Great Article in Chicago Tribune (yes, another liberal rag)

[Mags]

Talking about how well various states are now doing (both red and blue) in getting costs under control, showing WI and IN as leaders (along with NY among others).

Talks about how IL is envious about how well the other states are doing - lowering class sizes, not being beholden to unions, getting rid of bad employees, and providing MERIT PAY to good ones. Operating like a real business!

Best line: The Illinoisans' insecurity is natural: They know they simply haven't done the hard work others have to begin rescuing government here from too much spending, too much borrowing ? and too many sweetheart promises to unions that represent public employees.

See link below:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-edit-daniels-20110720,0,6156856.story

 

[StevieD]

Talking about how well various states are now doing (both red and blue) in getting costs under control, showing WI and IN as leaders (along with NY among others).

Talks about how IL is envious about how well the other states are doing - lowering class sizes, not being beholden to unions, getting rid of bad employees, and providing MERIT PAY to good ones. Operating like a real business!

Best line: The Illinoisans' insecurity is natural: They know they simply haven't done the hard work others have to begin rescuing government here from too much spending, too much borrowing ? and too many sweetheart promises to unions that represent public employees.

See link below:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-edit-daniels-20110720,0,6156856.story

I hope all the money isn't going to the top, like in "real" business. All that money at the top never gets back into the economy and this trend is one of the things killing the country.

 

[Mags]

I hope all the money isn't going to the top, like in "real" business. All that money at the top never gets back into the economy and this trend is one of the things killing the country.

Stevie - last I looked, corporations were made up of a lot of people - people that are judged on their merits and paid based on market pay, not on a system based soley on how many years they have worked.

Corporations are a good thing for the economy - and for the stock markets (which we are all vested in, in one way or another).

People always point to the CEO's of big companies and the salaries they get. People forget that these guys are at the absolute top of the game - the top, say 500, folks in the business at what they do.

Many fields, the top folks make the most money. The top actor, the top athlete, the top author, the top marketer, the top I/T guru, etc. You don't see people saying "LeBron should only make $1M and give the rest to the team employees, ball boys, etc as they make it all possible for him". You expect those folks get paid commensurate with their talents and what the market dictates. Bottom line, in a free market economy, folks make what they can make. Not so in an artificial, socialist economy run by unions - where accountability and talent mean nothing - just longevity.

In America, if you are elite in what you do (pretty much no matter what it is) - and it is definable and measurable, you can make a lot of money. Which is the way it should be.

 

[StevieD]

Stevie - last I looked, corporations were made up of a lot of people - people that are judged on their merits and paid based on market pay, not on a system based soley on how many years they have worked.

Corporations are a good thing for the economy - and for the stock markets (which we are all vested in, in one way or another).

People always point to the CEO's of big companies and the salaries they get. People forget that these guys are at the absolute top of the game - the top, say 500, folks in the business at what they do.

Many fields, the top folks make the most money. The top actor, the top athlete, the top author, the top marketer, the top I/T guru, etc. You don't see people saying "LeBron should only make $1M and give the rest to the team employees, ball boys, etc as they make it all possible for him". You expect those folks get paid commensurate with their talents and what the market dictates. Bottom line, in a free market economy, folks make what they can make. Not so in an artificial, socialist economy run by unions - where accountability and talent mean nothing - just longevity.

In America, if you are elite in what you do (pretty much no matter what it is) - and it is definable and measurable, you can make a lot of money. Which is the way it should be.

Corporations are a great thing. For years and years they made America strong. Until greed took over and all the money went to the top. No one is saying that CEO's should not be paid but at 400 to 500 times the average worker that is where the redistribution of wealth took place. And it fact it coincides with the start of these problems we find crippling our country.

This country became great under the checks and balances of the Unions and the Corporations.

 

[Mags]

Corporations are a great thing. For years and years they made America strong. Until greed took over and all the money went to the top. No one is saying that CEO's should not be paid but at 400 to 500 times the average worker that is where the redistribution of wealth took place. And it fact it coincides with the start of these problems we find crippling our country.

This country became great under the checks and balances of the Unions and the Corporations.

