Support NeoGAF

[reilo]

They have ALOT more responsibility. That's the point. And it's a valid point.

Do they? Because the smartest CEOs, in my opinion, find somebody to manage certain tasks that they don't have the time for. For example, Steve Jobs probably has the final say in the next iPhone design, but he probably isn't there in day-to-day meetings and at every designers desk overseeing every iPhone concept as it comes to fruition.

If you want to make the argument that Jobs' final say in which design gets picked is more valuable than the process of creating the design, then go ahead.

 

[mckmas8808]

Do they? Because the smartest CEOs, in my opinion, find somebody to manage certain tasks that they don't have the time for. For example, Steve Jobs probably has the final say in the next iPhone design, but he probably isn't there in day-to-day meetings and at every designers desk overseeing every iPhone concept as it comes to fruition.

If you want to make the argument that Jobs' final say in which design gets picked is more valuable than the process of creating the design, then go ahead.

Well for your particular example I'd argue that Steve Jobs himself is more (solely) responsible for where Apple is today than any other single individual.

That in of itself makes it okay if he made something like $40 million a year.

 

[RustyNails]

As abhorrent and condemnable as Qaddafi's actions are, they do not approach the crime of genocide. And the specific charges reflect that. Genocide and similar allusions were presented to justify the intervention. Again, those charges were grossly exaggerated.

The arrest warrant is issued not because there's evidence of genocide, but because there has been "reasonable grounds to believe" that Gaddafi, his son and his intelligence minister carried out crimes against humanity. Whether they actually did or not will be found out in the international criminal court, if they is arrested. This is based on preliminary hearings and findings carried out by ICC.

They qualify as insurgents. I am not taking his word. I am simply noting that Qaddafi is prone to hyperbole and bombast. And he often contradicts himself. I do not think his threats were as significant as they were portrayed.

Pretty sure they are significant. He's not a tin pot dictator with no reputation. He actually has a pretty ruthless reputation of silencing dissidents. He ordered the massacre of 1,200 political prisoners. Google 1996 Gaddafi Prison Massacre. The arrest warrant issued isn't related to that, but to indscriminate shelling of peaceful protesters between February 17th and mid March. The point is that his threats are pretty solid and there's a pretty good chance that he will carry out his agenda when dissidents are involved.

 

[reilo]

Well for your particular example I'd argue that Steve Jobs himself is more (solely) responsible for where Apple is today than any other single individual.

That in of itself makes it okay if he made something like $40 million a year.

Uhuh. So Steve Jobs is singlehandedly responsible for everything, and all of Apple's ideas were his, and all of Apple's advancements were his, and all of Apple's success were his?

Look, I agree that CEOs and "company leaders" should be compensated if they do their job by instilling a culture and vision of success, but $40mil?

Or let's put it this way: maybe the problem isn't CEO overcompensation (I lied, it is, but for argument's sake let's say it isn't), but rather average worker undercompensation.

Then again, we've had people on here argue that a family of four can easily survive on a $10/day grocery budget, while at the same time proclaiming that rich people are struggling.

I'll just leave it at that.

 

[mckmas8808]

Uhuh. So Steve Jobs is singlehandedly responsible for everything, and all of Apple's ideas were his, and all of Apple's advancements were his, and all of Apple's success were his?

Look, I agree that CEOs and "company leaders" should be compensated if they do their job by instilling a culture and vision of success, but $40mil?

Or let's put it this way: maybe the problem isn't CEO overcompensation (I lied, it is, but for argument's sake let's say it isn't), but rather average worker undercompensation.

Then again, we've had people on here argue that a family of four can easily survive on a $10/day grocery budget, while at the same time proclaiming that rich people are struggling.

I'll just leave it at that.

I didn't say that. I said if you compared Steve Jobs (individually) and compared him to any other one person directly, Steve would clearly stand out as being more important at the end of the day.

Do you even understand just how much profit Apple makes a year?

 

[Kosmo]

Uhuh. So Steve Jobs is singlehandedly responsible for everything, and all of Apple's ideas were his, and all of Apple's advancements were his, and all of Apple's success were his?

Look, I agree that CEOs and "company leaders" should be compensated if they do their job by instilling a culture and vision of success, but $40mil?

Or let's put it this way: maybe the problem isn't CEO overcompensation (I lied, it is, but for argument's sake let's say it isn't), but rather average worker undercompensation.

