Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine The United States Has a New President -Elect. . .

Nope.

I just want to say that I've been a faithful church member for 12 years and even an elder, and I don't agree with everything my senior minister says. (Although my pastor is not a racist, and I do agree with that stance.) The notion that Obama is somehow guilty by association doesn't hold water to me.

Here's what keeps me in the "young" stage: I know from history that we have had some exceptional presidents who rose to the occasion and made powerful and positive changes in our country and the world: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, for example. I refuse to give in to the cynicism that says our best days are behind us and that we can't have great leaders again.

Do all politicians lie? Perhaps. (They certainly spin the truth.)

Can any president accomplish everything he or she promises? No.

Do presidents make controversial and sometimes morally questionable decisions? Definitely.

But sometimes it is during our worst circumstances that the best in people can be brought out. Hope is a powerful force in the world and, right now, Obama seems to represent hope more than anything else. He may or may not live up to our expectations, but it costs us nothing more to believe in something than it does to believe in nothing--and believing in something often spurs us to take positive action in our own lives.

I don't see it being an issue of "Is America in decline?" as much as it is "Is America holding level while the rest of the world is in ascent?" And by "rest of the world" I mean China, India and Russia mainly. And also possibly the EU.

The 'westernised' countries of the world (ie. Australia, New Zealand, UK, Canada, etc) still have very strong bonds with America and despite maybe some chafing at perceptions of America's arrogance as to their country vs all others, still look to the US for support and leadership and friendsip. IMO.

And I think you'll find that it was mainly newspapers and journalists in these countries who were most intereseted in/excited about the Obama presidency.

But there are an increasing number of countries and areas in the world who are looking elsewhere for cultural/financial/militarial guidance.

And the rise and rise and rise of countries like China, India and Russia are testament to that. And thus are posing the biggest threat to America's place in the world. And by that I don't mean in a terrorist/safety way but rather in it's cultural/financial dominance of the globe.

Anyone who doubts China's growing power need only look at Africa, many of whose countries have been hugely supported/developed by Chinese money and Chinese immigration in recent years. All of which will have come at a price that China will come to collect on sooner than later.

There's no doubt that America is still the single-most dominant country in the world today but as things are, I definitely think it will have been overtaken by a handful of others in only about 20 years or so.

As for this line -

I don't think that's an example of the rest of the world being overly fascinated by US elections (though no doubt there is a lot of that) as it is most Americans' unfortunate lack of interest in the rest of the world. Many of the residents of a lot countries I've lived in have paid major attention to the political comings and goings of leaders around the world. I didn't find that to be as widespread when I lived in the States.

I'm disheartened to read about these things, Jerry, particularly the reversal in California. I thought that permitting same-sex marriage there was a step forward for the entire nation.

For the last few years, I've had my composition students read a debate on same-sex marriage. Inevitably, when I admit that I'm in favor of same-sex marriage, some wonk will write on an evaluation that I must be gay. After interacting with such wonderful people on LW, I wish I could respond with, "No, but thanks for the compliment."

The whole issue reminds me of Martin Luther King Jr.'s struggle in the 1960s, as eloquently expressed in his "Letter From Birmingham Jail": There were white moderates who believed in his cause but urged him not to protest: the country wasn't ready to grant African Americans full equality, they said; these things take time.

King pointed out that time is neutral and that people of ill intent make better use of it than people of good will who do nothing. Sadly, we've still got a ways to go in this country before we can change attitudes.

Technically, you are correct. Y can be classified as a vowel, a consonant, or a semivowel.

The point of the original observation was that no one who had an "ethnic"-sounding name had ever been president. I believe this observation was made by a reader of PARADE Magazine back when Geraldine Ferraro was running for vice-president.

I think, to be fair, the US eletion causes excitement (in the UK at least) every single time, not just this time. There was a huge amount of interest in every US election that i can remember, although maybe not to the scale it has been this time. That said that's also true of the interest in the US itself. I've not seen the kind of levels of excitement and political awareness during a US election from Americans in absolutely bloody ages. Not even the last election (which was a pretty heated one) did we get the same kind of media or public attention paid to it.

