Obama-Biden vs McCain-Palin

[Draftnik]

A free market system rewards efforts that are socially beneficial? I guess I'm not clear what you mean. Police, firemen, teachers.... these are all jobs that benefit people socially, but they are not rewarded nearly as much as others in terms of money.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there should be an work effort to compensation parallel. That's impossible. Things run on supply and demand. People get paid whatever someone is willing to pay them to do a job. So a CEO can make millions because he's making millions for the company. A mechanic can make $45k a year because people are willing to pay a certain amount to have a car fixed.

What are we talking about, then? You can't mix a fiscal idealism with the practical realities you describe in your second paragraph.

Look, it would great if firefighters were paid the millions that CEO's of international financial corporations make. But the fact of the matter is, however morally right or wrong any of us might view it, what the market bears is what we have, by and large. You want firefighters to get paid more? Decrease the supply of firefighters. If enough houses burn down, suddenly you'll see a demand for firefighters, and a corresponding up-swing in their pay they're offered. This is the market at work- people pay for services they want/need. Obviously this is simplistic example. But it's an expression of the collective will - people like to have protection from fire.

I've been a free market Republican for my entire life, but I have to agree with the premise that many CEOs in corporate America are grossly overpaid relative to the value they add to their companies. These individuals don't invest startup capital/equity to form these companies. They are basically coming into riskless positions yet reaping millions of $$$ for performance, decision making, etc that isn't commensurate with the value they provide. The executive compensation committees from many boards are basically made up of CEOs of other companies. These guys have their little inner circle and they vote each other exorbitant compensation packages. There are no checks and balances. Stock prices can fluctuate wildly, often manipulated by shady accounting practices, option backdating, unreported debt, etc. All these things distort the financial performance to the point the stock value becomes inflated and the CEOs unload their options while the market value is high all the while knowing they are managing a house of cards.

Take GM for example. I have no idea who their CEO was (is?) but I'm sure the guy made millions while they were living off the high profit margin SUVs, Hummers, etc. The guy piled up a mountain of debt ~$40B and now the company has minimal market capitalization and is nearing bankruptcy. Where is the recourse to get the $$$ back from him? He ran the company into the ground, yet probably was paid like an MVP. Was continuing the development of their electric vehicle mutually exclusive from cranking out as many trucks as possible? Where was the foresight to hedge against rising energy costs and to position the company to capitalize on the next generation of alternative based energy vehicles? There is such a short term focus on maximizing quarterly results and getting the stock price at a price where options are extremely lucrative that sound long term corporate governance is ignored.

I certainly see the argument McCain has about small business owners being taxed. They stake personal capital, take risks, create something from nothing, etc. They deserve to be rewarded for their efforts.

I do not see a rationale for feeling bad about some CEO that is raking in millions paying more taxes when there are literally hundreds if not thousands of people in a large public corporation that could provide essentially the same decision making capacity for a fraction of the price.

If major corporate CEOs were pro sports players the lack of value they deliver relative to their pay and other members of the company would be like some NHL player that has a career 25 goals/25 assists type of average season making $10M per season on a long term deal. He would be a good player, but everybody would wonder why he makes so much more $$$ than the other players when he doesn't deliver corresponding value relative to the pay discrepancy.

[MWB]

I could say that George Bush is, by definition, a terrorist, but I'm not sure that would be a generally accepted here.

If you said Obama is, you might get some support here

[Guinness]

All taxation is about redistribution of wealth. If part of my taxes goes to build a highway which I never use, and another taxpayer uses it daily, wealth has been redistributed.

You're saying that there is no difference between your tax dollars funding the building of a highway and your tax dollars going into another citizens' wallet?

And that description I gave of politics is a classic textbook definition. If you have another definition, I'd like to hear it.

Politics is by definition the art of government. You have bought into the partisan idea that it is the power-struggle between who gets what.

