The Political Discussion Thread

[garhkal]

The only time I know of a company paying for a move is when it works internationally, and employees have to visit international workplaces -- like the husband of an ex-colleague of mine who was sent to Angola for two weeks; and another ex-husband of another ex-colleague to Singapore for a month.

But beyond that, the only thing we get for our troubles of living 50/60 km away from our jobs is travel-expenses which do not cover the gas-bill at all.

I know in some companies (oil and gas) they do provide more expenses for travel, while yet different one's dont. SO i am wondering if there are even any laws ON that subject..

*head!desk*

Trump on torture: 'We have to beat the savages'

According to TW waterboarding isn't torture... Should he be subjected to a waterboarding session to see whether he would change his mind?

In any case, perhaps, since he wants to play by IS-rules, someone should give him a book on torture for his birthday. There's bound to be one, written by a historian when the Inquisition was doing their witch-hunts.

Also, a sidenote -- it's not just Christians who are beheaded. Everyone in opposition of IS is liable to loosing their head in the most literal sense of the word.

Well, its (IMO) Obvious the kindler, gentiler way of "Winning hearts and minds" does nothing, so why NOT go brutal on them.. It is afterall how we won WW2..

[Annoyed]

Yeah, but we haven't been supposed to win wars for a long time now. We're too concerned with the enemy's feelings, their self-image and all that other psychological claptrap.

[Annoyed]

So..............
Your basic problem is, you don't want to pay for government employee's?
Or are you annoyed that their union works?

No, the basic problem is that I don't want to OVERPAY govt. employees. If you look at the compensation package, including wages, retirement, working hours required, etc. NYS govt employees are paid significantly more than a job requiring equal qualifications in the private sector is.

But that doesn't tell the tale of the rest of the state. Oh, and don't forget, that many of the people and businesses that say they're in NYC don't actually live there. Ever look at where the NY Jets and other supposed "NYC" sports franchises are actually headquartered? New Jersey, in order to escape the onerous tax burden of NY. A very significant portion of well heeled financial types that work in NYC live in Jersey as well as other neighbor states for the same reason.

Again, so what?
Don't the corporations have the right to do that?
I mean, you already think that you shouldn't stop corps from going where they want, and if the taxes in NYC are so onerous, then NYC is loosing out on that tax money. Basic cause and effect.

Of course they do. But if NY wants to remain competitive, a place where companies want to build (and create jobs) NY has to get its taxes in line with the rest of the country; there are many states where the tax burden is significantly lower. A few years back, by some measurements, the Finger Lakes region, where I live had the dubious distinction of being the most heavily taxed region in the entire country.

So, you are surprised that in an era when everyone has a phone with a camera, a camera company has downsized?
Really?

A copying company, when everyone can buy a printer/scanner for 15 bucks, and no one needs a fax machine anymore due to the internet.

Fair call, but they were sold recently, and have suffered class action lawsuits prompted by CDC investigations.

Delco is owned by GM, so I believe you think that they should be gone -period-.

GE has money to burn, it does not even pay federal corporate tax. In fact, they got a refund from the IRS. If they have closed a plant, it is for nothing more than corporate greed.

Again, if NY wants to keep business & jobs, they have to be competitive with other states in their tax rates. If NY wants to treat them as nothing but a cash cow, I don't blame the business for acting wisely. I blame NY for being GREEDY.

Don't corporations have the right, nay, -directive- to modernize and cut costs where possible to deliver more to their shareholders?

Of course they do, and that is quite proper.
It's not their fault that NY wants to rob them blind.

An unregulated purely free market will do one thing, and one thing only, funnel the money to the top. What falls down to the "masses" is only as much as is needed to get the money back up to the top. Productivity has increased by what, some 100-200%? and you are getting paid effectively -less- by the corporations, because they cannot be forced to pay people more because that's "onerous" and the jobs will move.
At what point do people realise that defending this unfettered, unregulated greed merely makes the people -actually- responsible for the conditions of places -like- Buffalo. You can claim it is the "lefty government" all you want, but it is the Corporations, who choose to say "I'm not paying an extra 10 cents in the dollar on my profits" and MOVE who are to blame.

