Okay, anyone disappointed in Obama so far?

[Anonymous]

So 11:17 what do you suggest? A legislative cap in executive compensation?

[Anonymous]

I don't know what the answer is but I want us to start by decoupling the conversation from implicit assumptions that somehow the US economy reflects the only choice there is outside of Soviet-style socialism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090309/ap_on_bi_ge/citigroup_bonuses

I thought Obama was going to watch our tax dollars. How stupid are we? Citi thinks none of us understand debits and credits? 3.5 m just wasted.

Tax relief can stimulate the economy. I now calculate estimates on how much more we will have to pay and spend less than that.....now it's about $1500 more just on local property taxes. Meanwhile our local government balks at increasing or instituting specific user fees for county and school items unrelated to public safety or health. Those areas are getting cuts in the budget.

Bush put in caps on % deductible for higher bracket charitable giving so people cut back there years ago.

Did you really read the story in the link? It's clear that the rewards were not from the TARP money. It's from the revenue the division generated.

Citi, as a big, multi-national, has many divisions, many of which are still making money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090309/ap_on_bi_ge/citigroup_bonuses

I thought Obama was going to watch our tax dollars. How stupid are we? Citi thinks none of us understand debits and credits? 3.5 m just wasted.

Tax relief can stimulate the economy. I now calculate estimates on how much more we will have to pay and spend less than that.....now it's about $1500 more just on local property taxes. Meanwhile our local government balks at increasing or instituting specific user fees for county and school items unrelated to public safety or health. Those areas are getting cuts in the budget.

Bush put in caps on % deductible for higher bracket charitable giving so people cut back there years ago.

So you think it's wrong to raise taxes because people will stop spending if the government takes money away from them.

But somehow you think it's smart for the government to take away bonuses from people who are actually generating revenue and profits at their division? How anti-capitalist is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the income gap between the CEOs and the person on the factory floor is much wider in the US than it is Japan and Western Europe. I'm not comparing us to Mexico or former Soviet Socialist Republics.

This might be true, I don't have those compensation facts at my fingers. However, comparing a CEO's pay to that of a working poor individual (school bus driver for example) who may not have a HS diploma and certainly no higher education is totally non-productive. And most of the "Rich" folks being bandied about in the rhetoric are not CEO's but two income couples earning 250K and up. Clearly they are not CEOs. I was taught "the market is the market" - if School Bus Drivers work for $15 an hour and there is no trouble staffing vacancies, that is the market. If CEO's find offers at 10M, then perhaps that is the market. Legislating what each should be paid flies in the face of a free market model.

I'm a new poster to this part of the discussion. Here's a graph of income distribution in the US as of 2005. If this information is correct: 95% of households in the US earned less than $166,000 a year. 98% of the households in the US earned less than $250,000. If that is correct -- I can't see how $250,000 income isn't "rich". Even if it IS coming from 2 earners in the household.

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2006/11/05/2005-us-income-distribution

[Anonymous]

More on income distribution in the United States: Income is distributed, not in a bell curve, but in a severe L shaped curve, which has become FAR more prominent and unequal in the past 50 years. The few people at the far right end of the curve have enormous influence over what gets shown in the media, over which politicians get elected (because they to raise money to run, and the folks at the far right have the money.)

http://www.lcurve.org/images/LCurveFlier2003.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But the income gap between the CEOs and the person on the factory floor is much wider in the US than it is Japan and Western Europe. I'm not comparing us to Mexico or former Soviet Socialist Republics.

It is definitely much MUCH wider than it was here in the US in the 1950s.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/extreme_inequality

I'm shocked at how much hedge fund managers earn. Is the information on that graph possibly correct? In 2005 the top 5 hedge fund managers earned $12,600,000,000? Meanwhile, the top 5 military leaders earned $957,567? I knew we had great income inequality in this country but I had no idea it was such a disparity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the income gap between the CEOs and the person on the factory floor is much wider in the US than it is Japan and Western Europe. I'm not comparing us to Mexico or former Soviet Socialist Republics.

It is definitely much MUCH wider than it was here in the US in the 1950s.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/extreme_inequality
I'm shocked at how much hedge fund managers earn. Is the information on that graph possibly correct? In 2005 the top 5 hedge fund managers earned $12,600,000,000? Meanwhile, the top 5 military leaders earned $957,567? I knew we had great income inequality in this country but I had no idea it was such a disparity.

