Exactly what is the definition of "Fair Share?"

[LadyFairfax]

No answer from the 'big idea' guy with no consideration for detail consequence.

He's an idiot.

Mind you, the idiot did not multiply $25 by 100 and get $25000. You did that one.
He also did not multiply $70 by 100 and get $70,000. You on that one too.

I also do not believe that the forumlae called for a mandatory 100x multiplier from average worker's salary to CEO salary.

Before dropping the I bomb, and accusing him for no 'consideration for detail' try at the very least to be accurate in targeting. This is the sort of inaccuracy that kills 24 Pakistani soldiers and closes the airspace/ground routes.

 

[Sean]

It really has been a bumper year for Ishtard when it comes to epic fail posts.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It really has been a bumper year for Ishtard when it comes to epic fail posts.

Oh I must disagree! At best, this has been a "bronze medal" year for Ishmael fail posts, falling far short of his "silver medal" effort in 2008 and of course his "gold medal" failure of the legendary 2003 posting year (that was the year Ishmael blessed us with his "oil is actually a renewable resource" theory, which would have won him the Nobel prize in science had it not been for the librul bias of those dastards in Sweden.

"Oil is a renewable resource and there is PEER-REVIEWED science to back this up: Oil is burned by consumers, releasing hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. Hydrocarbons mix with water vapor in clouds, returning to Earth as rain. Since hydrocarbons weigh significantly more than water, they are absorbed into the ground faster, sinking beneath the water table. There they pool into reservoirs and coalesce into petroleum, and the cycle begins anew".

Sing it with me people! "♫♫ It's the circle, the cirrrrrrcle of liiiiifffffffffffffe ♫♫"

 

[Ishmael]

Mind you, the idiot did not multiply $25 by 100 and get $25000. You did that one.
He also did not multiply $70 by 100 and get $70,000. You on that one too.

I also do not believe that the forumlae called for a mandatory 100x multiplier from average worker's salary to CEO salary.

Before dropping the I bomb, and accusing him for no 'consideration for detail' try at the very least to be accurate in targeting. This is the sort of inaccuracy that kills 24 Pakistani soldiers and closes the airspace/ground routes.

Good catch, and thank good the CEO of GM will now only make $14 million.

Ishmael

 

[richard_daily]

You cannot be a radical right wing fascist. The ideologies are opposites.

More lies from the KK Kamp.

Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.

~Benito Mussolini "The Doctrine of Fascism"

 

[Sean Renaud]

Of course you've verified that C&P, right?

Starting with the anti-trust portion, just how big is that and who makes that determination? Is that a fixed number or a number that floats in relation to a percentage of GDP? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Lovely, Wage and Price controls. That's worked so well in the past. So the avg. Gm worker is compensated at somewhere in the neighborhood of $70/hr. Obviously under your formula the CEO should be compensated at $70,000/hr. Thus bringing his compensation to $142,800,000.00/yr. I can see a LOT of CEO's jumping your band wagon.

How about a guy that's started his own plumbing company that pays his skilled employees an avg. of $25/hr. Under your formula he should be paying himself $25,000/hr.

Of course your retort will/should be, "Silly Ishmael, the 100x is an absolute cap, not a cast in stone law." Fine, does this law include ALL forms of compensation? Would a company founder have to surrender stock in order to meet your limits should the value of the company increase to the extent that those limits were exceeded? Who should he surrender his stock, private property, too?

Ishmael

I don't copy and paste.

That said we can work on the details of how big is too big at a later date. The fact is there is a point at which you are too large as a company and a good indication of when your too big is when you can walk into Congress and threaten the stability of the nation and not get laughed right back out the door. The fact that the big three had were large enough that not only did Congress entertain them, it bailed them out post haste with heavy support from both parties that we have a problem.

You fail so hard at math I'm not even going to address that point. I mean WOW. I think from now on you should have a twelve year old read all your posts and tell you if they make sense or not. It would be of tremendous help.

 

[Wrong Element]

Ah, now I understand, you're a moron.

Ah, Unclebill. Gone but not forgotten--and apparently no longer even gone. A man who no doubt has typed more words in his 2000 posts than Busybody has in 150,000.

He may or may not be a moron, but he's definitely one of those fake-ass "Lit Libertarians" we all know and love--probably the original model, judging from his join date. He'll prattle on about "MaObama" but never has a thing to say about Big Brotherism on the right.

Me and Unclebill got into it a few times back in the GB's Glory Years about his full-throated support of the Schwarzenegger recall--itself a bizarre viewpoint for any libertarian to take. I'm sure he won't want to remind anyone about his love for Ahnald. That's why I'm here. That, and the fantasy baseball.

 

[LadyFairfax]

More lies from the KK Kamp.


~Benito Mussolini "The Doctrine of Fascism"

Jesus wept,

You are the dumbest person on Lit.

Bar none.

 

[Unclebill]

Ah, now I understand, you're a moron.

Of course you understand. And your response helps others understand the liberal mindset: I state a fact and I'm a moron.

You remind me of something I experienced a few years back in an exchange with another liberal. I used the word 'thug' in a post I made. A liberal responded that 'thug' was a 'code word' for black, hence I am a racist. This also provides some valuable insight into the liberal mindset: I mention the word thug, he correlates it to mean black, and I'm the racist. This epitomizes 'liberal thinking'.

Son of a gun, how ya doing UB? Haven't seen you in ages.

Some of the rationalizations in this thread certainly stretch the threshold of credulity.

Ishmael

It's been a while. I've been doing some reading and learning a little more of American history. It's been an awakening to learn what I have of some of the real slugs in our history. A great example of totally missing information from my education in history is that nowhere was I ever taught that there were blacks among the Founding Fathers, that in fact there were black signers of the Declaration of Independence.

Learning what I have of the history of the Democrat Party, I am astounded that anyone could support that political party: the party of slavery, the party of Jim Crow Law, the party of the KKK, the party of lynchings, etc. In particular, it amazes me that a black American could support that party! And since FDR, it has been the de fact American Communist Party. Have you read New Deal or Raw Deal] by Burton W. Folsom? It provides a real education on the FDR administration. No wonder he's the ultimate liberal icon! What a despicable SOB!

As ever, liberalism is intensely allergic to facts and reality. 'Liberal thinking' is a contradiction in terms. Reasoning seems to be beyond them and abstractions seem to be something with which they have serious problems dealing.

Equality is a good example. Liberals can't seem to grasp equality in terms of rights, an abstract concept, but can only deal with it in terms of tangibles, e.g., equality of outcome, i.e., everybody should be given the same amount of wealth regardless of their contribution to its creation. From where does the wealth to be equally distributed come? Somewhere. By whom is it created? Someone.

This is the mindset of the woman who was enamored with the idea that once Obama was elected, she would be the recipient of some free "Obama money" which she figured he would just get from "his stash"! It probably never occurred to her and certainly didn't matter that "his stash" was the tax money from her fellow Americans confiscated by a collectivist government.

The thing that amazed me was the honesty inadvertently revealed during the Clinton debacle. I expect you recall the very public, very 'thoughtful' liberal debate over the question: "Does character matter in a leader?"

After much 'debate' [public liberal banter], they finally decided that since Bill Clinton was such a great leader, that in fact, NO, character doesn't matter.

I note that this is a position diametrically opposed to conservatives who shunned a southern governor [name forgotten now] when it came out that he was having an affair with some South American woman.

The bit of inadvertent honesty to which I refer is the open revelation that liberals admittedly eschew principles.

The dictionary defines character as "moral excellence and firmness". It was something the Founding Fathers thought indispensable in a leader.

In my own terms, I see character as the manifestation in words and actions of the person's most closely and deeply held principles. Thus to declare that character doesn't matter is to declare that principles don't matter.

And if you observe liberal/progressive/collectivist behaviors for any period of time, that is a consistent demonstration of reality: to liberals, principles don't matter.

Lies seem to be the foundation of their philosophical ideas, e.g., they deny they are collectivists yet all the wealth redistribution schemes are liberal schemes. They are for incessant regulation which is collectivist. They are anti-free market which is collectivist.

They are racist despite their denials because they are the primary advocates for Affirmative Action which is the liberal version of Jim Crow Law, i.e., people should be treated differently by the law based on their race or some other physical trait.

They claim to be for freedom but virtually everything for which they advocate is the opposite of freedom.

In response to your signature question, I'm not sure it's possible? Is there any way to return from being anti-America?

Firstly Uncle Bill isn't winning. Secondly if he can be perceived as such it's only because he has 70 years worth of copy and paste that hasn't been sufficiently slandered and in America the idea that you deserve anything has been completely thrashed. It's not a difficult concept even if it's difficult to verbalize.

It's not about winning, it's about the facts and the truth.

Your 'Secondly' sentence is so convoluted it is difficult to decode. However, it sounds as if you see a necessity to slander previous posts I have made although I deny 70 years of such which is pretty well supportable since Lit has only existed within the past 20 years. But let's not allow fact and reality to get in the way of a good rant.

I must admit I admire your candor in admitting that you see the need to utter injuriously misleading or false reports [slander] regarding my past posts.

As to the second idea, who has 'completely thrashed' the idea that in America you deserve something? Is this more liberal 'wealth redistribution' speak?

If the concept is so simple, how can it be so difficult to verbalize?

I suspect a good starting point would be expanding the anti-trust laws to say that no company should be allowed to grow large enough that they can single handedly threaten the economy of the nation as a whole. Lets start there and then maybe tie CEO pay to the average pay of an employee. Lets say 100x the pay of the average worker? It would never hurt a small business owner but it would stop what's happened in America. We can work on "fair" in a number of ways but the reality is that we have a problem and it needs fixin.

More collectivist rhetoric here. What are the anti-trust laws? They are a group of laws so vague and so non-specific that the accused cannot have any way of knowing if he violated the law or not until the verdict is rendered. IOW, they are laws designed to support tyrannical government by giving the government arbitrary power which is the objective of collectivism/liberalism/progressivism.

If freedom is your objective, then your advocacy is to repeal anti-trust and every other law that is arbitrary in nature or establishes some aspect of collectivism.

A hallmark of tyranny is arbitrary government authority.

I challenge you to name an anti-trust action which resulted in a better deal for the consumer who is purported to be the ultimate beneficiary of these tyrannical laws. It didn't happen in the case of Standard Oil, nor in the case of Alcoa, nor AT&T nor Microsoft. In all these cases, the legal action was the result of competitors who were unable to meet the market challenges resorted to using their political influence to have government step in and force the most efficient member of their market sector raise prices so they could 'continue to compete' when they were not able to compete in the free market.

Tying executive pay to laborer pay is another fallacious collectivist idea. The problem is that it ignores the value each contributes to the value of the company. For example, when Jack Welch became the GE CEO in 1981, GE was worth $14B. When he left that position after 20 years, GE was worth $500B. Who contributed more to GE's net worth over that 20 year period? The average employee or Jack Welch through his management decisions and strategies?

This is the reality that liberals can't seem to grasp which apparently is why they are advocates of such asinine ideas as this.

And Welch was castigated in the media for his severance pay of a few hundred million dollars and I believe use of a company aircraft when he desired in his retirement. If Welch had been paid only one-half of one percent of the company's increase in worth over the period of his stewardship as CEO, his compensation would have been a little over $2.4B.

How much wealth did he create for the investors in GE stock? How much wealth did his management create in related industries which grew with the growth of GE as a stimulant? How much did his management decision help those with their retirement savings invested in GE stock?

Name another GE employee who created anywhere near the wealth for so many Americans as did Welch's management actions at GE.

These are the things liberals can't seem to grasp and depend on others to never grasp. If people understand the true economic picture, liberalism/progressivism/collectivism comes across as what it is: anti-freedom, anti-prosperity, anti-American. Liberalism depends upon ignorance in its target audience and propagandizes with lies which sound good to displace factual knowledge in the marketplace of ideas.

 

[Sean]

Of course you understand. And your response helps others understand the liberal mindset: I state a fact and I'm a moron.

No, you miss a point so obvious even Garbage Can would get it. That's what makes you a moron.

 

[richard_daily]

Jesus wept,

You are the dumbest person on Lit.

Bar none.

You're a intentional liar. And a person of low quality.

 

[Unclebill]

I don't copy and paste.

That said we can work on the details of how big is too big at a later date.

So it's arbitrary, i.e., definitive of a tyranny. And who is that property person or committee to make this arbitrary decision? Is this the job of the dictator or should it be the committee, e.g., the Supreme Soviet or an equivalent, maybe the Senate Super Committee?

The fact is there is a point at which you are too large as a company and a good indication of when your too big is when you can walk into Congress and threaten the stability of the nation and not get laughed right back out the door. The fact that the big three had were large enough that not only did Congress entertain them, it bailed them out post haste with heavy support from both parties that we have a problem.

You fail so hard at math I'm not even going to address that point. I mean WOW. I think from now on you should have a twelve year old read all your posts and tell you if they make sense or not. It would be of tremendous help.

And you fail at reality. Under the United States Constitution, no company can walk into Congress and threaten the stability of the nation UNLESS there are corrupt, disloyal, dishonest legislators who are open to bribery. Until the advent of the progressive theory of government [late 19th century], i.e., the curtailment of individualism and individual rights being subordinated to 'the common good' or the 'general welfare' or some such other collectivist nonsense where government became the authority tasked with the objective of social engineering by "Darwinian evolution" directed by the omniscient political will of the collectivists.

Congress has no authority to intervene in the economy via prohibition, regulation or other means. The much misrepresented constitutional clause which says congress shall regulate interstate commerce was a measure to preclude state or local governments to created tariffs, regulations, etc., which would gain favor for local or state businesses or to punish political adversaries. In short, the intent of this clause was to make the state borders open to commerce without artificial restrictions. It was never meant to provide a totalitarian authority for Congress to get their thieving hands into every aspect of the nations business community.

As to the subject of honesty in Congress, why is it that insider trading is a crime for those in the business world but legal for members of Congress? Ask Diane Feinstein how much she made for her and her family on insider trading .

It is the dishonesty of those in elected office exercising usurped authorities which leads to that about which you complain. If Congress kept it's hands out of the economy and let the market work, these things could not happen.

Had the market been allowed to work in the case of GM, there would have been no cost to American taxpayers, only to those who had chosen to invest in GM stock. On the down side, however, Obama would not have been able to use that as a payoff to the union thugs to whom he owes so much for getting him elected. And notice, in this little deal, it is the union officials, NOT the union rank and file, who are then beneficiaries of Obama's largess with OPM (other people's money). And then there's Solyndra and on, and on ... to how many others?

But he's only following the example of the liberal icon, FDR, who used the U. S. Treasury to reward his cronies and the carefully managed distribution of various of his collectivist programs to punish those who did not support him. He was also adept at using the IRS to persecute those who openly opposed him, e.g., Andrew Mellon, but protected from IRS prosecution those whom he deemed valuable political tools and allies, e.g., Lyndon Johnson.

 

[eyer]

A great example of totally missing information from my education in history is that nowhere was I ever taught that there were blacks among the Founding Fathers, that in fact there were black signers of the Declaration of Independence.

1. Which of "the Founding Fathers" were "blacks"?

2. What are the names of the "black signers of the Declaration of Independence"?

3. Who would you like to see be sworn-in as President of the United States of America on Sunday, January 20, 2013?

 

[Unclebill]

1. Which of "the Founding Fathers" were "blacks"?

2. What are the names of the "black signers of the Declaration of Independence"?

3. Who would you like to see be sworn-in as President of the United States of America on Sunday, January 20, 2013?

For Questions 1 & 2, the only name I recall off hand is Benjamin Rush.

For #3, ABO!

 

[eyer]

For Questions 1 & 2, the only name I recall off hand is Benjamin Rush.

For #3, ABO!

What in this God-forsaken world even begins to lead you to believe Benjamin Rush was black?

And my mind cannot figure-out who/what "ABO" is...

 

[Karen Kraft]

What in this God-forsaken world even begins to lead you to believe Benjamin Rush was black?
****

* giggle *

I can see the logic there:

Rush went to Princeton, which is an affirmative action sort of place...

His dad owned some slaves, so.... you know.....

Ummmm...... let's see..... he helped Philly's black population during the yellow fever epidemic.....

He signed the D of I in black ink.....

That pretty much sums it up, right?


* giggle *

 

[EllieTalbot]

Between the people who insist that the Nazis weren't socialists and those who swear there was a wealth of black "founding fathers," this thread has become a breeding ground of bipartisan stupidity.

Then again, this is the GB...

 

[Loring2]

What should you do if you cannot pay your own way?

Your question implies that you are entitled to have whatever you want. That simply isn't true. If you can't pay your own way, you simply don't get to go unless you can get someone to pay for you.

If I paid your way then I expect to be reimbursed and you are in my debt until you repay me. Noone is obliged to give you what you want and you may have to learn to live with less

 

[RobDownSouth]

Your question implies that you are entitled to have whatever you want.

No, it doesn't. This is simply a pathetic attempt by you to put words in someone's mouth, and then attack them for 'their' position.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Between the people who insist that the Nazis weren't socialists ...

Once again, the Nazis had a large percentage of true "socialists" in the classic sense of the word from around 1925 to 1933. Once they gained political power in the elections of 1932-1933, though, the party was essentially taken over by opportunistic nationalist, industrialist (Junkers) and military factions and became your prototypical fascist government.

No amount of bumper sticker revisionism on your part can change these basic facts.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

That it was totalitarian and therefore left wing.

Had you attended an accredited college, you might have learned that totalitarian governments can be either left or right wing.

Nazi Germany is usually considered the "gold standard" of right wing totalitarianism, and Communist Russia considered the "gold standard" of left wing totalitarianism.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I don't blame you for being pissed, after all you patented this line of argument long ago.

Prove it.

 

[unregistered]