The Brand New Respectful Presidential Campaign Thread

Annshirley the point is that the Pope had no choice about being in Hitler's Youth it was required and even though he was a member  he still was never a Nazi........Shokk

Shirley, apparently they are talking about OVER the $200K limit.  Here in California, SoCal especially, I am thinking that would hurt us ... it would have to be a higher number.  I don't know, maybe if it was one wage earner but many couples with dual incomes can meet that threshold.  I didn't qualify for the stimulus package (the $600 check everyone is supposed to get) since I make too much ... but you can't really compare what I make out here to what someone else makes where the cost of living is way less.  I look to move to a cheaper area but then I'd have to worry about where to work!

Shirley--He was an ally POW, not a German POW.  That is, he was arrested by the allies after they entered Germany.  That's particularly interesting because it is my understanding that ordinary foot soldiers were not arrested.

Kelly--hope I remembered that correctly.  Only 3.4 percent of American families earn above $200,000, or more than 96% earn less. $200,000 sounds about right to me.  Also, sole proprietors (I was one and am one) have many tax deductions that other Americans do not.  They should do fine.

Shokk--actually, that's not how monetary policy works, but then I don't think Reagan was an economist. There isn't a limited number of dollars that work their way through the system.  Could be interesting if it actually worked that way, though. 

Interesting that Reagan would have said that as he's the deficit king (well, up until Bush Jr.).  I suspect the Government printed more money during his administration than any since.  Politicians are always saying things and then not applying them to their own administrations.  Remember when he first ran how he promised a balanced budget--I believe the deficit quadrupled during his tenure.

Combined, I believe. 

"For every dollar that is given to someone a dollar is taken away from someone else"

Umm -- does that mean for every dollar that's given toward compensating CEOs to the tune of 14.2 million dollars a year, dollars are taken from millions of wage-earners (like the ones mentioned by Louis Uchitelle in the article AnneShirley posted) who used to make $20 an hour but now are lucky to have a job at all, making $17 an hour or less????

If that's what Ronald Reagan meant, I agree!!!!!!!!!!!

Ann not talking about "earned" money talking about "unearned" money.......or better yet talking about someone's money that they have earned being given to someone that has not earned anything which is worse.........Amy yes it would be nice if we only talked about "positive"
things about our candidates but if Obama is going to be ya'lls Democrat nominee he better get himself ready because when he goes up against the Republicans it will be nothing like what he is experiencing now with Hillary.......they well go back to the time he first came to Chicago go through his whole voting record while in the IL Senate........will go through everything his wife has done and said...............they will find pictures of him in the Million Man March"............the man will not be able to have a bowel movement without being questioned and the problem is Obama appears to be somewhat of a private guy and doesn't like the scrutiny..........let's face it guys politics is politics and Obama better get himself ready.......there is also a lot of ammunition in his two books he has written and the audio of these books on tape in his own voice............Amy he has to be careful and not sound like a spoiled "brat" when complaining about how he is being treated..................Shokk

Shokk, I know Ronald Reagan didn't mean what I meant, that's why I inserted a winky-face!

Reagan was very good at getting the just-barely-scraping by working and middle class to look DOWNWARD in resentment at the jobless, rather than UPWARD -- Republicans are still playing this game today.

I know I won't change your mind about this.  But you won't change mine either.  Billions are being given to CEOs, while those of us making an hourly wage are sinking into quicksand.  I firmly believe that low wages are dollars TAKEN from workers and given to executives that haven't earned them.  In my mind, NOTHING justifies such a huge earning differential.

Ann many of those CEO's started those companies and have spent a lifetime in making something of themselves and giving a decent life to the thousand of employees that work for them.......I really have no idea why the left is always throwing around CEO's of companies.......we have the left entertainment industry that make millions and don't even work as hard........but I don't hear anyone complaining about that........plus they don't have the amount of employees that some of these companies have but still the left is look at these CEO's and how much money they make......wth?.........Ann the only person that can change the course of your life is you not the gov't, not your parents, not your children and not me only you.........in this country you have that opportunity.......its up to you to choose........I really don't get this sense of entitlement that the left has..........what's up with that?.....I was taught that no one owned me anything........what happen to the speech from the Late President Kennedy........"Not ask what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country".......how have the Democrats gotten so far off course?   Shokk

The problem with movie stars, as I see it, is that the more their wages and percentages go up, the more the theatre goer has to end up and pay at the theatre or to purchase that dvd.  They no longer have to use movie reels ... the newer theatres use digital now, so that will save the movie houses some money but it's a huge expense to take my dd to the movies nowadays.  So, we make sure we eat BEFORE going to the movies and bring in a small bag of See's candy (2 or 3 pieces each) and then purchase our sodas there. 

It seems food, gas, clothes, retail purchases, entertainment, it's all gone up but wages have gone down.  I don't believe in creating a bunch of social programs,  nor do I think communism would be the way (with everyone making the same amount) but I do think that there should be some regulation for staple supplies like gas, corn, wheat, etc.   You can't regulate everything or even that would cost a lot of government expense. 

