Originally posted by skythewood:Ya, Ron Paul is the only one that is correct, the whole US senate is wrong. You want change, change from democracy to communist also change, Maybe your ideal change is Ron Paul be the dictator of America.Think.
If I point out the change, than you will eat your words? Yawn... The guy got 4 years to do it, and you dismiss him in the 2nd week.
You want to dispute the change of
1) Closing of Gitmo
upcoming change of
2) Pull out from Iraq
you can go ahead and keep dreaming.
I'm waiting.
Why can't I dispute those two things which you mentioned if there is reason to do so? Because he supposedly represents 'hope' and 'change', being an African-American and all, no one can question his policies as being that of the establishment's?
Why not just think for once before unleashing your caustic comments? Unlike most of the bought out Congress, who only pay lip service to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America", including the Supreme Court and the Executive Branch throughout these years, Ron Paul has consistently authored legislation to uphold the constitutional rights of Americans (And please dont say the PATRIOT Act is an example of one). For instance, his "American Freedom Agenda Act" aimed to nullify Bush's unconstitutional Military Commissions Act of 2006, which abolished habeas corpus for those deemed to be "unlawful enemy combatants" (a term which the president and his attorney general could bestow on anyone they wanted).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul
You want to talk about change? There is a need for America to change from her corporate-fascist ways to the Constitutional Republic it was founded as. If Obama really represented change, then why the fascist support for retroactive immunity for telecom companies spying on ordinary Americans? Why isn't anything done about the Police State transformation of America, where the US Army is beginning to patrol the streets in violation of Possi Comitatus?
Lord Acton said that "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". After all the power that the Executive Branch has accumulated throughout the phoney Cold War and the War of Terror, are you saying that America is still a constitutional republic, or at the very least, a democracy?
Please, tell me something about Obama that signifies he is ready to break from the establishment. Otherwise, you're the one that should stop dreaming.
And by the way, I would also like to return the request. Are you going to eat your words if Obama continued US occupation of Iraq? Regardless of "withdrawing" rhetoric, Iraq is for all intent and purposes, a US colony just like Afghanistan, just like Kosovo, Japan and South Korea, which will probably never be rid of the US presence.
And why? Because an occupation is forever in today's attempted-American Century.
Originally posted by angel7030:
if u become God, i resign from my Angel post.
Resign already do what ? Join ghost18 ? ...
Originally posted by freedomclub:And by the way, I would also like to return the request. Are you going to eat your words if Obama continued US occupation of Iraq? Regardless of "withdrawing" rhetoric, Iraq is for all intent and purposes, a US colony just like Afghanistan, just like Kosovo, Japan and South Korea, which will probably never be rid of the US presence.
And why? Because an occupation is forever in today's attempted-American Century.
Sure I can say it. I will eat my words if that doesn't happen.
What about you? said it yet?
Originally posted by freedomclub:I'm waiting.
Why can't I dispute those two things which you mentioned if there is reason to do so? Because he supposedly represents 'hope' and 'change', being an African-American and all, no one can question his policies as being that of the establishment's?
Why not just think for once before unleashing your caustic comments? Unlike most of the bought out Congress, who only pay lip service to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America", including the Supreme Court and the Executive Branch throughout these years, Ron Paul has consistently authored legislation to uphold the constitutional rights of Americans (And please dont say the PATRIOT Act is an example of one). For instance, his "American Freedom Agenda Act" aimed to nullify Bush's unconstitutional Military Commissions Act of 2006, which abolished habeas corpus for those deemed to be "unlawful enemy combatants" (a term which the president and his attorney general could bestow on anyone they wanted).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul
You want to talk about change? There is a need for America to change from her corporate-fascist ways to the Constitutional Republic it was founded as. If Obama really represented change, then why the fascist support for retroactive immunity for telecom companies spying on ordinary Americans? Why isn't anything done about the Police State transformation of America, where the US Army is beginning to patrol the streets in violation of Possi Comitatus?
Lord Acton said that "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". After all the power that the Executive Branch has accumulated throughout the phoney Cold War and the War of Terror, are you saying that America is still a constitutional republic, or at the very least, a democracy?
Please, tell me something about Obama that signifies he is ready to break from the establishment. Otherwise, you're the one that should stop dreaming.
