If I wanted America to Fail.........

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
50,999
17,632
1,743
#21
Really? while I am sure that I will have plenty who disagree with me. I see in obama a lot of continuation of Bush policies... .
Bush was inherently a corporate statist. The only areas where Obama has drifted are ones where his outlook forces him into a different worldview.
As far as his outlook and internal philosophy I dont think Obama is a socialist. I think Obama is a liberal corporatist.
The same ones he blasted and attacked Bush on? There were issues which Obama attacked Bush on and made promises to the lefties which before the election I remember saying and others said he can't do. Gitmo, is a perfect example. Really, where in the hell was he going to move those people to? The Oval Office? No one wanted them and there was no place to move them. How anyone could believe such nonsense from Obama on that one is beyond me.

Obama is a statist....

Let's mention these jewels as an example of Obama and what types of rules he's pushed.

Removing the word "navigable" from federal law. The word navigable gave water rights to the state other than for navigable water ways. Obama worked to remove that word stripping the states and individuals of their water rights.

A proposal to restrict farm jobs for children under the age of 16.

Do you think these were the only two such rules?
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,070
2,029
743
Where else but Stillwater
#22
Obama is a statist....

Let's mention these jewels as an example of Obama and what types of rules he's pushed.

Removing the word "navigable" from federal law. The word navigable gave water rights to the state other than for navigable water ways. Obama worked to remove that word stripping the states and individuals of their water rights.

A proposal to restrict farm jobs for children under the age of 16.

Do you think these were the only two such rules?
So what? There is a lot of statism already as in this country as in the federal and state labor laws. If statism is so harming the country, then President Bush should have done something about reducing it. Maybe if you're lucky, someone can name one thing that Bush did to reduce statism.
 
Nov 16, 2004
2,238
930
743
44
Moore
#23
So what? There is a lot of statism already as in this country as in the federal and state labor laws. If statism is so harming the country, then President Bush should have done something about reducing it. Maybe if you're lucky, someone can name one thing that Bush did to reduce statism.
It seems the left these days only have three tactics when debating politics:

1. Ridicule Christianity
2. Pull the race card
3. Blame Bush

In the arena of ideas and logic they always lose and pull one of the above as a last resort.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
50,999
17,632
1,743
#24
It seems the left these days only have three tactics when debating politics:

1. Ridicule Christianity
2. Pull the race card
3. Blame Bush

In the arena of ideas and logic they always lose and pull one of the above as a last resort.
You forgot demonize success and those who produce and work.

Obama blames Farmers!

As a consequence, our agriculture sector actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector … and are partly responsible for the explosion in our health care costs because they’re contributing to Type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity, all the things that are driving our huge explosion in health care costs.”

Obama blames Doctors!

“You come in and you’ve got a bad sore throat, or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats,” President Obama explained at Wednesday’s press conference. “The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out.’”

Obama blames ATM Machines!

the reason companies aren't hiring is not because of his policies, it's because the economy is so automated. ... "There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate."

Obama blames the Rich!

"One in four millionaires pays a lower tax rate than millions of hardworking middle-class households," Obama told a group of business executives gathered at the White House.


Obama blames Congress!

Obama Blames His Low Approval Ratings on Unhappiness With Waschington.

Obama blames Wall Street!

“We can’t afford a situation where speculators artificially manipulate markets by buying up oil, creating the perception of a shortage, and driving prices higher -- only to flip the oil for a quick profit,” he said.

Obama blames Bush!

“We do have a serious problem in terms of debt and deficit, and much of it I inherited,” Obama said.

Obama blames Europe!

“What’s absolutely true, even before these last couple days in the stock market, is that recovery wasn’t happening fast enough,” he said. “When you have problems in Europe and in Spain and in Italy and in Greece, those problems wash over into our shores,” he said.

Obama blamed Police Officers!

the Cambridge police acted stupidly

Obama made it about race!

'I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that.

Obama blamed the media!

Barack Obama is mystified about why the media would consider it a big deal when he accuses a local police department of acting “stupidly” in a case where he admitted he didn’t have all the facts.

Obama blamed Fox News!

