Quote :

"Hillary pans 'on your own' society Washington Times, May 30, 2007 MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) -- Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision yesterday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity. The New York senator said that what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor. "I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none." That means pairing growth with fairness, Mrs. Clinton said, to ensure that the middle class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate chief executive officers. "There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies." Mrs. Clinton spoke at the Manchester School of Technology, which trains high school students for careers in construction and the automotive, graphic arts and other industries. The school highlighted one of the nine goals she outlined: increasing support for alternative schools and community colleges. "We have sent a message to our young people that if you don't go to college ... that you're thought less of in America. We have to stop this," Mrs. Clinton said. Beyond education, she said she would reduce special breaks for corporations, eliminate tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas and open up pay for chief executive officers to greater public scrutiny. Mrs. Clinton also said she would help people save more money by expanding and simplifying the earned income tax credit, create jobs by pursuing energy independence and ensure that every American has affordable health insurance. In 1965, the average corporate chief executive earned 24 times as much as the average worker, she said. By 2005, it was 262 times as much. In the last six years, productivity has increased, but family incomes have gone down, Mrs. Clinton said, leading to rising inequality and pessimism in the work force. "It's not as if America hasn't been successful these last six years, but the measure of success does not relate to what's happening in households across our country," she said. "It's like trickle-down economics, without the trickle." "

Hillary is pandering to the left-wingers with one of their favorite themes: Class Warfare.

5/30/2007 11:38:59 AM

and socialism

5/30/2007 11:47:41 AM

I don't think there is anything explicitly wrong with what she is saying. She's appealing to the masses, without attacking the rich. We've heard more rhetoric from Obama and Edwards about how the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes, etc.

The reality is that the "remedies" for fixing the widening income gap are always worse than the problem.

5/30/2007 11:56:35 AM

I love it. Someone talks about eliminating government involvement with big business and you call it socialism. Idiot.

5/30/2007 11:56:37 AM

Raising corporate taxes and intensifying regulations and scrutiny on CEO pay does not amount to "eliminating government involvement with big business".

5/30/2007 12:00:41 PM

^^

Quote :

"But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies." "

that's not eliminating gov. intervention

but the republicans.....the one's who are supposed to be against big gov......are now just as bad

giant douche and a shit sandwich FTL

[Edited on May 30, 2007 at 12:04 PM. Reason : .]

5/30/2007 12:03:06 PM

Quote :

"Someone talks about eliminating government involvement with big business "

where the hell does she talk about that?

Quote :

"it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity."

yeah i'd call that socialism

5/30/2007 12:06:53 PM

Quote :

"In 1965, the average corporate chief executive earned 24 times as much as the average worker, she said. By 2005, it was 262 times as much."

she does have some great points, but I don't necessarily agree with her plan for dealing with it.

[Edited on May 30, 2007 at 12:10 PM. Reason : look up ceo's pay in the U.S. compared to other countries....it's crazy.]

5/30/2007 12:09:07 PM

Excessive CEO pay is somewhat inefficient and wasteful, but it's not the problem people make it out to be.

It's kind of like excessive professional athlete pay. Sure, it's disgusting to see these guys get paid so much, but how does it directly affect you? Other than being really jealous?

5/30/2007 12:17:04 PM

clearly socialism

5/30/2007 12:18:02 PM

^^yep...just how the market works...pro athletes and movie stars wouldnt get $30 million a year if there werent a high demand for their product/service

5/30/2007 12:21:31 PM

I'm just waiting for the sob stories about factory workers getting laid off while the CEO gets a multi-million dollar severance package.

How about situations where CEOs oversee a huge turnaround and enable to company to make hundreds of millions in profit?

Ultimately, CEO pay is a function of the market, and as long as shareholders have a say in the matter, the market will correct itself if and when executive pay gets out of hand.

[Edited on May 30, 2007 at 12:24 PM. Reason : 2]

5/30/2007 12:22:54 PM

I doubt hillary will blame anyone for sending factory jobs overseas, it would make for bad bed conversation.

unskilled labor used to make a very favorable wage, and still do in some industries. We have a goodyear plant where the workers can make 70k a year with a high school degree. Its hard ass work, but the pay is there... and they STRIKE every 4 yrs when their labor contracts are up. Its simply amazing. You cant really blame the companies for going overseas, its partially the consumers fault for wanting cheap products, in which most US companies cant compete with the global market.

