Support NeoGAF

[NYCmetsfan]

There is no law that demand that they do it, and by the way, this is a pretty recent idea that only start gaining prominence in the 80s, and is generally attributed to Jack Welch.

Wall Street was always idiotic, from the moment it was born it tried to find way to make money out of nothing.
The problem is that with the repeal of Glass Steagall we gave that assholes too much money and too much power.

I edited to show I'm aware its not a real law. I just always see mentioned even by smart people. Its annoying. I guess that's wall street the finance industry but corporations haven't always been run that way. Places like IBM, Ford in the past even today Google see their responsibility as going beyond just 'MOAR MONEY'. Ford specifically got sued in that case because the Dodge brothers got pissed Ford wasn't giving them the money and wanted to help his employees and more people afford his product.

 

[reggieandTFE]

Was watching the Presidents special on History channel. Quick thoughts. I know the 1% vs the 99% is a big thing right now. The stagnation of wages, corporations and rich people getting rich and poor people staying where they are. But...it looks like that's how America was in it's entire history. During the reconstruction, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller and JP Morgan's worth was anywhere between 200 to 300 billion USD in today's money. They created trusts worth in hundreds of billions of US dollars. The railroad meant life or death for US towns. No competition for the small guys at all. Richest guy right now is Bill Gates with $60b net worth. The divide between rich and poor during the gilded age (railroad mania) was so huge, and so massive, that the divide we see right now pales in comparison. A series of ineffective Presidents from Grant to Harrison made sure that the big business was running the show, courtesy of the bought and paid Congress. Theodore Roosevelt has to be my favorite President in US history. He did not put en end to the injustice per se, but he did put a big fucking dent to it. 1000+ executive orders (preserving Grand Canyon from commercialism, preserving forests and other national parks we cherish today), lawsuits against trust fund corporators, anti-competitive acts and railroad regulations, constitutional amendment to establish the income tax, establishment of federal reserve, the list goes on and on. The man was an unstoppable force.

Inequality was incredibly then, but one of the big differences is that most of the robber barons at least created or sold something tangible. Most of the financier parasites that have ridden to the top create no societal utility with their trades and cdos

 

[RustyNails]

Inequality was incredibly then, but one of the big differences is that most of the robber barons at least created or sold something tangible. Most of the financier parasites that have ridden to the top create no societal utility with their trades and cdos

But they said the wealth would trickle down

 

[East Lake]

I edited to show I'm aware its not a real law. I just always see mentioned even by smart people. Its annoying. I guess that's wall street the finance industry but corporations haven't always been run that way. Places like IBM, Ford in the past even today Google see their responsibility as going beyond just 'MOAR MONEY'. Ford specifically got sued in that case because the Dodge brothers got pissed Ford wasn't giving them the money and wanted to help his employees and more people afford his product.

It kind of comes with being a publicly traded company. Investors want a return on their investment. Investments are loans and the company trades some of its control to the markets in exchange for easier debt access.

 

[Frank the Great]

Who made up the BS 'law' (that doesn't exists) that corporations by law have to maximize shareholder value above all other things? the only thing I can see is Doge vs Ford and The Business Judgement Rule which only really says they half to look out for the best interest of the business (AKA not kill it off) not continually lay off people to give more to the shareholders. Which can actually be counter productive to the corporation's interest rather than their own pocketbook and already rich people who are buying the stocks.

Its the entire reason wall st is so idiotic today.

The way I understand it, it isn't so much a law, but just the way the whole system has been designed. The shareholders elect the Board, the Board appoints the CEO. Shareholders base their voting decisions on who makes them the most money the fastest, therefore CEOs have every incentive to maximize short-term quarterly profits above all else. It's what they are hired to do. And if they do anything that can be seen as not in the best interest of the corporation--ie. not in the best interest of the shareholders--they can lose their jobs or even have to deal with lawsuits.

So there isn't a black-letter law requiring corporations to boost shareholder value, but it happens anyway because of shareholders' "investor culture" and its influence on corporate law. Importantly, states could easily, in their corporations statutes, require that corporations make decisions with the environment, the welfare of the employees, the public, etc. in mind. But they don't, largely because the legislatures are influenced by that very same "investor culture."

