Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
They are for corporate welfare, as well. That is central planning, therefore left-wing.
At this point left and right wing are not useful terms. Neo-cons are such a mishmash of terrible policies pulled from all over the place, I'm not sure how a simplistic scale like left vs right could describe them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I can't pin down what exactly what domestic policies would constitute a neo-con. The term mostly seems to describe their foreign policy (ie starting wars and bombing as many people as possible).But that would also mean I could put neo-cons in your party.
Starting wars is not a left wing ideology. Neither is it a right wing ideology. I would say if your primary position in politics is that your country should get in more wars, I think all political parties should reject you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
It remains to be seen if she actually is. She was right wing until the last decade or so. She has taken alot of bernie's ideas, watered them down and presented them as her "plans". But since she is already courting the party establishment (which as I have explained are essentially moderate right wing people). I would say the odds are pretty good that she is pretending to be left to win the primary, but will then shift right and disappoint everyone just like Obama did.Basically people could forget Warren is pretty leftist
That is why it is so important that Sanders wins. Because if they run another hope and change campaign and then do nothing, they will screw themselves for years. And then you will get even more chaos.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Exactly which candidate would be welcomed into the Republican party?
I didn't mean they would be welcomed. I apologize for being unclear. I meant that their political positions would fit in as a moderate republican. This obviously doesn't include the current nomination cycle as they all started pretending to be further left than they actually are.
People like Biden, Beto, buttigieg, klobuchar. Hell, a large chunk of Obama's policies were right out of a republican playbook too. I mean obamacare was a plan originally pushed by the heritage foundation and was supported by republicans, until obama suggested it. At that point the right wing plan became communism somehow.
Until now, what republicans called "the left" was actually just the slightly more moderate right. Sanders and Warren are the only ones running that are actually on the left. Maybe yang too, but he has some weird libertarian stuff thrown in as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Go google wiki and impeachment.
I did, there is no reference to an inquiry vote.
At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure.
- First, the Congress investigates. This investigation typically begins in the House Judiciary Committee, but may begin elsewhere. For example, the Nixon impeachment inquiry began in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The facts that led to impeachment of Bill Clinton were first discovered in the course of an investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.
- Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached".
- Third, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer, the President of the Senate who is also the Vice President of the United States. Conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds supermajority vote. The result of conviction is removal from office.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Could you provide a source for that? I can't find any information that says they need a vote to start the inquiry. The information I am able to find says the inquiry has already started.2 votes have to happen. One for inquiry and a 2nd one for impeachment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't see any evidence that this would occur. In order for that to happen they would need to hold everything they have now and pick up, i think it was 20 more. Dems also have a solid chance of increasing their lead. Republicans seem to be worried about that too. They have had 19 republican members of congress either retire already or announced they wont run again so far this year. They are already ahead of the number of republicans who retired before the 2018 election when they saw the blue wave coming. And 2018 saw the highest numbers of republicans retiring since 1930.I would be really worried about a House flip in 2020.
If republicans are retiring at record rates ahead of the election, you can bet they don't think they are likely to do well. Those retirements also make it harder to win. Incumbents are more likely to win than someone new. So the more republicans that retire, the worse the Republicans are likely to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's still hard to believe the Dems are serious about this when they have yet to take a vote on the house floor over impeachment inquiry
What do you mean? The vote is the end of the process in the house. The 1st part is the official impeachment investigation, which started this week. Then they drawn up the articles of impeachment (which are planned for late October) and then they proceed to a vote. This process is already ongoing.
Many of the moderates would soon after lose their seats when they are forced to explain their vote to their districts...many districts that Trump won.
It's still too early to say definitively, but the reporting I have saw was that it is the moderates that pushed her to do it. The moderates got hammered by their own constituents and they put pressure on pelosi to proceed. But, I don't have references for that as it just happened this week.
Forget an actual impeachment vote, It's highly unlikely there will even be an inquiry vote.
Perhaps I have misunderstood, but I don't believe there is any such thing as an inquiry vote. Am i missing something? There is the inquiry, which is happening right now. The articles of impeachment that are coming next month, then the vote on the floor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Did I miss an announcement from sanders where he said he would abolish capitalism? Can you name any policies of Sanders that are communist? Can you name any that wouldn't be considered normal in Canada?No they are not. They are Social Democracies that lean more towards Capitalism than towards Socialism.
The fact Warren jumped Parties at the sake of her own political prowess speaks volumes for her integrity.
It means she has some integrity, that is true. However she was a registered republican until 1996. She was 47 years old and still a conservative. That should put up some serious concerns for anyone who is a progressive.
Sanders identifies as a Democratic Socialist. His ideas are the most appealing to Communists out of all prominent candidates
Sander's is the furthest left. So of course communists would like him better. But that doesn't mean he is a communist. It just means he is slightly closer to their ideology than the others. But he is still a long way away from it.
