Wait a second... are you saying that the Democratic Party controlling congress supported the evil Bush plan for dominance? Why didn't I ever read about that in the news??!!
Probably because the majority of the party was opposed. But a minority of Democrats + 100% of Republicans = sure passage. Any more questions?
Thanks for proving to the world that you are in fact completely retarded.
Problem: you're still 100% wrong, I'm 100% right, so once again you are firing a howitzer in a glass house.
You see, the bank crisis is a little newer than eight years, and claiming that someone has spouted anything at all related to a problem that is less than a year old for eight years shows a sever mental retardation.
This is what I'm talking about. Our banking crisis got rolling with the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Biliey Act, which removed depression-era firewalls between regular banking and investment banking. GLB was passed in 1999. Which was ten years ago. Which is a little older than 8 years.
It appears that you have jumped to the conclusion that I am a repugnican fan and a "follower" of the retard called G. W. Bush.
Yawn. If it walks like a wingnut, talks like a wingnut, doesn't know WTF he's talking about like a wingnut...chances are it's a wingnut.
Thank you again for proving my point - that CEO pay in this industry has no relations to his performance.
No, you dumb fat fuck, that proves my point that astronomical pay has everything to do with the current crisis, and that CEO's should be paid based on performance.
"Some bonuses are contractually promised, and are part of compensation for many employees who aren't involved in the high-stakes shenanigans that have brought about the current problems".
Funny how those "contractual obligations" don't apply to auto worker contracts. If the U.S. government is buying out these firms, there is no reason why they can't set stipulations in bankruptcy court. If your company has enough money to pay out bonuses, it has no business applying for taxpayer money.
Proof? Survey? Or did you pull this factoid out of thin air?
The last 8 years? Katrina? Haliburton? My best wishes on your continued recovery from the coma you've been in.
If they don't believe the government is any good - why are they working there?
To shovel loads of money into the hands of their corporate buddies. See: all the outsourcing of our defense budget. See: the continued denial of universal health care, weakening of any and all regulations, etc.
Transportation (somewhat relevant to this story), education, health care, environmental/drug regulation, space travel, nuclear reactors....you know, lots of stuff.
When I look at my state and federal income taxes each year there's no way in hell are you going to convince me that the government is "starved of resources".
Try looking beyond your navel to our annual budget deficit.
When the government employees get the same raise I do in a recession (0%) and get the same pension benefits (nonexistent) I might start to believe they are starved of resources.
Smashing, hating on other workers. Way to claw your class to the bottom.
When the feds finally decide we can't afford to keep troops in Japan, South Korea, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Kyrgystan, Bulgaria, Ecuador, and other countries I might start to believe the government has gone on a diet.
No argument there. We really should switch to a needs-based military. And with the world's two largest oceans surrounding us with two friendly nations on the other two sides, our actual defense needs are pretty damned small.
When the feds realize that no, we really can't afford a stunt like sending men to Mars then I might start to believe there's a little belt tightening going on.
Sure we can afford it. It's called slashing defense spending and bringing back the 91% top marginal tax rate.
Right now we have a President who sees no limits at all on how much the federal government can and should spend.
Amtrak has dragged it's feet on restoring the Sunset line east of New Orleans for over 3 years! Keep in mind that Amtrak now gets $2.6 BILLION annually.
The problem with Amtrak is that it's stuck in a vicious cycle. It has unprofitable routes, so it needs government subsidies to continue operations. To become profitable, it needs to cut out those unprofitable routes. But as a condition of funding, the politicians in Congress insist that Amtrak continue to offer service in their states/districts. So Amtrak is stuck running unprofitable routes and needs government funding...
But when gas prices hit $4 a gallon, ridership tripled. The problem with Amtrak isn't that Americans wont do rail or that it's government funded, it's that it's a half-assed venture.
You must have forgotten the part where I was talking about the period after 911. But even the outrage you site is perfectly justified, since Bush stole the election in 2001. If a statewide recount had been conducted in Florida, Gore would have won the state and the electoral vote along with the popular vote, even with all the GOP shenanigans (bogus voter felon list).
So you fail. Again. But at least now we know you weren't a coma patient.
