TeenHelp
Support Forums Today's Posts

Get Advice Connect with TeenHelp Resources
HelpLINK Facebook     Twitter     Tumblr     Instagram    Hotlines    Safety Zone    Alternatives

You are not registered or have not logged in

Hello guest! (Not a guest? Log in above!)

As a guest on TeenHelp you are only able to use some of our site's features. By registering an account you will be able to enjoy unlimited access to our site, and will be able to:

  • Connect with thousands of teenagers worldwide by actively taking part in our Support Forums and Chat Room.
  • Find others with similar interests in our Social Groups.
  • Express yourself through our Blogs, Picture Albums and User Profiles.
  • And much much more!

Signing up is free, anonymous and will only take a few moments, so click here to register now!


Current Events and Debates For discussions and friendly debates about politics and current events, check out this forum.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
  (#1 (permalink)) Old
Tomb Offline
Member
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
Tomb's Avatar
 
Age: 31

Posts: 319
Join Date: January 8th 2009

Should Obama get a pay cut? - October 22nd 2009, 06:42 PM

Recently Obama's administration wants bailout executives to have their pay cut. Because the Banks are not making enough profit. At the same time Obama's goverment is making less money and spending more money while people continue to get laid off.

Why don't obama lead by example and cut his own pay or if the law is to complicated why doesn't he copy JFK and Herbert Hoover and not accept his salary???

Obama is rich he lives in a mansion, his wife use to make 400 thousand dollars a year. He have federal health insurance, his books made millions, he could make millions more by making speeches like Clinton after his term(s).

What do u think. Should Obama get a pay cut?

He gets paid 400k a year. and his vice president gets paid 233,000 dollars per year.

You might think 400k isn't alot but look how much it can affect poor people. Keep in mind he have a poor step brother in kenya..


Sarah Mclaglan donated alot of money to help children for under 100,000 dollars her is SOME of the things she have done.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzoNInZ2ClQ
for 200 dollars you could pay for 100 childrens school education for 1 term in Ethiopia.

480 dollars could fully equip 10 class rooms in Afghanistan

5000 dollars could pay for 145 afganistan girls school education for an entire year

1150 dollars could pay for 5 ambulance bikes in Nepal.

9500 dollars could educate and help 180,000 refugees to escape from west Africa.

10200 dollars could build 6 wells in 6 different poor countries from Africa to Asia.

3000 dollars could feed 10950 kids from Mexico for a day.

1500 dollars could help rebuild 7 child soldier lives with training and education.
   
  (#2 (permalink)) Old
TigerTank77 Offline
Rage is the best anesthetic
I've been here a while
********
 
TigerTank77's Avatar
 
Name: Ben
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Location: NY

Posts: 1,534
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - October 22nd 2009, 06:57 PM

For once I'm actually gonna agree with you there. If he did that it would send a message to people.


Often I lie wide awake, thinking of things I could make.
But I donít seem to have the parts to build them.
I am so scared of what will kill me in the end, for I am not prepared.
I hope I will get the chance to be someone, to be human.





  Send a message via AIM to TigerTank77 Send a message via MSN to TigerTank77 Send a message via Skype™ to TigerTank77 
  (#3 (permalink)) Old
Xujhan Offline
Resident Atheist
I can't get enough
*********
 
Xujhan's Avatar
 
Name: Fletcher
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,024
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - October 22nd 2009, 07:33 PM

I won't knock him for not doing it; I certainly don't see him as under any obligation to. But I agree that it would send the kind of message he's trying to get across.


The atoms that make up you and me were born in the hearts of suns many times greater than ours, and in time our atoms will once again reside amongst the stars. Life is but an idle dalliance of the cosmos, frail, and soon forgotten. We have been set adrift in an ocean whose tides we are only beginning to comprehend and with that maturity has come the realization that we are, at least for now, alone. In that loneliness, it falls to us to shine as brightly as the stars from which we came.
  Send a message via MSN to Xujhan  
  (#4 (permalink)) Old
Blackwing Offline
I can't get enough
*********
 
Blackwing's Avatar
 
Name: Zack
Gender: Male
Location: Arizona(Usa)

Posts: 2,830
Blog Entries: 3
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - October 22nd 2009, 07:35 PM

He would never agree to such terms.


  Send a message via AIM to Blackwing  
  (#5 (permalink)) Old
tk338 Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
tk338's Avatar
 
Gender: Male
Location: UK

Posts: 1,268
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - October 22nd 2009, 09:12 PM

Haha naive old me... But what does as president he spend this $400000 a year on?

I mean is it simply spending money? This is on top of living expenses? If so, sure he should take a pay cut



How can one love themselves, when they love absolutely nothing?
Do something that is interesting. If it is not interesting, find out why it is not interesting.
   
  (#6 (permalink)) Old
Xujhan Offline
Resident Atheist
I can't get enough
*********
 
Xujhan's Avatar
 
Name: Fletcher
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,024
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - October 22nd 2009, 09:54 PM

Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't taking what you earn part of right-wing ideology? It occurs to be that anyone who generally supports conservative economic ideology can't really point fingers at Obama for doing something they themselves normally argue for; or at least for not doing something they normally decry (spreading the wealth).


The atoms that make up you and me were born in the hearts of suns many times greater than ours, and in time our atoms will once again reside amongst the stars. Life is but an idle dalliance of the cosmos, frail, and soon forgotten. We have been set adrift in an ocean whose tides we are only beginning to comprehend and with that maturity has come the realization that we are, at least for now, alone. In that loneliness, it falls to us to shine as brightly as the stars from which we came.
  Send a message via MSN to Xujhan  
  (#7 (permalink)) Old
Union Of V Offline
Scepticism With A Tail
I can't get enough
*********
 
Union Of V's Avatar
 
Name: Basil!!!
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Location: Cork, Ireland

Posts: 2,017
Blog Entries: 22
Join Date: January 31st 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - October 23rd 2009, 05:55 PM

I do think it would be a good move for him to cut his pay, however I don't think you could ever compare his pay to that of CEOs...
  Send a message via MSN to Union Of V  
  (#8 (permalink)) Old
losing touch. Offline
oh, really?..
Jeez, get a life!
***********
 
losing touch.'s Avatar
 
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Location: UK

Posts: 5,996
Blog Entries: 537
Join Date: January 8th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - October 25th 2009, 10:51 PM

i don't think 400k is unreasonable at all.. i was expecting you to say he got paid triple that.


