DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:

Heretic wrote:Mawhahahahaha you're just another one of those where you just have to believe what I say people.

no, but I am not going to accept that perfectly(seemingly) intelligent people are unable to double check my facts, nor am I going to link every piece of what should be common knowledge.

Fact is it's not our job to check your facts it's your job to backup what you say with facts. Talk about egoism. There is a lot of knowledge out there and not every one here has had the opportunity to get the education you have. So common knowledge is in the mind of the individual.

Heretic wrote:So common knowledge is in the mind of the individual.

and, on that quote, I'm off for a week of fishing and fine dining, leaving you with these words:
Google is your Friend.

Will Robinson wrote:And the alternative that you support by your blind allegiance to the other half of the problem is letting the government consume the wealth, and I do mean consume not re purpose on our behalf. They simply consume something like 75% of every penny they take in the name of spending it on our behalf! So to follow your example of affordable healthcare the only result is less people will be able to afford the care and the government won't come close to being able to fund the Obama plan so the government will ration care based on what ever criteria they want to use. Voila! Death panels. D's= death panels. R's=death if you can't break the wealth barrier. So do you want to toss a coin to see if they let you have care or do you want to try your luck at making enough to survive?
Death is death no matter who delivers it to you.

They will bankrupt their brand new healthcare system right away. Their own accounting says so.
Consider the way they have squandered every bit of money they get their hands on don't fool yourself into thinking this will be different! Why would it? Because it's a new program?!? Ha!
It is doomed from the beginning because a realistic plan wasn't set in motion. A bunch of promises loaded with a bunch of pork spending was put where a plan should be so you would vote for them! Yes they think you are that stupid. Your neighbors made them think that because so many of them are that stupid.

Here is something I wish all voters would consider. A simple common sense test of intelligence and your true sense of justice and compassion:

If, instead of America's situation this same situation was a picture of your own household. Imagine the governments ability to print money is your credit cards, etc., because of your excessive spending your income is coming up short by the same ratio their revenue stream is and your current debt ratio mirrors the governments. I think it is safe to say you wouldn't try to solve things for your family by anything close to the methods this administration and congress are using (and yes we know Bush and other repubs caused it too).

Admit that much at least, that you would make harder choices and do what is right for your family.

And if you have the integrity to acknowledge that fact then how dare you vote to implement either, disaster R, or disaster D, upon us all just so you can have your team win an election!!! What the F#@^ have they ever done for you to be able to turn you into such stooge?!?

Why do you think I support the health care mess Obama created? Just because I'm more liberal doesn't mean I support the crap he came up with as a "solution". The Dems are in bed with the money movers and shakers too, and I don't have a blind allegiance to them either. If I had my choice between an honest-to-their-core-values Democrat or a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, I'd choose the Democrat. Problem is, most of the Democrats are corrupt, so my choices as a voter are slim to nothing.

I just think that farming out our hard earned health care dollars to private enterprise is a monumental waste of my meager income. And yes, the government is a giant sinkhole of bureaucrats that could care less about whether we live or die, so it could use a big house cleaning, not the tear down that Republicans want. My point is that even though the government is bloated, it's there to serve the people, US, not just pure inhuman profit that the free market is driven by. What we really need to do is throw out the corruption and FIX the government, not nuke it when it's broke or rotten. I just don't see that happening though. Politicians are like mold, rotten and slimy. You can scrape away the surface layer, but it will return if no one keeps things clean and dry.

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archiv ... aking-scam

One can argue whether health care is a right or not, and depending on that position, one can be for or against either government or private industry running things. Personally, I think that good health for all is part and parcel with of the "Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness" ideal in the Declaration of Independence. That makes it a part of the "social commons" in my book, and I don't think for profit entities have the social good in mind. Corporations have no soul or humanity. Right now, neither the government nor the private sector are palitable choices for health care, so what's to choose for my family? Crap or turds, or better yet, nothing. Might save myself form a little profit driven iatrogenic harm anyway.

Dissent, all I can say is that I'm betting that the price for oil will drop again, conveniently right after the voters have rejected Obama in 2012 and Wall Street finally gets rid of that damned Democratic Socialist President, I'm guessing. This current price volatility smells of manipulation for some reason or another that I can't prove or waste my time trying, and we're all paying for it.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/baracko ... /id/393536

Check out how much information I found about how Medicare is more efficient than private insurance after literally 5 seconds of Google time:

Why Medicare is More Efficient Than Private Insurers

Here's a study by Dr. Jacob S. Hacker with some CBO data about how Medicare is more efficient than private insurance

Yet more data about this...

Wow, that was hard. I could have pulled a muscle.