I do think that mayeb to a certain degree we do, outside the US, pay a disproportionate amount to what's going on in the election. There was quite a bit of interest in the election of Sarkosy and Merkel in France and Germany respectively and a surprisngly large amount of interest in the alst Australian election but apart from that pretty much every other country that we have close ties with gets little mroe than passing mentions in the newspapers or on the TV news (Canada garnered a little press, so did Spain and Austria, but not much).

The difference though is that the US president, and the US as a country, still have a huge impact on the world as a whole, and maybe the UK more than most since our economic and political ties are so close. Plus there area lot of issues at the moment where the US stance is having really major effects on the rest of the world. The sistuations in Iraq and Afghanistan are hugely affected by the US (if/when the US troops pull out it's going to drasticly change how the rest of the countries involved react), the economic crisis sprang largely from the US (not entirely the US's fault mind, pretty much every country is in trouble because of the way they've been working, but the whole sudden crisis was precipitated by events in the US like Fannie May/Freddie Mac) and even today there's still a certain sense of when the US sneezes the rest of the world gets a cold, so there's a natural interest in who gets elected President.

The nature of who Obama is does add an extra wrinkle to that though. America is an odd country compared to the UK. Obama here would not be seen as being on the left. He's centrist at best and would probably actually be a Conservative by our standards but his race does say something to the rest of the world about the US and the way it's changed. Granted that is slightly undermined by the votes against gay rights that show that while America may be making steps one way it still has a hell of a lot of a way to go at the same time.

I don't think having a non-white PM elected here would get nearly as much news as a black US president, but that's as much to do with the fact that the UK (relatively speaking) isn't really that important on the world stage any more. We're still a major financial power and the Commonwealth gives us some political clout but we're not as important now with the way countries like India and China are coming to the forefront. On top of that we don't have the same history of perceived racism (since, of course, we do have a big history of racism, slavery and prejudice, we just didn't have the same kind of high profile race struggle) and we're a significantly less racially diverse country (90% white, 4% racially from the Indian sub-continent and only 2% black) so there's far less of a chance of having someone not white being elected compared to the racial proportions of the US. Race is still an issue here though (there are only 15 non-white MPs out of 646 in total) so seeing a black (or mixed-race) man being elected in the US does actually have a kind of knock-on effect here in terms of how people perceive who can be in a position of power, and the US president is pretty much the highest post in the world (with maybe the Pope being second).

Out of curiosity, why not cast your vote for Baldwin or Barr, both of which tried to appeal to "conservatives" disaffected with McCain?

Honestly, like it or not, this is still a two party country. Anything else is just a wasted vote or a "protest" vote. And in this country, it doesn't matter.

I had no dog in this fight. Look, to the media, i am an evil white guy from america that must be rolling in wealth that i won't share with the poor downtrodden folks. Never mind that i went to a public school that was in the state with the worst rating in the nation, i'm just an evil white straight guy. And no, i don't think obama gives a damn about me.

To conservatives, i am supposed to be this rich white money pit that they can keep coming to for a donation. And no, i don't think McCain gives a tinkers damn about me or mine. Never mind that i am a salaried employee of a corporation now that works six and seven days a week, sometimes up to 70+ hours for the same amount as if i did a crappy job and only worked for 35 and skeeved off. Oh, and my wife is having to get a job just for us to make ends meet. Cant afford daycare when she does so we are going to have to leave our son with the grandparents.

That doesn't sound bad, except my dad is almost an invalid, he's had stomach cancer and barely lived, strokes and barely lived, diabeties that is debilitating, anemia, drops in heartrates that cause us to rush him to the hospital for atropine shots...there's more, but the main point is that my 60 year old mom will now have to take care of my dad, my sister who is mentally handicapped, and my dad. And in return, almost half the extra money we make to make ends meet will go to them.

