SkyDekker
-
Content
21,691 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
96 -
Feedback
0% -
Country
Canada
Everything posted by SkyDekker
-
Don't agree, they have a drive to make money. They have a drive to have a bigger salary, house, island and jet than their competitor. They are not focussed on the company, they are focussed on what is in it for them. (and I am not saying there is something wrong with that) Shame and the unwillingness to deal with the aftermath, the phone calls, the meetings and having to live without his butler..... Of course they would, because it would make them more money. This is simply not what happened, but I know you will never admit that to yourself. You are right that it isn't discrimination when you fail a credit check. It is discrimination when a white dude and a black dude both pass the credit check, yet the black dude gets denied. That in very simple terms was what the lawsuit was about. You are right, I won't get the chance to run it into the ground. My desire for money, matched with my skill won't let that happen.
-
The gap between average worker's pay and average executive pay has been steadily widening.
-
Now you are just confusing two different issues all together. The discrimination issue was based on banks saying no to people based on race and not based on economic factors.
-
He got $22 million to retire with (outside of the money he already had stashed away) and is 64 years old. Do you think he is really worried about finding his next job? (He made $493 million between 1993 and 2007, that is realized money including the exercising of stock options and excludes his now worthless stock in the company). I'll happily run any company into the ground for half that much and I am almost half his age. This argument that CEOs deserve that much money because if they are not successfull they are going to live in the poorhouse is bogus.
-
So which CEOs have bene fired recently? GM, Chrysler, Citi, AIG etc.......
-
That wasn't the federal government. That was a direct result of capitalism at work. Hence the need for restrictions and federal protection against people making stupid decisions.
-
There are many articles out there to find on this. It holds true in New York and it holds true in Ontario, just a some examples. Would you suggest legalizing drugs, but not taxing them? Secondly, at what age would you then find it appropriate to allow people to shoot heroin?
-
So of these stimulii take more than 12 months to take effect, like for instance interest rate cuts. Would you prefer they would not have cut interest rates until there was a proven result from the first cut?
-
You have that approach to the average American, but seem to be ok with a CEO doing the same thing with his company. For the companies in trouble now, it was the CEO who allowed the company to take on so much debt that they can't recover from it. Why should they not be punished for it, but the average american should?
-
And in the current economic condition you believe that this is a system that has been working?
-
I can't believe how naive some people are. Bush is a prime example of this simply not being true.
-
problem is, nobody knows, that's the problem with uncharted waters. What would you consider to be responsible?
-
The real question is not the amount of spending, but the tie between spending and results. We can all agree that spending $100 and getting $10,000 back would be better than spending $50 and getting $1,000 back. (taking timelines out of the equasion for now) The problem is that nobody has the answer to that, or at least that people will never agree on it.
-
My cigarette example above refutes that claim.
-
The problem is that capitalism and your constitution are at odds with eachother when it comes to that. It costs a lot to become a politician at that level. Capitalism dictates that they should get the most out of being in that position and that is what politicians have always and will always do, all over the world.
-
And with a Republican President and a Republican House the bill would have been filled with right wing earmarks. Basically you are just upset that you lost the election. Maybe if Bush had done a better job the Republicans wouldn't have lost the election? Maybe if McCain had selected somebody with substance as opposed to a beauty queen, you wouldn't have lost the election? Kind of silly to take your anger out on Obama when what you are really angry at is the result of the failure of your own party. (though in this case they technically aren't earmarks, but that is a bit of a semantics argument)
-
Ahh, intelligent response from the right.....Was Rush unavailable to provide guidance?
-
fair enough, then at what age sould one be allowed to shoot heroin? As soon as you tax it, criminals will make money off selling drugs for cash....no tax. Just see the following examples: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/2/5/4/3/p125435_index.html http://www.organized-crime.de/cigarettesmuggling.htm http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121012081570272357.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries And many many more. Saying that by legalizing and taxing a product the criminal element goes away is just not true, unless you don't tax it (or tax it at an absolute minimum) and make it available to all ages.
-
Not at all. There is just no way of knowing how Obama's decision will effect the current economic climate, So it is just plain silly to already start screaming failure. It is just as silly as pretending that the last 8 years didn't happen and had no effect on the current situation.
-
How do you think it would have played out if no financial institutions would have been saved?
-
It already did under Bush by nationalizing a fair bit of the banks. Do you blame him for starting the path towards socialism?
-
The current economic climate is as the result of policies started long before Obama, are you only blaming the Democrats for that? You don't think that the last 8 years of Bush has anything to do with it?
-
Sweden
-
Because the question is whether or not the current stimilus package is irresponsible spending. We won't be able to truly answer that question for several years, if ever. I think we can all agree that no spending would be catastrophic.
-
So, Americans as a whole have made some piss poor decisions in at least the last 4 years. Greed has lead to a complete collapse of confidence and the financial system. Yet the guy with less than 100 days in office is to blame? That just doesn't make any sense. I certainly don't agree with all the actions he is taking, but to lay such massive blame before results are even measurable is insane. The current drop in the DOW is due to the numbers released pertaining to the 4th Quarter of 2008. The man wasn't even president yet. I know that many on here want Obama to fail, but you are screaming before you are even allowing him to fail, which certainly devalues your message.
