The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

You are apparently advocating that "the people" have the ability to tell business owners what they can and can't do with the fruits of their labors;

(and you apparently don't like democracy much)
hey the Government already does that to the People & conservatives have no prob with that - double standard again?

I'm only advocating common sense

Spoiler:

telling a big business that it can't punish fire an employee who does their job & has done no wrong if the business in question is thriving & has no financial difficulties
telling a business it can't make its employees do free overtime under pain of dismissal
telling a business it has to pay its employees ( )
outlawing golden handshakes & parachutes
outlawing predatory pricing
anti-pollution laws
antitrust laws
etc.

all common sense wouldn't you say
or do you see "anti-elites persecution" in any of this?

Again, I ask you. Would YOU be willing to invest your time, effort, energy and resources in a company knowing that "the people" would be able to tell you what you can and cannot do with it, how much you can earn as a result of your efforts and the rest?

as long as I'd make enough $ (maybe I'll "only" make $10B instead of $20B, no biggie)

[SGalisa]

as opposed to being slaves to megacorporations...

american neoconservatives would make good socialists then

When I worked for a "mega-corporation" (National USA company), I never felt like a *slave* to my job or to the corporation. The place could easily have ended up with its capitalistic gains down the sewer every time a bad weather catastrophe came along. It was always those dreaded, drastic moments that most of the workers knew could sink or soar that place of employment. So, I think it's safe to say we had a certain respect toward reality keeping the rest of us alive and well, within *reason*.

However, I did feel like I was a slave to the eternal government controlling our taxes in all directions. When the taxes weren't enough to drag us under, cost of living prices in general would always go up, so whatever raises we ever got (unless it was like twice our current salary total--which never ever happened in my lifetime), never equaled to what we really needed to ever get way ahead and stay ahead. If that wasn't enough, surely someone's health would go bad in the family, so that added to the extra burden of taxes, increased prices everywhere, etc.

Domino effect is when one system ends up raises its prices --because of some horrid disaster that just shrunk product availability against product demand--so eventually, everywhere else often has their prices raised as well. It seems to be the nature of the *beast* (this world's method of living in general).

[SoulReaver]

When I worked for a "mega-corporation" (National USA company), I never felt like a *slave* to my job or to the corporation.

good for you if you were CEO or part of the board of directors

However, I did feel like I was a slave to the eternal government controlling our taxes in all directions.

hey I agree - corporate taxes (are there even any in the US?) should be much higher than "individual" taxes. instead it looks like the government favours the nobility big businesses & puts most of the fiscal burden on the commoners

cost of living prices in general would always go up

unless the government imposed a price floor, the blame for that one should lie mostly on big corporations no?

[mad_gater]

(and you apparently don't like democracy much)
hey the Government already does that to the People & conservatives have no prob with that - double standard again?

I'm only advocating common sense

Spoiler:

telling a big business that it can't punish fire an employee who does their job & has done no wrong if the business in question is thriving & has no financial difficulties
telling a business it can't make its employees do free overtime under pain of dismissal
telling a business it has to pay its employees ( )
outlawing golden handshakes & parachutes
outlawing predatory pricing
anti-pollution laws
antitrust laws
etc.

all common sense wouldn't you say
or do you see "anti-elites persecution" in any of this?

as long as I'd make enough $ (maybe I'll "only" make $10B instead of $20B, no biggie)

wrong....in a socialist government your bank account would be a big fat goose egg....because there's no such thing as individual private property in a socialist system....that's why socialism is inherently flawed, on paper or in practice

[SoulReaver]

wrong....in a socialist government your bank account would be a big fat goose egg....because there's no such thing as individual private property

careful - you're essentially describing capitalist Chile in the 80s

[Annoyed]

instead it looks like the government favours the nobility big businesses & puts most of the fiscal burden on the commoners

It doesn't matter what the government or economic system is, the people who make the rules always write them to favor themselves. In a socialist system, the "nobility" is those with the closest ties to the people in the government. In a military dictatorship, it's the generals who have secured the most victories. In capitalism, it's those who have the money. In a religious-based system, it's the members of the church leadership who hold the cards.

Regardless, there will always be a ruling class and the peon class. It's human nature. Can you name even one exception to this?

Granted, the US has it's problems with big business, I won't deny that. It has far too much influence upon the political process and national policy, just to name one.

But it's still way ahead of Socialism/Communism or other pie in the sky schemes which look and sound good on paper, but never work out that way in real life.