If we're lucky enough, the more radical ones will move further to the left at a faster race then the rest who are closer to the center, and splinter themselves off into their own corner
Nah, if we are lucky, people will realize that they are all further left than they thought they were. If you ask someone if they are left leaning, alot of people will say no. But if you ask them what they think of left leaning plans without telling them they are left, they like them. The issue is that the language has been highjacked. Right wing people have convinced others that they are actually the center and everyone else needs to be like them. They have been able to paint reformers as crazy communists so they can keep their corrupt broken system. Bill clinton and the dems that followed turned the democratic party into a party that did the same things as the republicans, just with less bible thumping and racism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You are drawing a very tenuous connection here. The reason that blew up in the republicans' face is that they impeached over an affair. It had absolutely nothing to do with the office or with the country. It was an extremely stupid thing to try to impeach someone for. Trump's crimes are exactly why impeachment was included in the constitution. He has abused the powers of his office in an attempt to get a foreign power to attack his opponent. This is in no way similar to the impeachment of Clinton.We know from history that when it ever gets to a vote as it did with Clinton, the Dems will lose congressional seats like the Republicans did in 2000.
it will still be hard to find sympathetic Republicans after what they did to Kavanaugh and the Meuller fiasco
Kavanaugh lied under oath in front of congress and had multiple credible accusations of rape and sexual assault. Mueller found multiple crimes committed by trump, he just decided he didn't have the power to press charges. These are examples of how the republicans have been able to slow walk issues by stone walling and lying the whole time to get people to think issues are less serious than they are. It doesn't look like that is going to happen this time. The subpoenas are already going out. They plan to have articles of impeachment drawn up by the end of october. Trump might not be able to slow walk and lie his way through this one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You already live in a socialist society. Canada, the UK, Germany, Denmark etc are all socialist societies. Sanders' ideas are no further left than moderate parties in any of those countries. Sanders has literally no communist plans.I am a real Progressive, but not a Socialist or Communist.
Progressivism is closest to Warren's background and outlook.
Warren was a republican until a few years ago. She wants to put patches on the broken parts of the system. That is definitely an improvement. But she doesn't want to actually fix the broken system. She is more progressive than the other candidates, but that really isn't saying all that much. The majority of the people running in the dem leadership debate would be right at home as moderate republicans. Warren would be a huge step forward from the rest of the field. Sanders is another step forward from Warren.
I'm just curious where these "not real" progressives are going to go once they are kicked out of the Democrat Party
Who said anything about kicking them out? A moderate progressive would be much more at home with sanders' policies than they would with the republicans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
You clearly have no intention of discussing this with any level of maturity. I'm guessing you are a republican and therefore want Biden to win? So any mention of a real progressive actually fixing america's problems seems crazy.
Created:
Posted in:
Trump's own memo spells out that he asked a foreign government to interfere in the election. If all there was was the government released memo (please note it was not a full transcript) that would probably be enough to impeach as it is a straight out confession.
There was never an active coordination between Trump and Russia on this
This is still unclear. A total of 272 contacts between Trump’s team and Russia-linked operatives were identified, including at least 38 meetings. Trump's team claimed repeatedly that they had no contact with any russians. Paul manafort gave internal polling data to people with close ties to the Kremlin. So there was clearly some form of mutual assistance. Unfortunately, Mueller was not able to find an indisputable smoking gun. Just a whole lot of smoke.
they mainly just sponsored misinformation
They hacked the DNC computers and released emails they thought were incriminating. It isn't all that different than what trump wanted Ukraine to do.
there sure as shit wont be an attempt to remove Trump from office before the next election takes place
The latest info I've seen says dems want to draft the articles of impeachment by the end of october. It is extremely likely the vote will take place before the election.
it's highly unlikely something truly damming will be uncovered soon enough to justify a full on impeachment process
The information they already have justifies impeachment. It likely isn't enough to sway republicans, but it is more than enough to impeach him. (please note that impeachment and removal from office are not the same thing)
Trumps team has tried hard to cover this stuff up. They put the transcripts of the call in a computer intended for highly classified material and only gave key members of staff paper hard copies so they couldn't leak it. They knew how bad this was. But Trump has already said there were more calls. It's possible that there is more evidence that would constitute a smoking gun that they are still hiding.
I would say at this point the odds of trump being impeached by the house before the election is pretty high. The odds that he gets removed from office by the senate are hard to say. I saw an comment from Jeff Flake where he said that there were at least 35 republican senators that would love nothing more than to convict trump. But they are almost certainly too gutless to do so. So the critical factor will be whether or not the republican base see the evidence that comes out as compelling. If the republican base turns on Trump you can be sure the senate will convict. And they would enjoy watching Trump go down in flames. If not, he will be impeached by the house but given a pass by the senate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
The ad hominem attacks just make you look weaker.
