The Goat Pen

Professor Tiger wrote:I see Bernie Sanders is running for the Dem nomination. What's the current mood on the PNN Dem contingent? Circle all that apply.

b. I like Bernie Sanders, but he doesn't have a prayer so I won't vote for him.
f. I'm voting for Hillary. Yes, she is a charisma-free, greedy, corrupt liar, but she is OUR charisma-free, greedy, corrupt liar.

The thing about this - you HAVE to win. Everything else is fluff. "f." SHOULD read "I'm voting for Hillary because 'she shall not lie down until she eat of the prey and drink the blood of the slain.'"

Yes, the Clinton's have 99 problems . . . but Hils is a Dem and can win.

I was remarking to a friend in the Warren camp just yesterday about I remember outraged Dems who refused to vote for Gore because they were pissed off at Bill over Lewinsky-Gate. Some voted for Nader, some stayed home, some voted for W on the premise that his dad was really a moderate, so how bad could he be?

Well, a Depression and the longest war in American history later . . . the ONLY thing that matters is D vs. R. Personality, character, vision - it's all crap. Elect a D and you get hyper regulation, higher taxes on the rich and government intrusion into everything. Elect an R and you get no (or unenforced) regulation, huge transfers of wealth from the poor to the rich and government indifference to everything except policing the uteri of poor women.

"huge transfers of wealth from the poor to the rich"

Not sure how that happens. Kind of reminds me of this Monte Python sketch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp-R1o753pM

sardis wrote:"huge transfers of wealth from the poor to the rich"

Not sure how that happens.

Convince people to vote against their own self-interests, mostly.

What wealth do the poor have to transfer was his point, I believe.

AlabamAlum wrote:What wealth do the poor have to transfer was his point, I believe.

Here's an idea: lot of money is wasted on unproductive poor people who, in the middle of recession and high unemployment, still selfishly receive food stamps in order to eat. If we just kicked these lazy bums off the government dole by abolishing food stamps, we could spend that money on tax cuts for productive, wealthy people.

That worked out real well for Marie Antoinette & Co, to name but one of the more prominent "productive" victims of mass revolution...

In other words, what you all are really saying is that not enough wealth is being transferred from the rich and handed over to the poor; it's just that saying that the rich steal from the poor sounds less entitlement on the poor's part.

hedge wrote:That worked out real well for Marie Antoinette & Co, to name but one of the more prominent "productive" victims of mass revolution...

Marie Antoinette WAS productive. Out of the goodness of her heart, she employed countless chocolatiers, wig powderers, and harpsichord tuners.

sardis wrote:In other words, what you all are really saying is that not enough wealth is being transferred from the rich and handed over to the poor; it's just that saying that the rich steal from the poor sounds less entitlement on the poor's part.

I am not cheering for more and more tax-the-rich schemes, if for no other reason than they don't work. The wealthy will always find ways to keep their wealth, either through loopholes their lawyers wrote into the tax code, or by moving their money overseas. Plus, the money taxed away from the wealthy is more likely to wind up spent on bureaucratic stupid stuff rather than helping the poor and middle class.

But there is absolutely no doubt that the wealthy have gotten much wealthier over the last 30 years under both R and D administrations. Meanwhile, middle class wealth has remained stagnant. More and more middle class people have noticed this. That's why the old trickle-down arguments don't work any more. It's hard for average workers to weep for their bosses who keep buying nicer and nicer cars and vacationing in Europe while they are driving Fords with 200,000 miles and vacationing with their in-laws.

Professor Tiger wrote:But there is absolutely no doubt that the wealthy have gotten much wealthier over the last 30 years under both R and D administrations. Meanwhile, middle class wealth has remained stagnant. More and more middle class people have noticed this. That's why the old trickle-down arguments don't work any more. It's hard for average workers to weep for their bosses who keep buying nicer and nicer cars and vacationing in Europe while they are driving Fords with 200,000 miles and vacationing with their in-laws.