Then again, we've had people on here argue that a family of four can easily survive on a $10/day grocery budget, while at the same time proclaiming that rich people are struggling.

I'll just leave it at that.

You will understand Steve Jobs value the day he dies and the stock drops 10%, evaporating billions of dollars in the process.

 

[reilo]

I didn't say that. I said if you compared Steve Jobs (individually) and compared him to any other one person directly, Steve would clearly stand out as being more important at the end of the day.

Do you even understand just how much profit Apple makes a year?

Yes, but you're still attributing the success of an entire multi-billion dollar company to a single person by overcompensating him. It's the nature of the business, and credit should be allocated, but at a certain point the scales tip things one way too heavily. That's exactly what has happened in the past twenty years.

Btw, when the former CEO of GM was being paid 8 figures while running GM into the ground, was his salary justified?

You will understand Steve Jobs value the day he dies and the stock drops 10%, evaporating billions of dollars in the process.

That's a separate and idiotic microcosm of the public trading spectacle in this country, and not a sign of CEO value.

How much did Microsoft's stock drop when Gates retired?

 

[Cyan]

You will understand Steve Jobs value the day he dies and the stock drops 10%, evaporating billions of dollars in the process.

The market definitely thinks the top guy makes a difference. Look at GOOG since Schmidt stepped down/aside.

How much did Microsoft's stock drop when Gates retired?

Probably less than it should have...

 

[RustyNails]

Uhuh. So Steve Jobs is singlehandedly responsible for everything, and all of Apple's ideas were his, and all of Apple's advancements were his, and all of Apple's success were his?

As a side note, Steve Jobs stole the idea of a mouse from Xerox. Others say Xerox stole it from Stanford. Regardless, many of Steve Jobs' ideas aren't necessarily his own or apple's.

 

[mckmas8808]

Yes, but you're still attributing the success of an entire multi-billion dollar company to a single person by overcompensating him. It's the nature of the business, and credit should be allocated, but at a certain point the scales tip things one way too heavily. That's exactly what has happened in the past twenty years.

Btw, when the former CEO of GM was being paid 8 figures while running GM into the ground, was his salary justified?

Who's to say he's overcompensated? Now to get to the numbers Jobs really only gets a $1 salary per year, but he gets crazy amount of stock in Apple. So effectively he gets mad bank.

This article from 2009 explained some what how he gets paid. He held $500 million worth of stock. At the time Apple's stock was only worth $91 a share lol compared to today's value). Back then he owned 5.5 million shares of stock. Today if they gave him NO stock within the last 2 years those same shares would be worth $1.7 Billion.

So that'll be what $600 million per year increase, while that the same time being the leader of the company that created the ipad and iphone4 since 2009. And he helped drive their stock price from $91 to $320+. It's some damn good work. Would you want him to only get $2 million a year?

Read here

As a side note, Steve Jobs stole the idea of a mouse from Xerox. Others say Xerox stole it from Stanford. Regardless, many of Steve Jobs' ideas aren't necessarily his own or apple's.

That doesn't matter. It matters that he had them implemented and it worked BIG time.

 

[reilo]

Who's to say he's overcompensated? Now to get to the numbers Jobs really only gets a $1 salary per year, but he gets crazy amount of stock in Apple. So effectively he gets mad bank.

This article from 2009 explained some what how he gets paid. He held $500 million worth of stock. At the time Apple's stock was only worth $91 a share lol compared to today's value). Back then he owned 5.5 million shares of stock. Today if they gave him NO stock within the last 2 years those same shares would be worth $1.7 Billion.

So that'll be what $600 million per year increase, while that the same time being the leader of the company that created the ipad and iphone4 since 2009. And he helped drive their stock price from $91 to $320+. It's some damn good work. Would you want him to only get $2 million a year?

Read here

Please dude. He did that so he can avoid paying a ton of taxes and instead gets away with a 15% flat capital gains tax. It's a gamble he took and won, and it has nothing to do with the kindness of his heart.

Calculate out what the average worker gets paid in comparison to Jobs, and I'll give you a number of how much he's overcompensated for.

 

[Cyan]

Today if they gave him NO stock within the last 2 years those same shares would be worth $1.7 Billion.

Wow! So he's now slightly wealthier than Al Gore.

 

[Kosmo]

Please dude. He did that so he can avoid paying a ton of taxes and instead gets away with a 15% flat capital gains tax. It's a gamble he took and won, and it has nothing to do with the kindness of his heart.