5/30/2007 12:26:33 PM

Quote :

"How about situations where CEOs oversee a huge turnaround and enable to company to make hundreds of millions in profit? "

that's different, but

Quote :

"Ultimately, CEO pay is a function of the market, and as long as shareholders have a say in the matter, the market will correct itself if and when executive pay gets out of hand."

when the pay is by far higher than ever, and at the same time, ceo scandals are at a peak, I say something isn't being corrected.

Quote :

"Problems with executive compensation came to a head in 2006 with large severance packages given to departing CEOs who performed poorly. Other CEOs left in connection with stock options backdating scandals at their companies. The stock options backdating scandal reveals a flawed compensation system in which CEOs can take what they want from their companies and their shareholders with impunity. This highlights the need for further reform to protect companies and their investors."

with the ceo contracts now, even shareholders/boards of directors are losing control on the salaries.....and many times, alot of the money they make isn't even included in their official salary package.

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/

5/30/2007 2:24:22 PM

^i'd say you're correct, but those lower cost for companies don't always make it back to the public. once again, take a look at the 262x figure from above.

also, class warfare is real. there is an insanely huge difference between the haves and the have nots and it needs to be worked on. i care not to support this because either you can clearly see it, or you're blind to it. nothing said will sway anyone one way or the other.

5/30/2007 2:28:52 PM

If a company wants to pay its CEO a huge sum, let them. I don't see how it's the governments business. Funny, but the "on your own" society has done pretty frickin' well. Basically, this is a load of crap and there are so many things wrong with it I don't know where to begin.

Looks like the Democrats haven't learned anything the past decade, this shit DOESN'T work. They didn't win congress last year campaigning on this crap, they won because people were pissed at the Republicans... not because they liked the Dems. I have a feeling the Dems are in for a big surprise come next year if this is their message.

5/30/2007 4:23:08 PM

This Graph is awesome:
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-12/910679/WideDivide.gif

What I derive from this graph, even if it is exagerated, is that this is just like any other market; it has its ups and its downs. It went way up in 2000, since then it has come back down. Now, there are many structural problems in today's markets; lots of regulations prevent small companies from wittling away at big companies as was common in the old days. I'm certain that the top 10% of CEOs get their obsene compensation because they alone have political influence in Washington, but shutting down Washington is a separate issue.

It is not good that CEOs get paid so much, just as it is not good that gasoline is so expensive. But we must allow it to work itself out, lest we misallocate resources just as price controls would create gasoline shortages.

5/30/2007 7:42:05 PM

Quote :

"Ultimately, CEO pay is a function of the market, and as long as shareholders have a say in the matter, the market will correct itself if and when executive pay gets out of hand."

I don't see how it can be a function of the market when CEO's are often the ones who determine their own salaries. That seems more like a function of CEO's doing what they want.

I love it when they pay other people obscene amounts of money to determine how much they should be paid...for some reason, it's always obscene, too! Who woulda thunk it?

5/30/2007 8:24:32 PM

kind of like it's ridiculous to allow congress to vote itself raises and such? totally offtopic, mind you, but still...

5/30/2007 8:29:58 PM

If she really believed that she would own a modest house in a modest neighborhood.

She would also give most of her wealth to the less fortunate.

5/31/2007 10:39:48 AM

Quote :

"CEO's are often the ones who determine their own salaries."

Corporations have a board of directors, which determines CEO compensation packages. These directors are appointed and removed by shareholders.

If you want to talk about private companies, that is a different matter. But then again, I haven't heard too much bickering about the earnings of privately owned businesses.

Quote :

"I love it when they pay other people obscene amounts of money to determine how much they should be paid...for some reason, it's always obscene, too! Who woulda thunk it?"

I'm failing to see the relevance of this statement. Are you saying that the CEO hires people to determine his salary?

5/31/2007 5:26:13 PM

If businesses were giving people health insurance and wages that kept up with increases in cost of living and inflation, perhaps her message wouldn't be so well received.

5/31/2007 6:09:59 PM

Quote :

"If businesses were giving people health insurance and wages that kept up with increases in cost of living and inflation, perhaps her message wouldn't be so well received."

Equally, if I didn't have to pay so much in taxes, I wouldn't need my company to provide health insurance. This past month, the government took ~$110 out of my paycheck for social security. For that same ammount, I could afford my own healthcare and a fairly good plan at that.