Today's Bible teaching moment:

tunnelcat wrote:

Mark 10:25 wrote:
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Keep in mind, in Jesus' day, it was assumed that the rich were in the best position to get into heaven, because they were the ones God had blessed so much up until that point. Jesus wasn't trying to say that it's extra hard for the rich, but instead that it's hard for everyone!

Look at the followup comment: "Then who can be saved?" If not the rich -- those who God has blessed like Abraham -- then we're all screwed, right? Jesus responds that "it's easy for the poor because they're not greedy"... right? No, actually, Jesus responds that "This is impossible for mere humans, but not for God; all things are possible for God." So yes, we are all screwed if we're trying to get in on our own, no matter how much favor God has shown us -- the rich can't do it, the poor can't do it, Abraham, Moses, David, and Elijah can't do it. God is the only one who can do it, which is central to the gospel: everyone falls short of God's standards, but everyone is given free access to God through Jesus' death and resurrection.

(There are lots and lots of other parts of the Bible that don't square with Ayn Rand's teachings, or with certain Tea Party adherents' principles, but Mark 10:25 isn't what you think it is.)

What bothers me is this new Prosperity Theology started by Oral Roberts and embraced by many Americans, that God provides material prosperity for those he favors. That only gives people the warm and fuzzies that God likes them and the wealth they've accumulated, no matter if that wealth is ill gotten or not worked for at all, like trust fund babies, bankers and hedge fund traders. A choice and convenient reason for accumulating wealth at the expense of others. While people starve and suffer, you're wealth is approved by Jesus and a ticket to heaven. Convenient!

tunnelcat wrote:What bothers me is this new Prosperity Theology started by Oral Roberts and embraced by many Americans, that God provides material prosperity for those he favors. That only gives people the warm and fuzzies that God likes them and the wealth they've accumulated, no matter if that wealth is ill gotten or not worked for at all, like trust fund babies, bankers and hedge fund traders. A choice and convenient reason for accumulating wealth at the expense of others. While people starve and suffer, you're wealth is approved by Jesus and a ticket to heaven. Convenient!

What sermon delivered that message? 'god rewards those that accumulate ill gotten gains'?!? Please give us a link to that church!

And do you know the difference between a trust fund baby and a legacy baby of the welfare state? Hint: only one of them lives off the hard work of the middle class. As one of the guys sweating it out in the middle I wish there were more trust fund babies out there so my taxes would go down and my customer list would grow!

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:...new Prosperity Theology started by Oral Roberts...

What sermon delivered that message? 'god rewards those that accumulate ill gotten gains'?!? Please give us a link to that church!

Unfortunately, my early church background ('80s & early '90s) was in that type of teaching (not ill-gotten gains necessarily, but certainly "God promises wealth; wealth is God's reward").

It's a well-known movement in some western evangelical churches, and it's honestly some pretty disturbing stuff. Fortunately it's been declining for over fifteen years now, but I still see elements of it at times, even in mainstream churches.

Foil wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:...new Prosperity Theology started by Oral Roberts...

What sermon delivered that message? 'god rewards those that accumulate ill gotten gains'?!? Please give us a link to that church!

Unfortunately, my early church background ('80s & early '90s) was in that type of teaching (not ill-gotten gains necessarily, but certainly "God promises wealth; wealth is God's reward").

It's a well-known movement in some western evangelical churches, and it's honestly some pretty disturbing stuff. Fortunately it's been declining for over fifteen years now, but I still see elements of it at times, even in mainstream churches.

I can handle the whole fairy tale or metaphor of 'God rewards his flock' but God rewarding ill-gotten gains is a game changer though. TC is the only one I've ever heard suggest that branch of Christianity is on the tree though so I'll take a wait and see approach

I've never heard that either, but stranger things have been taught.

Sort of like…God helps people who help themselves…to other peoples stuff.

ya it doesn't say that in the Bible either

tunnelcat wrote:What bothers me is this new Prosperity Theology started by Oral Roberts and embraced by many Americans, that God provides material prosperity for those he favors

Yeah, every time I hear that, I wonder what Bible they're reading and how selectively.

I suspect they focus on such characters as Abraham, Solomon, and the one single line that's devoted to a guy named Jabez. They completely ignore people like Elijah, Jesus, Paul, and the Macedonian church. They ignore many teachings about how "in this world you will have trouble" and "store up your treasures in heaven".

One of my favorite songs [0] makes fun of this mentality. "He ain't take that cross to fund your vanity purchase!" "It's sickening, that knowing God ain't good enough we tell em they can get rich quickly. Now this is heresy, false, it's not true. 2 Corinthians chapter 8 and verse 2. Read that and please believe that, forget a C-note man they pockets was E-flat, they still had joy!"



