Dude, that was so friggin funny, the Fart Tax, I lamost busted a gut. Nice list of how much those useless actors and athletes make, it really does put things into perspective. I have to admit there are times I'm dusgusted by what CEOs make, but you've done an excellent job of showing the hypocrisy of the Liberal-Left. They are truly dangerous and will destroy this country domestically and in the international arena. My sincerest hope is that their candidates will destroy each other in their vicious campaign for the nomination. I just got back from the bookstore, where another miserable Liberal has published a book saying how the Conservative movement is dead. I can't wait til November - I think those Liberal bastards may be in for an unpleasant surprise.

The only people that should be upset about CEO salaries are the shareholders if they feel that the CEO isn't worth it.

The rest is typical commie class warfare bullshit.

Oh God, I'm in trouble! I love beans!

Your post is disgusting and your black and white view of things is horrible.

I would consider myself a centrist liberal. I support Sen Obama for president, yet I see the good in McCain and have no sympathy whatsoever for Hillary Clinton.

From my point of view, what Mr Obama meant was that the failure of politicians to provide for their constituents is causing a lack of faith in our government, which is true. Perhaps he didn't word it very well at all, but I don't think it's too hard for anyone with an IQ akin to even that of President Bush to understand.

People are fed up with lying politicians, including Democrats, Republicans, and everyone in between. Yes, they ARE bitter, that's no surprise.

I also just -love- how you try to spin things and use certain terms to confuse people, such as referring to the Senator as "Mr. Harvard Educated Millionaire Liberal". What have you to say about our Republican President George Bush, better known as Mr. Harvard Educated Millionaire Conservative. If anything, Obama had more of a struggle to achieve what he has. George W. Bush was born into an already-rich and affluent family in New Haven, Connecticut of all places.

I also don't believe, in any way, shape, or form, that Obama is a socialist or Communist. You know what? Maybe CEOs salaries SHOULD be capped. Every little thing that sounds like it might be socialist isn't. Have you really thought about it? We're in an economic slump that's getting worse and while people are struggling to pay their bills and feed their families, the CEOs are raking in the money for that next-month trip to Aspen or some shit.

Paying for entertainment is different. That is an expense that people CHOOSE to make. People choose to go to a concert, or see a movie. People don't choose what an executive's salary is.

What have you got to say now?

Abel -

I don't even know where to start with that asinine post of yours. But I'll go ahead and give it a shot.

"[E]ntertainment... is an expense people choose to make (sic)"? I work in the industry, and let me tell you that the "people" do not pay our salaries. Do you think Charlize Theron gets paid only if people see her movie? That Sean Penn only gets paid through tickets and dvd's sold? That if no one sees the movie, they don't get paid? That's just a dumb statement. Further, the PEOPLE that *matter* - the shareholders (you know, the ones whose money is at stake) - have a say in what a CEO gets paid. You wouldn't want me to tell you what curtains to put up in your house, would you? Only the people spending the money on the curtains and living in your house should have a voice in that decision, no? Then what do non-shareholders' opinions matter on how the shareholders decide to pay a CEO? Having the general citizenry or government decide how private entities should use its money is, by definition, a form of communism. Obviously if there is illegal activity, then the police should step in - but laws are already in place for that - and that's not what is being argued here.

You say you "just LOVE" how Mike phrased things, citing his calling of Obama as "Mr. Harvard Educated Millionaire Liberal" whilst not saying the same about Bush, a white man born into a wealthy family. Valid point, but what about your little quip: "I don't think it's too hard for anyone with an IQ akin to even that of President Bush to understand"? Or is there a double standard rule I need to read up on somewhere? Plus, how can you defend Obama in that "[p]erhaps he didn't word it very well at all," but not extend Mike the same generosity? Maybe he should have worded it better so as not to bruise the delicate sensibilities of certain fools.

Sometimes I too can get upset at the seeming discrepancy in pay between the princes and the paupers, but the government telling private citizens how to spend their money is socialism. Period. And no, it's not good because, as Mike pointed out, it's a slippery slope that could very well lead to full-blown government control of private lives. If you cannot understand that, then you are lost.

And for the record, I consider myself a conservative-leaning centrist, or a libertarian republican. I think you should stop deluding yourself and realize that you are not a centrist at all but a crab-in-a-barrel socialist - and other right-leaning opinions you may have on national defense, or gun ownership, or abortion, or whatever does nothing to negate that fact.