On the other side, my wifes parents are also elderly, one is on disability with congestive heart and kidney failure, the other cant work because she has to take care of him.

And in all of this, I have a "new president" that tells me he either wants to take my earnings to give to other folks to spread the wealth, or give me money from other folks in the same boat.

I dont want their money. I've paid my own way in life since i was sixteen. And what he has said, what the media trys to portray me as, either a villian or a victim, is a slap in the face. If that ass wants to spread the wealth, tell him to start with himself, then take from the wealthy libs in congress, then go to those hollywood types that backed him and take all of theirs and tell them to live on $50,000 grand a year at most.

Watch as he has skid marks left on him.

With my only expertise being, Joe the Plumber is from my hometown, the "spread the wealth" comment was IMO an off the cuff remark meant to appeal politically to the middle/blue collar class amongst whom he was standing. It was not directed towards the poor or any minority group.

"Spread the wealth" could equally mean applying tax methods that encourage small business development and meant as a counter to the big business bail-outs that do not seem to be saving so many middle class jobs as they are elite upper management and capital investment positions.

Encouraging capital investment in riskier small business is something I feel the country seriously needs. There seems this feeling that only the elite and their spawn have the genetic mark-up for creating new fields of business.

I've taught in the "best" education has to offer and I've taught in 80% poverty mixed race urban schools and anyone in similar situation will tell you that those poor kids have been less inculcated into "the box" than the elite and are very creative. The other edge of that sword is lack of discipline, positive will power and effective synogism. If those so afraid of having their business dollars "spread" around realized that and put their investment in with these kids, they'd make their money back at a much higher rate.

But, having been in both worlds I know that there really is a belief that a country's economics will only work if there is a lower class and that upper level positions are limited, let's keep them in the family. Sigh.

Other topic: race and the election. Surprised by some comments from my students about the racial implications of the voting. During discussion, someone said whites were not racist, they voted for a black man, blacks were racist and many chimed in agreement. Caught me by surprise when I realized it was my hispanic students saying this, not my white students and that the black students really were not overtly showing disagreement.

I'm not sure if that's a positive sign of reality or... if there's trouble a brewing. As I wrote, my neighborhood is strongly mixed racially and they tend to get along (though each has their own gangs). In less heterogenious neighborhoods, mostly black, there's no acknowledgement how severely disproportionate the black vote for Obama really was, compared to the black vote in the last election and many in those neighborhoods resent that they are no longer THE minority. Many express openly that they never "got theirs."

I think you're wrong here but don't want to argue about it. We had our disagreements 4 years ago and it's not helpful to carry anger over various failed policies and betrayals forward into this new year.

Simply put, I believe the Democrats to have better intentions than I believe the Republicans do. I never believed the party in power had any desires other than to further their own fortunes and power but I DO believe that the elected PTB have an interest in raising the standard of living and the quality of life for all Americans.

Rick, the Obama plan will NOT raise your taxes if you're making 50k but it would tack on 3% if you make 250k plus. Although if you consider the various tax shelters and charity options there probably won't be much of that 3% collected either.

We've asked American citizens to set aside the bitter partisanship of the last 30 years and work toward mutual goals, this is a far cry from 4 years ago when I was told to shut up and go away because us "losers" weren't needed. Think about that. I/We are reaching across to the opponent even in victory because we are after all in the same ship and we sink or sail as a team.

We're Americans dammit. Everybody participates.

Good points, YK, though I've read that the figure is $200,000, not $250,000. Either way, Rick (and most of us, I'd wager) would be safe.

This is as good a time as any to put in a plug for factcheck.org , a site dedicated to checking the facts of both Obama's and McCain's claims. As you can see, both made exaggerated claims and misrepresented the other's side (par for the course for politicians). But Obama's claims seem to me to be more credible and inclusive than McCain's.

