jayK said:You honestly think direct democracy is a better political system than a representative republic? Observe the referendum system in CA and other states for an example of direct democracy at work.
Nope, I think direct democracy is flawed and I don't believe in it at all (especially given the points of the founding fathers about Athenians voting to bankrupt themselves). My point was to express my exasperation and just assert that even the worst form of direct governance beats what is going down now.

I'm not so sure recalls are the answer, unless you want continuous campaigning. IMHO terms in the executive and legislative branch should be made slightly longer (maybe 5 years), and there should be a strict one term limit for each branch (meaning you can't jump from the House to the Senate to get another term, but a Congressperson can still run for President).
Term limits could be useful, but I think we would need to allow people two terms (just to provide some sense of continuity in the government). One five year term seems too short for anybody to understand the mechanisms of the beast they are trying to manage. However, I do believe the executive is far too powerful and should have its powers greatly curtailed, but that's a whole different point entirely.

Is this the same American populace you want in charge of the government via a direct democracy?
Again, I was merely expressing frustration. I think our government now is pretty damn representative, all things considered. Both populace and their elected officials = ignorant, greedy, corrupt, stupid, and have no sense of accountability for irresponsible decisions.

I agree that punitive measures are necessary, but it probably isn't our highest priority right now.
You're right... it's much more important that we stock up on weapons, ammo, canned food, and clean water. The end is nigh~! ;P

WalStMonky said:Cantecleer said:PS---in particular, I'm thinking of Wallstmonky who repeatedly laughed at me for doubting America's financial health awhile back in a thread about the declining value of the $. I wonder if he is still as hopeful as he proclaimed he would always be. He chided me for being young and naive back then... well, a young person saw it coming, and he just kept your head buried in the sand like millions of otheres. I don't think we're doomed, but this is exactly what I (and those like me) were talking about, a--holes...

Well, it would sure be nice to have what I actually said in front of us here rather than what you seem to recall me saying. Really, you can't even remember how my name is spelled so it's demonstrable that your memory is flawed. But to answer the 'hopeful' question I am as much of an optimist as I always have been. I sincerely doubt that I ever discounted the possibility of 'rocks on the road' as you claim, and do think you're jumping the gun crowing about your 'victory' if you can call it that. In the meantime I'll tend to my new poop farm, which is already ahead of schedule. You'll be in your deep doo-doo, and I'll be in mine. I just found out my female goat is pregnant! Gosh, I sure hope that's not my fault, but she is darn cute.

I can't quote what you or I said because it's archived as it was said so long ago. Furthermore, I can't see how adding an "L" to your name undercuts my entire point about you glibly calling me naive and saying you've seen pessimists like me many times before. Plus, I don't get where you think I am crowing about a "victory." Even back then, I bemoaned the likelihood that I was right, that guys like "Dr. Doom" (Peter Schiff) were spot on when pointing out the impending financial/economic implosion. For the past several years, people have been warning about this disaster and begging others to listen and to right the ship. Sadly, we've had others scoff at our concerns and blow us off. Even now, you deflect the points I'm making by talking about shit farms and pregnant goats (and I don't get the joke, sorry). I just wish you'd acknowledge that you thought things were great, that you took the rational concerns of others as "the sky is falling~!" hysteria, and that you continue to avert your attention away from what is going. I think you should modify your moniker... "Mr. Jones" is much more fitting.... "'cause something is happening, but you don't know what it is..."

jayK said:orangespot said:This is no excuse. They spent more by going than by cancelling and losing the deposit.I assume you are basing this statement on inside information, would you care to share the terms of the contract?

I'm referring to the pedicures, manicures, bar tabs etc... which if you listened to the congressional hearing were also questioned as separate expenditures at the taxpayers' expense.

Moreover, why didn't they sell the reservation at eBay to recoup some of that deposit?I doubt there is a large buyer's market for lavish corporate retreats sold with a week's notice. The resale value of the retreat was probably far lower than the intangible benefits to the morale of AIG employees.

If they'd gotten 100 bucks for it, that would be 100 bucks they wouldn't have to beg from the taxpayer. They could have donated it to charity - make a wish foundation- or anything other than what they did, because that was a slap in the face to the taxpayer.

You get my drift JayK, it's common sense.

Not disagreeing with you Eric, but there is an added dimension here...they're standing on a corner begging for 85 BILLION, SO THEY CAN SPEND IT ON CRACK. It's different when you work for your crack.
EricGo07 said:For the most part, I view AIG's lavish party the same way I view lavish executive compensation. It is as wrong now, as it was last year, and the year before ...

It is an established way of doing business in the US that has been tolerated in the 'good' years, which many now recognize as short-sighted.