The 2008 Elections! (da da da dummmm)

May 2, 2007 10:38 pm

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

The enemy sits back .....[/quote]

Ahh, but they won't, they will, to use the military term, "continue to improve their position. Leaning on locals, undermining the efforts of the Iraqi government. Meanwhile Iraqs have to begin to hedge their bets between the US and Al Qeada, in case our date-certain proves to be earlier than the Iraqis can defend themselves and they have to expect a post-US Iraq where Al Qeada holds the cards.

Of course this says nothing of, once again, the US making it clear they won't stand by allies when the going gets tough AND signalling the enemy we don't have the stomach for a fight, something they've said of us all along.

May 2, 2007 11:48 pm

Mikebutler222,

Take a joke, man.

Jeeze!

May 3, 2007 12:12 am

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Mikebutler222,

Take a joke, man.

Jeeze!

[/quote]

With you it isn't easy to tell

My bad...

May 7, 2007 3:12 pm

So Newt was on Face The Nation on Sunday.

Among things that he said, one was essentially that Republicans need to run away from the President if they want to get elected.

This is a semi widely held belief among Republican candidates in that they used GWB's name once during the Republican candidate "debate" the other night (IIRC it was Rudy who invoked GWB to remind everyone of his own 9/11 bona fides)

Newt brought up the Blue Stater HOT button issues favorably (while he did not discuss what his soultions were, so we're not sure) Fixing Social Security, Fixing education... others, I don't recall which and so I don't want to speculate. You could see that he had shifted into Newt talking point stump speech mode (well I could, anyway).

Sheiffer(?) asked him if he was really going to run or if he just wanted to get his ideas in the "debate". Newt essentially said "Well I'll put them out there and if someone picks them up I'll stand down, otherwise, I'm in."

he also made fun of all the candidates who, he says are listening to marketing men and being duped into being in the race too early.

May 7, 2007 3:36 pm

So Newt was on Face The Nation on Sunday.

Among things that he said, one was essentially that Republicans need to run away from the President if they want to get elected.

Like Gore ran away from Clinton? That's not really a surprise, is it? Even as they support most all of his policies, even the Iraq war, they have to distance themselves.

Newt brought up the Blue Stater HOT button issues favorably (while he did not discuss what his soultions were, so we're not sure) Fixing Social Security, Fixing education...

Those aren't just Blue state hot buttons. The reason he didn't meantion his solutions is because they're of the decidely Red State variety.

Newt essentially said "Well I'll put them out there and if someone picks them up I'll stand down, otherwise, I'm in."

We'll see if his "essentially" and your quotes for him line up....

May 7, 2007 4:41 pm

http://forums.registeredrep.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4195&amp ;PN=1&TPN=5

"The problem with this is that there are too many Republicans that figure that running AGAINST the party has a better chance of being a successful strategy." Whomitmayconcer

http://forums.registeredrep.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4195&amp ;PN=1&TPN=6

http://forums.registeredrep.com/edit_post.asp?M=Q&PID=62 586&TPN=33

Wherein Mikebutler222 denies (by implication) that Republican candidates are running against the party.

Mikebutler222 also disputes the idea that political contributors send money to leading parties and spread donations across the field to have a "hedge" just as John Mack is shown to do in that thread.

Those aren't just Blue state hot buttons. The reason he didn't meantion his solutions is because they're of the decidely Red State variety.

Why do you feel the need to do this? Nobody said they were "Just Blue State" hot button issues. But in the realm of political philosophy, Social Security is a centerpiece of FDR Democratic party philosophy. Not to mention, it's a bug-a-boo to the Conservative view of Governmental responsibility.

When he brings them up, he's not bringing it up to speak the Republican base, he's bringing it up to reach across the aisle (is he reaching for thier hand or their throat? I don't know yet, but he sounded more like he's reaching for the hand.)

As to the "Red State" variety. I assume you mean to allow the SS funds to be invested in the Stock Market. The way I (and I do mean I, not anyone else) see it is that the biggest problem with SSI money in the SM is stock selection.

A company whoes shares are included in the SSI approved list (it would obviously be an index of some level of diversity) would put a solid floor under said stock. How could we be sure,then, that the srtock selection is a clean, juried process? Not only for today but for everyday from now until forever. If that process can be created, I personally don't have a problem. I also personally doubt that they could create such a system.