You still haven't bothered to address the reality that Biden's mind is going. You keep referring back to polling but completely skip over that fact. He is not up to this campaign. As we get closer to the actual votes being cast and more people start actually paying attention, this will become increasingly obvious. Biden's numbers are going to drop. Once we accept that Biden's numbers are going to drop significantly, then you realize that many of the current polls aren't super relevant. With Biden in the lead in alot of places, once his numbers collapse that shakes up the race entirely. Have you seen Biden in the debates? Do you honestly think Biden is up to an actual election?
1) tied for 1st is, by definition, in 1st. Are you so partisan you will dispute the meaning of 1st?
2) You asked for polls where bernie was in 1st. I provided some and you proceed to attack me personally. Could you at least pretend like you are willing to actually discuss this like an adult? As I keep telling you, Biden is not running much of a campaign. He is surviving on name recognition and Obama nostalgia. That won't last. He has no real platform, and even when he does have ideas, he can't remember what they are.
Being THIRD PLACE in a 'tight race' by almost double digits doesnt equate to Bernie being in the lead
I had a poll showing them all within 3 or 4 points, which would be a statistical tie. I'm having trouble finding it this morning. But even the most recent one from monmouth shows warren and bidden in a statistical tie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
An emerson poll had bernie tied with biden for 1st at 26% in California . However California polls keep changing. But he he certainly in the running to win there
An emerson poll has bernie winning in colorado.
A yougov poll put sanders in the lead in Nevada.
All three candidates are in a tight race in New Jersey
And there are alot of races where biden leads and bernie is a close 2nd while warren trails.
These are facts. The attacks aren't making you look less biased.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
That's HILARIOUS coming from you, every single one of your initial claims and even responses are seeped in your own bias.
Please provide examples. What have I said that is untrue? Biden frequently gets confused and forgets names, places, policies. He goes on weird rants that have little or nothing to do with what he is talking about. Someone like that would get destroyed by Trump.
Sanders is in 1st in several states. Many polls have put him as the number 2 choice for Biden voters. The one you provided puts that as a statistical tie. Nationally he is still in a statistical tie with warren.
These are all empirical facts. Everyone has biases, i don't pretend i am immune. But my opinions are based on hard facts. You appear to enjoy ignoring facts you don't like. i made several points based in facts and laid out my logic in how i came to my conclusions. You responded with an attack with nothing backing it up at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There are also economists that will tell you taxing the rich will create jobs, with a straight face.
Taxing anyone doesn't create jobs. What you do with that tax revenue very well could. For example, by providing healthcare for people, or removing crippling student debt from people.
Steve Jobs would disagree. He led a marketing campaign to convince millions of people to buy his product when there was none to begin with.
I think you will find that consumer phones existed before the iPhone. He changed the market to be sure, but he didn't create it. How do you think that would go if no one could afford a phone though? It doesn't matter how great your product is. If people have to choose between a consumer product or losing their home, no one is going to be buying consumer products. You need a prosperous middle class in order to have success stories like Apple. And right wing policies are destroying that middle class.
Really, you can't find a place in the country with more income inequality than California.
What is your point? The United States' economy is set up to favor the wealthy. California is set up that way the same as everywhere else. It has more problems because it has more big companies with their headquarters there. We need a president Sanders, or maybe Warren, to deal with these problems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Look at Venezuela, North Korea, the previous Soviet Union, and China under Mao lol.
Those are extreme cases. If you take something to an extreme case, it is almost always bad. And when discussing economics the terms left and right get very imprecise. For example a monarchy is a right wing system. Therefore north korea is right wing, not left.
FDR essentially crowded out private spending and investments. Many economists believe that he prolonged the Great Depression.
There are economists that will tell you trickle down economics works, with a straight face. It is well established that trickle down economics is a lie sold by millionaires and billionaires. The reason america turned into a power house is because it's population became more wealthy. They empowered their consumer base which drove demand and growth. if millions of people want to buy something, that creates demand and drives innovation. If the majority of people don't have disposable income, then there is no demand for new products. It doesn't matter how much money there is available for investing in new companies if no one wants to/is able to buy it. Growth comes from building up demand not by over saturating supply. You can't force growth if there is no market to buy the product. Right wing policies have been destroying the buying power of the majority of Americans and weakening the economy.
As more and more Americans are forced out of the middle class growth will slow down. Those people who have no prospect of succeeding the shitty system the wealthy built will turn against right wing policies. You are seeing this right now with how popular left wing ideas are, especially with young people. They see that they are going to be crushed by debt just to try to get a half decent job that wont pay enough to keep them in the middle class. Society is currently shifting left and will likely continue to do so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
The fastest way out of a recession is to ramp up spending. In the great depression that was government spending for WW2. But if you can put more money into the hands of general population they will go out and spend it. This will create demand for more good and/or services and fuel growth.Wouldn't right wing policies be best in times of recession?