At an interstate, state vs state level, the problem is the high tax states need to stop spending so much so that they can compete with the smarter states that keep the tax burden reasonable.

On an international level, how many times have I suggested scrapping the stupid trade deals which allow the multinationals to move jobs out of the country??

The taxes required to pay these exorbitant compensation packages are one of the biggest factors driving jobs out.

I would say that is definitely a negative affect on the average working stiff that is a result of the govt. employee unions.

No, it is a side effect of corporate greed
Again.

How the hell is high taxation rates a sign of corporate greed? Looks like Govt. employee union greed to me.

Hang on.
In the article it mentions that NYC has thrown billions of dollars to upstate NY, and nothing has changed.
What happened to that money?

Much of it gets wasted on stupid projects that have absolutely no chance of success, but do provide a nice income for various consultants and the like.
Here is a splendid example of such a deal that left the City of Rochester taxpayers on the hook for 40 Million dollars: http://www.rbj.net/article.asp?aID=209847

One more question for you.

Do you really think you can get a better understanding of an area and it's problems via the Internet than someone who has been a lifelong resident of that area who has paid attention to current events since before High School has?

That would be akin to me asking where you live, googling it and telling you what needs to be fixed based on that research, which strikes me as ridiculous.

[Falcon Horus]

Except that tortured men will say anything to make it stop.

And B, yes lower yourself to the enemies level and give them even more reason to want to attack your soldiers or people. Good idea.
Cause in war, anything is fair game, I'd say bring back the gas chambers while you're at it.

[mad_gater]

Except that tortured men will say anything to make it stop.

And B, yes lower yourself to the enemies level and give them even more reason to want to attack your soldiers or people. Good idea.
Cause in war, anything is fair game, I'd say bring back the gas chambers while you're at it.

so the defending army is just supposed to sit there and let the aggressor army run roughshod over them?

the defending army must fight too....unless the nation that sends them to fight has a suicide wish

I can just about guarantee that most of the aggressor nations we've fought weren't too well inclined to sit around, smoke a peace pipe, and sing "Kumbaya"

[SGalisa]

Except that tortured men will say anything to make it stop.

Unless that person was fighting for jihad, then they might be a volunteer suicide fighter, but only if they take others down for the count with them.

Cause in war, anything is fair game, I'd say bring back the gas chambers while you're at it.

Be careful what you/we wish for -- it just might happen, or worse things, as well -- and hope/pray the tables don't turn by putting (generic) you-yourself in the tortured-to-be-murdered receiving end, too.

Yes, and all it amounts to is people going into what amounts to slavery, or becoming homeless and destitute. THESE are the options that the corporations give you. Oh, some people may get nicer slave quarters, but that is all you will ever be.

Oh, since I am one of those *stuck* persons who may end up working until dropping dead into the grave, I like my current "slave" quarters. Fortunate enough to get one of the better looking ones (from all of the previous institutions/companies that I've worked at). Got all the comforts of home right there.. footstool, pillow, snuggy blanket, booties during the colder weather, flannel gloves (for when the A/C kicks on and freezes our fingers), snacks (that I like), some of my favorite pictures, pretty calendar scenaries.. just to name a few. Tiny cubicle, sweet cubicle "slave" quarters.. Make it look as pretty as possible, since we ended up with surrounding grey walls and desk.

I'd rather be enjoying living in retirement, so I can relax and get needed water therapy treatments (for my back) in my own heated pool, etc., but that won't ever happen at the rate we've been *stuck* in..

Hang on.
In the article it mentions that NYC has thrown billions of dollars to upstate NY, and nothing has changed.
What happened to that money?
Upstate NY provides 24% of total tax to the state, yet claims 35% of the total funds of the state. Why is this?

My guess is what they (TPTB) claim on paper/in the news is totally different than what they (TPTB) do in reality. Most of the money probably ends up in the pockets of the politicians to wine and dine and making deals with their lobbying deal makers.