The art of government does not imply that private property should be divided in any way amongst any particular group as though it were held in common. Government is the real expression of the philosophical social contract. Classical liberals believe that what that means is the abdication of intrinsic, individual rights in the interest of collectively assured protections. Because these rights are abdicated by individuals, and because they are intrinsic, government must be overseen by those individuals and kept limited. It is a bastardized version of politics to define it as the divvying up of some pie.

[Tico Rick]

I could say that George Bush is, by definition, a terrorist, but I'm not sure that would be a generally accepted here.

If you said Obama is, you might get some support here

The ironic thing is that on more than one occasion I've had to defend Bush to foreigners who want to know why Bush killing thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq is not terrorism.

[Guinness]

I've been a free market Republican for my entire life, but I have to agree with the premise that many CEOs in corporate America are grossly overpaid relative to the value they add to their companies. These individuals don't invest startup capital/equity to form these companies. They are basically coming into riskless positions yet reaping millions of $$$ for performance, decision making, etc that isn't commensurate with the value they provide. The executive compensation committees from many boards are basically made up of CEOs of other companies. These guys have their little inner circle and they vote each other exorbitant compensation packages. There are no checks and balances. Stock prices can fluctuate wildly, often manipulated by shady accounting practices, option backdating, unreported debt, etc. All these things distort the financial performance to the point the stock value becomes inflated and the CEOs unload their options while the market value is high all the while knowing they are managing a house of cards.

Take GM for example. I have no idea who their CEO was (is?) but I'm sure the guy made millions while they were living off the high profit margin SUVs, Hummers, etc. The guy piled up a mountain of debt ~$40B and now the company has minimal market capitalization and is nearing bankruptcy. Where is the recourse to get the $$$ back from him? He ran the company into the ground, yet probably was paid like an MVP. Was continuing the development of their electric vehicle mutually exclusive from cranking out as many trucks as possible? Where was the foresight to hedge against rising energy costs and to position the company to capitalize on the next generation of alternative based energy vehicles? There is such a short term focus on maximizing quarterly results and getting the stock price at a price where options are extremely lucrative that sound long term corporate governance is ignored.

I certainly see the argument McCain has about small business owners being taxed. They stake personal capital, take risks, create something from nothing, etc. They deserve to be rewarded for their efforts.

I do not see a rationale for feeling bad about some CEO that is raking in millions paying more taxes when there are literally hundreds if not thousands of people in a large public corporation that could provide essentially the same decision making capacity for a fraction of the price.

If major corporate CEOs were pro sports players the lack of value they deliver relative to their pay and other members of the company would be like some NHL player that has a career 25 goals/25 assists type of average season making $10M per season on a long term deal. He would be a good player, but everybody would wonder why he makes so much more $$$ than the other players when he doesn't deliver corresponding value relative to the pay discrepancy.

Who feels bad for a CEO paying more taxes? The point is as you know that they aren't going to pay those taxes. They're either going to increase the cost of the product they produce to cover the tax increase until it become impractical to produce it, or they're going to remove the company or themselves from the high-tax environment.

You provide an example of a hockey player, and I agree- one would wonder why he's getting paid so much... one would be wondering it, no doubt, while one is sitting in a $150 seat, sipping a $5 beer and eating a $5 hotdog at a game, after having paid $20 to park. Penguin fans used to ***** and complain about the high-priced free agents going to other teams, as though they somehow owed it to Pittsburgh fans to play for less money than the general market would bear. I know that, in some ways, it's not nearly that simple, but in other more practicable ways, it most certainly is.

[Tico Rick]

All taxation is about redistribution of wealth. If part of my taxes goes to build a highway which I never use, and another taxpayer uses it daily, wealth has been redistributed.

You're saying that there is no difference between your tax dollars funding the building of a highway and your tax dollars going into another citizens' wallet?

Fundamentally, no. If my tax money benefits someone else and doesn't benefit me, wealth has been redistributed.

And that description I gave of politics is a classic textbook definition. If you have another definition, I'd like to hear it.