Stevie - this goes on, even in union areas. Look at hollywood - where many of the grips, etc make very little compared to the stars. Same with sports. Same with Microsoft. Hard to find a industry where the top guys don't make a lot more than the small guys. See, the thing is, there are millions of people that have the capabilities of the small guys. Not many are skilled in the way of the "big guys".

Simple supply and demand.

 

[The Sponge]

Stevie - last I looked, corporations were made up of a lot of people - people that are judged on their merits and paid based on market pay, not on a system based soley on how many years they have worked.

Corporations are a good thing for the economy - and for the stock markets (which we are all vested in, in one way or another).

People always point to the CEO's of big companies and the salaries they get. People forget that these guys are at the absolute top of the game - the top, say 500, folks in the business at what they do.

Many fields, the top folks make the most money. The top actor, the top athlete, the top author, the top marketer, the top I/T guru, etc. You don't see people saying "LeBron should only make $1M and give the rest to the team employees, ball boys, etc as they make it all possible for him". You expect those folks get paid commensurate with their talents and what the market dictates. Bottom line, in a free market economy, folks make what they can make. Not so in an artificial, socialist economy run by unions - where accountability and talent mean nothing - just longevity.

In America, if you are elite in what you do (pretty much no matter what it is) - and it is definable and measurable, you can make a lot of money. Which is the way it should be.

This is so full of bullshit I can actually smell it here in Pa. First off about Unions. U get ur slimmy ass out here in PA and show me that u can get away with being a lazy pig with no talents and hold a job in the carpenters local. U don't work and u don't produce u go home and find another line of work. Now for ur nonsense about CEO's. Ur point about Lebron or any other great athlete is true. He is a great player and everyone can see that so he gets paid. You can't fake ur talents in the NBA just like u can't hide some unproductive carpenter. The NBA player will have to find another line of work just like the Carpenter. Now lets look at a CEO. There are some great ones but their are far more corrupt ones. Look what just happen with the Banks. Did all these cream of the crop, top of their field bankers, get fired? Of course not they got bonuses. There lies the problem. An asshole like you and dogs thinks the amount of money u make and no matter how u go about it, deem u successful. These corrupt hedge fund managers pulling in billions a year are these the cream of the crop? These corrupt fuks? Ah and lets not forget the biggest crook in our history Dick Cheney and all the shady shit he has pull to get his wealth. Is this our very best? These are our very best thieves who hold vast amounts of money by very shady dealings. An Actors? Almost anyone could do that easy job unfortunately it is about who u know or what u look like and nothing more. Not the best of the best u jackoff. When Duff renamed u Maggot he couldn't have been more dead on.

 

[Duff Miver]

Stevie - this goes on, even in union areas. Look at hollywood - where many of the grips, etc make very little compared to the stars. Same with sports. Same with Microsoft. Hard to find a industry where the top guys don't make a lot more than the small guys. See, the thing is, there are millions of people that have the capabilities of the small guys. Not many are skilled in the way of the "big guys".

Simple supply and demand.

Hollywood studios, Pro ball teams and Microsoft are all corporations, dipshit.

Learn something from a real man of intelligence and courage -

On taxing the rich -

As a matter of personal conviction, and without pretending to discuss the details or formulate the system, I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the adoption of some such scheme as that of a progressive tax on all fortunes, beyond a certain amount, either given in life or devised or bequeathed upon death to any individual ? a tax so framed as to put it out of the power of the owner of one of these enormous fortunes to hand on more than a certain amount to any one individual; the tax of course, to be imposed by the national and not the state government. Such taxation should, of course, be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits.
? Theodore Roosevelt, speech, "The Man With The Muck Rake" (April 15, 1906)



and on unions -

If I were an employee, a working man ... or a wage-earner of any sort, I undoubtedly would join a union of my trade... I believe in the union and I believe that all men are morally bound to help to the extent of their powers in the common interests advanced by the union.
? Theodore Roosevelt

It is essential that there should be organization of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize.
? Theodore Roosevelt, speech at Milwaukee, Wisconsin (October 14, 1912)

Teddy even anticipated teabaggers -

Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe.
? Theodore Roosevelt (1913)

And Maggots -

I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is softness of head.
? Theodore Roosevelt

 

[StevieD]

Stevie - this goes on, even in union areas. Look at hollywood - where many of the grips, etc make very little compared to the stars. Same with sports. Same with Microsoft. Hard to find a industry where the top guys don't make a lot more than the small guys. See, the thing is, there are millions of people that have the capabilities of the small guys. Not many are skilled in the way of the "big guys".