Left wing policies are always better.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
He can think for himself. I don't have to spoonfeed a particular narrative.
That isn't a way to have a discussion. Providing sources with no argument or narrative is useless. You and I can both read those articles and come away with different points. If you don't tell people what your point is then there is nothing to discuss.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What are these links you provided supposed to be telling us. if you don't tell us what point you are making then they aren't helpful.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
This is a lie. Mueller found that there were multiple cases where the trump government committed acts that would classify as criminal obstruction of justice. Unfortunately he took the opinion that a) he couldn't charge them (he could have) and b) that because he couldn't charge them it would not be proper to outright say they committed the crimes, because they would not have the ability to test that in court. He heavily hinted that congress should hold them accountable. He also said he could not prove or disprove collusion because the trump administration ordered too many people not to co-operate and worked double time to cover up evidence. (i'm paraphrasing)False. Mueller could not prove a crime was committed. He said there was no collusion as well.
Asking isn’t forcing.
Asking is in, and of itself, a crime. The moment he asked a foreign national to provide info on biden to help with his campaign, he committed a crime.
I can ask you suck me off. Doesn’t mean you will.
No, but in this case he was holding back $400 million in aid they desperately needed to fight off the Russians while asking for a favor. Trump said himself that this was not the only call. And we haven't actually seen a transcript of the call yet. They have only released a "summary" of it. They cut significant sections out of the version they released. We will continue to learn more about the extortion aspect.
Impeachment is a blessing for DJT
It wasn't for Nixon. The only reason impeachment didn't hurt clinton is because they were impeaching him for a stupid reason. He lied about an affair. And while that is bad, that has absolutely no effect on the country. Trump, among other things, asked a foreign government to interfere in a US election. That has a much larger effect on the country. And the fact that they tried really hard to cover all of this up would lead me to believe that there is more to this that we don't know yet.
McConnell and Graham won’t allow it.
Probably not. But we shall see. Neither of those 2 actually like trump. They both trashed him before it became clear he would be the nominee. They both protect him because it serves their interests to do so. If it stops serving their interests to protect him, they would turn on him in a heartbeat. If the information that comes out in the impeachment inquiry is bad enough to start tanking trump's approval rating they might turn on him. If it doesn't they will prevent his conviction in the senate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
It wouldn't be likely. Their bases are very different. Bernie has a very diverse base. His base is largely working class people who want real change. Warren's base is largely white, upper middle class people. They don't want to see massive change. They like warren because she will make some improvements but, ultimately, will leave intact the corrupt system those upper middle class white people benefit from.I predict a Sanders and Warren unification against Biden. What do you think?
Real progressives don't like Warren. Warren's white, upper middle class base don't like sanders. Ironically, it is the Biden voters that are more likely to move.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Biden supporters have Warren as their backup choice slightly more than they do for Bernie
You found 1 poll that shows them in a statistical tie and described what I said as "blatantly incorrect". You may want to re-evaluate whether your biases are spilling into your opinions.
He's in the top 2 of every early state primary and still holds a national lead according to most polls
His support has been slowly but steadily declining for months. But by "leaking oil" i meant he is not fit for this race. He often forgets what state he is in, can't remember people names, goes off on weird, sort of crazy rants. Biden is not up to this. When he already had the lightest campaign schedule of anyone running, his campaign was suggesting that he reduce his schedule. His poll numbers aren't tanking likely because alot of people aren't watching. They see clips on the news that were chosen because they made sense but they are missing the large chunks where he is just rambling about nonsense. Once more people are paying closer attention it will be obvious he is not fit to be president.
He literally has the best odds of beating Trump out of any of the candidates
Bernie's polls for beating trump are about the same as Biden's. But Biden has absolutely no chance of beating Trump. Like I said, Biden doesn't seem to remember where he is, what he's talking about, what his policies are etc. in debates. If Biden gets on a debate stage with Trump, he will be destroyed. Biden has the same corrupt, centrist problems that Hilary had. No one is excited to see Joe Biden as president. Which means a large percentage of the population will just stay home. Why would they go vote for another corportist shill who won't do anything for them. Bernie has a massively energized base. His policies actually excite people and are easily understandable. He even came out ahead of Trump in Texas of all places. Bernie can win. Biden cannot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
We do not live in the 1800s.
