So what do you consider the "criteria" for being the best leader of a country? and who is the best president based on your opinion?


I don't know many pres's of this country, but from what I know I choose Ronald Reagan. Why? Because I think the best president is the one that can keep the people of the country the most quiet. The quieter the people, the less they have to complain publicly about, thus the less "noise" the president is making for himself.

Wooden teeth.

Being David Palmer

Black skin. :rolleyes:

Black wooden teeth :D

http://downloads.btabdevelopment.com/smilebulgeeyes.jpg

Chopping down a cherry tree with an axe - and not lying about it :D

Capable of getting good advice and acting on it.

Reagan wasn't that smart and didn't try to pretend he was.

Bush (jnr) thought he could get his advice from his Confidential Source and then acted on this as if it was All Seeing!

Kennedy made a real attempt to get good advisers - don't know how effective this was but he did make an attempt.

How many times are Advisers selected from Special Interest Groups or Family or anywhere else other then a good cross section of knowledgeable people - for the issue at hand.

Just like smart children can manipulate their parents, Advisers can manipulate a country through their puppet on a string.

Capable of getting good advice and acting on it.



I like that answer. I find quite a lot of truth in it.


Here's a question.... is the best president someone who acts in the best interest of his countrymen at all times?

well from my stand point Clinton - weird but he seem to have a grasp on World politics - a safe set of hands - might of been a real "bounder" with the women - but I think he had a lot more respect than most modern policitians -

THis current one - has pretty much insulted all of the US allies - seems to point the finger at other people/counties - and try to deflect his lack of action on home affairs :-

It may be that we are too removed (here in the UK) but he doesn't seem to have done anything other than look "pretty" and say "I'm gonna kick butt" -

I ramble - Its just that he seems to be very anti British in his attitude - and I think the Brits are begining to get a bit pissed with this

Being David Palmer

Haha, that's what I was going to say! :D

Define "Best Interest".

What is Best today may well prove costly in the future.

One big disadvantage we have over our ancestors from the middle ages is we no longer have Magicians and Fortune Tellers (Not really sure on this:eek:) to see the Future and we vote out a Leader when they don't give us Ice Cream for Free when in fact, we only had to see two years into the future and we would have agreed with the leader.

If Children could Sack their parents none of us would hold our jobs for very long and our children would be lucky to survive but fortunately they have no choice but to accept our decisions and in time, they "may" see we were right.

Our leaders have to give us what is best today and tomorrow. Pretty hard criteria to use.

To me the "best" president would be someone who connects with the common man and woman. The average person in America makes 50k/year or less. Politicians spend 100+x that on the campaign to get elected. They naturally lose sight of what it is to be a regular guy/gal.

Here's a question.... is the best president someone who acts in the best interest of his countrymen at all times?

Yes and No. It's not just what's best for the countrymen, but for the country as an independent entity. Like or not, the way the rest of the world views our country is very important, especially in these times of economic depression and increased technology where news travels fast and communication is more open than ever. I find that many Americans are still stuck in the 20th century, not understanding that we are not the powerhouse we were in the past and more and more countries are catching up, or even passing us, in every avenue of development. Also, countrymen don't always know what's best for them.

One Candidate knew all about the Common Man. He proved this with Joe, the Plumber. Except, he couldn't always depend on the Common Man to be there when he was expected to be:eek:

Also, if the Average person is unlicensed and behind in taxes the Country has some basic issues to sort out before going forward.

Chopping down a cherry tree with an axe - and not lying about it :D

a WOODEN axe? LOL
Our leaders have to give us what is best today and tomorrow. Pretty hard criteria to use.

you have just defined human desire. do it "now", because I won't be here in 100 years so I don't care. That's the way the world pushes the 1% of us that don't think that way. :(One Candidate knew all about the Common Man..
just because a pres connects with the common man/woman doesn't mean jack. Obama makes common people smile simply because he's likeable, but if he came up to me with his fake smile I would probably walk away before he put his hand out. :p

(Not quite a president but) I was always quite impressed with John James Cowperthwaite

from wikipedia....

April 25, 1915 – January 21, 2006 he was Financial Secretary of Hong Kong from 1961 to 1971. His introduction of free market economic policies are widely credited with turning postwar Hong Kong into a thriving global financial centre.

