POST SCRIPTS

I think what bothers the average worker making $50,000 per year when he hears about a CEO making $158 million is that, while he might be able to acknowledge that the CEO is a little smarter than he is, it is difficult to accept that the CEO is 3,160 times smarter or more talented or whatever. For that matter, we have seen many examples of overpaid CEO's raking in huge amounts of cash while their companies are losing billions of dollars, so it is difficult to see that they have any worthwhile talent at all. Finally, the stockholders, who nominally own the company, have virtually no role in deciding how much the CEO is paid, despite those phony proxy votes they send out to us. The CEO pay package is set by the other directors, who are also overpaid, marginally talented, elite guys in the in-group. It seems too much like an incestuous network of cronies taking advantage of the naive little people. Sounds a lot like the game politicians play.

I think I still have my Phil Gramm pin.

Dan I agree with you except for a couple of things:

I doubt if all of the other directors are "marginally talented, elite guys in the in-group," at least not more so than you might find in any other part of industry at any level.

People are people. Some are very hard working and industious, some do a good job but aren't very ambitious, others are kinda lazy and just get by. Some are lucky to be where they are, they caught all the breaks, and still others work their butts off and never seem to catch a break.

"seems too much like an incestuous network of cronies taking advantage of the naive little people."

You said "seems" and I agree that perceptions that tend to "run us" are not always accurate or worthy of the consideration we give them. LOL

Having said that, I would say most professions have a certain amount of incestuousness about them. A lawyer or doctor wouldn't ordinarily ask his mechanic for a job or vice versa.

The notion of CEO's "taking advantage" of "naive little people" is worth discussion.

This perception comes from a gross misunderstanding of how money works. The economy isn't a closed system. It isn't a pie to be divided and when one takes too big a piece others are left with a sliver. The percetion that it is fosters an extreme sense of unfairness, envy, or covetousness. This has been fueled by the left's war on corporations. Few seem to mind that sports figures are paid huge salaries or that certain movie stars are paid extravagant amounts for a single movie performance.

Income used to be a private concern. Personally I think it unwise for the wealthy to be overly conspicuous about it. I also think it unwise to reward employees excessively, but I wouldn't assume to know all of the reasons a company might have for doing so.

You're wrong, Tina. It is not just a perception. It is the truth. The little people in this game are the stockholders, who are nominally the owners of the company if it is a publicly traded corporation. I am one of the little people. I have owned various stocks over the years, and I have received in the mail those silly proxy votes, where you check a box to vote for one or more of the directors and CEO's. Or you don't check the box, which means you are withholding your vote, but you don't get to vote for someone else whose name is not on the ballot. It's all set up for you on a nice little card, but you are not really deciding. You are not choosing the CEO, and you are not setting the pay package. Yes, I do feel I am being taken advantage of.
The comparison to overpaid professional sports people is a false analogy, since sports teams are not publicly traded companies. I agree those people are grossly overcompensated too, but I don't feel that I own the companies.

If by "little people" you were referring to individual stock holders I will agree that one little vote doesn't hold any sway. I usually toss those proxy ballots out. Attempting to find out whether the person(s) I would choose is the best for the job would require more of me than I'm prepared to give. Knowing that, if I feel strongly that CEO pay is excessive I also probably have no business investing in that stock.

Investing can be risky for many reasons which is why the average person is probably better off finding a broker they trust and leaving those decisions to people that might know more about it.

Ultimately the point is that having government regulate what private business CEO pay should be would only be the beginning. Give them 20-40 years and they will not only be determining everyones pay but also what their jobs should be. Would you really want that? I prefer to keep the ability to choose: Don't like the excessive high pay of CEO's at company X? Don't buy the stock and don't buy the product. There are plenty of businesses to invest in and many of them are smaller very reliable companies.

You're right about the bad analogy but I wasn't really trying to make one. I was speaking (writing) about what "motivates" people to object to high remuneration in some cases and not in others...that was when I though by "little people" you meant the average Joe and not stockholders.

I agree with Dan on this one. I am one of the little people too and what I see going on with many corporate CEO's is nothing short of theft, it's unabashed looting at times ... yes, I believe they are ----that----grossly over compensated!

Japan, Europe, look wherever you want; they don't come close to the absurd salaries from our publically traded companies in the US.