A lot of discourse in the left-wing is focused on the high salaries of CEOs and managers, but really, a lot of the underlying problems are rooted in the investor class and their selfish and unreasonable expectations.

 

[B-Dubs]

It kind of comes with being a publicly traded company. Investors want a return on their investment. Investments are loans and the company trades some of its control to the markets in exchange for easier debt access.

Yes but that's a problem when it puts the return ahead of the well-being of the company. Something that's going to give investors a good return this quarter isn't necessarily something that will be good for the company in the long term and we should want these CEOs to think long term.

 

[Gallbaro]

Thanks Obama!

"Reporters Without Borders puts out their Press Freedom Index every year, and the 2014 ranking came out today. It was not a good showing for the USA. Specifically, the U.S. registered one of the steepest falls of all nations, down 13 slots to the #46 position, just above Haiti and just below Romania."

https://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php

 

[East Lake]

Yes but that's a problem when it puts the return ahead of the well-being of the company. Something that's going to give investors a good return this quarter isn't necessarily something that will be good for the company in the long term and we should want these CEOs to think long term.

While investors could gut the company in search for profit the company could also gut investors by not properly allocating their income. If you take something like dividend policy a better quarterly report generally means higher market capitalization (more debt access). If you have two companies with the same balance sheet and the same income and one decides to pay a higher dividend, the one that pays the better dividend is usually going to trade at a higher price. So investors get their money and the company gets a higher market cap for its effort. What utility you get out of withholding earnings matters. A CEO could take that money and hold it for his employees, or keep it for a slowdown in business, or spend it on other parts of the business but it might not keep the stock price going up like a high dividend might.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It kind of comes with being a publicly traded company. Investors want a return on their investment. Investments are loans and the company trades some of its control to the markets in exchange for easier debt access.

You can get a return on an investment without it always being the choice to give the money back to shareholders rather than giving raises to employees, reinvesting in new plants, etc

A lot of discourse in the left-wing is focused on the high salaries of CEOs and managers, but really, a lot of the underlying problems are rooted in the investor class and their selfish and unreasonable expectations.

Don't disagree

 

[empty vessel]

Wall Street was always idiotic, from the moment it was born it tried to find way to make money out of nothing.
The problem is that with the repeal of Glass Steagall we gave that assholes too much money and too much power.

Not just Glass Steagall but all regulation. There is an academic paper that I have linked to before which shows a close correlation between income inequality and financial deregulation/lower relative financial wages. The graphs of the amount of financial deregulation over time and financial wages relative to other wages over time and has the same U-shape that the graph of income inequality over time has:

And another showing education and wages with the same shape:

Reference the graphs of income inequality posted above.

The paper observes:

First, the relative skill intensity and relative wages of the financial sector exhibit a U-shaped pattern from 1909 to 2006. From 1909 to 1933 the financial sector was a high skill, high wage industry. A dramatic shift occurred during the 1930s: the financial sector rapidly lost its high human capital and its wage premium relative to the rest of the private sector. The decline continued at a more moderate pace from 1950 to 1980. By that time, wages in the financial sector were similar, on average, to wages in the rest of the economy. From 1980 onward, another dramatic shift occurred. The financial sector became once again a high skill, high wage industry. Strikingly, by the end of the sample relative wages and relative education levels went back almost exactly to their pre-1930s levels.

Using micro data on occupations, we create indices to measure the complexity of the tasks performed by the financial industry. Using this index, we document a similar U-shaped pattern over the past century: financial jobs were relatively more complex and non-routine than non-financial jobs before 1930 and after 1980, but not in the middle of the sample.​

So, what we see is that during the era of the Great Compression (when the bottom 20% was having faster income growth than the top 1%), the average financial industry paycheck was about the median income. During that era (1940s-1960s), working in finance meant doing simple things and making 50k per year. Then we unleashed the assholes beginning in the 1970s in response to unprecedented business political organizing. I would argue that the "complexity" involved in finance is basically just creative psychopaths inventing complex criminal schemes. Finance is ridiculously simple, and that's how we kept it during the US's most prosperous economic era in its history. In short, keeping the criminals out of finance by keeping it regulated is critical.