He returned to Hong Kong in 1945 and continued to rise through the ranks. He was asked to find ways in which the government could boost post-war economic outlook, but he found the economy was recovering swiftly without any government intervention. He took the lesson to heart, and positive non-interventionism became the focus of his economic policy as Financial Secretary. He refused to collect economic statistics for fear it would encourage officials to meddle in the economy.

He was made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in 1960, Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George in 1964, and knighted in 1968. He was highly praised by Nobel laureate Milton Friedman just before his death.

My personal favourit is Robert Mgabe :rolleyes:

My personal favourit is Robert Mgabe :rolleyes:

The Knighthood, and the Honoray Degrees from places like Edinburgh, are testament to his good work early on.

Similar to Hitler being Times man of the year I guess.

Mussy's are similar too.

The art of politics is given below:
1. Get votes from the poor promising to transfer wealth from the rich to them.
2. Get money from the rich promising to protect them from the poor.

Individual politicians are smart to use some adaptation of this theme. For example, some will claim they are "Community Organizers." The idea is the same.

Seriously, I think of Kennedy & Reagan as great leaders. They were able to inspire people for service. Both were great communicators.

Unfortunately, the office of the Presidency (US) has changed over time. The President shouldn't have 'programs' or 'agendas' when they assume office. This wasn't the original intent of the President.

States interest are served by the other delegates in Washington (Senators, Representatives) and elected accordingly. The difference is the President is elected by all the People to represent all the people. The Presidents main job is keep the balance checked, execute the laws of Congress and represent the US.

The balance of power was for the President to keep the other two houses in-check so they wouldn't become the royal families as there were in the days of old. This is why 1 person was invested the veto power. Power corrupts absolutely so non-vetos were traded for votes on 'programs' thus they could then run on 'agendas' and, in turn, become part of the royal family themselves.

Qualities as a President? The ability to return to the Constitution and treat the office with the respect and integrity.

Favorite? Tie between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Every conservative that followed looked to them ...

Washington - "The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position."

Jefferson - "It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes."

-dK

The President shouldn't have 'agendas' when they assume office.

that's simply laughable at this point in time

that's simply laughable at this point in time

And that's what's sad about the whole thing..... Our country has moved so far away from what it was originally intened and set up to be.

And that's what's sad about the whole thing..... Our country has moved so far away from what it was originally intened and set up to be.

and don't count on it changing either. I can't even watch a presidential speech on tv anymore because the bs shines so far through me that my backside looks like the entrance to heaven. :p

And that's what's sad about the whole thing..... Our country has moved so far away from what it was originally intened and set up to be.

True, but you have to take the good with the bad. If I had a choice of living in 1850 America, 1900 America, or 2010 America, I'd go with 2010.

I think the problem with politics these days is that we are all so jaded towards our politicians. From a certain perspective, our country was founded by foreclosing on our debts/responsibilities towards Great Britain. Now, granted, it is 1 million times more complicated than that, but as a people we have a tradition of not trusting our leaders.

If you disagree with something the President says, that is all fine and dandy, and expected. He cannot please all of the people all of the time. I truly believe he is doing what he thinks is best for our nation, and for the most part, I agree with him.

I don't like constantly harping on past administrations, but I truly believe that President Bush will be remembered as one of the worst presidents of all time. I know many people who were pro-President Bush before his first term, and thought he was the worst ever by the end of his 2nd. To turn a die-hard follower into a die-hard enemy takes a lot of failures.

I was ashamed for us as a nation when we (didn't) elect President Bush the first time, and simply amazed when he somehow won the election the 2nd time. Comparing President Obama to President Bush in that respect, I think we are much better off.

True, but you have to take the good with the bad. If I had a choice of living in 1850 America, 1900 America, or 2010 America, I'd go with 2010.

I think the problem with politics these days is that we are all so jaded towards our politicians. From a certain perspective, our country was founded by foreclosing on our debts/responsibilities towards Great Britain. Now, granted, it is 1 million times more complicated than that, but as a people we have a tradition of not trusting our leaders.

If you disagree with something the President says, that is all fine and dandy, and expected. He cannot please all of the people all of the time. I truly believe he is doing what he thinks is best for our nation, and for the most part, I agree with him.

I don't like constantly harping on past administrations, but I truly believe that President Bush will be remembered as one of the worst presidents of all time. I know many people who were pro-President Bush before his first term, and thought he was the worst ever by the end of his 2nd. To turn a die-hard follower into a die-hard enemy takes a lot of failures.

I was ashamed for us as a nation when we (didn't) elect President Bush the first time, and simply amazed when he somehow won the election the 2nd time. Comparing President Obama to President Bush in that respect, I think we are much better off.

adam,

the thing i liked best about the 1800s and before was the fact that people did what they wanted to do and noone stopped them. no kidding ... war is not cool, but you might think of it as better than serious oppression in the future.

what makes you feel worse? forcing yourself to smile when you're seriously hurting (nowadays), or truthfully fighting for what you believe in (1800s)? good question, huh?

True, but you have to take the good with the bad. If I had a choice of living in 1850 America, 1900 America, or 2010 America, I'd go with 2010.

I think the problem with politics these days is that we are all so jaded towards our politicians. From a certain perspective, our country was founded by foreclosing on our debts/responsibilities towards Great Britain. Now, granted, it is 1 million times more complicated than that, but as a people we have a tradition of not trusting our leaders.

If you disagree with something the President says, that is all fine and dandy, and expected. He cannot please all of the people all of the time. I truly believe he is doing what he thinks is best for our nation, and for the most part, I agree with him.

I don't like constantly harping on past administrations, but I truly believe that President Bush will be remembered as one of the worst presidents of all time. I know many people who were pro-President Bush before his first term, and thought he was the worst ever by the end of his 2nd. To turn a die-hard follower into a die-hard enemy takes a lot of failures.

I was ashamed for us as a nation when we (didn't) elect President Bush the first time, and simply amazed when he somehow won the election the 2nd time. Comparing President Obama to President Bush in that respect, I think we are much better off.

I think there are pros and cons. I like that people, regardless of skin have equal rights. I like that, as a woman, I have equal rights ( the right to vote for example). Some things I don't like - the degradation of the family unit. I think women lost something (as well as gained) through feminism, one of those things being the ability to stay home. Families can hardly suvive on one income these days, not only do mothers who want to stay home with their children suffer, but so do the children. I think this leads to a score of societal problems as well. Families supported eachother more, which made the need for welfare less, also things for the elderly were better, as families had the responsibility of supporting them too. Were their bad things? Sure there were, I'm not trying to say there weren't but a lot of our ideals and sense of responsibility have left us. We put our individual responsibilities on the government in a lot of ways, IMHO.

adam,
the thing i liked best about the 1800s and before was the fact that people did what they wanted to do and noone stopped them.


I'm not sure what types of things you're referring to, but personally I don't feel like I am restricted today. For the most part, the restrictions that are in place make sense to me.


Some things I don't like - the degradation of the family unit. I think women lost something (as well as gained) through feminism, one of those things being the ability to stay home.


Why do you attribute that to feminism? I'd attribute it to greed (on behalf of business').


Families can hardly suvive on one income these days, not only do mothers who want to stay home with their children suffer, but so do the children. I think this leads to a score of societal problems as well.


I don't know that I agree with that. I think that there have always been scores of societal problems, they're simply heard about more often now due to a 24 hour news stream.

Personally, I think daycare is a great way for kids to learn how to deal with other children their own age. It would be interesting to see, but I'd wager a whole penny that kids who go through daycare on average score higher academically than those that don't. It gives kids a head start on learning the skills they're going to need to succeed in the modern world.

I guess I'm just an optimist. I look at all the opportunities I have, I look at the things I have accomplished, and I consider it a great day. Sure there are a lot more things I'd like to see happen, both personal and on a larger scale, but over all I'm quite happy.

]I'm not sure what types of things you're referring to, but personally I don't feel like I am restricted today. For the most part, the restrictions that are in place make sense to me.ummm....it makes sense to you? wow I've never met anyone like you before. I'm sure glad it makes sense! maybe you can teach the rest of us?

Why do you attribute that to feminism? I'd attribute it to greed (on behalf of business').