..and our dreams will break the boundaries of our fears..



   
  (#9 (permalink)) Old
Tomb Offline
Member
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
Tomb's Avatar
 
Age: 31

Posts: 319
Join Date: January 8th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - October 26th 2009, 10:15 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by tk338 View Post
Haha naive old me... But what does as president he spend this $400000 a year on?

I mean is it simply spending money? This is on top of living expenses? If so, sure he should take a pay cut

The president is highly likely to have huge allowances and free things. Such as transportation and security. Which is around the millions a year for person outings.

In his whitehouse, there is indoor pool, bowling alley, private theater, tenis, basket ball court, a running trail and so on.
   
  (#10 (permalink)) Old
neon tiger Offline
a tiger..thats neon
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
neon tiger's Avatar
 
Age: 24
Gender: Male

Posts: 273
Blog Entries: 5
Join Date: August 17th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - October 29th 2009, 01:07 AM

idk should he
   
  (#11 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 28

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - October 29th 2009, 07:32 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xujhan View Post
Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't taking what you earn part of right-wing ideology? It occurs to be that anyone who generally supports conservative economic ideology can't really point fingers at Obama for doing something they themselves normally argue for; or at least for not doing something they normally decry (spreading the wealth).
It is, but the thing is that Obama hasn't earnt his money in any sense that would be meaningful to the capitalist argument you're trying to make. He hasn't gained it through mutually consentual trade, nor has he performed to the extent that he could be said to have 'earnt' it in that regard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomb View Post
The president is highly likely to have huge allowances and free things. Such as transportation and security. Which is around the millions a year for person outings.

In his whitehouse, there is indoor pool, bowling alley, private theater, tenis, basket ball court, a running trail and so on.
I actually remember reading some article which said the total amount was in the tens of millions of dollars a year, which seems like a lot, but considering he has access to his own jumbo jet, a mansion in D.C., helicopters etc. it's not all that ridiculous.
   
  (#12 (permalink)) Old
Xujhan Offline
Resident Atheist
I can't get enough
*********
 
Xujhan's Avatar
 
Name: Fletcher
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,024
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - October 30th 2009, 03:39 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
It is, but the thing is that Obama hasn't earnt his money in any sense that would be meaningful to the capitalist argument you're trying to make. He hasn't gained it through mutually consentual trade, nor has he performed to the extent that he could be said to have 'earnt' it in that regard.
The bolded part is entirely a matter of opinion, and one that is hardly universal at that. If you're trying to suggest that income should be a direct function of how much good you do, I challenge you to demonstrate a stable society in which that actually holds, and that doesn't rely on the morality of its citizens.


The atoms that make up you and me were born in the hearts of suns many times greater than ours, and in time our atoms will once again reside amongst the stars. Life is but an idle dalliance of the cosmos, frail, and soon forgotten. We have been set adrift in an ocean whose tides we are only beginning to comprehend and with that maturity has come the realization that we are, at least for now, alone. In that loneliness, it falls to us to shine as brightly as the stars from which we came.
  Send a message via MSN to Xujhan  
  (#13 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 28

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - November 1st 2009, 07:10 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xujhan View Post
The bolded part is entirely a matter of opinion, and one that is hardly universal at that. If you're trying to suggest that income should be a direct function of how much good you do, I challenge you to demonstrate a stable society in which that actually holds, and that doesn't rely on the morality of its citizens.
You're the one who brought up the concept of 'earning' in the first place. And the only two ways of deciding that are the two I mentioned. So if you want to dismiss basing it on performance as too subjective, we are left with defining whether someone has earnt their money through how they have gained it, either consentually or non-consentually (seeing as this is typically the one referred to by those on the right wing you speak of). If this is the definition we work off, then he has most certainly not earnt his income.
   
  (#14 (permalink)) Old
Teacher, mother - secret lover
Welcome me, I'm new!
*
 
-thesolitaryone-'s Avatar
 
Name: Ashleigh
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Location: Perth, Australia

Posts: 18
Blog Entries: 3
Join Date: November 8th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - November 8th 2009, 09:48 AM

You know this is interesting, because there's a debate in Australia going on right now about the PM's pay salary, which is about AUD$340,000 and how it should be raised. Ironically, it was the National's Senator Barnaby Joyce (a complete ideological polar opposite - Joyce is a conservative where Rudd is a leftist) who suggested it should be raised to AUD$1M p.a. But that doesn't matter.

I honestly think that cutting a salary of $400,000 for the most powerful man in the world is ludicrous.

You can get all ideological about it; you can boast the truths of Capitalism and the Conservative tradition, it doesn't matter! This is NOT an ideological issue, much and all as it is a trait of politicians to make it so.

There is no cap-and-trade equivalent for the President, nor for the PM. The way I see it, you do a job, you get paid for it. And applying the idea of "mutually consentual trade" to the President is painfully ridiculous. Not all jobs are rooted in Capitalism you know.

$400,000 is NOT alot of money. Hell, compared to those exploiters of the Capitalist system, $400,000 is what you take for spending money with you for a weekend in Bali.

Considering the Trillions of $$ spent on defence, corporate bailouts and the latest health-care reforms in America, $400,000 is like a drop in the ocean. No, it's more like a molecule in the drop in the ocean. You can bitch and moan, but that is the reality.

I think Obama deserves $1M alone for getting the health-care bill through the H.O.R. Hillary Clinton tried in the mid 1990s, and she got her hands severely slapped.

Expenses and all are grand, but what happens when he is booted out after 4/8 years? It would bode well for him to have some savings in the bank, rather than having to rely on the Parliamentary pension.

What it eventually comes down to is whether the position is worthy of the salary. Politicising it is stupid, because with politicising things come the poisoning of ideological debate. I love debates, don't get me wrong, but this, I see is a clear cut case.

I thinks the outstandingly ironic how those who are not part of the political sphere think they have such a better outlook on how things should be run. However, having said that I was one, but now that I am so entrenched in the system, I literally feel ashamed of the ideas I spat when I was ignorant. I do not like Kevin Rudd; not his policies, his attitude or his look and hell, I'm an active member of the opposing party, but I honestly believe he is underpaid. In this debate, I am completely impartial.

I'm just putting it out there.

-thesolitaryone-


Politically-obsessed, narrow-minded, outspoken and openly-partisan member of the Australian Liberal Party. Then there's nerd, bibliophile, occasional blogger, and general conveyer of epic nonsense.