May 7, 2007 5:06 pm

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

http://forums.registeredrep.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4195&amp ; ;PN=1&TPN=5

"The problem with this is that there are too many Republicans that figure that running AGAINST the party has a better chance of being a successful strategy." Whomitmayconcer

http://forums.registeredrep.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4195&amp ; ;PN=1&TPN=6

http://forums.registeredrep.com/edit_post.asp?M=Q&PID=62 586&TPN=33

Wherein Mikebutler222 denies (by implication) that Republican candidates are running against the party. [/quote]

Note the word "party" and the word "Bush". Gore ran away from <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Clinton on things perceived at shortcomings, he didn’t run away from the Democrat party.

Thusly, Republicans will run away from things perceived to be Bush’s shortcomings, even as they continue to support his positions. I really don’t see a mystery there… Perhaps you can name a candidate running away from the GOP? The closest I can think of is McCain with his slams of profligate spending on the part of the defunct GOP-Congress.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Mikebutler222 also disputes the idea that political contributors send money to leading parties and spread donations across the field to have a "hedge" just as John Mack is shown to do in that thread. [/quote]

Please do quote me directly on that….

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Those aren't just Blue state hot buttons. The reason he didn't meantion his solutions is because they're of the decidely Red State variety.

Why do you feel the need to do this? Nobody said they were "Just Blue State" hot button issues. [/quote]

Yes, I do feel the need when they’re stated as “Blue state hot buttons” when the issue is JUST as hot in the Red states. It's obvious you use that verbage to then claim that Newt's looking to solve what DEMOCRATS see as problems (while you don't bother to notice he doesn't mention HIS solutions because they're usually rejected by Democrats) as some "reach out to Democrats" agenda.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

But in the realm of political philosophy, Social Security is a centerpiece of FDR Democratic party philosophy. Not to mention, it's a bug-a-boo to the Conservative view of Governmental responsibility.[/quote]

Neither of those two claims change the fact that SS reform is a GOP agenda issue. Democrats have done everything possible to end reform talk and begin the “put in more money, the plan isn’t as bad off as Republcans claim, “reform” is a euphemism for kill” meme.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] When he brings them up, he's not bringing it up to speak the Republican base, he's bringing it up to reach across the aisle (is he reaching for thier hand or their throat? I don't know yet, but he sounded more like he's reaching for the hand.)[/quote]

So you suggest, (and it could be seen coming a mile away) and that’s the reason you used the “Blue state hot button” line, but it isn’t persuasive a claim since, again, SS reform and education reform are universal hot button issues.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] As to the "Red State" variety. I assume you mean to allow the SS funds to be invested in the Stock Market. The way I (and I do mean I, not anyone else) see it is that the biggest problem with SSI money in the SM is stock selection. [/quote]

I don't doubt that that's how you see the problem involved in it, but it's important to note that when Democrats speak against reform they talk about the end of the “guarantee” of SS, not just the stock selection issue. They claim such reform is an attempt to “kill Social Security”.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]A company whoes shares are included in the SSI approved list (it would obviously be an index of some level of diversity) would put a solid floor under said stock. How could we be sure,then, that the srtock selection is a clean, juried process? [/quote]

As has been suggested by most every GOPer bringing up a reform program that features equity investments and individual choice, the use of indexes just like the Civil Service plan already uses.

May 7, 2007 7:12 pm

There is no such thing as the "Democrat party".

Here is the link to the Face The Nation Video... http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/ftn/main3460.shtml

Please do quote me directly on that….<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] …and so political donations are going towards the winning party, …[/quote]

I think you misunderstand how donations work. They go to the most likely winning candidate of the party the giver finds like-minded to their own philosophy. Edwards could look like a landslide favorite, he’s not getting the money of people who believe in business and capital.

"Yes, I do feel the need when they’re stated as “Blue state hot buttons” when the issue is JUST as hot in the Red states. It's obvious you use that verbage to then ..."

Let's see, he's on Face The Nation, and he just spend a considerable percentage of his available time saying that the status quo was a recipee for defeat. He included in his list of planks Environmentalism, Economy, Education, Medicare and Social Security, I think it's pretty clear whom he is talking to. It's also clear what he is "not talking" about. He's positioning himself as the "Not Party guy." This is not the list of priorities that Republicans are famous for talking about.

Then he talks about "Green Conservatism" and Market forces (which Al Gore wrote about and was infamously lied about by Dan Quayle in the debates). Point being, he is working to create common ground between the sensibilities.

Speaking of Common ground...

I don't doubt that that's how you see the problem involved in it, but it's important to note that when Democrats speak against reform they talk about the end of the “guarantee” of SS, not just the stock selection issue. They claim such reform is an attempt to “kill Social Security”.