[SoulReaver]

It's human nature. Can you name even one exception to this?

no

[SGalisa]

When I worked for a "mega-corporation" (National USA company), I never felt like a *slave* to my job or to the corporation.

good for you if you were CEO or part of the board of directors

I never was such a (CEO or higher up/boss, manager of operations) thing. Barely hovered just above the poverty/lower class on the financial USA ladder. Started at $6.50 USA dollars an hour (around $243.75 per week, with $50 less than that *net* take home pay) --that was about $3 dollars above minimum wages back then, and ended around $11.25 an hour ($421.88 approx. with $375 net take home, a few years later), I still felt the same way most of the time in between. Of course, I had a fairly easy job, so I wasn't under too much pressure, either. I could listen (with my own headphones) to whatever radio/audio I wanted -- had a great time with that while doing mindless "assembly" type work. . . my radio programs and music kept me content while my employer's job I was assigned to got done on a daily basis. Only pressure was in getting our bills paid on time, and NOT just in the nick of time. I like a little cushion between due dates.

If you want a longer story, the bank was playing games with our account, and because of something they did, we ended up homeless (money was there, but the bank bounced our main rent check to pass thru one of their own checks without informing us first, and they were specifically asked by us to let us know what was going on, so we could move money from one area to the other, just so the check wouldn't do that. But no, the bank did what they did, and we got screwed as a result. My hubby & I were not happy campers at the way the bank handled things, and we closed that account and went elsewhere. We also had help finding temporary living quarters (not ideal, but better than hanging out with the bears, skunks and bugs), until we could get a different place to stay, which was a month later.

So, No, wasn't a CEO or super rich person. Just content with the job I had. Not happy with where I had to spend the money or what happened to it along the way. Having good health also helps, which for the most part is what we did have. It was only a tad frustrating having only 2 weeks vacation time, where one of those weeks got spent on sick time, because you job level status hadn't yet reached the 3 or 4 week vacation time other jobs provide.

Sadly, that is what many people are dealing with now, financially. Unfortunately, until something better job-wise comes along, some people don't know how to accept being content and amusing themselves while stuck in the position they're in, until they can move to a better position in life.

Basically, a person doesn't need to be a CEO or super rich to enjoy being at the bottom of the financial ladder. It just depends on your focus at the world around you and how you are able to cope with it and everything else that is encountered along the way.

And I've worked with enough grumbling people also within my rank levels to wish I was somewhere else, but knew that was simply not possible for several reasons (jobs not always available when you are, or available at all). So, I had to learn to live with what I was given, and live within what talents I had, in order to do the jobs I've had.

[SGalisa]

I never was such a (CEO or higher up/boss, manager of operations) thing. Barely hovered just above the poverty/lower class on the financial USA ladder.
...
Basically, a person doesn't need to be a CEO or super rich to enjoy being at the bottom of the financial ladder. It just depends on your focus at the world around you and how you are able to cope with it and everything else that is encountered along the way.

And I've worked with enough grumbling people also within my rank levels to wish I was somewhere else, but knew that was simply not possible for several reasons (jobs not always available when you are, or available at all). So, I had to learn to live with what I was given, and live within what talents I had, in order to do the jobs I've had.

Here's another thought.

I had the opportunity to play supervisor and do the work of my bosses for extended months of time, at least five times in one particular editing job (totally different from my previous jobs). It was a nightmare enough to teach me that - playing boss to several people under, over and sideways (status level) to myself was NOT where I wanted to go in that particular job. Simple editing, but for one thing, I'm not great at grammar revisions. Plus, the hassles of managing the books on time, received late from other departments, and work sent elsewhere into the field, were not issues I wanted to deal with. Did I get paid more? No. It was a temporary position, which I had to fill in for, because no one else knew how to do the work (nor had time to do the work)..!

Did I get compensated? Only in the sense of turning down a higher paid job (probably at twice my salary, too), but also being totally content to do my *own* work, at my own pace --give or take a few deadline due dates-- and still be content to NOT have to deal with the daily 50 interruptions from not getting my own work done, because that is what I would have had to do. Let someone else get the horrid headaches from dealing with that stuff. And when one person consistently kept forgetting their work, and I had to continually make new copies and resend it .. *sigh*.. that was just one sample of the hassles I had to work with.

Other issues involved other departments never agreeing on the same things, so there were always conflicts in getting something sent out correctly, when possibly more than 10 other people were involved. It's been an extremely rare moment when something ever got sent out properly the first time around (*yayyyy!*). Usually, those coworkers higher up tended to break the deadline rules with a thousand excuses, and things often had to be rewritten 5 times over, even AFTER it got mailed out! "Oh, but that's a necessary change" ... yeah, we know, it couldn't have been caught by the ten other sets of (20) eyes staring at it before it got sent out (these were *content* errors from the experts who wrote the basic material, not editorial).

