jjamie12

Awesome! Sounds like things are great in Gatorland. Edit: Damn, you guys move the goalposts around. How will capping CEO pay help anyone except the shareholders of those companies?

Bleh. What do you think it means to 'upgrade' the models? That seems like exactly what they should be doing. Not everything needs to be spun so horribly.

This will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS be the case. People will have good, very successful, parents. Other people will have terrible, very successful parents. Other people will have good, but not 'successful' parents and even others will have terrible, not successful parents. What should we do about that? How will regulating CEO pay help those kids?

While this could be true -- the absolute amount of people moving out of their strata -- the most important thing about the country and economy is not *whether* people do it, but that the *opportunity* exists to do so.

I mean, I really do feel for these folks. I do. I grew up in New York's version of Appalachia in the Southern Tier. But the world has changed. We are no longer the only country in the world capable of large-scale manufacturing because the infrastructure of the rest of the developed world has been destroyed by WWII. The problem is NOT that CEOs make $xxx. The problem is that the 'good old days' were never sustainable. They're not coming back. The fact that these folks are lamenting their troubles while spending money in a vape shop gives some insight into this, doesn't it? I mean, the one guy talks about how one bad decision shouldn't doom him to failure (of course it shouldn't, depending on the severity of the one bad choice - nobody disagrees with that), then goes on to list at least three mistakes he's made while spending money smoking -- he's not *really* trying, is he? And I don't think anyone here is suggesting that there shouldn't be a safety net of some sort. But CEO pay has (almost) nothing to do with their lot in life. On another note: I am not comfortable with the amount of money that CEOs make (I would honestly be embarrassed to be making the amount some of these guys make while simultaneously firing people and cutting expenses), but am TOTALLY uncomfortable with the idea that government should have ANYTHING to do with setting limits on that. If shareholders (owners) are good with it, then why shouldn't I be?

What you keep on missing is that the "100's of millions per year" won't go to other workers. It will go to the corporation's bottom line.

It's actually the circle jerk's opinion that 2/3 of the US population have (and continue to make) poor financial decisions. Why you feel the need to ascribe words like "worthless", "low-life", and "scumbags" to that is your issue.

Are we SURE that the reason for the punishment from the university is for defending the right of the conservative student to express his opinion? Something just seems kind of fishy... For example, I COULD see the university taking this action if the discipline is for something like 'outing' a colleague on the basis of an illegally recorded conversation. I'll point out that I don't really know what the actual stated *reason* from the university is for the discipline, but that I could understand the action if my 'scenario' was the reason. I DO know that I don't care enough about this to try and find out

You're such an ass. Really and truly. Wake the eff up.

So then why does Dorkington's : "People who earn that much money can afford it, and there are lots of people who could use that help." justification not work for you? I know that's not EXACTLY what he said, but it's pretty clear that this is what he means. I don't agree with him, but this diversion from "What's the right tax rate?" to "Morally justify taxation" isn't really adding to the discussion, it's taking away from it. It was interesting to see a back and forth about flat taxes, progressive taxes, and then to look at a candidate's proposal. Discussion has now ceased, based on "Morally justify taxation!", which isn't helpful, particularly because he DID justify it in the philosophical sense, just not using the language you want, I think.

Well.. To be fair: He never was attempting to establish a moral basis for taxation. TYTT is actually the one who introduced the concept into this discussion, which (imo) really isn't a super fun thing to talk about, because there isn't such a thing. How can you establish a 'moral' basis for any taxation, let alone one for a very specific (read 52%) percentage? After all, aren't morals personal? My morals aren't the same as TYTT's or DC Tom's or Dorkington's. It's a silly point to get caught up on becuase it doesn't really matter if it's moral or not. It just 'is'. It's almost as silly as trying to point out a minor detail on an message board debate between two anonymous people you don't know.

Sure. Let's hire a lawyer, professor and one term Senator to be the President. What could go wrong? Edit: In my opinion one of the legitimate criticisms of President Obama is the fact that his resume wasn't really up to par. He had never actually had to get something done before. He's great at giving speeches, inspiring people and getting elected, but doesn't appear to have the leadership abilities required to bring people together to get things done -- I, personally, won't ever make that mistake again. Unfortunately, it eliminates almost everyone in the field for me, but, I couldn't, in good conscience, ever cast a vote for Ted Cruz in 2016. His resume doesn't work for me, independent of any personal political agreement or disagreement.

Yes. This one number in one week of the year describes the effect of a health insurance law on labor entirely.

I agree. The ignorance here IS simply astounding.