Actually, no, Rick wont be safe. Again, what people dont seem to understand about economics is that raising taxes isn't good for economic stimulus.

The democrats are very good at using class envy, its their bread and butter. "Johnny Rotten over there has more than you do. You work hard, why shouldn't you have what he's got. Vote for me and i will take it from him and give it to you." That goes against everything America was founded on. So, they raise taxes, and jobs that would have been created by the money that they made...isn't, because they are paying more in taxes, and seek to maintain their own life. So, that extra fifty thousand that had two minimum wage starter jobs on the payroll...gone. There go jobs.

Now, multiply that all across the country. "Well, its only a few jobs." Okay, what about the people those jobs help support, like the families that rely on that income. Then there are the business' that will not recieve portions of that money that they would have, because the job isn't there. That effects their bottom line. And maybe that causes the loss of a job or two with them...and so on and so forth.

Look, even John Kennedy, the former darling of the left, knew that to stimulate the economy, you don't raise taxes, you lower them. People arent going to spend what they don't have, and when times get tough, people tighten their belts, not loosen them.

And then there is the statement that "Either way, Rick (and most of us, I'd wager) would be safe." He who, ya know i love ya, amigo, but i can't help think that is the single most naive statement i have ever heard. The single defineing factor of the democratic party, raise taxes on everyone for the "government". Unfortunately, the repubs really took those previous forty years of lessons on this to heart and went to town when they got into power.

You folks might have faith, or hope, i live in the real world, and the real world lessons of life have been- we don't matter to people that have gotten what they want...Power over our pocketbooks.

Yellow, i am not looking for a fight either. You said this...

"Simply put, I believe the Democrats to have better intentions than I believe the Republicans do. I never believed the party in power had any desires other than to further their own fortunes and power but I DO believe that the elected PTB have an interest in raising the standard of living and the quality of life for all Americans."

and my question is simply "Why?". Why do you believe that? Because someone makes a speech where the price of "raising" every poor downtrodden person wont cost the speech maker anything?

Its rhetoric, brother. Thats all. "God bless America. We can be better. We are the greatest country on the earth." Sounds great, means nothing.

Like i say, i've passed the point of believing either for or against politicians. They are just the cost of being alive in america.

Why indeed.
Because throughout our lives (I believe we're comparable in age) the Democrats have had a better grasp of "ground up" econonomics...barring the experience of President Johnson. They engage in diplomacy first and save warfare for a last resort. There is also a tendency to inspire rather than berate their supporters.

The Democrats generally try to talk a problem to death and (yes) that always makes us take a little more time to solve a problem but it also means we've examined it from a zillion different angles before acting. I get it. I know it's more exciting to jump off the cliff with guns blazing and napalm "smells like victory" but it's usually the worst way to solve anything..unless the best solution has been declared to be "eternal rest". That's just not the way we work.

I know you're disappointed in the people who have been leading us and I know you believed in them only a few short years ago. I won't ask you to switch your loyalties and take that leap of faith, it wouldn't be fair to you or us. I do however ask you to give us a chance, just pay attention, think critically and work, love your wife and parents and be a citizen of an America that we're all proud of.

I never gave up and you shouldn't either.

There's no truth to that. Pure stereotyping, nothing except maybe Carter's response to the hostages to back it up and even that was after a failed attempt to go in guns blazing.

If one really needs to come up with such a hard line personality difference between those that vote democratic and those that vote republican there's no need to do anything more than look at a map.

The map will show democratic areas rife with gun-shed, unemployed and high crime. The map will show republican areas rife with farmers, low wage EARNERS and small towns.

The idea that Republicans are the money people gets blown up everytime the news posts the latest personal worth of the democratic congress and the republican congress. Democrats it turns out are very capable of supporting their pocket book with their votes every bit as much as any other politician.

