By Max

October 11, 2010 6:48 PM | Link to this

So, pick your ‘ism’ and it’s still better to be king than not?…..DOYLE: “The Americans are the ones who developed a large middle class with a deeper sense of equality than that of which the real-life communists ever dreamed.”…..Actually, the Romans were the first long-lasting society who had a middles class of sorts. The interesting thing Mr. Doyle fails to point out is both America and Russia were once ruled by totalitarian aristocracies and both had revolutions which went into two different directions. But, I think Mr. Doyle makes an excellent point when it comes to politics; we all tend to be involved as a result of our experiences rather than our hopes.

By the Asp

October 11, 2010 7:04 PM | Link to this

The great thing about free market capitalism is that if you don’t like the pyramid you are in, you can move to another, or with hard work, create your own. The cryptic promises of the pyramid of communism is an oppressive weight of dead-end passageways and burial rooms. The juice of socialism isn’t wired to a toggle switch…it is more like a rheostat. I won’t be systematically desensitized(dehumanized) and shocked into existing under the weight of one pyramid.

By Jesse

October 11, 2010 9:16 PM | Link to this

HOW ABOUT SKIN IN THE GAME. Every Citizen in this country should pay some Federal and State taxes. Just like DP&L, and Vectren said even those on public assistance would be required to pay at least $10 a month. When over 40% of Americans pay no Income tax it means those people have no incentive to be involved in the system. Plus they are beholding to those in government who made the system this way. Like the guy in the White House said, “WE ALL NEED TO HAVE SOME SKIN IN THE GAME” !!!

By True Capitalism

October 11, 2010 9:50 PM | Link to this

What Mr. Doyle fails to take into account is that the Capitalist system we live in today has been greatly changed in the last sixty years. To even refer to it as a true Capitalist system is a stretch. We have passed so many rules and regulations Companies are fleeing to more business friendly countries with cheap labor. The same thing is happing in Europe where they have the same problem which is made even worse by being more socialist. Socialism Is living under a “planed economy” controlled by the government and that is the direction we are heading in not Capitalism.

By karon

October 11, 2010 11:18 PM | Link to this

Working hard to create your own? It is very hard to do to become rich! Unless you are well connected , then dont count on becoming rich. Also it is the middle class that keep a healthy productive society, NOT a few rich people!

By Mark W

October 12, 2010 12:00 AM | Link to this

@Karon, it may be hard to become rich, but it’s not hard to become fairly comfortable, and it doesn’t require being well connected(although some are hit by more than their share of setbacks). Get a good education. Put in the extra effort at work to go beyond assigned tasks, especially in your early years . That makes you stand out - and early promotions are the workplace-equivalent of compounded interest on savings. Set savings goals, and increase them with every pay raise. Spend within your means - and that means paying off the credit cards every month (if you can’t do that, don’t use the cards). And don’t fall for every latest gizmo (ten years ago, hardly anyone carried cellphones, today every kid has one with an expensive plan for what to the kids is basically a toy) as the purchase costs and monthly commitments add up.

By Jim W

October 12, 2010 8:42 AM | Link to this

Leave it to a UD professor to tell us about real life and competition. How easy it is to simplify and criticise a system that is beyond reach of their ability or commitment. Considering that people like this class envy professor are teaching our young people to envy rather than compete and we have a legislature that encourages citizens to be dependent rather than self sufficient — it is a miracle that capitalism is still alive. Our freedom is in great danger.

By Jim W

October 12, 2010 8:46 AM | Link to this

Leave it to a UD professor to tell us about real life and competition. How easy it is to simplify and criticise a system that is beyond reach of their ability or commitment. Considering that people like this class envy professor are teaching our young people to envy rather than compete and we have a legislature that encourages citizens to be dependent rather than self sufficient — it is a miracle that capitalism is still alive. Our freedom is in great danger.

By Raoul

October 12, 2010 8:50 AM | Link to this

Interesting article, but I would assert that the essential point is un-American in sentiment. The friend who chose the ‘low pyramid’ job will be less likely to achieve anything beyond a comfort zone of existence. There is little push to excel. Without it, we drift toward Euro-style socialism. Probably not the worst thing in the world, but certainly not my idea of American exceptionalism. But make no mistake; Obama stands against the concept of American exceptionalism, and is one, who like many others of his ilk, thinks ‘fairness’ can be legislated. It can not! The world is not fair, and cannot be made so by the pursuit of ‘Progressive’ political policy.