Maybe because you didn't give him any time to do anything before you give your caustic remarks about Obama? think. think. think. before you talk.
Originally posted by skythewood:Sure I can say it. I will eat my words if that doesn't happen.
What about you? said it yet?
Sure. But how do you exactly eat your own words?
Anyway, if you want to get so legalistic...
I will eat my own words if Obama removes ALL US troops from Iraq. Do you want to include Japan, South Korea and Kosovo, although I'll discount the 600-800 bases the US maintains worldwide?
Originally posted by skythewood:Maybe because you didn't give him any time to do anything before you give your caustic remarks about Obama? think. think. think. before you talk.
You assume that he represents "change" while I don't.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/02/america/obama.php
WASHINGTON: Senator Barack Obama's decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration's program of wiretapping without warrants has led to an intense backlash among some of his most ardent supporters.
Thousands are now using the same grass-roots organizing tools previously mastered by the Obama campaign to organize a protest against his decision.
In recent days, more than 7,000 Obama supporters have organized on a social networking site on Obama's own campaign Web site. They are calling on him to reverse his decision to endorse legislation supported by President George W. Bush to expand the government's domestic spying powers while also providing legal protection to the telecommunications companies that worked with the National Security Agency's domestic wiretapping program after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
During the Democratic primary campaign, Obama vowed to fight such legislation to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. But he has switched positions and now supports a compromise hammered out between the White House and the Democratic congressional leadership. The bill is expected to come to a vote on the Senate floor on Tuesday.
The decision, one of a number made by Obama intended to position him toward the political center as the general election campaign heats up, has brought him into serious conflict for the first time with liberal bloggers and commentators and his young supporters.
Many of them have seen the issue of granting immunity to the telecommunications companies as a test of principle in their opposition to Bush's surveillance program. "I don't think there has been another instance where, in meaningful numbers, his supporters have opposed him like this," said Glenn Greenwald, a writer for Salon.com who opposes Obama's new position.
Jane Hamsher, a liberal blogger who also opposes immunity for the phone companies, said she had been flooded with messages from Obama supporters who are frustrated with his new stance.
"The opposition to Obama's position among his supporters is very widespread," said Hamsher, founder of the Web site firedoglake.com. "His promise to filibuster earlier in the year, and the decision to switch on that, is seen as a real character problem. I know people who are really very big Obama supporters are very disillusioned."
One supporter, Robert Arellano, expressed his anger over the issue on the Obama site. "I have watched your campaign with genuine enthusiasm, and I have given you money," he said. "For the first time in my life, I have sensed the presence of a presidential candidate who might actually bring some meaningful change to the corrupt cesspool of national politics. But your about-face on the FISA bill genuinely angers and alarms me."
For now, the campaign is trying to put a positive spin on the FISA fight among its supporters.
"The fact that there is an open forum on BarackObama.com where supporters can say whether they agree or disagree speaks to a strength of our campaign," said Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman.
Several activists and bloggers predicted that Obama's move toward the center on some issues could sharply reduce the intensity of support that he has enjoyed from liberal activists. Such enthusiasm helped power Obama's effort to secure the nomination, and it has been one of his campaign's most important tools for fund-raising and organizing around the country.
Markos Moulitsas, a liberal blogger and founder of the Daily Kos Web site, said he had decided to cut back on the amount of money he would contribute to the Obama campaign because of the FISA reversal. "I will continue to support him," Moulitsas said in an interview. "But I was going to write him a check, and I decided I would rather put that money with Democrats who will uphold the Constitution."
Greg Craig, a Washington lawyer who advises the Obama campaign, said Tuesday in an interview that Obama had decided to support the compromise FISA legislation only after concluding it was the best deal possible.
"This was a deliberative process, and not something that was shooting from the hip," Craig said. "Obviously, there was an element of what's possible here. But he concluded that with FISA expiring, that it was better to get a compromise than letting the law expire."
Originally posted by skythewood:Maybe because you didn't give him any time to do anything before you give your caustic remarks about Obama? think. think. think. before you talk.
Maybe you ought to think about Ron Paul policies before you criticise him too.
yo freedomclub ,
Obama Orders Pay Limits at Banks Getting Future Aid
(Please check bloomberg )
I have no idea how to put in link .... damn
i think ppl starting to see some screw up by obama admin. promise he made during election cannot cash in now.
protectionsim is under intense pressure
saving USA economy very hard
safe jobs, cannot even think abt it
Originally posted by freedomclub:Sure. But how do you exactly eat your own words?