[0]

There used to be a guy named Rev. Ike who got pretty rich selling prayer cloths.

Heh, you're all fairly close. It's some really wacky teaching at it's core, although the extent to which people get into it varies quite a bit, and it's often more misguided than intentionally deceptive.

Perhaps I'll make a post about my experience growing up in that kind of church when I have more time.

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:...new Prosperity Theology started by Oral Roberts...

What sermon delivered that message? 'god rewards those that accumulate ill gotten gains'?!? Please give us a link to that church!

Will Robinson wrote:

Foil wrote:
Unfortunately, my early church background ('80s & early '90s) was in that type of teaching (not ill-gotten gains necessarily, but certainly "God promises wealth; wealth is God's reward").

It's a well-known movement in some western evangelical churches, and it's honestly some pretty disturbing stuff. Fortunately it's been declining for over fifteen years now, but I still see elements of it at times, even in mainstream churches.

I can handle the whole fairy tale or metaphor of 'God rewards his flock' but God rewarding ill-gotten gains is a game changer though. TC is the only one I've ever heard suggest that branch of Christianity is on the tree though so I'll take a wait and see approach

Sorry for the Quote tunnel.

I just wanted to clarify something here. Oral Robers wasn't the originator or at least in its PRESENT form. (Yes, I read that Oral reportedly started it after WWII..I wasn't there then, so I can't confirm that ) Kenneth Hagin and and Kenneth Copeland Championed the "Word of Faith" theology and is largely what we're seeing still to day. And as Foil pointed out, it's been around in the mainstream since the 80's. They warped some old and new testament scripture.
Wiki has a good write-up on it. I had to go back and read exactly which scriptures were used. It was REALLY popular from about 88-95.

Will, there have ALWAYS been individuals that have fleeced the flock. That is to say, taking advantage of people in Christianity "because God said so" (or however you want to phrase it). Extortionists have been around from day one. It's nothing new. American culture just suits it well.

Duper, I was watching the PBS show 'Religion and Ethics' last weekend and this man summed up quite succinctly what I think is wrong with modern Evangelical Christianity and modern society as a whole. You can read the whole interview here:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethi ... rson/8806/

But the gist of what caught my attention was Pastor Peterson's statement from this part of the interview with Abernethy:

R&E Weekly wrote:ABERNETHY: Not surprisingly, Peterson also condemns the so-called prosperity gospel—preaching that if people follow Jesus, God will give them tangible rewards.

PETERSON: Well, I think it’s a lie. I think it’s just a downright rotten lie. It’s nowhere in Christian tradition, so how does this get going in our culture? It’s greed is what it is. It’s greed given a spiritual name: God will bless you. I want to ask these prosperity gospel people, do your people ever die? Do the people in your church ever die? What do you do when they die? Where’s the prosperity in that? I don’t have much patience with them, to tell you the truth, because I think they’re defrauding people.

ABERNETHY: I also asked Peterson what he thought of doing church online.

PETERSON: Oh, my. You know that you can have virtual baptisms now? There are pastors who have virtual baptisms. You can—he’ll baptize your baby in the bathtub. You do the baptizing, he’ll say the words, and you have a virtual baptism. How do you like that?

ABERNETHY: As Peterson compares life on Flathead Lake in Montana to life in the rest of the country, he does not like what he sees.

PETERSON: American culture is probably the least Christian culture that we’ve ever had because it is so materialistic and it’s so full of lies. The whole advertising world is just, it’s just intertwined with lies, appealing to the worst of the instincts we have. The problem is people have been treated as consumers for so long they don’t know any other way to live.

Halleluiah and Amen to that!

Will Robinson, you wanted to know what my definition of ill gotten gains was? Well, in my mind, people that make incredible amounts of money without performing any actual work that benefits or supports society in general. For example, ne'er do well, lazy second and third generation trust fund brats that live fat off the hog from the hard work their parents did, anyone associated with Wall Street, Hedge Funds and Banks, any corporate CEO who makes 300% or more in compensation than their lowest paid workers make and thinks that's fair, church pastors and religious leaders who enrich themselves from the tithing of their flock and tell those same members that wealth of the church and it's leader is good before the eyes of God, politicians (of both parties by the way) who say that they're helping the country when they're really lining their pockets with corporate lobbyist cash that benefits only their corporate clients and themselves and stiffs the middle class working people of this country they say they're trying to help out and a final fitting example of our bloated, greedy, materialistic country, hugely overpaid sports stars, both professional and collegiate and spoiled, arrogant entertainment personalities that think they are entitled to all their wealth because they think they work hard. Pfffffffffft!