By Jesse

October 12, 2010 8:56 AM | Link to this

Ever wonder why our children are receiving the education they do?? This kind of myopic view of situations by teachers who live in their sheltered arenas is why. Their ‘world’ is not the real world the rest of us mere mortals survive in. There is Good and there is True Evil in mans ‘real’ world.

By Max

October 12, 2010 9:31 AM | Link to this

Again, the power structure - business, governments, the patriarchy, etc. - is nothing new and goes back to the genesis of agriculture, domestication of animals, and the God of Abraham. We call it ‘civilization.’ To complain about it nonviolently is called politics. To pontificate about selected aspects of it is called academia. The pyramid example as it relates to communism given by Mr. Doyle is totally incorrect. Communism as practiced in the former USSR was not ‘geometric’ as in a ‘pyramid’ in any aspect. It was centralized - like a dot in a circle - which was even the command and control structure of its military. While Mr. Doyle’s story is interesting as an anecdote, it bears little in truth and much in opinion.

By JS

October 12, 2010 9:33 AM | Link to this

Jesse, you know this guy’s background? You know his whole life’s work by what he does now? You’re absolutely SURE, because he worked hard to earn his degree and position, that he has no idea of the ‘real’ world? And wtf is ‘REAL’? What you expreience? Others in your own neighborhood have vsstly different experiences and would define ‘real’ far differently than yourself. How egotistical we all are, to believe we have the answer on what is American or what is ‘real’. And, really, somebody still believing an unregulated market can function…that deregulation is all it takes. Adam Smith wrote that without a moral center, the market will no function. In other words, it is ridiculous to talk about the rhetorical nonsense of deregulation when you should be convinced that there is no moral center here. If you don’t know who Adam Smith is, quit now.

By JS

October 12, 2010 9:44 AM | Link to this

And Max, you missed the point of the statement you quoted; he didn’t say the Americans were the first, just that, relative to the so-called communist countries, America created a much larger middle class. Said nothing about who did it first.

By Max

October 12, 2010 10:14 AM | Link to this

JS, you’re right and I thought about that after I wrote it and posted it. My point is Mr. Doyle is all over the road in his comparisons between capitalism and communism. Communism NEVER in its ideology or practice operated in a ‘pyramid’ power structure. NEVER. Under Empire Roman rule the middle class was basically made up of civil servents much like us today. BUT, like our experiment with the institution, slavery was the ‘lower’ class so that system was dependent on other things. Today, our lower class functions much as slavery once did. In the USSR, they created their own ‘slave’ class through their Gulag system. My overall point is Mr. Doyle is giving a misleading picture of the ‘compare and contrast’ exercise between capitalism and communism; one is a market driven economic system, the other, though originally an economic theory of Marx in terms of aristocracies and everyone else, is basically a centralized totalitarian form of government in actual practice.

By Max

October 12, 2010 10:35 AM | Link to this

JS, the fallacy Mr. Doyle presents is the two C’s have a geometric power structure. That is FALSE. For example, shortly after the breakup of the Warsaw Pac nations I visited Gdansk and Prague. It was self-evident that the fall of the proxy power the USSR had over these nations created an incredible vacuum. While still sovereign nations, while still having industrial capacity, and while maintaining even their schools and universities, they had NO MANAGEMENT in any area because that was done by the state. It will take a generation or more to establish a management, middle class. However, those nations did not fail or fall even after removing a state created middle class management from the middle of the pyramid. What did fail was the USSR. Mr. Doyle’s examples are an extension of how we view other nations through our own experiences. It also reeks of ‘exclusivism’ which is our self-refuting aspect which we export to other non-democracies. I suggest this is part of the problem the USA has in the larger world. Mr. Doyle make a good point in that it is popular to flippantly characterize some ‘policies’ as being socialist. Again, this comes from ignorance and fear, not fact. Our government, from its very beginning, periodically intervened into economic areas to maintain or encourage progress. And, of course, not all those experiments were successful which was a leading cause of the American Civil War.

By JS

October 12, 2010 10:43 AM | Link to this

Max,just a funny point, for me; circles, and dots or even regions in circles, are geometric.

By Max

October 12, 2010 10:53 AM | Link to this

Not necessarily…..a ‘line’ for example is an abstraction….an idea, not a thing. But, regardless of Cartesian coordinate geometry or Euclidean, Doyle is still wrong.

By Max

October 12, 2010 11:04 AM | Link to this

RE JESSE: Actually, the perception that academia has a ‘seperate reality’ isn’t all that far from the truth. Yes, sometimes academics are hampered by what they know when inductively applying it to what they don’t. That works in scientific processes but doesn’t in political science and social inquiries (or, marriage for that matter…lol). The ‘pyramid’ ordering of things was proposed by the Greek philosophers and later, through Aquinas, adopted by the Catholic Church when then ushered us into the Dark Ages. So, the ‘pyramid’ of power CAN be oppressive when it is all encompassing. Thomas Jefferson pondered that issue as he wrote a document.

By Max

October 12, 2010 11:37 AM | Link to this

KARON: “Working hard to create your own? It is very hard to do to become rich!”…..No, Karon, it is very HARD to become poor….KARON: “Unless you are well connected , then dont count on becoming rich.”….Karon, being ‘connected’ is a function of social politics, not financial success. Build a better mousetrap and your connections will unfold….KARON: “Also it is the middle class that keep a healthy productive society, NOT a few rich people!”….Well, just where do all these middle class managers work? It’s a symbiotic relationship with speed bumps along the way. If we didn’t have a wealthy ‘class’ then where is the incentive? Steve Jobs and Bill Gates weren’t born with their fortunes. They built a better mousetrap.

By Raoul

October 12, 2010 11:43 AM | Link to this

Max and Jesse: The Founders would be bored by the acadamia in your posts. Pyramids, geometry, abstract lines….I think they were more peoccupied with simpler concepts. One of them was that We the People choose our leaders, and can then un-choose them later if we don’t like them. Communism doesn’t allow that. Socialism barely requires leadership of any kind. Doyle seems to have forgotten the aspect of leadership in his article. For me, it is an all-important necessity to make any system work. As a final note, good leadership does not mean the smartest guy in the room is the best leader.

By Max

October 12, 2010 11:50 AM | Link to this

JS, I really don’t know if applying 18th Century social moralists - Enlightenment inspired or not - to principals of market economies. Moralists judge from predisposed positions. Markets, not meaning to be overly remedial, function on the supply and demand model. The moralists ask ‘if’ something SHOULD be done,and, business asks if something CAN be done. These are two different concerns. If there is a market for prostitution, for example, then that market will be accomodated. It’s the P/L sheets that are the ‘moralities’ in business. Also, the moralists tend to restrict and truncate markets and progress - i.e. stem cell research - through their subjective judgments.

By Max

October 12, 2010 12:20 PM | Link to this

RAOUL, actually most of what I have posted was derived from Thomas Jefferson (a FOUNDER) in his concerns about totalitarian states and limiting their powers. That’s not no much academic as it is part of our history. I agree the problem becomes one of perception; is the system working? Not all the time. Even the FOUNDERS messed up when writing the Constitution. The infighting between Hamilton and Jefferson under G. Washington’s presidency regarding state and national currency settling the post Revolution debt set up the American Civil War. ‘States Rights’ was an issue from the beginning and still hasn’t been fully resolverd in the minds of many. Before we deify the FOUNDERS it is appropriate, in my opinion, to learn from their mistakes as well as heralding their accomplishments. They knew the Constitution needed a tuneup now and then and provided for that under the amendment process. I agree Communism is oppressive in all its forms. But, it is quite different than the Communist Manifesto (scholars generally agree it wasn’t authored by Marx, but under his influence)which, upon first reading sounds a lot like our Declaration of Independence in its disdain for the European aristocracy.

By Max

October 12, 2010 12:28 PM | Link to this

Oh, RAOUL, I forgot…..the smartest guy or gal in the room may not always be a leader, but, they are smart enough to find one who is. Leadership has less to do with rank and more to do with performance. That’s why we have junior officers and NCO’s in the military.