The examples I gave are from the 20th century. And based on the policies you are advocating for, it sounds like you want to go back to the type of economy they had in the 1900's. Ie. billionaires working poor people literally to death so that they can make an extra billion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Left policies are only effective in times of struggle/decay in economy
This is entirely untrue. Left wing policies are more effective than right wing policies all the time. Right wing policies help to push wealth to top. They strip wealth from middle and lower class. As as result the economy starts to struggle. Left wing policies clean up the mess. The strongest economies are the ones where wealth is distributed more evenly. This means that more people have money to spend and the economy has a driving force to grow. When more money gets pushed to the top money stops moving. When the bulk of the population can't afford to buy things you get the economy slowing down.
The right thing to do was lean Republican now. The best thing to do is go Republican.
There hasn't been a left leaning government for decades. There has just been right wing and further right wing. The economy is a mess. The vast majority of the money has been pushed to a tiny percentage of people. This cannot be sustained. If there isn't a fundamental redesign of the economy there is going to be a collapse. America needs an actual progressive government to clean up decades of right wing policies and corruption.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Exactly how will that stop them from automating?
Nothing will stop them from automating. That is why government intervention is more important than ever. Increased automation will lead to increased profits. But it will also lead to them laying off their workers as they become unnecessary. If we do no fundamentally change who we manage our economy then the middle class will be finished off entirely.
Also, how do you know that these companies would start paying employees more just because of healthcare costs going away?
I don't. But one example of how it will help is with strikes. If people take labor action against their employers they will lose their health insurance. They run the risk of being ruined by becoming yet another health care bankrupcy. If you remove the ability of employer to threaten their lives (by essentially leaving them without any medical aid) then you strengthen the hand of employees. It also removes a large expense that employers have to take on. If employers no longer have to pay for the healthcare of their employees, that will help all small businesses.
Or that the increase would be equal to the burden lifted(assuming universal healthcare doesn't drastically increase expenditures)?
Americans pay several times more for healthcare per capita than most other developed countries. You also have worse health outcomes. A single payer system will be able to significantly reduce costs. Virtually every household in america will pay less for healthcare and they will all get better coverage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Of course there are examples where it is better to not compete. If competition drives up costs for both companies, then it is in their best interest not to compete. So if they both pay minimum wage for workers, then they might have trouble filling some positions, but they pay as little as possible. If they both started paying more then they would still have trouble finding workers (since they are competing for them) but their costs have now risen considerably. The both stand to lose money if they compete for workers by raising salary. If they both continue to pay the minimum they save alot of money.There is never ever an instance where it's in your best interest not to compete.
There is a reason the unionized jobs pay way more than non unionized jobs in most industries. If you are bargaining by yourself, you are easily replaceable. If you don't want to work for the amount they want to pay you, then they will find someone who will work for that amount. If you are bargaining as a group, then you have much more power. They can't fire everyone. They have no choice but to offer more or their entire business with be affected by a strike. I'm not saying unions are perfect, they certainly aren't. But unions helped to build the middle class. Now that they have come under attack the middle class is collapsing into poverty. The 2 events are related.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I would prefer limiting immigration to reduce supply of labor, and therefore increase the value of labor.
It wouldn't though. it would definitely limit the growth of the US economy. It would drastically increase the speed at which workers are replaced by machines. Companies are not going to pay their workers more if they don't have to. The cost of employment is one of their largest costs. They are not going to suddenly decide they need to treat their workers better. If workers became scarce, they would find ways to need less workers. Probably by increasing automation or start shipping even more jobs overseas. Ballooning their employment costs would a last resort.
How would you propose we "fix the system"?
For a start we need to get private money out of politics. Corporations have been able to rig the economy because they have massive influence in politics. If they were banned from using that money to influence politicians, that would help.
We need to find a way to encourage companies to increase wages. Some suggestions have been things like setting a legal cap for executives pay at a multiple of the average workers pay. Ex. the CEO can only make 50 times the average salary of an employee. This would motivate executives to pay workers more, because it would increase the cap on themselves as well.
Another example is universal healthcare. Employers are able to use healthcare as a bargaining chip instead of offering salary. If that is taken off the table (because everyone already has healthcare) then they will need to add more salary in order to attract workers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
All of those numbers are still before most people have even really keyed into the race. Alot of people simply aren't/weren't paying attention. Those numbers will continue to change.
The number 2 choice for most Biden supporters is Bernie. Biden is leaking oil bad. He can't get through a debate without going off on some weird semi racist rant about sending social workers into black people's homes because they don't know how to take care of their kids. Biden's numbers rely heavily on the idea that he can beat Trump. As it becomes clearer that he has absolutely no chance of beating Trump, it will be interesting to see where his supporters go.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Other people are stupid and don't save.
The real wages of american workers have been stagnant if not falling for decades. Some people are stupid and don't save. Alot of people literally cannot save because the cost of living has risen so much faster than their wages that they are barely treading water. The wage gap is growing. The economy is being rigged to benefit the very top chunk while the large majority of the population is being forced closer and closer to poverty.
If we fix the system then workers will be able to make enough to save.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Competition drives wages up so you can't just simply form a cartel.