 

[Ether_Snake]

The thing with deregulation is that some believe that ultimately even if it creates bubble-driven economic growth, they'll say that you get more growth even when taking the clean-up into account than if you had left regulations in place.

Basically deregulation is associated with innovation potential, which means there is potential for non-destruction innovation to occur. Then add to this global competition and the result is: what are you gonna do? If you don't, someone else will.

But of course the reason this is supported is because people making the decisions in Washington either don't understand the issues and only understand coloring-book-level discourse, or because of lobbyists. Probably the later as a result of the former.

 

[East Lake]

You can get a return on an investment without it always being the choice to give the money back to shareholders rather than giving raises to employees, reinvesting in new plants, etc

All I'm really trying to say is that the desire for a investor to get a return is not necessarily about the expense of the worker. It might be but it could be for other reasons. Management might not raise wages even if they don't give their excess earnings to the investor. They could withhold dividends and not end up being able to pay a dividend at all in a business slowdown, they might not aggressively expand with their income the way the could have with a higher market cap. In those situations both the business and the investors lose, the investor money and the business in stock price, where a short term thinking payment may have actually boosted them in the long run.

 

[Diablos]

Who are you and what did you do to Diablos

Hahaha. Thanks for the warm reaction all of you.

If you want to complain about Obama's leadership at times that is totally valid. But what I have a problem with is, as I previously said, posts that act like we are in an alternate universe where Romney won. Push that whining aside. He got re-elected so you shouldn't be feeling too guilty or disappointed about what he did in his first four years. You certainly shouldn't be writing your post like he lost and we are dealing with the alternative. He's not perfect, no President is.

The broader concerns extend to the DEMOCRATIC PARTY and where they go from here regarding 2014 elections and what those implications mean for 2016... not Obama per se unless he REALLY fucks something up (unlikely, but nothing surprises me in US politics anymore).

Outside of that, yeah, it is embarrassing that he couldn't ensure that his signature accomplishment didn't have a smooth rollout, especially when you consider how hard he fought to have it passed -- and upheld (not only in the courts but by voters in 2012). Granted, it doesn't fall fully on him, but its de facto name is indeed "Obamacare" so he should have ensured enough oversight to make sure the website wasn't throwing up on itself indefinitely.

Things Obama will be remembered by:

-The Affordable Care Act
-Saving the economy from totally crashing and burning -- not only when he hit the ground running in 2009 but also when the GOP held it hostage in 2011 and 2013 (to be continued?). Besides healthcare I'm really proud of him here, especially last year. He completely told the GOP to fuck off and look at how they completely rolled over this time. Yeah, that's my President.
-Getting bin Laden, ending Iraq war, winding down Afghanistan
-NSA (not that this is something to brag about)
-Arab Spring (not that this is an 'accomplishment')
-Sticking it to the Bush tax cuts
-Repeal of DADT, gay marriage finally starting to become acceptable nationwide (and though the latter is a state-by-state thing primarily, people who aren't politically savvy will associate him with it anyway)
-To a much lesser extent, like gay marriage, legalization of marijuana.

Lots of good things and a couple REALLY big good things, and sadly some bad things... like every Presidency.

Obama is bound by 'big' things it seems, both good and bad, whether intentional or not. I think it is partially his leadership style and partially good luck (or bad, depending on the subject).

 

[Sibylus]

Sunny realism Diablos unnerves me.

Spoiler

#change

 

[Armoured Priest]

I think if the Dems hold the Senate, we'll be relatively good for a bit in terms of brinksmanship on the things like the debt-ceiling. The bluff was called, and now (in spite of Cruz continuing to be a troll), the most recent vote on raising the debt-ceiling turned into a non-issue. If Dems make headway, so much the better. If the Republicans take the senate, though...Obama's last 2 years could get messy. Might pave the way for another Dem sweep in 2016, though.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I think if the Dems hold the Senate, we'll be relatively good for a bit in terms of brinksmanship on the things like the debt-ceiling. The bluff was called, and now (in spite of Cruz continuing to be a troll), the most recent vote on raising the debt-ceiling turned into a non-issue. If Dems make headway, so much the better. If the Republicans take the senate, though...Obama's last 2 years could get messy. Might pave the way for another Dem sweep in 2016, though.

