US Elections - FK CL October vote

[cancerinform]

I respect that you disagree. But, no it hasn't. The founding basis of the US economy is to have as little regulation as possible. It has resulted in the wealthiest and most resilient economy in the history of man. Every country of comparable size that has attempted a more regulated approach has caused them to have enormous populations of impoverished people and a lower quality of life over-all.

It has also resulted in an army of poor people.
And the US has never tried the northern european Model. The problem in the US is that the difference in salary between a CEO and a worker is just too big and unjustified, which has not always been that way (in the US). That explains that even the investment bankers have totally screwed up and are responsible for a world crisis, they caught enough of the cake to live well for the rest of their life in a resort. That is what I call totalitarian capitalism, which is as bad as communism.

[FlashLackey]

It has also resulted in an army of poor people.

You're never going to rid a country of poverty entirely. But, if you're going to measure armies of poor, the US enjoys one of the lowest:

http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf

And the US has never tried the northern european Model.

Why would we want to try a model that has not performed as well as ours (even without a giant military budget)?

The problem in the US is that the difference in salary between a CEO and a worker is just too big and unjustified, which has not always been that way (in the US).

Who do you think decides how much to pay CEOs? Shareholders, the people who have a stake in the company, make that decision. Obviously, they see it as a valuable investment to have the best person possible to make top level decisions for their company. If hiring a top CEO for $7 million a year leads to $70+ million more per year in profit, it was a pretty good deal for shareholders.

That same pattern moves all the way down the ranks of a company and establishes market value for ability at skill positions. If a company doesn't pay market value for a worker, they risk losing that worker to another company.

["The problem" is not that CEOs get paid more than workers. The problem is that most people don't understand that letting the rich be rich improves the quality of life for everyone, including the poor, more effectively than trying to re-distribute their wealth by force.]

[Frets]

Funny thing about Ma bell where I live.

Cable internet is not an option.

Ma Bell thru an act of the state claims that Ma Bell can be the only dsl provider. While you can switch phone companies Ma Bell owns the lines and will not allow other carriers to send dsl on thier lines.

We had a big initiative for wireless in the county. It would have provided wifi access to all and charge only businesses for usage. The towers would have been provided by the county. Thus a win-win for the community the service provider and the county. Ma Bell blocked by paying off state legislators, it as they felt that the government was entering the private market.

[FlashLackey]

Deregulation is not the problem with cable. In fact, it's regulation.

Cable technology presents a unique problem. Free access for any company that wants to to install their own cable lines is impractical since it would involve them tearing up sidewalks and other public properties. Because of that, the use of the cables is regulated. Not unregulated. Cable companies have to be given the right to use and maintain the lines by localities. Theoretically, local regulators claim to offer usage based on who shows the most competence or by a divided system that they decide is fair. However, what happens is that cable companies make deals with public regulators to get favorable contracts. This is an example of the failings of regulators. Not of deregulation.

Cable is frustrating. It's a situation where you have to have regulated monopolies due to the technology. Worse, they have used their power with regulators to further stifle competing technologies as well. Again, that is a failure of regulation. Not deregulation.

[gerbick]

Deregulation is not the problem with cable. In fact, it's regulation.

Again, we're going to have to disagree... until I find out more.

However, deregulation is not a necessary good.

[Loyal Rogue]

However, deregulation is not a necessary good.

Greenspan now agrees with you.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../International

"If there were any doubts that the era of self-regulation on Wall Street needs to end, they were dispelled [yesterday] with the testimony of Alan Greenspan," said economist Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank.
...
Surveying the wreckage of the credit crisis, Alan Greenspan says he made one very big mistake.

The free-market cheerleader and former maestro of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board conceded yesterday that he wrongly thought banks had an inherent interest in shielding their institutions and their shareholders from risk.
...
"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," Mr. Greenspan bluntly told a U.S. congressional committee exploring the role of regulators in the financial crisis.
...
Committee chairman Henry Waxman identified Mr. Greenspan as Washington's leading voice of deregulation and the view that the "market always knows best."

[Loyal Rogue]

Touché on their current verbiage, FL, but the fact that they used the word retirement a few times doesn't change it into a retirement account that you invest in to get your money back like a 401k, anymore than saying "four legs and a tail" makes a dog the same as a horse.
It was originally created as an insurance "safety net" program, modelled after the social insurance programs of Europe, for making sure that not only retirees didn't end up in a state-run poorhouse or worse, but also to provide social insurance for widows, orphans, and the disabled.
As an insurance program everyone pays into the pool, regardless of whether a single individual will ever collect or not.

