President of the United States of America 08 : Lakers Forum

New: Add a Custom Member Title

teams:

Basketball

Football

Baseball

>> You are now on the new server. Please report problems to clublakers@gmail.com <<

FAQ

Memberlist

Profile

President of the United States of America 08
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 24, 25, 26, 27 Next

Lakers Forum Forum Index -> Open Court

View previous topic :: View next topic

Who Will You Vote For?

Barack Obama

53%

[ 96 ]

Hilary Clinton

16%

[ 30 ]

Rudy Giuliani

[ 8 ]

Ron Paul

15%

[ 28 ]

Mitt Romney

[ 5 ]

John Edwards

[ 7 ]

John McCain

[ 6 ]

Total Votes : 180

Author

Message

Barnstable

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 4543
Location: Tacoma, WA

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:28 am Post subject:

BB wrote:

And you get paid by your productivity and it should stay that way. If it won't nobody will care about how productive they are and it would create waste. I don't see how hard it is to get it.

Actually you don't.

You only get paid by productivity in the lower corporate job levels. The upper corporate job levels it's more about the weight of the decisions you make than actual production.

That's the problem. There is no formula to calculate the value of such decisions and when the people making the decisions about who should get paid what amount decide to pay themselves a ridiculous amount, there is no law to stop it. That's why a pay ceiling should be produced to keep that in check.

Quote:

And if Kobe gets paid what he does, he's worth it. I think that every person watching him play would pay 50 cents per game, he'd make even more. Isn't paying 50 cents to watch him play worth it?

And regarding Kobe in general-

Did NBA players play with passion and determination before they started making millions upon millions of dollars? Back when players salaries were more in line with the top salaries of most Americans? I think the answer is yes, because they loved there job and had a competitive spirit. Paying them ridiculous amounts didn't increase there drive to perform IMO.

Kobe and all the top stars in the NBA are paid what they're paid because it falls in line with the US's capitalist system to be paid such wild amounts and the owners themselves are paid much more than the players.

That doesn't validate the amount they get, it's just stating the way it is.

So why shouldn't we change the system? If the wealthy control a wildly disproportionate amount of the wealth in this country, the working poor make up a huge proportion of the work force in the US, the middle class are slowly getting phased out of existence and we know crime is bread by poverty, then why shouldn't we restructure pay and the capitalist system we use. Obviously there are some loop holes that are messing up our society.

Quote:

businesses aren't just going to put into place these types of policies as it would severely cut into their profits. So you are left with the good ol' gov to enforce your rules. Now they are further involved in the life of businesses, you life, and more importantly are in control of YOUR money Higher taxes and the redistribution of wealth through the gov leads to more power , and a larger bureaucracy for the gov...

The government regulates minimum wage. How big of a jump and how much more bureaucracy will be created by regulating the maximum wage? I don't think much more considering they already control minimum wage.

Quote:

and Satan quick question that will help set context, how many corperate jobs have you had? How many jobs have you had and where???

What difference does that make? He's not complaining about the corporate ladder or anything that isn't about readily available statistics and measurable income.

I've worked two, if it makes a difference.
_________________
Sweet Daddy Barnstable's Bad A** Broads:
(1)Beyonce (2) Jennifer Lopez- Era 2000 (3) Layla Kayleigh (4) K.D. Aubert (5) Stacy Dash (6) Tyra Banks- Era 1998 (7) Shakira (8) Rose McGowan (9) Dolicia Bryan (10) Alyssa Milano

TEAM FARMAR Member Since 11/18/07

halekulani

Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 5604

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:54 am Post subject:

mccain is getting the election handed to him he doesn't even have to compete. democrat candidates are just bringing each other down. sigh.

slimjim

Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 7795

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:30 am Post subject:

^ so true.... every day that passes by... all Hillary is doing is dragging the democratic chances down. her chance of winning is a longshot(70-80%magin of victory with the rest of the states) at the expense of a democratic winning. _________________ Live, Love, Laugh