From what I've seen, I've driven thru a good portion of the main areas of upstate NY and there are huge chunks of the state that are Native American territory/land. Very poor living appearances in those places. It takes a lot of money to maintain the highways and national parks -- which seems to be well maintained in the more popular locations. But the rest? Some of the farmlands are fortunate to have wealthy enough land owners to maintain what they have. Otherwise, the rest of the living areas are run down with modest living conditions, at best.

It's often the city folks (mostly NYC regional area) who either visit or move to the more rural areas and trash the state.. because they never respected their own *city* and don't know how to find a garbage can to dump their trash in properly. NJ is plagued with that problem in the rural areas. Used to be pristine in much of the rural towns, but seems I drive down the road between the towns and see trash tossed in the woods all the time. It's gotten much worse in the past few years.

it's not that I don't have the constitution to pack up and move....I just don't have the financial resources to do so

pretty much I'm stuck in a catch-22.....need to earn money to eventually one day relocate to a better area but it seems I have to relocate to the better area to earn the money....

In all seriousness though, MG, my question was more rhetorical than actual, I am aware of the difficulties involved in moving, finding work etc.
I was just trying to make you think a little.

We who live here in the NY/NJ/PA area, don't need to think about it. "Easier said than done".. What works in theory, does NOT work on in actuality.. I'm in the same *stuck* boat. Been that way for decades. Hubby thought "the grass was greener on the other side" and when he got there, found out that it was just as bad on both sides of the state (highway dividing lines, etc.). I was making more money in the rural part of NJ, and took a pay cut EVERY single time I had to move and get a new job elsewhere. Had I stayed in one spot, I could have retired at 50 with a nice pension, and maybe taken on a part-time job til age 68, which is where my designated retirement age got increased to.

Unfortunately, my husband and I experienced 20 years prior to what many USA middle class workers were facing from companies that downsized after President Obama took office in 2009. Foreclosures due to lack of employment, or pay at far less wages than what would accommodate former job's living scale. Hubby tried to take on a 2nd job--and start his own business (during the late 1980's), but that never worked out when the Dems took over in the 1990's. Our lovely NJ ended up turning into a "ghost state" because many companies bailed out to other locations thanks to (DEM) Gov.Florio's increased taxes.

I stayed where my hubby was, because he had the bigger pay check at that time. Wouldn't have mattered anyway, because as soon as Florio got voted out of office, the company I previously worked for, came back a year later, but even the workers who stayed with and thru the move weren't guaranteed their same job positions or pay scale. That's too much moving, IMHO. Plus, I found work a little closer to home, but at 1/3 less pay, and it was horrible work (in a medical facility with a genuine lockout on the psycho ward). It got seriously depressing in there.. and takes a special type of worker to be able to tolerate the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth from the residents in there.

Anyway, it's a real trap when you only have enough money to live within tolerable conditions for the next two months, because there is nothing to fall back on. Retirement is now around the next corner, but we can't even gain a few extra necessary dollars from selling what we have (house) to retire to somewhere cheaper. Maybe we could move into our friend's abandoned mine cave and pay him rent.. but that is not exactly something I am looking forward to. We'd still have to get a job to pay that rent, and other bills that come due..

[Coco Pops]

Except that tortured men will say anything to make it stop.

And B, yes lower yourself to the enemies level and give them even more reason to want to attack your soldiers or people. Good idea.
Cause in war, anything is fair game, I'd say bring back the gas chambers while you're at it.

Who is advocating torture?

I know Trump made a big song and dance about MORE waterboarding and how he'd bring it back. Was he the one?

[Gatefan1976]

*head!desk*

Trump on torture: 'We have to beat the savages'

According to TW waterboarding isn't torture... Should he be subjected to a waterboarding session to see whether he would change his mind?

In any case, perhaps, since he wants to play by IS-rules, someone should give him a book on torture for his birthday. There's bound to be one, written by a historian when the Inquisition was doing their witch-hunts.