So there I am, finding common ground only for you to look desperately for a shovel to dig it up with.

As has been suggested by most every GOPer bringing up a reform program that features equity investments and individual choice, the use of indexes just like the Civil Service plan already uses.

Indcies do nothing to mitigate the problem. If you use the S&P 500 you're still throwing billions of dollars per quarter at 500 companies. SSI raises something in the neighborhood of $47B per month, which, at a 10% allocation is still near 5B/month, which would mean 10 mill a month divided evenly going into what is the ultimate "strong hands' in that it will never be sold.

The SSI would soon become a majority share holder in some of these companies, certainly a major voting block.

So it's an Index? So what? So the guy the decides what stocks are in that index (and which one's are removed) becomes one of the most powerful men in the investing world. It's a potential problem, and not one that we were willing to gloss over with the "Just Trust Me" crowd.

May 7, 2007 9:14 pm

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] …and so political donations are going towards the winning party, …[/quote]

I think you misunderstand how donations work. They go to the most likely winning candidate of the party the giver finds like-minded to their own philosophy. Edwards could look like a landslide favorite, he’s not getting the money of people who believe in business and capital.

[/quote]

You feel it’s fair to recast that exchange as “ Mikebutler222 also disputes the idea that political contributors send money to leading parties and spread donations across the field to have a "hedge" just as John Mack is shown to do in that thread.”?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"Yes, I do feel the need when they’re stated as “Blue state hot buttons” when the issue is JUST as hot in the Red states. It's obvious you use that verbage to then ..."

Let's see, he's on Face The Nation, and he just spend a considerable percentage of his available time saying that the status quo was a recipee for defeat. He included in his list of planks Environmentalism, Economy, Education, Medicare and Social Security, I think it's pretty clear whom he is talking to. It's also clear what he is "not talking" about. He's positioning himself as the "Not Party guy." This is not the list of priorities that Republicans are famous for talking about. [/quote]

Actually I would say the economy, education Meidcare and SS are exactly what Republicans are famous for talking about. Moreover, his “solutions” are classic GOP.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Then he talks about "Green Conservatism" and Market forces (which Al Gore wrote about and was infamously lied about by Dan Quayle in the debates). Point being, he is working to create common ground between the sensibilities.[/quote]

I’ll agree that talking about environmentalism is creating common ground. Note, however, his solutions remain GOP and market based. If he starts yapping about governmental command and control, taxes, etc., then you know he’s gone to the darkside.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

I don't doubt that that's how you see the problem involved in it, but it's important to note that when Democrats speak against reform they talk about the end of the “guarantee” of SS, not just the stock selection issue. They claim such reform is an attempt to “kill Social Security”.

So there I am, finding common ground only for you to look desperately for a shovel to dig it up with. [/quote]

Now that’s just not fair. We were talking about classic Democrat/Republican divides on SS reform, and you mention your own concerns (and even acknowledge that you might not be sharing that with many others) . I respectfully acknowledge your personal concerns, and then return to Democratic party policy on the issue of GOP SS reforms.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

As has been suggested by most every GOPer bringing up a reform program that features equity investments and individual choice, the use of indexes just like the Civil Service plan already uses.

Indcies do nothing to mitigate the problem. [/quote]

Obviously we disagree. The Civil Service TSP uses indexes and there’s no problem.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

If you use the S&P 500 you're still throwing billions of dollars per quarter at 500 companies. SSI raises something in the neighborhood of $47B per month, which, at a 10% allocation is still near 5B/month, which would mean 10 mill a month divided evenly going into what is the ultimate "strong hands' in that it will never be sold.

The SSI would soon become a majority share holder in some of these companies, certainly a major voting block.

So it's an Index? So what? So the guy the decides what stocks are in that index (and which one's are removed) becomes one of the most powerful men in the investing world. It's a potential problem, and not one that we were willing to gloss over with the "Just Trust Me" crowd.

[/quote]

It could easily be arranged that the SSI doesn’t hold the individual stocks, but holds the index, thus leaving the selection issue where it’s always been. I can’t see SSI becoming a majority shareholder and attempting a CALPERS agenda, at least not unless Hillary’s at the helm.

May 7, 2007 10:16 pm

I’ll agree that talking about environmentalism is creating common ground. Note, however, his solutions remain GOP and market based.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I think he knows that he'll find a lot more support for market driven environmentalism among the Northern Republicans, swing voters and Democrats than the usual "Drop all regulation" rhetoric of the Right.