Kingsama

Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3971
Location: Tejas

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:21 am Post subject:

Barnstable wrote:

Quote:

and Satan quick question that will help set context, how many corperate jobs have you had? How many jobs have you had and where???

it makes a world of difference, if you have little to no experience in that world how can you make actual conclusions about what will work and what wont. Businesses spend millions of dollar, perhaps more, per year talking about how to motivate employees. There are experts in this field and they dont reach their conclusions by not being in that environment experience is key to understanding work place enviroments if you dont have any i dont see how you would know about it. Expertise is something that the internet is sadly killing. People on boards like this one all get on their high horse(not saying you or Satan are on you high horse) and draw all sorts of conclusion w/out any knowledge or understanding of the fields. Scholarship is something that is never brought up in discussions here or anywhere, as long as you have some website that was written by some random person or a well expressed idea, people by it. Too bad that neither mean anything in real life...

Quote:

quite a bit, because now you have to monitor people who dont want a law enforced. Minimum wages are easy, cause if you arent getting paid then you complain about it, if you are getting paid more then maximum whose gonna rat? People are always going to be competing for the best and the brightest and will always try to get them for a cost. You would have to create a new system for checkin on people that are working around the system, like the IRS but far more wide spread...
_________________
"God creates out of nothing. Wonderful you say. Yes, to be sure, but he does what is still more wonderful: he makes saints out of sinners."
"The highest and most beautiful things in life are not to be heard about, nor read about, nor seen but, if one will, are to be lived."
'Purity of heart is to will one thing."
- Soren Kierkegaard

Barnstable

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 4543
Location: Tacoma, WA

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 6:51 pm Post subject:

Kingsama wrote:

Barnstable wrote:

Quote:

and Satan quick question that will help set context, how many corperate jobs have you had? How many jobs have you had and where???

I don't think we were really talking about work place environments or the internal mechanics of the work place though. Our focus was upon the disbursement of wealth and it's effects upon society with the balance of pay in corporations being a large contributor to this wage gap.

Satan and I (at least) believe crime is mainly a result of poverty and the mentality bread from not having the basic needs to live a somewhat comfortable life, even if you have worked hard all your life.

We know around 2% of the population hold/control roughly 50% of the wealth in this country. A CEO who makes $2,000,000 a year (not a stretch by any means) makes a little over $7,600 a day. And that's before all the bonuses and "other compensation" kicks in, which can boosts his income to $8,000,000 range easily. Many have there income boosted into the twenty million range. There pay also regularly increases weather there company suffered a loss or not each year.

Are there services really worth that much? Without any worry of undervaluing them, I would say resoundingly...... NO. Are CEO's really going to be living a drastically reduced lifestyle if this pay was reduced drastically? Again NO. They're making so much now that they wouldn't even be able to spend the majority of it even while living frivolously.

I would agree that expertise is a dying breed, but I have always been of the firm belief that too many people follow "experts" like sheep rather than studying a subject for themselves and letting critical thinking be there guide. "Experts" also all too often come to drastically different conclusions, they have biases and are prone to mistakes as any human is, so listening to them is IMO about as reliable as the Internet.

Quote:

quite a bit, because now you have to monitor people who don't want a law enforced.

They don't want the law enforced on minimum wages either, but it's not very easy to get away with breaking this law for long. It would in theory be the same for maximum wage.

Quote:

Minimum wages are easy, cause if you arent getting paid then you complain about it, if you are getting paid more then maximum whose gonna rat?

The people in the company who aren't being paid off to keep quiet. I don't see why it would be any different than insider trading or any other high dollar crime the rich get busted for regularly.

Quote:

People are always going to be competing for the best and the brightest and will always try to get them for a cost. You would have to create a new system for checkin on people that are working around the system, like the IRS but far more wide spread...

Why can't the competition for the best and the brightest be won by non monetary compensation? What's wrong with a little creativity in luring people to your company? Also, what's wrong with CEOs deciding to leave a company and go to another more often?

