Forums >Off the Beaten Path>Why Is the Republican Field So Extreme?
No Talent Drips
Hopefully not by me. Crow is nasty-tasting.
What? Take it back.
Dei Gratia
Feeling the growl again
Heh...whoa dude...I'm not going to go there....
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
I was ridiculed here a few months back for suggesting this.
Well, it sounds stupid when you say it.
I have trouble agreeing/disagreeing with the "vote the bums out" tactic. Certainly, few members of Congress deserve to retain their plushly padded seats. OTOH, government has gotten so complicated at the federal level that a large bunch of legislative newbs would likewise fail to get anything meaningful accomplished.
[MTA spelling]
"I want you to pray as if everything depends on it, but I want you to prepare yourself as if everything depends on you."
-- Dick LeBeau
#artbydmcbride
{{[PotatoBuns}}}
Runners run
government has gotten so complicated at the federal level that a large bunch of legislative newbs would likewise fail to get anything meaningful accomplished.
As opposed to all that is being accomplished now?
Perhaps such a shock to the system would lead to some of the complication being stripped out...
One rule change they need is to revert to the old filibuster rules. A filibuster used to be a demanding effort as one had to physically keep talking on and on. So it was a tactic rarely employed and the party had to be very committed to employ it. Now, they just call "filibuster" and all go out for martinis. The consequence is that rather than functioning on a simply majority as the Constitution dictates for normal bills, everything must have a filibuster-proof majority. I wasn't even in favor of the current version of Obama's "jobs bill", however I was very irritated to hear that the reason it was defeated was that it did not have a filibuster-proof vote count. That's not the way it was supposed to work.
Prince of Fatness
I have trouble agreeing/disagreeing with the "vote the bums out" tactic.
As do I, honestly. But perhaps this line of thinking goes the way of the "political disobedience" that Jeff's article refers to. I think that most people are sick of the business as usual in government but aren't prepared to offer a solution. Maybe the place to start is to continuously "vote the bums out" until there is a change in behavior.
Not at it at all.
I recovered quickly, but thanks!
Why is it sideways?
These charts paint the picture pretty well.
JUMP YOU FUCCKERS!!
MoBramExam
So, maybe, if the government would stop borrowing money to spend...????
Options,Account, Forums
So CEOs are 7 times better than they were in the 70s?
It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.
It's good having a banking regulator chime in. (I like how you reversed and re-presented the scenario presented within Jeff's link)
Life Goals:
#1: Do what I can do
#2: Enjoy life
In the 70's, the CEO was some slug who started at age 16 in the mail room and worked his way to the top at all levels of the company.
Today, they are Ivy-League MBAs who came out of school and went straight behind a desk. They don't know squat about making a sprocket, but they can "manage" the hell out of a balance sheet.
So, yeah, they gotta be at least 7x better
Ivy-League MBAs
Man, I hate those jerks.
A few years out of date, but this is a more balanced and accurate profile of CEOs: http://content.spencerstuart.com/sswebsite/pdf/lib/Statistical_Snapshot_of_Leading_CEOs_relB3.pdf
I doesn't disprove any point you were making other than not all CEOs are Ivy league MBAs - some of them slummed it at Stanford...
Come all you no-hopers, you jokers and roguesWe're on the road to nowhere, let's find out where it goes