It's a growing phenomena that has accompanied a growing drop in business ethics over the past 30 years. Too many times we discover the board of directors (so called watch dogs) are in bed with the CEO and his staff. We've even seen accounting firms in bed with the corp CEO's because of the money, they just vote themselves whatever they feel they can get away with without causing a revolt. Unfortunately too many stockholders have acclimated to the theivery and just accepted there isn't much they can do about it. If the company turns a profit they feel happy if it is reflected in their stock price, but this doesn't absolve the CEO of being greeding. The stockholder and the company could be much more financially sound if the bosses were not exploiting their postions so grossly. I have a whole different idea about proper compensation that is tied to corporate profit and it would lead to compesation about 1/5th of the average salary now and they would still be grossly overpaid by millions, but a lot of companies would be save because they are more solvent and stockholders would be more secure.

What gets me is these big bosses don't even have to worry about turning a profit!!! Heck...they make millions while we're losing millions, and if we finally get to fire one of the rascals, well, it's no big loss to them! Their going away package (golden parachute) is likely greater than the sum of money you and I couldn't earn in 50 lifetimes!

Where's the justice in that, who made those rules? No us little people...we're like fleas on the dog's back and we have trust our dog goes where we want!

Dare I say it...uh, Dan's right on the money? lol

Jack...glad to have you back with us online!

I knew this would be your take on it.

I maintain no one is twisting your arm to invest or remain invested in companies you think are paying the CEO too much or the board is bahaving badly. You do in fact have a responsibility, as do other stock holders, to vote with your feet by abstaining from buying the products or holding stock and by placing your money instead with companies you respect.

I'm about to post an article you might find interesting. It's about campaign financing, rich guys and a Supreme Court ruling that didn't get much play in the press.

It looks like I will be taking Tina's side again...lol.

You bought the stock with the understanding of how much "power" you would actually have when it comes to such decisions.

You continue to buy the stock, because it brings you a profit.

You don't have to be a flea, and you don't have to trust the dog. If you don't like the practices of a particular company, reinvest in one who's practices are more to your liking.

Now if this conversation is simply a way to vent frustration over certain CEO's getting more than their efforts might warrant, then, ok, I can see that.

But once again, if it is a call in any way, shape or form, for government involvement, I'm afraid I simply cant support that.

As far as "grossly overcompensated" sports stars. Again, they are paid in accordance with how badly a team wants to win a championship (i.e. more ticket sales, marketing sales etc.) How do you determine whether or not they are grossly over compensated?

It sounds like we are confusing "value" with scarcity.

Again, Im not trying to lecture here, but scarcity has far more to do with monetary compensation than the "value" of the job performed.

Water is the building block of life and can be purchased fairly cheaply. Diamonds are non-essential to life, yet if I were to attempt to give my wife a cup of water for our anniversary, I can tell you where she would put it.

Likewise, a baseball player is certainly not as "essential" to life as say a police officer or a nurse, or a teacher. But while there are far more people capable of filling the role of police officer, teacher or nurse, there are relatively few who can hit a Roger Clemens fast ball.

If tomorrow the circumstances changed, and we could all hit 101 mph fast ball, but few of us were able to read, shoot a gun, or put in an IV I guarantee you the prices for such abilities would adjust.

It is the same for CEO's. You are paying for the ability to run a large company. There simply isn't that big a pool to choose from.

Reality will tell if the trade off was worth it. ie. Darryl Strawberry's performance certainly wasn't worth what the Dodgers paid for it, so they traded him. But they took a reasonable gamble when first procuring his skills.

I don't see it as being any different in principle when a CEO is tempted to a company with a large severance package.

And quite frankly I hate the term the "little guy".

There is NOTHING inherently virtuous about being the "little guy"

Your are not justified simply because you are the "little guy"

And I'm tired of people using the term to try and pull on heart strings.

If the "little guy" burnt your home down he wouldn't be the "little guy" he would be the "arson".

So if the person is honest, hardworking, just, etc. then he/she is the "good guy".

All the "little guy" is, is a totem for the left. Essentially a poor person who always needs to be defended from the "big guy" who by contrast is rich and mean. Its intellectually dishonest.

And while I don't think Jack or Dan meant it the way I have described, I have simply become to accustomed to hearing it used in that context.

So please don't take that last part the wrong way guys, I have just become fed up with that colloquialism's use.

The problem with voting with your feet is like saying if you don't like how vehicle companies operate then don't drive a vehicle. I like to drive and I want to be able to gripe about my vehicle manufacturer too! : )

If we see a problem and we don't say anything, well, I think this is ducking our responsibility. We must address the problem, and it's a serious problem that is tearing at the heart of this country, but I'll get to that in just a moment. First let me say this...investors buy a stock based upon many things, the least of which is the salary of the CEO. That's just reality and even though ignorance is no excuse, I know people just don't pay as much attention here as they should.