If the GOP takes the Senate then fuck this country so hard.

 

[speculawyer]

I think if the Dems hold the Senate, we'll be relatively good for a bit in terms of brinksmanship on the things like the debt-ceiling. The bluff was called, and now (in spite of Cruz continuing to be a troll), the most recent vote on raising the debt-ceiling turned into a non-issue. If Dems make headway, so much the better. If the Republicans take the senate, though...Obama's last 2 years could get messy. Might pave the way for another Dem sweep in 2016, though.

You know . . . it might be good if the GOP were to get the Senate. The might become emboldened to start proposing the same old stupid crap. A bunch of abortion bills, anti-gay marriage stuff, etc. And then yeah, perhaps that could cause a wave in 2016.

With Obama's Veto, they won't be able to pass anything. And they will be unlikely to ever get the 2/3s required to pass things over the Veto (unless it is sane stuff).

 

[B-Dubs]

You know . . . it might be good if the GOP were to get the Senate. The might become emboldened to start proposing the same old stupid crap. A bunch of abortion bills, anti-gay marriage stuff, etc. And then yeah, perhaps that could cause a wave in 2016.

With Obama's Veto, they won't be able to pass anything. And they will be unlikely to ever get the 2/3s required to pass things over the Veto (unless it is sane stuff).

So long as they only have a 1 vote majority I don't care. It's not like anything's getting done so long as they hold the House.

 

[thepotatoman]

You know . . . it might be good if the GOP were to get the Senate. The might become emboldened to start proposing the same old stupid crap. A bunch of abortion bills, anti-gay marriage stuff, etc. And then yeah, perhaps that could cause a wave in 2016.

With Obama's Veto, they won't be able to pass anything. And they will be unlikely to ever get the 2/3s required to pass things over the Veto (unless it is sane stuff).

I personally think we need Democrats in the Senate to keep Obama in line regarding things like military operations in Syria and the TPP. And honestly I don't know if I trust Obama to stand his ground against Republicans as much as I would like for the big budget battles.

Also, even if your plan works you'd still have to wait 6 years before you can replace them, which is likely too long a wait to be worth it. Any republican stupidity over the next 2 years would probably be forgotten by 2020.

I'm still hoping for a decent democrat hold to put them in a good position for a shot at another super majority in 2016.

 

[neurosisxeno]

The thing with deregulation is that some believe that ultimately even if it creates bubble-driven economic growth, they'll say that you get more growth even when taking the clean-up into account than if you had left regulations in place.

Basically deregulation is associated with innovation potential, which means there is potential for non-destruction innovation to occur. Then add to this global competition and the result is: what are you gonna do? If you don't, someone else will.

But of course the reason this is supported is because people making the decisions in Washington either don't understand the issues and only understand coloring-book-level discourse, or because of lobbyists. Probably the later as a result of the former.

Thay is somewhat indicative of another issue--people only see growth as health. An economy isn't healthy unless it's rapidly growing. I often hear references to Japan's "lost decade" as proof that slow economic growth can destabilize and destroy a nation. But here's the thing, during those slow years of growth, Japanese companies were posting massive gains, they had insanely low unemployment nationwide (~4.2%), and their economy has progressed better than most European nations over the same time frame.

Growth isn't always the best indicator of economic health or stability, but for some reason it's the only thing US Businessmen and Policy Makers care about.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnf...decades-is-the-worlds-most-absurd-media-myth/
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/o...ans-economic-success.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Wallstreet effect?

 

[Crisco]

Things Obama will be remembered by:

-The Affordable Care Act
-Saving the economy from totally crashing and burning -- not only when he hit the ground running in 2009 but also when the GOP held it hostage in 2011 and 2013 (to be continued?). Besides healthcare I'm really proud of him here, especially last year. He completely told the GOP to fuck off and look at how they completely rolled over this time. Yeah, that's my President.
-Getting bin Laden, ending Iraq war, winding down Afghanistan
-NSA (not that this is something to brag about)
-Arab Spring (not that this is an 'accomplishment')
-Sticking it to the Bush tax cuts
-Repeal of DADT, gay marriage finally starting to become acceptable nationwide (and though the latter is a state-by-state thing primarily, people who aren't politically savvy will associate him with it anyway)
-To a much lesser extent, like gay marriage, legalization of marijuana.