Now locally, we have Democrat Kaptur, who I don't vote for simply because she ignores the democratic process and refuses to debate her opponents. Sure she will win in a landslide anyhow but when someone puts themselves above the process, as well as she represents the district and votes her conscious when she's in DC (anti NAFTA against her own Pres, the first to call out Clinton on his shenanigans, anti War against her own party, and the first to call out the support congress was giving high salaried banking CEOs) she still gives me the creeps.

Speaking of this well thought out Democratic Party based process that "understands" the little man, let's talk about Carter and let's talk about NAFTA. CEO's and large scale capital investor's made a mint in both eras. The little family suffered unemployment and rising inflation. This puts pressure on and breaks apart famililies.


I grew up a "Democrat" in a strong democratic stronghold and voted democrat because it was the "right thing to do." They were more for the poor. Then I grew up. Everytime I found myself surrounded by peoples in dire need, I found myself surrounded by conservatives helping them and "democrats" looking for what they could skim. Now I realize it's really not necessary to vote Democratic. I'm allowed to choose.

The last 8 years have been a useful natural experiment in economics. We've had a very regressive tax policy, with the tax burden on the highest income households at recent historic lows, very low capital gains taxes, loosened "rules of the road" for the financial markets, very low interest rates, and a government largely controlled by "conservatives" and the Republicans. What we got was stagnant to declining real family income, wealth concentration unseen since the 1920s, a record national debt, endless and pointless war in a country that didn't attack or threaten us, and a financial system collapsed by systematic greed and stupidity, perpetrated by the so-called best and the brightest (my classmates at the elite business school I graduated from).

In the election, we had the Republicans basically offering nothing coherently different from the policies of the last 8 years, and the Democrats offering slight course corrections back to the solid center of American political and economic tradition. Advocating for progressive tax policies that reward work equally with wealth is simply not "socialism." Socialism is the large-scale investment by the government in private enterprise -- just like Bush's Treasury Department is doing RIGHT NOW. If the Democrats had campaigned on a true left, socialist platform, I don't think they would have won. Instead, they campaigned on bringing some balance back to a government captured by a reactionary, kleptocratic philosophy and ruled by selfish incompetents.

If the Republicans had offered a true break from the experiment of the last 8 years and a return to the center, they would have won. Instead, they tried again to sell the American people on the notion that high-income tax cuts and capital gains tax cuts are the only, best solution to our economic crisis. That is on the face of it absurd. After hearing this same pitch again, a clear majority of the American people decided to take a chance on the other team.

I also have to say, on a personal note, I know the Obama family a little bit, and I certainly know the community from which he comes, since it is my own. That community is known for a healthy respect for individual rights, freedom of speech and reliance on market mechanisms. However, one of the things you learn here is that good markets are not anything-goes markets. Markets operate best when there are clear rules to follow that insure people have equal access to good information. The collapse of the global financial system is, at heart, an example of people making bad decisions because they lacked honest, accurate information. I can also assure you, if you will allow me, that, as someone who has followed his career since it began, that Mr. Obama is NOT some loony lefty radical. He has consistently positioned himself, his policies and his decisions as distinctly different from the American Left of the last generation.

Agreed, doublechinner. I also feel the present situation has its roots in the eighties, when the Reaganites (and eventually many, many dems) decided that a form of unfettered Capitalism was the answer to all of our nations ills. We were told that once Wall Street was allowed to operate with little or no oversight then all Americans would benefit - provided they were willing to pull their own weight. Trust in the marketplace, we were told, it will reward good, sound business ethics and punish wrong doers. Right.

Instead, Wall Street quickly succumbed to the law of the jungle. Weaker corporations (no matter how ethically run) were quickly lain open to attack by stronger more aggressive giants (no matter how unethical, unprincipled, or un-American), all with the blessings of Wall street. In fact, if those stronger companies then turned around and cut American jobs and shipped them to some other country where they could get away with paying pathetically low wages to non-Americans than (HolyBiggerBonus Batman!) their stocks could very well jump even higher.