"People don't choose what an executive's salary is." - Abel

People most certainly DO choose what an executive's salary is. People who have a financial stake in a CEO's ability to maintain (or restore) profitability to the corporation said CEO was hired to run. Those people are Boards of Directors. I trust them far more to know what's in the best interests of corporations that I own stock in than I do 536 people in Washington.

What have you got to say now?

Abel:

1. GWB went to Yale, not Harvard.

2. GWB despite being born into money is far from being an elitist. He is ridiculed and deemed "stupid" by the elite who cannot understand how regular small town America, you know, the ones who are bitter and therefore cling to religions and guns, would vote for him instead of his foil, the Elite Yale Educated John Kerry.

3. Obama is not a Communist. He's a socialist -- pure and simple. His health care plan is socialism which would make insurance illegal and would require all Americans to be members of a government health care system similar to the European model.

4. Capping CEO salaries? The government has no right to do that. Do you own stock Abel? If the stock tanks and CEO is doing crappy, he's getting booted out. Remember Michael Eisner? Unless there's criminal activity, the government has no right to run private business. When it starts doing that, i.e., managing the means of production, setting wage and price controls, then what do you have? Classic Communism. Have you ever read any history or economics man?

Or is your devotion to the cult of personality called Obama so strong?

Obama meant what he said .... that folks when they are bitter cling to religion ... perhaps folks cling to religion because they want a relationship with God? But you see, to the elite left, religion is the opiate of the people. But where have we heard that before?

"I also don't believe, in any way, shape, or form, that Obama is a socialist or Communist. You know what? Maybe CEOs salaries SHOULD be capped."

Well, that's kind of socialist/communist as others have said. And as others have asked, do you even know what socialism and communism are?

"Every little thing that sounds like it might be socialist isn't."

I repeat the above question and ask you to then tell me why government capping of salaries ISN'T socialism.

"Have you really thought about it? We're in an economic slump that's getting worse and while people are struggling to pay their bills and feed their families, the CEOs are raking in the money for that next-month trip to Aspen or some shit."

How old are you? Do you not remember the 70's? Far tougher times than now, and even the 70's was a joke compared to the 30's. But even in the very best of economic times there are people struggling to feed families and pay bills. Can you be sure that all these rich folks don't make major donations to charity and volunteer their time?

Moreover, there are people sleeping in the street who look at you the same way you look at these CEO's. Have you put one of them on your couch yet?

"Paying for entertainment is different. That is an expense that people CHOOSE to make. People choose to go to a concert, or see a movie. People don't choose what an executive's salary is. What have you got to say now?"

Others have covered this extensively, but to recap, people DO choose an executive's salary -- the shareholders. If the CEO is good at what he (or she) does, he is in demand. If he is in demand, there will be a lot of companies and corporations bidding for his services. He will likely go with the highest bidder, though sometimes not. And if he delivers the goods, the jobs of many, many people in the company are not only saved, many more jobs are created. Truly skilled CEO = better pay and more jobs for all.

Mr./Ms. CEO is no different from you. When's the last time you voluntarily took less pay to avoid offending those who make less money than you?

You are far less motivated by compassion for the poor than by envy of the rich.

Yes, we need skilled CEO's to get the job done. It IS necessary for the economy to run. However, many assume that CEO's making money make more jobs. Not necessarily. Think about it. What if the CEO can get the shareholders more money by employing workers without benefits, laying off a bunch of Americans before retirement, outsourcing customer service to India, and importing manufactured goods from China? There may be more jobs, they're just not American jobs. Define "Company." Is it the shareholders, or the CEO, or middle-management, maybe laborers... "

"Truly skilled CEO = better pay and more jobs for all." By this logic, the nations of the oil sultans in the Middle East should have great, booming economies with high standards of living, and yet they don't, even though there are plenty of profits at the top. How can this be!?! It's because profits do not always = better pay and more jobs for all.

We as a people certainly should acknowledge by now, that free market/laissez-faire economics is the best social system ever devised. But, that doesn't mean it's foolproof. NO SYSTEM IS. If it were, there wouldn't be recessions. The first step to counter a systems weaknesses is to understand its weaknesses.

The way to a happy nation is a high standard of living. I define a high standard of living as progress. The weakness of free market also it's strength--Profits.