Anyway, if you want to get so legalistic...
I will eat my own words if Obama removes ALL US troops from Iraq. Do you want to include Japan, South Korea and Kosovo, although I'll discount the 600-800 bases the US maintains worldwide?
Haha, suddenly the condition changed ah? I remember the change was "Pull out from Iraq". If the Americans put one soldier to protect their ambasador, than you consider it not pulled out? Pulled out means there is no significant forces left in Iraq, like Japan or Kosovo, but not like Afghanistan.
US has bases all over the world. So? Is there a point in bringing this up?
Eat your words is easy, like admit you are wrong. i have admitted i was wrong on this forum before, and i will do it again if i was proven wrong. Can you say the same thing, or promise to do the same thing?
For your other post, I think you should examine why people reject Ron Paul's policy before posting. If you cannot make it readable, i won't read it.
Originally posted by reyes:i think ppl starting to see some screw up by obama admin. promise he made during election cannot cash in now.
protectionsim is under intense pressure
saving USA economy very hard
safe jobs, cannot even think abt it
Politicians always makes vague promises so they have some leeway. Which promise did you say cannot cash in? Any policy he implement will definitely be long term, so the results can only be seen at best 6 months later.
but i feel some of his policy are deem to be empty promises such as saving the middle class, auto makers.
Originally posted by skythewood:Haha, suddenly the condition changed ah? I remember the change was "Pull out from Iraq". If the Americans put one soldier to protect their ambasador, than you consider it not pulled out? Pulled out means there is no significant forces left in Iraq, like Japan or Kosovo, but not like Afghanistan.
US has bases all over the world. So? Is there a point in bringing this up?
Eat your words is easy, like admit you are wrong. i have admitted i was wrong on this forum before, and i will do it again if i was proven wrong. Can you say the same thing, or promise to do the same thing?
For your other post, I think you should examine why people reject Ron Paul's policy before posting. If you cannot make it readable, i won't read it.
Sure, the condition can still remain "pull out from Iraq", as in end the US occupation. And of course I'll admit I'm wrong if you can prove it. Anything else will be just foolhardy self-denial.
And which other nation has bases around the world on a scale like the US? Isn't this mirroring imperial civilisations throughout history? Just because its not openly called imperialism doesnt make it so.
If you disagree with Ron Paul, then state your disagreement. If not, stay silent about it.
After Obama praises torture ruling, civil liberties group appalled
John Byrne
Published: Wednesday February 4, 2009
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/ACLU_Hope_flickering_on_torture_after_0204.html
The American Civil
Liberties Union, which has generally been harshly critical of President
George W. Bush and praiseworthy of President Barack Obama, has fired a
torpedo across the Obama bow.
After the British High Court ruled that evidence of a British
resident's rendition and harsh interrogation at the Pentagon's
Guantanamo Bay prison must remain secret because of threats made by the
Bush administration to halt intelligence sharing, the Obama
Administration offered a terse statement seemingly expressing support
to the BBC.
"The United States thanks the UK government for its continued
commitment to protect sensitive national security information and
preserve the long-standing intelligence sharing relationship that
enables both countries to protect their citizens," a spokesman said.
In response, the ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero, shot off a
letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking the Obama
Administration to clarify their position. Romero also issued a
sharply-worded three sentence statement to the press, saying Obama has
now offered "more of the same."
"Hope is flickering," Romero said in a statement. "The Obama
administration's position is not change. It is more of the same. This
represents a complete turn-around and undermining of the restoration of
the rule of law. The new American administration shouldn't be complicit
in hiding the abuses of its predecessors."
The ACLU called on Clinton to "reject the Bush administration's policy
of using false claims of national security to avoid judicial review of
controversial programs."
Romero's letter to Clinton follows.