Calculate out what the average worker gets paid in comparison to Jobs, and I'll give you a number of how much he's overcompensated for.

The average Apple software engineer probably makes about 80,000X what Jobs makes.

I find it hard to believe you can, on one hand argue that CEO's who take massive salaries and run their companies into the ground are shameless (they are) and at the same time knock Jobs, who has tied his value to that of the stock, which is certainly not rocking because he's doing shit to meet a quarterly number so he can cash out.

 

[reilo]

The average Apple software engineer probably makes about 80,000X what Jobs makes.

I find it hard to believe you can, on one hand argue that CEO's who take massive salaries and run their companies into the ground are shameless (they are) and at the same time knock Jobs, who has tied his value to that of the stock, which is certainly not rocking because he's doing shit to meet a quarterly number so he can cash out.

Considering I've taken a "all CEOs are grossly overpaid compared to the average worker" stance, how is that so hard to believe? Is it because I'm consistent in my opinions?

 

[mckmas8808]

Please dude. He did that so he can avoid paying a ton of taxes and instead gets away with a 15% flat capital gains tax. It's a gamble he took and won, and it has nothing to do with the kindness of his heart.

Calculate out what the average worker gets paid in comparison to Jobs, and I'll give you a number of how much he's overcompensated for.

Oh I know he didn't do it to be kind. I just wanted to throw that out there. But how can you honestly sit here and say Steve Jobs is overcompensated? That I don't understand.

Most large bank CEOs? Yeah! But Jobs? No way.

Considering I've taken a "all CEOs are grossly overpaid compared to the average worker" stance, how is that so hard to believe? Is it because I'm consistent in my opinions?

I'm sorry but if that's your opinion, then your opinion sucks.

 

[Jackson50]

The DADT repeal process is progressing quickly. Regardless, it is not progressing quickly enough. Unfortunate.

Pentagon Confirms New DADT Discharges
By Andrew Harmon

Posted on Advocate.com June 27, 2011 03:30:00 PM ET

The Pentagon confirmed Monday that more service members have been discharged under “don’t ask, don’t tell” pending certification of the policy’s repeal, with one individual’s discharge approved as recently as Thursday.

A total of four airmen have been discharged under the policy in the last several weeks, Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez confirmed Monday.

One of those individuals is Airman First Class Albert Pisani, who spoke to The Advocate earlier this month of his voluntary separation under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which defense officials approved on April 29.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_...Round_of_Discharges_Under_Dont_Ask_Dont_Tell/

The arrest warrant is issued not because there's evidence of genocide, but because there has been "reasonable grounds to believe" that Gaddafi, his son and his intelligence minister carried out crimes against humanity. Whether they actually did or not will be found out in the international criminal court, if they is arrested. This is based on preliminary hearings and findings carried out by ICC.

Pretty sure they are significant. He's not a tin pot dictator with no reputation. He actually has a pretty ruthless reputation of silencing dissidents. He ordered the massacre of 1,200 political prisoners. Google 1996 Gaddafi Prison Massacre. The arrest warrant issued isn't related to that, but to indscriminate shelling of peaceful protesters between February 17th and mid March. The point is that his threats are pretty solid and there's a pretty good chance that he will carry out his agenda when dissidents are involved.

Precisely. Thus, presenting genocide and similar allusions as justification were gross exaggerations.

They were hyperbolic pronouncements that were contradicted by other statements. He has a penchant for dubious rhetoric.

 

[empty vessel]

Well to be fair that's nothing wrong with cutting some spending. Obviously we have to do some spending cuts along with raising some taxes. We can't do one without the other no?

There's plenty wrong with cutting spending when the cuts in spending hurt people. What is with this equivalence you're trying to enforce? There is no law of physics that says when you raise taxes you have to cut spending. These are choices that humans make based on priorities.

They have ALOT more responsibility. That's the point. And it's a valid point.

No they don't. Their responsibility is almost nil. If the company's stock rises, they make millions, and if it falls they make millions. There probably isn't a person in the world--except perhaps the homeless--who has less responsibility than a business executive in the US. At least if the word responsibility has any meaning at all.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

As abhorrent and condemnable as Qaddafi's actions are, they do not approach the crime of genocide. And the specific charges reflect that. Genocide and similar allusions were presented to justify the intervention. Again, those charges were grossly exaggerated.They qualify as insurgents. I am not taking his word. I am simply noting that Qaddafi is prone to hyperbole and bombast. And he often contradicts himself. I do not think his threats were as significant as they were portrayed.
.