I also find it sadly ironic that it was once welfare mothers who were held up as examples of failed social and economic policies, whereas now, it's multi-millionaire bankers, oil executives, and a slew of other pulled-themselves-up-by-their-own-bootstrappers who are living on our tax dollars (all the time begrudging absolutely EVERY cent that they have to pay in the taxes needed to keep their own country running). But hey, that's different, because...oh wait, it's not. It's just hypocritical.

Perhaps that can be seen as stereotyping but I'm actually generalizing from my own specific experiences. We'll talk something into the ground before actually sending the teams out into the mean streets of redneckville to canvass. I happen to live in a very Republican state/town/county/city/neighborhood and am practically a lone liberal in a sea of angry conservatism. This year I was called everything from Ni**er lover to traitor to communist because I was pro-O. It's nothing I've never heard before but it definitely reinforced my belief that these people didn't give a damn about anything outside their own little realities.

I believed Joe Biden more than I believed Sarah Palin. I believed Obama more than I believed McCain. I believe the Mayor is a prick so I voted against him. I believe Inhoff is a power mad jack-off so I voted against him too.

Still, I'm not trying to fight over any of this, I was just answering Ricshaw's question. I understand all the reasons to hate, fear and grab what you can when you have the chance and fight to the death to protect it and I honestly haven't got any new reasons to hold out a little trust.

It's just in me to want to be a better person not a lesser person. If I fail I'll take the blame but if I succeed I'll share the credit.

We have the same mayor, I don't know enough about Palin to believe or not believe and as for the rest of them, it really doesn't matter if I believe them or not because there's nothing I can do about it.

What I was hoping to imply was that our personal stereotypes can well be a rejection of the prevailing culture around us, yours and mine being diametrically opposed, hence, opposit stereotypes.

Now when you look at the voting percentages of your district, do they really imply everyone is a "redneck?" Somebody, I bet a significant % voted for Obama?

We on the other hand are so democratic, we actually have two democratic parties (which funny enough, permitted a pub to take council pres while the two dems couldn't agree to a majority for either of their candidates. LoL)

So, see my aversion to dems (around here)?

Doublechinner (not dubya, lol)...yes, we know they went off the rails. The repubs did not hold to the conservative principals they were elected on...and thats why you didn't see conservatives backing them again. They took the lessons learned from the previous forty years of democratic leadership (Line your pockets, tell the little guy you are for him and steal from him mercilessly, spout pretty lines, lie to their faces) and ramped them up five notches.

You didn't hear me disagree on that. They learned from the dems and outdid them. Thats why we gave them the boot.

Look, I don't care if Lindsey Graham is gay or not, that doesn't concern me. He was elected to do what the people of SC wanted him to do. He sold out. Thats why i wouldn't vote for him again. Jim Clyburn, what the heck has he done except be a black congressman for the last 20 years. Not a congressman, a "black" congress man from a district jerrymandered to make sure that SC had one. Yet i never hear of anything he has done to push forward the portion of the state he represents. There may be some gladhanding function along and along, but what he has actually accomplished for his district is bupkiss.

Democrats are asking us to "step across the aisle" to "make america better", and yet when they were in power before, the did nothing of the kind. Right now they are getting ready to strip leiberman of his chairman post. Thats petty revenge.

The greatest lie of all...democrats started the civil rights movement. Somehow, some way, they took the lesson from the devil ad performed the greatest trick of their existence, they convinced black people that they are on their side.

Another great lie, their "firs black president" billy clinton left the country with surplus'. Simply not true. And yet they proclaim that "if only the repubs had listened." things would be wonderful. The economy was already set to crash from all his bubbles created by interfering with the natural ebb and flow of the money/capital markets. Everyone glosses over that little fact.

Look, this isn't about who's right and who's wrong to me, this isn't about left and right, black and white, straight and gay, conservative and liberal. Its about doing what is right for the country first and foremost. And i have lived long enough to know that the world turns, as does the worm. We, the average working person, do not matter to McCain or Obama, bill or hillary, george or laura. We are just the means for power. If the greatest highjumper was the criteria for becoming president, then mccain and obama would have been practicing their highjumps.