You are massively underestimating the size of the US. A system like one in Japan or Korea is simply impossible, the resources don't exist.
That's the same argument used against high speed internet, and it's just as bogus here. The "but Amerika is ruural" argument does indeed explain why you can't get high speed access between Jerkwater, Wisconsin and Bumfuck, Wyoming. It doesn't explain why you can't go from NYC to Atlanta, or from Seattle to Los Angeles.
Remember Amtrack anyone? The giant government boondoggle that loses money every year?
The problem with Amtrak is that it's stuck in a vicious cycle. It has unprofitable routes, so it needs government subsidies to continue operations. To become profitable, it needs to cut out those unprofitable routes. But as a condition of funding, the politicians in Congress insist that Amtrak continue to offer service in their states/districts. So Amtrak is stuck running unprofitable routes and needs government funding...
What makes anyone think that Amtrack:TNG is going to be a better idea?
Um, the same reason we should implement Universal Health Care: almost every other industrialized nation manages to do it, with a much better system than what we have here in the U.S.
It's going to be a huge buildout expense
That's a plus right now with our crappy economy. We're loosing 600,000 jobs a month, and creating a high speed rail network will go a long way to plugging that hole. And it's not like the Interstate Highway system has been a drain on our economy...
disrupt many communities
So did the Interstate Highway system. And that problem has a two-word solution: eminent domain.
airports and new, small advanced planes that take far fewer people but connect small airports all over with mass transit in each city?
I thought you had a problem with major investments? And new planes will still be less fuel efficient than trains.
Have you even seen a train? They are massive, and require a ton of power to move.
So do planes.
You seem to have no concept of where true inefficiency lays.
Speak for yourself, Mr. Pot. There's a reason why boats are the most efficient means of transportation: their weight rests on the water. A train requires a lot of energy to get moving, but then its weight rests on the ground. But a plane has to provide lift in addition to forward motion.
You're complaining that a semi truck uses more fuel than a Prius, ignoring the fact that the semi moves far more weight per unit of fuel used than the Prius.
Because throwing money at a problem always fixes things!
Because not spending money has fixed so many problems. Of the stupider wingnut arguments, this one is high up on the list.
Because adding funds to Amtrack will bring the people that shunned it before when it was bigger back for some reason - even though there's no possibility we'd reduce spending on roads to encourage people to take rail!
Amtrak ridership tripled when gas was $4 a gallon. Amtrak's problem isn't that rail is an unfeasible option in America, it's that it has serious weaknesses when compared to driving or flying. Fixable weaknesses.
This is a plus, not a minus. We need millions of jobs to fix our economy, and a nationwide high speed rail network will go a long way to providing those jobs. And we have precedent: the Interstate Highway system has been a boon to our economy.
Total: Russia #1, then the US, then France. Per capita: Isreal #1, then Russia, France, Sweden, Malta, Switzerland, then US at #7. By pct. of GDP: #1 is Russia, then Uzbekistan, Jordan, Isreal, Macedonia..US is 16. Under Canada and the UK.
Nope. USA is #1. And aside from supplying arms, there's the long, long, long history of the CIA's meddling in other countries' affairs.
I was stating that the so called "good guys", the nations who objected to the Iraq invasion, were only protecting their own illegal trade.
Oh, of course it was for their own interests (as opposed to ours), it couldn't possibly be due to the facts (which we ignored).
Where was your righteous indignation when Clinton sent troops to Somalia, Haiti, and Kosovo?
And do let us know where and when Clinton lied about Somalia, Haiti and Kosovo being an imminent threat to the U.S. and pursing nuclear weapons, when he knew for a fact that wasn't the case. Until then, your examples couldn't be more pathetic and less relevant.
You chose that latter, which makes you a moron whether you were right on the particular point or not.
First you chose to spread around tired old wingnut BS, which the country has little patience for after 8 years. Talk like a moran, get treated like a moran.
The CEOs of the banks and financial institutions all got massive bonuses as their companies were in free-fall.
Here's a case where executive pay had a direct relation to losses: the top 5 securities companies lost $25.3 billion dollars last year. How much did they pay out in bonuses? $26 billion. w/o the bonuses, they barely would have lost any money.
Nobody KNEW the assets were overvalued, and in some cases, they still don't.
In the same way that "no one could have seen" the 9/11 attacks or the impact that hurricane Katrina would have on the Gulf coast. In other words: plenty of people predicted it, they were just ignored.
In the market I'm in, 2-3x income(In my case, 120-180k) will get you a VERY nice house. In big cities in Ontario or Alberta, however, that'll get you nice down payment on a house priced at 6-10x income (400-600k).
Whereas in Detroit, the average house goes for less than the price of a average new car. Housing is teh crazy.
Hint: when you grow up you'll find there's more to world than the press...An opinion, not a fact. Learn to tell the difference.
Place both hands on top of your shoulders, palms facing up, and push as hard as you can. Once you've pulled your head out of your ass, look up Bush's approval numbers after 9/11/2001 and through the invasion of Afganistan. They were astronomical, and that didn't change until him and Cheney and Rove decided that they would use the attacks for partisan gains and lie us into an invasion of Iraq.
In 2000, we knew Bush was a fool and a tool. In 2004, we knew Bush was a fool and a tool, had lied us into Iraq, violated habeaus corpus and the Bill of Rights, and an all around asshole. But that wasn't a problem for the wingnuts, anymore than Bush's draft dodging was an issue when they attacked Clinton for it in 1992. Like the gun nuts who said they voted for Bush over Kerry because they couldn't vote for a politician that supported gun control - nevermind that Bush said he supported existing gun control laws and would re-sign the assault weapons ban. But IOKIYAR.
Well, I give up - because it isn't Democrats or Republicans either.
So many people were so stupidly anti-W (on one hand, they'd criticize him mercilessly, and on the other hand write that anyone who criticized W would get thrown in Gitmo) then worshiped B.O. so blindly that it's just really pissed me off.
Only if:
1) You were in a coma in 2001-2002 or 2) You're this guy.
After 9/11/2001, Bush enjoyed astronomical approval ratings. 90% of the country was with him after the attacks, and through the invasion of Afganistan. It was only when Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of the GOP decided to use the tragedy for partisan gains (and an insane invasion of Iraq) that those approval ratings started to go down.
Whereas the right wing resistance to Obama is based on straight up bullshit. Just look at all those tea parties they had last week when Obama lowered their tax rates.
And even after that, the press didn't stop sucking his cock until Katrina wiped out the Gulf coast. Anger towards Bush is perfectly rational, and anyone who doesn't realize that was either a coma patient, or is a pathetic partisan hack. Which one are you?
The fact that you are a moron probably is not fixable. I hope they find a cure.
In general, people who have just been proven wrong don't get to call those who were right "morons". Only a moron would try that.
You have to stop stealing, lying and cheating on your wife. Oh, and the last one is a compliment, I am graciously assuming you have the ability to find a wife, which seems rather improbable.
Yawn.
You are assuming there would be a difference in pay depending on whether they did well and took risks or not.
Interesting. On what planet are CEO's not supposed to be paid according to the company's results?
But the flip side of up-front cost is resale value. A Buick might be cheaper than a Lexus, but the Lexus is going to retain far more of it's value than the Buick.
Except there is skin off Apple's nose - first in terms of a lost sale because I chose the cheaper $300 laptop (or $1100 Intel i7 PC) rather than the i7 Macintosh with $1000 markup.
You aren't interesting in buying their offerings and they aren't interested in offering what you're looking for: a $300 laptop. It's not any skin off their nose because they are interested in maintaining their (very profitable) business model, not reaching a high marketshare.
Slashdot Mirror
What annoys me is the way the main stream press doesn't correct it when a Republican hack does it.
Timmeh did it once, but I haven't seen anyone else do it. The definitive smackdown came from Rep. Weiner though.
Wait a second... are you saying that the Democratic Party controlling congress supported the evil Bush plan for dominance? Why didn't I ever read about that in the news??!!
Probably because the majority of the party was opposed. But a minority of Democrats + 100% of Republicans = sure passage. Any more questions?
So it was a quid pro quo instead of a bribe. So much better...
Are you that stupid, or just plain dishonest?
AM is a wingnut, so the answer to your question is "yes".
Thanks for proving to the world that you are in fact completely retarded.
Problem: you're still 100% wrong, I'm 100% right, so once again you are firing a howitzer in a glass house.
You see, the bank crisis is a little newer than eight years, and claiming that someone has spouted anything at all related to a problem that is less than a year old for eight years shows a sever mental retardation.
This is what I'm talking about. Our banking crisis got rolling with the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Biliey Act, which removed depression-era firewalls between regular banking and investment banking. GLB was passed in 1999. Which was ten years ago. Which is a little older than 8 years.
It appears that you have jumped to the conclusion that I am a repugnican fan and a "follower" of the retard called G. W. Bush.
Yawn. If it walks like a wingnut, talks like a wingnut, doesn't know WTF he's talking about like a wingnut...chances are it's a wingnut.
Thank you again for proving my point - that CEO pay in this industry has no relations to his performance.
No, you dumb fat fuck, that proves my point that astronomical pay has everything to do with the current crisis, and that CEO's should be paid based on performance.
"Some bonuses are contractually promised, and are part of compensation for many employees who aren't involved in the high-stakes shenanigans that have brought about the current problems".
Funny how those "contractual obligations" don't apply to auto worker contracts. If the U.S. government is buying out these firms, there is no reason why they can't set stipulations in bankruptcy court. If your company has enough money to pay out bonuses, it has no business applying for taxpayer money.
Then why say
Proof? Survey? Or did you pull this factoid out of thin air?
The last 8 years? Katrina? Haliburton? My best wishes on your continued recovery from the coma you've been in.
If they don't believe the government is any good - why are they working there?
To shovel loads of money into the hands of their corporate buddies. See: all the outsourcing of our defense budget. See: the continued denial of universal health care, weakening of any and all regulations, etc.
Name one thing.
Transportation (somewhat relevant to this story), education, health care, environmental/drug regulation, space travel, nuclear reactors....you know, lots of stuff.
When I look at my state and federal income taxes each year there's no way in hell are you going to convince me that the government is "starved of resources".
Try looking beyond your navel to our annual budget deficit.
When the government employees get the same raise I do in a recession (0%) and get the same pension benefits (nonexistent) I might start to believe they are starved of resources.
Smashing, hating on other workers. Way to claw your class to the bottom.
When the feds finally decide we can't afford to keep troops in Japan, South Korea, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Kyrgystan, Bulgaria, Ecuador, and other countries I might start to believe the government has gone on a diet.
No argument there. We really should switch to a needs-based military. And with the world's two largest oceans surrounding us with two friendly nations on the other two sides, our actual defense needs are pretty damned small.
When the feds realize that no, we really can't afford a stunt like sending men to Mars then I might start to believe there's a little belt tightening going on.
Sure we can afford it. It's called slashing defense spending and bringing back the 91% top marginal tax rate.
Right now we have a President who sees no limits at all on how much the federal government can and should spend.
[Citation needed]
Amtrak has dragged it's feet on restoring the Sunset line east of New Orleans for over 3 years! Keep in mind that Amtrak now gets $2.6 BILLION annually.
The problem with Amtrak is that it's stuck in a vicious cycle. It has unprofitable routes, so it needs government subsidies to continue operations. To become profitable, it needs to cut out those unprofitable routes. But as a condition of funding, the politicians in Congress insist that Amtrak continue to offer service in their states/districts. So Amtrak is stuck running unprofitable routes and needs government funding...
But when gas prices hit $4 a gallon, ridership tripled. The problem with Amtrak isn't that Americans wont do rail or that it's government funded, it's that it's a half-assed venture.
Then you must have forgotten the vitriolic hate:
You must have forgotten the part where I was talking about the period after 911. But even the outrage you site is perfectly justified, since Bush stole the election in 2001. If a statewide recount had been conducted in Florida, Gore would have won the state and the electoral vote along with the popular vote, even with all the GOP shenanigans (bogus voter felon list).
So you fail. Again. But at least now we know you weren't a coma patient.
You are massively underestimating the size of the US. A system like one in Japan or Korea is simply impossible, the resources don't exist.
That's the same argument used against high speed internet, and it's just as bogus here. The "but Amerika is ruural" argument does indeed explain why you can't get high speed access between Jerkwater, Wisconsin and Bumfuck, Wyoming. It doesn't explain why you can't go from NYC to Atlanta, or from Seattle to Los Angeles.
Remember Amtrack anyone? The giant government boondoggle that loses money every year?
The problem with Amtrak is that it's stuck in a vicious cycle. It has unprofitable routes, so it needs government subsidies to continue operations. To become profitable, it needs to cut out those unprofitable routes. But as a condition of funding, the politicians in Congress insist that Amtrak continue to offer service in their states/districts. So Amtrak is stuck running unprofitable routes and needs government funding...
What makes anyone think that Amtrack:TNG is going to be a better idea?
Um, the same reason we should implement Universal Health Care: almost every other industrialized nation manages to do it, with a much better system than what we have here in the U.S.
It's going to be a huge buildout expense
That's a plus right now with our crappy economy. We're loosing 600,000 jobs a month, and creating a high speed rail network will go a long way to plugging that hole. And it's not like the Interstate Highway system has been a drain on our economy...
disrupt many communities
So did the Interstate Highway system. And that problem has a two-word solution: eminent domain.
airports and new, small advanced planes that take far fewer people but connect small airports all over with mass transit in each city?
I thought you had a problem with major investments? And new planes will still be less fuel efficient than trains.
Have you even seen a train? They are massive, and require a ton of power to move.
So do planes.
You seem to have no concept of where true inefficiency lays.
Speak for yourself, Mr. Pot. There's a reason why boats are the most efficient means of transportation: their weight rests on the water. A train requires a lot of energy to get moving, but then its weight rests on the ground. But a plane has to provide lift in addition to forward motion.
You're complaining that a semi truck uses more fuel than a Prius, ignoring the fact that the semi moves far more weight per unit of fuel used than the Prius.
Because throwing money at a problem always fixes things!
Because not spending money has fixed so many problems. Of the stupider wingnut arguments, this one is high up on the list.
Because adding funds to Amtrack will bring the people that shunned it before when it was bigger back for some reason - even though there's no possibility we'd reduce spending on roads to encourage people to take rail!
Amtrak ridership tripled when gas was $4 a gallon. Amtrak's problem isn't that rail is an unfeasible option in America, it's that it has serious weaknesses when compared to driving or flying. Fixable weaknesses.
Deregulation would cause MORE competition, not less.
Yes, just as the 1996 Telecom Act paved the way for much greater competition in ISP's and in television/newspapers.
Not.
While regulation doesn't automatically mean more competition, deregulation always means for less because of buyouts/mergers.
This is a plus, not a minus. We need millions of jobs to fix our economy, and a nationwide high speed rail network will go a long way to providing those jobs. And we have precedent: the Interstate Highway system has been a boon to our economy.
One: we need lots of jobs to fix the economy. Updating & laying track for high speed rail across the country will make hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Two & Three have an easy fix: eminent domain.
Total: Russia #1, then the US, then France.
Per capita: Isreal #1, then Russia, France, Sweden, Malta, Switzerland, then US at #7.
By pct. of GDP: #1 is Russia, then Uzbekistan, Jordan, Isreal, Macedonia..US is 16. Under Canada and the UK.
Source:http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_con_arm_exp-military-conventional-arms-exports
Nope. USA is #1. And aside from supplying arms, there's the long, long, long history of the CIA's meddling in other countries' affairs.
I was stating that the so called "good guys", the nations who objected to the Iraq invasion, were only protecting their own illegal trade.
Oh, of course it was for their own interests (as opposed to ours), it couldn't possibly be due to the facts (which we ignored).
Where was your righteous indignation when Clinton sent troops to Somalia, Haiti, and Kosovo?
And do let us know where and when Clinton lied about Somalia, Haiti and Kosovo being an imminent threat to the U.S. and pursing nuclear weapons, when he knew for a fact that wasn't the case. Until then, your examples couldn't be more pathetic and less relevant.
You chose that latter, which makes you a moron whether you were right on the particular point or not.
First you chose to spread around tired old wingnut BS, which the country has little patience for after 8 years. Talk like a moran, get treated like a moran.
The CEOs of the banks and financial institutions all got massive bonuses as their companies were in free-fall.
Here's a case where executive pay had a direct relation to losses: the top 5 securities companies lost $25.3 billion dollars last year. How much did they pay out in bonuses? $26 billion. w/o the bonuses, they barely would have lost any money.
Nobody KNEW the assets were overvalued, and in some cases, they still don't.
In the same way that "no one could have seen" the 9/11 attacks or the impact that hurricane Katrina would have on the Gulf coast. In other words: plenty of people predicted it, they were just ignored.
In the market I'm in, 2-3x income(In my case, 120-180k) will get you a VERY nice house. In big cities in Ontario or Alberta, however, that'll get you nice down payment on a house priced at 6-10x income (400-600k).
Whereas in Detroit, the average house goes for less than the price of a average new car. Housing is teh crazy.
Hint: when you grow up you'll find there's more to world than the press...An opinion, not a fact. Learn to tell the difference.
Place both hands on top of your shoulders, palms facing up, and push as hard as you can. Once you've pulled your head out of your ass, look up Bush's approval numbers after 9/11/2001 and through the invasion of Afganistan. They were astronomical, and that didn't change until him and Cheney and Rove decided that they would use the attacks for partisan gains and lie us into an invasion of Iraq.
In 2000, we knew Bush was a fool and a tool. In 2004, we knew Bush was a fool and a tool, had lied us into Iraq, violated habeaus corpus and the Bill of Rights, and an all around asshole. But that wasn't a problem for the wingnuts, anymore than Bush's draft dodging was an issue when they attacked Clinton for it in 1992. Like the gun nuts who said they voted for Bush over Kerry because they couldn't vote for a politician that supported gun control - nevermind that Bush said he supported existing gun control laws and would re-sign the assault weapons ban. But IOKIYAR.
Well, I give up - because it isn't Democrats or Republicans either.
Liar.
So many people were so stupidly anti-W (on one hand, they'd criticize him mercilessly, and on the other hand write that anyone who criticized W would get thrown in Gitmo) then worshiped B.O. so blindly that it's just really pissed me off.
Only if:
1) You were in a coma in 2001-2002 or
2) You're this guy.
After 9/11/2001, Bush enjoyed astronomical approval ratings. 90% of the country was with him after the attacks, and through the invasion of Afganistan. It was only when Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of the GOP decided to use the tragedy for partisan gains (and an insane invasion of Iraq) that those approval ratings started to go down.
Whereas the right wing resistance to Obama is based on straight up bullshit. Just look at all those tea parties they had last week when Obama lowered their tax rates.
And even after that, the press didn't stop sucking his cock until Katrina wiped out the Gulf coast. Anger towards Bush is perfectly rational, and anyone who doesn't realize that was either a coma patient, or is a pathetic partisan hack. Which one are you?
The fact that you are a moron probably is not fixable. I hope they find a cure.
In general, people who have just been proven wrong don't get to call those who were right "morons". Only a moron would try that.
You have to stop stealing, lying and cheating on your wife. Oh, and the last one is a compliment, I am graciously assuming you have the ability to find a wife, which seems rather improbable.
Yawn.
You are assuming there would be a difference in pay depending on whether they did well and took risks or not.
Interesting. On what planet are CEO's not supposed to be paid according to the company's results?
Comparing a Mac II with a ton of disk space and cool add-on cards to a PC with no HDD and dual floppies challenged belief.
Uh huh. And could you even get an equivalent PC if you spent $10,000? And isn't this coming up on 30 years ago - hold grudges much?
But the flip side of up-front cost is resale value. A Buick might be cheaper than a Lexus, but the Lexus is going to retain far more of it's value than the Buick.
To sit there and deny those obvious two facts seems as stupid to me as Californians who deny they live on an earthquake-prone fault.
Hey, I saw your picture the other day!
Except there is skin off Apple's nose - first in terms of a lost sale because I chose the cheaper $300 laptop (or $1100 Intel i7 PC) rather than the i7 Macintosh with $1000 markup.
You aren't interesting in buying their offerings and they aren't interested in offering what you're looking for: a $300 laptop. It's not any skin off their nose because they are interested in maintaining their (very profitable) business model, not reaching a high marketshare.