One thing he doesn't get a lot of credit for is his environmental record. More investment into green energy then ever before, tightening fuel standards, and a lessened dependence on foreign oil. Also saving the auto industry.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You know . . . it might be good if the GOP were to get the Senate. The might become emboldened to start proposing the same old stupid crap. A bunch of abortion bills, anti-gay marriage stuff, etc. And then yeah, perhaps that could cause a wave in 2016.

With Obama's Veto, they won't be able to pass anything. And they will be unlikely to ever get the 2/3s required to pass things over the Veto (unless it is sane stuff).

Also might get McConnell to get rid of the filibuster for the Dems.

 

[Aaron Strife]

If republicans did get the Senate in 2014, it's almost a guarantee Democrats would win it back in 2016. Sure, none of the new senators would be up until 2020, but don't forget there's a whole batch of crazy assholes who were elected in 2010. Pa, Il and Wi should be easy pickups for the Democrats and there are many other opportunities.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I don't see dems holding the senate. AR, NC, NH, and Alaska all look bad for dems. Louisiana, West Virginia, and Montana look shaky. Meanwhile there are no states where dems have a high chance of winning republican seats. Kentucky and Georgia look close but given the near complete death of democrats in the south since 2008, I doubt it.

Obamacare alone is going to flip NC and AR imo, and I'd imagine Scott Walker will carpet bag his way into the senate.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I was going to post this story about Pat McCrory getting an employee fired for badmouthing him, but this was too much

I don't see dems holding the senate. AR, NC, NH, and Alaska all look bad for dems. Louisiana, West Virginia, and Montana look shaky. Meanwhile there are no states where dems have a high chance of winning republican seats. Kentucky and Georgia look close but given the near complete death of democrats in the south since 2008, I doubt it.

Obamacare alone is going to flip NC and AR imo, and I'd imagine Scott Walker will carpet bag his way into the senate.

Literally a step away from calling Pennsylvania and Michigan for Romney in terms of political hackery, dude.

 

[Wilsongt]

At this point, does it matter if Dems lose the Senate? The house has effectively cockblocked the government from doing anything productive since 2010, anyway. Why would the next two years be any different?

 

[WayneMorse]

At this point, does it matter if Dems lose the Senate? The house has effectively cockblocked the government from doing anything productive since 2010, anyway. Why would the next two years be any different?

If there was a SCOTUS vacancy in 2015 or 2016 and the Senate is controlled by the GOP literally no one will be confirmed until 2017.

 

[Mike M]

At this point, does it matter if Dems lose the Senate? The house has effectively cockblocked the government from doing anything productive since 2010, anyway. Why would the next two years be any different?

Republicans would instantly nuke the filibuster and start passing all the batshittery they ever dreamed of, and Obama hasn't exactly inspired confidence that he would veto absolutely everything.

 

[Wilsongt]

You can't make this shit up anymore.

Congressman Slams Medicare Cuts He Voted For Three Times

The congressman tapped by Republican leaders to attack Obamacare's Medicare cuts in the party's weekly address voted for the same cuts three times.

Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL) slammed the reimbursement cuts to private insurers under Medicare Advantage as a "breach of faith" and deeply damaging to seniors. Rooney voted with most Republicans to make the cuts permanent in Rep. Paul Ryan's budgets in 2011, 2012 and 2013.

At this point, the Onion should just stick to Biden stories.

 

[WayneMorse]

If republicans did get the Senate in 2014, it's almost a guarantee Democrats would win it back in 2016. Sure, none of the new senators would be up until 2020, but don't forget there's a whole batch of crazy assholes who were elected in 2010. Pa, Il and Wi should be easy pickups for the Democrats and there are many other opportunities.

I think I've gone through this before but there really is a lot of possible Dem pickups in 2016.

Arizona if McCain retires or defeated in a primary battle.
Florida
Georgia possibly
Illinois
Indiana possibly
Iowa
Kentucky
Missouri
New Hampshire
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin

Of course they aren't gonna win all of those seats, but it's possible.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

If there was a SCOTUS vacancy in 2015 or 2016 and the Senate is controlled by the GOP literally no one will be confirmed until 2017.