I wasn't meaning to imply genocide as much as other serious crimes that are more than mere hyperbole, pretty much along the lines of what Rusty posted.

 

[Kosmo]

There's plenty wrong with cutting spending when the cuts in spending hurt people. What is with this equivalence you're trying to enforce? There is no law of physics that says when you raise taxes you have to cut spending. These are choices that humans make based on priorities.



No they don't. Their responsibility is almost nil. If the company's stock rises, they make millions, and if it falls they make millions. There probably isn't a person in the world--except perhaps the homeless--who has less responsibility than a business executive in the US. At least if the word responsibility has any meaning at all.

Wow. You seriously have a fucked up perspective.

 

[PantherLotus]

You will understand Steve Jobs value the day he dies and the stock drops 10%, evaporating billions of dollars in the process.

This is a marketing problem Kosmo, and any MBA student with a introductory course in marketing over the past 15 years would know that. (cult marketing; see: Apple, WWE, Linux, etc.)

I also like the idea of evaporating dollars.

 

[PantherLotus]

No they don't. Their responsibility is almost nil. If the company's stock rises, they make millions, and if it falls they make millions. There probably isn't a person in the world--except perhaps the homeless--who has less responsibility than a business executive in the US. At least if the word responsibility has any meaning at all.

I made some poorly-judged personal comments about Kosmo earlier, so I'll try to keep my comments about the type of ignorance required to make this type of statement a little more civil:

You've clearly had absolutely zero leadership experience if you really believe this. I know you're being hyperbolic, but this is just silliness said in the heat of the moment. You can't possibly mean this.

 

[BigPickZel]

No they don't. Their responsibility is almost nil. If the company's stock rises, they make millions, and if it falls they make millions. There probably isn't a person in the world--except perhaps the homeless--who has less responsibility than a business executive in the US. At least if the word responsibility has any meaning at all.

lol smrt

 

[Oblivion]

Nope, not the any large degree. That does note mean I'm into wealth redistribution either.

Wrong. You're definitely into wealth redistribution, but just in the upwards direction.

But really, 'redistribution of wealth' is one of those fairly meaningless phrases. Any person advocating for ANY tax policy is by default FOR redistribution of wealth. The only question is, in what direction?

 

[PantherLotus]

If a purchase was made (voluntarily or otherwise), wealth was redistributed. Let's move on.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Business executives ARE raping us!!! OMG

 

[PantherLotus]

emphasis was on the wrong word, TA.

 

[Skiptastic]

Please dude. He did that so he can avoid paying a ton of taxes and instead gets away with a 15% flat capital gains tax. It's a gamble he took and won, and it has nothing to do with the kindness of his heart.

Like I said, don't raise taxes, just make all gains income and tax it as such. Boom, no tax (rate) increases and revenue increases big time.

Also, from a Sarbanes Oxley perspective, I'd be much more fucking worried if I were a CEO/CFO now than I was twenty years ago, and probably want to get compensated thusly.

 

[eznark]

I made some poorly-judged personal comments about Kosmo earlier, so I'll try to keep my comments about the type of ignorance required to make this type of statement a little more civil:

You've clearly had absolutely zero leadership experience if you really believe this. I know you're being hyperbolic, but this is just silliness said in the heat of the moment. You can't possibly mean this.

I think he confused "responsibility" with "accountability?"

I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt here. Stop letting your intern post on GAF, ev.

 

[PantherLotus]

Oh you haven't heard? SOX regulations are keeping America from being bountiful.

 

[Skiptastic]

Oh you haven't heard? SOX regulations are keeping America from being bountiful.

Given that my job exists solely because of SOX, it sure as shit is keeping me bountiful!

 

[Vanillalite]

The Impacts of the Affordable Care Act: How Reasonable Are the Projections? - By Jonathan Gruber (from the MIT Department of Economics)

The Incidental Economist Article: A summary of the Massachusetts health reform experience


A summary of the Massachusetts health reform experience
June 27, 2011 at 6:00 am Austin Frakt

Via NBER, Jon Gruber has published a paper today that summarizes the Massachusetts experience under health reform and includes projections for the ACA. Let’s start with the former. I may come back to the ACA projections later.

