But even if it weren't, there's very little evidence to show that CEOs of public companies are chosen strictly on merit. The reality is a whole lot of success is based on luck, to which family were you born, which college did you get into(often not strictly on merit), what kind of co-workers you were assigned to work with, etc. It's impossible to argue that all or even a majority of CEOs are chosen through a strict merit based system. Life just doesn't work that way. Some people get the breaks and some don't, but I don't think you'd argue that final outcomes are always the best option.

So given that there isn't a functioning market for CEO compensation and given that the selection of those at the top of the economic ladder has a lot to do with luck, why is it any more punishment to raise taxes say to the Clinton level than it is to allow a system that grossly rewards those with the power to do so?

This discussion reminds me of that episode of "The Simpsons" (yes, I'm not using it for fact or anything, so don't worry), where Homer thinks it'd be great to run the nuclear power plant and then finds he's working 90 hour weeks and while "on vacation" is stuck inside doing all sorts of paperwork. The idea that CEO's don't do much and make a ton for it is not really bourn out by things. They work far more hours and, yes, harder than most 9 to 5 workers.

The equality in income tax % is intended to be flat (or "Fair")...the % of sales tax on items is where it needs to be progressive. I think where the plan needs to be refined is in the classifications of item types. You shouldnt tax bread at 20% sales tax...you tax it nominally <5% (if at all). In the example of people who make $40k/yr, they should be buying more bread than yachts. You also "need" bread...you do not need yachts. There will certainly be gray area items but there always are in making rules.

Even though I realize "classifying" items can sound like a slippery slope...we do this already. We just don't have the full tax loading in one spot. We put some on the raw materials...some on the manufacturing process of it...we put some on the distribution method of it, etc. I think simplification of the tax code is where things need to get to. And making it more simplified...makes it more equal across all income classes in terms of "gaming" the system.

Of course, something like this never happens barring a fundamental shift in the economic stature of this country (for the worse)...or government representatives making legislation which is not in their personal interests.

This.

The argument that CEO salaries are something that's been earned in a free market will not work until there's actually a free market involved. Does anyone think that with true competition there would not be an intense slashing of salaries in the upper management of corporations? That there would not be a committed, educated, qualified person to run a company willing to take a significant amount less than what's being given to these guys and gals?

This is not even to get into the government loopholes for corporations. I am all for the sentiment of what Rainmaker and others are saying about not taking things away from those who work hard and earn it. But what we have for corporations is not anything approaching a free market, and so it's difficult to say what they've "earned" versus what the system has been tilted to provide for them.

Though how exactly are CEO's not competiting in a free market? Have government pressures prevented it? Private hurdles are consistent with a free market.

Issidiqui, exactly what was posted above. Their salaries are not set by a competitive market, they're set by other CEOs, essentially. There is no incentive for them to make them competitive, as that would be lowering their own salary in the future. I think everyone would be happy to have their peers choose their salaries, wouldn't they? We'd all be making much more money.

Once again, as there is no government intervention, how is that not a free market? Its like saying that getting hired by big companies involves a Board of Directors getting involved and therefore it isn't free.

Besides there are PLENTY more than other CEOs on your average Board of Directors. Usually other companies' CEOs are a minor part.

Lack of government intervention does not equal free market when it comes to monopolies.

I think you have strange definitions of both free market and monopoly.

When a company or group of people have a monopoly over a situation, would you call it a "free market"?

It is incredibly and exceedingly strange to call the system of CEO compensation as a "monopoly". I think any economics professor would laugh you out of the room.

Secondly, yes, as long as there is not government intervention, the creation and sustaining of monopolies is not anthetical to a free market.

I was only responding to the fact that a lack of government intervention infers free market in the general sense, not in this specific CEO argument.


I'll certainly give you creation, no doubt. But if someone has a monopoly, how in the world can you call that a free market? It arose DUE to the free market, but the market run by the monopoly is not free at all.

Free market means the absense of government regulation. It does not mean perfect competition. That's something else entirely (and, of course, not attainable and pretty utopian due to asymetrical information). People tend to conflate the two, but make no mistake, anti-trust laws do not make a free market, but are in fact a measure that makes the market less free (though more competitive).

Yeah, you're right I was certainly conflating the two. So do we want to strive for "free market," then, or rather "perfect competition?"

Sure, though they wouldn't be as committed, as educated, or as qualified. If you dramatically slash pay you're going to get much worse people. Pretty simple.

A good CEO is probably underpaid in today's environment. It's a very tough job.

Companies that choose to pay tons to crappy CEOs get their own punishment eventually. But many other companies have obnoxiously paid CEOs that lead the company to success and more than pay for themselves.

The later. We want a good deal of aspects of a "free market", but tempered by sensible (sensible being the key word here) government regulation to allow for a more competitive marketplace (anti-trust laws, FCC competitiveness regulations, etc) and also sensible (that word again) government regulation on increasing the information available to consumers (you can't have more perfect competition with wide disparity in asymetric information).