[FlashLackey]

A decent breakdown:

The cable industry spends millions of dollars annually on government relationships. Regularly this industry employs the spouses, sons and daughters of influential mayors, councilmen, commissioners, and other officials to assure its continued local monopoly and preferred market allocations, many of which have been questioned as unethical.

The monopoly on cable television has historically been enforced by local governments. Cable maintains thousands of such de facto monopolies. In order to provide service to individual homes, a cable provider must place its cable wiring along and across local streets or other rights-of-way. To do so, the provider must get permission from the local government(s) that own those streets via rights-of-way permits.

Operational permission comes in the form of a document called a local franchise agreement. Most of local government(s) chose to grant permission to only one company, however, recently states have developed broader franchising laws to drive more investment and competition. Changes in the federal law in 1992 had forced local governments to grant permission to other companies to provide service, however the U.S. Government found in 2006 that only 2% of U.S. households had a competitive choice. In some cases Comcast, with municipal government approval, had entered into market allocation schemes. By agreeing to not compete head to head, consumers thus are perpetually locked into a single monopoly cable provider with annual price escalations reaching 93% in the past decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_t...onsumer_issues

Deregulation would mean not having the government decide who gets to do business there. Since that isn't really practical, I'm not sure what the best solution would be. But, the corruption and abuse of the system is an example of the failings of regulation.

[Frets]

Anyone been catching up on voter fraud issues and the purging of voters from lists?

Between that and allegations of tampered voting machines in early elections.
It may need to be a landslide.

Also one thing which even pollsters are acknowledging is younger voters not having landlines anymore. Which means they aren't getting a complete story when they are polling.

[gerbick]

Most voting machines can be hacked to begin with.

I almost was cut out of the system because the local records had my correct location. But the State records went back 4 years and had me somewhere else... the update got it "wrong"... but I had to take it upon myself to double check.

And I did.

[Frets]

Your one of the lucky few and thier in lays the problem.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...13887#27313887

[gerbick]

You must have missed the Mississippi, Louisiana and Arizona purges this time around.

Hell, even your state of Michigan is very guilty. Read. Enjoy.

Now, what from here? I'm not part of the lucky. I just am active enough to have caught it. I think it was the responsible thing to do. I have my rights.

[FlashLackey]

I think that "It's there for you when you retire" pretty much eliminates the notion you suggest.

It doesn't have to be transferable for it to be a retirement account similar to a pension fund. You contribute taxes to social security. Those contributions are accounted for individually in order to calculate what you get back when you retire or if you are disabled, die or are laid off.

It's true that it was designed as a safety net to force people to save for retirement and the unexpected so that society would not be burdened by their poor decisions. That's why there is a cap. At some point, the individual has met a reasonable requirement for relieving the state of picking up their costs. It wouldn't make any sense to force a person to save an excessive amount for retirement.

The largest component of OASDI is the payment of retirement benefits. Throughout a worker's career, the Social Security Administration keeps track of his or her earnings. The amount of the monthly benefit to which the worker is entitled depends upon that earnings record and upon the age at which the retiree chooses to begin receiving benefits. For the entire history of Social Security, benefits have been paid almost entirely by using revenue from payroll taxes. This is why Social Security is referred to as a pay-as-you-go system. In approximately a decade (2019), payroll tax revenue is projected to be insufficient to cover Social Security benefits and the system will begin to withdraw money from the Social Security Trust Fund. The existence and economic significance of the Social Security Trust Fund is a subject of considerable dispute because its assets are special Treasury bonds; i.e., the money in the trust fund have been loaned back to the federal government to pay for other expenses (hence it is said that the fund consists of nothing but "IOUs").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_...s)#Controversy

[Frets]

Gerbs,
Perhaps I didn't state it cleary before I do agree with you.

I'm stating that you are lucky as you could/did correct the situation.
Many don't have the options which you did.

In many states once (not only the ones you have included) Once purged one can't vote simply because purges without notification. IE if you don't have the notification and all the pertanent data they won't process it.

When that occurs either the state gives the voter a huge delayed run around which prevents the person from actually being able to vote on election day or the voter is only allowed to use a "marginalized Vote" meaning the vote won't be counted unless there is a recall.

RE My Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land
She's kissing her job good-bye.
Remember Kwame?

[Frets]

Circular Firing Squad
The Palin base is scaring away centrist republicans. McCain is getting very Mavericky with the GOP and trying to distance himself from Bush (finally after supporting him for so many years) Many leading members of the GOP aren't loving Palin's wardrobe.