This assumption requires that competition is in their best interest. If they have more to gain by not competing, then it is in their best interest to not compete. An increase in the cost of labor doesn't benefit any company. They don't ever want the cost of labor to go up. So they are willing to compete for certain kinds of jobs that they consider higher value (CEOs, CFOs, market analysts etc), but labor type positions are not in this area. They would rather over work their existing staff than increase wages to attract new employees. Since all companies have this same kind of thinking, they don't need to meet in back rooms and plan this. It is just standard practice for most companies.
If the minimum wage were removed today, you would see a sizable chunk of the lower middle class sink into poverty. I mean, in some sense it might be a good thing. Millions of people would wake up and realize that the free market capitalism that republicans have been telling them that they have to love is a system designed to screw them over and only generate wealth for the top tiny fraction of society. At that point maybe american society could actually progress to the same level as the rest of the developed world and escape the idea that the right wing is actually the center".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You're living in a fantasy world. They go to that company's competitor that pays more. Cartels don't exist in a competitive world. (that's the real world we live in.)
No. We live in a world where corporations are greedy. They will only pay more if they absolutely have to. Since all companies can benefit by paying their employees as little as possible, they will do so. It doesn't require them to communicate with each other. Corporate greed is universal. If the government allowed them to, a large number of companies would pay wages that would driver their employees into poverty. If you think that companies will pay their employees more than the bare minimum, then it would appear you be you who lives in a fantasy world.
Example of what? A bad company getting away with doing something bad?Pretty sure those owners lost their civil suit.
They probably did. Does that make their employees less dead? Lawsuits after they killed them won't help the dead people. Regulations preventing them from killing them would have. And that is exactly what happened. This tragedy forced the government to step in and regulate. No more locking your employees in. You had to have escape routes in case of emergency. There is no telling how many thousands of lives have been saved by those regulations. This is a perfect example of why lawsuits can never replace regulation. Lawsuits would provide some financial compensation to the families who have already had their lives shattered. There would be nothing to prevent other companies from continuing to do the same things. Regulation meant this sort of thing would stop happening. No more people had to burn to death because their employer didn't want to let them leave.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh, and companies have "free reign to abuse their employees" isn't hyperbolic?
Actually no, it is quite accurate. Are you unaware of what employment was like in the early 20th century before "socialists" put labor protections in place? For example, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire is an example of how a terrible company caused 146 of it's employees to burn to death. They locked all of the doors to prevent them from taking breaks while they earned their income which was little more than slave labor rates. Government regulations mean that this kind of stuff doesn't happen any more.
You seem to be pretending that every single contract laborer can't work somewhere else or hire a lawyer for damages.
If all companies were allowed to pay their workers a wage that would leave them below the poverty line, then where would they go? It's well and good to say they could find another job. But all companies want to pay as little as possible. They all would pay poverty wages and then there are no jobs to be had that they can actually feed their families on. At that point you are forcing a large percentage into the population into poverty so that rich people can earn more of a profit.
But we have veered seriously away from the topic of impeachment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is useless hyperbolic language. America's economy has grown many, many times over since FDR brought in those changes. You seem to be pretending that every single person in the US is unemployed.What companies? FDR destroyed them along with all the jobs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, and companies had free reign to abuse their employees which caused enough populist unrest to make FDR's changes needed. The height of american power and culture was totally intertwined with socialism. Pretending that socialism is un-american is insane. It is a core part of your political and economic identity.Yah but America has been around a lot longer than FDR.
This is how you cheat to win an election. Remove the competition.
What are you talking about? it wasn't clear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because right wing republicans and right wing democrats haven't been properly funding it.It's going bankrupt.
Killed jobs in every socialist dystopian state where enacted.
If employers need to pay wages so low that it is impossible for the person to survive on them, then that company doesn't deserve to exist. If you need to pay wages so low that your employees are living below the poverty line in order to turn a profit, then you are a shitty business. Once you are out of the way a better business with a better business model can rise in it's place.
Lowest participation rate in food giveaways since Obama.
These were just examples. the intention was to show you that socialism has been a part of american society longer than you have been alive. Socialism IS american. It's just that the right wing and the Neo-Liberals have highjacked the terminology to try to pretend that the right wing is actually the center. When you provide people with left wing ideas without any kind of pre-framing, they love them. Medicare for all is wildly popular. But the right wing wants people to believe that it is a far left idea. Polls are suggesting it is a centrist idea.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Ah I see. The problem is that Trump hired people who are very experienced with sleaze. The system, as it currently is designed, is susceptible to being heavily influenced. People like Manafort have made a career out of straddling the line between really shady and illegal. It makes it difficult to pin them down when they go over the line.