But our country's wealthy won't be able to sit on their thrones forever. They'd better start building walls around themselves because when most people eventually have nothing, they'll have nothing to lose. That's what scares me about the way this country is heading. Class warfare has now commenced.

tunnelcat wrote:any corporate CEO who makes 300% or more in compensation than their lowest paid workers

I really don't have a problem with that, actually a good CEO may be worth considerably more than just 3 times the compensation of their lowest paid worker. I mean seriously, given that the lowest paid worker is probably getting minimum wage that would add up to something around $21.75/hr around here. A decent CEO is worth way more than that by anyone's standard. 100 years ago the average CEO/business owner earned 3x the average worker under them and I think that was pretty fair considering the higher tax burden and all.

What I have a problem with is the average corporate CEO today makes 350 TIMES as much as the average employee salary. That isn't 300%; its 35,000% and it isn't based off of minimum wage, its off the average employee pay which is well over minimum wage. Hell; 35,000% of minimum wage is still pretty ridiculous (it would be $2,537.50/hr here).

As for the rest of your post, yeah there is room for reform in the system. However, something to keep in mind is that all bubbles eventually burst and the people/families with ill gotten wealth/power will eventually lose it. Also for all the wealth and connections and stuff that these social elites have, the bulk of them sure are miserable for most of their lives. They will eventually be replaced by someone else because inequality is pretty much the only thing you can take for granted in society and nobody can stay at the top forever. It will either fall down on them just because the system won't take the abuse anymore, or someone else will come along and invent the next thing and the cycle will repeat just with different people.

I will bet the average dumb ass thinks 300% means 300x and that is exactly why they chose percentage.

Yes, I searched…

tunnelcat wrote:...Will Robinson, you wanted to know what my definition of ill gotten gains was? ....

No, I asked where/who is the church/preacher you referenced that teaches 'ill gotten gains are what god wants his flock to pursue'.

but I liked your rant

Can a really effective CEO of a large company be responsible for the creation of wealth worth 350x the salary of a minimum wage employee in a year? It seems plausible, in which case it seems fair, although I doubt that most CEO's making this money are up to the task.

I've seen several European acquaintances of mine on another forum I frequent express extreme puzzlement over the fact that a large percentage of Americans seem to be in favor of financial policies that work directly against their own financial class. There's this lingering promise of the "American dream" that makes many of us (and I've been guilty of it myself sometimes too) back policies that favor the upper to super-upper class, because we have this idea that we're going to get there at some point and be able to benefit from said policies. However, the cold hard truth is that the vast majority of people don't even get the chance to "move on up," much less are able to do so...and meanwhile, the wealth disparity in this country continues to increase. I think there are areas where we need to take a good hard look at what we believe and figure out exactly who benefits from it.

I think a lot of people have a problem with the idea that some people can be 100x as productive as other people. If I'm creating 100x as much wealth as someone else, where is the injustice in that? Maybe this is especially obvious for those of us who work with technology. By writing software that people find valuable in my spare time, I can create wealth out of thin air with virtually no cost. If I'm really good at it, I can do it over 20x as effectively as others. If I direct a team of people who are really good at it, it's not unimaginable that I could be responsible for creating even larger amounts of wealth. I guess I'm failing to see where the unfairness is in all of this. Maybe there's a reason why silicon valley isn't in Europe?

Top Gun wrote:we have this idea that we're going to get there at some point and be able to benefit from said policies

I don't think that's it for the vast majority of conservatives.

For many, individualism and a particular form of "fairness" dominate political decisions, whether or not they think they personally will benefit. They just prefer to live in a land where people who invent things or do things better than others can get rich doing so, and others congratulate them instead of envying them. They prefer to live in a land where you can get filthy stinkin rich or filthy stinkin poor based on your own decisions, and there's not a whole lot of government interference in that (though private charity, either way, is generally encouraged.) They don't want the government making the decision as to how rich you can get or how charitable you have to be if you get there.

And yeah, a CEO can add as much value as hundreds of average employees in the right circumstances. Even a good employee can add tens or hundreds of times the value of an average or below-average employee. Someone who can solve difficult problems, invent better products or procedures, or make very good strategic decisions can easily be worth hundreds of times what someone who just plugs away at average problems is worth. In war, an average soldier might protect a few of his buddies, while an excellent general might develop a plan that saves tens of thousands, or a great engineer might invent a technology that saves tens of thousands on both sides. I think it's completely fair that someone who is hundreds of times more effective can be paid hundreds of times more. (And if bigcorp's CEO isn't hundreds of times more effective than an average employee, they made a hiring mistake!)