Under the right conditions profits become the strength of a nation because it promotes a sort of merit system (the people most fit for the job, get capital and use that capital well because they're competent) The problem is that profit does not always = progress. This is especially true when it comes to more technological sectors of the economy. Look at it this way. Microsoft developed windows, right? Lets say another small company develops something superior to windows in design. It could not become widespread because Microsoft would buy it out, or completely crush it using its ties in software engineering to make software and games incompatible. Why should they adopt the design of this new software if it's more profitable to shut it down? I could easily site examples in banking, mobile communications, the oil/automotive industry, and worst of all, the pharmaceutical companies in the United States, in which free market actually HINDERS progress rather than promoting it. Adam Smith, the founding father of laissez-faire, even warns us against this!

Government help is sometimes necessary only when social costs of an industry or service outweigh the social benefit (profits, jobs, security, etc). Middle America wouldn't have electricity if electricity weren't subsidized. Because a lot of America is not densely populated, it might cost an individual in a rural area hundreds of thousands of dollars to get electricity/communications to their home for just one month!!! There aren't enough people or businesses per square mile to share the cost/benefit. How would you like it if city folks said, "why should I have to pay for THEIR electricity and communications?" The same could be said for roads. Do you think anyone could actually profit from building roads to the middle of nowhere? Would you make an individual nearby pay for it on his own? That would be crazy! Do you think enough people travel that road to make tolls profitable while paying for maintenance? NO! Yet these things are vital to our society. But a pure free market society could not provide them.

Still, I hear retard say things like, "why should I have to pay for THEIR better public school?" and, "Why should I have to pay for THEIR employment program?"

Do you know what kids and adults do who don't go to school or work? Statistically, they commit crime. Criminal Theft, Drug-Dealing, Vandalism, Racketeering, etc... and the subsequent incarceration are HUGE social costs. And good luck getting uneducated criminals to pay taxes in the future. I promise you, the tax for a better public school and other government programs are peanuts in comparison. (How much do you pay for insurance again? Yeah, that's also a social cost). If you think about it, isn't racketeering and organized crime simply unchecked laissez-faire?

Understand, I don't believe in socialized medicine because I'm a communist. Free market is the best there is. But, putting morality aside, there is a lot of evidence that NOT having socialized medicine yields a higher social cost than benefit.

I feel conservatives oversimplify the economy and the mechanisms of our society. Republicans have remained strong because simplicity makes it easier to unify. To fully discuss what I've just said above to the point of solving our social problems would take a panel of experts and a committee representatives to eventually find a compromise (as I'm sure none of them would agree completely). And competent bureaucrats to execute the plan effectively. But, I believe this is better than unifying under black and white politics and slogans that woefully misguide the nation to ruin.

Think about it.

While assuming that many of the posts above are no longer relevant given the events that have occurred in the time since they were posted……

In response to what Obama said about the traditionally Republican states (although that sounds completely out of context), my personal experience with that topic takes it a few steps further. I actually grew up in Oklahoma and have lived in several of the areas with the mentality he is referring to. In short, many of these areas have little to no exposure to the rest of the world and don’t make a huge practice of questioning anything that they are told. In life, family, politics. or religion. And with religion, it isn’t a question of what faith are you, it is what Church do you go to? In high school I actually went to a Church that prayed for the country to have faith in anything that George Bush told us we needed to believe in, and, surprisingly, that wasn’t all that uncommon in many of the major Churches throughout the Oklahoma City area. The majority of the people that I grew up with didn’t question anything. The whole mentality was like “Earth was created 6,000 years ago? Screw science, that sounds good to me. God hates the Jews / Muslims / ______ ? Give me a pitchfork. My parents and/ or spouse believes in this candidate, I will too. I should be afraid of _________? Let me help spread the word….this is no time for someone who might not keep us safe!”

What Obama was probably referring to is the fact that it takes many people in these areas A LOT to start to question anything, and it is very easy to sell them on the fact that they should be afraid of something. Republicans have a long history of using the fear factor to rally people behind their cause, legitimate facts or causes involved or not, and that is why many of these states are hardcore Republican.

I’ve been watching clips from Republican rallies over the past few days, and it is sickening to hear how uninformed some of these people are. These idiots keep yelling crap like “Obama’s an Arab! Obama’s a terrorist.” Did they yell that a week ago? No. Do they firmly believe it now that McCain put out a week of irrelevant attack ads attempting to find a relevant tie from Obama to Ayers? Absolutely. Do they care that McCain’s campaign has even closer ties to Ayers and others? Nope. Will they explore the fact that Todd Palin, Sarah Palin’s husband, was a registered member of the Alaskan Independence Party from 1995 – 2002? A radical group that advocates for Alaskan secession from the United States? Probably not. But Obama must be bad for us because my Mother in law said he was an Arab socialist…..