Follow me and my Political ravings on Twitter,

and see my overly biased blog.


To people who think I'm mad: I will laugh at you, and then proceed to verbally beating you to the ground.

..On second thoughts, maybe I am mad.


-thesolitaryone-

Last edited by -thesolitaryone-; November 8th 2009 at 09:55 AM.
   
  (#15 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 28

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - November 8th 2009, 10:45 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
And applying the idea of "mutually consentual trade" to the President is painfully ridiculous.
Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
Not all jobs are rooted in Capitalism you know.
Why shouldn't they be though?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
Hell, compared to those exploiters of the Capitalist system
hahaohwow.jpg

How exactly are the rich under capitalism 'exploiters'?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
Considering the Trillions of $$ spent on defence, corporate bailouts and the latest health-care reforms in America, $400,000 is like a drop in the ocean. No, it's more like a molecule in the drop in the ocean.
Because wasting money justifies wasting money.
   
  (#16 (permalink)) Old
Teacher, mother - secret lover
Welcome me, I'm new!
*
 
-thesolitaryone-'s Avatar
 
Name: Ashleigh
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Location: Perth, Australia

Posts: 18
Blog Entries: 3
Join Date: November 8th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - November 8th 2009, 11:31 AM

Why?
Because by all technicalities, the President serves the people. The President should not be a part of the Capitalist system, it is a literal contradiction, especially in the eyes of anti-Keynesian America. You have tried to define the rules of how people should earn money and I seriously laughed. If we have to talk in terms of trade, then perhaps people would trade their consent for the President to govern, for his servitude, in turn, to the governed. That is the basis on what the President's office is expected to be run by and should the GFC not have occurred, it most likely would have. But aside from that, the President does a job, and he gets paid for it, like anyone else would. His job comes with far more stress and responsibility and he is paid accordingly.

Why shouldn't they be?
Because capitalism doesn't constitute every part of life. If it did, every single person would be in the shitter given the current economic times. In Australia Federalism works differently, but I presume in America you still have government agencies/ the judiciary/ law enforcement among others which all rely on government funding. THAT IS NOT CAPITALISM!!! Capitalism is based on the private ownership of capital. Government is constituted as being public.

As for the exploiters? You think that government bail-outs going into the pockets of the Wall-Street douchebags isn't taking advantage of the system? Personally I would be thankful that Obama set some ground rules. That's just not cricket!

And as for wasting money. Okay put it this way: Would you work as a pizza delivery man/woman if they only paid the expenses for your car, such as petrol and the occasional touch-up job without a basic hourly rate? Because essentially you propose the same thing for the President. You can't expect him to work for free, nor for the minimum wage which is hideous in America.

But if so, how about you propose a pay cut? How much, $100,000... $200,000? More? Would you be willing to cut your income in half? I actually heard that the President has to pay for his basic living, like food/drinks/dry cleaning etc. You know he is somewhat human.

And what happens when he retires? No nest-egg to keep him up? Is he to just become another statistic on the street?

I apologise, but I dont rightly find your argument valid.

-thesolitaryone-


Politically-obsessed, narrow-minded, outspoken and openly-partisan member of the Australian Liberal Party. Then there's nerd, bibliophile, occasional blogger, and general conveyer of epic nonsense.

Follow me and my Political ravings on Twitter,

and see my overly biased blog.


To people who think I'm mad: I will laugh at you, and then proceed to verbally beating you to the ground.

..On second thoughts, maybe I am mad.


-thesolitaryone-

Last edited by -thesolitaryone-; November 8th 2009 at 11:39 AM.
   
  (#17 (permalink)) Old
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
her_beautiful_mistake's Avatar
 
Name: Rachel
Gender: Female
Location: Britland

Posts: 2,262
Blog Entries: 29
Join Date: January 18th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - November 8th 2009, 01:56 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
You know this is interesting, because there's a debate in Australia going on right now about the PM's pay salary, which is about AUD$340,000 and how it should be raised. Ironically, it was the National's Senator Barnaby Joyce (a complete ideological polar opposite - Joyce is a conservative where Rudd is a leftist) who suggested it should be raised to AUD$1M p.a. But that doesn't matter.

I honestly think that cutting a salary of $400,000 for the most powerful man in the world is ludicrous.

You can get all ideological about it; you can boast the truths of Capitalism and the Conservative tradition, it doesn't matter! This is NOT an ideological issue, much and all as it is a trait of politicians to make it so.

There is no cap-and-trade equivalent for the President, nor for the PM. The way I see it, you do a job, you get paid for it. And applying the idea of "mutually consentual trade" to the President is painfully ridiculous. Not all jobs are rooted in Capitalism you know.

$400,000 is NOT alot of money. Hell, compared to those exploiters of the Capitalist system, $400,000 is what you take for spending money with you for a weekend in Bali.

Considering the Trillions of $$ spent on defence, corporate bailouts and the latest health-care reforms in America, $400,000 is like a drop in the ocean. No, it's more like a molecule in the drop in the ocean. You can bitch and moan, but that is the reality.

I think Obama deserves $1M alone for getting the health-care bill through the H.O.R. Hillary Clinton tried in the mid 1990s, and she got her hands severely slapped.

Expenses and all are grand, but what happens when he is booted out after 4/8 years? It would bode well for him to have some savings in the bank, rather than having to rely on the Parliamentary pension.

What it eventually comes down to is whether the position is worthy of the salary. Politicising it is stupid, because with politicising things come the poisoning of ideological debate. I love debates, don't get me wrong, but this, I see is a clear cut case.

I thinks the outstandingly ironic how those who are not part of the political sphere think they have such a better outlook on how things should be run. However, having said that I was one, but now that I am so entrenched in the system, I literally feel ashamed of the ideas I spat when I was ignorant. I do not like Kevin Rudd; not his policies, his attitude or his look and hell, I'm an active member of the opposing party, but I honestly believe he is underpaid. In this debate, I am completely impartial.

I'm just putting it out there.

-thesolitaryone-
You do have some good points, and I certainly believe that 400K is justified for his job.

The point that I have is not about whether he deserves it or whether someone else should cut it for him.

The primary point is that if Obama was to cut his own salary it would send a significant message to companies and to the public (not to mention increase his popularity!).
   