Lothar wrote:And yeah, a CEO can add as much value as hundreds of average employees in the right circumstances. Even a good employee can add tens or hundreds of times the value of an average or below-average employee. Someone who can solve difficult problems, invent better products or procedures, or make very good strategic decisions can easily be worth hundreds of times what someone who just plugs away at average problems is worth. In war, an average soldier might protect a few of his buddies, while an excellent general might develop a plan that saves tens of thousands, or a great engineer might invent a technology that saves tens of thousands on both sides. I think it's completely fair that someone who is hundreds of times more effective can be paid hundreds of times more. (And if bigcorp's CEO isn't hundreds of times more effective than an average employee, they made a hiring mistake!)

Right on.

Top Gun, while your theory of people voting to give their future rich selves an edge may have some theoretical merit, I don't believe this is a fair representation of the conserve desire for fairness of opportunity, not fairness of outcome, and I think Lothar's reply was fitting.

Top Gun wrote:However, the cold hard truth is that the vast majority of people don't even get the chance to "move on up," much less are able to do so...and meanwhile, the wealth disparity in this country continues to increase.

Frankly I don't believe you have the background needed to fairly present the "cold hard truth" of the business world. The cold hard truth is that people are usually either less than disciplined, lazy, both, and/or lack the moral fiber and wisdom to progress. In other words they don't because they don't, not because the chance never presents itself or isn't there--more than likely they just didn't perceive the chance when it was there. To be successful in business a person must be disciplined enough to live outside of their normal comfort zones when comfort would keep you from doing what needs to be done. We are absolutely surrounded by opportunity. Personally I'm only concerned with the "wealth disparity" inasmuch as it could conceivably allow the wealthy to rule as an elite class--unduly shaping policy and changing laws contrary to common sense and the good of every individual. I believe we do have some of that now, but I also believe we have the tools to see it put down.

Lothar wrote:I don't think that's it for the vast majority of conservatives.

For many, individualism and a particular form of "fairness" dominate political decisions, whether or not they think they personally will benefit. They just prefer to live in a land where people who invent things or do things better than others can get rich doing so, and others congratulate them instead of envying them. They prefer to live in a land where you can get filthy stinkin rich or filthy stinkin poor based on your own decisions, and there's not a whole lot of government interference in that (though private charity, either way, is generally encouraged.) They don't want the government making the decision as to how rich you can get or how charitable you have to be if you get there.

That's all well and good in theory, but quite frankly, it isn't the way reality works. Where you're born is, by and large, around where you're going to wind up, usually through no fault of your own. Yet when you look at demographics, a significant group who tends to vote for self-proclaimed "conservatives" will never see that ideal come to pass for themselves or anyone they know, whereas another ideal would grant them direct benefits. And when I look around at the people who are "filthy stinkin' rich," I don't see many of them who have done much that I'd qualify as worthwhile. A lot of people getting paid way too much to star in movies, play children's games, or create their own golden parachutes, but not much in the way of true value to society. In a just world, good teachers and scientists would be getting paid a few orders of magnitude more than they are now, and professional athletes would get a few orders of magnitude less.

And on the subject of CEOs, how exactly does one define "generating wealth" in a quantitative sense, anyway? Surely the product engineer who comes up with the design for a killer new feature on the latest tech gadget managed to "generate" more in the material sense than the person who happened to be the company's president at the time, but I don't see the former getting an eight-figure bonus at the end of the fiscal year. What exactly do these career management suits do that makes them worth their ridiculous salaries?

Quite frankly, I don't see how the world needs any more people worth more than they could spend in ten lifetimes. I'm just glad that there are people like Warren Buffett who have managed to convince other people in that particular bracket to leave their extravagance to a good cause after they're gone.

Top Gun wrote:A lot of people getting paid way too much to star in movies, play children's games, ...

No offense, Top Gun, but that's just ignorant. I assume that by "children's games" you mean professional sports. These guys put a lot into developing the talent to play a game with a degree of excellence that is enjoyable to watch. Everything they have they have coming to them--they don't get paid more than they earn. This from someone who doesn't follow professional sports on a regular basis--I'm not a fan. Same concept with movie stars. Sure they get filthy rich, but they're entertaining an absolutely huge audience in both cases, and they are only part of a much larger machine, respectively, that generates a whole lot more than they take home. If you as a science teacher find a way to serve an audience of tens of thousands with a high level of excellence then you too can reap those kind of rewards. You think the world should be apportioned according to your foolish notions of fairness? That's not the way it works. Welcome to reality.

Okay...so since professional athletes and actors have the benefit of international media exposure, they're automatically entitled to make more in a day than most people make in a year. That's such an enlightened position.

Well I hate sports but if you want to make the big bucks you will have to

Prepare yourself for the difficulty of your task a lot of people dream of becoming a professional ball or hockey player, very few make it.

Start early training you'll have a better chance at becoming what you want to be.