President Barack Obama blamed Fox News for his political woes in a private meeting with labor leaders in 2010, saying he was “losing white males” who tune into the cable outlet and “hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7,” according to journalist David Corn’s new book, “Showdown.”
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,070
2,029
743
Where else but Stillwater
#25
It seems the left these days only have three tactics when debating politics:

1. Ridicule Christianity
2. Pull the race card
3. Blame Bush

In the arena of ideas and logic they always lose and pull one of the above as a last resort.
So what are you trying to say rideemcomboys? That is was right of Bush to not do much of anything about statism that so permeates this country?
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,070
2,029
743
Where else but Stillwater
#26
You forgot demonize success and those who produce and work.

Obama blames Farmers!

As a consequence, our agriculture sector actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector … and are partly responsible for the explosion in our health care costs because they’re contributing to Type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity, all the things that are driving our huge explosion in health care costs.”

Obama blames Doctors!

“You come in and you’ve got a bad sore throat, or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats,” President Obama explained at Wednesday’s press conference. “The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out.’”

Obama blames ATM Machines!

the reason companies aren't hiring is not because of his policies, it's because the economy is so automated. ... "There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate."

Obama blames the Rich!

"One in four millionaires pays a lower tax rate than millions of hardworking middle-class households," Obama told a group of business executives gathered at the White House.


Obama blames Congress!

Obama Blames His Low Approval Ratings on Unhappiness With Waschington.

Obama blames Wall Street!

“We can’t afford a situation where speculators artificially manipulate markets by buying up oil, creating the perception of a shortage, and driving prices higher -- only to flip the oil for a quick profit,” he said.

Obama blames Bush!

“We do have a serious problem in terms of debt and deficit, and much of it I inherited,” Obama said.

Obama blames Europe!

“What’s absolutely true, even before these last couple days in the stock market, is that recovery wasn’t happening fast enough,” he said. “When you have problems in Europe and in Spain and in Italy and in Greece, those problems wash over into our shores,” he said.

Obama blamed Police Officers!

the Cambridge police acted stupidly

Obama made it about race!

'I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that.

Obama blamed the media!

Barack Obama is mystified about why the media would consider it a big deal when he accuses a local police department of acting “stupidly” in a case where he admitted he didn’t have all the facts.

Obama blamed Fox News!

President Barack Obama blamed Fox News for his political woes in a private meeting with labor leaders in 2010, saying he was “losing white males” who tune into the cable outlet and “hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7,” according to journalist David Corn’s new book, “Showdown.”
Come on Cimarron, I read thru all 12 of your headings. I didn't see one reason why I shouldn't vote for Obama. Can't you do better than that as much as you all out resent Obama?