I'd put my money on Obama for that one too.

Probably. Or nearly.

heh
It's not so much the voting percentages as it is the number of pickup trucks and cowboy boots. Really though you're somewhat correct, Oklahoma went 64% to 34% Republican and my home county went the same but the percentages were 68% to 32% R.
Yes 2 to 1 is a "signifigant" percentage and in the last election it was 67% to 33%, not much change. I knew my vote wouldn't affect anything other that the vote totals but I voted anyway.


I get it. Our platform of the last few years has been less a case of electing Democrats just for the sake of electing Democrats than it has been to elect Better Democrats. I know we succeeded in doing that in a few places (the primaries were brutal this cycle) and I sincerely hope we did a little better than that.

You know, it's ironic that you appear to be so cynical toward government when I feel about the same way toward big business. In the age of Enron and the Wall Street bailout, I have little confidence in the wealthiest one percent of Americans creating jobs that are going to "take care" of the rest of us. Lining pockets? It doesn't appear to me that Democrats or Republicans have a monopoly on greed.

Asking "Johnny Rotten" to contribute more from his oversized paycheck so Sid and Nancy can pay their bills, afford health insurance, and put their kids through school doesn't seem unreasonable to me. If that makes me naive, so be it.

The real world is also a place of dreamers, Rick. It's the place of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, and others who were once told that what they wanted to accomplish couldn't be done. Whether Obama falls into this category remains to be seen, of course, but I think it's premature to generalize his plans because of what Democrats have or have not done in the past.

The way I see it is that if you think that the basic presuppositions of recent American policy are correct, but things have just been badly managed by Bush and his team, then there might be some reason to think that Obama might fix things.

But if you think, as I am inclined to, that there are much deeper problems with the assumptions that tend to underlie both standard Repub and Dem policies, then I see little reason to be optimistic.

"Asking "Johnny Rotten" to contribute more from his oversized paycheck so Sid and Nancy can pay their bills, afford health insurance, and put their kids through school doesn't seem unreasonable to me. If that makes me naive, so be it."

But, its HIS paycheck. And no one is asking, they are TAKING! Whether you like the amount paid or not, its HIS. Whether some board of directors elects a doofus or a genius, it is what they do. If you choose to invest in them, that is your business and YOUR responsibility to investigate before putting your money in their hands. That is called personal responsibility...a bedrock conservative belief.

And i do blame the clinton years and the attitude espoused by them for part of that. They told people the "business cycle" had been defeated, and every businessman and economist in the country, lib and conserv should have stood up right then and called him a liar, to his face, just like he lied to us. No one can or ever will defeat the business cycle, they can only tamper with it.

I hear people moaning and groaning every day that make a lot more than i do that the government should have done more to protect them. They want a world completely free from risk, no possible downside to anything, but dont understand that those returns they were making paid so much more because they were that much riskier. They didn't do their homework, and when it bit them in the ass, they whined and complained about it. It wasn't supposed to happen to them. In short, they were greedy and it cost them.

So, yes, i do think it against what this country is founded on and extremely unreasonable to take from one person to give to another just because they want it. Thats called theft. Swath it in government terms, its still theft. If you don't earn it, it aint your'n.

and yes, the arguement can be made that the executives didn't earn it either, but stole it. Yet, someone in a position of authority in that company put them there. It is the investors responsibility to check these things out. Companies are downgraded all the time due to changes in personel in major positions in the company.

You may not like that some jerks like enron got things over on people, but no one held a gun to their heads and told them to put their money there. No one wants to stand up and say that they did not do their homework, they got taken, and it couldn't have happened if they hadn't let it. People that didn't know what they were doing put their own money in the hands of crooks, got burned, and want to blame everyone but themselves.