Simple supply and demand.

Don't get me started on athletes. Tom Brady, my QB, $20,000,000 a year? Maybe for his career if you add 4 more titles! And why can't we tax that $20,000,000 at least a the Clinton levels? It seems to me we had a stronger economy at those levels.

Besides, I would like to see how good the guy is behind a bad line.

But that brings us off target. The fact is that too much money is going to the top and that money does not go back into the economy. Money needs to be put back in the hands of the Middle Class who will spend it.

 

[Mags]

Hollywood studios, Pro ball teams and Microsoft are all corporations, dipshit.

Learn something from a real man of intelligence and courage -

On taxing the rich -

As a matter of personal conviction, and without pretending to discuss the details or formulate the system, I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the adoption of some such scheme as that of a progressive tax on all fortunes, beyond a certain amount, either given in life or devised or bequeathed upon death to any individual ? a tax so framed as to put it out of the power of the owner of one of these enormous fortunes to hand on more than a certain amount to any one individual; the tax of course, to be imposed by the national and not the state government. Such taxation should, of course, be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits.
? Theodore Roosevelt, speech, "The Man With The Muck Rake" (April 15, 1906)



and on unions -

If I were an employee, a working man ... or a wage-earner of any sort, I undoubtedly would join a union of my trade... I believe in the union and I believe that all men are morally bound to help to the extent of their powers in the common interests advanced by the union.
? Theodore Roosevelt

It is essential that there should be organization of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize.
? Theodore Roosevelt, speech at Milwaukee, Wisconsin (October 14, 1912)

Teddy even anticipated teabaggers -

Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe.
? Theodore Roosevelt (1913)

And Maggots -

I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is softness of head.
? Theodore Roosevelt

Is this the same guy who said:

"Roosevelt said in 1914: "I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feeble-minded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them"

Yep, it appears he does have some good ideas. Your parents should have been banned from breeding - the world (and MJ's) would be much better off!

Quite a hero you have there.......you are quoting a racist as your hero - which says a lot about you.

Just pick a few quotes here and there that support YOU getting more money from the govt for not working.

Me thinks if you were a producer and not a taker, you'd have a much different outlook.

Most Dems are either takers or very very rich, so money doesn't matter. The people that really matter in this society, however, are the producers - and our country couldn't survive without them - as they support themselves and the 50% that are takers in our economy.

Maybe YOU and ROOSEVELT are correct - do not let the takers breed. Sure would lead to a more productive, intelligent forum with you and the rest of your taker liberal pack gone, that's for sure.

 

[Mags]

Don't get me started on athletes. Tom Brady, my QB, $20,000,000 a year? Maybe for his career if you add 4 more titles! And why can't we tax that $20,000,000 at least a the Clinton levels? It seems to me we had a stronger economy at those levels.

Besides, I would like to see how good the guy is behind a bad line.

But that brings us off target. The fact is that too much money is going to the top and that money does not go back into the economy. Money needs to be put back in the hands of the Middle Class who will spend it.

Stevie - do you believe in free market economics? Seems to me the middle class are getting paid based on their talents. IF they were able to make more, don't you think they would do so? I'm sure a whole bunch of people in the upper class started in the middle, but their talents helped them rise up.

Some folks are not capable, either artistically or mentally, of being in the upper class. Just the way that it is.

I doubt that you pay your plumber/mailman/electrician $500 an hour so they can be upper class - because the service/their talents are just not worth that much money.

Our country doesn't value blue collar laborers like we used to, as we don't make much anymore. And the sad fact is, many of our citizens are not capable of being much more than that. Somebody that writes an 18 on an ACT exam is likely going to be average - no matter how much training you give them.

Just the way it is.