The political system needs an overhaul to keep all the private money and lobbyists out. Most of the establishment candidates for both Dems and Republicans like the corruption they can get away with and have no intention of changing it. That is why it is so important that Bernie Sanders wins the election and that the "centerist" dems get primaried and replaced with progressives.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
We didn't vote for them, yet they have just as much power over our lives as the people we did vote for.
That is unavoidable. There will always be people you didn't have any hand in picking that have power over you. A police chief has a fair bit of leeway in deciding what the priorities are for enforcement. You don't typically have any say in who that is. They usually answer to a mayor. Judges have alot of power over you as well (which in your version they would be the only oversight for companies) but you don't typically have any say in their selection either. But leaving companies as the highest authority is just leaving that power in the hands of someone with no oversight at all. They can do whatever they want if there is no government oversight. I will take 2nd hand accountability over no accountability at all.
However, the government can screw it up, then make rules as to how much they have to give out.
And if the people aren't ok with that then they will be removed. This gives them a motivation to do what is best for the people. As opposed to companies that will only do what is best for themselves.
It forces a monopoly on that market, so obviously bad prices and bad quality are expected.
How do regulations force a monopoly? Regulations are rules that all companies have to abide by. It doesn't limit the ability of other companies to operate and compete. And if other companies aren't able to compete while following the regulations, then they shouldn't exist. Why would we want a company to exist if their profit margin relies on them poisoning us?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Democrats are socialists that will take our society into a dark and plummeting path of an un American society
You do realize you already have socialism right? You have social security, old age pension, minimum wage, food stamps etc.
America has been a socialist society for decades. It has brought you wealth, security and increased the standard of living. All the left is talking about is improving and adding to the system you already have. It is the same sort of thing that virtually all other modern countries have been doing for decades. I'm not sure how anyone could describe taking care of sick people as a "dark and plummeting path".
I keep hearing talking points about how america is the greatest country, but that they can't implement the same protections for their people that other countries have had for a long time. Medical bankruptcy isn't a thing in most of the world. It is almost a uniquely american phenomena.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yeah, what is the point of having regulators that can't be held accountable?
They are accountable, to the politicians. The executive and legislative branches have oversight over the regulators. If the regulators are acting is a way that is unjust then the executive have the power to remove those regulations, or the regulators. And then those executives are, in turn, accountable to the people.
This way everyone is accountable to a higher power to keep them in check. Your way, the companies are accountable to no one. They essentially are the highest power. They can sometimes get a slap on the wrist from the courts, but no one has the power to stop them doing whatever they want. And since it is well established that they would kill you to make a buck, that is obviously not something anyone should want.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You seem to misunderstand several things there.
Government isn't qualified to know what's best for the public.
I don't pretend they always know what is best for the public. But they have a priority to do what is best for their constituents. Companies have no such priority. if they could make more money by killing millions of people they would do it. They absolutely, 100%, do not care what's best for the public. Even with regulations, they are killing people. Look at the tobacco lobby. They spent years covering up studies that showed their products were killing people so they could make profits while running ads telling people it was good for your health. They lied to their customers to sell them products that would kill them. They will do whatever it takes to make money. Potential Lawsuits were not enough to prevent them killing millions of people. Regulations could have.
Government is largely a bunch of entertainers pandering for votes
elected politicians are, yes. But that is not who makes most of the regulations. Government is full of career officials who are trained in their fields. They recommend what the regulations should be. The departments then implement those regulations. The "entertainers" are only involved if it requires changes to the law to implement. We don't need elected politicians to be experts, we hire the experts to work in the various departments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The real loser in all of this is Pelosi and all the moderate democrats in contested districts.
That's great. All those moderate democrats need to be removed anyway. They are just republican sellouts pretending to be democrats. Hopefully they all get primaried and defeated by actual democrats.
The establishment Democrats need to learn that Neo-Liberalism is a failure. They have to stop fighting their own base and get behind real change. Either that or they need to go. The latest polls show that Bernie Sanders could beat trump in Texas, as well as most other places. The energy in the democratic party is the left, not what they consider "the center" (which actually right wing).
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Tort law is in no way a substitute for proper regulation. For example: A company has a tailing pond on private property that leaches toxins into the water. People nearby get sick. Maybe the people can't figure out that the tailing pond is responsible. Even if they do figure it out, they then need to go to court to prove that the tailing pond made them sick. The company says, "well maybe smoking made you sick, or drinking" or any other number of excuses they can come up with.
At that point the onus is on sick people to prove the company hurt them. There is a good chance that a company with a huge legal team can squirm their way out of it. Even if they are found guilty, it could take years for any lawsuits to go through. The company can continue poisoning people the whole time. By the time there are any consequences to their actions much more harm will be done.