Yeah there would be, but the pick would be a democratic Souter. It would move the court right.

 

[WayneMorse]

Yeah there would be, but the pick would be a democratic Souter. It would move the court right.

I really don't see anyone nominated by Obama getting a single GOP vote anymore, he could nominate Rehnquist's corpse and he'll still be called a liberal judge.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I really don't see anyone nominated by Obama getting a single GOP vote anymore, he could nominate Rehnquist's corpse and he'll still be called a liberal judge.

They wouldn't go 2 years that would seriously harm the party, worse than a Government shutdown. McCain, Graham, Hatch more who aren't up in 2016 will vote.
You're misunderstanding how the GOP works. They oppose Obama for electoral gain, most aren't true believers but see the Tea Party as a way to, for right now, strengthen themselves and isolate their only threat electorally for now, their right flank. Those (re)elected in 2014 and even those in 2012 especially in swingyer states know the crazy tea party strength will dissipate with time (see the debt ceiling, neutering of ted Cruz). They're better at understanding how to deploy votes to save the party but keep vulnerable members safe.

But they'll get him to nominate the worst choice possible.

 

[empty vessel]

I really don't see anyone nominated by Obama getting a single GOP vote anymore, he could nominate Rehnquist's corpse and he'll still be called a liberal judge.

By the standards of the new conervative radicalism, Rehnquist would be a liberal judge.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I think I've gone through this before but there really is a lot of possible Dem pickups in 2016.

Arizona if McCain retires or defeated in a primary battle.
Florida
Georgia possibly
Illinois
Indiana possibly
Iowa
Kentucky
Missouri
New Hampshire
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin

Of course they aren't gonna win all of those seats, but it's possible.

Of those I think I'd put Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin as possibilities.

MO is trending away from us as well as ND, Kentucky is competitive this year only because of McConnell, Indiana would require another candidate implosion. But of course that could be said for the other three states I just mentioned.

 

[speculawyer]

I personally think we need Democrats in the Senate to keep Obama in line regarding things like military operations in Syria and the TPP. And honestly I don't know if I trust Obama to stand his ground against Republicans as much as I would like for the big budget battles.

Very good point. Harry Reid has been the spine lately . . . Obama would probably roll over if not for Dirty Harry.

 

[Fenderputty]

Yeah I'm not totally comfortable with Obama being the only plug for the potential crazy that could hit his table with two houses controlled by the current GOP.

 

[Wilsongt]

Can't the House/Senate override his vetoes, anyway? been a looong time since I took a government class and read about checks and balances.

 

[Mike M]

Can't the House/Senate override his vetoes, anyway? been a looong time since I took a government class and read about checks and balances.

Only with a 2/3rds majority.

 

[Wilsongt]

Only with a 2/3rds majority.

Well... If PoliGAF is anything to go by right now, looks like all of his vetoes will be overridden anyway if the Dems lose the Senate lol.

 

[WayneMorse]

Rep. Rush Holt To Retire

Solid Dem district so not a prospective GOP pickup but I think Holt's absence will definitely be a loss to the House. It's a shame he didn't win the Senate primary.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

How did I miss this earlier in the month

\

"Duck Dynasty" star Willie Robertson made an impression during the State of the Union address -- not so much with the President, but with 2 waiters who are now THOUSANDS of dollars richer.

Radio host Sean Hannity posted the pics ... showing Willie and his wife at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse in D.C. -- hanging with Sean, GOP Senator Ted Cruz, former Congressman Newt Gingrich and conservative radio host Mark Levin.

The group closed the joint down -- the restaurant normally closes at 11 PM but the group stayed 'til 2 AM ... and they racked up a $5,000 bill.

Willie grabbed the tab and left a gratuity -- FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS! In case you have trouble computing .... a 100% tip.

Obama recently went to a local burger joint last month and left a 30% tip. Respectable but no contest.

See? Republicans don't have any problems redistributing wealth.