 

[StevieD]

Of course I believe in the Free Market. I also know that the top pay in this country, in decsions made by people at the top, has grown, while pay for the Middle class and workers has fallen.
Let's take a look at a CEO, a guy I bet you like, Rupert Murdoch. There he is before Parlament saying he is not responsible for what went on in that rag he ran. Wait.....then why is he worth all that money if he is not responsible?
Just because some guys at the very top decide to reward themselves has nothing to do with the Free Market. In fact, they have fixed the playing field many times over.
What makes that pig at Ford worth a $56,000,000 bonus. Let him give back all the $7,000 rebates the government gave him before he takes one penny of that $56,000,000. And what problem do you have taxing that at the pre Bush Tax Cut level?

 

[Mags]

Of course I believe in the Free Market. I also know that the top pay in this country, in decsions made by people at the top, has grown, while pay for the Middle class and workers has fallen.
Let's take a look at a CEO, a guy I bet you like, Rupert Murdoch. There he is before Parlament saying he is not responsible for what went on in that rag he ran. Wait.....then why is he worth all that money if he is not responsible?
Just because some guys at the very top decide to reward themselves has nothing to do with the Free Market. In fact, they have fixed the playing field many times over.
What makes that pig at Ford worth a $56,000,000 bonus. Let him give back all the $7,000 rebates the government gave him before he takes one penny of that $56,000,000. And what problem do you have taxing that at the pre Bush Tax Cut level?

If you'd like to roll back the Bush tax cuts, fine, let's roll them back - but ALL of them. It would help tremendously, as we have far too many people not paying taxes today (50%). Shared sacrafice.

When you are at the top of an organization, you don't oversee the day to day activities of every employee under you. And when they do wrong, it can't always be a reflection on you.

Not fair you say? Then, in the same vein, Obama/Pelosi/Reid should be fired for what Weiner did.

Unless the top guy directs the folks underneath him to do immoral/illegal things, it is hard to blame him.

If Murdock did that, then he should go. Otherwise, he should not take the heat no more than Obama should take the heat for what Weiner did.

 

[Duff Miver]

When you are at the top of an organization, you don't oversee the day to day activities of every employee under you. And when they do wrong, it can't always be a reflection on you.

Not fair you say? Then, in the same vein, Obama/Pelosi/Reid should be fired for what Weiner did.

Of course the person at the top is responsible for everyone in the organization. He chooses and hires them, sets procedures and goals and does evaluations. In a large corp, he may not do these things personally, but he directly hires and supervises those who do.

He is always responsible. When they act inappropriately, the fault goes to the top.

By your reasoning, Hitler is innocent of Jew burning because he didn't light the fires himself.

Murdock's whining "I know nothing" is laughable.

What planet do you live on where the President selects and directs members of the House?

You're dumb as a doggie.

 

[Mags]

Of course the person at the top is responsible for everyone in the organization. He chooses and hires them, sets procedures and goals and does evaluations. In a large corp, he may not do these things personally, but he directly hires and supervises those who do.

He is always responsible. When they act inappropriately, the fault goes to the top.

By your reasoning, Hitler is innocent of Jew burning because he didn't light the fires himself.

Murdock's whining "I know nothing" is laughable.

What planet do you live on where the President selects and directs members of the House?

You're dumb as a doggie.

True or False: Obama is the leader of the Democratic party?

Obviously True. So if Weiner goes, then Obama should go.

No different than Murdock. A leader is a leader. Oh, that's right, Obama is not a leader. But he is a liar and a socialist.

And so are you.

 

[Chadman]

The main problem I have with what many CEO's are making, and how they seem to be hired and rewarded and move from company to company, is that often the performance of their company has little to do with them getting hired and paid. There are MANY CEO's that have made a ton of money over the past few years when their companies performances have sucked ass. Some, who have been bailed out by the government, and been given big bonuses, and the company has performed poorly.

The problem is that in today's corporate world, the CEO and Board of Directors are self-serving and enabling for each other, and protect their own interests at all costs. It is only when something goes REALLY wrong and they cannot cover it up that something changes. I don't think for one second that most CEO's and Boards these days give a lesser shit about their employees to any degree - and would sell them out in a heartbeat to protect their own interests.

What is in it for a CEO or Board member to cause a ruckus these days, when both entities are making such ungodly amounts of money? Maybe if company performance had a stronger tie in to what these people are making - including what Board members are making - this would make some sense. While I agree some unions need to be more realistic, I do think they are the only hope with many companies of protecting the worker's best interest.