Politics is by definition the art of government. You have bought into the partisan idea that it is the power-struggle between who gets what.

The art of government does not imply that private property should be divided in any way amongst any particular group as though it were held in common. Government is the real expression of the philosophical social contract. Classical liberals believe that what that means is the abdication of intrinsic, individual rights in the interest of collectively assured protections. Because these rights are abdicated by individuals, and because they are intrinsic, government must be overseen by those individuals and kept limited. It is a bastardized version of politics to define it as the divvying up of some pie.

Politics is about power. All resources are limited, and politics is about who gets what limited resources, and people who are in a position to make these decisions have power. The classical liberal view of politics may be polite and rational, but in the end the classical liberal model, like any other political model, is all about power: who has it, and how it is used.

[Guinness]

Fundamentally, no. If my tax money benefits someone else and doesn't benefit me, wealth has been redistributed.

I guess it's upon this slope that the conflict between limited government with greater freedom and a command economy is waged. I prefer to err on the side of caution.

Politics is about power. All resources are limited, and politics is about who gets what limited resources, and people who are in a position to make these decisions have power. The classical liberal view of politics may be polite and rational, but in the end the classical liberal model, like any other political model, is all about power: who has it, and how it is used.

Obviously politics is about the allocation of power. The classical liberal view is that this power should be abdicated to government sparingly, and with great reservation.

[Draftnik]

I don't disagree with a word you wrote. I think I've made it clear here that, while I'm probably more of a fiscal conservative than liberal, I'm no partisan in terms of Democrat/Republican. The point I'm trying to make is that the media are clearly in the bag for Obama. Regardless of who may or may not expire or begin to express their senility in office, I think that the level of partisanship in our fourth estate is despicable. Regardless of Palin's & Biden's politics or fitness, the media, irrespective of their leanings, should provide us with unbiased coverage. Can you honestly say that we are?

I don't doubt the media are in the bag for Obama, but I think that is understandable given the last 8 years. McCain finally released a commercial that acknowledged "the last 8 years weren't so good..." Really? Finally a little contrition and to use his favorite word, repudiate the Bush administration and Republican party in general. They don't have the same last name, but McCain is part of the Republican party that gave its nearly unconditional support to Bush, Cheney, et al the past 8 years. It is natural for people to resent Iraq, $5T of new deficit, etc.

If Biden implied the US is facing a crisis where we could be attacked like 9/11, he deserves to be called out. If, as is likely, he was hyperbolizing that a crisis for Obama could involve something flaring in a hotspot like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel, etc in the next 6 months that wouldn't be surprising at all. On the same day Palin called for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. We have serious domestic and international issues and she is worried about gay marriage? She is living down to every negative stereotype about politicians forming policy based on extreme religious views.
I think she got a free pass from the media because her proposed constitutional amendment which goes against the Republican policy of states rights was virtually unreported.

[Cosmo_kramer]

So with all the talk of Voter fraud/Registration fraud on both sides (Obama's Acorn and McCain's Arizona registration fiasco) here's a story not really being told: Voter Suppression.

For everyone wanting to read up on it, here's a link to Robert F Kennedy Jr.'s page in RollingStone magazine:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/23638322/block_the_vote

Also to make sure your vote counts (no matter who you vote for): http://www.stealbackyourvote.org/

[Draftnik]

Who feels bad for a CEO paying more taxes? The point is as you know that they aren't going to pay those taxes. They're either going to increase the cost of the product they produce to cover the tax increase until it become impractical to produce it, or they're going to remove the company or themselves from the high-tax environment.

You provide an example of a hockey player, and I agree- one would wonder why he's getting paid so much... one would be wondering it, no doubt, while one is sitting in a $150 seat, sipping a $5 beer and eating a $5 hotdog at a game, after having paid $20 to park. Penguin fans used to b**ch and complain about the high-priced free agents going to other teams, as though they somehow owed it to Pittsburgh fans to play for less money than the general market would bear. I know that, in some ways, it's not nearly that simple, but in other more practicable ways, it most certainly is.