I think at worst, the IRS would have to expand or restructure how thoroughly it checks business records and it's accounting practices. At the least a maximum wage would make embezzlement a bit more prevalent, but it's a very small trade off for bettering society and eliminating the legalized embezzlement practiced today (ie. CEOs giving themselves raises and bonuses at there whim).
_________________
Sweet Daddy Barnstable's Bad A** Broads:
(1)Beyonce (2) Jennifer Lopez- Era 2000 (3) Layla Kayleigh (4) K.D. Aubert (5) Stacy Dash (6) Tyra Banks- Era 1998 (7) Shakira (8) Rose McGowan (9) Dolicia Bryan (10) Alyssa Milano

TEAM FARMAR Member Since 11/18/07

Joined: 07 Apr 2008
Posts: 777
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:10 am Post subject:

You people aren't thinking straight. So why would i want responsibility and go to jail over my decisions if I'm not getting the money for making the right decisions? If you put it this way, all the employees should sell their houses and do time when a company goes bankrupt. By the way, I'd love the US to do a max wage. All the money would move out of it to Europe, including all the companies, living you into an economical dark age. :D If being a CEO is so easy, become one! But that would take you out of your comfort zone, which you want to set with a max wage.

Barnstable

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 4543
Location: Tacoma, WA

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:37 am Post subject:

BB wrote:

You people aren't thinking straight.

Or maybe we just have differing opinions on the subject bang

Next time your elected expert of the world let us know..... until then it's all just opinions nono2

_________________
Sweet Daddy Barnstable's Bad A** Broads:
(1)Beyonce (2) Jennifer Lopez- Era 2000 (3) Layla Kayleigh (4) K.D. Aubert (5) Stacy Dash (6) Tyra Banks- Era 1998 (7) Shakira (8) Rose McGowan (9) Dolicia Bryan (10) Alyssa Milano

TEAM FARMAR Member Since 11/18/07

Joined: 07 Apr 2008
Posts: 777
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:43 am Post subject:

Thanks for not replying to anything else in the post. It must prove a point. ;)

halekulani

Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 5604

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:45 am Post subject:

max wage of 200/hr is dumb. how is anyone supposed to own a business

Barnstable

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 4543
Location: Tacoma, WA

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:52 am Post subject:

BB wrote:

Thanks for not replying to anything else in the post. It must prove a point. ;)

Because I should have seriously concidered becoming a CEO freak2

Barnstable

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 4543
Location: Tacoma, WA

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:55 am Post subject:

halekulani wrote:

max wage of 200/hr is dumb.

how is anyone supposed to own a business

Hey, I wouldn't have any problem with going so far as to doubling that number. The point is that the $7,000 per hour number we alow today is ridiculously to high.
_________________
Sweet Daddy Barnstable's Bad A** Broads:
(1)Beyonce (2) Jennifer Lopez- Era 2000 (3) Layla Kayleigh (4) K.D. Aubert (5) Stacy Dash (6) Tyra Banks- Era 1998 (7) Shakira (8) Rose McGowan (9) Dolicia Bryan (10) Alyssa Milano

TEAM FARMAR Member Since 11/18/07

halekulani

Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 5604

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:02 pm Post subject:

i think there's a larger issue at hand with efficiency of money for goods/services rather than making caps for wages (eg. health insurance, tax dollars for education, etc). i really don't find limiting an individual's capability really necessary unless you're trying to pull a monopoly, which the government already regulates.

Barnstable

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 4543
Location: Tacoma, WA

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:18 pm Post subject:

halekulani wrote:

i think there's a larger issue at hand with efficiency of money for goods/services rather than making caps for wages (eg. health insurance, tax dollars for education, etc). i really don't find limiting an individual's capability really necessary unless you're trying to pull a monopoly, which the government already regulates.

If I understand what you mean by this, the people we're talking about control 50% of the wealth in the US though. I think that number would greatly surpass any amount lost to inefficiency.