Train fanatically at what you want to become.

Study the sport you want to play in by watching other players you'll be able to defend against their moves and abilities.

Again train your body and mind. If you are out of shape by sleeping on moms sofa you'll never be the sportsmen you want to be.

These people spend their whole lives training to play the game. They deserve the rewards of all that training.

People in most other professions spend their entire lives studying for their jobs as well, Heretic. The only reason athletes get paid so much is that they distract people from their problems, like events in Roman coliseums.

It used to be all about the fan no it's all about what they can get from the fan. This is the reason I hate sports.

My brother once wrote a program for the state he was working for that ended up saving the department over $10,000 a month forever afterwards. He did not get a bonus or a raise or anything but a pat on the back as a result. His experience in the corporate sector is slightly better, but still largely the same. Even if you generate millions in revenue you won't get much of a reward as a result...although the head of your division might.

In corporate America all the extra productivity above average you bring to the table pretty much gets used exclusively to line the pockets of the people further up the ladder that had virtually nothing to do with your work. Just because you are more productive than someone else doesn't mean you will be compensated more for it.

Top Gun wrote:when you look at demographics, a significant group who tends to vote for self-proclaimed "conservatives" will never see that ideal come to pass for themselves or anyone they know

Which is completely OK in their minds. Really, it is. They don't want an ideal that "benefits them". They want an ideal that they think is fair. They want an ideal that lets individuals decide what's important to them.

Europeans and liberals tend to find themselves extremely confused by the right half of the American political spectrum because they're so used to thinking in terms of classes and class warfare and trying to benefit your class. That sort of thinking doesn't even get discussed by conservatives, except occasionally to make fun of it. The average American conservative doesn't think of other people who make the same amount of money as them as a monolithic peer group; they're more likely to find peers through common beliefs or activities (religion, politics, fans of the same sports team, etc.) And they simply don't think about trying to make laws to benefit their peer group at the expense of others. They might support policies that happen to do so, but that's a side effect, not the goal. Those on the left tend to apply the label "selfish" to those on the right, but that label is inappropriate; "individualistic" is more accurate -- most people on the right aren't interested in class warfare, they're not interested in trying to tweak the system so they personally get ahead, they just want a system that lets people benefit based on what they personally do. (Funny that you're criticizing conservatives for not being selfish enough, isn't it?)

You mention the vast majority of people stay in the same economic class. Yes, they do -- because the vast majority of people act like their parents, and it's no accident that their parents were in the economic class they were in. But a non-trivial percentage of people do break the mold, and move up (or down). I don't see a problem with a world wherein 90% of people do things more or less like their parents.

In a just world, good teachers and scientists would be getting paid a few orders of magnitude more than they are now, and professional athletes would get a few orders of magnitude less

As those in the startup world would say, that's an opportunity. If you think good scientists are worth an order of magnitude more than they currently make, go start a company that employs good scientists for an order of magnitude more than they currently make. They will flock to your company, and you will out-compete other companies within your field because those scientists will add so much to your bottom line. And you will become wealthy because you were the one who spotted the opportunity and executed upon it.

I understand that you personally would prefer personal athletes to make less money, but pretending it's some grave injustice that they make so much is silly. Pro athletes make a lot of money because a LOT of people are willing to pay a little bit to see the best athletes in the world (media coverage isn't accidental; the media covers them because people want to watch.) Honestly, LeBron James probably adds twenty times his salary to his team's bottom line. What more reasonable measure of "worth" do you have than "what consumers are willing to pay for this person's output"? The roughly 5,000 best athletes in this country have amazing earning potential during their primes because they're fun for a mass audience to watch... and, I should mention, thousands of entrepreneurs every year end up taking home a nice chunk of cash because they make a product that a mass audience is willing to pay money for.

Surely the product engineer who comes up with the design for a killer new feature on the latest tech gadget managed to "generate" more in the material sense than the person who happened to be the company's president at the time

Did you miss the part where I said that a very good employee might generate hundreds of times the value of an average one? Indeed, a very good engineer might generate more than a CEO. Or a good CEO might generate ten times more than that very good engineer, if the CEO made a strategic decision like "instead of competing on price, let's compete on quality and user experience" (Apple under Steve Jobs). Contrary to tc's assertion that CEO pay should be capped at like 3x the minimum, I think pay should be uncapped across the board because people who are very good at what they do can add millions or even billions of dollars to their company's bottom line. If your company's CEO isn't adding millions or billions to the bottom line, you hired the wrong person!

Now, I agree with you that the corporate world sometimes handles bonuses wrong. CEOs who don't make particularly good decisions often benefit from the decisions of those under them. Engineers who make significant breakthroughs often get rewarded with a pen. That's why excellent engineers often end up either going to companies with a reputation for rewarding excellence (like Google) or going independent (contracting, startups, etc.) Again, this is not some grave injustice across the whole system; it's an opportunity that people are already taking advantage of.