By Bob540

October 12, 2010 12:41 PM | Link to this

What I took from Prof Doyle’s description of pyramids is that quality of life is measured by more than tasks completed or dollar signs. You could educate and toil to the extreme, but is this what makes a satisfying life? For me, living goes beyond serving the bosses, figures on a page or a line on a chart. I think Europeans understand this better than we Americans. We brag on our “productivity”; they celebrate their connections to others and the environment. We could learn from them.

By Bob540

October 12, 2010 12:49 PM | Link to this

As for Capitalism, we (most of us) understand that controls and protections are needed at the lowest socioeconomic levels, so that people who cannot compete are not literally starving or freezing. What is less obvious is that controls are needed at the top S-E levels, to prevent “super competitors” from amassing so much of a nation’s wealth that it is detrimental to the mass of its citizens. As we have seen increasing concentration of wealth without few hands, I think U.S. is approaching the point at which controls need to be implemented, for the good of society as a whole. (Not a popular concept, I understand, but I think a necessary one).

By Raoul

October 12, 2010 1:22 PM | Link to this

Max - I concur about Marx. His world was one of a minority of ‘Haves’ and a majority of ‘Have Nots’. There wasn’t much in between. In that world the ‘Have Nots’ did all the work, so of course we saw the rise of the Proletariat. This seems like the exact opposite of our more free market based system, where hard work is rewarded. There will always be producers and there will always be non-producers. Again, life was never meant to be fair, but at least in our capitalist society, there is a path towards wealth, and it consists mostly of hard work. That seems infinitely more reasonable than the aristocratic world of Marx (and the South (pre-Civil War). Bob540, increasing concentrations of wealth seems a meaningless point. Of course wealth is concentrated in the hands of the wealthy; the key is maintaining a social order that provides an opportunity to accumulate enough wealth to satisfy each individual without interfering with others rights to do the same.

By Max

October 12, 2010 1:29 PM | Link to this

Bob540, I think you have a point about the mega-corporations. Since the early 1960’s we had a new thing come into play; the multinational conglomerate. What happens in other parts of the world does affect us. As you propose, we can have some controls here - i.e. anti-trust provisions, etc. - but the details are in the complexity of the global enconomy, not just ours. I also agree less control is best but no control is unacceptable as well. When we look at a simple thing such as agriculture we have to start asking why we are importing more food than ever in our history. Well, it’s about the multinational’s again..like Monsanto’s GMO’s. I suspect you are right as uncomfortable as that is.

By Max

October 12, 2010 1:53 PM | Link to this

RAOUL, I agree. I think the problem with social order is twofold; the first is a more ‘Darwinist’ approach which accepts a certain degree of failure and displacement, and, the second provides for an instrument (government, religion, etc.) to intervene and ‘manage’ the success and failure. With one we do have to check our morality at the door and with the other we have to collectively surrender to the ‘powers’ that intervene. That’s where we are today, I think, and it’s the basic conflict between individual rights and choice vs. regulation of those. Do you see a middle ground?

By Max

October 12, 2010 2:37 PM | Link to this

Doyle quotes his friend as saying,“The high-pyramid capitalists are just like the communists. The power is concentrated in the hands of a few, and everybody else has to answer to them.”….This is both a cynical and myopic view of ‘power.’ Those who are in power positions - business and government - enjoy those positions at our leisure each time we cast our votes while shopping or at the polls. It is understandable how he can arrive at that conclusion based on his experiences but he is still wrong. Is there a disparity between the rich and poor? Of course. That’s not news over the past 2100 years and more. But, to compare communism with capitalism based on a contrived comparison of power structure requires much more than a leap of faith to deem credible. Any of us can extrapolate anything to marry up to a predisposed conclusion. That’s what Doyle’s piece is. Power, whatever the flavor, is in a constant state of flux. Power can only maintain its position by changing. Otherwise, it is displaced or replaced. These dynamics allow for less powerful people and entities to become, well, part of the power structure. This sort of mimic’s physic’s First Law of Thermodynamics as it pertains to energy and its conservation in a system.