If the waste your talking about could even be fixed (which I think would be harder to do than implementing a salary cap because it's a part of more diverse and varied programs and government agencies), it wouldn't eliminate the huge descrepincy of wealth in this country and wouldn't really solve the problem and rejuvenate the middle class IMO.
_________________
Sweet Daddy Barnstable's Bad A** Broads:
(1)Beyonce (2) Jennifer Lopez- Era 2000 (3) Layla Kayleigh (4) K.D. Aubert (5) Stacy Dash (6) Tyra Banks- Era 1998 (7) Shakira (8) Rose McGowan (9) Dolicia Bryan (10) Alyssa Milano

TEAM FARMAR Member Since 11/18/07

slimjim

Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 7795

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:31 pm Post subject:

if someone is wiling to pay me 200+ an hour or 7000+ an hour.
who are you to tell me I can't get that much?

a cap on wages would simply keep the wealth in the big corporation's hands.

you can't just come out and declare "CAP ON WAGES!!!!" and hope everything is solved.

a cap on wages will increase the wealth gap even further

a cap means someone will save money, and it ain't the regular folk.

before you go ahead and declare anything as bold as a "cap" on wages, you have to analyze the positives and the negatives.

Satan wrote:

slimjim wrote:

and lastly... my main point...

wage expense will drop as a whole... what does this mean? MORE MONEY MORE PROFIT FOR THE BIG COMPANIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

take money away from the rich? it goes right into the big companies pockets.

You're ignoring the fact that I think corporations should be controlled by those who do the work for them, not a handful or the rich.

I'm going to stop your right there.

the fact that I think?

I'm sorry, but just because you feel a certain way, does not mean I have to frame my argument around it.
_________________

Live, Love, Laugh

Barnstable

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 4543
Location: Tacoma, WA

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:32 pm Post subject:

slimjim wrote:

if someone is wiling to pay me 200+ an hour or 7000+ an hour.
who are you to tell me I can't get that much?

Who are you or anyone else to tell someone they can't steal (I don't mean that to sound adversarial if it does)? Who is the government to tell a business owner they can't pay there employees $3 an hour? We implement rules and laws when it's determined a certain action is detrimental to a society. As of right now public opinion isn't strong enough to implement a salary cap, but that doesn't mean that it a good situation to support, nore does it mean that public opinion won't change in the future.

Quote:

a cap on wages would simply keep the wealth in the big corporation's hands.

How so?

Actually I think it would make more funds available to pay those employees "lower" on the corporate ladder, spreading the wealth around and evening out to wage gap dramatically. Competition from other businesses who are willing to use that surplus to lure better employees should promote all businesses to do the same to one extent or another. This also would be my answer to your belief that a wage cap would increase the wealth gap further.

Quote:

you can't just come out and declare "CAP ON WAGES!!!!" and hope everything is solved.

And

before you go ahead and declare anything as bold as a "cap" on wages, you have to analyze the positives and the negatives.

We also can't just sit here and do nothing while the middle class disappears.

Of course implementing something like this would be more complicated than what some random people on a message board can come up with, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work. Innovation and advancement takes vision.

The way it's structured right now is ruining this society IMO.
_________________
Sweet Daddy Barnstable's Bad A** Broads:
(1)Beyonce (2) Jennifer Lopez- Era 2000 (3) Layla Kayleigh (4) K.D. Aubert (5) Stacy Dash (6) Tyra Banks- Era 1998 (7) Shakira (8) Rose McGowan (9) Dolicia Bryan (10) Alyssa Milano

TEAM FARMAR Member Since 11/18/07

Satan

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 18038
Location: Fist in the air in the land of hypocricy.

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:33 pm Post subject:

Kingsama wrote:

If you come into my home, you follow my rules. I enforce them. Communities can do the same. We don't need governments if the people themselves are more involved. People got along fine for hundreds of thousands of years without formal governments.

Kingsama wrote:

and Satan quick question that will help set context, how many corperate jobs have you had? How many jobs have you had and where???

I've had a plethora of jobs. I'd rather not get into details but I've worked for at least half a dozen various corporations. I've worked in law firms. I've worked in all types of industries. Not sure what that has to do with any of this. I can do find in a corporate environment, even if I don't enjoy it. This is more about the entire socio-economic arrangement.

BB wrote:

And you get paid by your productivity and it should stay that way. If it won't nobody will care about how productive they are and it would create waste. I don't see how hard it is to get it.

I'm sure you know this is not true. I've had jobs where I got promoted over harder working folks because I was in good with the management. I received raises over others who were more deserving and more in need because I knew how to bs or party. How many folks do you know that have their positions because of a family member or friend?

BB wrote:

Why would it be beneficial for corporations to be controlled by those who work there?

Because they do the work, the should receive the income. Why should anyone profit from the labor of another?

halekulani wrote:

max wage of 200/hr is dumb.

how is anyone supposed to own a business

Everyone who works at a business owns a piece. I'm pretty sure I outlined that any many other related aspects.

slimjim wrote:

if someone is wiling to pay me 200+ an hour or 7000+ an hour.
who are you to tell me I can't get that much?

A member of the society we all live in. We tell each other don't kill, don't steal, don't walk around naked... why not don't hoard more than you need?

slimjim wrote:

a cap on wages would simply keep the wealth in the big corporation's hands.

If those corporations are owned by the people, then the wealth is in the people's hands. Y'all keep picking one tiny aspect out of a complex series of changes I'm advocating. You have to consider the whole.

slimjim wrote:

Satan wrote:

You're ignoring the fact that I think corporations should be controlled by those who do the work for them, not a handful or the rich.

I'm going to stop your right there.

the fact that I think?

I'm sorry, but just because you feel a certain way, does not mean I have to frame my argument around it.

Since you're disagreeing with what I believe is a better socio-economic, it makes no sense to merely pick one aspect while ignoring others. There is no point in the debate.
_________________

I wanna bigger than jesus and bigger than wrestling
Bigger than the Beatles and bigger than breast implants
I'm gonna be the biggest thing to hit these little kids
Bigger than guns, bigger than cigarettes

DarthRekal

Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 13070

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:35 pm Post subject:

Satan wrote:

]If you come into my home, you follow my rules. I enforce them.

OMG dude.. i told you this about AMERICA a while back and you reamed me for it.. about immigration i think... man10

oh the irony man12

_________________
CLUB-DODGERS
R.I.P. Tyler C aka kOBeTiMe

halekulani

Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 5604

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject:

Quote:

halekulani wrote:
max wage of 200/hr is dumb.

how is anyone supposed to own a business

Everyone who works at a business owns a piece. I'm pretty sure I outlined that any many other related aspects.

yeah
except at 200/hr you will need over a thousand people just to startup a new corporation

throw in the fact that if you don't have a majority few or individual running the show, the whole company will just be a fiasco that won't get anywhere. it's highly inefficient setting ludicrous requirements.

DarthRekal

Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 13070

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:48 pm Post subject:

did you just agrue with yourself hal??? off topic: saw you signed up for CD.. thanks man and welcome _________________ CLUB-DODGERS R.I.P. Tyler C aka kOBeTiMe

Satan

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 18038
Location: Fist in the air in the land of hypocricy.

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject:

DarthRekal wrote:

Satan wrote:

]If you come into my home, you follow my rules. I enforce them.

OMG dude.. i told you this about AMERICA a while back and you reamed me for it.. about immigration i think... man10

oh the irony man12

There is a difference between the people and the government doing the enforcing.

halekulani wrote:

Quote:

halekulani wrote:
max wage of 200/hr is dumb.

how is anyone supposed to own a business

Everyone who works at a business owns a piece. I'm pretty sure I outlined that any many other related aspects.

Why would you need so many folks?

If it does take that many folks to do the work, shouldn't they share in the reward?