It's called the Malleus Maleficarum

[Gatefan1976]

No, the basic problem is that I don't want to OVERPAY govt. employees. If you look at the compensation package, including wages, retirement, working hours required, etc. NYS govt employees are paid significantly more than a job requiring equal qualifications in the private sector is.

Ok, on that issue, we can actually agree for the most part. BUT, when you start talking about hours worked and such you start to lose me here. How many "hours of work" does a top exec (I assume you are talking about the top of the latter here, because most government employee's a basically schleps no better than your average corp wage slave) do for his or her hundreds of thousands and million dollar bonuses?
Point being, you don't see many people in the millionare class who work for the government, even at the top end.
Also, and just taking teachers as an example, if you think that their work begins and ends with the school bells, your are -seriously- underestimating what they do outside of school.

Of course they do. But if NY wants to remain competitive, a place where companies want to build (and create jobs) NY has to get its taxes in line with the rest of the country; there are many states where the tax burden is significantly lower.

What will it take.............
Companies do not CARE about "creating jobs", they make them because they MUST. I assume that you folks have this "newish" phenomena of "self serve checkouts" in your grocery stores yeah?
They can kill 6-12 jobs and replace it with one, and they don't shy away from doing it either.
The goal of business is profit, nothing else. Job creation is basically, a "nessesary evil" in their eyes.
I mentioned Flint earlier to MG. One, for the rather sad joke that he could move somewhere with cheaper land, and it's run by Republicans, so he would be happy about his vote counting, but -mostly- because the current issues with water are based mostly on the fact that the local government basically went into "receivership" and was run like a business for the last 2 years, not a government. They did anything they could to save a buck, and they have this ironically named "rainy day" fund now of a billion dollars. The problem is, the actual -cost- of saving that money in liablility suits, healthcare, and shear biological damage done to the people of Flint in terms of mental damage by lead contaminated water will be far, far greater. If you want a somewhat comparable example, do some research on the cost of the "black lung bill" passed in WVa in not just local, but federal funding, cause YOU are paying for that as well.

A few years back, by some measurements, the Finger Lakes region, where I live had the dubious distinction of being the most heavily taxed region in the entire country.

I cannot find anything on that, but I will take your word on it.

Again, if NY wants to keep business & jobs, they have to be competitive with other states in their tax rates. If NY wants to treat them as nothing but a cash cow, I don't blame the business for acting wisely. I blame NY for being GREEDY.

Ignoring the fact that your response in no way answers my question, what tax rate do you think is fair?

Of course they do, and that is quite proper.
It's not their fault that NY wants to rob them blind.

NY seems to be doing fine on the whole, 14th largest economy in the US as I mentioned before.
Looks like some companies can handle their tax rate just fine, and if they cannot, they leave.
Or are you saying that NY state should engage in corporate welfare in perpetuity to keep companies there?
I thought you were against welfare in perpetuity?

At an interstate, state vs state level, the problem is the high tax states need to stop spending so much so that they can compete with the smarter states that keep the tax burden reasonable.

And yet, at nearly every level, these so called "smarter states" pull more and more money from the federal government to stay afloat on the state level. They are taking -your- tax dollars to pay for their low taxes on businesses that only "helps" the state in question. Those states with their onerous tax burden on corporations are PAYING for everyone else, so they can deliver these cuts. It is so high because some states (and I will point out that the majority of these states are RED) simply don't pay for themselves, and those red states continually add less to the USA than they take and SOMEONE has to pay for them. Do these corporations move to these red states and provide jobs there?
No, they don't.

On an international level, how many times have I suggested scrapping the stupid trade deals which allow the multinationals to move jobs out of the country??

All the time, and we agree on that.
Did you know that one of the key points that Bernie slammed Hillary over in the debate yesterday was the cost to America over these trade deals?

How the hell is high taxation rates a sign of corporate greed? Looks like Govt. employee union greed to me.