February 4, 2009
The Honorable Hillary Clinton
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20520
Re: Clarification Requested on Position of the United States on
Blocking Disclosure by a British Court of Its Report on Allegations of
Torture
Dear Secretary Clinton:
The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges you to clarify the
position of the United States on the publication of the full judgment
in a lawsuit brought by a Guantanamo detainee, Binyam Mohamed, in a
British court. Earlier today, the High Court in Great Britain published
a judgment denying publication of its report detailing allegations of
torture. The High Court stated that the United States had threatened
that full publication of the court's judgment would jeopardize
intelligence cooperation between the two countries. Remarkably, the
court reported that the British government claimed the U.S. position
had not changed, despite the inauguration of President Barack Obama. We
urgently request that you clarify the position of the United States in
this matter.
Two of the British justices severely criticized the position of the
United States in working to block publication of the judgment in the
torture case. Lord Justice Thomas and Justice Lloyd Jones stated today
that: Indeed, we did not consider that a democracy [the United States]
governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy
to suppress a summary of the evidence contained in reports by its own
officials ... relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhumane,
or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be. We
had no reason ... to anticipate there would be made a threat of the
gravity of the kind made by the United States Government that it would
reconsider its intelligence-sharing relationship, when all the
considerations in relation to open justice pointed to us providing a
limited but important summary of the reports.
The court's opinion specifically stated that attorneys for British
Foreign Secretary David Miliband told the court that the United States'
threat on the effect of publication on intelligence cooperation was
continued by the United States, despite the inauguration of President
Obama.
Specifically, the justices stated that, "it was submitted to us by Mr.
David Rose that the situation had changed significantly following the
election of President Obama who was avowedly determined to eschew
torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and to close
Guantanamo Bay. We have, however, been informed by counsel for the
Foreign Secretary that the position has not changed."
The claims made by the British justices that the United States
continues to oppose publication of the judgment in the Binyam Mohamed
case--to the point of threatening the future of U.S.-British
intelligence cooperation--seems completely at odds with both the
anti-torture and transparency executive orders signed by the President.
We strongly urge you to clarify the position of the United States and
remove any threat related to the publication of the court's full
judgment.
Please let us know if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
Caroline Fredrickson
Director, Washington Legislative Office
cc: Joan Donoghue, Acting Legal Adviser
i hate it when ppl post such a long grandmother story and not making a final own conclusion.
the topic is shameful wallstreet bonuses, what has it got to do with guantanamo bay?
Originally posted by reyes:i hate it when ppl post such a long grandmother story and not making a final own conclusion.
the topic is shameful wallstreet bonuses, what has it got to do with guantanamo bay?
Attention!! Hell Hilter!!
Sori my fuhrer, cos this particular poster cannot get your attention in his own thread, so he decided to hijack other people thread. The SS is still trying to locate him, once located, our Panzers will bomb him to pieces and present to Obama
Originally posted by Ice Dive:Resign already do what ? Join ghost18 ? ...
Join Satan lor
SSangel,
the TS is not me. dont blur sotong!
i will promote u as a colonel incharge of operating a pub within the six army, SS personel will hv priviledge.
Originally posted by reyes:SSangel,
the TS is not me. dont blur sotong!
i will promote u as a colonel incharge of operating a pub within the six army, SS personel will hv priviledge.
my pub will serve chilli samba sotong fry with kangkong as our signature dish.
I am not looking at the promotion, but rather a full iron cross
chilli samba is good. six army fighting in the russia is very cold.
this dish will warm them up!
iron cross dont give to rank and file . u need to be colonel first
dont talk abt this liao. this TS is about shameful bonuses from wallstreet not NAZI properganda
Originally posted by reyes:this TS is about shameful bonuses from wallstreet not NAZI properganda
Back to bonuses, if you dun pay good bonus and instead give peanut, you get monkey.
Originally posted by Ice Dive:yo freedomclub ,
Obama Orders Pay Limits at Banks Getting Future Aid
(Please check bloomberg )
I have no idea how to put in link .... damn
On Wednesday, President Barack Obama announced measures that purport to restrict executive compensation to $500,000 at financial institutions receiving billions in government assistance. The figure does not include stock options, which could be redeemed after financial firms pay back loans from the federal government. Nor does it apply to the original recipients of tens of billions in TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) money.
The measures are essentially a public relations exercise. Their aim is to provide political cover for a new and even larger Wall Street bailout, which Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will unveil next week.
Yet the discussion that has emerged in the wake of Obama’s announcement sheds light on the domination of government by a tiny financial elite and the increasingly threadbare pretense of democracy in the US. This financial aristocracy, the episode reveals, is a power to be approached on bended knee.
