Giving janitors, teachers, waitresses, cops, firefighters, cashiers and plumbers a break is not socialism!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Do you advocate income redistribution by force?

Progressive taxation, which is the model we use in this country (and which McCain has not disavowed), redistributes income by definition. So what exactly are you on about?

If progressive taxation is the model we use in this country, as you say, why isn't it good enuf? Why change it?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

God forbid we look out for others, so we as a collective are better for it, than focus solely on me myself and I.

Do you mean "we" the people, or do you mean the government as benevolent surrogate? Do you advocate income redistribution by force?

Income redistribution by force has taken place for decades now. Income has been re-distributed by force from the bottom to the top. The numbers illustrate that impressively.

1980: Rank-and-File vs. CEO compensation - 1:40

2008: Rank-and-File vs. CEO compensation - 1:450

And this trend is aggravated by the fact that top earners effectively pay lower tax rates than medium earners. Buffet says he pays less than 20% of his income in taxes while his secretary pays about 30%. That's wrong any way you slice it.

[Danno 1,228]

God forbid we look out for others, so we as a collective are better for it, than focus solely on me myself and I.

You actually think some politician climbing the ladder is looking out for you?

We should always look out for others, it's the American way, look around your town and just DO iT, ....you don't need to send your money to Washington to do that. Hell, the majority of every dollar sent gets eaten up before it to it';s intended place anyway.

When people are directly involved with where there money goes, it is way less likely to be wasted on worthless projects and dead beats who expect others to do what they can... and should do for themselves.

Now get out there and help your neighbors!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

CEO pay is set by the board of directors of a company. Do you want the government to control that?

God forbid we look out for others, so we as a collective are better for it, than focus solely on me myself and I.

Do you mean "we" the people, or do you mean the government as benevolent surrogate? Do you advocate income redistribution by force?

Income redistribution by force has taken place for decades now. Income has been re-distributed by force from the bottom to the top. The numbers illustrate that impressively.

1980: Rank-and-File vs. CEO compensation - 1:40

2008: Rank-and-File vs. CEO compensation - 1:450

And this trend is aggravated by the fact that top earners effectively pay lower tax rates than medium earners. Buffet says he pays less than 20% of his income in taxes while his secretary pays about 30%. That's wrong any way you slice it.

You actually think some politician climbing the ladder is looking out for you?

As far as I can tell, that's what people are expecting.

[NickD 203]

I never got a dime from the government, well not at least until last summer with that rebate that was only a small percentage of the taxes we paid in. We are saving that for next years taxes. Surely they will want that back plus the money they will want to buy Paulsen's defunct mortgages. We were suppose to use that money to buy stuff made in the USA, but gave up trying to find anything that was made here. Maybe something real old on ebay.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

CEO pay is set by the board of directors of a company. Do you want the government to control that?

God forbid we look out for others, so we as a collective are better for it, than focus solely on me myself and I.

Do you mean "we" the people, or do you mean the government as benevolent surrogate? Do you advocate income redistribution by force?

Income redistribution by force has taken place for decades now. Income has been re-distributed by force from the bottom to the top. The numbers illustrate that impressively.

1980: Rank-and-File vs. CEO compensation - 1:40

2008: Rank-and-File vs. CEO compensation - 1:450

And this trend is aggravated by the fact that top earners effectively pay lower tax rates than medium earners. Buffet says he pays less than 20% of his income in taxes while his secretary pays about 30%. That's wrong any way you slice it.

Seeing that these guys sit on each other's boards, there's not much of a control mechanism. Again, the numbers speak volumes.

[Cassie 8]

God forbid we look out for others, so we as a collective are better for it, than focus solely on me myself and I.

You actually think some politician climbing the ladder is looking out for you?

We should always look out for others, it's the American way, look around your town and just DO iT, ....you don't need to send your money to Washington to do that. Hell, the majority of every dollar sent gets eaten up before it to it';s intended place anyway.

When people are directly involved with where there money goes, it is way less likely to be wasted on worthless projects and dead beats who expect others to do what they can... and should do for themselves.

Now get out there and help your neighbors!

I'm talking about we the people, not politicians. However, I appreciate Sen. Obama's emphasis on community service that he has talked about on numerous occasions. I am, however, realistic about politicians. I expect little, and get pleasantly surprised when they exceed that expectation.

And I'm already out there helping my neighbours, actually. But thanks for the admonishment.

[HAL 9000 96]

It's socialism. Giving government money to support business isn't socialism. Giving government money to support people is socialism. I make perfect sense.

God forbid we look out for others, so we as a collective are better for it, than focus solely on me myself and I.

Its 'OK' as long as we put a religious tag on it. Make it a secular, thing that has to do with being ethical, moral, and the likes and it makes you a bleeding heart socialista.

[HAL 9000 96]

CEO pay is set by the board of directors of a company. Do you want the government to control that?

God forbid we look out for others, so we as a collective are better for it, than focus solely on me myself and I.

Do you mean "we" the people, or do you mean the government as benevolent surrogate? Do you advocate income redistribution by force?

Income redistribution by force has taken place for decades now. Income has been re-distributed by force from the bottom to the top. The numbers illustrate that impressively.

1980: Rank-and-File vs. CEO compensation - 1:40

2008: Rank-and-File vs. CEO compensation - 1:450

And this trend is aggravated by the fact that top earners effectively pay lower tax rates than medium earners. Buffet says he pays less than 20% of his income in taxes while his secretary pays about 30%. That's wrong any way you slice it.

Seeing that these guys sit on each other's boards, there's not much of a control mechanism. Again, the numbers speak volumes.

And that these CEOs frequently move into 'regulatory' (note the misnomer there) roles within the US Government, you have to wonder sometimes... where priorities lie.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

CEO pay is set by the board of directors of a company. Do you want the government to control that?

God forbid we look out for others, so we as a collective are better for it, than focus solely on me myself and I.

Do you mean "we" the people, or do you mean the government as benevolent surrogate? Do you advocate income redistribution by force?

Income redistribution by force has taken place for decades now. Income has been re-distributed by force from the bottom to the top. The numbers illustrate that impressively.

1980: Rank-and-File vs. CEO compensation - 1:40

2008: Rank-and-File vs. CEO compensation - 1:450

And this trend is aggravated by the fact that top earners effectively pay lower tax rates than medium earners. Buffet says he pays less than 20% of his income in taxes while his secretary pays about 30%. That's wrong any way you slice it.

Seeing that these guys sit on each other's boards, there's not much of a control mechanism. Again, the numbers speak volumes.

WHat kind of control mechanism would be preferable?

[Danno 1,228]

It's socialism. Giving government money to support business isn't socialism. Giving government money to support people is socialism. I make perfect sense.

God forbid we look out for others, so we as a collective are better for it, than focus solely on me myself and I.

Its 'OK' as long as we put a religious tag on it. Make it a secular, thing that has to do with being ethical, moral, and the likes and it makes you a bleeding heart socialista.

Most Religious based charity groups are supported mostly by churches or the local community. (Salvation Army)

MAny (or most) secular based organizations live at the Gov/t nipple, even so there are many well respected. (United-way)

Which one are you referring to that are considered "Bleeding heart socialista"?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

CEO pay is set by the board of directors of a company. Do you want the government to control that?

God forbid we look out for others, so we as a collective are better for it, than focus solely on me myself and I.

Do you mean "we" the people, or do you mean the government as benevolent surrogate? Do you advocate income redistribution by force?

Income redistribution by force has taken place for decades now. Income has been re-distributed by force from the bottom to the top. The numbers illustrate that impressively.

1980: Rank-and-File vs. CEO compensation - 1:40

2008: Rank-and-File vs. CEO compensation - 1:450

And this trend is aggravated by the fact that top earners effectively pay lower tax rates than medium earners. Buffet says he pays less than 20% of his income in taxes while his secretary pays about 30%. That's wrong any way you slice it.

Seeing that these guys sit on each other's boards, there's not much of a control mechanism. Again, the numbers speak volumes.

WHat kind of control mechanism would be preferable?

A mechanism where they can't effectively write their own tickets. A mechanism that holds them accountable for failure. If you want to earn big when you grow the company you work for, then you have to be willing to take a hit when you don't - after all, risk-taking is one of the center pieces of entrepreneurship. But today, these guys walk away with millions either way and that is a problem. Remember the airlines taking billions for the taxpayer, demanding billions in concessions from their workers while the CEO's fattened their packages? You might find that acceptable. I sure don't think that these guys need welfare checks from the taxpayer and the rank and file which is exactly what they got.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog