Oboma .. another term

[ButtermilkBuoy]

I would be careful of shifting moral agency from the individual to the State, as the State has shown to be less moral than individual citizens.

Disclosure: CowFish's statement was not made in the context which I will now apply it to.

But I do think it is a universal statement and it came to mind this afternoon, while lounging around and catching my breath after a midday bicycle ride and watching this from "Sixty Minutes" this Sunday:

Has college football become a campus commodity?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-5 ... commodity/

I wish those of you who think government is a great moral savior would take 13 minutes and 21 seconds to watch the video.

Note that every university mentioned in this video is a government institution back by government funds and managed by government employees. Many of the board members are government employees and elected officials and yes there also businessmen on the boards.

You will see in this video that governments do to their markets, their consumers and especially their employees all the things that you think government will stop private employers from doing.

In the video you see:

- An insane, relentless and evergrowing pursuit of money. You say "greedy" when speaking of the market. Well say "greedy" to describe government.
- A competition for attention to the detriment of the purpose of the institution - government.
- A fraud perpetrated upon customers (student-athletes) to whom they promise an education that is a joke.
- The use of labor (student-athletes) without paying them.
- The paying of huge sums of money to the management (coaches et al).
- The abuse of labor - severe injury and now we learn head injury that labor will suffer with the rest of their lives.
- Promise of a glorious and financially enriching career when 94% will never achieve that career. Can you say "new car salesman"?

It is all there in that one video - all perfectly (?) legal and out in the open - abuse and underpayment of labor, huge salaries for management and a greed that is never satisfied.

That is government my government-loving friends. This will go on forever because it is government. Then you also have government backing the NFL monopoly.

The same type of management exists in private markets, but if they are not enable by government cronies they soon lose out to competitors and the abuse stops.

Watch the video and tell me if you still trust government to "take care of you"?

I will trust a competitive market to take care of me. Caveat emptor of course.

[PST]

BTW, whether you are elated or discouraged by Obama's reelection it is good to remember that there is little difference between Obama and Romney. Stolen from a friend's FB page:

- Both support increased economic sanctions on Iran.
- Neither wants to end the war in Afganistan.
- Both favour continuing to support Israel.
- Both support US contribution to a NATO intervention in Sudan.
- Both have similar attitudes towards US military intervention in other countries (Only in matters of national security, and the president does not need congressional approval. Obama also allows for intervention at the request of the international community).
- Both support the Patriot act (although Obama favours limiting the scope of govt. powers)
- Neither are interested in increasing gun control, although Obama would limit access to assault weapons.
- Neither is in favour of blanket drug decriminalisation.
- Neither favour government regulation of the internet, but both support government prosecution of copyright violation.
- Both support the funding of political advertisements by political action committees (Super PACS).
- Both support federal government subsidies for U.S. farmers.
- Neither seeks to raise the federal minimum wage (Romney suggests the states should decide).
- Both say that able-bodied, mentally capable adults should be required to work in order to receive welfare.
- Both are in favour of allowing the death penalty.
- Both support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ie., "Obamacare"), although Romney has some reservations.
- Neither are in favour of legalising marijuana.
- Both think that the US should expand offshore oil drilling.
- Both are against government-subsidised healthcare for illegal immigrants, although Obama feels that their children should have access.
- Both are open to stem-cell research, although Obama is in favour of federal funding whereas Romney feels that funding for research should be in the private sector.
- Both think that the George W Bush tax cuts should be extended (although Obama says only for those making under $250 000).

Heck, they both even say that they believe in evolution, though Romney says that he believes it is "part of Creation".

I don't agree that the two candidates were as similar in their positions as this list would imply. For example, Obama has been absolutely firm about withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014, while Romney moved from supporting that date to holding the door open for a later date and arguing that we should not declare our intentions. Obama has a huge stake in the PPACA, while Romney at first said repeal would be his first priority, but later waffled about keeping some of the popular parts. He said in September that he wanted to require insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, then clawed back by saying only for people who had continuously maintained their insurance. Part of the difficulty in comparing their positions is the leftward movement in Romney's statements that started about the time of the first debate, leaving us all to wonder what he really would do. I would have to say that anyone who wants us out of Afghanistan and and keeping Obamacare could be much more certain with Obama than Romney, and that applies to some other items on that list.

However, the main thing the list shows is how absurd the claims are of the radicalism of Barack Obama and the apocalyptic predictions for the consequences of his reelection. The President is within the broad mainstream of American public opinion, a mainstream that on economic issues has moved considerably to the right since my salad days. The fact that anyone could put together such a list with a straight face is evidence of his fundamental centrism.

[PST]

This story came out today from one source, based on anonymous leaks, claiming that Senator Leahy was going to support the version described by CNET. As far as I can see, every source repeating the story relies on the same CNET report.