Sometimes, there are *blessings in disguise* for those who sit quietly at the bottom rungs of the work force ladder(s) and get smaller (weekly) paychecks.
Less headaches, the better..

[aretood2]

It doesn't matter what the government or economic system is, the people who make the rules always write them to favor themselves. In a socialist system, the "nobility" is those with the closest ties to the people in the government. In a military dictatorship, it's the generals who have secured the most victories. In capitalism, it's those who have the money. In a religious-based system, it's the members of the church leadership who hold the cards.

Regardless, there will always be a ruling class and the peon class. It's human nature. Can you name even one exception to this?

Granted, the US has it's problems with big business, I won't deny that. It has far too much influence upon the political process and national policy, just to name one.

But it's still way ahead of Socialism/Communism or other pie in the sky schemes which look and sound good on paper, but never work out that way in real life.

The problem in the US is the lack of real competition. I firmly believe that it is the government's role to make sure there's competition. Take cable for example. Comcast and TWC are the largest providers and somehow they don't compete in the same regions to a significant extent. In other words, they have localized monopolies with a few token competitors that aren't worth a consumer's time. And a simple google search can show you that they take full advantage of this by randomly hiking bills, and taking dumps on costumers who have no real alternative choice for cable.

[Starsaber]

But it's still way ahead of Socialism/Communism or other pie in the sky schemes which look and sound good on paper, but never work out that way in real life.

You're right that pure socialism doesn't work well at a large scale, but neither does pure capitalism. Pure capitalism would eventually center the money in too few hands, basically taking us back to the days of serfdom as a select few acquire more and more of the money, using that money to gain more and more control. There needs to be a balance, and for the past couple decades, it has been sliding in the direction of corporate serfdom. With the reduced power of the unions, a lot of people (rightly or wrongly) think the government is the only thing powerful enough to shift the balance back in the direction of helping the wider population.

And the idea that moving toward a more socialist system (not completely socialist) would stifle motivation doesn't seem correct to me. As long as taxes aren't 100%, earning more money still results in more take home pay.

Equality of outcomes is never going to happen, and I think most people realize that, but recently it feels like equality of opportunity is out of reach for a lot of people too.

[Annoyed]

There needs to be a balance, and for the past couple decades, it has been sliding in the direction of corporate serfdom.

This is true, and it's the direct result of various free trade deals that both major parties have signed off on over the past 30 years or so, allowing corporations to move labor overseas. These deals benefit the corporations at the expense of the working class. This is a good example of what I said above
Quoting myself..

Granted, the US has it's problems with big business, I won't deny that. It has far too much influence upon the political process and national policy, just to name one.

[Womble]

The problem in the US is the lack of real competition. I firmly believe that it is the government's role to make sure there's competition. Take cable for example. Comcast and TWC are the largest providers and somehow they don't compete in the same regions to a significant extent. In other words, they have localized monopolies with a few token competitors that aren't worth a consumer's time. And a simple google search can show you that they take full advantage of this by randomly hiking bills, and taking dumps on costumers who have no real alternative choice for cable.

That is how I see things as well. My favorite example to cite is the difference between Israeli telecommunications market and that of the US and Europe.

We used to have an exactly the same mobile communications model - carrier-locked devices, two-year contracts, overcharges after data cap, outrageous bills and crazy expensive roaming charges if your phone travels abroad. The market was divided between three carriers for mobile and only one monopoly for landlines and home internet. Then the government has passed a law banning two-year contracts and device-locking, and forced carriers to throttle speed instead of charging for data overuse. And suddenly there was cutthroat competition and artificially high prices plunged to the bottom as a whole bunch of market forces entered the game. Computer hardware stores sell phones now, undercutting mobile carriers on prices and importing models which the carriers do not (did I mention I love my Meizu? Could've bought three of them for the price of a Samsung S6 and have some change left). MVNOs sprung up with contracts priced as low as 10 shekels per month ($3) and the typical price for an unlimited plan has settled on $10 monthly. Now they've done the same kind of reform with broadband, and my bill has come down by half overall. I hunt for a new plan every 6 months on average because carriers keep dropping prices and offering additional services.

[garhkal]

On that freighter ship that sunk after 'going into the hurricane' in the Carribean, someone is saying it was 'sunk' by NK subs that are trolling the atlantic, and the US and Russian fleets are out there hunting them down, but using the "it sunk in the hurricane" as a cover story..

Someone's conspiracy rada is working overtime..

[garhkal]

What's everyones thought on this??

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6710736.html

http://lancasteronline.com/news/loca...6b3185490.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...eedom-lawsuit/

Apparently in PA, an Amish man is suing the state to allow him to buy a gun without photo ID, cause as he IS amish, it's against his religion to have his picture taken.