Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Phil Perspective
9373 Followers
Julie Tucker
2554 Followers
Julie Tucker
2554 Followers
Sean Mulligan
347 Followers
Sean Mulligan
347 Followers
Omnipotent Poobah
30 Followers
thomasmifflinJul 9, 2010
Does anyone feel bad for the CEO's? Anyone?
cosmicsurferJul 9, 2010
I pray for them nightly and weep at their poverty inflicted by the mean old middle class...uh, wait...where is the middle class? they were here a minute ago, I thought....
No? Gone?
Another casualty of the war on the American people?
kaelyiestaJul 10, 2010
I feel bad for the ones that choose not to play the corporatist game and actually work to provide a service to willing customers rather than buy the guns of the government to 'earn' a living. They, like us, suffer from this fascistic system of ours.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
freedomjoeJul 10, 2010
I weep for them right after I issue them apologies...
randomgorillaJul 10, 2010
I only feel sorry they all don't have CANCER.
But only the really rich ones who screw the little guy on a daily basis. The struggling business professional who plays by all the rules, runs their business by ethical standards and still gets boned by the system gets that sympathy because they choose not to be dicks.
zenmojoJul 10, 2010
Ken Blackwell (Republican former Attorney General of Ohio who helped steal dozens of thousands of votes in the 2004 presidential election) explained succinctly on television today that government by and for the people has a tendency to be anti-business which is why we need less government.
But one thing I've learned from American business is that business in the form of corporations, given enough freedom and power, has a tendency to be anti-people. So he can go f**k himself.
elemmingJul 9, 2010
Should link through nonags so people don't have to register.
toddcurlJul 9, 2010
These sentiments are indeed populace as we deride the greed and lack of basic human compassion by these CEO Imperialists, yet we ignore, to great extent, the tacit role we play by continuing to elect representatives, Dems and GOP, who enable their greed and accumulation of wealth to proceed at bottleneck speed through their own money grab to continue to get elected as they have made our Democracy impenetrable to anyone other than large corporate interests. Also funny how Paul Krugman writes this op-ed -- and others like it -- and is championed as a 'liberal' and 'progressive' journalist yet he perpetuates an unyielding love of Capitalism and free markets, just in a thinly-veiled context of minor regulatory initiatives that do nothing other than create more channels and paths toward de-regulation -- yet another mouthpiece of Corporatism, just slightly tweaked to dupe the "left."
clvngodessJul 9, 2010
Thank you! Most important point: the tacit role we play.
That also means not just voting, but falling into the traps of consumerism, how we vote with the dollars we spend, our own competitive behaviors regarding brand and status. It's the Middle Class, fading fast as it may be, that does the bidding of the capitalistic Imperialists. Gobbling up that Amarkin Dream of "you can have it too" is the first lie they feed you...
sassykathy464Jul 9, 2010
"Also funny how Paul Krugman writes this op-ed -- and others like it -- and is championed as a 'liberal' and 'progressive' journalist yet he perpetuates an unyielding love of Capitalism and free markets" - I hesitated for that reason to dig one of his articles - he's just a symptom of the problem in so many ways.
toddcurlJul 10, 2010
The fact that Krugman is considered to be on the "left" just shows how horrendously far to the extreme right this nation has gone. Have you listened to any of Reagan's speeches (from the early 80s) on immigration and social welfare lately? He'd be called a Communist Fascist if he was running for office today. Hell, if I bothered to read half the articles I've dugg on here, I would probably hate myself -- but that's the magic of instant reaction in the digital propaganda age. By the same token, if half the people who have dugg the articles I've written (mostly blind Obama supporting "liberals") actually read them, they would feel the same way. Such a tragedy. Obama, by his actual actions thus far (not his rhetoric) would have been considered ultra right wing just 30 years ago -- yet today he is dubbed a socialist by the "right" and blindly supported by much of the duped liberal masses.
sassykathy464Jul 10, 2010
Yes - Obama and most of the current set of Dim incumbents are pretty danged right wing, and the D Party's leading lights are unabashed war mongers, including Cluster Bomb Hillary, Phony Pelosi, and the Bomber.
Obama is deemed a "socialist" though the only "entitlement programs" he believes in are subsidies, bailouts and other forms of corporate welfare for big transnational monopolies. Voters keep being played by the 2 party shell game, b/c it works so well to keep the two of them the only "viable" parties.
zenmojoJul 10, 2010
In the old days, the top tax rate was 90%...for almost 50 years it was over 70%.
Now it's 35%. I'm not sure exactly how they passed that s**t or why no one stopped to ask what the effect of that would be. I also wonder why Reagan's massive deficits never got him called out by the nagging voices of history....