  (#18 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 28

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - November 8th 2009, 10:45 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
Why?
Because by all technicalities, the President serves the people.
Governments rule their people. The idea of government offficials as 'servants' is a blatent lie to try to hide the truth, that government by it's very nature rules by force.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
The President should not be a part of the Capitalist system, it is a literal contradiction, especially in the eyes of anti-Keynesian America.
You're right, it is a contradiction to speak of a president in the context of a society of free trade and interaction, as the existence of a president implies the existence of a government, which goes against the principle of free trade and interaction. This doesn't address the issue of whether Obama has earnt his salary, however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
You have tried to define the rules of how people should earn money and I seriously laughed.
So earning doesn't have anything to do with consent? Muggers have 'earnt' their money?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
If we have to talk in terms of trade, then perhaps people would trade their consent for the President to govern, for his servitude, in turn, to the governed.
This doesn't work unless the government only acts within the bounds of contractual agreements made with everyone with whom it interacts. This doesn't happen, and it would cease to be a government if it tried to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
Because capitalism doesn't constitute every part of life.
You're right, it doesn't. This doesn't address whether it should though. Do you believe that social interaction involving initiation of force against other individuals is morally permissable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
In Australia Federalism works differently, but I presume in America you still have government agencies/ the judiciary/ law enforcement among others which all rely on government funding. THAT IS NOT CAPITALISM!!! Capitalism is based on the private ownership of capital. Government is constituted as being public.
I still don't get the point of what you're saying here. I'm saying Obama hasn't earnt his salary as he hasn't gained it with the consent of those who provide it to him, and you are pointing out examples of the very thing I acknowledge and criticise and acting as though you have proved me wrong in my assessment of how things should be by pointing out what is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
As for the exploiters? You think that government bail-outs going into the pockets of the Wall-Street douchebags isn't taking advantage of the system? Personally I would be thankful that Obama set some ground rules. That's just not cricket!
Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
Implying that the bailouts are part of the capitalist system
Nice try.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
And as for wasting money. Okay put it this way: Would you work as a pizza delivery man/woman if they only paid the expenses for your car, such as petrol and the occasional touch-up job without a basic hourly rate? Because essentially you propose the same thing for the President. You can't expect him to work for free, nor for the minimum wage which is hideous in America.
I think the more appropriate analogy is a pizza delivery guy who goes around taking low quality pizzas to the houses of those who never ordered any, giving the pizzas to them, and then demanding at gunpoint that they fork over exprbinate prices for said pizzas. In which case I wouldn't work like that, nor should anyone be permitted to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
But if so, how about you propose a pay cut? How much, $100,000... $200,000? More? Would you be willing to cut your income in half? I actually heard that the President has to pay for his basic living, like food/drinks/dry cleaning etc. You know he is somewhat human.

And what happens when he retires? No nest-egg to keep him up? Is he to just become another statistic on the street?
Frankly I don't care about how he pays for living expenses, his retirement etc. any more than I care about how a mugger on the street would pay for these things were he unable to mug people anymore. If he wants money he should go out and trade consentually with others like most other people have to.
   
  (#19 (permalink)) Old
Teacher, mother - secret lover
Welcome me, I'm new!
*
 
-thesolitaryone-'s Avatar
 
Name: Ashleigh
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Location: Perth, Australia

Posts: 18
Blog Entries: 3
Join Date: November 8th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - November 8th 2009, 11:57 PM

Okay, as we have got to the point where Obama is being compared to someone mugging you on the streets, I am officially taking myself out of this argument.

Because that is without a doubt the most ridiculous, anti-progressive, anti-liberal thing I have ever heard.

But in all realities, it comes down to interpretation. You are quite obviously a stereotypical Republican, and your blood runs (ironically) red, whereas should I be American, I would be a Democrat. You believe in small government, I believe in regulation. Oil and water, red and blue. Although I would point out that a mix of small government and big economy is what got us into this mess, but that would be counter-productive.

So this is where I bail from the argument. Getting heated on forums seems to only make the parties involved look like twats.

-thesolitaryone-


Politically-obsessed, narrow-minded, outspoken and openly-partisan member of the Australian Liberal Party. Then there's nerd, bibliophile, occasional blogger, and general conveyer of epic nonsense.

Follow me and my Political ravings on Twitter,

and see my overly biased blog.


To people who think I'm mad: I will laugh at you, and then proceed to verbally beating you to the ground.

..On second thoughts, maybe I am mad.


-thesolitaryone-
   
  (#20 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 28

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - November 9th 2009, 12:15 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
Okay, as we have got to the point where Obama is being compared to someone mugging you on the streets, I am officially taking myself out of this argument.

Because that is without a doubt the most ridiculous, anti-progressive, anti-liberal thing I have ever heard.
Wait, so the government doesn't take people's money with the threat of force?

Feel free to call me stupid here, but unless you can satisfactorily point out how and why what I'm saying is stupid, you're just making yourself look like an idiot who can't handle new viewpoints without covering their ears, yelling LALALALALA and resorting to ad hom attacks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
But in all realities, it comes down to interpretation. You are quite obviously a stereotypical Republican, and your blood runs (ironically) red, whereas should I be American, I would be a Democrat.
Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist would be more precise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
You believe in small government, I believe in regulation.
Republicans don't really believe in small government, unless they're Ron Paul.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
Although I would point out that a mix of small government and big economy is what got us into this mess, but that would be counter-productive.
It would only be counter-productive to your argument as it is untrue and I highly doubt you could put forward a convincing argument as to why it is the case.
   
  (#21 (permalink)) Old
Teacher, mother - secret lover
Welcome me, I'm new!
*
 
-thesolitaryone-'s Avatar
 
Name: Ashleigh
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Location: Perth, Australia

Posts: 18
Blog Entries: 3
Join Date: November 8th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - November 9th 2009, 12:36 AM

Quote:
Feel free to call me stupid here, but unless you can satisfactorily point out how and why what I'm saying is stupid, you're just making yourself look like an idiot who can't handle new viewpoints without covering their ears, yelling LALALALALA and resorting to ad hom attacks.
You know I was going to point out that we are both the same. Purely in the sense that we both believe we are 100% correct and fail to see opposing viewpoints.

I am not going to comment any further on the topic of whether or not Obama has earnt it because I believe he has. As for the Nobel Prize.. not so much. As I said; it comes down to interpretation. If you believe he hasn't earnt it, fair call. I am not going to try anymore to convince you otherwise. It's redundant to try and change someone's beliefs especially via a discussion board. I have awoken the beast, and now I will let it lie.