I don't see how the world needs any more people worth more than they could spend in ten lifetimes.

I know a dude whose life vision is to make a clock that shows moon phases. Another's life vision is to translate the Bible into a particular obscure language. So what if some other guy's life vision is to acquire a huge pile of gold coins to swim in? Why is that my business, or your business? It should be our business if the guy is stealing all his gold, but if he accumulates it by adding value to people's lives, then it's his business. (I might criticize him for making that his life goal, on religious or philosophical grounds, but I have no business criticizing him for following through on it.)

I'm glad there are people like WB and Gates who have convinced others to give away their wealth. If some other rich dude decides to spend it all on fast cars, I don't think Jesus would approve, but I don't think it's my job or your job or the government's job to force him to support the poor/charity instead. If I can convince the guy to change his ways, that's all well and good, but it should happen because he was convinced, not because he was coerced or forced.

Top Gun wrote:Okay...so since professional athletes and actors have the benefit of international media exposure, they're automatically entitled to make more in a day than most people make in a year. That's such an enlightened position.

They're not "entitled". You need to get rid of that kind of thinking totally. They've just done it. Everyone in the operation is getting a piece of the pie, but you can't have professional sports at all without athletes, so they are highly paid for their specialization. And I would argue that not many people put into their jobs what athletes put into their game, and if they do then they are the great successes you see here and there.

Krom wrote:My brother once wrote a program for the state he was working for that ended up saving the department over $10,000 a month forever afterwards. He did not get a bonus or a raise or anything but a pat on the back as a result. His experience in the corporate sector is slightly better, but still largely the same. Even if you generate millions in revenue you won't get much of a reward as a result...although the head of your division might.

In corporate America all the extra productivity above average you bring to the table pretty much gets used exclusively to line the pockets of the people further up the ladder that had virtually nothing to do with your work. Just because you are more productive than someone else doesn't mean you will be compensated more for it.

And this is exactly why I believe people should think more along the lines of being self-employed instead of having a “job“. On the one hand the left says we have to be a team, and individualism is wrong, but the result is being consumed by the “collective”. (and then complaining about it)

“Just take one for the team Bob”.

The idea isn't that you'll always receive a fair amount of money from your employer. The government is a good entity to work for if you want a "safe" paycheck, one that doesn't go down if you don't do anything spectacular and doesn't go up if you do. If you're consistently more valuable than what your current job is paying you, then you should go find a new one (or create your own), but it might be riskier!

Krom wrote:I really don't have a problem with that, actually a good CEO may be worth considerably more than just 3 times the compensation of their lowest paid worker. I mean seriously, given that the lowest paid worker is probably getting minimum wage that would add up to something around $21.75/hr around here. A decent CEO is worth way more than that by anyone's standard. 100 years ago the average CEO/business owner earned 3x the average worker under them and I think that was pretty fair considering the higher tax burden and all.

What I have a problem with is the average corporate CEO today makes 350 TIMES as much as the average employee salary. That isn't 300%; its 35,000% and it isn't based off of minimum wage, its off the average employee pay which is well over minimum wage. Hell; 35,000% of minimum wage is still pretty ridiculous (it would be $2,537.50/hr here).

OK, I messed up my numbers. Thanks Krom, you've made it sound even more inequitable with your numbers, but that's the point I was trying to get across anyway. And not every CEO gets overpaid either, but there's enough overcompensation going on that it's making news. There's also the problem of wealth inequity, not just income inequity. Both are key issues now, but hey, we now live in a Capitalist Plutocracy, so the vast majority of money goes to those who are in the best positions of power to take it and keep hold of it, so that all those lazy, poor, working people don't steal it with all those government sponsored or mandated health, retirement, housing and food programs.

Who Rules America?

Krom wrote:My brother once wrote a program for the state he was working for that ended up saving the department over $10,000 a month forever afterwards. He did not get a bonus or a raise or anything but a pat on the back as a result. His experience in the corporate sector is slightly better, but still largely the same. Even if you generate millions in revenue you won't get much of a reward as a result...although the head of your division might.

In corporate America all the extra productivity above average you bring to the table pretty much gets used exclusively to line the pockets of the people further up the ladder that had virtually nothing to do with your work. Just because you are more productive than someone else doesn't mean you will be compensated more for it.

Isn't that the American Dream? Work hard, come up with a better idea than the next guy and make a fortune? That idea seems to be more and more unattainable now. The system is now rigged against the individual and I don't think most Americans realize it yet.