But here we are. We live in a world where militant corporate fascism is so en vogue and such a part of our common mindset that you can't call it fascism without being called a reactionary. Instead you have to call it democracy even when it has nothing to do with the vote.
John Adams would be s**tting himself if he had seen this nonsense. Hell, Eisenhower would weep at this nonsense.
elliotysJul 10, 2010
Yet campaign finance reform has all but been abandoned. . .The american public continues to deride the politicians it elects, yet doesn't even understand how to fix the root of the problem. It is very frustrating.
juankovoJul 10, 2010
Campaign finance laws = incumbent protection laws = anti-free speech laws
kaelyiestaJul 10, 2010
It is so refreshing whenever I find someone else who hasn't fallen prey to this system and the extremely obvious doublespeak from those like Krugman.
lederhosedJul 9, 2010
Ha, indeed.
pstrollJul 10, 2010
Blessed are the poor CEOs,
for theirs is the kingdom of bureaucracy.
maeon3Jul 10, 2010
Maybe an additional 400x increase in salary over the average skilled trade salary will make them feel a little better. Do the shareholders or underlings object? If you raise your hand your fired.... Motion unchallenged, motion stands.
Closed AccountJul 10, 2010
This dude is an idiot.
blackjackjesterJul 10, 2010
Most of his other articles are ridiculous and stupid, and in general I find him a nutjob - and I don't agree with his assessment at all...but I also don't pity CEO's.
What we don't need is higher paid CEO's, but what we do need is more CEO's (more small/medium sized companies), which is difficult to do if you don't have investor funding, which isn't being handed out right now. LLC fee's and Business License fee's gotta go.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eddiepotatoJul 10, 2010
I'm curious as to why your icon is an image of an accused government-loving socialist type wearing the face paint of a fictional misanthropic, anti-establishment anarchist.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
coloneljessupJul 10, 2010
He uses that image because it pisses people off!
YEAH! Get mad! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
solitaireroseJul 10, 2010
He uses the image because he thinks it's a deep statement when really it's just some assclown's idea of getting even with the people who pointed out Bush was a pathetic excuse for a leader.
And the artist is a plagarist: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2008/07/bush-as-joker.html
Closed AccountJul 10, 2010
Jessup is right somewhat but the primary reason is exactly what you said Potato. The juxtaposition of extremes that are usually polar opposites is what makes up Obama's policies and belief system. His views are all over the board and depending on the topic and time of day shift from Joseph Stalin statist, to corporate socialist, to anti-establishmentism of America and the chaos that his policies have inflicted upon our nation.
And Rose, regardless of what you liberals and progressives wish to believe George W is atleast 500x better than Obama because he took the poorest parts of George W's presidency, mostly his borrow and spend mentality and blew it through the roof.
Closed AccountJul 10, 2010
The diggberals love him.
matzahmanJul 10, 2010
Krugman great as always.
Closed AccountJul 10, 2010
Damn Krugman, how many digg accounts do you have? PhilPerspective, MatzahMan, ?????
hipmanJul 10, 2010
Krugman is a hack.
mike648Jul 10, 2010
I'm guessing our economy would be much better off if we actually listened to our economists
bertqbJul 10, 2010
Steve Jobs is a witch.
randomgorillaJul 10, 2010
No, he's just the ultimate hypnotist.
errdayimhustlinJul 10, 2010
You mean "hypnotoad".
errdayimhustlinJul 10, 2010
That dude is a wizard. Magical.
loonatickleJul 10, 2010
In classic Krugman style, he simply makes up his evidence. Fareed Zakaria (certainly not a pro-business journalist) actually talked to CEOs about why they aren't spending money:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/04/AR2010070403856.html
And they pointed to the uncertainty around Obama's regulatory agenda. Duh. Whatever the merits of the health reform law, its effects aren't understood by those who are making hiring decisions. What will cap and trade cost businesses? What other reforms are coming? Is it any surprise businesses aren't spending money?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gilgamesh23Jul 10, 2010
So basically the gravy train was over and they didn't know how to preform anymore?
zenmojoJul 10, 2010
They don't trust a man that doesn't have one of them in his cabinet? Oh noes!
CEO pay is 400 times average pay. f**k those guys.
blackjackjesterJul 10, 2010
"But the Obama’s-socialist-policies-are-wrecking-the-economy chorus isn’t coming from businesses; it’s coming from business lobbyists, which isn’t at all the same thing"
Wrong. Unemployed people don't have thousands of dollars to pay for the privilege to do business if they can't get loans. How many people have thought "I could start my own business if I did this" or "If I was the boss..." blah blah. Get fired? can't get a job? You might think to yourself that it would be a good idea to give it a shot. Oh wait, you need a couple thousand bucks to even be allowed to start something out of your garage. Drop those fees and taxes, and you might just see a rise in small business, which is what Obama is saying he is trying to promote.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
errdayimhustlinJul 10, 2010
Krugman vomiting out some more nonsense again is he? buried for the simple fact that it was ever written.
coloneljessupJul 10, 2010
I like you.