Gruber describes eleven results from the Massachusetts health reform law, all supported with citations and evidence. His conclusions:

1. There has been a dramatic expansion of health insurance, reducing the uninsurance rate by 60-70%.
2. No change in wait times for general and internal medicine practitioners have been observed.
3. The share of the population with a usual source of care, receiving preventative care, and receiving dental care all rose.
4. The rate of utilization of emergency care fell modestly.
5. There has been a 40% decline in uncompensated care.
6. The proportion of the population with employer-sponsored health insurance increased by 0.6%.
7. The rate of employer offers of coverage grew from 70% to 76%.
8. Mandate compliance has been very high: 98% compliance in reporting via tax filings of obtaining coverage or paying penalties.
9. The administrative costs of health reform have been low. Overall implementation costs have been close to expectations.
10. Premiums have fallen dramatically in the non-group market.
11. Though group premiums have risen, they have not increased faster than one would expect from increases in other states in the region.​

 

[empty vessel]

I made some poorly-judged personal comments about Kosmo earlier, so I'll try to keep my comments about the type of ignorance required to make this type of statement a little more civil:

You've clearly had absolutely zero leadership experience if you really believe this. I know you're being hyperbolic, but this is just silliness said in the heat of the moment. You can't possibly mean this.

I would be interested in hearing an exposition of the responsibility that business executives assume in the modern American economy.

I think he confused "responsibility" with "accountability?"

I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt here. Stop letting your intern post on GAF, ev.

Neither exist, as far as I can tell. When your life is guaranteed regardless of what you do, i.e., whether you succeed or fail, to what and to whom are you responsible? I mean, you've got to make sure you don't land yourself in jail by committing a crime that is likely to be prosecuted, but what else? To whom do you owe responsibilities that matter in any meaningful sense when you will be paid multiple millions of dollars regardless of any future occurrence?

 

[Cyan]

Please dude. He did that so he can avoid paying a ton of taxes and instead gets away with a 15% flat capital gains tax. It's a gamble he took and won, and it has nothing to do with the kindness of his heart.

It has nothing to do with taxes (the rate was higher at the time anyway). It's all about having a huge amount of faith in the company and his own leadership. Having his entire compensation be based on how well the company did was pretty ballsy.

 

[SRG01]

Not sure if it has been posted, but I saw this photo in B.O.'s Facebook page... and holy shit:

He definitely looks presidential.

 

[Chichikov]

It has nothing to do with taxes (the rate was higher at the time anyway). It's all about having a huge amount of faith in the company and his own leadership. Having his entire compensation be based on how well the company did was pretty ballsy.

Ballsy my ass, even in 1997, the dude must've (yeah, I didn't even bother to fact check) more money than he could have ever spend in his life.

Let's keep things in perspective here.

 

[Particle Physicist]

The Impacts of the Affordable Care Act: How Reasonable Are the Projections? - By Jonathan Gruber (from the MIT Department of Economics)

The Incidental Economist Article: A summary of the Massachusetts health reform experience


A summary of the Massachusetts health reform experience
June 27, 2011 at 6:00 am Austin Frakt

Via NBER, Jon Gruber has published a paper today that summarizes the Massachusetts experience under health reform and includes projections for the ACA. Let’s start with the former. I may come back to the ACA projections later.

Gruber describes eleven results from the Massachusetts health reform law, all supported with citations and evidence. His conclusions:

1. There has been a dramatic expansion of health insurance, reducing the uninsurance rate by 60-70%.
2. No change in wait times for general and internal medicine practitioners have been observed.
3. The share of the population with a usual source of care, receiving preventative care, and receiving dental care all rose.
4. The rate of utilization of emergency care fell modestly.
5. There has been a 40% decline in uncompensated care.
6. The proportion of the population with employer-sponsored health insurance increased by 0.6%.
7. The rate of employer offers of coverage grew from 70% to 76%.
8. Mandate compliance has been very high: 98% compliance in reporting via tax filings of obtaining coverage or paying penalties.
9. The administrative costs of health reform have been low. Overall implementation costs have been close to expectations.
10. Premiums have fallen dramatically in the non-group market.
11. Though group premiums have risen, they have not increased faster than one would expect from increases in other states in the region.​

Very interesting indeed. Too bad this will be ignored by most.

 

[besada]

Ballsy my ass, even in 1997, the dude must've (yeah, I didn't even bother to fact check) more money than he could have ever spend in his life.

Let's keep things in perspective here.

