|
Post by Sean Sultan on Feb 10, 2009 21:18:52 GMT -8
I'm going to have to respond to this latter, but this is getting pretty fun. By the way, username, you need to chill. You are taking this way to personally.
|
|
|
Post by username on Feb 10, 2009 21:40:34 GMT -8
It's all part of the persona, Sean. Don't worry. I'm cool as a cucumber.
|
|
seth
Newbie
Posts: 28
|
Post by seth on Feb 11, 2009 1:14:02 GMT -8
It's all part of the persona, Sean. Don't worry. I'm cool as a cucumber. I don't know about you.. but I've had some warm cucumbers in my day... Anybody ever watch shows like "The Insider?" Well whenever I tune in (by chance more than choice), I notice Barack Obama getting featured in there which is kind of weird how he's become a borderline pop symbol. 8 years ago when Bush became president, would anybody actually gossip or comment on his wardrobe or anything along those lines? It's like the media is trying to intertwine politics and pop culture and perhaps water down the consequences of politics. I guess maybe it isn't watering down politics, but making politicians (unless it's just Barack) seem more superficial despite them creating impact for better or worse in our world. In a sense I feel like this similar to trying to mix church and state. Whatever it is, it's dumbing down the importance of what the politician (unless it's just Barack) stands for, in my eyes. Oh and I'm not so much on the republican/democrat fence as I am one who prefers a balance between both sides.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 11, 2009 2:19:48 GMT -8
I read it. I guess it's easy to give up 50% of your earned income when you make $2,418,577.00 a year ( people.forbes.com/profile/reed-hastings/53620). "Perhaps a starting place for “tax, not shame” would be creating a top federal marginal tax rate of 50 percent on all income above $1 million per year. Some will tell you that would reduce the incentive to earn but I don’t see that as likely. Besides, half of a giant compensation package is still pretty huge, and most of our motivation is the sheer challenge of the job anyway." Yeeeeeaaaaaaaahhhhhh dude, CEO's of huge corporations are only in it for the challenge of the job and most certainly not the money. Hahaha, I'm not throwing his credibility out the window completely, but come on. That being the second to last paragraph almost nullifies what he said in the entire piece. Well good, I'm glad you have read the article but it's interesting how your argument has changed. So now your argument is that the second to last paragraph essentially hamstrings his entire op-ed simply based on the statement that CEO's are in it for the challenge not the money. Well I'll admit that it is a strange statement that took me aback when I read it. However, I'm studying my major not for the money which it promises (which is actually quite a lot) but because I enjoy it and enjoy the challenge. Mark my words, it is a mistake to enter a profession you do not enjoy. You see I'm not a CEO and neither are you, so whether we understand it or not we shouldn't discredit a statement based on our predispositions unless we have personal experience or we have been taught by reliable sources. I'm not saying to take him at his word, but he hasn't really given us any reason to believe that he is misleading us. In fact we can infer that this is a potentially dangerous statement for him, as a representative of his company, to be making especially if it is largely wrong or misrepresenting other CEO's. However, it's not like they don't make enough to not have to care about it. That being said, you brought up concerns about the placement of this paragraph. Well lets analyze it. It appears to be in the traditional hamburger style format, that is oriented with the thesis statement in the first and last paragraph with supporting reasons in the middle. admittedly, not a very persuasive format but still quite effective. So the first paragraph is basically saying "hi, this is what I do" and introducing the thesis. The second paragraph is kind of an extention of the first and seems to set up a pro for such a large tax. The next paragraph is giving you historical evidence as well as introducing this idea that what has happened in the past clearly was not wise and does not work. After that paragraph he keeps on this theme that current policies are ineffective because, though boards hate overpaying, they realize the dangers of a bad CEO and will be willing to pay the price for "already proven talent", which seems to introduce this new theme of competition. Next, he almost seems to be extending the last paragraph again, but is actually voiceing some of the public's concerns about CEO's who get away with practically murdering our economy and how his idea of “tax, not shame” would soften the blow and actually turn it into a benefit for the country. Then he talks about celebs and how this would cover them too instead of just businesses. In the next paragraph he seems to apply what he has gone over to what the Obama plans are and talks about how he strongly disagrees with him. finally we get to the statement we are concerned about. This almost seems like a turning point, he talks about how his plan could be initiated, he gives a small counter argument which he brushes off pretty quickly, he concludes he theme about competition and ends with this attention grabbing and startling statement: "most of our motivation is the sheer challenge of the job anyway." The final paragraph is basically a restatement of the thesis. Anyway, since the statement: "Perhaps a starting place for “tax, not shame” would be creating a top federal marginal tax rate of 50 percent on all income above $1 million per year. Some will tell you that would reduce the incentive to earn but I don’t see that as likely. Besides, half of a giant compensation package is still pretty huge, and most of our motivation is the sheer challenge of the job anyway." is supporting the thesis:" Instead of trying to shame companies and executives, President Obama should take advantage of our success by using CEO's outsized earnings to pay for the needs of our nation." It seems to actually be quite effective and does not conflict with his other statements. Since it concludes this theme of competition, it is possible that it could be placed in a more effective spot but since it is, kind of, a response to the paragraph before it it would be inappropriate to move that portion. He could have split it up, but the shock of the last statement would have been less effective anywhere but at the end. So I have to disagree with you there, where it is seems quite effective You made a great counterpoint to what posted I earlier, so I backtracked and formed a more educated opinion based on the piece that you presented and your argument. Do I want to take economic advice from the CEO of a publicly traded company possessing a mathematics degree? Not particularly. That hasn't changed. Do his credentials make him an expert economist? No. I'll stand by that, although I admit I probably displayed that sentiment in a somewhat ignorant manner and got called out for it. Kudos. Now this is what I have a problem with, kiddo: You talk to me (and others here) as if we are somehow uneducated sheep wandering around, waiting to be enlightened by your opinions. I did not need you to break down the entire article for me; I read it, analyzed it, and formed my own opinion. You came off rather arrogant, pretentious, and condescending in your previous post. I'm not sure if that was your intention, or that you were aware, but I walked away feeling like someone climbed onto their own little pedestal and shouted down to me, as if I could only dream of climbing to such great heights one day. I'm proud that you're pursuing a degree. More power to you. I myself am a Junior at the University of Oregon. "Username" is an LCC student maintaining a 4.2 GPA. You're not arguing with uneducated idiots here. It's just that we obviously share different opinions on the state of our country and the current economic system, and that's okay. Just try to refrain from putting off such an arrogant tone in the future and I think we can maintain a healthy debate. And for the love of God, please try and break up your paragraphs a little more. For such a fine scholar and gentleman as yourself, I would expect coherent paragraph construction. (That last paragraph was tongue in cheek, by the way. Just had to insert a little jab in there somewhere.)
|
|
|
Post by mattwagner on Feb 11, 2009 19:26:52 GMT -8
Hitler was good at speeches too. I'm just saying.
No, but I have high hopes for Obama.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Feb 13, 2009 1:23:51 GMT -8
it seems i have unraveled a picnic which i cannot stomach.
continue on friends, and i will observe and glean.
|
|
|
Post by Amber on Feb 13, 2009 21:58:15 GMT -8
Hm.. If George Bush was so "stupid".. Do you really think he would have been our president? Or attended Yale?
|
|
|
Post by Amber on Feb 13, 2009 22:01:06 GMT -8
Well, it's nice to know that people ACTUALLY know about the Government. That's pretty cool.
|
|
|
Post by perry on Feb 23, 2009 13:17:19 GMT -8
I like Obama and Biden. But I live in Eugene Oregon. That might have a bit to do with it. Sarah Paylin doesn't believe in dinosaurs.
|
|
|
Post by stephen0 on Feb 24, 2009 2:15:42 GMT -8
I like Obama and Biden. But I live in Eugene Oregon. That might have a bit to do with it. Sarah Paylin doesn't believe in dinosaurs. paylin is the porn way of spelling it. gawd perry.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Feb 24, 2009 8:45:51 GMT -8
I like Obama and Biden. But I live in Eugene Oregon. That might have a bit to do with it. Sarah Paylin doesn't believe in dinosaurs. thats actually not true. its a total construct of the liberal media. she is, however, a young earth creationist. while that may or may not be an incorrect theory, it does have a large group of followers.
|
|
|
Post by perry on Feb 26, 2009 12:44:15 GMT -8
Alright, so gay marriage..... Jk.
Creationism is kind of dumb in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by perry on Feb 26, 2009 12:46:55 GMT -8
And for the spelling. I'm not as dumb as it seemed when I added that y. I work at Venture Data, their surveys spell her name that way. Fucked me up a lil.
|
|
|
Post by Jil on Feb 26, 2009 15:48:00 GMT -8
Both of my computers have viruses like mad. I've got to get them fixed, but can't afford it. So, I can only get online from time to time... which makes it very very hard to run a venue, and get on here as well. I miss being here though. +8234986293848156958 good to have you back jil, where you been?
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Feb 27, 2009 2:05:21 GMT -8
by the by jill, i got a ron paul revolution shirt.
|
|