Closed AccountJul 10, 2010
Krugman = Keynesian Clown.
coloneljessupJul 10, 2010
I smell jealousy.
premiumballinJul 10, 2010
I think it's just that YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
mike648Jul 10, 2010
Paul Krugman has more data and research to back his economic theories than any politician, democratic or republican. The smart thing to do would be to actually listen to our economists to fix our economy.
ect5150Jul 10, 2010
I'll agree with this statement in general, but Krugman has far more faith in the government's ability than myself.
errdayimhustlinJul 10, 2010
Sure, but Krugman is a jackass that doesn't understand economics, so it would have to be someone else.
Closed AccountJul 10, 2010
Well his main driving point lately has been to extend spending and keep running up the already absurd deficit. To me, his advice seems to be selfish because it is the young generation like myself and my children who will be left the god damn burden of all this accumulated debt. It doesn't take a nobel prize winning economist to figure out that the global debt problem (esp. including the U.S.) has gotten far too much out of control and balancing the budget is less painful now than a decade down the line when the debts are more burdensome and the economy has become more reliant on government intervention.
autokadJul 10, 2010
yeah, the same paul krugman who doesnt believe energy prices had anything to do with the start of the recession.
rlbond86Jul 10, 2010
Except he's right on both cases. 40 years ago there was an average of one filibuster per year. Today there are over 100 in one year. And if you think energy prices were a cause of the recession you're out of your mind; it was shady financial dealings.
autokadJul 10, 2010
shady financial dealings was a result of the energy prices. If you mean, shady financial dealings that artificially spiked up the price of energy, then you would be correct. Housing, Stocks, and such are really based on faith. As long as the economy is going 'great', the fundamentals doesnt apply. So when the tide goes out, they are left exposed and fall like a rock, but the tide going out was energy prices.
when milk was over 5$ a gallon, peoples oil heating shot up 100% and electric increased 10-30%, people were stressed between paying for food and electricity vs their mortgage that could be 'paid next month'. guess what people chose?
angeladtaoJul 10, 2010
Idiot.
rmscommJul 10, 2010
I have an idea let's outsource the CEO position. You can hire 5+ Indian PHd's for a fraction of the cost as an American CEO and they can be capped with less fiscal expense and they can still make the same stupid decisions since culturally they will be out of the loop with what's going on and then when it comes time to be fired or let go we just pay them a flat fee with no continued retirement package or benefits. Who's with me?
datsum5770Jul 10, 2010
"Paul Krugman has more data and research to support his economic theories than any politician, democratic or republican. The smart thing to do would be to actually listen to our economists to fix our economy."
Krugman is nothing more than a tool for the Fed. To believe anything else is total ignorance!
Closed AccountJul 10, 2010
Krugman = Keynesian Clown
rizzo2008Jul 10, 2010
Coming from the same guy who argues we can run up debt forever with no real consequences? Krugman has zero credibility. CEO pay might be to high but that is none of our business unless they received a publicly funded bailout.
mike648Jul 10, 2010
That was never his argument and the article had nothing to do with CEO compensation.
homercles337Jul 10, 2010
This coming from the same guy who argues f**king goats in public has no real consequences?
See, i can put words in people's mouths too.
Closed AccountJul 10, 2010
Honestly, for a Nobel prize winning economist, Paul Krugman has some seriously bad advice for the U.S. He insists that there should be continued stimulus spending otherwise we will go into a depression. While I agree that cutting stimulus will not be good for the economy, keeping the economy on life support via the government can only last so long and eventually the mounting debt has to be dealt with. The longer they hold it off, the more lengthy the pain will be for the citizens of America. His advice is just going to prolong the eventuality of major spending cuts and higher taxes.
errdayimhustlinJul 10, 2010
I like your post, but I take exception to the idea that any stimulus is useful. Through malinvestment we get bubbles, and the boom & bust cycles that we deal with constantly.
autokadJul 10, 2010
I think we would do ourselves and our country a lot of good if we would eliminate excessive litigation that has gone rampant in our country.
rlbond86Jul 10, 2010
Yeah, let's let the corporations do whatever they want! After all, they only have our interests at heart.
autokadJul 10, 2010
corporations are not inherently evil, but yes there does need to be checks and balances. lawsuits and lawyers have gotten out of hand in this country. you cant do/say/think anything for fear of being sued these days. Do you know how many entrepreneurs do not start businesses because of fear of litigation and court costs? Do you have any idea how many fail because of them? Its gotten way out of hand