Yes, shareholders are too blame...you're right Tina. But, one of the ways we get them organized is by griping and by talking about the problem of over compensation.

In order for this argument against runaway CEO salaries to make any sense at all you have to understand how these salaries have evolved. You have to look at the salary charts over decades and see the parity spread between blue collar workers and CEO compensation. You must look at the global market place and compare too; this what we call competitive pricing and competition is a good thing, right?

ONLY in the USA has CEO salary packages grown so exponentially and you need to ask why so we don't get beat out by more cost effective companies that are just as well managed, but are outside the USA...along with all the jobs those companies provide.

CEO salary increases have become a game of one upsmanship, not a product of.... actual need. Once we get past a few million a year how much do you really need to live a great life anyway? lol

I think a CEO uses the example of another CEO's compensation package to leap frog over him and so and so on, but there is no leap frogging in middle management and below, they are generally tied to a CPI formula and they are lucky to get that.

Here's the really big problem: Socialist love to point out the bad examples of greed in corporate America. Check out this following example taken from an America Socialist website and tell me a lot of heads wouldn't be nodding yes over this statement:

"Few things expose the real character of American society and politics more clearly than the extraordinary and ever-increasing level of inequality, the accumulation of vast, almost incomprehensible, sums of wealth in the hands of a relatively small group of people. The United States is a country in which the entire corporate and political structure is dominated by one overarching drive: the personal enrichment of a narrow oligarchy."

There is a certain amount of truth to the above statement and this is serious because we are moving towards populism to guide our government.
If that isn't reason enough to ask the hard questions about what we do and why we do it then I guess I don't know what is! Remember the old slogan, "Question authority!" That is pretty much all I am asking when it comes to CEO salaries for public companies.

The 2007 Mercer study brings us back to reality: "For CEOs of the top 50 companies analyzed, median total direct compensation for 2007 was just under $14 million, but this represented a stunning 15.8 percent reduction from the prior year. CEOs of large companies received median total direct compensation of about $9.4 million – essentially unchanged from the prior year. CEOs of mid-size companies analyzed by Mercer had median total direct compensation of $4.7 million, a modest reduction of 4.6 percent from the prior year. In the case of jumbo companies, the dive in total direct compensation was driven by a sharp decline in long-term incentive grant values, down 18.9%."

So the resistance to bigger salaries is there and it is working. But, we need to stay motivated and informed to keep up the trend, especially in the bad times where thrift can be the saving grace for jobs and for the economy as a whole.

But Jack I don't think my point was addressed.

And again, I don't have a problem with drawing attention to results that don't justify the salaries, I have a problem with people attempting to regulate the industry in order to "fix" a problem, which may or may not exist.

So is your solution private or public?

We re getting off track here. Forget about the "little guys" and Marxist notions of equality. My point was that we the stockholders are supposedly the bosses of the publicly traded companies. We literally own the companies. Yet we don't have control over these CEO's feathering each others' nests. Don't say we can just go buy a different stock. It would be the same thing wherever we turn. Most of the readers here have some kind of investments in mutual funds, 401k plans, or for that matter, pension funds that invest in companies. We may not even know which companies, let alone who the CEO's are. But even if we do, we have no control. Just try sending a letter to General Electric complaining about the CEO pay. As for Nick's comment about CEO's having special skills for which they deserve special compensation, the great majority of corporations have lost money in the past year. Some have lost millions, even billions, of dollars, often as a result of bad business decisions, and their stock (our stock) value has crumbled. Yet the CEO's do not get fired or lose pay. In fact, they continue to get the huge salaries and even get bonuses on top of that. We are talking only about publicly traded companies here, not football players. Tina brought that red herring to the table. Publicly traded companies are already under some government control. That is why insider trading, cooking the books, embezzling corporate funds, ponzi schemes, and many other activities are illegal, and we have seen CEO's go to prison for that. I am not suggesting that the government set the salaries of CEO's, only that they ensure that the stockholders have the power to decide.

Too many times we discover the board of directors (so called watch dogs) are in bed with the CEO and his staff. (and) ...it's a serious problem that is tearing at the heart of this country

Jack there are thousands of companies in America and you are judging them all pretty harshly. What evidence is there that this is true to such a degree that you would want the government to become the hammer? (I'm not saying we have to agree or like what some of them do)

I like to drive and I want to be able to gripe about my vehicle manufacturer too! : )

Now this I can support...complaining is not a problem uuntil it becomes overly tiresome...that's when you need to rely on humor...thanks!

You have to look at the salary charts over decades and see the parity spread between blue collar workers and CEO compensation.

The amount of money paid to workers is not (and should not be) a consideration when looking at CEO pay. The two have little to do with each other. CEo's are responsible for making sure the company makes more money.

Employees are compensated for what skills they offer. We've stepped over the line by making rules that treat all employees the same regardless of output or work ethic. It's a terrible way to go...inducing mediocrity and stifling desire. It's not fair to very talented hard workers who in some cases go for years without being rewarded for their efforts.
You must look at the global market place and compare too; this what we call competitive pricing and competition is a good thing, right?

The global market is young...give it a chance. Some of these high paid guys will find themselves trumped by CEO imports! (unless our government runs more companies out of America through excessive regs and taxes...LOL)

Once we get past a few million a year how much do you really need to live a great life anyway?

For those of us in the "have not" section of the millionaires club this is a hard reality...but I doubt if most of them ecven think in those terms when considering the job. I would bet it goes something like this...what would make it worth my while to move my family across the country, or to a foreign country? What would make it worth my while to be away from my family and put in all those extra hours? Am I certain that if I take this offer I can deliver the goods (am I worth it? You laugh but hey, these guys are people too)

Here's the really big problem: Socialist love to point out the bad examples of greed in corporate America. Check out this following example taken from an America Socialist website and tell me a lot of heads wouldn't be nodding yes over this statement: "Few things expose the real character of American society and politics more clearly than the extraordinary and ever-increasing level of inequality, the accumulation of vast, almost incomprehensible, sums of wealth in the hands of a relatively small group of people. The United States is a country in which the entire corporate and political structure is dominated by one overarching drive: the personal enrichment of a narrow oligarchy."

This is, of course, progressive BS. More Americans are making more money than ever before in this country. More Americans have made it into the middle class than ever before. More have moved on to become wealthy than ever before. Most Americans now own a piece of the wealth in America through their 401K's and other investments.

We answer them with facts that prove they are wrong. We answer them by countering with the greatest rip off for poor people of all: the GIANT Welfare state that has kept people dumb and stuck in the lower classes, and lousy neighborhoods for generations! Talk about no hope to better oneself. A few make it out but most do not!

We don't counter them by joining them, Jack.

CEO salaries are like a drop of water in a lake to the big companies Jack. You and I aren't used to thinking in terms of millions and billions of dollars as we pay our bills but accountants at big companies are. Imagine when they go to pay the bill each month for all employee salaries, taxes, healthcare, workers comp, toilet paper, coffee, and other employee related expenses...then you'll really be b b b blown away. But people don't usually consider those things that benefit employees, do they!

The biggest difference is RESPONSIBILITY. The CEO carries the entire place on his back. ALL jobs and the continued viability of the company sits on his shoulders. Most of us wouldn't want that and for some of us they could never pay s enough.

How people perceive this, and it is a perception, matters because it's due to lack of knowledge and experience about CEO responsibility, liberal bashing, and that BS notion that people should be compensated by some fairness scale.

***

Nick is absolutely right! I have a problem with people attempting to regulate the industry in order to "fix" a problem,...

This is why the left keeps hammering away about the haves and have nots. It's how they suck voters in...getting them all riled up...playing on their feelings of envy, greed, unfairness, & covetousness. They are pitting the poor against the wealthy in any way they can.

Alright Dan, then what is the solution?

And do you think it should be public or private.

You do have a recourse in the private sector. Not all companies deal in this manner, because if they did, they would all be out of business, unless of course they get government subsidization, which many of them do...again, (government intervention goes both ways) what would be your solution?

Mine is very simple, cut government regulation AND subsidization, and let companies succeed or fail on their own!

I'm starting to think that we are arguing in circles.

I think it might help, if we started with the problem...and then immediately following it we stated whether we thought a government or a private solution was required.

Because like I stated earlier, I am not arguing that there are CEO's that are compensated beyond their value. I am arguing, that if you try to regulate this through government rather than letting the market take care of such foolish decisions, you are asking for bigger problems.