Hockey ticket prices are a function of supply and demand. My prices have gone up, down and up again the last 16 years. I'll believe CEO compensation reflecting supply/demand, value, etc when I see it. I work for a Fortune 1000 company and I've heard 2 CEOs (a new one took over this year) talk about the subject and share their feelings that in general the market is not getting commensurate value for CEO comp. That has helped crystallize my views.

[Guinness]

I don't doubt the media are in the bag for Obama, but I think that is understandable given the last 8 years.

It may not seem apparent by my (surprising to me) conservative stance here in this thread, but I have been a vehement critic of Bush. Topping the list is the fact that my kid brother is in the military and the idea of this boy suffering so much as a hang nail as the result of lil' George's mis-adventure in Iraq inspires in me such fits of rage and seizure that I worry at times for my sanity. That being said, no, it is not understandable in my opinion that the media are blatantly in the bag for Obama. We do not need a class of people to do our thinking for us. We need fair, unbiased reporting. And I know that apologists are even now creeping out of the woodwork to inform me of the well established American tradition of biased media reportage. That's a sad little argument.

[Guinness]

Hockey ticket prices are a function of supply and demand. My prices have gone up, down and up again the last 16 years. I'll believe CEO compensation reflecting supply/demand, value, etc when I see it. I work for a Fortune 1000 company and I've heard 2 CEOs (a new one took over this year) talk about the subject and share their feelings that in general the market is not getting commensurate value for CEO comp. That has helped crystallize my views.

I'm working on simplistic theory here, I'll freely admit - I'm no economist. And I have experience with overpaid CEO's. I worked at Mellon when I lived in PGH!

But all prices, it seems to me, are a function of supply and demand. Something as simple as a hockey ticket fluctuates pretty immediately, it would seem to me, in response to market demands. Something as complex as a CEO's salary, with so many variables, would take time to find it's own level (to borrow a phrase from the world of plumbing ).

[Draftnik]

I don't doubt the media are in the bag for Obama, but I think that is understandable given the last 8 years.

It may not seem apparent by my (surprising to me) conservative stance here in this thread, but I have been a vehement critic of Bush. Topping the list is the fact that my kid brother is in the military and the idea of this boy suffering so much as a hang nail as the result of lil' George's mis-adventure in Iraq inspires in me such fits of rage and seizure that I worry at times for my sanity. That being said, no, it is not understandable in my opinion that the media are blatantly in the bag for Obama. We do not need a class of people to do our thinking for us. We need fair, unbiased reporting. And I know that apologists are even now creeping out of the woodwork to inform me of the well established American tradition of biased media reportage. That's a sad little argument.

The mainstream networks have always been left wing. That is why Fox News was created and has been such a big commercial success. Bush won narrow electoral victories in spite of ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, etc being against him. McCain is just looking for another excuse to rationalize his deficit. There is no apology. People vote based on things important to them such as the economy, taxes, the Iraq war, guns, religion, etc. I don't think people will vote for Obama because Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper like Obama better than McCain. People watching CNN were always going to vote for Obama. People watching Fox News were always going to vote for McCain. I started watching CNN instead of Fox News 3 or so years ago because I couldn't drink the koolaid anymore.

[Guinness]

CNN is fairly palatable as far as it goes.

The internet really isn't a reliable source of information, either... less so, perhaps.

None of this, in my opinion, bodes well for our democracy, which depends upon an educated, informed electorate.

As far as the economy is concerned, it's sad and simplistic, not to mentioned telling of the state of our media, that the public are venting their frustration soley on the Republican party. It's well deserved, but the Democrats are getting an undeserved pass. You mentioned in a post a couple pages ago that perhaps these events will precipitate the end of the Republican party and the emergence of a true classical-liberal party. If so, providing we survive it as a nation, it will have been necessary, and well worth it, don't you think?