Obama isn't demonizing. He's just telling the truth for the most part. If you vehemently refuse to accept it as the truth, then that's your problem.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,540
15,899
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#27
Bush jr was at his heart a centrist he (like Clinton before) wanted to govern not from whatever direction the winds of voters blew from, he spent his last 2 years spending like he was Carter, (Democrats and Republicans are simply names they only differ in the degree of what they want to take from you) a better way to look at it is the conservative movement - which means only; Constitution is the law of the land, small less intrusive government, (anyone in any party can be a conservative or a liberal), anything else is a media distortion it has nothing to do with religion v. the liberal movement; which really only means that people become dependent on the government trough to feed them. I don't like Obama but anyone who knows me will tell you I defended him for the 1st year with the idea being he was duly elected so give him a chance. Well it has now been 3 and I no longer support him (I do support the office) the 'truly' unfortunate thing is that all the people acting surprised just weren't listening, as I told some friends the other day. He is doing exactly what he told you he would do and NOW your mad. Now for a more frightening thought -- there are 10 elements to the communist manifesto, read them carefully and I assure you our government has been, since WWI, moving towards no fewer than 8 of them you may not recognize it off the bat but think about this, imminent domain is a legal means for the government to ensure there is no private property ownership, now think about social security, since its inception there have been 2 supreme (joke of a court) challenges -- here is the truth, per the court -- you don't own that money it is nothing more, nothing less than a tax and therefore the congress can do what it wills with those monies, if you don't believe me the last case was (fleming v nestor in 1960). I am not an anarchist, we need a 'limited' government (you know like its spelled out in our Constitution) but I think that there are many people in this great country (some unlawfully) that just want to be told when, how, and what to do, essentially they have set up a plantation mentality whereby some are taught to read and others aren't ensuring a constant state of anguish among the slaves, and the system in dc today is perfect for them. So they will continue to complain about the other guys rep and vote theirs back in thus ensuring a nation of entitlement seekers until Americans (race is not a factor) take back their country with their voice, vote, and if ultimately necessary by force (which I am not advocating).
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
23,593
30,119
1,743
Australia
#28
Bush jr was at his heart a centrist he (like Clinton before) wanted to govern not from whatever direction the winds of voters blew from, he spent his last 2 years spending like he was Carter, (Democrats and Republicans are simply names they only differ in the degree of what they want to take from you) a better way to look at it is the conservative movement - which means only.................
So, who ya voting for?
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,540
15,899
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#29
So, who ya voting for?
That my friend is a great question -- I think voting is a lot like which church to attend if you agree with 90% of one and 70% of the other you attend the 90%. The difference now is that I know what obama can and will do so the chances of me voting for him are slim and none and I think slim broke his leg. I would vote Paul (even though I disagree on some of his international positions) but I think like Perot that would be a protest vote that would put obama back in office if enough people do it. So I am left holding my nose and voting Romney then holding out hope that he is an actual conservative (again religion not withstanding).
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
23,593
30,119
1,743
Australia
#30
While I might agree with 70/90% of their campaign rhetoric, I rarely agree with more than 25% of their actions. I think your chances of Romney being a Washington type conservative are better than good. The chances of him being a real Cato type conservative are slim at best. I've said it here before, I perceive the actual difference in what would happen with Romney vs Obama to be so marginally different that the only way I can waste a vote is to use it on one of them. Until people have had enough and say that they will no longer be tricked by the moneyed interests into voting for someone they don't really want, nothing will change. I wish, but unfortunately don't see that happening yet. Things have not gotten bad enough.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,540
15,899
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#31
While I might agree with 70/90% of their campaign rhetoric, I rarely agree with more than 25% of their actions. I think your chances of Romney being a Washington type conservative are better than good. The chances of him being a real Cato type conservative are slim at best. I've said it here before, I perceive the actual difference in what would happen with Romney vs Obama to be so marginally different that the only way I can waste a vote is to use it on one of them. Until people have had enough and say that they will no longer be tricked by the moneyed interests into voting for someone they don't really want, nothing will change. I wish, but unfortunately don't see that happening yet. Things have not gotten bad enough.
You summed it up better than I ever could. I completely agree with your comments.
 

Hbuchanan

Deputy
A/V Subscriber
Aug 2, 2010
1,596
742
743
36
Oklahoma City
#34
Ummm....hrrmmm...uhhh....last I checked he is currently the POTUS, aka the most powerful man in the world.
He definitely hasn't done a great job but I would argue the the whole of congress has done much worse. And with their approval rating under 10 I would say most of America agrees. My comment was mainly to say that the post I was quoting can go both ways. Not just to liberals. I'm just sick of how divided this country has got. It's sad and both sides are to blame.
 
Sep 2, 2010
417
249
613
#35
He definitely hasn't done a great job but I would argue the the whole of congress has done much worse. And with their approval rating under 10 I would say most of America agrees.
Agree 100%. It's easier to place the blame on one person rather than hundreds however...
 
Nov 16, 2004
2,238
930
743
44
Moore
#36
He definitely hasn't done a great job but I would argue the the whole of congress has done much worse. And with their approval rating under 10 I would say most of America agrees. My comment was mainly to say that the post I was quoting can go both ways. Not just to liberals. I'm just sick of how divided this country has got. It's sad and both sides are to blame.
When Democrats had a Super-Majority, they had closed door meetings with zero Republicans invited and passed Obamacare. Obama said things like "they can come along for the ride but they have to sit at the back of the bus." The Democrat controlled Congress never even attempted to pass a budget.

The Republican Congress have passed budgets but they were struck down by Democrats in Senate.

We are now going on 4 years without a budget being passed.

Obama throws out a joke budget that not even a single Democrat would vote for because it was so ridiculous.

Now I ask you who is dividing here and playing politics? It has been in Obama's playbook for a while to do everything he can to circumvent Congress and shut out Republicans.