...we the stockholders are supposedly the bosses of the publicly traded companies

Well not exactly. You have a small number of shares but your power is limited. Who do you suppose "owns" the majority shares in these companies? They are the ones with actual power. You and I have been given the opportunity to share in the venture but we have not been given keys to the executive washroom with our tiny little shares. Face it we are very tiny fish in someone else's pond. We can choose to play in a differnet pond but we really do not have control over what goes on in the pond...it's just the way it is. the great majority of corporations have lost money in the past year. Some have lost millions, even billions, of dollars, often as a result of bad business decisions, and their stock (our stock) value has crumbled. Yet the CEO's do not get fired or lose pay.

We would need to know a lot more than we do to determine why a company has lost money in any given year. Judging CEO's based on poor knowledge is rather like supporting the idea of lynchings. In some cases CEO's are fired, in others not. When they don't please remember that most employees also keep their jobs when companies have bad years (depending again on what is going on)

I am not suggesting that the government set the salaries of CEO's,

You may not be, and Jack may not be, but you can be sure that the socialists Jack quoted above are. In fact their ulimate desire is to nationalize at least some of the private sector. That's not my imagination talking, duly elected democrat congressmen have said exactly that. We posted it here. This is exactly the kind of public outrage they hope to foster to make their dreams come true.

A little perspective:

The corporations of America have been providing the people of this nation excellent goods and services, incredible improvements that have added greatly to the quality of our lives, and jobs with very good wages for generation. They have done this with only a few years of what we would call "tough times." It would behoove us to keep in mind that the people in China, Soviet Russia and other places around the globe have enbdured everything from starvation to breadlines IN MODERN TIMES. It is freedom and our support for and belief in private ownership that has made this possible. Let us not nibble away at these very important underlying principles.

We are blessed indeed to be living where choice and the efforts of our neighbors, both great and small, have given us so much. Where we are free to create our own "little piece" from that promise and we can go as far as our talents and ambition will take us. It matters not one wit to your bottom line what a CEO makes...not one.

Gratitude feels so much better than resentment. Don't let the progressive mantra steal and rob you of your joy!

First, about Gramm's run for the Presidency, the National Review says: "Oddly, Sen. Gramm's own race for the presidency, backed by National Review, was a ham-fisted disaster. Combining a mania for detail with an insular ignorance of grassroots sentiment, the Gramm for President effort foundered on its inability to win over the Reagan conservatives who were its natural constituents. The $23 million juggernaut drowned in a sea of consultants."

Just so we're clear about that.

CEO's set policy and eat out a lot. This is what they do, plain and simple. If they are good policy setters, they spend a lot of time consulting with all manner of people inside and outside (this is where the dining comes in) of their company and making investigations of their own. It is a highly responsible position, and they can be paid well for it.

But you know that thing about "power corrupting"? Well, it does. All too often the guys get much more into the dining, and not so much into the studious consulting, and lead their companies to ruin. I DO NOT believe that these guy should be riding off into the sunset with $93 million in their saddle bags. No.

Nick: "All the "little guy" is, is a totem for the left. Essentially a poor person who always needs to be defended from the "big guy" who by contrast is rich and mean. Its intellectually dishonest."

It is not. It is a generalization, even a stereotype, but there is nothing "dishonest" about it.

And we are right back were we started. CEO's can make as much money as the market will bear ... and then we will TAX THEM TO THE BONE!

HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!

National Review says: "Oddly, Sen. Gramm's own race for the presidency, backed by National Review, was a ham-fisted disaster.

And over a thousand light bulbs were failures before the one that worked. Reagan's first run failed also.

National Review is well known for integrity and expressing truths...better than excusing or covering for failures...a common democrat posture.

But you know that thing about "power corrupting"? Well, it does. All too often the guys get much more into the dining, and not so much into the studious consulting, and lead their companies to ruin. I DO NOT believe that these guy should be riding off into the sunset with $93 million in their saddle bags. No.

That would be "absolute power," Libby.

As I have said before CEO's are not any different than the rest of us...bad apples with lousy principles live among us in every walk of life. If they break laws they need to be dealt with through the legal system...otherwise, what they make is none of your or my business.

When you find yourself in the bosses chair at a high profile company you can decide what the CEO will make...okay?

CEO's can make as much money as the market will bear ... and then we will TAX THEM TO THE BONE! ** HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!

We already do...tax them enough and you'll be out of a job. Just ask all the Europeans who are lowering tax rates to spur their economies and create jobs. You and I Libby, do not have enough extra cash to fund start up companies, expansions, new product research, etc.

The government will take that money and use it to enlarge and maintain a poverty level existence. Too many of the recipients will inject it into their arms or buy cigarettes or booze..a few will actually sacrifice to better themselves. Before any dollars ever get to the needy, however at least 80 cents on the dollar will be used to administrate the "help"...nice plan...it's a "down a rat hole" failed policy and it's time the American people said no to it.