Who says individuals or a majority can't run the business? I'm not discussing management policies, I'm discussing ownership.
_________________

I wanna bigger than jesus and bigger than wrestling
Bigger than the Beatles and bigger than breast implants
I'm gonna be the biggest thing to hit these little kids
Bigger than guns, bigger than cigarettes

halekulani

Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 5604

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:56 pm Post subject:

Barnstable wrote:

halekulani wrote:

how is implementing a salary cap easier? you have to make a whole new set of laws to cover ever single detail to make sure people dont use loopholes to get more income. it's stupid because people could claim one job while making more money doing something else like investing. if you're going to restrict investments, it would be incredibly unfair to punish someone for saving rather than spending. might as well just move out of america at that point.

the whole idea behind fixing things like healthcare and the school system is to improve quality of life because there will always be a gap in distribution of wealth in a capitalist society. our standards of living are pretty high already. there isn't much you can do about the wealth unless you decide to remove money altogether. the whole idea is to make necessary services more obtainable, not so people can get more ipods and spend foolishly.

halekulani

Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 5604

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:04 pm Post subject:

Quote:

why would you need so many people? uh, because running a business is expensive? i'm not talking about starting an ebay shop here.

sure you're not discussing management policies. management will be a problem if you're forcing a situation that requires such a large distribution of ownership.

Barnstable

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 4543
Location: Tacoma, WA

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:19 pm Post subject:

halekulani wrote:

how is implementing a salary cap easier?

Because your adding a law for government agencies already set up to investigate income, accounting and wages the same factors they would need to investigate to manage a salary cap as well.

Conversely the task of cleaning up the inefficiency of agencies as varied as health care to education involve extremely different considerations and it's not like you have any agency with a real track record of doing this well. The IRS has a long history of catching individuals and corporations with tax/accounting fraud and a maximum wage would most likely be no different.

Quote:

you have to make a whole new set of laws to cover ever single detail to make sure people dont use loopholes to get more income.

We did this for minimum wage, why would it be so hard to do for maximum wage?

This isn't just on a whim. This is to change this country for the better and give everyone a better quality of life. Why should the prospect of making a few more laws (relatively) be such a deterrent?

Quote:

it's stupid because people could claim one job while making more money doing something else like investing. if you're going to restrict investments, it would be incredibly unfair to punish someone for saving rather than spending. might as well just move out of america at that point.

Once again, you guys keep interpreting what I and Satan are saying as limiting people income and that's not what I (or I think Satan) are suggesting or the purpose of changing the law. The purpose is to eliminate the unfair discrepancy in pay between the upper and lower employees of a company. The CEO's contribution to the company isn't in proportion to there pay because they can determine how much they want to pay themselves.

Someone makes money off of investments... more power to them as long as it's not defrauding the company and it's other employees.

Quote:

the whole idea behind fixing things like healthcare and the school system is to improve quality of life because there will always be a gap in distribution of wealth in a capitalist society. our standards of living are pretty high already. there isn't much you can do about the wealth unless you decide to remove money altogether. the whole idea is to make necessary services more obtainable, not so people can get more ipods and spend foolishly.

Your right, there will always be a gap in the distribution of wealth in a Capitalist society. But the problem is that the gap has gotten so wide, with the least people in the middle in the history of this country and it's growing exponentially. It's become an issue that is ruining this country as the working poor are becoming the majority.

We can't continue to turn a blind eye to this. People treat the rich like the modern equivalent of royalty and nobility. Just because these people are in positions of power and authority doesn't mean what they say or do is acceptable nor is it for the best. They are sucking this nation dry by hording all the money and they do it not because they have fairly earned this much money, but because we let them.
_________________
Sweet Daddy Barnstable's Bad A** Broads:
(1)Beyonce (2) Jennifer Lopez- Era 2000 (3) Layla Kayleigh (4) K.D. Aubert (5) Stacy Dash (6) Tyra Banks- Era 1998 (7) Shakira (8) Rose McGowan (9) Dolicia Bryan (10) Alyssa Milano

TEAM FARMAR Member Since 11/18/07

Satan

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 18038
Location: Fist in the air in the land of hypocricy.

Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 12:07 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Bob Barr to run for president as a Libertarian

Bob Barr, 59, a former Republican congressman from Georgia, criticized Republican John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, for not being a true conservative.

The former GOP congressman from Georgia accuses the government of irresponsible spending. He says McCain can't call himself a true conservative. Clinton and Obama campaign in West Virginia.
By Johanna Neuman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
10:49 AM PDT, May 12, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Bob Barr, a former congressman from Georgia and a former Republican, today announced his candidacy for president as a Libertarian who would rein in federal spending and foreign wars.

"The government has run amok fiscally," he said at a press conference. Saying that during the first quarter of this year the private sector was losing millions of jobs while the federal government was "hiring with enthusiasm," Barr added, "As the American people see their standard of living falling, the standard of government keeps going up."

Expected to win the nomination of the Libertarian Party when it holds its convention in Denver over the Memorial Day weekend, Barr, 59, criticized Republican John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, for not being a true conservative.

"There's not a great deal of substance there in terms of a commitment to cutting the size of government," Barr said He said no one who had authored the McCain-Feingold campaign reforms that cap individual donations could call himself a conservative, "at least with a straight face."

Barr also lashed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for saying that if Iran threatens Israel's existence, the United States should "obliterate Iran." Calling the New York senator's statement "tremendously dire," Barr called the possibility of Iran possessing nuclear weapons "remote" and said he has seen "no evidence that indicates that is an imminent likelihood."

Saying both the Republican and Democratic Parties have "bought into a system of running a charity called the United States of America," Barr blasted programs that use public funds to educate the children of illegal immigrants and maintain foreign military bases "that have no more efficacy in the 21st century."

"The federal government needs to get away from the notion that simply because we have all this money in the Treasury -- or we can borrow more money -- that we can provide all these services," he said. "That is not responsible government."

Political commentators debated the impact of Barr's entry, with some arguing that, like Ralph Nader in 2000, who pulled votes away from Democrat Al Gore, Barr could pull enough votes away from Republican McCain in 2008 to give the Democrats the election.

Barr confirmed that he was asked by McCain supporters not to run for fear he would pull votes from the GOP, but he defended his decision by saying that "American voters deserve better than simply the lesser of two evils."

Arguing that in recent election cycles, the losing candidates "blame somebody else," Barr said, "At the end of the day if I do succeed, it is not my intent to blame Sen. McCain or Sen. (Barack) Obama. I hope they would return the favor." If McCain loses to Obama, the Illinois senator, Barr said, it will be because his message or his candidacy doesn't resonate. "Each of us has the future in our own hands," he said, adding that his voters "are not likely to fall in the category of being enthusiastic about voting for John McCain, if such exists."

But Christopher Barron, a Republican political consultant, thinks it is equally plausible that Barr could hurt Obama.

"I think Bob Barr's candidacy could impact the race -- but I don't know at this point which candidate he is likely to help or hurt," he said. "If Barr's candidacy is fueled by the same people who supported Ron Paul -- college students, antiwar advocates and hard-core libertarians -- then I think it is unlikely to hurt Sen. McCain in any significant way because these are not the type of voters McCain is reaching out to. I could actually envision a scenario under which Barr's candidacy actually helps McCain by siphoning off some of the enthusiasm among college voters and antiwar advocates for Obama."

And Jennifer Duffy of the Cook Political Report noted that Barr's effectiveness could turn on gathering enough voter petitions to get on the ballot in key swing states. "I think he is only a threat if he gets on the ballot in a decent number of battleground states," she said.

I would much prefer that Ron Paul ran as the Libertarian but it is what it is... anyone know anything about Bob?
_________________

I wanna bigger than jesus and bigger than wrestling
Bigger than the Beatles and bigger than breast implants
I'm gonna be the biggest thing to hit these little kids
Bigger than guns, bigger than cigarettes