The point precisely. http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/20 ... -employees

Peter Drucker, the celebrated management theorist, certainly thought the CEO-to-rank-and-file multiple mattered. Starting with a 1977 article and until his death in 2005, Drucker considered 25-to-1 or even 20-to-1 the appropriate limit. Beyond that, he indicated, it’s bad for business. In his view, excessively high multiples undermine teamwork and promote a winner-takes-all, “did-it-because-I-could” culture that’s poison to a company’s long-term health. “I’m not talking about the bitter feelings of the people on the plant floor,” Drucker told a reporter in 2004. “They’re convinced that their bosses are crooks anyway.” He meant the people in middle management who become “incredibly disillusioned” by runaway CEO compensation. On big executive payouts that coincide with layoffs, Drucker was unequivocal. That, he said, was “morally unforgivable.”

To view the Top CEO Pay Ratio chart, visit http://go.bloomberg.com/multimedia/ceo-pay-ratio/.

Now you are looking at CEO-to-rank-and-file multiples of 250:1 to 500:1.

In Bloomberg's table http://go.bloomberg.com/multimedia/ceo-pay-ratio/, the top firms are at 1,000:1 or more (JC Penney is at 1,795:1)

How does that happen? Easy - the newest, best profit center for companies is now Human Resources. Cut staff, increase workloads, cut benefits and the profits go to upper management.

A good friend of mine recently retired from a major defense contractor after 38 years. His final job was in quality control/inspection. When he started in that position, there were 15 people in the department worldwide. Before he retired, that was down to 3. Worldwide.

What does that mean (besides record profits)?

It means things like C-130s delivered with paper wing skins instead of metal wing covers (yes, the guys in the factory are trying to hit numbers so they send a couple through to delivery and then the military techs have to waste time and productivity waiting for wings at the staging area, and then install them themselves).

It means that 230 Humvees are delivered with only 30 armor kits - something critically needed when you're in a war zone with snipers and IEDs.

Most importantly, it means that 12 middle class jobs are lost so that the CEO can make 506 times what the average worker makes instead of only making 505 times the average.

Working class people noticed that tax cuts put an extra $20 a week in their pocket, an extra $200 a week in their boss's pocket, and an extra $2,000 a week in their boss's boss's pocket. Average workers were assured that all that extra money would be reinvested in their businesses, their businesses would grow and prosper, and they would all get nice promotions and raises.

Instead, they're working a lot more hours, haven't had a raise or promotion in many years, and their last assignment before being terminated is to train their replacements in Honduras.

Professor Tiger wrote:Working class people noticed that tax cuts put an extra $20 a week in their pocket, an extra $200 a week in their boss's pocket, and an extra $2,000 a week in their boss's boss's pocket. Average workers were assured that all that extra money would be reinvested in their businesses, their businesses would grow and prosper, and they would all get nice promotions and raises.

Instead, they're working a lot more hours, haven't had a raise or promotion in many years, and their last assignment before being terminated is to train their replacements in Honduras.

Bingo. Bank of AMERICA laid off 30,000 American workers, then moved its business support operations to the PHILIPPINES (joining the other Big 4 banks).

Of the six officers charged in the Fredie Gray case, three are black.

The mayor is black. The police commissioner is black. The district attorney is black. 65% of the population is black. Now, as you inform us, 3 of the 6 officers charged are black. But JD says Baltimore is a racist place and that is the root cause.

AlabamAlum wrote:Of the six officers charged in the Fredie Gray case, three are black.

Yeah but one of those black officers is White.

Professor Tiger wrote:The mayor is black. The police commissioner is black. The district attorney is black. 65% of the population is black. Now, as you inform us, 3 of the 6 officers charged are black. But JD says Baltimore is a racist place and that is the root cause.

So this one doesn't count? Another unarmed black male dead at the hands of the police..nullified because the mayor is black?

bluetick wrote:

Professor Tiger wrote:The mayor is black. The police commissioner is black. The district attorney is black. 65% of the population is black. Now, as you inform us, 3 of the 6 officers charged are black. But JD says Baltimore is a racist place and that is the root cause.

So this one doesn't count? Another unarmed black male dead at the hands of the police..nullified because the mayor is black?

The conversation links to an earlier discussion on whether or not this murder was due to systemic racism in the BPD or asshole cops who mete their own brand of rough justice to the citizens of that area.

The good news is that (IMO) the 'systemic racism' argument is untenable.

The bad news: the culture is, "I'm a cop, I can get away with anything".

Correct. This one counts, just like all the others. It's just a rare case where race is not a factor.

And as you typed that, my landscaper, the one who threw his beer in my shrubs, arrives.


Synchronicity.