One way he'd know that? Because he saw Bush get votes by pretending to be "pro Green" and by passing green sounding legislation like "the safe water act" that actually raised the allowable levels of toxins in the drinking water (might not be the exact name). He remembers Bush promising to do something about the power plants in the central states to curb acid rain in the North East. (He did something, he relaxed restrictions on them!)

SSI and Stocks...

Whether they hold some artificial index or hold the actual share certificates is somewhat irrelevant. Someone is going vote the shares, if it is someone that is not a public figure, accountable to the taxpayers somehow, it's a problem.

Further. The issue is what lengths a company will go to to be one of the stocks in the index. And the issue is what it will mean to the company that is in the index. If you own a company that is essentially retiring 10Million dollars worth of shares each and every month you have a tremendous advantage over your rivals that aren't in the index. Who in their right mind is going to short a stock with that sort of consistent buying? You want to raise $100 million? Don’t worry about it, pump it out and in 10 months, the SSTF will have sopped up the supply. What the hell? Do it again! Meanwhile your competitor is struggling because he can't raise the same capital as quickly without increasing the float.

Look at the mess at Sallie Mae. Why wouldn't there be a bigger mess at the SSI? Unless you made the system fair and transparent (which are almost mutually exclusive in this case) you will have corruption of the process.

Re: Hilary at the helm.

The problem is that this is SSI, this goes on for decades and decades (we hope hundreds and hundreds of years). The process needs to be above and beyond political influence and it needs to be that way long after we all are dead. That is something I'm willing to strive for but it's not something that I think this particular administration was capable of doing. Let's look at it, let's work on it, but we'll need to rise above politics to do it.

Meanwhile, would I rather have a Democrat or a Republican as the architect of this plan? I would rather have someone whose motto is "What's good for Americans is good for business." than someone whose motto is "What's good for business is good for <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />America." Mostly because I think that the former is much truer than the latter.

Re Calpers:

You don't really think they are unique do you? You don't think that NYSpension, being a major holder of EK did that because they liked the photo business. Pension funds are just another arrow in the quiver of states as they try to attract businesses to their constituency.

May 7, 2007 11:13 pm

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

I’ll agree that talking about environmentalism is creating common ground. Note, however, his solutions remain GOP and market based.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I think he knows that he'll find a lot more support for market driven environmentalism among the Northern Republicans, swing voters and Democrats than the usual "Drop all regulation" rhetoric of the Right. [/quote]

"Drop all regulation"? Rather cartoonish version of the facts, isn't it? Market driven solutions are a GOP trademark. If you want a "we know best", command and control solution with government and government planners in the center, you have to talk to someone like Gore.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] SSI and Stocks...

Whether they hold some artificial index or hold the actual share certificates is somewhat irrelevant. Someone is going vote the shares, if it is someone that is not a public figure, accountable to the taxpayers somehow, it's a problem. [/quote]

It's never been a problem for the money going into the government TSP.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] Further. The issue is what lengths a company will go to to be one of the stocks in the index. [/quote]

That's nothing that isn't true today.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] Look at the mess at Sallie Mae. Why wouldn't there be a bigger mess at the SSI? Unless you made the system fair and transparent (which are almost mutually exclusive in this case) you will have corruption of the process. [/quote]

Other than the fact that an invested SSI has nothing at all to do with Sallie Mae? I'm sorry, but I see nothing inherently risky about allowing the committee selecting the S&P to continue as they have been. If that bothers you we could go to a completely mechanical index process that simply lumps the largest 100 companies in an equally weighted index, followed by a mid-cap version of the same thing, a small cap, lather, rinse, repeat.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] Re: Hilary at the helm.

The problem is that this is SSI, this goes on for decades and decades (we hope hundreds and hundreds of years). The process needs to be above and beyond political influence and it needs to be that way long after we all are dead. [/quote]

You're really reaching to see a problem where there is none UNLESS you get a Hillary who sees SSI as leverage to force some political agenda on the companies in the index...

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

That is something I'm willing to strive for but it's not something that I think this particular administration was capable of doing. [/quote]

Here we go again.....

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] I would rather have someone whose motto is "What's good for Americans is good for business." ...[/quote]

Funny, that's what every union activist says when they seek to use pension plan shares to force something on a business......

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Re Calpers:

You don't really think they are unique do you? [/quote]

No, but it doesn't lessen the problems they can become.

May 8, 2007 5:34 am

Don't tell me they are only going to let REPS vote in the next election.

The Reps are taking over the US! Run for your life! Taking away all freedoms; freedoms just for reps only!