[bh]

I've been a free market Republican for my entire life, but I have to agree with the premise that many CEOs in corporate America are grossly overpaid relative to the value they add to their companies. These individuals don't invest startup capital/equity to form these companies. They are basically coming into riskless positions yet reaping millions of $$$ for performance, decision making, etc that isn't commensurate with the value they provide. The executive compensation committees from many boards are basically made up of CEOs of other companies. These guys have their little inner circle and they vote each other exorbitant compensation packages. There are no checks and balances. Stock prices can fluctuate wildly, often manipulated by shady accounting practices, option backdating, unreported debt, etc. All these things distort the financial performance to the point the stock value becomes inflated and the CEOs unload their options while the market value is high all the while knowing they are managing a house of cards.

Take GM for example. I have no idea who their CEO was (is?) but I'm sure the guy made millions while they were living off the high profit margin SUVs, Hummers, etc. The guy piled up a mountain of debt ~$40B and now the company has minimal market capitalization and is nearing bankruptcy. Where is the recourse to get the $$$ back from him? He ran the company into the ground, yet probably was paid like an MVP. Was continuing the development of their electric vehicle mutually exclusive from cranking out as many trucks as possible? Where was the foresight to hedge against rising energy costs and to position the company to capitalize on the next generation of alternative based energy vehicles? There is such a short term focus on maximizing quarterly results and getting the stock price at a price where options are extremely lucrative that sound long term corporate governance is ignored.

I certainly see the argument McCain has about small business owners being taxed. They stake personal capital, take risks, create something from nothing, etc. They deserve to be rewarded for their efforts.

I do not see a rationale for feeling bad about some CEO that is raking in millions paying more taxes when there are literally hundreds if not thousands of people in a large public corporation that could provide essentially the same decision making capacity for a fraction of the price.

If major corporate CEOs were pro sports players the lack of value they deliver relative to their pay and other members of the company would be like some NHL player that has a career 25 goals/25 assists type of average season making $10M per season on a long term deal. He would be a good player, but everybody would wonder why he makes so much more $$$ than the other players when he doesn't deliver corresponding value relative to the pay discrepancy.

Well you can also look at this example another way. When this bums contract is up no team would want him and he'd be out of a job. Also since it's a long term contract, his whole team would suffer since they would be hampered by an expensive long term contract. They wouldn't sniff the playoffs and be a terrible team year after year. Other GM's in the league would take note and not sign bums like this guy to long term expensive deals. Therefore the market for guys like these would correct itself and there would be less deals made like the one you described.

Now in the real world, CEO's that run a company into the ground should loose their job, not be able to get another CEO position, and watch as their business miserably fails and goes bankrupt. Other companies would not want their company to fail so they would make sure they hire a competent guy for CEO position. If they don't, then their business might not survive.

I know that this isn't how it works. I'm still forming a lot of my political views and I don't know what to make of these large corporations that are a power unto themselves. I still like to believe in the free market, but the problem is when companies get so big that their corruption can be hidden. Like you said about shady accounting, etc. How can someone that's not an insider know what really goes on?

[bh]

CNN is fairly palatable as far as it goes.

The internet really isn't a reliable source of information, either... less so, perhaps.

None of this, in my opinion, bodes well for our democracy, which depends upon an educated, informed electorate.

Man, the Internet is the greatest/best way to gain new information. Are you saying that most of the information is unreliable or that you just need to be careful? There has never been a time in the history of man where information was available as it is today. As long as it stays free, the internet is one of the greatest inventions ever! Change comes from people buying into new ideas. New ideas must be shared before people buy into them. The greatest way to share that informaiton is through the net.

I often ask myself "How in the world did people know what they were voting for in the 1800's?" How did they know anything about the candidates? All they could do was read a newspaper. There is just so much informaiton online that people couldn't even dream of 20 years ago. There is so much information available that it's hard to get through it all. If a third party develops like you want, the Internet is going to be the engine that powers the movement just like the Ron Paul campaign was powered by it in the primaries.