It's not, but don't for a second think that what you pay as a private citizen in tax rates is anywhere comparable to what corporations pay. The big corps, the ones the lefties are annoyed with are not the "ma and pa" businesses, or even the larger local corporations, they are the MASSIVE multinationals who do not even pay taxes but get rebates.
This is the BS rhetoric from the right. "Ma and pa businesses will fold" "local corps will suffer and move". NO. People are looking at the multinationals like GE who close a plant in your area because "it's not cost effective", but pay not a damn cent in tax. they are -not- looking to tax small and local business out of existence, they want multinationals who make 14 billion dollars in profit (like Walmart) to actually pay some ******* tax rather than get a refund!!

Much of it gets wasted on stupid projects that have absolutely no chance of success, but do provide a nice income for various consultants and the like.
Here is a splendid example of such a deal that left the City of Rochester taxpayers on the hook for 40 Million dollars: http://www.rbj.net/article.asp?aID=209847

I am not going to defend a dumb deal, we agree that some things people do are stupid, and democrats are certainly not immune to that stupidity.
You keep thinking I am "defending" Democrats because I rip on Republicans, and the simple fact of the matter is, Politics is simply not that binary, and you know that.

One more question for you.

Do you really think you can get a better understanding of an area and it's problems via the Internet than someone who has been a lifelong resident of that area who has paid attention to current events since before High School has?

On local events?
Of course not.
All I can point out is that the local view is by design -small-, and I would not recommend applying a local view to a state or national level.

That would be akin to me asking where you live, googling it and telling you what needs to be fixed based on that research, which strikes me as ridiculous.

Except, I never said it would "fix" anything, nor have even -tried- to fix your area.
I have said look at the big picture, these are not the same things.

[Womble]

I know in some companies (oil and gas) they do provide more expenses for travel, while yet different one's dont. SO i am wondering if there are even any laws ON that subject..



Well, its (IMO) Obvious the kindler, gentiler way of "Winning hearts and minds" does nothing, so why NOT go brutal on them.. It is afterall how we won WW2..

"Winning hearts and minds" has never worked anywhere. There's literally not one historical example of converting a hostile population to one's side without crushing them militarily first and enforcing conformity (with no small measure of brutality) after that. The only way to actually succeed at it is not by niceness but by tight control of information that the target audience gets; short of military occupation and ability to impose a media blackout, it just can't be done.

[garhkal]

And B, yes lower yourself to the enemies level and give them even more reason to want to attack your soldiers or people. Good idea..

And since when has these islamic nutjobs needed any more reason to attack us than we are infidels and 'great satans'?

"Winning hearts and minds" has never worked anywhere. There's literally not one historical example of converting a hostile population to one's side without crushing them militarily first and enforcing conformity (with no small measure of brutality) after that. The only way to actually succeed at it is not by niceness but by tight control of information that the target audience gets; short of military occupation and ability to impose a media blackout, it just can't be done.

Hence why both me and annoyed are saying we need to STOP being in the practice of "winning hearts and minds" and get back to what the military was made for. DEFEATING THE ENEMY!

[Falcon Horus]

so the defending army is just supposed to sit there and let the aggressor army run roughshod over them?

A defending army defends, and uses strategical strikes to cut supplies from the attacking army - you know, cut into their resources. Cut them off from any lifelines.
Possibly, protect the innocents trapped in the warzones.

I can just about guarantee that most of the aggressor nations we've fought weren't too well inclined to sit around, smoke a peace pipe, and sing "Kumbaya"

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

The USSR threatened but never attacked. North-Korea has threatened but hasn't attacked (yet).

Vietnam didn't attack you. Germany didn't attack you.
Iraq didn't attack you.

The French and the Brits didn't attack you.

The North and the South attacked eachother.

So, how many agressors did I miss?
I can count 1 country and Al-Qaeda.

Unless that person was fighting for jihad, then they might be a volunteer suicide fighter, but only if they take others down for the count with them.

They will never talk, and die a martyr -- and thus accomplish their goal. Their deaths will nonetheless be avenged.