I have a slightly different view, I attribute it to greed, but on behalf of people.

I'd like to use myself as an example.

When my wife and I married, we worked at the local McD's made an amazing 30K total.

We decided we wanted more "stuff" so we found "better" jobs. Got to the point we made 50K total.

Wife got pregnant (woot) while on maternity leave we decided that her staying home with our daughter would be best.

Income dropped to $33k while adding one mouth, all of a sudden we had less money to buy "stuff" with, but we made ends meet and were pretty happy.

Again we started to want more "stuff" so I found a "better" job, income went up to $42K.

Had our second child, after which my wife had some health problems and in the process of taking care of those I lost my "better" job.

Last year I made ~ $32k, working at one of the dirtiest/nastiest jobs I've ever had, and we're happier than we've ever been, because we've finally realized that we just don't need that much "stuff".

As far as the children suffering, my children are actually farther along with many things than other children their age, that did go to daycare, because my wife has more 1 on 1 (or 2?) time with them than you'll get at daycare.

Also, they are also better behaved and interact perfectly well with children their own ages.

The last two paragraphs aren't just my opinion, it's something I've been told by teachers, family, friends, and random people on the street. (one is starting kindergarten the other preschool)

I often hear other parents say to their children "why can't you act like that child over there", to which I always want to reply "why don't you spend some good quality time with your child instead of letting the TV raise it?"

Why do you attribute that to feminism? I'd attribute it to greed (on behalf of business').

Well, as women weren't really allowed in the workplace before that... But I agree that greed plays a large part. Families want things the same way their parents have them, or grandparents, the difference is that took time to accumulate. We take out credit, go into debt up our ears, and for what? I think there was a time when all these things were not readily available. For instance, if you don't go shopping you don't realize what you don't have. If I want to be happy with what I have, the best thing I can do is not go to the mall.

I don't know that I agree with that. I think that there have always been scores of societal problems, they're simply heard about more often now due to a 24 hour news stream.

I agree that there has always been societal problems, but what helps you deal with those? Family. I think that is what we lose in our current society is the familial support that was once had in the midst of all the other problems. I certainly don't believe things were perfect, just better, I think we are perpetually building on the mistakes of the past (not in everything, albeit) and it snowballs.

Edit: Then we get things like housing crises, tons of foreclosures, High unemployment, exacerbation of gangs, crime etc.

Personally, I think daycare is a great way for kids to learn how to deal with other children their own age. It would be interesting to see, but I'd wager a whole penny that kids who go through daycare on average score higher academically than those that don't. It gives kids a head start on learning the skills they're going to need to succeed in the modern world.

I agree that kids need to be around other kids to gain social skills. I just don't think shoving them in the care of strangers is the way to do it, just so that the parents can afford more things. I think kids would rather have their mom around. Especially young ones. I know lots of stay at home moms (families who have made the necessary sacrifices) who make play dates, fieldtrips, all kinds of things with their children and other families.

I guess I'm just an optimist. I look at all the opportunities I have, I look at the things I have accomplished, and I consider it a great day. Sure there are a lot more things I'd like to see happen, both personal and on a larger scale, but over all I'm quite happy.

Oh, please don't get me wrong. I am happy to be born in the time I have been. I think it would be an affront to God (though you probably aren't thinking on those veins, I am though.) to wish to be in a different time than He put me in. I was born when I was and where for a reason and a purpose. I still wish for better, and there are somethings about simpler times that I will try to institute into my own family someday. I hope to not have to work when I have children. :)

Personally, I think daycare is a great way for kids to learn how to deal with other children their own age. It would be interesting to see, but I'd wager a whole penny that kids who go through daycare on average score higher academically than those that don't. It gives kids a head start on learning the skills they're going to need to succeed in the modern world.
Academically, I think I read that home-schooled children tend to do very well. No idea if this is because of less distractions, more focussed teaching due to smaller 'class sizes', or what.

Where daycares really help is developing children's social skills (arguably just as important for success in most areas).

]ummm....it makes sense to you? wow I've never met anyone like you before. I'm sure glad it makes sense! maybe you can teach the rest of us?