Susie--you're correct.  It was Bill Maher, not Bill Moyer, who made the comment about the Pope.  I didn't hear it myself but my husband told me it was Moyer, which did surprise me as, although Moyer and Maher both claim to be political liberals, Moyer is a gentleman and Maher is not. I suspect Maher enjoys making waves, even when not appropriate, more than he wishes to bring about change.  So apologies to Bill Moyer.

I heard that McCain's summer elimination of the gasoline tax was 12 cents, not 18.

The entertainment industry is made up of actors, singers, dancers, etc. that identify as Democrat, Republican, Independent or a host of others. The entertainment industry is not "liberal" or "left leaning." It is a mix of very conservative to very liberal, just like the citizens of this country. And if you don't want to support the business you can choose not to go to the movies. Or if you want to cut your costs, wait until the movie comes out in dvd and rent it. And to really cut your costs, check the movie out for free from the public libraries.

RM--only 2 or 3 pieces of Sees candy each? Tell me it's not true!! Sees candy at our house is gone in a flash--my hubby has to eat a piece until the box is empty--I only buy some in December!! And doesn't it make you mad how much they charge for a soda or water at the theater? I wear a loose sweatshirt and smuggle in my bottled water!! But we do buy the popcorn. LOL

It seems to me that McCain is doing the waffling now--sitting on the fence about eliminating Bush's tax cuts, then wanting to keep them. He can't seem to make up his mind.

Rosemary--Do you have secret inside information on the Republican party's plans to wreak havoc on Obama? You say with such authority that he's "going down," but what makes you think that will really happen? Is it because Obama won't stoop to Clinton's and McCain's negative campaigning? Oh, should we Democrats be scared? Oooooooooooo! You frighten us so, we are just quaking in our boots! LOL 

Well, Grace, I have to agree with you on something!  They can get mighty greedy!  I'll never understand it.

Shirley

For the defenders of CEO corporate salaries:

For those of you who believe that CEO's deserve their ridiculously high salaries and bonuses, here is an example of one CEO and how he operated. Obviously, it doesn't follow that my example is true of all CEO's, but I have many more stories, very similar, and all concerning very large corporations, and their executives.

Before I retired in 2002, I had my own consulting firm. I mainly did systems engineering work for telecom companies. And my last job was for Verizon's global network. I evaluated bids from software companies to provide new functions for Verizon's network or to fix functions that were not operating effectively.

Lucent Technologies, the company Verizon hired to build its global network, consistently submitted software bids that were well over every other company's bid and consistently its products were out of sync with our needs. (Remember, before it became Lucent, it was Bell Labs, and although Bell Labs was a great company (I worked for the Labs as well), it was not a business-oriented company, and it had very little experience developing business-type software.)

I received a bid from Lucent (out of the blue) to fix what it said was a problem between the SONET network manager (built by another company) and Lucent's network manager, which managed user functions. I was not an expert in SONET technology but the description of the software fix (cost of $600,000) didn't make sense to me, so I contacted our Verizon network engineers in Boston to ask their advice. They said it didn't sound right to them but they weren't willing to stick their necks out, which I found typical of most employees. I then went to the company that manufactured the SONET switch and asked their software engineers if this fix was needed. They said absolutely not, that it was not only not needed, but what Lucent was describing didn't actually exist. So, of course, I reported back to the CEO that the so-called fix wasn't required. I should mention that he was planning to take early retirement and had been offered a lucrative job at Lucent.

He replied, "You'll have to prove to Lucent that it doesn't do anything." Now, why would I have to prove anything to Lucent? Lucent was our client, not the reverse. Anyway, I refused to pass on the fix despite the hard time I got from this gentleman. I'm sure he would have let me go if he could, but he knew I'd tell everyone why. So a week or so later, he comes back and says-very self-congratulatory-that he had gotten Lucent to drop its price to $300,000. Remember, the function that Lucent is planning to fix doesn't actually exist, so how could they fix it for $600,000 or $300,000! Again, I said no, and in the end I won the battle-I had to fight these types of battle throughout the time I held this job. In the course of my last six months at Verizon, I saved it about $1,500,000, but the Verizon executives were not at all happy with me for saving money. They were all planning to take early retirement and all had hopes of high-paying jobs at Lucent. At one point, Lucent promised it would drop all its software prices by 25% if Verizon would replace me with someone else. I saved Verizon considerably more than 25% on every Lucent bid.

(As an aside, Lucent's stock, when it began, was selling at about $70+. In very short order, it dropped to below $2.00 a share, and this was mainly the result of incompetent and greedy management-and lots of hard working employees lost their jobs and their pensions. This is just one story of corporate American; I have hundred of others, many much worse.)

While working as a consultant for AT&T, Bell Labs, New York Telephone, Bell Atlantic, General Electric, Citibank, and many other major corporations, where I interacted with those at the highest levels of management, I can categorically state that the workers were the only ones I came to respect. The telecoms, in particular, were swimming with middle managers, the majority of whom did nothing but go to time-wasting meetings. They hired people like me to do the actual work. And to a man (and woman) those in upper management were out for themselves. Remember the next time you pay your ridiculously high telephone bill that it could probably be reduced by half if the executives in that company treated the money they spend as though it were their own.

The vast majority of executives don't deserve their high payouts, and if I had my say I'd treat them all like the English treated Joan of Arc.