Pp here. Thanks for adding that. Yes, I should have also mentioned that the gap is even huge by 1950s US standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the income gap between the CEOs and the person on the factory floor is much wider in the US than it is Japan and Western Europe. I'm not comparing us to Mexico or former Soviet Socialist Republics.

It is definitely much MUCH wider than it was here in the US in the 1950s.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/extreme_inequality
I'm shocked at how much hedge fund managers earn. Is the information on that graph possibly correct? In 2005 the top 5 hedge fund managers earned $12,600,000,000? Meanwhile, the top 5 military leaders earned $957,567? I knew we had great income inequality in this country but I had no idea it was such a disparity.

Pp here. Thanks for adding that. Yes, I should have also mentioned that the gap is even huge by 1950s US standards.

CEO pay has two issues. The first is: should CEO be richly rewarded if he did a very good job? The second is: should CEO be richly rewarded if he does a medicore job? To mix up the issues together is funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the income gap between the CEOs and the person on the factory floor is much wider in the US than it is Japan and Western Europe. I'm not comparing us to Mexico or former Soviet Socialist Republics.

It is definitely much MUCH wider than it was here in the US in the 1950s.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/extreme_inequality

I'm shocked at how much hedge fund managers earn. Is the information on that graph possibly correct? In 2005 the top 5 hedge fund managers earned $12,600,000,000? Meanwhile, the top 5 military leaders earned $957,567? I knew we had great income inequality in this country but I had no idea it was such a disparity.

the hudge fund pay is largely a private agreement between the investors and the managers, and not your business, whether it shocks you or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the income gap between the CEOs and the person on the factory floor is much wider in the US than it is Japan and Western Europe. I'm not comparing us to Mexico or former Soviet Socialist Republics.

It is definitely much MUCH wider than it was here in the US in the 1950s.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/extreme_inequality

I'm shocked at how much hedge fund managers earn. Is the information on that graph possibly correct? In 2005 the top 5 hedge fund managers earned $12,600,000,000? Meanwhile, the top 5 military leaders earned $957,567? I knew we had great income inequality in this country but I had no idea it was such a disparity.

the hudge fund pay is largely a private agreement between the investors and the managers, and not your business, whether it shocks you or not.

Yeah and don't start complaining about Alex Rodriguez either!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the income gap between the CEOs and the person on the factory floor is much wider in the US than it is Japan and Western Europe. I'm not comparing us to Mexico or former Soviet Socialist Republics.

It is definitely much MUCH wider than it was here in the US in the 1950s.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/extreme_inequality

I'm shocked at how much hedge fund managers earn. Is the information on that graph possibly correct? In 2005 the top 5 hedge fund managers earned $12,600,000,000? Meanwhile, the top 5 military leaders earned $957,567? I knew we had great income inequality in this country but I had no idea it was such a disparity.

the hudge fund pay is largely a private agreement between the investors and the managers, and not your business, whether it shocks you or not.

Well, how hedge fund managers are taxed is our business. I do not see any way to justify how the carry is treated as a capital gain. It's income paid for services rendered.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who has this kind of money and doesn't give virtually all of it away is stupendously greedy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what the answer is but I want us to start by decoupling the conversation from implicit assumptions that somehow the US economy reflects the only choice there is outside of Soviet-style socialism.

Hmm, I never actually thought it was an either or situation. My personal feeling is we are about 30 years behind the Brit social democracy model and it saddens me because we can learn from their mistakes (and successes) - we need to be able to honestly and critically evaluate the roles of govt and the private sector without it being a rich vs poor argument.

I believe that a role of govt is to provide opportunity - good and safe schools where poor performing teachers and administrators are given the boot, not just an office in the administrative building, access to low cost student loans and grants for economically disadvantaged but educationally achieving students to purse higher education, etc. I am saddened to hear the schools completely blamed for poor student performance. What happened to parents? Reading to children? Helping with or supervising homework? Making sure your child goes to bed on time, is ready for the school day, shows up to school, respect for teachers and other staff (bus drivers)?

I believe that government is necessary for our common defense, and for the facilitation of commerce. This includes interstate highways, rail systems, and air travel. It also includes standards for food and drug safety, and the necessary safeguards for energy availability and distribution. That's pretty much it. I personally do not believe the role of government is to guarantee everyone's success or happiness. A safety net should be in place for temporary setbacks, but should not become an entitlement. I am not sure what that makes me in the "labeling" of political opinion, but there it is.

[Anonymous]

amen