5/31/2007 6:20:28 PM

Well, you already have to pay for your own gas, car and insurance to go to work. You have to pay a considerable amount of your own money to get an education for the benefit of whatever business you work for. Why should you pay for health insurance out of your own pocket, if the primary reason is that it will keep you healthy enough to work?

5/31/2007 6:35:49 PM

I can walk to work if I need to, or ride my bike if I'm in a hurry. A car is more convenient sure, but not neccesary (and yes, I specificaly moved for that express reason). Education is irellevant. I pay for my education for myself, I already have the job (as most people could if society didn't push everyone and their dog into college, a point I agree with Hilary on, but I doubt we agree on the solution).

As far as paying for my own health insurance, there are a number of potential bennefits:

1) Choice of doctor. While my current health plan is better than the $110 plan from BCBS in some ways, in other ways it's worse. For one I can't use any doctor not in network and I have to designate and go through PCP rather than having the option to go to whatever doctor is convenient for the issue at hand.

2) Choice of plan. I can't change my work plan, except to choose between the two plans offered by the same company. If I (and everyone) paid for their own health insurance, we could have a choice of companies and plans, and even have the companies competing to get my business.

5/31/2007 8:54:31 PM

^ Thats all peachy, but does not address the 1/4 of Americans who cannot afford health insurance. Just because you personally can afford to do those things doesn't mean that many people other people can as well.

[Edited on May 31, 2007 at 8:59 PM. Reason : .]

5/31/2007 8:59:01 PM

i'd be a huge fan of abolishing the "on your own" society. First, i would quit working overtime at my salary job and second, if my manager pissed me off, I'd just quit and find a more rewarding job puttering around the house

[Edited on May 31, 2007 at 9:01 PM. Reason : s]

5/31/2007 8:59:30 PM

Quote :

"Thats all peachy, but does not address the 1/4 of Americans who cannot afford health insurance."

Or, more accurately, the 1/4th of Americans who choose not to buy it. Or is it your assertion that the large percentage of Americans that don't buy the 3-year warantee on their appliances simply can't afford it?

5/31/2007 9:22:28 PM

I would also assert that a majority of the 1/4 of Americans who take no vacation time off at all each year do so not by choice.

[Edited on May 31, 2007 at 9:37 PM. Reason : .]

5/31/2007 9:36:50 PM

That would be an odd assertion. Some people just don't enjoy trapsing off to some far away vacation resort. A few of my friends end up cashing out almost all of their vacation time every year. At least one of my other friends tends to work long some weeks and his contract states that he must average 40 hrs a week for the year. Well, a few months ago he took two weeks off work to go make a movie. Didn't count as vacation time in the Government statistics, but the effect was the same.

And what percentage of that 1/4th is low wage employees in the service sector? When I worked at a movie theater, if I ever wanted a week off I just had to tell them two weeks in advance. Sure, I didn't get paid for the time off, but why should I get paid for work I didn't do?

So, again, your assertions are without proof. Is it possible that the effect you see is the result of vacation time not being mandated by law here in America, and so Americans tend to negotiate something more to their liking than 2-weeks mandatory vacation? Or at the very least, it is reported as something else, such as unpaid leave of absense?

[Edited on May 31, 2007 at 10:18 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/31/2007 10:16:54 PM

Quote :

"^ Thats all peachy, but does not address the 1/4 of Americans who cannot afford health insurance. Just because you personally can afford to do those things doesn't mean that many people other people can as well. "

My point was that without the ever increasing tax burden, more people would likely be able to afford some form of health care. If my company did not pay for my healthcare, I would also fall into that 1/4. But cut out merely the SS from my taxes and I could. Not only that, but I could afford to shop around, something I can't do now, as the money I would get from my company for refusing healthcare is considerably less than they pay, and is taxable. Shifting from an "on your own" society to a government provides for you society merely increases the cost of living for everyone. If my taxes were lower and I wasn't paying for services I don't need, won't be able to use and aren't eligible to use, I would need a far smaller paycheck to maintain my standard of living. Or put another way, my current paycheck would meet a larger standard of living.

5/31/2007 10:39:04 PM

Wow... 1337 & L-Snark are making some great points.
You're making me redundant in my own thread.

6/1/2007 12:27:08 AM

I'm surprised EarthDogg can type with two penises in his mouth.

6/1/2007 1:24:39 AM

^ His hands would still be free, wouldn't they?



[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 2:19 AM. Reason : unless he was giving 2 handjobs]

6/1/2007 2:08:42 AM

You're obviously a heterosexual man, moron.

6/1/2007 2:37:11 AM