This blanket bullshit about CEO's being worth what they are able to make is crap, in many cases. There is very little in our world that is absolute, despite what most here talk about in defending their positions.

 

[Duff Miver]

True or False: Obama is the leader of the Democratic party?

False. Tim Kaine is Chairman of the Democratic Party. Weiner is elected, and serves at the pleasure of the citizens in his district, not at the pleasure of Obama or Kaine. The citizens hire Weiner, give him his marching orders, and can fire him. Neither Obama nor Kaine have those authorities. JFC, Maggot, you're not just dumber than doggie, you're dumber than dogshit.

Obviously True. So if Weiner goes, then Obama should go.

No different than Murdock. A leader is a leader. Oh, that's right, Obama is not a leader. But he is a liar and a socialist.

And so are you.

I may be a Socialist, but I am not a liar. You, however are a coward and a moron.

....

 

[Mags]

While I agree some unions need to be more realistic, I do think they are the only hope with many companies of protecting the worker's best interest.

Chad - I love to hear you expand upon that statement. I've never heard a good employee who needed to be "protected". They typically get rewarded through promotions and higher pay.

And, if they would get downsized, the good employees typically have no issue finding another job.

The only ones that need to be protected are the below average employees. And, if they are below average, then why should they be protected?

We don't have sweatshops in the US - and most workers are in (thankfully) a right to work state - where the employee can leave at any time for a different or better opportunity, and the employer can part ways also.

Are you saying both employee and employer should be locked into each other for life, with neither able to leave until 65?

Why do employees need protection? (Other than laws that are on the books against racial/sexual discrimation - which you clearly don't need a union for).

Just curious.

 

[Mags]

....

Stupid argument - what else would I expect from you?

By your logic, Arthur Blank should have been fired from the Atlanta Falcons due to what Mike Vick did when he was there.

You cannot fault management/leaders for rogue employees - including Obama for Weiner.

There are bad people out there always looking for a handout/free ride (you should relate) and you can't always account for ones that do illegal things in your organization. Just about every organization has them to some degree. Teams/Politics/Corporations and especially unions.

 

[Duff Miver]

Sorry for calling you a coward and moron, Maggit.

I should have called you a pussy-whipped cowardly
retard.

 

[Chadman]

Chad - I love to hear you expand upon that statement. I've never heard a good employee who needed to be "protected". They typically get rewarded through promotions and higher pay.

And, if they would get downsized, the good employees typically have no issue finding another job.

The only ones that need to be protected are the below average employees. And, if they are below average, then why should they be protected?

We don't have sweatshops in the US - and most workers are in (thankfully) a right to work state - where the employee can leave at any time for a different or better opportunity, and the employer can part ways also.

Are you saying both employee and employer should be locked into each other for life, with neither able to leave until 65?

Why do employees need protection? (Other than laws that are on the books against racial/sexual discrimation - which you clearly don't need a union for).

Just curious.

I'm not necessarily saying employees need to be protected per se, but I don't think the employment scenario today is as beneficial for the employee as it once was. I do think that corporations in general have too much power, and too much of that power is in the hands of a select few individuals that only REALLY care about themselves - often to the detriment of the company and surely to the employees. Witness companies changing their standard business model now to employ fewer people and expect them to do a lot more - for the same pay. These companies have cash - many of them do - but are not hiring people back.

Corporations and top executives have far more access and control over the political process in the country than they did even a few short years ago. Hell, even a year ago, thanks to our argued about Supreme Court ruling. With that in place, it will only really serve to reinforce this new way of big business controlling our political system - and this will of course benefit big business and its executives.

Who protects the middle guy? The little guy? I know you don't care too much, as I recall you are a consultant that is hired by these corporations - so it's in your best interest that this continues in the direction it's going. I get that, from your personal situation.

But knowing firsthand how things have changed in the past few years for the average Joe - I'm worried about it, and I don't think it's a healthy situation for anyone except the people in charge. And taking away the RIGHT for people to work together to try to better themselves (as a group, if that is possible) and have their own well being protected as much as possible just doesn't make sense to me.

I'm sorry, but there are a ton of "good employees" that have been and are currently out of a job, and have been for a long time. It's just not that simple, no matter how you want to sign the praises of big business and corporate America.