Well, first you'd have to be specific as to the restriction that you feel is an undue burden upon your liberties. Then I can tell you why it makes sense to me. That's not to say you won't still have a problem with it; there's no way to "teach" someone to adjust their attitude.


I have a slightly different view, I attribute it to greed, but on behalf of people.


Interesting perspective. Your example is an example of choice, however. You and your wife wanted certain things, and chose to make sacrifices to obtain them.


Last year I made ~ $32k, working at one of the dirtiest/nastiest jobs I've ever had, and we're happier than we've ever been, because we've finally realized that we just don't need that much "stuff".


This is the true key. Most people want a lot of things, but most people also cannot afford those things. A lot of people will complain that life isn't fair because they can't have all the luxuries they feel they deserve. Until things radically change however, people will only get what they can afford, not what they feel they deserve.


I agree that kids need to be around other kids to gain social skills. I just don't think shoving them in the care of strangers is the way to do it, just so that the parents can afford more things.

...

I hope to not have to work when I have children. :)


I think you've already found the solution to your problem. Your initial post that I responded to seemed to say that both parents have to work in order to be able to survive, which isn't actually true (as you yourself pointed out with examples of people you know who pull it off).

People have started to desire more and more things, which then requires they have more and more money, which requires they work more and more hours. If you temper your desires, you should not have a problem raising children on 1 income. Sure, you're going to have to accept a more thrifty lifestyle, but it is definitely doable.


Academically, I think I read that home-schooled children tend to do very well. No idea if this is because of less distractions, more focussed teaching due to smaller 'class sizes', or what.

Where daycares really help is developing children's social skills (arguably just as important for success in most areas).


Yeah, as I said before, I don't have the actual science to back up my guess, but it would be interesting to see.

Just from my own personal experience, kids that were raised by their parents (no daycare) tended to be more shy, more stubborn, more set in their ways. Kids that went to daycare had more social skills, had an easier time working with other kids, and were better academically.

As Kryst51 mentioned, if you don't put your kids in daycare but arrange playdates and such with other parents, maybe they get the best of both worlds.

The advantage I've always seen with daycare is that kids are exposed to different parenting styles and different things than what their parents would want them exposed to.

To look at religion once again, while a parent might teach their kid a certain religion, and bring them up that way. Once they get around other kids who's parents are not of that same religion, their eyes are opened to other lifestyles, other views, etc. This is what I think is beneficial to the kids.

Academically, I think I read that home-schooled children tend to do very well. No idea if this is because of less distractions, more focussed teaching due to smaller 'class sizes', or what.

Where daycares really help is developing children's social skills (arguably just as important for success in most areas).

I have a friend whose son was put on ADHD medication. He had gotten suspended from public schoold due to his inability to focus, stay still, and pay attention. Since then his grandmother has started home schooling him, and not only is he progressing quickly in his education, but he is also not needing his medication every day. I see that as a definite plus, I think for some children the one-on-one attention is needed and of great benefit.

Just to hijack the thread a little, as someone who was diagnosed ADD by my school, I don't believe in ADD.

I didn't have ADD, I just didn't care about certain subjects in school and did the minimum to get through. On the other hand, the subjects I was good at I picked up very quickly then got bored waiting for the others to catch up. So in both cases, I was deemed a distraction to others (which was true) and unable to concentrate (which wasn't, I just didn't want to).

Funny how most ADD kids can sit in front of a video game for hours.......

Just to hijack the thread a little, as someone who was diagnosed ADD by my school, I don't believe in ADD.

I didn't have ADD, I just didn't care about certain subjects in school and did the minimum to get through. On the other hand, the subjects I was good at I picked up very quickly then got bored waiting for the others to catch up. So in both cases, I was deemed a distraction to others (which was true) and unable to concentrate (which wasn't, I just didn't want to).

Funny how most ADD kids can sit in front of a video game for hours.......

While I do think the term is applied too generally. I think ADD is a mixture of a lot of different things. 1) Our American diets are very poor, not only because the available fast food, and poor eating habits, but also because the so called healthy food that we purchase at the grocery store, have been engineered, and produced out of season, etc so much that they no long contain the nutrients that our bodies need. Kids receive too much sugar, even in things that are supposedly good for you. Ignorance about food plays a part as well. I think food greatly affects mood and behavior. 2) Individual attention, if a child is not receiving one-on-one attention they are bound to try to get attention elsewhere, some by over-achieving, some by under-achieving, some by acting out.