By Raoul

October 12, 2010 2:48 PM | Link to this

Corporate Darwinism has brought us an economy where we purchase goods and services at very affordable prices. That benefits the lower income levels of society. When conditions arise such that lower levels of the economic society can no longer benefit by the greed and accumulation of wealth of corporations, we will be in need of a societal correction. That is not the case now, despite the income gap between the rich and the poor. We may not like Walmart, but when you are trying to stretch the family dollar, Walmart becomes a safe haven. Corporations really are people; and therefore are both good and bad. I believe the real value in our society lies with creating a society of people that want to achieve. Historically, we have done that very well, but now I see the pendelum swinging to a society of takers who have been led to believe they are victims. This is a false notion, and it stems from over-egineering of our society by well intentioned do-gooders who seem clueless about the law of unintended consequences. I do see a middle ground: restore the notion that we are a nation of individuals responsible for our own success or failure. When we succeed, we extend a helping hand up. But we can’t keep counting on the same achievers to do the lifting. It needs to be bred into our society. That will take leadership.

By Max

October 12, 2010 3:01 PM | Link to this

Raoul, I generally agree but the leadership vacuum has been filled by those with no solutions but say so with very loud, inciting voices. I have written on DDN’s boards several times deeming the current paradigm as being one, descriptively, of social, political, and economic anarchy. That would fit into your idea of the lack of leadership being the problem, but, we keep electing those who seem to fall short of the glory. If Obama was a major appliance I would return it for a refund.

By keithfromxenia

October 12, 2010 3:08 PM | Link to this

this is a college professor writing this??? oh boy. sorry prof, but americans do not value a sense of “equality”. we value a sense of opportunity and a sense of freedom. as far as i know no one at the “high pyramid” companies are shot or imprisoned because they don’t like the system. have i missed any. they are free to go and make their way elsewhere. you college types just don’t get the real world, not sure about constantin.

By Max

October 12, 2010 3:16 PM | Link to this

There is a sort of indigenous hypocrisy built into our system which is more fundemental than ‘exceptionism.’ Politically, if we look at the two party’s views on business, the GOP is against regulatory measures EXCEPT when it comes to members of their own party who may see a ‘transitional necessity’ for some sort of governmental control. The GOP then ‘regulates such members as being Republican in name only. The Democrats favor regulation for many of the reasons discussed here. However, their regulation tends to defeat their own purpose by limiting free market competition which benefits the consumer. That’s why I tend to view the current times as being ‘anarchy’ where nothing is being accomplished while we sink deeper and deeper into debt. That, I think is the appropriate moral issue raised by JS. We like to think we are better than this.

By Max

October 12, 2010 3:27 PM | Link to this

Keith, it’s more of a matter of context than anything else. We’re speaking of a college professor at a Catholic university….LOL…Catholics - good people - know a lot about power pyramids. Catholics who are women know a little more about that…LOL….So, yes, there is a little of pot and kettle thing going on there. Ok,. other people were thinking it and I said it…there!…LOL

By Boro01

October 12, 2010 3:30 PM | Link to this

Corporations are driving this country into the ground! Many of them don’t pay taxes, and many of their executives don’t pay taxes either…because they know how to avoid them. Too many corporations are run by money-hungry CEO’s whose only goal is to make as much profit as possible for the year, so that he/she can make a huge multi-million dollar bonus…;they outsource work to Asian countries, sell their products to Americans at the same price as usual and save the profits for themselves. American companies are no longer American even—they have become multi-nationals, and they have no allegiance to this country at all. Fox, for instance, is partly owned by some Saudi sheik, as well as the Brit, Rupert Murdoch. If you think these billionaires care a hoot about America or Americans, think again,—yet right now our elections are being run/financed by outside influences in Saudi Arabia, Russia, Asia and elsewhere…and they don’t have Americans concerns in their investment. We are only their pawns. Billionaires would prefer that this country become completely controlled by big business, and that is called Fascism. We are on the edge of that now, and once you fall from the edge, there is no going back.

By Max

October 12, 2010 3:41 PM | Link to this

Boro01; Well, I understand your feelings but rich people have to, at some point, consider the less wealthy. By the way, Murdoch is Australian…if he was a Brit Newscorp would had gone under long ago….We are, however, in a world economy which makes all natiuons, to some degree, co-dependent but less likely to take to the battlefield when there’s world stock markets to conquer. That doesn’t make the result much better but we still have choices here.