May 8, 2007 1:06 pm

Whomitmayconcer wrote:
Re: Hilary at the helm.<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

The problem is that this is SSI, this goes on for decades and decades (we hope hundreds and hundreds of years). The process needs to be above and beyond political influence and it needs to be that way long after we all are dead.

You're really reaching to see a problem where there is none UNLESS you get a Hillary who sees SSI as leverage to force some political agenda on the companies in the index...

Whomitmayconcer wrote:

That is something I'm willing to strive for but it's not something that I think this particular administration was capable of doing.

Here we go again.....

Whomitmayconcer wrote:
I would rather have someone whose motto is "What's good for Americans is good for business." ...

Funny, that's what every union activist says when they seek to use pension plan shares to force something on a business......

Therein lies our principal divide, I believe. You are more afraid of political activism on business than you are business activism. Me? Im more sure that businesses will take every advantage of the population that they possibly can, without regard for long term consequences to the nation.

I can't understand how you can maintain that belief system after all the evidence to the contrary over the history of this country. But I do understand that this is a popularly held belief.

I don't see how you could say the same about me (that I'm holding a belief that flies in the face of history) but I'm willing to listen to you try to make the case.

May 8, 2007 1:33 pm

Whomitmayconcer wrote:<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I would rather have someone whose motto is "What's good for Americans is good for business." ...

Funny, that's what every union activist says when they seek to use pension plan shares to force something on a business......

Therein lies our principal divide, I believe. You are more afraid of political activism on business than you are business activism.

I've never said anything about such a choice, which I believe you offer as a false one. OTOH, "political activism on business" usually means people who couldn't run a profitable business trying to make people who can, do something that runs contrary to shareholder interests. I really couldn't care less what some union thug thinks about free trade, for example. I just don't want them in a boardroom forcing their protectionist views on the board or the shareholders.

Me? Im more sure that businesses will take every advantage of the population that they possibly can, without regard for long term consequences to the nation.

I can't understand how you can maintain that belief system after all the evidence to the contrary over the history of this country. But I do understand that this is a popularly held belief.

This “belief system” you’ve claimed I hold? The one I’ve never said or suggested I believe?

May 8, 2007 2:34 pm

I've never said anything about such a choice, which I believe you offer as a false one.

I did and you indicated which side you came down on by asserting the Hilary rhetoric. As to a false choice, I'm willing to hear what the other choices are. We're all willing to agree that there are lots of yard lines between these two goal posts. The bottom line is that we both want America to be strong.

OTOH, "political activism on business" usually means people who couldn't run a profitable business trying to make people who can, do something that runs contrary to shareholder interests.

I'm sorry, since when did shareholders become a protected class? If there is a choice between the good of the population in general and the interests of shareholders, the GOVERNMENT is supposed to come down on the side of the population. "...that the government of the people, by the people and for the people..." A. Lincoln.

Meanwhil, we really have no call to complain given the rate of growth in this country even while there have been those regulations that have been to the detriment of shareholders. OTOH, since Reagan's policy of deregulation, we've experienced first hand the disasters that deregulation brought (S&Ls ring bells?).

I really couldn't care less what some union thug thinks about free trade, for example. I just don't want them in a boardroom forcing their protectionist views on the board or the shareholders.

<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />There's a very fair debate as to which is better for Americans in the "free trade" issue. The fact is, we just don't know. Both sides can make honest assessments of what will happen and come to diametrically opposed end results.There are way too many variables and it comes down to which presuppositions nd which future suppositions you're willing to take.

While I don't want him forcing his view either, I don't want his voice not to be there because business will make the rosiest projection for their own short self interest in order to sell the concept. That's their job, that's their history and that's their perspective.

This “belief system” you’ve claimed I hold? The one I’ve never said or suggested I believe?

Yeah, that's the one. Got a problem with that?

If you don't hold to that belief system, perhaps you can tell us what belief system you operate under? Please.

May 8, 2007 3:39 pm

I've never said anything about such a choice, which I believe you offer as a false one.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I did and you indicated which side you came down on by asserting the Hilary rhetoric.

No, it's one you assumed from the Hillary rhetoric.

As to a false choice, I'm willing to hear what the other choices are.

Sure. You said "You are more afraid of political activism on business than you are business activism.". I would say that's a false choice because "business activism" as I see it is business attempting to influence those laws that govern their activities. It’s done in the public domain and with competing interests represented. “political activism” of the boardroom variety as practiced by CALPERS and others is another issue.