The media have responded to Obama’s proposal of a $500,000 limit on executive compensation, which would affect only a handful of firms, as though this were a severe and astonishing punishment. Yet the figure represents approximately 12 times the annual salary of the typical worker. To the majority of the population, a salary of a half million dollars is a staggering amount of money.
Obama’s servility before the financial aristocracy was summed up by the reassurances he gave it in announcing his limits on executive pay. “This is America,” Obama said. “We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for achieving success.”
Such a vision of America is at odds with both its present circumstances and its history, which has been characterized by deep democratic and egalitarian traditions that date back to before the Jeffersonian democracy of the early Republic. And while liberals are busy attempting to equate Obama to Franklin Roosevelt, the latter, in the midst of the Great Depression, attempted to capitalize on the tremendous contempt for the rich in the population at large by regularly issuing bromides against the “money changers.”
Indeed, Obama’s obsequiousness stands in sharp contrast to the anger of the working masses, who find it incomprehensible that the same executives who are responsible for ruining the economy and squandering trillions in taxpayer money are now presented with pay “limits” of a half million dollars. Workers are wondering why there haven’t been criminal indictments and television scenes of handcuffed executives frog-marched from their offices.
But on Wall Street, $500,000 is considered a pittance. The New York Times reports that executives felt cheated by taking home “only” $18 billion in collective bonuses in 2009. “I feel like I got a doorman’s tip, compared to what I got in previous years,” an investment banker with Citigroup told the Times.
The Financial Times reported on Wall Street’s opposition to the largely token measures. “Senior bankers were quick to warn the plans would cause a ‘brain drain’ from the profession as top executives seek more rewarding jobs out of the public eye,” it wrote. “Unlike other careers where job satisfaction and other considerations play a part, finance tends to attract people whose main motivation is money.”
“‘The cap is a lousy idea,’ complained one top Wall Street executive. ‘If there is no monetary upside, who would want to do these jobs?’”
Andrew Ward, a University of Georgia professor and specialist on corporate boards and management, told the Financial Times that executives could respond to Obama’s measure by calling his bluff—refusing to allow their firms to accept a bailout that would in any way limit their personal enrichment. “One of the potentially unintended consequences is that executives might try and hold off asking for government assistance until it is too late,” Ward said.
Media and academic figures who have tried to argue that the massive pay packages of the Wall Street executives are somehow legitimate, or even rational, succeed only in revealing the rot that characterizes intellectual life in the US. Their central argument—that the same CEOs who have driven their companies and the economy as whole into the ground are worthy of remuneration in the tens of millions—is so absurd it is almost an embarrassment to answer.
The immense power of the financial elite is revealed by the case of Bernard Madoff, the investor who squandered more than $50 billion in wealth in a giant Ponzi scheme. While working class Americans are arrested and spend years in prison for far lesser offenses, Madoff remains ensconced in his Manhattan penthouse.
For nearly a decade, a whistleblower named Harry Markopolos, who had uncovered Madoff’s scheme, attempted to draw the attention of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the federal regulatory agency ostensibly tasked with policing the securities and stock industries. Instead, the SEC ran interference for Madoff. Rather than being applauded for his efforts, Markopolos feared for his safety. “We knew that he was one of the most powerful men on Wall Street and in a position to easily end our careers or worse,” he said.
The social psychology and physiognomy of the financial elite—with its wealth, special privileges and its control over the organs of public opinion—resembles nothing so much as a modern aristocracy.
Any discussion of a rational attempt to find a solution to the economic crisis runs immediately into the ferocious opposition of this elite. Similarly, in the 18th century the aristocracy of the French ancien regime precipitated a financial crisis through its avarice and wars. When the aristocracy convened the Estates General in 1789, it was to demand that the Third Estate, the commoners, bail the aristocracy out of the crisis of its own making. But the monarchy and nobility refused to cede a bit of its power and privileges. This set the stage for the great French Revolution.
The odious subjective characteristics of the US financial aristocracy—its greed, arrogance, stupidity and decadence—are themselves deeply rooted in objective historical developments, the social expression of an underlying economic process. The rise of this narrow social layer with its obscene levels of accumulation is inextricably bound up with the decline of American capitalism in the world market and the gutting of its domestic industrial base. Indeed, what makes the whole process so filthy, what imparts to it such a decadent and repulsive character, is the degree to which this wealth is unconnected to any progressive economic process. It is in every sense destructive and reactionary.