You're talking about Iraq. I'm talking about Afghanistan. I've quoted, for you, Obama saying he would send more forces to Afghanistan. Quote, for me, the "liberal base" saying they expected forces to be drawn down in Afghanistan. Note that several members of FOFC in this thread who are ostensibly part of the "liberal base" expected more forces to be sent to Afghanistan.

Give me some hard evidence to contradict all that, or stop talking. And if they best you can do is quote Cindy Sheehan then your view of Obama's "liberal base" is not mine and we have nothing further to talk about on this subject.


You call this hypocrisy? Fuck you. When the GOP controlled Congress in the early days of Iraq they repeatedly neglected to fast-track appropriations for up-armored HMMVs, additional body armor, and other material support for troops on the ground, believing, for ages, that "it would be over soon". PEOPLE DIED BECAUSE OF THIS.

By the time the votes on the surge came around most of this had been corrected and the troops had the equipment they needed, and a vote on the surge could be a vote on the principle of continuing the war.

Your memory on this is seriously fucking selective, MBBF.


Without Al-Sadr's cease-fire and the Sunnis in Anbar province deciding they had had enough of Al-Qaeda, the surge would not have been as successful as it was. Let's not re-write history here.


And so, post-surge, Obama announced a plan to drawn down troops and let Iraq govern itself. Exactly what part of his policy here do you have an issue?


I'm not sure I would agree that Afghanistan was "settled" at the time of the invasion of Iraq. I'm thinking out loud here too (as you said), but at the time the Taliban was ousted and the Karzai government was installed. It would seem the other step to take would have been to assist the Karzai government to gain full security control over Afghanistan as early as possible - an operation that still required significant manpower, and that was exactly the moment manpower was taken away. This is to say nothing of the manpower (CIA) that was diverted from the search for bin Laden to the search for WMD in Iraq.

It's impossible to know what Bush would have done without Iraq, of course, but one thinks the logical solution in Afghanistan at that point would have been along the lines of establishing the reach of the government to all parts of Afghanistan, killing a few more AQ leaders, and then calling it a day.


Hey, I'm right there with you - I'd assume the Bush administration could have made a hash of invading Toronto. :D

Nevertheless, it appears the key problem in Afghanistan has been the Karzai government's inability to provide security in all parts of Afghanistan. Part of the reason for this, clearly, was the inability (which continues) of NATO to provide enough material support for the Karzai government. This has had two knock-on effects: the Karzai government has had to make deals, and cede power, to elements not necessarily 100% aligned with them and it has also allowed the Taliban to move back into areas where a power vacuum was not filled by the central government.



Despite the GOP's ability to implode themselves in the past two electoral cycles, and apparent drive to brand themselves as a bunch of nutjob fundies from the Southeast, any casual student of U.S. history knows that no majority is permanent. The GOP will, at some point, rise from its current difficulties and will win the White House and both houses of Congress again at some point. Now, I don't know how this will happen, and unfortunately our leading GOP lights on the board (Hi Cam!) seem more inclined to throw out snark than postulate a road to recovery for the GOP, but I assume it will happen.

I'm not interested in the terms, then. My point was that the contention by some that high upper management salaries being totally "earned" is not quite accurate in this system. CEOs and others earn an abnormally high amount because the system is gamed in their favor, not simply because of the value they bring to a firm.

And I would completely disagree with that. CEO salaries have risen as the immense profits of the companies has exploded. I don't see the whole Board of Directors necessarily all looking out for excutive officers thing that others are seeing.

No, I don't think this is true. Upper management salaries are artificially high becuase of a sort of collusion (and please let's not debate if I'm technically using this term correctly). I'm contending that management salaries would decrease signfiicantly while still drawing the same level of talent if a true sense of competition was introduced. My point is not that there are bad CEOs and good ones, my point is htat all of the CEOs and upper management are getting paid more than they would if there were not a lot of structures in place to inflate their salaries.

Lots of people have tough jobs. That doesn't mean they get paid accordingly. We don't get paid according to how tough our job is, we get paid based on our qualifications and the supply and demand at the position.

So why exactly where CEOs not getting paid so much in, say, the 1950s, with the SAME EXACT system in place?

And CEO salaries have risen at a disproportionate rate. Yes, they should share in the value of the company they have helped to create, but their salaries have risen more than the value of the company, while the majority of the company stays stagnant or goes backward.

In addition, CEOs of companies whose value has gone backwards continue to have rising salaries as well. Their salary is not tacked to company performance.

The board of directors thing seems obvious to me. The people deciding executive salaries are often executives at other firms, or on a career path to becoming an executive. Their interest has little to do with saving company money and maximizing efficiency, but with creating a market where executives like themselves make money. What do you think athlete salaries would look like if the salaries were decided by a group of pro players or pro and college hopefuls? Would they be trying to make the club lean and mean or would they be looking forward to thier future payday?

You're suggesting that the business regulation environment is the same now as it was in the '50s?

I mean, seriously, Boards of Directors are not going to pay their executive officers a ton of money because they like them. They are just in it for making insane amounts of money themselves. And one way to make insane amounts of money is to hire a really visionary and brilliant CEO. Hence they'll offer large amounts of money/stock options to hire the next Steve Jobs, etc.