Mark Levin
Willie Robertson
Ted Cruz
Newt Gingrich
Sean Hannity
Michelle Bachman

Truly a meeting of the minds

 

[Averon]

How did I miss this earlier in the month

[/IMG]

Has there ever been a greater concentration of assholery captured in one picture before?

 

[smokeandmirrors]

But then they'd just bitch that Obama was using his tax payer funded salary to be extravagant or god help him if he gave a 100% tip to a black sever at a restaurant. ("He only did it because they're black!!!! Race war!!!)

 

[TacticalFox88]

Okay, a friend sent this to me. Is this for real? If it is, we are in big trouble.

I'm going to be a beach bum in HAWAII



THE WORK ETHIC WE INHERITED GROWING UP HAS FALLEN PREY TO THE 'WELFARE' SYSTEM

The Cato Institute released an updated 2013 study (original study in 1955) showing that welfare benefits pay more than a minimum wage job in 33 states and the District of Columbia. Even worse, welfare pays more than $15 per hour in 13 states. According to the study, welfare benefits have increased faster than minimum wage. It’s now more profitable to sit at home than it is to earn an honest day’s pay.
Hawaii is the biggest offender, where welfare recipients earn $29.13 per hour, or a $60,590 yearly salary, all for doing nothing.
Here is the list of the states where the pre-tax equivalent “salary” that welfare recipients receive is higher than having a job:
1. Hawaii: $60,590
2. District of Columbia: $50,820
3. Massachusetts: $50,540
4. Connecticut: $44,370
5. New York: $43,700
6. New Jersey: $43,450
7. Rhode Island: $43,330
8. Vermont: $42,350
9. New Hampshire: $39,750
10. Maryland: $38,160
11. California: $37,160
12. Oregon: $34,300
13. Wyoming: $32,620
14. Nevada: $29,820
15. Minnesota: $29,350
16. Delaware: $29,220
17. Washington: $28,840
18. North Dakota: $28,830
19. Pennsylvania: $28,670
20. New Mexico: $27,900
21. Montana: $26,930
22. South Dakota: $26,610
23. Kansas: $26,490
24. Michigan: $26,430
25. Alaska: $26,400
26. Ohio: $26,200
27. North Carolina: $25,760
28. West Virginia: $24,900
29. Alabama: $23,310
30. Indiana: $22,900
31. Missouri: $22,800
32. Oklahoma: $22,480
33. Louisiana: $22,250
34. South Carolina: $21,910

As a point of reference the average Middle Class annual income today is $50,000, down from $54,000 at the beginning of the Great Recession. Hawaii, DC, and Massachusetts pay more in welfare than the average working folks earn there. Is it any wonder that they stay home rather than look for a job. Time for a drastic change. America is virtually bankrupt.
Are we Nuts or what? How do we un-do this type of stupidity on the part of Americans?
This is crazy!
Salary of retired US Presidents
$180,000 FOR LIFE
Salary of House/Senate....$174,000 FOR LIFE
This is stupid.
Salary of Speaker of the House ....$223,500
FOR LIFE!
This is really stupid.
Salary of Majority/Minority Leader $193,400
FOR LIFE!
Ditto last line.
Average Salary of a teacher .. $40,065
Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN
AFGHANISTAN .. $38,000
Think about this.
Nancy Pelosi will retire as a Congress Person
at $174,000 Dollars a year for LIFE.
She has retired as SPEAKER at $223,500
a year.
PLUS she will receive an additional $193,400 a
year as Minority Leader.

That's
$803,700
Dollars a year for LIFE including FREE medical
which is not available to us ... the taxpayers
She is just one of the hundreds of Senators
and Congress that float in and out every
year!
I think we found where the cuts should be made!
If you agree ..... pass it on, I just did.

GAF....I think I just died a little on the inside.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Has there ever been a greater concentration of assholery

FREEDOM™

captured in one picture before?

FTFY

And I don't think so but this comes close

 

[The Technomancer]

GAF....I think I just died a little on the inside.

Point out how they're right that this is a problem, but not in the way they think. If welfare pays more then minimum wage that's a problem with minimum wage

 

[Fenderputty]

And I don't think so but this comes close

Herman Cain brings the evil level down just enough ...

 

[Wilsongt]

Herman Cain brings the evil level down just enough ...

And Huntsman.