http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1213..._us_whats_news"Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably.
He also would fund an "infrastructure reinvestment bank" that would finance $60 billion in high-speed railways, improved energy grids and other projects over a decade. He would double spending on basic research, subsidize investment in high-speed Internet hook-ups, and offer $4,000 a year in tuition credits for students who later perform public services.
To "capture some of the nation's economic growth," he said in the interview, "and reinvest it in things we know have to be done like science, technology, research and fixing our energy policy, then that is actually going to spur productivity."
Sen. McCain argues for as little government spending as possible and paints his opponent as a liberal who would tax more, spend more and drive the country into deficit. He backs a cap-and-trade system that would be used to fund energy technology, but Mr. Holtz-Eakin said the scale would be far smaller than the Obama plan. And, Mr. Holtz-Eakin said, a "green technology fund is plain silly. Silicon Valley has piles of money devoted to clean technology."
Sen. Obama made the case in the interview for large-scale government intervention in the energy market, saying that although venture funds are investing heavily in energy technology, there was a gap in funding that should be filled by Washington. He called it supporting the "middle stage" between innovation and commercialization. "You have this point in time when things haven't quite taken off yet and still entail huge risks," he said.
Cliff notes: technology bad, socialism good.
This guy scares the out of me.
I'm all for people making lots of money but what disturbs me is when a CEO gets 400 million dollars and the employees are stuck with their 2.5% annual merit increase... Why don't these executives accept 300 million and allow for the other 100 million to reward the people who actually did the work?
I am all for this type of redistribution of wealth..
"Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers", is a truism.
The next quote is just a liberal being honest about what they think. It IS scary. "Strong Hand" does provide a more clear representation of what onerous taxation, and wealth redistribution is. It is taking forcibly. It is legalized theft.
CEO's don't work? They don't have skills? Board members and stock holders pay them those outrageous salaries (btw, please link the CEO that gets that kind of bling as salary) because they are nice - or because they make the stockholders more money?
Do you have a problem with what Duncan makes, or Tom Cruise? What about CEO/Owners? Can they reap the rewards of their OWN company's success?
And aren't we only talking about a very small handful of people here? In your mind, who all do you lump into the class of "CEO's making 400 million dollars"? If there ARE any of those in this country, I bet there are not more than a dozen. Why are you so worked up over such a small number of people?
Also, you DO know that the redistribution of wealth is based on income alone, right? Not job le.
They get paid whether they make stockholders money or not.CEO's don't work? They don't have skills? Board members and stock holders pay them those outrageous salaries (btw, please link the CEO that gets that kind of bling as salary) because they are nice - or because they make the stockholders more money?
Why is the CEO salary so much higher relative to the average worker than it was in the 50s?
Did CEOs work several hundred times less back then?
Because the job is more complex now; and there are fewer people relatively who have the skills to succeed, and make a company succeed than there were in the '50's, would be my guess. There are "star" CEO's that the boards want, and, as free agents, they get what the market will pay them. Look at star head coaches and what they make versus their assistants. The average "job", and what is demanded from it, however, has changed very little. Not to mention, with the introduction of millions of women into the work force, the number of people able to perform that job has grown considerably; thus lowering the price necessary to have that average job perfomred.
Sorry, didn't respond to this before.
Yeah, but like any other employee who doesn't do a good job, they get fired - and then it's that much harder to get the next job.
They get paid more when they get fired -- so much that they don't have to work another day in their lives.
Typical.
Actually, I was wrong, the jobs are probably less strenuous and taxing, what with the technology available.
It's the CEOs who do all the work!
Typical, again.
It's the CEOs who do all the work!
Do you ever ACTUALLY engage in conversation. Are you capable of it?
Why should I?
You have proven your point quite well.
Workers don't work. CEOs are the real workers.
101 - I don't even disagree with much of what you're arguing but the way you phrased it is so LOL that I don't even know what to say.
I don't like Obama's stance on Economics either. I think he's incorrect on a lot of things. I also don't think that a vital role of the presidency is to declare economic policy beyond what work they do on a budget even even then Congress has more to do with it. Congress is where you should look for a better direction of economic policy.
If people want to vote their president based on Economic policy then Obama is not their candidate.
Do you feel that way about Hollywood. You know they actors getting filthy rich and the cameramen, carpenters and whatnot getting jack. Or how bout that damn Tiger he got 1 mil 3 for a weeks work and the groundskeepers got jack. on and on and on. Oh, and Tiger gets about 2-3 hundred million a year for endorsements and the makers get beans. on and on and on. And Obama made his whole salary for the Senate and only showing up sometimes.....on and on and on
Let's see, GM lost $39 billion last year and saw its stock drop 19%.
What do you think happened to the CEO?
He got a 64% raise.
It makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
I see repugs are real nervous that their candidate is going to get trounced.
Ah, and all the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committe got was lower points. Really not fair, is it.
What a horrible attempt to change the subject, even for you.
No Im nervous about my country turning to socialism.
Actually I could care less about my 'candidate', but the USA turning into the USSA scares the out of me for the future of America.
Oh, and I agree with the tangent that CEOs get too much relative to their workers, that's bull . But Obama's talking about basically hitting anyone who actually has a decent job and taking more of their wages.
As it is I'm still paying for my college financial aid debt, I'd rather not have him get elected and decide I need to be paying for the lazy s in this country who won't get off their ass and get a job.
This is funny.
One word: Congress
And if democrats control congress and get the presidency like it looks like will happen this fall, you have only yourself and other conservatives to blame. The absolute disaster that was the Bush administration is about to reap what it sowed.
Yeah, really hilarious. Just a really great day for all of America. Read on court jester.
This is funny.
FOXNews.com
Be Careful What You Wish For, Congress
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
By Neil Cavuto
Well it seems like House Democrats have found a president they can believe in.
Not Barack Obama, who wants the job.
And certainly not George Bush, who has the job.
But Hugo Chavez, who as far as I know, doesn't qualify for the job.
But Chavez qualifies for something else. Something Democrats have increasingly been demanding in the United Sates. Something Chavez has been doing in Venezuela.
Nationalizing the oil companies.
Specifically, some House Democrats want to nationalize oil refineries. This way the government could better control the flow of the oil supply.
Marvelous. So they're opposed to more drilling.
But not opposed to more government.
Shocking. Please cue a FOX News Alert.
And given the government's impeccable record taking over so many aspects of our lives, why shouldn't it just take over our oil refineries.
That government lockbox has done wonders to shore up social security.
Trillions spent on the war on poverty, and still a lot of poverty.
And who better to lecture an industry on properly spending money than a government that can't keep track of its own?
Given their scrupulous attention to financial detail and cost controls, who better to police gas gouging than the very folks who perfected tax gouging?
So that's their response. Let the government handle it.
That's like me guarding a bake shop to make sure someone doesn't steal the cannolis. News flash! Not wise.
Just like this isn't wise. Because be careful what you wish for, Congress.
When you own the refineries, you own them — lock, stock, and eye-popping barrel.
Because when you own the refineries, you're responsible for the refining.
And the costs of that refining, and maintaining, and distributing, and supplying, and trading.
But I guess if Hugo Chavez can do it, why shouldn't you?
Never mind he's just a petty dictator.
You're just petty politicians, who'd sooner sign onto the wisdom of a tyrant in another country, than the demands of ticked off voters in your own.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