***

Well if you are right, that is a good thing. I will check the story in a couple of weeks and see where it stands. I am not familiar with CNET and will start watching what comes out of them. Maybe after some checking they get put on my "bad boy" list.

CNET sounds like it should be a news channel like CNN or C-SPAN, but it is really a technical website (and formerly a magazine, I think). So it is mainly a place for hardware reviews and tech stories. It takes an interest in policies that affect the internet, but political reporting is not its area of experience.

[idamtnboy]

The customers who buy that type of product are looking for basic functionality and will never pay much for it.
.............
Office furniture is not a strategic purchase so they will never value it highly.

$100,000 per year is still attainable if he finds the right path like a machinist or oil/natural gas field worker.

So you're saying it is morally acceptable to expect someone to produce a product you need in order for your business to operate and do it for a poverty wage? I have 3 nephews working for a machine shop in Idaho. They program and operate CNC machines. They ain't makin' no $100k per year, not even $30k per year, and that is with no health benefits added on. Yes, there are $100k jobs out there, but they are not the norm.

Why should the people doing those jobs not be able to afford a decent home and car? I'm not talking luxurious, I'm talking basic safe houses and cars.

What are your expectations? Do you expect him at a young age to be living the lifestyle of someone who has worked 30 years? I remember the days of driving a tiny Honda CVCC with a manual choke and no A/C and when I got married it took two incomes to live decently. I remember being down to one car, having it breakdown and getting rides from my friend in the trailer park across the street from our apartment. One of the accountants from my wife's office transported her temporarily.

To a great extent that describes my son's situation. In fact, he often is the one providing shelter and transportation to someone else. Oh, BTW, he's 44 and been employed for 26 years.

So maybe your son is having a great time and it is only you who is bitter? We parents "want it all" for our children and they often don't want it all.

His expectations are modest. But it would be nice if he was paid enough to have a car that isn't a 20 year old rust bucket, and a house in which the floors weren't rotted out and with a furnace that worked. It hurts me to know he is a hard productive worker, who has been fired only one time from a job, has been on unemployment only when his employer was in a serious slump, and still is paid only a poverty wage. But I'm damn proud of the fact he is making it through life on his own. I am out less than $10k to prop him up at various times during the entire past 26 years.

[ButtermilkBuoy]

So you're saying it is morally acceptable to expect someone to produce a product you need in order for your business to operate and do it for a poverty wage?

What do you propose? Raise all the salaries, not be cost competitive and put everyone at the company out of work? Implement a centrally planned economy that sets all wages?

You don't like the current situation so what do you propose?

[PST]

His expectations are modest. But it would be nice if he was paid enough to have a car that isn't a 20 year old rust bucket, and a house in which the floors weren't rotted out and with a furnace that worked. It hurts me to know he is a hard productive worker, who has been fired only one time from a job, has been on unemployment only when his employer was in a serious slump, and still is paid only a poverty wage. But I'm damn proud of the fact he is making it through life on his own. I am out less than $10k to prop him up at various times during the entire past 26 years.

This is a little off the topic, but what the heck, it's cpaptalk. One reason Romney's 47 percent remark caused so much anger is that it swept in millions of people like idamtnboy's son. Everyone remembers the quotation in which he equated not paying federal income taxes with being a dependent and irresponsible:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

An average family of four earning $35,000 pays no federal income tax. They pay payroll taxes (social security and medicare), but the current tax rates are such that after taking into account personal exemptions, the standard deductible, and the earned income credit, their actual federal income tax is less than zero. So he really insulted people who have jobs and work hard but just don't earn enough to owe income tax. That is a majority of the 47 percent, and many of the rest are retirees who paid plenty of taxes in their day. I realize that many of the people here who opposed Obama were no big fans of Romney either, so I'm not blaming them for his beliefs. Still, it astonishes me the contempt he showed for people of modest means who by any meaningful measure are productive citizens, and so it shouldn't surprise anyone that tons of people who weren't crazy about Obama still preferred him to someone who appeared to view them with such disdain. How could they trust someone who considered them mere moochers to stand up for them.

[idamtnboy]

So you're saying it is morally acceptable to expect someone to produce a product you need in order for your business to operate and do it for a poverty wage?

What do you propose? Raise all the salaries, not be cost competitive and put everyone at the company out of work? Implement a centrally planned economy that sets all wages?

You don't like the current situation so what do you propose?

All I ask is that people at the top, both economists and politicians, recognize that the economic structure of the world has changed, that there are serious income distribution issues in this country, and rationally study and discuss the situation. The time for "If he's poor he needs to lift himself up by his own bootstraps," is over. It's time for those people to stop focusing on money (which is nothing more than chits that represent claims against someone's labor) and start focusing on how labor and the fruits of labor are distributed and shared. Capitalism and communism share a common basic function - how to take the fruits of a person's labor and exchange it for the fruits of labor of another person.

[ButtermilkBuoy]

All I ask is that people at the top, both economists and politicians, recognize that the economic structure of the world has changed, that there are serious income distribution issues in this country, and rationally study and discuss the situation.

I can assure you from personal and business experience that almost all CEOs, even of the smallest companies, are well informed on these subjects. Some discuss it, most are too busy making sure their companies provide products that the market will pay for.

serious income distribution issues in this country

Please explain this to me.

[ButtermilkBuoy]

I realize that many of the people here who opposed Obama were no big fans of Romney either, so I'm not blaming them for his beliefs.

Well!!! Finally some recognition.

Little known facts:

2012 Presidential General Election Results in Millions

Other - 0.4
Jill Stein - 0.4
Gary Johnson - 1.2
Willard Mitt Romney - 60
Barack H. Obama - 64
None of the above - 93
Total voting eligible - 219

"None of the above" by a landslide!



(Actually it is plurality if you only count the voting eligible.)

[ButtermilkBuoy]

[ButtermilkBuoy]

[ButtermilkBuoy]

Greedy, greedy, greedy government employees!!!!

The USPS net loss last year was $15.9 billion, more than the $15 billion that had been projected, as Bloomberg News reports. As the USPS racked up losses, the volume of mail it carried dropped 5 percent. It costs some $250 million a day to run the USPS, which by the end of the fiscal year will have less than four days of cash on hand. The USPS is expected to lose $7.6 billion in the year that started October 1. But the massive and ongoing losses did not prevent the government from handing out compensation increases to USPS bosses.

As the Washington Times noted, the overall compensation of Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe rose from $384,229 in 2011 to $512,093 in 2012 on account of a $186,536 increase in his retirement account. All but one of the top five USPS executives received “hefty increases” in their retirement plans.

http://www.mygovcost.org/2012/11/19/usp ... -raises-2/

[Slinky]

... Little known facts:

2012 Presidential General Election Results in Millions

Other - 0.4
Jill Stein - 0.4
Gary Johnson - 1.2
Willard Mitt Romney - 60
Barack H. Obama - 64
None of the above - 93
Total voting eligible - 219

"None of the above" by a landslide! ...

Its been a long time since we've had a candidate to vote FOR in this country instead of having to vote against the greater of two "evils" as we have for so many years. This year's field of Republican candidates HAS to be THE WORST selection of GOP candidates in all my voting eligibility years.

... An average family of four earning $35,000 pays no federal income tax. They pay payroll taxes (social security and medicare), but the current tax rates are such that after taking into account personal exemptions, the standard deductible, and the earned income credit, their actual federal income tax is less than zero. So he really insulted people who have jobs and work hard but just don't earn enough to owe income tax. That is a majority of the 47 percent, and many of the rest are retirees who paid plenty of taxes in their day. I realize that many of the people here who opposed Obama were no big fans of Romney either, so I'm not blaming them for his beliefs. Still, it astonishes me the contempt he showed for people of modest means who by any meaningful measure are productive citizens, and so it shouldn't surprise anyone that tons of people who weren't crazy about Obama still preferred him to someone who appeared to view them with such disdain. ...

AND this average family of four earning $35,000 pays plenty in sales taxes, etc.,etc. that also keep this country going and supports local government, etc. The "blood suckers" are those at the top siphoning millions out of the system in benefits and perks and "golden parachutes" after destroying profitable companies w/LBOs, etc., the "financiers" of the country w/their "creative" financial methods of siphoning off profits and turning them into losses, etc. Where once it was "beware the gnomes of Zurich", it is now "beware the gnomes of Wall Street".

[Slinky]

The USPS is one of the largest employers of our military veterans. When the USPOD (United States Post Office Department) was reorganized and turned into a quasi-government corporation they inherited responsibility for the military retirement of all those military veterans BUT NOT any of the retirement benefits earned by those veterans during their years in the military. Civilian employees were given the choice of retaining their civil service retirement to that point and social security from that point on or transfering all their retirement to social security. Those hired after that date were automatically social security. Then the USPS was shackled w/having to make up all those retirement funds which is one of their most crushing finanical bleeds. The USPS has the largest fleet of vehicles using untold amounts of gas to deliver our mail. The increase in their delivery costs skyrocketed due to this.

[ButtermilkBuoy]

Is it against the forum rules to quote myself?

As the Washington Times noted, the overall compensation of Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe rose from $384,229 in 2011 to $512,093 in 2012 on account of a $186,536 increase in his retirement account.

There are many problems and this is one of them -> You cannot get a good CEO (Postmaster General) capable of running an organization of this size for a measly $512,093!