jjamie12

I thought he governed just fine. Of course he did. He was the governor of Massachusetts. The people of Mass. are left of the average American. You have to work within the framework you're presented to do the best job you can. You aren't as smart as you think you are. Look how tough my internet muscles are!!! Very tactful. You haven't provided any criticisms that relate to the point that you are supposedly making. Pointing out that a few 'businessmen' were bad Presidents is not a 'criticism'. Likewise, your complete lack of understanding of the Iacoca quote has completely derailed this thread. The reason for the derailment is that you seem to be taking the quote literally, which is just completely wrong-headed -- when you base your argument substantially in part on a complete lack of knowledge of 'something' this is what you get. You want to talk about how 'business' skills translate to governing skills, apparently. In doing this, your points of discussion are a misinterpreted Iacoca quote, along with the observation that a few Presidents who were 'businessmen' were bad Presidents. This last sentence again just points to your apparent lack of understanding of what you're talking about -- as if a Peanut Farmer should be considered a 'businessman' the EXACT same as a venture capitalist (MR) or a guy who is a 'businessman' in the sense that "Hey, your dad has political influence, why don't you join our investing group!" (GWB). As if that isn't enough to not believe you're actually interested in a real discussion of whether business executive experience translates to governing effectively -- the entire first post of this thread is focused on Mitt Romney, who actually has governing experience that would seem (to me, at least) be pretty relevant in a discussion about how Mitt Romney's business career will help or hinder his ability to govern! Your sole focus is on Romney's private sector experience 15-30 years ago when there is far more relevant information to look at that you, unbelievably, don't find important enough to mention. It's ridiculous and it's silly. Again, we get it. You don't like Mitt Romney, you think he'll lose (Remember the "Mitt Romney is a political quack and a peon" thread that you started?). Fine. It's a defensible position to have. Stop boring us with your pseudo-intellectual nonsense and your fake-ass "I just want to have a debate about business experience translating into governing" -- If you actually wanted that debate, you'd get it. You would do this by starting a thread with the first post going something like this: "I've been thinking about the differences between what a CEO does versus what a President does. In some ways, it's very similar -- You listen to your best advisers, set the agenda, and allow everyone around you to do what they're best at, while you're giving them every opportunity to do their best work. In one very, very important way, though it's completely different -- When you're the CEO you basically get what you want. Yes, there is a lot of internal politics involved in getting people to put in their best effort and getting them to buy into what you're trying to accomplish -- fortunately you have the ability to fire people! It's not really like that with the President -- the President can't fire Congress, you've got to convince them that going along with you will be better than going against you. It's a very different type of leadership. What are your thoughts?" It appears you aren't interested in other people's thoughts, though -- just your own. Good luck with that.

Why the complete and total focus on his 'business background'? Hasn't he done other things that are relevant to 'governing', as well? We get it -- you think Romney will lose to Obama. Thanks for starting another thread to tell us that again. I'm sure THIS time you'll get your point across more clearly.

Oh for God's sake, man! So when you mentioned the banks specifically, we were just supposed to know that you meant that "Yes, the woman made horrific decisions, and yes, government policy in this area is just completely and totally counter-productive to the problem of spiraling education costs, but the banks share some teeny-tiny percentage of the blame here for participating in this woman's idiocy that is enabled by stupid governmental policy."

How can 'banks' be at the top of your list when it's clearly and obviously 'government' and the woman that are the problem? There is no risk when it's guaranteed by the gov't -- the banks are simply doing *exactly* what the gov't is trying to get them to do! Yet you place the blame with the banks first and foremost! I just don't get it. I mean, let's play this out: Do you think this woman would have gotten +$400K if the loans WEREN'T guaranteed by the gov't? Is it really your position that the banks just don't 'understand' the risks here?

You're really, really mis-remembering the primary that year. There were momentum swings over and over again, ads about phone calls at 3 am, racist pandering, the list goes on. At some point, you can't quantify 'nasty' and if your whole point is going to rest on 'degrees of nasty', well, then the actual substance of your post is moot.

That is totally true! Except that, you know, it isn't. The US is STILL the world leader in Manufacturing output (at least it was in 2010, which is the latest data I can find) -- All quoted in constant 2005 US Dollars for comparison's sake: US: $1.763 Trillion China: $1.654 Trillion Japan: $.970 Trillion Germany: $.556 Trillion Korea: $.279 Trillion You can find this out if you care to concern yourself with economic data/facts at this website: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/dnllist.asp It's great! There's, like, data and stuff that you can look up to see if what you're saying has any basis in fact. It is also great for showing people up and proving how internet-tough you are.