The former is healthy the latter, not so much. Worse yet are the machinations of politicians to meddle in affairs of legal business in an attempt to make points with (usually) ill-informed political constituents.

We're all willing to agree that there are lots of yard lines between these two goal posts. The bottom line is that we both want <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />America to be strong.

We may, I’m not sure that’s true of every component in the debate is interested in a “strong America” as much as protecting their own interests which are often not shared by the public at large. Unions that want to kill off a non-unionized Walmart, for example. There’s no favor to the public there.

OTOH, "political activism on business" usually means people who couldn't run a profitable business trying to make people who can, do something that runs contrary to shareholder interests.

I'm sorry, since when did shareholders become a protected class? If there is a choice between the good of the population in general and the interests of shareholders, the GOVERNMENT is supposed to come down on the side of the population. "...that the government of the people, by the people and for the people..." A. Lincoln.

You start with a non-sequitar and move on to dangerous proposition that government intervention on behalf of some notion of “good of the population” and then nail it with a quote from Licoln about government that you apply to the internal workings of shareholder property. Quite a mix you have their.

The fact is if I’m looking for an operative business model the last places I’m going to consult are where you can find the likes of Henry Waxman, protectionists and union “leadership”. Far too often those are the elements claiming to be doing God’s work for the public when their interests are far more narrow and selfish.

Meanwhil, we really have no call to complain given the rate of growth in this country…

Yeah, isn’t it great that Republicans have limited the “good intentions” of those who would meddle too far into the property of shareholders? If you think requiring the workforce be 50% left-handed dwarf females from some culturally disadvantaged group, then YOU form a company and hire them, don’t push business to do it just because there’s some activists in your office demanding you act “for the public”, Mr Congressman.

even while there have been those regulations that have been to the detriment of shareholders. OTOH, since Reagan's policy of deregulation, we've experienced first hand the disasters that deregulation brought (S&Ls ring bells?).

I’ll give you S&Ls and raise you dozens of other examples where misguided government intervention has done far more harm.

Perhaps this is where we split; I just do not see a lot of business sense of even horse sense among those occupying government (or activist for that matter) offices. I see a proclivity towards the shrill, the crowd appeasing, the jealous, the grandstanding, the protectionist, small-minded, the crusade of the day orientation. I see the kind of people who hold “hearings” on the dangers of cigarettes, as if the warning labels on the sides of the packs since 1960 aren’t enough.

I see people looking for a whipping boy. I see people whose only knowledge about innovation is how to kill it and substitute some central command and control failure for “the people”.

While I wouldn’t give free reign to business, because no power should go unchecked, given a choice between those who can actually run a business that employees thousands and those who couldn’t, my benefit of the doubt starts with those who can.

I really couldn't care less what some union thug thinks about free trade, for example. I just don't want them in a boardroom forcing their protectionist views on the board or the shareholders.

There's a very fair debate as to which is better for Americans in the "free trade" issue. The fact is, we just don't know.

No, we know. We know protectionism doesn’t work.

Both sides can make honest assessments of what will happen and come to diametrically opposed end results. There are way too many variables and it comes down to which presuppositions nd which future suppositions you're willing to take.

Sorry, not buying. Protectionists are wedded to a 19th Century view of world commerce. They’re more concerned about fighting to “protect” their interests (which in the long term can’t be protected) even if that means driving the company that employs them out of business.

While I don't want him forcing his view either, I don't want his voice not to be there because business will make the rosiest projection for their own short self interest in order to sell the concept. That's their job, that's their history and that's their perspective.

This “belief system” you’ve claimed I hold? The one I’ve never said or suggested I believe?

Yeah, that's the one. Got a problem with that?

Other than the fact you took a false choice and ascribed, without a shred of evidence, one side of it to me? Nah.

May 8, 2007 5:10 pm

In the first two points you seem to be twisting yourself into knots.

The choice as I understood it was between "What's good for Americans is good for business." and "What's good for business is good for america."

That was the choice I put out.

They are broad brushes to be sure. The context of the discussion within which they were raised has low to no correlation to your protestations thereafter.

The discussion was about designing a Stock Purchasing SSFund and who should design it. If I have a choice of who will design it, I'll be more willing to opt for the people who prefer to believe that people are the engine of economic health over people who think that corporate health is the engine of domestic tanquility.

My observation was that the sorts of problems you allude to with CALPERS (and other problems as well) are somethings that I would want removed from the process. The point being that they probably cannot be removed.