As far as video games are concerned. A child can sit in front of a video game ans still be ADD as video games provide a lot of visual stimulation. I have heard however from people who have been diagnosed with ADHD that they cannot sit for a prolonged period of time in front of video games.

I think that children who are diagnosed shouldn't be medicated out of it neccesarily. I know some parents who use the medication only when necessary, and other parents who have never told their children that there was a problem, but taught them ways to deal with the problem, both behaviorally and eating habits. But the parents that do that have to be extremely dedicated, patient and willing to research what kind of diet their child should be on.

The advantage I've always seen with daycare is that kids are exposed to different parenting styles and different things than what their parents would want them exposed to.

To look at religion once again, while a parent might teach their kid a certain religion, and bring them up that way. Once they get around other kids who's parents are not of that same religion, their eyes are opened to other lifestyles, other views, etc. This is what I think is beneficial to the kids.

Unfortunately, far too many people will disagree with this. They would rather shelter their kids from the world and not let them experience other beliefs, lifestyles, or ways of parenting. The sad thing is, by doing this they are actually sheltering themselves as well.

ADD truly does exist. I can definitely state that for a fact. They have found chemical causes of it. What actually causes the chemical imbalance is still up for debate. I have friends who are adults with ADD.

I do also agree that medication is handled out far too freely. So are diagnoses of mental disabilities when it could very well by a physical cause that if treated, would relieve the mental stress or issues.

I remember a friend of mine in high school who was highly artistic and creative. His art teacher assigned his class a task of choosing an object from the center table and painting something with strong meaning that comes from inside that included that object. He selected a teddy bear, and painted it in the center of a war scene with a few drops of blood on it. I thought it was wonderful. The art teacher thought it was great. Unfortunately, another teacher thought he needed counceling and had him sent for a mental evaluation. Is free thinking and expression really that dead? :mad:

I do also agree that medication is handled out far too freely. So are diagnoses of mental disabilities when it could very well by a physical cause that if treated, would relieve the mental stress or issues.

I agree completely, doctors these days don't want to cure you, just medicate you, so you keep coming back! (more $$$ for them)

I "have" stress induced acid reflux, my doctor's solution? lots of expensive pills

didn't work

My solution: more exercise and to quit worrying about stuff. so far has worked much better. I don't even need the meds anymore :)

Is free thinking and expression really that dead? :mad:

not only is it dead, but it's been beaten with a stick until there's nothing left of it.

Interesting perspective. Your example is an example of choice, however. You and your wife wanted certain things, and chose to make sacrifices to obtain them.

From Wikipedia: Greed is an excessive desire to possess wealth or goods

Greed itself is a choice. Businesses don't make us greedy, we make ourselves greedy.

Just like us Americans like to blame fast food for making our kids fat. Nobody but yourself made you stop at that McDonalds.

Americans(maybe society in general) likes to place the blame not on themselves, but other people, as it's easier to see the "problems" that "McDonald's" creates rather than take responsibility for their part.

It is important that all people have an equal chance at things rather then older days where there was not even a glimmer of hope for some people to be able to control a large part of their lives. There is still not total equality but the gap has definately shrunken over the past number of decades.
I do think it is sad though that the need for bigger and better things has seemingly undermined the family in a more traditional sense. People allowing strangers to bring up their children at an earlier and earlier age, and likewise farming out their elders to live away rather then continue to contribute to the spirit of the family. I think people need to return to simpler values, where people respected youth and elders. The young will see the future, the elders have lived the past, we have a lot to learn from them.

I think there are pros and cons. I like that people, regardless of skin have equal rights. I like that, as a woman, I have equal rights ( the right to vote for example). Some things I don't like - the degradation of the family unit. I think women lost something (as well as gained) through feminism, one of those things being the ability to stay home. Families can hardly suvive on one income these days, not only do mothers who want to stay home with their children suffer, but so do the children. I think this leads to a score of societal problems as well. Families supported eachother more, which made the need for welfare less, also things for the elderly were better, as families had the responsibility of supporting them too. Were their bad things? Sure there were, I'm not trying to say there weren't but a lot of our ideals and sense of responsibility have left us. We put our individual responsibilities on the government in a lot of ways, IMHO.