Oh, I forgot...Libby, nice homework on Phil Gramm.

Next time would you be willing to copy and paste the URL so our readers can see for themselves where you got the information. Just a request...and thanks.

Libby, the inference behind the "totem" is what I'm trying to destroy.

Liberals use the term "little guy" whenever they wish to assume their secular morale high ground, and it is dishonest.

Fleecing producers is exactly what you intend to do, for no greater or logical reason than that they produce.

P.S. never did get a straight answer out of you on the abortion question...why is that?

You then turn around and subsidize poverty.

All the while you get more poverty and less wealth...why do you suppose that is Libby?

Subsidize poverty, indeed. I want to publicly fund, to the hilt, education and healthcare. This will not promote poverty ... just the opposite.

You guys will rail over the needle exchange programs (they being so very racy), but they are a fiscal drop in the bucket. It's the healthcare and education that cost the big bucks: that's what bolsters and expands the middle class in this country.

And I see no reason why any CEO who has succumb to excessive dining (i.e., incestuous cronyism), and ruined his company, shouldn't be obliged to contribute a substantial portion of his "golden parachute" to the effort.

I want to publicly fund, to the hilt, education and healthcare. This will not promote poverty ... just the opposite.

We've been doing it this way for over fifty years...where's the beef?

It's the healthcare and education that cost the big bucks: that's what bolsters and expands the middle class in this country.

Most of the bucks for these go to bloated and unnecessary administrative work. Government run education has been failing our kids, healthcare is a mess and once again...You want to do more of the same...the beef?

I see no reason why any CEO who has succumb to excessive dining (i.e., incestuous cronyism), and ruined his company, shouldn't be obliged to contribute a substantial portion of his "golden parachute" to the effort.

"The effort"...perfect. Collective thought at it's finest!

a. It's a free country.
b. He is already paying a big chunk in taxes.
c. You have no idea what he might be doing in charitable work (work that actually does people some good). Whatever he does you can bet it far exceeds what you or I could give...and still it's not enough for you.
d. People also have a right in this country to be Scrooge if they prefer to do that. Just because you "see no reason" doesn't mean he is not free to spend HIS MONEY as he sees fit.
e. Failure (or temorary losses) in a company is a matter between theCEO and his board. It is not your business.

Please don't use the word "contribute" when what you really want is to TAKE it from them.

It really is frustrating...because we were having a productive conversation...and now, we have to stop...and explain basic economic principles to Libby...AGAIN!

But to what end? She will simply ignore the points brought up, as she does IN EVERY post; and will show up further down the line with the SAME tired points.

But here we go again...

First of all Libby, who do you think you are fooling, you dont want to just tax "...any CEO who has succumb to excessive dining (i.e., incestuous cronyism), and ruined his company...".

You would tax to DEATH the same guy / gal who made their company billions of dollars resulting in thousands of new jobs and higher salaries for all their employees.

You don't distinguish between the two and you never have in ANY of your posts. You are a "Haves and have Not's" progressive who believes that if someone is rich they got that way "on the backs of labor" and therefore "owe" society.

You never seem to make the connection that the laborers make a living "off the mind of the employer".

secondly, your solution to pour more money into GOVERNMENT health care and education has done a real bang up job since the 60's.

My analysis of subsidizing poverty was RIGHT ON. That is what you are doing Libby when you take money from the producing sector of the economy and give it to the non-producing sector.

Generally speaking if you pay someone for nothing...NOTHING IS WHAT THEY WILL PRODUCE.

But what you do is even worse, you not only force other people to give THEIR money away, you then convince the person receiving the money that they are entitled to it.

Its quite the system you have worked out. You force other people to give the money THEY HAVE EARNED away, and at the same tie call YOURSELF generous, and them greedy.

You want to "publicly fund to the hilt" education and health care...but that is only partly true. You also want to "publiclly run" health care and education. You want control, but you want ME to pay for your control.

Funny, my system would allow you to control YOUR money, and would allow me to control MY money, but that isn't good enough for you. You have to be in control of it all. maybe it is because you have realized that your system would go BANKRUPT if it wasn't for the people who agree with me "publicly financing" it!

Your system DOESN'T work, because it is based on COERCION, my system does work because it is based on COOPERATION.

So now that we have explained this AGAIN, can those of us, who don't embrace Mussolini's economic policy, continue our conversation.