You start with a non-sequitar

No, that's not true. It is possitively sequential to the discussion when I challenge the injection of a third partie's interests into the discussion. We were talking about the interests of the people vs the interests of the corporation.

and move on to dangerous proposition that government intervention on behalf of some notion of “good of the population” and then nail it with a quote from Licoln about government that you apply to the internal workings of shareholder property. Quite a mix you have their.

<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />Let's take a clear case, ok. Let's talk about polluting a river. Let's use GE! There was a time that GE made tranformers for the electric energy grid system. Those transformers have high levels of PCB in them. PCBs were essentially part of the oil that was in these transformrs. GE flushed PCB laden oil down it's drains and it got into the local aquifers, it polluted water for miles around, there are still big deposits of it in the river. Individuals complaining could not get GE to stop the process, it took government intervention to get them to do so. This was to the betterment of the people and to the short term detriment of GE's shareholders. Why should the government have come down on the side of the people? Because the government IS the people. The weight of the government is what is supposed to maintain a free market, in that it gives the powerless power to negotiate change. This is why I say it's Gov't job to look out for "the people's best interests".

Yeah, isn’t it great that Republicans have limited the “good intentions” of those who would meddle too far into the property of shareholders?

Yeah it was. Just as it is good that there is the balance of people who will insist that there be laws and enforcement of those laws.

I’ll give you S&Ls and raise you dozens of other examples where misguided government intervention has done far more harm.

Let's hear them! Lets hear of the DOZENS of regulations that have done FAR MORE HARM than the S&L crisis. Demonstrably so, not just in some pretended "lost opportunity". I want to see dozens of examples of programs that cost the American taxpayer more than the failure the S&L deregulation.

This excludes such things as Social Security, Welfare, "The War On Poverty" and other government programs. These have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

No, we know. We know protectionism doesn’t work

But we don't know if Free Trade does work which was what I said.

Also, we don't "Know" that protectionism doesn't work. We know that it hasn't worked, and that it doesn't work given the business model that we want to support.

We assume that protectionism doesn't work because when we tried to be protectionist the other countries in the world were folding and sending us the wretched refuse of their teeming shores. There is only one reason that we couldn't exist completely within our own borders...we'd have to adjust our lifestyle. we're not willing to make those adjustments.

I'm not in favor of protectionism but, I wanted to take the opportunity to show you again that you assumptions are shaky at best.

Sorry, not buying. Protectionists are wedded to a 19th Century view of world commerce.

You're lost within your own misperceptions. Nobody here championed a "protectionist" agenda and yet you have boiled the discussion down to it. You should go back and reread without your agenda floating in front of your eyes and you'll see where you went wrong.

May 8, 2007 6:38 pm

The choice as I understood it was between "What's good for Americans is good for business." and "What's good for business is good for america."<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

That was the choice I put out.

That was the false choice.

They are broad brushes to be sure. The context of the discussion within which they were raised has low to no correlation to your protestations thereafter.

The “context of the discussion” was the risk of someone like Hillary using the pretext of SSI shareholder status to begin a series of “activist shareholder” moves on behalf of some constituency.

If I have a choice of who will design it, I'll be more willing to opt for the people who prefer to believe that people are the engine of economic health over people who think that corporate health is the engine of domestic tanquility.

I’d prefer not to leave it to Hillary and the sort of people who define “people as the engine” and who prove that POV by holding hearings on cigarettes. These are, by and large, people who couldn’t run a business,

You start with a non-sequitar

No, that's not true.

Sure it was. “Shareholders a protected class”?!?!?! No one said anything of the sort. OTOH, they shouldn’t be the whipping boy of the sort of clowns we see in Congress.

It is possitively sequential to the discussion when I challenge the injection of a third partie's interests into the discussion. We were talking about the interests of the people vs the interests of the corporation.

If only it was that simple to define “the people” and “the corporation”. The corporation is the golden goose, too many in politics fail to remember that. “The people” is a term often used by thugs in political office to do little more than shake down the very organizations that employ <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />America.

and move on to dangerous proposition that government intervention on behalf of some notion of “good of the population” and then nail it with a quote from Licoln about government that you apply to the internal workings of shareholder property. Quite a mix you have their.

Let's take a clear case, ok. Let's talk about polluting a river. Let's use GE!

Regulating chemical waste wasn’t the sort of “good for America” issue I was considering. I’ve yet to hear anyone argue otherwise. Those interactions are at the governmental level, not the sort of thing that happens when activists descend on a boardroom.

The issue as I saw it was the typical activist shareholder claptrap attempted by unions or other special interests groups to use their status as a shareholder to force a company to do something that’s detrimental to shareholder interests with narrow or non-existent benefit to the public at large.