Just like us Americans like to blame fast food for making our kids fat. Nobody but yourself made you stop at that McDonalds.

Americans(maybe society in general) likes to place the blame not on themselves, but other people, as it's easier to see the "problems" that "McDonald's" creates rather than take responsibility for their part.

Just as a caveat... All of our meat these days is pumped with growth hormone and fed things to make them grow fatter. These things get consumed by us as well, so while I am not saying that we as Americans need to take responsibility for our overeating and being overweight, our food contributes to the high levels as well.... I wish I could afford more natural foods, but they are so dang expensive.

It is important that all people have an equal chance at things rather then older days where there was not even a glimmer of hope for some people to be able to control a large part of their lives. There is still not total equality but the gap has definately shrunken over the past number of decades.
I do think it is sad though that the need for bigger and better things has seemingly undermined the family in a more traditional sense. People allowing strangers to bring up their children at an earlier and earlier age, and likewise farming out their elders to live away rather then continue to contribute to the spirit of the family. I think people need to return to simpler values, where people respected youth and elders. The young will see the future, the elders have lived the past, we have a lot to learn from them.

I agree with this 100%. :)

Natural and organic foods are not more expensive then high production psudofood. You do not need large portions of the good food, which is usually sold in smaller portions anyway as they do not expect you to waste 20% of the food by throwing it out or leaving it on your plate or over consuming. Eating less meat and shopping more often for smaller portions of food is healthier all round.

Just as a caveat... All of our meat these days is pumped with growth hormone and fed things to make them grow fatter. These things get consumed by us as well, so while I am not saying that we as Americans need to take responsibility for our overeating and being overweight, our food contributes to the high levels as well.... I wish I could afford more natural foods, but they are so dang expensive.

Natural and organic foods are not more expensive then high production psudofood. You do not need large portions of the good food, which is usually sold in smaller portions anyway as they do not expect you to waste 20% of the food by throwing it out or leaving it on your plate or over consuming. Eating less meat and shopping more often for smaller portions of food is healthier all round.

I have worked in a natural food store. I can buy chicken at the grocery store (say $10 for 6 or 7, if I remember correctly, boneless skinless breasts) freeze it in small packages and use one or two as I need. At my natural food store (where I buy when I can) the organic, non-hormoned, chicken is $10 to $15 for about half as much. It is hard to make a direct comparison as it has the bones, but there it is.

Greed itself is a choice. Businesses don't make us greedy, we make ourselves greedy.


While I agree, my earlier point was that business being greedy is what requires people to work more (and more specifically more women in the workforce). What I mean by this is that business' often forgo raises, slash benefits, reduce retirement, etc all to protect their bottom line.

If you make $20/hour, and can live comfortably on that, but then your company suddenly drops you to $15/hour, is it greedy to want to retain the things you had when you made $20/hour? Possibly, but I would say it is far greedier on the business' end.

I like where I work, it is a great place, very friendly, lots of opportunities, etc. However, we haven't gotten a raise in 3 years now, which is very frustrating. They claim this is due to the tough economic conditions we face, which is quite logical. They slashed some of our benefits and told us by doing so some of our co-workers' jobs were saved. Most people understood.

However, we then hear about executives receiving a hefty raise. So the question becomes, who is truly the greedy one? From my perspective, an executive should refuse a raise if the common man is not receiving a raise. If the common man is losing, the executive shouldn't be rewarded as they obviously aren't excelling (otherwise they wouldn't need to cut benefits).

If your immediate supervisor called you into the office and said "Here is $x.00 raise for doing a good job in spite of the recent cuts in benefits" would you ensure all the other employees of the company were equally rewarded or would you just accept it?

While I agree, my earlier point was that business being greedy is what requires people to work more (and more specifically more women in the workforce). What I mean by this is that business' often forgo raises, slash benefits, reduce retirement, etc all to protect their bottom line.

If you make $20/hour, and can live comfortably on that, but then your company suddenly drops you to $15/hour, is it greedy to want to retain the things you had when you made $20/hour? Possibly, but I would say it is far greedier on the business' end.