Essentially, I probably should not even have gotten into this debate. I am an Australian Liberal, which is the conservative party of Australia. But over here, conservatism means something very different. I make suggestions based on what I see and read; I think Obama is going to do alot of good for America. I think positive progression is preferable to convention; realism to pessimism or optimism. Individualism is well and good until it compromises someone else's.

I believe he deserves it. You don't. End of story.

Now I have to go to work.

-thesolitaryone-


Politically-obsessed, narrow-minded, outspoken and openly-partisan member of the Australian Liberal Party. Then there's nerd, bibliophile, occasional blogger, and general conveyer of epic nonsense.

Follow me and my Political ravings on Twitter,

and see my overly biased blog.


To people who think I'm mad: I will laugh at you, and then proceed to verbally beating you to the ground.

..On second thoughts, maybe I am mad.


-thesolitaryone-
   
  (#22 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 28

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - November 9th 2009, 03:45 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
You know I was going to point out that we are both the same. Purely in the sense that we both believe we are 100% correct and fail to see opposing viewpoints.
What exactly have I failed to see here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
I am not going to comment any further on the topic of whether or not Obama has earnt it because I believe he has.
Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
I think Obama is going to do alot of good for America.
Such as?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
Individualism is well and good until it compromises someone else's.
Where does individualism compromise someone else's?
   
  (#23 (permalink)) Old
Xujhan Offline
Resident Atheist
I can't get enough
*********
 
Xujhan's Avatar
 
Name: Fletcher
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,024
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - November 9th 2009, 05:32 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
You're the one who brought up the concept of 'earning' in the first place. And the only two ways of deciding that are the two I mentioned. So if you want to dismiss basing it on performance as too subjective, we are left with defining whether someone has earnt their money through how they have gained it, either consentually or non-consentually (seeing as this is typically the one referred to by those on the right wing you speak of). If this is the definition we work off, then he has most certainly not earnt his income.
By living in America (any country, really), people agree to pay taxes, a small part of which goes to the president's salary. They're consenting to it by living within the government's jurisdiction. If they don't like how much the president gets paid, they can either get into politics and change it, move to a different country, or bitch about it on the internet.


The atoms that make up you and me were born in the hearts of suns many times greater than ours, and in time our atoms will once again reside amongst the stars. Life is but an idle dalliance of the cosmos, frail, and soon forgotten. We have been set adrift in an ocean whose tides we are only beginning to comprehend and with that maturity has come the realization that we are, at least for now, alone. In that loneliness, it falls to us to shine as brightly as the stars from which we came.
  Send a message via MSN to Xujhan  
  (#24 (permalink)) Old
Teacher, mother - secret lover
Welcome me, I'm new!
*
 
-thesolitaryone-'s Avatar
 
Name: Ashleigh
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Location: Perth, Australia

Posts: 18
Blog Entries: 3
Join Date: November 8th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - November 9th 2009, 06:40 AM

You want reasons? Wow. I'm guessing Googling is so hard these days. I said I was going to withdraw from the argument, but no. I will not. I will just recite what I have studied in my American Govt. unit last semester.

Okay. I am going to make this as simple as I can. I am going to point out what Obama has done and what he plans to do. Be aware that the latter may not come to fruition, but if the Health Care reforms are anything to go by, they have a good chance of succeeding.

First of all the health care bill. That needs no further explanation. Getting that passed in the H.O.R where everyone else has failed is nothing short of a miracle. It's a sign America is willing to take that first small step into the 20th century in terms of social welfare.

Second, something as simple as transportation? 2,500 new highways have been given funding, not only creating new infrastructure, but new jobs; something like 250,000.

Third, saving the economy from itself: Bailouts to big corporations such as the Big Three car manufacturers, particularly GM. GM would be dead and buried if it weren't for the $50-odd billion given. Then there's the $800b in stimulus to help bailout the banks and help stop home foreclosures.

Fourth, funding for education: sure it's only about $100M, but its a good start, with plans for more in the next budget.

Fifth, energy reforms: back onto GM for example, pushing for greener cars to match the Japanese markets. $10b or so has been invested in producing greener technologies, with more on the way. A far cry from the refusal to sign the Kyoto agreement a decade ago (even though the US had contributed almost 40% of emissions in the mid-1990s)

Sixth, increasing committment to Afghanistan, whilst reducing committment in Iraq. etc. etc. Not too cluey on this topic, to I'll leave it at that

Then there's undoing many of the harsh policies of the Bush era, such as unlawful interrogation and detention (Guantanamo Bay), which impose severe breaches of human rights.

I could go on, but I wont. I can feel myself droning on and on. You asked for reasons, and hell I just gave you 7 very plausible ones. If George Bush were still in power I would hate to think what would have happened. The bailouts he gave before Obama came into office were pitiful, and major corporations would have sunk to the ground.

We can only judge Obama by what he has done, with the most important being the handling of the recession, being the reason I cited what I did. And I have to say he has done exceedingly well. Not so much Nobel-Prize worthy, but definately $400K a year worthy. Personally, I am looking forward to seeing what will come of his plans for education and health especially.

But see you'll probably look at those motions as proving your point, when really it is not. Obama did what he had to do, and that means pumping money into the economy and expanding the influence of the government. It is necessary, or everything would have collapsed upon itself. The "invisible-hand" of the free market is no match for personal greed and banks stupidly giving loans to people on $30,000 a year. Every nation has a debt as a result of the recession, ours being the highest per-capita in the entire world, but it needed to be done, or everyone would be lining up for soup kitchens right now.

Quote:
Where does individualism compromise someone else's?
Okay, that's an easy one. Individualism = your freedom of choice. But when does your individualism infringe upon someone elses? Such as your right to blow cigarette smoke in someone's face; then in return, that person taking their individualistic right to punch that person in the face. In both cases, another's individualism has been compromised. Governments exist not only to make your life miserable, but to give you the freedoms of individualism without allowing it to go too far, such as with judiciary/law enforcement departments, as well as just the laws themselves. Child Pornography anyone?

See there is a reason not one Anarchist party has come to power in any country: because it essentially does not work. You need governments to provide you with education, with law enforcement, health and other basic freedoms one comes to expect out of life. That means taxes, and that inevitably means there will be groups of people not happy with how their taxes are spent. But one man's utopia is another's hell. One man's God is another's Satan. There is not much you can do about it.