By Bubba

October 12, 2010 4:14 PM | Link to this

“Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.” Thomas Edison

By Max

October 12, 2010 6:00 PM | Link to this

‘Nice quote. AND…..”Give me a stock clerk with a goal and I’ll give you a man who will make history. Give me a man with no goals and I’ll give you a stock clerk.” J.C. PENNY

By Boro01

October 12, 2010 6:19 PM | Link to this

Most fortunes are built off the backs of the poor. That is why businessmen/women are seen in such low regard. Show me a big, successful businessman and I’ll show you a man who ruthlessly cheated his way to the top. Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, Hearst, Koch, Gates, etc. Businessmen have no ethics—they just see money.

By Max

October 12, 2010 6:34 PM | Link to this

But, Boro01, money has no ‘ethics.’ The goal of business is not to create ethics but to create profit. In doing so to pay a fair wage for fair work is just a means to that end. No one can legally tell you or me we can’t start a business. Actually, I have one and have had financial dealings with people in Kiev and Budapest. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn’t create a business first, they created a product that turned into a business. There’s a difference. ANYONE, right this minute can start an online business as easy as setting up a social networking personal page. But, it is even easier to blame the successful for their means to the top than it is create ones’ own. Since the times of Carnegie, Vanderbilt, J.P. Morgan, etc., anti-trust laws (the Sherman Act for one introduced by Wm.T. Sherman’s brother) cleaned up a lot of the shady dealings. Dayton’s own John Patterson got caught in that net as well. But, as ruthless as Patterson was as a businessman, he was generous to his employees and community.

By the Asp

October 12, 2010 7:02 PM | Link to this

More people should count their blessings instead of worrying whether his neighbor’s stack of money is larger. Wealth, in essence, is a state of mind where one takes pleasure and pride in what they have worked to earn. “Appreciativeness” and “wealth envy” are ideas that are at odds with each other; and with the later, at odds with the spiritual self.

By Kurt

October 12, 2010 7:52 PM | Link to this

100 million murdered in the name of Communism and millions more had their lives ruined, and there is no difference? Only a college prof.,(those who can, do, those who can’t, teach), could come up with something so hideous. The sad thing is, democrats and communist are one of the same. The state owns you, and controls you, except for them, the politburo, who have the power, and the wealth.

By Bill

October 12, 2010 9:04 PM | Link to this

Mr. Doyle, Thank you for your interesting column. It is contributions like yours that keep me as a subscriber to the DDN.

By getoverit

October 12, 2010 10:25 PM | Link to this

Don’t trickle down my leg and tell me it’s raining.

By blucorsair

October 17, 2010 5:33 AM | Link to this

Todays free market ideologies have had many socialistic virtues interjected into it in the last 50 years. This article is flawed in its comparison of the two! What Dennis M. Doyle has failed to realize like most socialists, is the simple fact that “Capitolism” as opposed to “Socialism” creates jobs and prosperity. Socialism denogrates the human spirit and ambition for lack of persoal reward! This is an important issue that will get the Democrats beat in the mid-terms! There is simply no excuse for this continued ignorance that the Democrats belligerently demonstrate! Socialism continues to fail in epic proportions historically. Only we arrogant Americans think that we can make it work while the rest of the world failed!

By Linda

October 18, 2010 2:54 PM | Link to this

Mr. Doyle is correct. Anyone who has ever read anything written by Karl Marx (and as an educated individual and responsible voter, I have read both The Communist Manifesto and all three volumes of Capital) undertands that Mr. Doyle is correct in his comparison. Anyone who watches what goes on with our biggest corporations and richest Republicans, especially in this nasty, attack everyone in your ad, election year, can see it. Count the number of ads by each party, and you’ll have your answer of “where is all the money?” If you can’t, your bias is in the way, and you are being blinded by your own politics. I have worked for both high and low pyramid corporations and prefer the “lower”. The gap IS great in high pyramid capitalism, and the power hungry at the top make the rest of us bow to them because we don’t have the money “down here” that they have “up there” to keep them in check. They are all about money and power, but would have you believe that they are actually doing something for you, when they are really sticking it to you. Marx said that Capitalism is designed to fail. We are experiencing some of the throws of that now in this economy-bails outs for one. It would be blasphemous to say that tax cuts for the rich would fix it. It fixes it for THEM, but not US. Be ye aware of CEOs who run with their lavish salaries and leave you behind to fend for yourselves while they move their companies to Georgia. I for one vote down lavish raises when I receive my proxy. But they want to maintain control over their raises by controlling how your proxy is handled in the near future. Beware, for they will pillage your retirement in the process. It’s unfortunate that the majority stockholders in a corporation are usually sitting on the Board of that corporation, and they are the ones who really outsource your jobs. If you want your retirement and voice in America pillaged, vote Republican. If you want them saved, vote Democrat.

By MG.

October 20, 2010 1:33 PM | Link to this

Mr. Doyle is wrong! Like most Democrats they get sick worrying over the other guys money. They think that somehow they are entitled to money that they haven’t earned. Democrats with extremely short memories fail to remember that they have outsourced more american jobs during the Clinton years than all american presidents combined! Bill Clinton and a Democrat controlled Senate and House ratified NAFTA and GAT.This was the ultimate death blow to the working man and middle class. Clinton also eliminated more union jobs than any president in US. history aswell. His useless anti-gun campaign (The Brady Bill) caused the sale of Smith& Wesson, Browning and Winchester to foriegn entities, thus descimating the IAM and steel workers! Obviously, Owebama and Ted Strickland have continued this age old Democrat tradition of outsourcing jobs to this very day. Ohio has lost over 400,000 jobs and going strong! If you want a job vote for the Republicans! ….the Democrats have fumble the ball…

By Linda

October 21, 2010 2:21 AM | Link to this

Doyle is correct, and so is his friend who lived it. It never ceases to amaze me at how people want to argue over truths that were actually lived by those with whom they argue as if by some fantasy within their own minds they know better than those who lived it. Just what books are “you” reading? Ye who can’t see why jobs were outsourced, I feel sorry for “you”. NAFTA was intended to make trade easier among the nations of North America. However, as corporations and their attorneys do, they found ways to abuse NAFTA. Until you understand how workers get screwed by those at the top of the totem pole, you are doomed to a life of ignorance. NCR’s CEO sits in a plush office tower in Manhattan, making far too much money, showing no loyalty to the city where the company originated, or its history. The corporations are to blame for laying off employees and shipping jobs to Mexico or Atlanta, not presidents nor governors. Obama and Strickland didn’t employ the folks who lost their jobs, and I know many of those people who were displaced. By the way, China is in Asia. For those who think NAFTA was to blame for jobs going there, and I know some who do, shame on you. Executives are always trying to find ways to save money, but will not sacrifice their compensation to save their companies: AIG come to mind?…two times over! Payment should have been stopped on the AIG bailout check. Executives who truly work to save their companies don’t take raises and screw the people who make them who they are (Huntington National Bank’s Tom Hoaglin for one refused a raise during a downturn there before he retired.) Kudos to him! Republicans are all about money and power. If anyone thinks they are about the 300 million Americans in the midst of an undeclared depression, think again. If they truly cared about any of us, they’d take all that big oil, insurance company, corporate (the Supreme Court should be slapped for that one) money, and instead of spending it on attack ads filled with lies, Bonehead Boehner and his cronies should be using it to turn things around. But no! They fight over everything like little boys fighting over a toy, and waste it on useless, hateful propaganda. I for one am sick of he squabbling and hatefulness of the Republican party. Jesus would be appalled as well, I’m sure. Neither Lee Iaccoca nor FDR could turn this mess around in 2 years if they were working together on it. It’s unfortunate that those who think it can be turned around in 2 years live in a microwave world where they expect everything to come out peachy in 30 seconds or less. Looks like they’re going to be very disappointed little people for the next 10 years. This is a global disaster compared to 1929, and that depression took 10 years to turn around. I could care less about being rich, greed isn’t something I choose to take part in, but neither do I want to be ruled like those under Castro, Lenin, Stalin, and other dictators who who control all the money. The richest 2% of the nation is trying to control us all. God help us.