Or what else do you think will happen?

Be careful what you/we wish for...

That wasn't a wish. A suggestion in jest... more or less.
I've been to Auschwitz. I've learned the lesson. I sincerely hope others did too.

Who is advocating torture?

I know Trump made a big song and dance about MORE waterboarding and how he'd bring it back. Was he the one?

It was an article about Trump(y-wumpy) indeed.

It's called the Malleus Maleficarum

That's the ONE I was looking for.
Plenty of good torture ideas in that one.

"Winning hearts and minds" has never worked anywhere. There's literally not one historical example of converting a hostile population to one's side without crushing them militarily first and enforcing conformity (with no small measure of brutality) after that. The only way to actually succeed at it is not by niceness but by tight control of information that the target audience gets; short of military occupation and ability to impose a media blackout, it just can't be done.

It's still weird, I have to admit, but sometimes we do agree.

And since when has these islamic nutjobs needed any more reason to attack us than we are infidels and 'great satans'?

You want to give them more reason to be even more eager to blow you to kingdom come.
As I indicate, more being the operative word here.

Hence why both me and annoyed are saying we need to STOP being in the practice of "winning hearts and minds" and get back to what the military was made for. DEFEATING THE ENEMY!

But technically speaking they are not the "enemy" in the true sense of the word. The US has not declared war on them. Bush did declare war on terrorism, if I'm not mistaken. I could be as I can't quite remember who said it first.

Technicalities, I know.

[mad_gater]

so you're saying that nations shouldn't come to the aid of their allies in a global conflict such as WW2...yes the only Axis power that attacked us directly in that conflict was Japan, and rumor has it that it was despite the objection of a Japanese admiral declaring that to do so would be folly and if I'm not mistaken the emperor of Japan even remarked that he feared that all they did was "awaken a sleeping giant"

nowadays though Japan, if they were so inclined, could try again and they'd probably have more success since we seem to have far too many lily-livered pantywaists running things in this nation today

and revolutionary wars like the kind in which we pasted the Brits not just once but twice (once in 1776 and again in 1812) can be for just cause (kicking out an evil tyrant....such as King George III)

likewise wars intended to prevent the spread of an evil and cancerous ideology (such as communism and radical Islam) can also be for just cause

and actually the war we call WW2 should actually be called WW3 since the American Revolutionary War eventually expanded into a world war that involved Spain, France, the Netherlands, and the Kingdom of Mysore (which was allied with the French and thus fighting broke out between Mysore and the British East India Company) and also involved some German auxiliaries who were on the side of the British

the conflict also set many of the Native American tribes against each other as well...some were on the side of the aggrieved colonists and others were on the side of the British monarchy

[Annoyed]

so you're saying that nations shouldn't come to the aid of their allies in a global conflict such as WW2...yes the only Axis power that attacked us directly in that conflict was Japan, and rumor has it that it was despite the objection of a Japanese admiral declaring that to do so would be folly and if I'm not mistaken the emperor of Japan even remarked that he feared that all they did was "awaken a sleeping giant"

That quote has been attributed to Admiral Yamamoto (sp?), who designed and led the attack. It was shown in at least one movie regarding Pearl, "Tora Tora Tora", I think it was. Yamamoto was US educated, knew full well the capabilities of the US, but as far as I can tell, there is some doubt about whether he actually said it.

[garhkal]

You want to give them more reason to be even more eager to blow you to kingdom come.
As I indicate, more being the operative word here.

If they already have enough of a reason, why are you worried that 'doing this' might give them more of one... "
OH i hate you i want to kill you.
What you did that.. Now i want to kill you even more??"
Makes no sense.

But technically speaking they are not the "enemy" in the true sense of the word. The US has not declared war on them. Bush did declare war on terrorism, if I'm not mistaken. I could be as I can't quite remember who said it first.

Technicalities, I know.

Just cause our limp dick of a POTUS won't say we are at war with them and they are not the enemy, does NOT mean that they are not our enemy though.