In an earlier period of history the US had its “robber barons,” such as Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. As brutal and greedy as these men were, their wealth was bound up with the creation of enormous industrial empires. The latter-day robber barons of Wall Street, on the other hand, have made their billions from the destruction of the industry and productive capacity built up over decades.
The staggering wealth accumulated in the top one percent of American society over last 25 years is directly bound up with the deterioration of the economy, the decline of industry and the impoverishment of the working class. The enormous personal fortunes of the elite have been built up on hedge funds, the leveraging of debt and other forms of financial speculation. This has entailed an enormous transfer of resources out of manufacturing and into finance, and out of the working class and into the pockets of those who have played the critical role not only in destroying living standards, but in setting the stage for the present disaster.
The fortunes that grew on this basis at a certain point assumed a dynamic of their own. Their sheer scale assumes a malignant character that becomes an insurmountable obstacle to any rational policy coming from within the confines of bourgeois politics.
It follows that there is no solution to the crisis without a direct and massive assault on social inequality, and thus the wealth and privileges of the financial and business aristocracy. This cannot be carried out by pressuring the Democratic Party. The Obama administration’s meager rules on executive pay shows that it will not consider any policies that even hint at the redistribution of wealth.
The American political elite, Obama included, is tied by a thousand strings to the financial aristocracy. The Obama administration is populated by individuals who have parlayed their political positions into lucrative positions in finance. Virtually the entire cabinet fits this billing—not only Tom Daschle, the former senator who withdrew his nomination for the Secretary of Health and Human Services amidst revelations that he had withheld tens of thousands in taxes owed on payments he received from his corporate sponsors.
Yesterday it came to light that Leon Panetta, Obama’s nominee for chief of the Central Intelligence Agency, took home more than $1 million last year through payments from corporations for consulting, speaking appearances and through his membership on corporate boards. He was paid handsomely for speeches by financial firms that have since collapsed, including $56,000 by Merrill Lynch and $28,000 by Wachovia. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have also used their political connections to make millions from the same financial elite that would ostensibly be targeted by Obama’s rules on executive pay.
Obama knows very well that when he leaves office he will be able to make millions of dollars, as Bill Clinton, the last Democratic president, and countless other leading politicians have done. Nor would this be a departure for Obama, whose career was taken into hand early on by leading financial and political figures in Chicago.
The subordination of the whole of society to the financial aristocracy is most clearly expressed in the massive bailout of Wall Street. Its political representatives, Democrats and Republican alike, hand over trillions to the biggest banks, while providing no provisions for the masses of people who have lost their jobs and homes.
Millions of workers who voted for Obama are now coming face to face with the fact that his administration will defend the interests of the financial elite every bit as ruthlessly, if with a slightly different presentation, as the Bush administration.
The solution to the economic crisis is not a technical question but a social, political and revolutionary settling of accounts, and a historical necessity. At a certain point in the late 18th century, it became necessary for the oppressed classes of France to rise up and destroy the power and privileges of the nobility. In the America of the 1860s, the only resolution to the “irrepressible conflict” was the destruction of the “slave power” in the South.
At this point it is necessary to destroy the political and economic power of the financial aristocracy. A resolution to the economic crisis can only begin with an independent mass movement of the working class that aims to break the political stranglehold of the financial elite over society; the development, to be blunt, of a revolutionary movement.Wah . . SO long ... I can only read the blue text then ....
I think there is serious doubt in the statement that the idea that the finance people have no incentives to work and look for other high paying jobs when the salaries are capped. Given their track record and limited experience in other industries , I do not think people will employ them. The change in pay scale will also be too big as well should they leave their industries.
I still think that it is a good start for the pay cap and better than not doing anything. What else do you realistically want to expect?
Of cos one can argue that direct salaries changes is not good enough too. There are always lots of other ways that the management can change the payout to the benefits of the top performers or people sitting in the high post.
If they are elite, would we be at this stage of the crisis?
in crisis time like this, where can they find a better paid jobs?
i would think most of this greedy Bast... would probably take waiting attitude and wait for the next upturn