My prediction. Obama will gain another 5 to 15 percentage points by Monday.

[FlashLackey]

The financial markets are regulated, especially the large businesses that we all heard about having problems. Four years ago, regulators were pointing out the problems with Fanny and Freddie. But, Democrats scolded the regulators. If we knew about the problem as it was happening due to regulations and that didn't enable us to prevent it, what makes anyone believe that further regulations will lead to the ability to prevent any further problems from occurring? Just the opposite, the political gerrymandering and leveraging that occurred with the specifics of regulations contributed to the problem and needlessly placed liability on tax-payers.

There is nothing inherent to legislators or regulators to prevent them from making similar or worse mistakes than the people that run the businesses. It is simply moving the same decisions from one set of imperfect humans to another. In ideal circumstances, the regulators will perform with the same success as the other humans. In more likely circumstances, their standards will be exposed to political influences and they will make worse decisions.

[Loyal Rogue]

There is nothing inherent to legislators or regulators to prevent them from making similar or worse mistakes than the people that run the businesses.

I strongly disagree.

There is a very vast and majorly inherent difference between an independent legislator or regulatory agency and the owner(s) of an industry motivated strictly by greed and profit... as Greenspan has just come to realise.

Allowing a bunch of CEOs to self-regulate their industries, CEOs who get to walk away with billions $$$ in bonuses and salary even after everything goes down the toilet because of their bad management decisions, and then wondering why deregulation, lack of oversight, and a "hands-off" free market doesn't work truly belongs in the "No sh*t, Sherlock" file.

Speaking of CEO bonuses... how did everyone like the news that 10% of our $700 billion bailout taxdollars are immediately going to be used for $70 billion in bonuses and salary for the Wall Street executives that caused the whole mess in the first place.
How the FK can you justify getting a bonus when you not only didn't make any profit for your company but pissed away the last 3 years worth of profit as well?!?

Financial workers at Wall Street's top banks are to receive pay deals worth more than $70bn (£40bn), a substantial proportion of which is expected to be paid in discretionary bonuses, for their work so far this year - despite plunging the global financial system into its worst crisis since the 1929 stock market crash, the Guardian has learned.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...laries-banking

[FlashLackey]

There is a very vast and majorly inherent difference between an independent legislator or regulatory agency and the owner(s) of an industry motivated strictly by greed and profit... as Greenspan has just come to realise.

Except that legislators are motivated by political power and sometimes greed as well. Consequently, regulators and their standards are subject to the whims of imperfect legislators.

Allowing a bunch of CEOs to self-regulate their industries, CEOs who get to walk away with billions $$$ in bonuses and salary even after everything goes down the toilet because of their bad management decisions, and then wondering why deregulation, lack of oversight, and a "hands-off" free market doesn't work truly belongs in the "No sh*t, Sherlock" file.

CEOs are employees. They aren't free to "self-regulate their industries." They are granted significant decision-making powers within a company. But, if a CEO is making decisions that are not effective for the company, they get the boot. If they mislead the shareholders about what they are doing, that is criminal.

[That a business fails is not any indication that a "hands-off" free market doesn't work. Businesses fail all the time. They are always going to. Concepts are tried, decisions are made with the best of intentions and they sometimes don't work. Having regulations simply replaces decisions with other ones. All of them have the potential of being wrong. Only, if it's a purely private organization, only that organization is obligated to suffer the consequences. If the government is helping to make company decisions, the government is then substantially liable for when it fails. That means that the bill to fix it comes back to us. It is when that line between private and public gets blurred as with the GSEs that moral hazard begins to occur.]

Speaking of CEO bonuses... how did everyone like the news that 10% of our $700 billion bailout taxdollars are immediately going to be used for $70 billion in bonuses and salary for the Wall Street executives that caused the whole mess in the first place.
How the FK can you justify getting a bonus when you not only didn't make any profit for your company but pissed away the last 3 years worth of profit as well?!?

And who is responsible for spending those dollars? Government. The same one that you advocate for having an even greater role in the markets. That way, when they botch it up again, we will again be held liable to foot the bill for whatever myriad of obligations are left behind.

[gerbick]

It's funny. He is more willing to be held accountable than will inevitably be realized by the media. It will be taken as another method for people to continue to blame others.

Meh. I have more respect for taking responsibility for his mistakes.

[Frets]

FL-
Democrats scolded the regulators for not regulating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCreY-44PJ0