[Draftnik]

I don't disagree that the Democratic party is just as corrupt as the Republican party. I think the Republican party has been more aligned with deregulation of investment banking which IMO is really at the biggest problem of the current economic crisis. The Dems pushed to loosen lending standards. That is obviously problematic, but home ownership can be rationalized in some social justice manner. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I can see that POV. I don't understand how quasi government guaranteed lower lending standards for low income people led to lower standards (no government guarantees) for the entire market. What is totally unacceptable IMO is how the investment banking firms at the top of the pyramid concocted these crazy derivatives which apparently they never understood, they used borrowed $$$ to bet on the riskiest securities (MBS), were undercapitalized for the risks they took, and created some criminal scheme called credit default swaps because they didn't want to pay a premium for legitimately capitalized insurance. These criminal actions by the allegedly smart crowd have Republican party written all over them IMO. The Iraq war is 100% Republican. Nobody could think Gore and his advisers would have chosen such a unilateral course of action.

The electorate has actually surprised me this election. Maybe it is based on anti-Bush, anti-Republican sentiment, but the repudiation (I love McCain's word) of the Ayers strategy as a campaign tactic is a very good development IMO. Obviously Obama showed poor judgement going to the guy's house. The way McCain & Palin tried to paint him as being aligned with terrorists because of that is very disingenuous IMO. Terrorist has a very significant connotation in this country post 9/11. I think people repudiated the tactic as outrageous. In the past, GHWB was successful tying Dukakis to Willie Horton and GWB was successful Swiftboating Kerry so maybe this means people have chosen issues over negative imagery. I also think it is interesting that McCain has finally issued a half hearted mea culpa. Maybe it is just another try in his scatter shot arsenal of tactics. If he would have come out earlier and apologized for being part of the problem the last 8 years I think he would have had a better chance to make the case about Obama in a liberal triumvirate with Reid and Pelosi. Instead he tacked right by picking Palin which basically painted him into a narrow Bush like electoral win by defending all of Bush's Red 2004 states. Our country seems to be very forgiving of public figures that are contrite and sincerely apologize.

I think a 3rd party could develop. The religious right is a very powerful constituency. They may be able to take over a few states, but they will never have numbers to win a national election without being aligned with other interests. I think Republicans like myself, Powell, etc are kind of homeless right now. That could be the basis of the 3rd party. I can't even begin to classify the state of the Democratic party. There is so much anti-Bush, anti-Republican sentiment that makes it impossible to judge how much of the Democratic gains are based on people embracing their policies and how much are just based on being sick about the past 8 years.

[Draftnik]

[Well you can also look at this example another way. When this bums contract is up no team would want him and he'd be out of a job. Also since it's a long term contract, his whole team would suffer since they would be hampered by an expensive long term contract. They wouldn't sniff the playoffs and be a terrible team year after year. Other GM's in the league would take note and not sign bums like this guy to long term expensive deals. Therefore the market for guys like these would correct itself and there would be less deals made like the one you described.

Now in the real world, CEO's that run a company into the ground should loose their job, not be able to get another CEO position, and watch as their business miserably fails and goes bankrupt. Other companies would not want their company to fail so they would make sure they hire a competent guy for CEO position. If they don't, then their business might not survive.

I know that this isn't how it works. I'm still forming a lot of my political views and I don't know what to make of these large corporations that are a power unto themselves. I still like to believe in the free market, but the problem is when companies get so big that their corruption can be hidden. Like you said about shady accounting, etc. How can someone that's not an insider know what really goes on?

If a guy has a couple hundred million in the bank does he need another CEO job?

[eberhard]

God's blood, if Draftnik was a syndicated content feed I would slap down plastic to subscribe to the hockey, economics, and sports business channels.

[MWB]

As far as the economy is concerned, it's sad and simplistic, not to mentioned telling of the state of our media, that the public are venting their frustration soley on the Republican party. It's well deserved, but the Democrats are getting an undeserved pass. You mentioned in a post a couple pages ago that perhaps these events will precipitate the end of the Republican party and the emergence of a true classical-liberal party. If so, providing we survive it as a nation, it will have been necessary, and well worth it, don't you think?

You really think the public is venting solely at the Republicans? If so, this thread wouldn't be nearly so long and this election wouldn't be this close. I think there are people who are upset with Bush and want someone completely different. I think there are people who were made at the Republican Congress and did push them out two years ago. Now I think there are people made at the Dems in Congress and will try to push them out.

Right now I'd say you've got about a third of the country that will always vote Republican, a third that will always vote Dem, and a third that will research the candidates and vote for who they think is best. Obviously, my numbers are arbitrary, and I'd be interested to see what the actual numbers are. But for anything to really change that last group has to grow larger than the other two groups.

[Guinness]

CNN is fairly palatable as far as it goes.

The internet really isn't a reliable source of information, either... less so, perhaps.

None of this, in my opinion, bodes well for our democracy, which depends upon an educated, informed electorate.

you just need to be careful?

This.

As powerful a tool as it is to provide people with information, it can just as easily be used to spread disinformation.

[MWB]

And the "real American" rant continues from Robin Hayes, NC Congressman:

The comments came at a McCain rally in Concord, North Carolina Saturday before the Arizona senator or members of his staff had arrived at the event. As first reported by the New York Observer, Hayes said, "Liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God."

Ironically, he then said:

Hayes also told the raucous crowd to make sure "we don't say something stupid, make sure we don't say something we don't mean," warning the news media would likely distort such remarks.

Way to listen to your own advice.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[bh]

[Well you can also look at this example another way. When this bums contract is up no team would want him and he'd be out of a job. Also since it's a long term contract, his whole team would suffer since they would be hampered by an expensive long term contract. They wouldn't sniff the playoffs and be a terrible team year after year. Other GM's in the league would take note and not sign bums like this guy to long term expensive deals. Therefore the market for guys like these would correct itself and there would be less deals made like the one you described.

Now in the real world, CEO's that run a company into the ground should loose their job, not be able to get another CEO position, and watch as their business miserably fails and goes bankrupt. Other companies would not want their company to fail so they would make sure they hire a competent guy for CEO position. If they don't, then their business might not survive.

I know that this isn't how it works. I'm still forming a lot of my political views and I don't know what to make of these large corporations that are a power unto themselves. I still like to believe in the free market, but the problem is when companies get so big that their corruption can be hidden. Like you said about shady accounting, etc. How can someone that's not an insider know what really goes on?

If a guy has a couple hundred million in the bank does he need another CEO job?

Well, no he wouldn't just as the bum hockey player would most likely be set for life too. I guess my point is that I agree that the CEOs are overpaid for what they do. I agree that they sometimes run a company into the ground. I agree with all of your points but if they collude and sit on each others boards as you say, then that is not a free market. That is a market controlled by a powerful few and this is where I see the need for government regulations. I see the government as the keeper of the free market and responsible for making sure that coorporations are not fraudulent. People I feel are unjustly criticizing the free market when we don't have anything close to a free market. Everyone has their hands in the cookie jar.

[Spikey]

And the "real American" rant continues from Robin Hayes, NC Congressman:

The comments came at a McCain rally in Concord, North Carolina Saturday before the Arizona senator or members of his staff had arrived at the event. As first reported by the New York Observer, Hayes said, "Liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God."

Ironically, he then said:

Hayes also told the raucous crowd to make sure "we don't say something stupid, make sure we don't say something we don't mean," warning the news media would likely distort such remarks.

Way to listen to your own advice.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

I feel like I should be insulted at the implication that I am not a real American and that I hate hard work, but that is just funny.

[DelPen]

Stories are starting to come out that several Obama donors used gift cards to donate to his campaign and used fake names. The beauty of these gift cards is they are annonymous so someone could buy $10,000 worth broken up into the maximum amounts individuals can contribute and make up names and addresses since there is no verification of name or address to go through. This also allows foreigners to donate as well.