“We had been attempting to highlight the inability of Congress to do anything,” recalled William M. Daley, who was the White House chief of staff at the time. “The president expressed frustration, saying we have got to scour everything and push the envelope in finding things we can do on our own.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/u...ve-powers-let-obama-bypass-congress.html?_r=1

It is Chicago strong-arm politics dividing and destroying our Country right now.
 
Nov 16, 2004
2,238
930
743
44
Moore
#37
BTW, a big reason why Clinton was such a successful President in many areas is because he worked with a Republican controlled Congress - something Obama has never once even attempted. Obama is too busy trying to figure out how he can circumvent Congress while he is threatening and calling out our Supreme Court.
 

PistolPete'sMustache

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Aug 3, 2010
4,012
4,201
743
Tulsa, OK
#39
I never thought I'd see the day in America where hard working successful people were demonized and vilified and lazy do-nothing losers were celebrated. The ignorance level in this country currently regarding Capitalism and the opportunities it provides deeply saddens me.......
This is just the biggest load of crap that keeps getting spewed that gives zero credibility to the Obama is a socialist/communist/marxist/wants to kill the rich, etc crowd. It's why its easy to make light of it with jokes. It is so far off base that it is absurd.

The idea that the uber rich are worth thousands of percentages more than the rest of us is the problem. It's not about those working vs. those not working. It's not about hard workers vs. lazy people. It's about those working hard at the top of the food chain and those working hard in the middle or lower end of that foodchain. It's the multi-million dollar executive vs. the $50,000 employees doing full time hard work. The problem is not capitalism or the free market. No democrat has ever said or belived that as much as your side keeps saying it. The problem is market manipulation by those in control of the vast majority of the capital.

To believe that an executive is literally thousands of percentages more valuable than those working their tails off at lower levels is simply not an acceptable belief. Is an executive getting paid $100 million a year really 1000% more valuable to society than those on the ground working 40 to 60 hour weeks making $50,000? You will never convince me that that is true. It's also the rate that executive pay is increasing as opposed to the rest of us that is a problem. During the recession, most of us were lucky to get a decent 3% cost of living raise, and most people got no raises at all on the basis of the economy. All the while, many executives still got exorbitant increases and bonuses. That executive pay increased exponentially while the rest of wages did not is a problem. Again, it's not that these executive added that much more to society or to the economy, it is that they are in a position to manipulate the system and pay themselves exorbitantly at the expense of other workers.

And nothing is to say that those at the top have not earned some prestige and a heftier paycheck. That is capitalism and the free market at work. The extent of the disparity is the problem and it is not market driven. It is driven by manipulation of the system by those in charge. Thousands of percentages in the gap is just not right. They are not adding thousands of percentages more value to society than others. That is the problem and it has gotten out of hand. You don't have to be a lazy person to believe this. I work very long hours and make six figures and I have a major problem with these numbers, so don't go saying I'm some lazy unemployed occupy wall street hippie because I am not.

Executives and board members are in charge of the coffers and give themselves exorbatent compensation and bonuses regardless of merit. Bank executive were still receiving hundreds of millions on bonuses while their banks failed and had to receive bailouts! If you were in charge of a department and it failed massively and cost the company a ton of money, would you expect a bonus for your failure? Hell you. You would be canned, and maybe sued if your incompetence reached an actionable level. But you don't make those decisions. Those at the top of the chain do. So you screw up, you get canned. They screw up, they get a cozy bonus and/or multi million dollar severance. Therein lies another major problem.

Below is an article from the Economist, which is the most fair and unbiased publication out there. It is discussing the same problem as it exists in England, so the American politics are taken out of it, though is briefly discusses America. I obviously agree with part of the commentary and disagree with part. You should be able to tell from my opinions above which is which. The most intriguing to me is the numbers and the chart. The number don't lie as to the extent of the increasing disparity.

My overall point is that there is lots of room to argue within the capitalist free market system over the excesses of corporate compensation to the top 1% and the growing disparity. The argument is not that the capitalist system is the problem because it is not. Manipulation of the capitalist free market system is. No one is advocating socialist/communist/marxist policies, etc., and to argue against democratic policies with that rhetoric is to lose all credibility. Saying that Obama is a marxist and wants to kill off all wealth and give all of the money to people to not work, etc, is a joke. It makes for good soundbites, but it simply has zero basis in reality. And don't tell me that his policies are "more socialist" than his predecessors. Increased government regulation is not "more socialist" any more than deregulation is "more anarchist". The scales simply don't work that way.

http://www.economist.com/node/21542802

Executive pay

Money for nothing?