I like where I work, it is a great place, very friendly, lots of opportunities, etc. However, we haven't gotten a raise in 3 years now, which is very frustrating. They claim this is due to the tough economic conditions we face, which is quite logical. They slashed some of our benefits and told us by doing so some of our co-workers' jobs were saved. Most people understood.

However, we then hear about executives receiving a hefty raise. So the question becomes, who is truly the greedy one? From my perspective, an executive should refuse a raise if the common man is not receiving a raise. If the common man is losing, the executive shouldn't be rewarded as they obviously aren't excelling (otherwise they wouldn't need to cut benefits).

A Good Executive should put in place systems to train and or replace staff as part of the process of having a good and profitable business.
Then, all can share in the benefits. The slackers have gone.

A business that can only afford the bosses pay rise is not being run properly and maybe the boss is the one due for training or replacing.

Hard times can hit any business and provided everyone does their best then either all or none share.

Not a socialist concept, just good team building. Communists don't give slackers the big A.

If your immediate supervisor called you into the office and said "Here is $x.00 raise for doing a good job in spite of the recent cuts in benefits" would you ensure all the other employees of the company were equally rewarded or would you just accept it?

accept it! people not in supervisory roles always have the protection of ignorance.

If your immediate supervisor called you into the office and said "Here is $x.00 raise for doing a good job in spite of the recent cuts in benefits" would you ensure all the other employees of the company were equally rewarded or would you just accept it?

I would just accept it. But I'm not an executive, so it is not in my power to make sure the company is properly managing their finances. If I were in turn to say "Please show me all of the financial statements of the corporation so I can justify taking this raise", I'd probably be fired (which would make sense as it is not my job nor role to have such information).

Now, on the flip side, when I was a manager in my old job, I always covered the other worker's shifts if there was a problem. I always agreed to stay late or come in early as needed. I gave the workers a lot of flexibility with scheduling, etc. These are all things that the "bosses" should do, IMO.

But the executives answer to share holders and not to the employees, if the share holders are happy with the profits from the people they have control over then they will keep the talent and reward them as per their contract.
The "bosses' are the ones who have to react to the decisions of the executive and hire fire cut and reward the employees and themselves.
But when it all comes down to details everyone from CEO to the lowest wage earner - you are all working for the same reason - to make money. And if you do not agree with the return on your efforts, then you need to either change the situation or figure out how to cope with the changes.

I would just accept it. But I'm not an executive, so it is not in my power to make sure the company is properly managing their finances. If I were in turn to say "Please show me all of the financial statements of the corporation so I can justify taking this raise", I'd probably be fired (which would make sense as it is not my job nor role to have such information).

Now, on the flip side, when I was a manager in my old job, I always covered the other worker's shifts if there was a problem. I always agreed to stay late or come in early as needed. I gave the workers a lot of flexibility with scheduling, etc. These are all things that the "bosses" should do, IMO.

But the executives answer to share holders and not to the employees, if the share holders are happy with the profits from the people they have control over then they will keep the talent and reward them as per their contract.


Well, I work for a nonprofit, so there are no shareholders. But even in the case of shareholders, executives should still be putting the workers first. If all they are worried about is the shareholders, that means they're worried mostly about their own compensation. A good leader puts the workers' needs above their own, IMO.


But when it all comes down to details everyone from CEO to the lowest wage earner - you are all working for the same reason - to make money.

I don't think it is that cut and dry. I've had two offers of higher-paying jobs, but I choose to stay where I am because I truly believe in our mission. I enjoy working with my co-workers towards a common goal. The money is definitely a large part of working, but it is not the only thing.

Bosses should consider their Workers, but within reason. Some workers will abuse such situations. A good and fair set of rules should be followed. Support the Human Resource just as you do any other Asset of the Organisation, be it profit or non profit. HR (and IT:)) are the critical company assets - not always recognised as such.

From the Workers side, and this also applies to employed executives, you always have the option to change your jobs. Your values may conflict with your employer. eg, If you value family life and weekends, don't join the emergency services / armed forces or Walmart. No matter how caring the boss is they can never make you happy.