But put yourself in Obama's shoes. How would you like someone to sit back after a year of working at a new job judge you on how well you've done, and pay you accordingly? The world doesn't work that way: Obama is paid for his position, not his methods of running it. If that were true, George Bush should have walked away owing the country $400K. And besides that, you may think his pizzas are of "poor quality", but that is your opinion. I don't here you offerning any alternative or amendment. How about you run the government? Because Anarchists have done so well for themselves. I bet you absolutely revere Noam "Douchebag" Chomsky; oh wait, maybe not, is that how Anarchists roll? Or are they just in it for themselves...

Quote:
If they don't like how much the president gets paid, they can either get into politics and change it, move to a different country, or bitch about it on the internet.
Too bloody right!

And I just thought I'd add:

Quote:
The primary point is that if Obama was to cut his own salary it would send a significant message to companies and to the public (not to mention increase his popularity!).
You know, 8 months ago I would have agreed with that, but I'll use an example from Australia to point out how that will never work:

At budget time in May Kevin Rudd, our PM, promised $42B in stimulus funding (doesn't sound like much, but Australia is about 15 times smaller than the US). $23B of that was going to the people in the form of $900 stimulus cheques to spend however you liked. Very very good for us, not so good for the economy. Hell, I spent mine in Bali, very counter-productive.

But see, now, everyone has forgotten about it. Even though it was awfully nice, it was fleeting. People will not remember that going to the polling booths next year.

My point is that as long as someone is in power, there will always be opposition and whatever concessions are granted it will be more than likely be forgotten. Corporations and Republicans instinctively distrust the government, and cutting the President's paycheque will not make much difference. That's the reason the issue very very rarely comes up. $400K is not alot of money in the grand scheme of things, and the opposition will appreciate the gesture... for 5 minutes... then go back to bitching about something else.

But as I have said twice now I think, this all comes down to interpretation.

Frosty, I have given reasons why he had earnt his keep. Now, could you give me reasons why he has not?

-thesolitaryone-

A/N: Apologies for the length


Politically-obsessed, narrow-minded, outspoken and openly-partisan member of the Australian Liberal Party. Then there's nerd, bibliophile, occasional blogger, and general conveyer of epic nonsense.

Follow me and my Political ravings on Twitter,

and see my overly biased blog.


To people who think I'm mad: I will laugh at you, and then proceed to verbally beating you to the ground.

..On second thoughts, maybe I am mad.


-thesolitaryone-

Last edited by -thesolitaryone-; November 9th 2009 at 06:46 AM.
   
  (#25 (permalink)) Old
Xujhan Offline
Resident Atheist
I can't get enough
*********
 
Xujhan's Avatar
 
Name: Fletcher
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,024
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - November 9th 2009, 07:30 AM

Very eloquent, Ashleigh. Colour me impressed.


The atoms that make up you and me were born in the hearts of suns many times greater than ours, and in time our atoms will once again reside amongst the stars. Life is but an idle dalliance of the cosmos, frail, and soon forgotten. We have been set adrift in an ocean whose tides we are only beginning to comprehend and with that maturity has come the realization that we are, at least for now, alone. In that loneliness, it falls to us to shine as brightly as the stars from which we came.
  Send a message via MSN to Xujhan  
  (#26 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 28

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - November 9th 2009, 11:23 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xujhan View Post
By living in America (any country, really), people agree to pay taxes, a small part of which goes to the president's salary. They're consenting to it by living within the government's jurisdiction. If they don't like how much the president gets paid, they can either get into politics and change it, move to a different country, or bitch about it on the internet.
That's the social contract theory, and it fails basic logic. The entire premise of the argument is that the government is legitimate because people consent to it's rule by living on it's land, but the whole concept of 'living on it's land' is meaningless unless the government is legitimate in the first place, which is what the theory is trying to prove. You can't assume something as a means of proving it.

Ashleigh: Long post, and I need sleep, so I'll get back to you in the morning.
   
  (#27 (permalink)) Old
Xujhan Offline
Resident Atheist
I can't get enough
*********
 
Xujhan's Avatar
 
Name: Fletcher
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,024
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - November 9th 2009, 03:58 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
That's the social contract theory, and it fails basic logic. The entire premise of the argument is that the government is legitimate because people consent to it's rule by living on it's land, but the whole concept of 'living on it's land' is meaningless unless the government is legitimate in the first place, which is what the theory is trying to prove. You can't assume something as a means of proving it.

Ashleigh: Long post, and I need sleep, so I'll get back to you in the morning.
Are you arguing then that the government is illegitimate?


The atoms that make up you and me were born in the hearts of suns many times greater than ours, and in time our atoms will once again reside amongst the stars. Life is but an idle dalliance of the cosmos, frail, and soon forgotten. We have been set adrift in an ocean whose tides we are only beginning to comprehend and with that maturity has come the realization that we are, at least for now, alone. In that loneliness, it falls to us to shine as brightly as the stars from which we came.
  Send a message via MSN to Xujhan  
  (#28 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 28

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - November 10th 2009, 10:13 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
Second, something as simple as transportation? 2,500 new highways have been given funding, not only creating new infrastructure, but new jobs; something like 250,000.
Broken window fallacy. Where else could those resources have gone?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
Third, saving the economy from itself: Bailouts to big corporations such as the Big Three car manufacturers, particularly GM. GM would be dead and buried if it weren't for the $50-odd billion given. Then there's the $800b in stimulus to help bailout the banks and help stop home foreclosures.
Wait, so he deserves his payment because he is propping up companies that are wasting resources?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
Fourth, funding for education: sure it's only about $100M, but its a good start, with plans for more in the next budget.
Again, broken window fallacy. If you're just going to say that allocating funding is a bonus, take that to it's logical conclusion. Do you think that a complete socialisation of the economy is at all beneficial?



Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
Fifth, energy reforms: back onto GM for example, pushing for greener cars to match the Japanese markets. $10b or so has been invested in producing greener technologies, with more on the way.
Perhaps it is more efficient for 'green cars' to be produced in Japan anyway? Again, broken window fallacy. He's taking resources and putting them into a sector which we can assume is less productive than where else it would've gone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
Sixth, increasing committment to Afghanistan, whilst reducing committment in Iraq. etc. etc. Not too cluey on this topic, to I'll leave it at that
Great, more military action pissing off militants. And good job to him for somehow getting a Nobel peace prize for expanding one war and not changing a whole lot in another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
Then there's undoing many of the harsh policies of the Bush era, such as unlawful interrogation and detention (Guantanamo Bay), which impose severe breaches of human rights.
He hasn't closed Guantanamo, and prosecutions have resumed in the camp. And what else has he done to prevent unlawful interrogation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
If George Bush were still in power I would hate to think what would have happened. The bailouts he gave before Obama came into office were pitiful, and major corporations would have sunk to the ground.
You're assuming that the bigger the bailout the better, and that it is economically beneficial to prop up companies that are wasting resources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
But see you'll probably look at those motions as proving your point, when really it is not. Obama did what he had to do, and that means pumping money into the economy and expanding the influence of the government. It is necessary, or everything would have collapsed upon itself.
Why is government spending beneficial and why would everything havre collapsed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
The "invisible-hand" of the free market is no match for personal greed and banks stupidly giving loans to people on $30,000 a year.
More like the free market is no match for distorted price signals brought about by the fed's loose monetaty policy earlier in the decade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
Okay, that's an easy one. Individualism = your freedom of choice. But when does your individualism infringe upon someone elses? Such as your right to blow cigarette smoke in someone's face; then in return, that person taking their individualistic right to punch that person in the face. In both cases, another's individualism has been compromised. Governments exist not only to make your life miserable, but to give you the freedoms of individualism without allowing it to go too far, such as with judiciary/law enforcement departments, as well as just the laws themselves. Child Pornography anyone?
I'm thinking more along the lines of individualism = focus on individual rights. If you start from the point of self ownership, restrictions such as those above flow naturally, not jump up as seemingly random restrictions on freedom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
See there is a reason not one Anarchist party has come to power in any country: because it essentially does not work. You need governments to provide you with education, with law enforcement, health and other basic freedoms one comes to expect out of life.
All of these things can, and should (from both a practical and moral perspective), be provided by the market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
But put yourself in Obama's shoes. How would you like someone to sit back after a year of working at a new job judge you on how well you've done, and pay you accordingly?
If I'd recieved my pay for that job by force, I would completely understand someone questioning me on how I'd 'earnt' that money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
And besides that, you may think his pizzas are of "poor quality", but that is your opinion.
That's the point. In a market people's opinions matter. With government it doesn't, you get the pizza anyway, and have to pay for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
I don't here you offerning any alternative or amendment. How about you run the government?
I do have an alternative, no president or presidential salary. And the second part is missing the point. You don't go up to an anarchist and say "Oh yeah? Well I bet you couldn't do a better job." because you're missing the point that they don't think anyone can do a good job in that position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
I bet you absolutely revere Noam "Douchebag" Chomsky; oh wait, maybe not, is that how Anarchists roll?
He is an idiot, since all left-wing anarchists believe that calling government by a different name makes it all better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xujhan View Post
Are you arguing then that the government is illegitimate?
Yes.
   
  (#29 (permalink)) Old
Teacher, mother - secret lover
Welcome me, I'm new!
*
 
-thesolitaryone-'s Avatar
 
Name: Ashleigh
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Location: Perth, Australia

Posts: 18
Blog Entries: 3
Join Date: November 8th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - November 10th 2009, 11:17 PM

Quote:
Wait, so he deserves his payment because he is propping up companies that are wasting resources?
Don't you get it? The two main reasons a government would ever pump money into companies is to save jobs and keep the market going. Without them, there would be 150 million people without a job, not 30 million. And given that those stimulus packages have given companies the money to rebuilt themselves, however they spend it (which is now regulated, seeing as it is government money (like the 90% on all corporate bonuses)), it will within the next decade, allow them to once again be bought from the government.

And where were those people to get jobs without the stimulus? If everything should run by the free-market alone, no government intervention, where the bloody hell would these jobs have come from? You don't understand: the economy would have fallen apart. There is no right or wrong: there is just one answer. SOMETIMES THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO STEP IN. If the country ran by the anarchist theory, the free market would have eaten itself alive years ago; you seem to harbour under the delusion that a country which exists without government would not be in this situation. Are you serious? Fair enough the government's control of the banks and interest were a factor, but not the only one. A prominent fact was the fact that eventually, a big fish will be forced to live in a small pond. It was greed, it was corporations getting to big for their boots, which pushed everyone out. You know, that will still exist in a capitalist nation, no matter what ideology it follows. Governments are needed to fix things people screw up.

Quote:
why would everything havre collapsed?
Because the world runs on money. Companies who do not have money, cannot run. Ergo, the government loans them some to keep them on their feet where they can eventually pay it back when the economy recovers, saving tens of millions of jobs. This isn't opinion mate, this isn't ideology, this is fact. You can't rival it. GM would have filed for bankruptcy, costing hundreds of thousands of jobs alone.

Quote:
All of these things can, and should (from both a practical and moral perspective), be provided by the market
Yes, because that has worked so well with the healthcare system. Seriously? Then who would pay for it? You would have pretty much all of the lower classes not being able to afford an education. And with law enforcement: you think that it being under private ownership would be smart? That is a one way track to complete corruption mate (not to say it doesn't exist now, but giving the police to the people is suicide).

You know.. I am tired of trying to explain myself hey. Where I'm giving you facts, you return with one-liners. That's not an argument mate. Sorry.

You say I was ignoring your argument before, but you're just ignoring fact. Literal, touch it with your hand, fact.

Anarchy is not a plausible way to govern a nation: like I said, it's why not one has ever come to power. It will certainly not work in America, because the basis of Capitalism is the reliance on morality. People simply aren't moral enough to not need a slap on their hands when something goes wrong.

But hey, feel free to tear that apart. I will just return again the rebunk everything.

I think I must be getting close now...

-thesolitaryone-


Politically-obsessed, narrow-minded, outspoken and openly-partisan member of the Australian Liberal Party. Then there's nerd, bibliophile, occasional blogger, and general conveyer of epic nonsense.

Follow me and my Political ravings on Twitter,

and see my overly biased blog.


To people who think I'm mad: I will laugh at you, and then proceed to verbally beating you to the ground.

..On second thoughts, maybe I am mad.