Spidey wrote:And this is exactly why I believe people should think more along the lines of being self-employed instead of having a “job“. On the one hand the left says we have to be a team, and individualism is wrong, but the result is being consumed by the “collective”. (and then complaining about it)

Spidey, the "collective" of which you speak is driven by money and power, not exactly a lefty ideal. Lefty collectives have altruisim as a basic tenet, although that's not always the case with human nature. Corporations are a collective, but they're certainly not altruistic. Most small businesses aren't driven by greed and power because they are part of a small community and would go broke if they made a habit of screwing the consumer, but certainly most national and global corporations could give a rat's behind, especially if they're a monopoly.

And I've heard of more self employed people that came up with a good idea, only to have it stolen out from under them by some corporate shyster. Most people that come up with a stellar idea tend to not be very business savvy to begin with and will invariably get swallowed by the sharks when they try to sell their idea, or worse, they spend the time, money and effort to form some little company that they lose control of when it gets big enough to require professional (sharks) management.

Ayn Rand or Jesus Christ. One or the other. You cannot have both.

http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/ ... vs._jesus/

article wrote:GOP leaders and conservative pundits have brought upon themselves a crisis of values. Many who for years have been the loudest voices invoking the language of faith and moral values are now praising the atheist philosopher Ayn Rand whose teachings stand in direct contradiction to the Bible. Rand advocates a law of selfishness over love and commands her followers to think only of themselves, not others. She said her followers had to choose between Jesus and her teachings.

GOP leaders want to argue that they are defending Christian principles. But, at the same time, Rep. Paul Ryan (author of the GOP budget) is posting facebook videos praising Rand’s morality and saying hers is the “kind of thinking that is sorely needed right now.” Simply put, Paul Ryan can’t have it both ways, and neither can Christians. As conservative evangelical icon Chuck Colson recently stated, Christians can not support Rand’s philosophy and Christ’s teachings. The choice is simple: Ayn Rand or Jesus Christ. We must choose one and forsake the other.

tunnelcat wrote:

Krom wrote:... In corporate America all the extra productivity above average you bring to the table pretty much gets used exclusively to line the pockets of the people further up the ladder that had virtually nothing to do with your work. Just because you are more productive than someone else doesn't mean you will be compensated more for it.

Isn't that the American Dream? Work hard, come up with a better idea than the next guy and make a fortune? That idea seems to be more and more unattainable now. The system is now rigged against the individual and I don't think most Americans realize it yet.

TC, I appreciate that you believe that, and I wouldn't say that you're wrong out-of-hand, but I personally need to know just how the system is "rigged against the individual." In my mind, in order for the problem you describe to be dealt with effectively, it must be called out in precise terms. In other words, until you, or I, or anyone else runs up against it and has experienced where it is--where it starts and where it ends--how can it be dealt with? I'll tell you that my assumption is generally that people are so poorly equipped, morally and intellectually, to pursue the American dream that it is little wonder that not many realize it, relatively speaking; so--and again without dismissing your concerns--when I hear that the system is stacked against the individual, I cannot help but realize that in my own experience it is specifically the individual that is stacked against the individual, and no one who decries the system seems to recognize this reality. Having said this I think it would be incredible to believe our system to be perfect, except in principle as a free market. Wherever there is interplay with people inequities are sure to crop up which are not supported by principle, and recognizing and dealing with such inequities is one of the tasks of life, so by all means call it out where you see it.

Null...

Null's link wrote:... The far-right cultural warriors are turning on each other! Fantastic! ...

Don't waste our time with liberal propaganda and cheer-leading. There's no substance there. I am not terribly familiar with Ayn Rand, so perhaps you would do me the service of pointing out specifically why Ayn Rand == Conservatism != Christ, if indeed you comprehend it well enough, because I don't buy it. In my experience statements about Christ's incompatibility with free systems of government or enterprise stem directly from a failure to appreciate either freedom or the gospel.

tunnelcat wrote:But our country's wealthy won't be able to sit on their thrones forever. They'd better start building walls around themselves because when most people eventually have nothing, they'll have nothing to lose. That's what scares me about the way this country is heading. Class warfare has now commenced.

while I will quibble about the fact that 'class warfare' commencing(I feel it has been going on forever), I agree with much of the above. Having been one of those 'brats' you refer to, although always gainfully employed, and benefitting from not three but eleven generations in this country before me, I have spent much of my life in well-to-do circles. In such circles, I have been arguing for years those very fears for the future you express above. What kind of life do we leave our descendants if they have to be isolated from the masses and hiring some sort of mercenary protection to hold onto their assets? In my opinion, the rewards to the wealthy of maintaining various societal economic equalizers more than offsets any drag on our making higher returns on investment.