Just issues

[JoeChalupa]

freedom of choice. I tend to have your philosophy as far as money is concerned, but we don't have the right to legislate our beliefs on others.

I concur. That is why I am pro-choice. But we do already legislate some of our beliefs on others.

[KenMcCoy]

And that is why homes cost so damn much these days. It is hard for couples to buy a home when they start in the $100's. And for me it never has been about the benjamins. I know I could be making much more cash but that is not all that I live for. IMO, the all mighty dollar has corrupted minds and morals. I'm not saying people shouldn't want to become wealthy I just don't think it is THE thing to strive for.
I've never judged success by the size of one's income.

If you live in SA there are many many homes less than 100K. This all goes to people trying to live beyond their means. A friend of mine worked at what used to be World Savings and would consistently tell me of people that made 40-60K trying to buy 500K homes...

[2centsworth]

I concur. That is why I am pro-choice. But we do already legislate some of our beliefs on others.

i do believe in protecting people against violence and protecting their property. Where you an I differ is in who is included as people.

[KenMcCoy]

The three things a democratic government needs to do:

1) Protect the country's borders
2) Maintain order in the country's interior
3) Instill trust in the country's currency

Anything after that everything else should be left to the markets.

[RonMexico]

Democrats aren't the ones that cut taxes and increased spending. 1% of the U.S. population now owns 95% of the nation's wealth, the highest discrepancy since the Great Depression. Rich people can shut the up about their taxes.

It's true that capital is required for investment, and you can't invest money that is in the US govt's coffers. So for that reason, I do not support corporate taxes, they simply pass them along to their customers in the form of higher prices. But for some dude making $500,000 a year and is going to see his personal income taxes go up to pay for things like rebuilding crumbling infrastructure and on things like health care, I got a message for you: SHUT THE UP. Boo ing hoo about your tax bracket.

My only hope of changes in corporate culture would be responsibility placed upon the shoulders of CEOs and Chairmen that make horrible decisions that affect many average consumers, yet still take home over $40m in salary and benefits. The Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac company leaders were making millions of dollars per year and just had to be bailed out by the government... without a hint of personal responsibility.

However, the country would still walk a tenuous line because performance-based compensation would place an emphasis upon corporate returns and provide greater incentive for CEOs to mislead investors leading to Enron, WorldCom, Tyco... etc. all over again.

[101A]

Well, that worked.

Of course I started the whole thing off track by citing a 2005 source to correct a factual error. Of course my source was ignored, and people continued to pull numbers out their asses and make this a class-warfare thread.

Interesting, actually.

In a thread ostensibly dedicated to only issues; THAT issue is what sparked the "hijacking". I fell for it myself. Mea Culpa.

All other things being equal; THAT seems to be the issue that most divides us; how much the wealthy OUGHT to pay in taxes - we can't agree on how much they actually DO pay! It's why the Democrats run on it every 4 years; MOST Americans, by definition are not wealthy; as "wealthy" will always be people with more than most. The Republicans, on the other hand, in defending their own policies make a point of never actually SAYING they are defending the wealthy (conservative commentators make the argument, but I don't think politicians do).

Again, interesting.

[101A]

My only hope of changes in corporate culture would be responsibility placed upon the shoulders of CEOs and Chairmen that make horrible decisions that affect many average consumers, yet still take home over $40m in salary and benefits. The Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac company leaders were making millions of dollars per year and just had to be bailed out by the government... without a hint of personal responsibility.

However, the country would still walk a tenuous line because performance-based compensation would place an emphasis upon corporate returns and provide greater incentive for CEOs to mislead investors leading to Enron, WorldCom, Tyco... etc. all over again.

In other news; good post.

Pisses me off no end to see corps bailed out 1 after the other.

I own a business my le: President/CEO. IF I it up - the business folds, people lose jobs, I go personally bankrupt and am generally screwed. My resume will read:

"Ran a Business into the Ground Spending too much damn time on discussion forums".

There is no parachute, no bailout; not even an insurance policy I can buy.

I guess that's why, with so much risk in what I do, with how much I have to lose; and while taking that risk I provide 30 jobs (pretty good paying one) - when the govt. wants to take of 50% of what I do make when I am doing a good job - while bailing out other companies, because they are bigger and their failure affects more (voters) and the economy a a whole - well, just pisses me off.

Oh yeah, and if I pull it off, keep it going, make it successful until the day I die, many people want to make the taxes SO high at that point, that my kids will have to sell the business just to pay them.

That's where I'm coming from on the whole class-warfare thing.

[DarkReign]

I don't doubt that.

Please dont. Michigan blows, and Im not just talking about the football team.

[RandomGuy]

I disagree with both candidates on the use of the death penalty. Life in prison, without the possibility of parole provides the same benefits to the society, while costing fewer dollars, and eliminating the chance of "getting it wrong - and killing an innocent person".

I agree whole-heartedly.

[fyatuk]

I agree whole-heartedly.

I disagree with the death penalty only when applied to a first offense. I completely disagree with "Life without parole".

[ploto]

I just do not understand how people can claim to be "pro-life" and support the death penalty. If life is sacred, then it ALL is.

[fyatuk]

I just do not understand how people can claim to be "pro-life" and support the death penalty. If life is sacred, then it ALL is.

An unborn child is as innocent as it gets. Death penalty is applied those who have committed grave sin.

It's an eye for an eye viewpoint. How is that difficult to understand.

Not that I share it, mind you.

I have a harder time understanding those opposed to the death penalty but pro-choice.

[TheMadHatter]

Pro-Lifers that support the Death Penalty are the very definition of hypocrisy.

[101A]

Pro-Lifers that support the Death Penalty are the very definition of hypocrisy.

bad argument

I do not support the death, but that notwithstanding, being pro-life and pro death penalty is not hypocritical.

Innocent live vs. otherwise.

[101A]

double post

[I am Tom]

bad argument

I do not support the death, but that notwithstanding, being pro-life and pro death penalty is not hypocritical.

Innocent live vs. otherwise.

Life is life.

[boutons_]

"pro-life and pro death penalty is not hypocritical"

Of course it is. It's being pro-life selectively, and pro-death selectively.

Pro-life is saying life begins at conception, but selecting out all the conceived embryos that are trashed by fertility clinics as not a concern for the pro-lifers.

There are too many do ented, proven errors in executions to justify execution. Executions, even imprisonment, do not dissuade criminals.