Yeah, isn’t it great that Republicans have limited the “good intentions” of those who would meddle too far into the property of shareholders?

Yeah it was. Just as it is good that there is the balance of people who will insist that there be laws and enforcement of those laws.

Right, and isn’t it great that decision has been in the hands of people who see business, and not government, as a source of innovation and energy in the economy?

I’ll give you S&Ls and raise you dozens of other examples where misguided government intervention has done far more harm.

Let's hear them! Lets hear of the DOZENS of regulations that have done FAR MORE HARM than the S&L crisis. Demonstrably so, not just in some pretended "lost opportunity".

Oh, “lost opportunities” like lessening our dependence on foreign oil by building nuclear plants in this country wouldn’t count? Like stopping wind plants because they interfere with Ted Kennedy’s views wouldn’t count? Like stopping us from building more refinery capacity don’t count? I think your faith that the unrepentant, unrestrained regulators of business in the ill-defined interests of “the people” are the center of all good and wisdom in America is cute. Dangerous, but cute all the same.

This excludes such things as Social Security, Welfare, "The War On Poverty" and other government programs. These have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Ahhh, and we wouldn’t want to talk about the dire unintended consequences of each of those, eh?

No, we know. We know protectionism doesn’t work

But we don't know if Free Trade does work which was what I said.

We do know it works, and we know the alternative is protectionism. When you can get economists from Crazy Paul Krugman to the Chicago School on one side on that issue you know the debate is over, except when it comes to head-in-the-sand types and union bosses.

Also, we don't "Know" that protectionism doesn't work. We know that it hasn't worked, and that it doesn't work given the business model that we want to support.

“We”? Perhaps you and me. It’s a shame you don’t speak for many elected Democrats.

Sorry, not buying. Protectionists are wedded to a 19th Century view of world commerce.

You're lost within your own misperceptions. Nobody here championed a "protectionist" agenda and yet you have boiled the discussion down to it.

Again, if only you spoke for elected Democrats….I use protectionism as an example of buffoonish politicians working to please an ill-informed voting block while undermining the very engine of our economy as an example because it’s such an easy to understand one. There are plenty of others.

You should go back and reread without your agenda floating in front of your eyes and you'll see where you went wrong.

My agenda is pretty simple. Business and innovation is the engine of the economy. Clearly there should be a balance between that and the “public” however defined. HOWEVER, you seem to have a great deal more faith in the wisdom and motivation of those office holders who try to define “public interest”. For example, killing off Walmart is not in “the public’s interest”, but it’s big on the agenda of those who claim to speak “for the public”. Enriching the plaintiff’s bar, often without the slightest benefit of those parts of the public “wronged” is not in “the public’s interest”. Turning oil companies into the boogeyman every six months or so and having Henry Waxman conducting an investigation isn’t “in the public’s interest”.

May 8, 2007 6:48 pm

ONCE MORE, WITH THE COLORS CORRECTED

The choice as I understood it was between "What's good for Americans is good for business." and "What's good for business is good for america."<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

That was the choice I put out.

That was the false choice. <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />America and business (as defined by shareholders) aren’t mutually exclusive terms. “Good” is a dangerous term given how often it’s bastardized to serve some political agenda.

They are broad brushes to be sure. The context of the discussion within which they were raised has low to no correlation to your protestations thereafter.

The “context of the discussion” was the risk of someone like Hillary using the pretext of SSI shareholder status to begin a series of “activist shareholder” moves on behalf of some constituency.

If I have a choice of who will design it, I'll be more willing to opt for the people who prefer to believe that people are the engine of economic health over people who think that corporate health is the engine of domestic tanquility.

I’d prefer not to leave it to Hillary and the sort of people who define “people as the engine” and who prove that POV by holding hearings on cigarettes. These are, by and large, people who couldn’t run a business, and shouldn’t be allowed to bully their way into running other people’s businesses.

You start with a non-sequitar

No, that's not true.

Sure it was. “Shareholders a protected class”?!?!?! No one said anything of the sort. OTOH, they shouldn’t be the whipping boy of the sort of clowns we see in Congress.

It is possitively sequential to the discussion when I challenge the injection of a third partie's interests into the discussion. We were talking about the interests of the people vs the interests of the corporation.

If only it was that simple to define “the people” and “the corporation”. The corporation is the golden goose, too many in politics fail to remember that. “The people” is a term often used by thugs in political office to do little more than shake down the very organizations that employ America.