-thesolitaryone-
   
  (#30 (permalink)) Old
Blackwing Offline
I can't get enough
*********
 
Blackwing's Avatar
 
Name: Zack
Gender: Male
Location: Arizona(Usa)

Posts: 2,830
Blog Entries: 3
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - November 10th 2009, 11:31 PM

Quote:
-thesolitaryone- I think Obama is going to do alot of good for America.
Really, Have you seen the debt America is now in due to Government waste spending. Millions spent for scientist to conduct experiments to see why pigs smell. ? Huh! How about using more Federal money to help people feed their familys Pay there house/rent bills.?


  Send a message via AIM to Blackwing  
  (#31 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 28

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - November 11th 2009, 12:08 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
Don't you get it? The two main reasons a government would ever pump money into companies is to save jobs and keep the market going.
Save jobs in sectors that should lose jobs at the expense of other sectors, and keeping the market going in sectors which perhaps shouldn't be going at their current rate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
Without them, there would be 150 million people without a job, not 30 million.
There would be somewhat higher unemployent in the short term, and in the long term it would not only drop, but would be in sustainable areas that don't require government funds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
And given that those stimulus packages have given companies the money to rebuilt themselves, however they spend it (which is now regulated, seeing as it is government money (like the 90% on all corporate bonuses)), it will within the next decade, allow them to once again be bought from the government.
You're missing my point. I don't deny they they have money to rebuild themselves, I'm questioning the issue of whether they should be able to do so. If a company goes bankrupt they are wasting resources. You think giving them more resources is a good idea? Also if the return from the businesses had justified the risk vs. return they could've been bought by the market in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
And where were those people to get jobs without the stimulus? If everything should run by the free-market alone, no government intervention, where the bloody hell would these jobs have come from?
Where jobs naturally arise from. From people trading their labour for money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
There is no right or wrong: there is just one answer. SOMETIMES THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO STEP IN. If the country ran by the anarchist theory, the free market would have eaten itself alive years ago
And you accuse me of making one liners and no solid arguments? Care to back up this assertion? Why does the government have to step in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
you seem to harbour under the delusion that a country which exists without government would not be in this situation. Are you serious? Fair enough the government's control of the banks and interest were a factor, but not the only one. A prominent fact was the fact that eventually, a big fish will be forced to live in a small pond. It was greed, it was corporations getting to big for their boots, which pushed everyone out.
Firstly, define what you're saying. "Eventually a big fish will be forced to live in a big pond" might sound like a cute analogy, but what do you mean?

Secondly, how would these things have led to the current crisis in the absense of government intervention such as the previously mentioned interest rate manipulation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
Because the world runs on money. Companies who do not have money, cannot run.
No, the world runs on resources, and companies that waste resources shouldn't run.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
Ergo, the government loans them some to keep them on their feet where they can eventually pay it back when the economy recovers
Again, if this return is so safe, why isn't the private sector doing it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
saving tens of millions of jobs. This isn't opinion mate, this isn't ideology, this is fact. You can't rival it. GM would have filed for bankruptcy, costing hundreds of thousands of jobs alone.
Again with the saving jobs argument. If you prop up jobs with the government, you are just prolonging the problem of labour being misallocated. Would it be beneficial if people were paid to dig holes and fill them up again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
Yes, because that has worked so well with the healthcare system. Seriously?
Implying the healthcare system in the USA is a free market with no government intervention?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
Then who would pay for it?
Individuals or free market organisations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
You would have pretty much all of the lower classes not being able to afford an education.
Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
And with law enforcement: you think that it being under private ownership would be smart? That is a one way track to complete corruption mate
No, the way to complete corruption is to put law enforcement under the control of a violent monopoly. This much should seem obvious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
Anarchy is not a plausible way to govern a nation: like I said, it's why not one has ever come to power.
Again, missing the point. I'm not saying it is the way to govern a nation or to be in power, I am questioning the idea of someone being in power or governing in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thesolitaryone- View Post
It will certainly not work in America, because the basis of Capitalism is the reliance on morality. People simply aren't moral enough to not need a slap on their hands when something goes wrong.
The beauty of capitalism is that people benefit others by acting in their own interests when private property exists. Adam Smith worked this out centuries ago. And are you suggesting that capitalism is impractical because of a lack of human morality when you are advocating a system where you give a group of people control over another through the state? Seriously?
   
  (#32 (permalink)) Old
Teacher, mother - secret lover
Welcome me, I'm new!
*
 
-thesolitaryone-'s Avatar
 
Name: Ashleigh
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Location: Perth, Australia

Posts: 18
Blog Entries: 3
Join Date: November 8th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - November 11th 2009, 01:53 AM

I am so bored with this it is unbelievable. Oil and water mate. I can see when a debate is nearing pointlessness.

Walking away.

-thesolitaryone-


Politically-obsessed, narrow-minded, outspoken and openly-partisan member of the Australian Liberal Party. Then there's nerd, bibliophile, occasional blogger, and general conveyer of epic nonsense.

Follow me and my Political ravings on Twitter,

and see my overly biased blog.


To people who think I'm mad: I will laugh at you, and then proceed to verbally beating you to the ground.

..On second thoughts, maybe I am mad.


-thesolitaryone-
   
  (#33 (permalink)) Old
Kryptonite Offline
Hmph
Experienced TeenHelper
******
 
Kryptonite's Avatar
 
Name: Alex
Gender: Male

Posts: 541
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - November 11th 2009, 03:12 AM

Any president, no matter how crappy s/he is, deserves that salary. The shit they have to go through is unimaginable.


Alex
[Click to PM me.]


"If I go crazy then will you still
call me Superman
If Iím alive and well, will you be
There holding my hand
Iíll keep you by my side
With my superhuman might...
Kryptonite"

<3




   
  (#34 (permalink)) Old
Gidig Offline
Optimistic pessimist
I can't get enough
*********
 
Gidig's Avatar
 
Name: Maria
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Location: Colorado

Posts: 2,123
Blog Entries: 390
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Should Obama get a pay cut? - November 11th 2009, 03:17 AM

Really guys?

Get real, be civilized and take the heat down a few notches. It's just a debate, not a personal attack.



The best wayout is always through~
-Robert Frost

Proud member of the LGBT community.

   
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
cut, obama, pay

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




All material copyright ©1998-2019, TeenHelp.
Terms | Legal | Privacy | Conduct | Complaints

Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000-2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search engine optimization by vBSEO.
Theme developed in association with vBStyles.