Not really relevant to the discussion at hand, but I ran across this while scoping Jobs on Wikipedia:

After resuming control of Apple in 1997, Jobs eliminated all corporate philanthropy programs.

Btw, by 1997, Pixar had already released Toy Story, and Apple had paid $429 million dollars for NeXT. Steve wasn't exactly poor when he decided to get paid a dollar. It was a stunt then, and it's still a stunt.

 

[Oblivion]

Wow, Obama caving on something yet again? No one could have predicted:

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...bush-tax-rates-in-debt-talks-?page=1#comments

lol @ all the people who thought he would let the Bush tax cuts expire after 2012.

 

[Averon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/us/28florida.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Sinking Poll Numbers May Put Florida in Play

Mr. Scott’s sinking popularity has Republican politicians and some strategists worried that his troubles could hamper their chances of tilting the state’s 29 electoral votes back into their column in 2012. President Obama won Florida by 2.8 percentage points in 2008.

Republican Senate and House candidates are also worrying, strategists say, that the governor’s rapidly declining popularity will affect their chances of winning election. And in Miami, two Republican candidates for mayor have distanced themselves from the governor.

I wonder how the unpopularity of these governors will play out in 2012. Notice how many of the GOP governors are in swing states will large EVs.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Wow, Obama caving on something yet again? No one could have predicted:

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...bush-tax-rates-in-debt-talks-?page=1#comments

lol @ all the people who thought he would let the Bush tax cuts expire after 2012.

Does he not know that this will bite him in the ass? FUCK

 

[zero_suit]

Wow, Obama caving on something yet again? No one could have predicted:

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...bush-tax-rates-in-debt-talks-?page=1#comments

lol @ all the people who thought he would let the Bush tax cuts expire after 2012.

Foolish move, Obama.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Wow, Obama caving on something yet again? No one could have predicted:

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...bush-tax-rates-in-debt-talks-?page=1#comments

lol @ all the people who thought he would let the Bush tax cuts expire after 2012.

To be fair, the Bush tax cuts were never on the table during this debt ceiling debate. That being said, anyone who thinks Obama will let them expire in 2012, assuming he's re-elected, is crazy. He doesn't have the fortitude

 

[WickedAngel]

You will understand Steve Jobs value the day he dies and the stock drops 10%, evaporating billions of dollars in the process.

The reactionary and panicky nature of the stock market is little indication of anything other than how imaginary the value of a stock truly is.

 

[Clevinger]

Wow, Obama caving on something yet again? No one could have predicted:

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...bush-tax-rates-in-debt-talks-?page=1#comments

I never heard anything about them related to the debt ceiling until this.

 

[Dude Abides]

Wow, Obama caving on something yet again? No one could have predicted:

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...bush-tax-rates-in-debt-talks-?page=1#comments

lol @ all the people who thought he would let the Bush tax cuts expire after 2012.

I think at this point we can safely conclude that what we call caving Obama calls long-term electoral strategy. He wants to look like Mr. Reasonable, and apparently thinks that conceding major issues without putting up much of a fight is the best way to achieve it. To call it "caving" assumes that Obama would prefer not to concede in the first place.

 

[Dude Abides]

Eznark, you might find the first major segment on this week's American Life interesting, about how the budget fight and ensuing recalls have affected Wisky's political culture. It's public socialist radio of course and thus has an obvious lib bias but they try to keep it relatively subdued.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/439/a-house-divided

 

[Measley]

Wow, Obama caving on something yet again? No one could have predicted:

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...bush-tax-rates-in-debt-talks-?page=1#comments

lol @ all the people who thought he would let the Bush tax cuts expire after 2012.

In 2012, he'll let them expire because by then, the election will be over.

 

[polyh3dron]

edit: moved post to the next page because no one reads the posts on the bottom of the previous page

 

[Oblivion]

Jon Stewart destroys Chris Wallace yet again:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

Glad he's being more aggressive recently.


Edit: Also too, Grover Norquist is (shocku) a tremendous scumbag. He quite literally implied that it's okay for grandma to die than to raise taxes on the top 2%. Holy shit.

 

[The Chosen One]

Gotta admit, Michele Bachmann looks pretty good for a 55 year-old woman. I thought she was in her mid 40s.

Btw, I'm just finding it hilarious that she's gradually becoming a legit presidential candidate. :lol The world is on its ass. At least Bachmann has pretty much made Sarah Palin irrelevant.