Executive pay levels rise because of globalisation, not poor oversight

Jan 14th 2012 | from the print edition
HARD work builds character, and should be rewarded. But many Britons believe the link between graft and gain has broken down. At the bottom, they see a dependency culture that costs them billions in welfare spending. At the top, pay for executives seems to soar regardless of the fortunes of their businesses.



Even some on the right are rounding on corporate excess. David Cameron, ever alive to the public mood, announced on January 8th that he would reform executive remuneration. His ideas include giving shareholders binding votes on the pay, perks and severance packages handed out by companies. Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat business secretary and perhaps the most left-wing member of the coalition, is leading the raid on boardrooms.
In this section
Reprints
Related topics
Ed Miliband, the Labour Party’s increasingly criticised leader (see Bagehot), wants to go even further. He argues for putting workers’ representatives on company boards and making corporate pay more transparent. Labour is the party of equality, yet the issue is a bind for him. If he is much more radical than Mr Cameron, he risks reviving his “Red Ed” reputation. If he is not, the government’s efforts will grab all the attention.
The debate over executive pay is likely to heat up over the next few months, fuelled by disclosures of bumper bonuses for bosses. The timing will be particularly embarrassing to public companies and politicians, as median real incomes are forecast to fall sharply as the economic slump continues.
Mind the gap

And if you pile up the cash, it’s like this

It is true that in Britain, as in many other rich countries, the rewards of economic growth have not been evenly distributed. Chief executives’ pay grew from an average of £1m ($1.7m) in 1998 to £4.2m in 2010, a far greater increase than the average worker experienced (see chart). Measures of income inequality in Britain are close to their highest level since records began in 1961. At the top of the charts are the bosses of media, pharmaceutical and telecoms firms, such as Vittorio Colao of Vodafone Group (pictured). Their pay packages are worth more than £7 million a year on average, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research, a think-tank.
The consequence is widespread anger, of the kind that worries governments. Yet the solution British politicians are putting forward to restrain executive pay—strengthening corporate governance—will probably have little influence on it. This is because soaring remuneration has little to do with weak governance and rather a lot to do with globalisation.
Britain’s biggest companies—those in the FTSE 100 index—have gradually transformed from domestically-oriented outfits to truly multinational firms. The skills needed to manage that sort of company are relatively scarce, so those who have them can command higher pay. Unskilled workers in Britain are less distinguishable from those in China or India, and have seen their wages depressed by globalisation as a result.
Yet experience in America suggests that leaving pay to the market does not invariably mean more cream for the fat cats. There, the average pay of bosses has declined by 43% in real terms from its 2000 peak, reckons Steve Kaplan of Chicago Booth business school. The average S&P 500 wage for chief executives is now $10 million. British bosses may simply have been catching up with their American counterparts; the strong upward trend in their pay may not continue.
Moreover, pay increases at the top are widespread. Those running private-equity firms and law firms are paid comparable amounts (as are sports stars). It is hard to pin high pay on shortcomings in the governance of publicly-owned companies.
The government’s aim, to link pay more tightly to performance, is a good one, as is the goal of making pay more transparent. But simple changes would be better than grand reforms. British corporate governance rules are already pretty good, says Carl Rosen of the International Corporate Governance Network, a think-tank. Shareholders have had an advisory vote on pay for ten years and can sack members of pay committees if their advice is not heeded. If there is weakness, says Mr Rosen, it is more likely to lie in the increasingly fragmented and international character of shareholders (who may not care much about who is paid what) than in the powers they have. Giving shareholders a binding veto sounds impressive, but shareholders might be less willing to exercise it than an advisory vote. There is also scant evidence that putting employee representatives on pay committees yields better results.
The idea that pay should be restrained ultimately rests on a flawed logic. Income inequality is best addressed by closing the skills gap in the workforce, not by preventing British firms from competing for the best chief executives.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,540
15,899
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#40
This is just the biggest load of crap that keeps getting spewed that gives zero credibility to the Obama is a socialist/communist/marxist/wants to kill the rich, etc crowd. It's why its easy to make light of it with jokes. It is so far off base that it is absurd.

The idea that the uber rich are worth thousands of percentages more than the rest of us is the problem. It's not about those working vs. those not working. It's not about hard workers vs. lazy people. It's about those working hard at the top of the food chain and those working hard in the middle or lower end of that foodchain. It's the multi-million dollar executive vs. the $50,000 employees doing full time hard work. The problem is not capitalism or the free market. No democrat has ever said or belived that as much as your side keeps saying it. The problem is market manipulation by those in control of the vast majority of the capital.

To believe that an executive is literally thousands of percentages more valuable than those working their tails off at lower levels is simply not an acceptable belief. Is an executive getting paid $100 million a year really 1000% more valuable to society than those on the ground working 40 to 60 hour weeks making $50,000? You will never convince me that that is true. It's also the rate that executive pay is increasing as opposed to the rest of us that is a problem. During the recession, most of us were lucky to get a decent 3% cost of living raise, and most people got no raises at all on the basis of the economy. All the while, many executives still got exorbitant increases and bonuses. That executive pay increased exponentially while the rest of wages did not is a problem. Again, it's not that these executive added that much more to society or to the economy, it is that they are in a position to manipulate the system and pay themselves exorbitantly at the expense of other workers.

And nothing is to say that those at the top have not earned some prestige and a heftier paycheck. That is capitalism and the free market at work. The extent of the disparity is the problem and it is not market driven. It is driven by manipulation of the system by those in charge. Thousands of percentages in the gap is just not right. They are not adding thousands of percentages more value to society than others. That is the problem and it has gotten out of hand. You don't have to be a lazy person to believe this. I work very long hours and make six figures and I have a major problem with these numbers, so don't go saying I'm some lazy unemployed occupy wall street hippie because I am not.

Executives and board members are in charge of the coffers and give themselves exorbatent compensation and bonuses regardless of merit. Bank executive were still receiving hundreds of millions on bonuses while their banks failed and had to receive bailouts! If you were in charge of a department and it failed massively and cost the company a ton of money, would you expect a bonus for your failure? Hell you. You would be canned, and maybe sued if your incompetence reached an actionable level. But you don't make those decisions. Those at the top of the chain do. So you screw up, you get canned. They screw up, they get a cozy bonus and/or multi million dollar severance. Therein lies another major problem.

Below is an article from the Economist, which is the most fair and unbiased publication out there. It is discussing the same problem as it exists in England, so the American politics are taken out of it, though is briefly discusses America. I obviously agree with part of the commentary and disagree with part. You should be able to tell from my opinions above which is which. The most intriguing to me is the numbers and the chart. The number don't lie as to the extent of the increasing disparity.

My overall point is that there is lots of room to argue within the capitalist free market system over the excesses of corporate compensation to the top 1% and the growing disparity. The argument is not that the capitalist system is the problem because it is not. Manipulation of the capitalist free market system is. No one is advocating socialist/communist/marxist policies, etc., and to argue against democratic policies with that rhetoric is to lose all credibility. Saying that Obama is a marxist and wants to kill off all wealth and give all of the money to people to not work, etc, is a joke. It makes for good soundbites, but it simply has zero basis in reality. And don't tell me that his policies are "more socialist" than his predecessors. Increased government regulation is not "more socialist" any more than deregulation is "more anarchist". The scales simply don't work that way.

http://www.economist.com/node/21542802
You make some sound arguments however you miss one material item;
supply & demand.
To keep it relatively short and simple, I'm a pretty simple minded guy so this makes it easier for me -- if I am the CEO of a struggling $10k / annual candy store with 20 $2k investors looking for a return and I hire several persons at let's say $8 / hr and I bring in the talent to increase the revenue by 10 fold and the investors $2k is now worth $40k, I will then be in very hi demand by other stores / companies that want me to come in and do the same for them. However if I am one of the $8 per hr people I may have other options at $10 / hr but I am most likely not going to have companies/investors knocking on my door with a multitude of offers like the CEO who just returned 10x to his investors does, is this fair, probably not, is this market manipulation most assuredly not, it is simply the law of supply (in this case a successful CEO) and demand. Value in work like value in sports is relative to the market, not withstanding the silver spoon theory. Not arguing just discussing.