Die, Gas Pumper!

No, you didn't.

I think it mostly went away when people realized that "Raise taxes on the poor! Lower taxes on the rich!" is not going to win you many elections.

Thanks, Dev. Hopefully, it's fixed now.

NYT Op-Ed Bush Bad? Obama Bad? Dogma Bad.

How anyone could look at those pictures of our First Lady and NOT conclude one of the following: 1- We have one of the best looking First Lady's in the world. OR 2- This is the best-looking First Lady we've had in the past 30 years (not that the bar is super high). Is beyond my comprehension. The attacks on her looks are just unimaginable to me.

The fee is there to 'encourage' you to use your card as a 'credit card'. The credit card network is a more profitable network for the banks than the debit card networks. The 'infrastructure' is set up. However. You still have to pay people to maintain those systems, as well as to pay people in every bank (and at Visa / Mastercard / wherever) to do the back office or accounting side of things. So there are certain fixed costs related to using these debit or credit card networks. There are lots of other costs associated with these transactions, as well -- just off the top of my head, it doesn't appear you've considered the cost of fraud in there, as well.

You're kidding me, right? I mean -- you're just trying to eff around with us now, right? Please?

More asshattery. More nonsense Again: The question is not whether wealthy people have money or how they got it. The question is: If we raise marginal income tax rates, do we increase or decrease revenues in the long run?

Yet you trivialize the infrastructure that was set up in order for individuals to thrive by comparing them to drug addicts and deposits in a bank account. This thread wouldn't even exist if half the people around here wouldn't steadfastly refuse to admit to the obvious truth inbedded in your quote. Instead of meaningful conversations about the size and scope of government, we continue to have nonsense 'debates' about whether the government even has the authority to tax people.

I don't know. How DID Warren Buffet get rich?

Well... that's the point, isn't it? The original post in this thread is, for all intents and purposes, useless. The question isn't (or shouldn't be) "Did anyone get rich on their own?" The question should be: Will raising marginal tax rates on those people produce more 'societal good' in the long run, or less? The answer to the first question is most definitely 'no', and is, in any event, pointless and boring. The answer to the second question is much more interesting and much harder to answer. The answer, in my mind, is "No. Our government will probably do something stupid with it."

You're a bright guy, Chef. You know what her point is. Everyone around here would be far better off if people would get off of the whole 'x person did everything on their own!' nonsense, because it's virtually impossible for it to be true. It would be nice if we could all stop arguing about stupid things like the above referenced statement, acknowldege that its true and move on to WAY more important things like "Where do we go from here?" Because I'm DAMN certain that I don't agree with Elizabeth Warren on how to get from here to there. Once we can all agree that not everyone gets what they deserve and deserves what they get, then we can finally move on and discuss whether or not raising marginal tax rates on certain incomes would actually, you know, produce more revenue in the long run. THAT'S the question we should be trying to answer, not some idiot posting "ZOMG!!!!!1111 Can you believe this crazy person who thinks that the infrastructure of the country plays at least SOME role in the outcome of an individual person's life!!!!!!!1111 What an idiot!!! I'm so sick of the stupidity of clinging to the idea that people rise and fall completely on their own -- there's a whole lot more that goes into it. I don't know, you tell me. Is it easier to 'get rich' if you are: a) educated b) not educated

Did these hypothetical people go to public school?

So there are people who got rich completely on their own? Completely? I'd love for you to come up with one example.

And, if I recall correctly, the reason you offered that you wouldn't have seen serious inflation from QE2 (I think that's where all of this came from) was that the newly 'printed' money was basically going to be sitting in excess reserves at the Fed because banks wouldn't put the money into circulation (lend) because there wouldn't be any lending to do unless (until) the economy recovers to a point where there is credit demanded. How are they going to get the timing right on making sure inflation doesn't become INFLATION!? I see that as the real danger.

Isn't the whole point here that when Mom and/or Dad decide to go to McD's for a quick bite they can now have the alternative of giving their kids apple slices instead of fries in their Happy Meal? How is this a bad thing? If you think it doesn't matter, why comment on this at all?

So. Does anyone have an actual reason why the (for all intents and purposes) CEO of one of the best school districts in the country shouldn't be making $500K+ all in? Seems to me that we could all agree on this: If you deliver the goods, you should get paid. She seems to be delivering the goods. Why shouldn't she get paid?

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. This is the leader of "...one of the top school districts in the country." Doesn't she 'deserve' to get paid?