A government can look at this and say, poisoning the water is illegal. They don't need to prove that poison is directly responsible for harming people in order to act. There are simply too many ways for big companies with big legal teams to get away with things. If not properly sealing the tailing pond is illegal, then it is alot easier to make sure the company doesn't poison anyone. The government is able to make sure there are rules in place to prevent the poisoning before it happens, making it much less likely to occur. And if it does occur, they have the power to step in and force the company to comply in a way that tort law never can. They can also act alot faster than the courts.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
some Trump cultist judge threw out a jurys guilty decision on some other cult Trumpist.And a 2nd judge did similar thing with a couple subset of the Maniford crimes.
I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. An impeachment doesn't go to the courts. impeachment is a trial in congress and then the Senate.
Created:
Off the top I would say that Trump's ego would never allow it. He is a malignant narcissist who sees others only in how they can give him what he wants. I don't think he is capable of giving up the presidency without being forced to.
Second, he doesn't see Ivanka as his "heir". He sees Donald Jr. as his heir. They have been trying to groom him for a run at politics. They want him to carry on the political dynasty, despite him being an idiot.
Third, depending on who the dems nominate, I don't think Ivanka could win. She doesn't have her father's weird ability to shrug off controversy. Donald was able to win because people think he's garbage. They heard him say he likes to sexually assault women on tape, but it just didn't matter to alot of people because that is exactly the kind of thing they expect of him and they supported him anyway. Ivanka has a little bit of the class her father wishes he had. Which means people will actually expect her to not be a monster. Her support of Trump's horrible, horrible policies would sink her in a way that Donald has managed to avoid.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Your preferred method requires that people take time out of their own lives to constantly watch and make sure companies are behaving. This sounds incredibly strange to me. There is absolutely no chance that greenpeace, or any combination of groups could do this effectively.
Alot of dumping is done in places where people can't see. For example a poorly constructed tailing pond on private property. No one without a government mandate would be able to get in to see it. If it is leaking into the water supply and there is no government agency to enforce rules on them it could potentially take years for people to figure out on their own who is doing that. By that point huge amounts of damage could be done. Large numbers of lives could be lost.
Another example would an issue that is complicated. most of the time it isn't as clear cut as a man in a black cape dumping a barrel with a skull and crossbones into a river. Alot of the time it is the release of a chemical most people haven't heard of. If people don't really understand what has happened or why it is bad then there cannot be a public outcry to force the company to change their behavior. You need experts to investigate. You know who has the money to hire experts to investigate, the government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Now that the investigation has started, they will find that trump has committed crimes. We already know that he is guilty of at least 8 crimes as per the mueler report. The memo released today (please note it wasn't at transcript, they had a disclaimer saying the text wasn't exactly the same) says very clearly that Trump asked a foreign government to interfere in a US election, that is crime. He withheld 400 million which had been appropriated by congress, alleged to increase pressure on Ukraine to find or create dirt on biden. that is anther, separate crime.
Once the investigation determines he is guilty of numerous crimes, the house will have no choice but to impeach him. So, barring some very weird twist, he will likely be impeached.
Will be found guilty and be removed from power by the senate is a different question. please note that being impeached by congress and convicted by the senate are separate things. It's possible the evidence that comes up in the inquiry will be enough to undermine Trump's support among his base. If that happens and there is a smoking gun then I think alot of republicans in the senate would love to watch trump go down in flames. However that is highly unlikely. Most trump supports are either so disconnected from reality that they honestly don't think he is a liar and a criminal, or they simply don't care that he is a liar and a criminal. So his support is unlikely to sink enough for the republicans in the senate to feel safe convicting him.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
And the public pays attention to 1 or 2 stories at a time. If every company is doing shitty things all the time, there isn't enough public outrage on the planet to stop them. The public does not have the expertise, the attention span, or the ability to hold all companies accountable all the time. Not to mention that the public is only able to get angry after the company has done something terrible. They have no method of preventing companies from doing something terrible.
That is why we have government agencies to monitor and regulate their specific industries. It shouldn't be up to the people to scream and yell at corporations to not poison us. They should never be allowed to poison us. That is why we need strong government regulation to prevent companies from doing these shitty things. And if they do them anyway, we need a government body to punish them.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I don't disagree that that is possible. Sometimes, under specific circumstances, some companies will regulate themselves. But they don't ever do it for the public good. They do it for their own profit margin. So if spending a few million to pollute a little less will buy them some positive headlines then they might do that. But you are talking about 1 company out of a huge number doing modest improvements. What about the dozens of other companies that choose to keep polluting? What about the other ways that same company might be polluting that aren't getting attention?
The market cannot be relied upon to self regulate because the market has absolutely no motive to act in the common good. You know what organization we created to act in the common good? The government. They are designed to act on our behalf and ensure that we are able to live our lives. In this case, to be sure we are free from massive corporations dumping poison into our environment. That is what the government is therefore, to regulate and legislate.
Created: