Wage Inequality Compared to CEOs

[quote name='Capitalizt']Ideas and mental effort are what created the business model that enables all of the "simple" jobs to be created.[/quote]
And then after its big idea that makes it a much bigger pile of capital, it does the most rational thing possible to protect and defend itself: it buys politicians and regulates against competitors. But don't blame capital! Ideas exist in a vacuum and Myke's quite wrong. You shouldn't have to defend yourself from reality.
whereas a CEO who comes up with a way to optimize the supply chain might save his company billions of dollars..enabling them to grow and expand across the globe and create hundreds of new grocery stores in the process.
Click to expand...
LMAO. A CEO that optimizes an SCM setup. That's absurd.
The wealth Bill Gates has earned is immense in comparison to the physical labor required to invent his products..but it is a tiny fraction compared to the wealth he created for others with the gift of his ideas and MENTAL effort.
Click to expand...
And then when he gained the market advantage, what did he do? Microsoft immediately and aggressively implemented plans to protect and defend their capital by using proxies to attack competitors, slandering competitors, stealing code from the unix community, and dodging taxes. Plus that whole antitrust thing where they were caught openly lying to the government multiple times and Bill Gates turned into Bill Clinton.

""Early rounds of his deposition show him offering obfuscatory answers and saying 'I don't recall' so many times that even the presiding judge had to chuckle. Worse, many of the technology chief's denials and pleas of ignorance have been directly refuted by prosecutors with snippets of E-mail Gates both sent and received.""

Yes sir, a shining example of your system. I'm glad you selected it.

But other than that, they're great.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Because pascal..the lowliest janitor does not contribute something to the company worth a $10,000 Christmas bonus.. Physical effort is not what creates and sustains a multi billion dollar corporation. Ideas and mental effort are what created the business model that enables all of the "simple" jobs to be created. The benefit received by a grocery bagger earning $10/hr is immense in proportion to the amount of mental effort that goes into his job. He contributes nothing to those above him[/QUOTE]

I stopped reading right there. You are a douche.

Honestly, cashiers aren't paid enough to care for the customers they are catering. That's bad business because it alienates customers. Make that cashier work for a living wage, and he'll bust his ass like the other dude said in order to earn it. And by busting his ass, I mean making customers happy, and that drives up profits, thereby contributing to those above him.

So go choke on your CFO's cock while you're blowing him in your company's weekly circle jerk because that's what contributes to a company.
 
[quote name='speedracer']And then after its big idea that makes it a much bigger pile of capital, it does the most rational thing possible to protect and defend itself: it buys politicians and regulates against competitors. But don't blame capital! Ideas exist in a vacuum and Myke's quite wrong. You shouldn't have to defend yourself from reality.

LMAO. A CEO that optimizes an SCM setup. That's absurd.

And then when he gained the market advantage, what did he do? Microsoft immediately and aggressively implemented plans to protect and defend their capital by using proxies to attack competitors, slandering competitors, stealing code from the unix community, and dodging taxes. Plus that whole antitrust thing where they were caught openly lying to the government multiple times and Bill Gates turned into Bill Clinton.

""Early rounds of his deposition show him offering obfuscatory answers and saying 'I don't recall' so many times that even the presiding judge had to chuckle. Worse, many of the technology chief's denials and pleas of ignorance have been directly refuted by prosecutors with snippets of E-mail Gates both sent and received.""

Yes sir, a shining example of your system. I'm glad you selected it.

But other than that, they're great.[/QUOTE]

I get the sense that Capitalitz is a wide-eyed kid (at least mentally). Your post should come with spoiler tags.
 
CEOs don't really set their own compensation packages. Any blame for the shocking escalations in recent years is often going to fall on the board of directors as well as the shareholders.

Not that anyone really deserves to earn as much as many clowns take home, but people are overpaid up and down the corporate ladder.

Fortunately, as long as you are making enough money to provide basic needs of food, shelter and clothing, money doesn't really have any impact on longterm happiness.
Jeff Immelt of GE, for example, with all the problems he has, would that life really be an upgrade just because of the money?
 
[quote name='speedracer']And then after its big idea that makes it a much bigger pile of capital, it does the most rational thing possible to protect and defend itself: it buys politicians and regulates against competitors. But don't blame capital! Ideas exist in a vacuum and Myke's quite wrong. You shouldn't have to defend yourself from reality.[/QUOTE]

If politicians can be bought, then the vast majority of your anger should be directed at them and the system that allows it. Companies buying influence is merely a symptom of an oversized government. The root of the problem is the fact that politicians are in a position to pull the levers of power and grant special favors to some groups while doling out punishment to others. If our government were bound and gagged with the chains of the constitution, it would have no power to grant special privileges to the politically connected so there would be no incentive for companies to get involved in the political process. They would be forced to rise and fall entirely on their own merits. Of course, limiting the power of the most coercive monopoly on earth goes against the foundation of your moral code..which means (ironically) that you and your like-minded brethren are the ones who make corporate/government cronyism inevitable.


And then when he gained the market advantage, what did he do? Microsoft immediately and aggressively implemented plans to protect and defend their capital by using proxies to attack competitors, slandering competitors, stealing code from the unix community, and dodging taxes. Plus that whole antitrust thing where they were caught openly lying to the government multiple times and Bill Gates turned into Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...
Well, I am not going to defend them if they are guilty of copyright violation, but the other stories you linked to seem perfectly acceptable and expected from anyone trying to defend their own interests. Thomas Jefferson said "If a law is unust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." I salute Microsoft for fighting these laws and hope they successfully hide many millions more in taxes over the coming years. :) Corporate taxation should be abolished and the antitrust laws were a joke from the very beginning. In a just world, Microsoft would be owed millions in restitution from the government for the legal fees incurred in fighting a set of such ridiculous and immoral laws. In fact, thank you for reminding me of this...I'm seriously considering buying a few shares in MSFT this week just to show my support.


[quote name='Chuplayer']I stopped reading right there. You are a douche.
[/QUOTE]

wah wah..cry..cry..a lefty falling back on emotionalism again. Mindblowing.

Tell you what buddy, if you want to pay janitors twice what they are worth and give a "living wage" to the most unskilled and uneducated laborers out there, here is what you do..

Your mission should you choose to accept it:

Grow a set of balls.
Become a man.
Get off the computer. Go outside, and compete with other men.
Successfully satisfy the demands of the public better than other men.
When you earn cash as a reward, pay your unskilled laborers more than other people are willing to do the job for, and give them thousands in bonuses on top of that every year.

If you don't have the ability or brains to do this, what on earth gives you the right to demand it of others? I see my initial estimate of you fellas back on page 2 was correct. We've got a bunch of tyrannical little shits on this forum trying to compensate for their own inadequacies. The emotional demands and constant whining about "the rich" will get you nowhere in the real world fellas. The sooner you drop your failed philosophy, the sooner you can move forward as human beings. Good luck.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']And then after its big idea that makes it a much bigger pile of capital, it does the most rational thing possible to protect and defend itself: it buys politicians and regulates against competitors. But don't blame capital! Ideas exist in a vacuum and Myke's quite wrong. You shouldn't have to defend yourself from reality.[/QUOTE]

It stands to reason that if politicians can be bought, then the vast majority of your anger should be directed at THEM and the system that allows (and encourages) this practice. Companies buying influence is merely a symptom of an oversized government. The root of the problem is the fact that politicians are in a position to pull the levers of power and grant special favors to some groups while doling out punishment to others. If our government were bound and gagged with the chains of the constitution, it would have no power to grant special privileges to the politically connected so there would be no incentive for companies to get involved in the political process. They would be forced to rise and fall entirely on their own merits. Of course, limiting the power of the most coercive monopoly on earth (located in D.C.) goes against the foundation of your moral code..which means ironically that you and your like-minded big government brethren are the ones who make corporate/government cronyism inevitable.

And then when he gained the market advantage, what did he do? Microsoft immediately and aggressively implemented plans to protect and defend their capital by using proxies to attack competitors, slandering competitors, stealing code from the unix community, and dodging taxes. Plus that whole antitrust thing where they were caught openly lying to the government multiple times and Bill Gates turned into Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...
Well, I am not going to defend them if they are guilty of copyright violation, but the other stories you linked to seem perfectly acceptable and to be expected from anyone trying to defend their own interests. The only time a problem could arise is when they use the power of government to put others at a disadvantage. As for the federal case against them, Thomas Jefferson said "If a law is unust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." I salute Microsoft for fighting these laws and hope they successfully hide many millions more in taxes over the coming years. :) Corporate taxation should be abolished and the antitrust laws were a joke from the very beginning. In a just world, Microsoft would be owed millions in restitution from the government for the legal fees incurred in fighting a set of such ridiculous and counterproductive laws. In fact, thank you for reminding me of this..I think I'll buy a few shares in MSFT this week just to show my support. ;)

[quote name='Chuplayer']I stopped reading right there. You are a douche.
[/QUOTE]

wah wah..cry..cry..a lefty falling back on emotionalism again. Mindblowing.

Look friend..If you want to pay janitors twice what they are worth and give a "living wage" to the most unskilled laborers out there, here is what you do..Your mission should you choose to accept it:

Grow a set of balls.
Become a man.
Get off the computer. Go outside, and compete with other men.
Successfully satisfy the demands of the public better than other men.
When you earn profit as a reward, pay your unskilled laborers more than other people are willing to do the job for, and give them thousands in bonuses on top of that every year.

If you don't have the ability or brains to do this, what on earth gives you the right to demand it of others? I see my initial back on page 2 was correct. We've got a bunch of tyrannical little shits on this forum trying to compensate for their own inadequacies by demanding unearned benefits for some and undeserved punishments for others. The emotional demands for wealth redistribution and constant whining about "the rich" holding "the little guy" down will get you nowhere in the real world fellas. The sooner you drop your failed philosophy, the sooner you can move forward as human beings. Good luck.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll get over my emotionalism and "grow a set of balls" and "become a man"...wait, what?

I agree, capitalism would be better without all these laws and especially competition. One giant corporation capable of crushing anyone attempting to compete is obviously the most efficient, marketing costs would be hardly anything, and those funds could be used to pay more to the much more deserving CEO. Then one day we can all work for the same huge company that pays us all terrible wages, which are none of our business to complain about.

Like the classic quote of Thomas Jefferson, who said, "fuck you guys, I've got it made" as he grabbed his balls with one hand and raised his middle finger on the other. Then walked off and banged a slave, who was his property, of course, and he could do with as he sees fit.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I'll get over my emotionalism and "grow a set of balls" and "become a man"...wait, what?

I agree, capitalism would be better without all these laws and especially competition. One giant corporation capable of crushing anyone attempting to compete is obviously the most efficient, marketing costs would be hardly anything, and those funds could be used to pay more to the much more deserving CEO. Then one day we can all work for the same huge company that pays us all terrible wages, which are none of our business to complain about.[/QUOTE]

Don't forget his assertion that if you support a living wage you must know nothing about business. Because, you know, only winners like Joe the (not really a) plumber with a (not so) successful business and (impossible to fulfill) grandiose dreams are allowed to opine on these matters.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']It stands to reason that if politicians can be bought, then the vast majority of your anger should be directed at THEM and the system that allows (and encourages) this practice. Companies buying influence is merely a symptom of an oversized government. The root of the problem is the fact that politicians are in a position to pull the levers of power and grant special favors to some groups while doling out punishment to others. If our government were bound and gagged with the chains of the constitution, it would have no power to grant special privileges to the politically connected so there would be no incentive for companies to get involved in the political process. They would be forced to rise and fall entirely on their own merits. Of course, limiting the power of the most coercive monopoly on earth (located in D.C.) goes against the foundation of your moral code..which means ironically that you and your like-minded big government brethren are the ones who make corporate/government cronyism inevitable.[/quote]
So let me get this straight. Politicians are corruptible. Capital intentionally and willfully makes full use of this weakness inherent in our system of government to maximize its influence, perpetuate this weakness, and maintain the status quo. The problem is therefore the politician.

But if you attempt to limit the influence of capital on politicians, capital counterattacks by suing and claiming free speech as an individual. The problem is therefore the politician.

But then when capital commits crimes while influencing politicians, capital dissolves back into an entity of charters and employees, wholly unresponsible for its behavior and lets individuals take the blame. The problem is therefore the politician.
Well, I am not going to defend them if they are guilty of copyright violation
Click to expand...
If?
but the other stories you linked to seem perfectly acceptable and to be expected from anyone trying to defend their own interests.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I agree. Choosing to reside in a state, making full use of their public facilities and governmental resources, and then willfully avoiding paying their taxes isn't just illegal, it's unethical. But who are we kidding here? We can't even broach the "ethical" thing to do now, can we? The only ethical question is how to maximize profits right?

Cause if we brought ethics into the question, then completely blaming the politicians for every problem would be difficult when the money trail clearly indicates capital's role. This is where the LOLs happen. Suddenly we become unable to even answer a simple yes or no question about whether it "should" be done.

Why does capital intentionally corrupt the political process? Because capital inherently protects itself.
But is it the right thing to do? No.
So then why does capital intentionally corrupt the political process? Because capital inherently protects itself.
So what could we change to limit this influence? Nothing. Capital will always find a way to protect itself.
But is it the right thing to do? No.
Do they have any sense of right and wrong? Every corporation has a long and tired list of ethics right and wrong.
Do they follow it? No.
So how do the rest of us coexist with capitalists? Can we negotiate with them? Yes, by binding and gagging yourself "with the chains of the constitution".

Oh, ok. So you'll play nice if we fit a straight jacket for ourselves and lock ourselves in a padded cell? Yes.
Promise? No.

I blew off the rest because it wasn't particularly interesting and there's no real way to debate when you get all religious.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Someone told me that in the early days of our country you had to petition the government for a license to start a corporation/company; and you had to prove that it would serve the common good. It was only good for 10 years and you had to reapply and prove you were still serving the common good after that 10 years.

Supposedly Rockefellar got that policy changed so "the sky's the limit" on corporate government helped greed.

I am at work and am not going to research this to see if it's true but I thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone else had heard this.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I am at work and am not going to research this to see if it's true but I thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone else had heard this.[/QUOTE]
I could be wrong because it's been a long time, but I remember a clause in my business permits saying we had to operate our business ethically. I'm fuzzy on the language, but it was there. I remember talking to the clerk I filed with about it, and she said that it was a way to close businesses that were straddling the law. Sex services, stuff like that.

I remember her because she's the only employed philosophy major I've ever met.

British Petroleum's Texas City refinery is a good example of the problems this stuff causes. They were cited for 4 major safety incidents in 2005 alone (2 had fatalities), including one that killed 15 people and wounded another 170... plus the toxic cloud released onto neighboring communities. Safety changes (plural) were recommended and rejected because of cost. OSHA representatives were pressured into using less stringent standards that contributed to the problem. The CEO resigned (course there was that whole price fixing thing and some other stuff) and a couple of big fines (including one from OSHA three days ago for $87 million that's being appealed). But to a company of BP's size, does any of this really matter? Of course not. They institutionally and intentionally ignored the safety of their workers. I believe the company should be charged with 15 counts of 2nd degree murder, but that's just crazy talk. Here's a check and let's call it good, right? The chamber of commerce has made damn well and sure that companies are not individuals and cannot be charged as criminals unless the crime is comically large.

Everything they did made sense from the standpoint of capital. So a couple of bodies hit the floor and a hundred and change people were hurt and a couple thousand or so people were exposed to toxic gas. Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, right?

I blame the politicians.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I am at work and am not going to research this to see if it's true but I thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone else had heard this.[/QUOTE]
I could be wrong because it's been a long time, but I remember a clause in my business permits saying we had to operate our business ethically. I'm fuzzy on the language, but it was there. I remember talking to the clerk I filed with about it, and she said that it was a way to close businesses that were straddling the law. Sex services, stuff like that.

I remember her because she's the only employed philosophy major I've ever met.

British Petroleum's Texas City refinery is a good example of the problems this stuff causes. They were cited for 4 major safety incidents in 2005 alone (2 had fatalities), including one that killed 15 people and wounded another 170... plus the toxic cloud released onto neighboring communities. Safety changes (plural) were recommended and rejected because of cost. OSHA representatives were pressured into using less stringent standards that contributed to the problem. The CEO resigned (course there was that whole price fixing thing and some other stuff) and a couple of big fines (including one from OSHA three days ago for $87 million that's being appealed). But to a company of BP's size, does any of this really matter? Of course not. They institutionally and intentionally ignored the safety of their workers. I believe the company should be charged with 15 counts of 2nd degree murder, but that's just crazy talk. Here's a check and let's call it good, right? The chamber of commerce has made damn well and sure that companies are not individuals and cannot be charged as criminals.

Everything they did made sense from the standpoint of capital. So a couple of bodies hit the floor.

I blame the politicians.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I could be wrong because it's been a long time, but I remember a clause in my business permits saying we had to operate our business ethically. I'm fuzzy on the language, but it was there. I remember talking to the clerk I filed with about it, and she said that it was a way to close businesses that were straddling the law. Sex services, stuff like that.

I remember her because she's the only employed philosophy major I've ever met.

British Petroleum's Texas City refinery is a good example of the problems this stuff causes. They were cited for 4 major safety incidents in 2005 alone (2 had fatalities), including one that killed 15 people and wounded another 170... plus the toxic cloud released onto neighboring communities. Safety changes (plural) were recommended and rejected because of cost. OSHA representatives were pressured into using less stringent standards that contributed to the problem. The CEO resigned (course there was that whole price fixing thing and some other stuff) and a couple of big fines (including one from OSHA three days ago for $87 million that's being appealed). But to a company of BP's size, does any of this really matter? Of course not. They institutionally and intentionally ignored the safety of their workers. I believe the company should be charged with 15 counts of 2nd degree murder, but that's just crazy talk. Here's a check and let's call it good, right? The chamber of commerce has made damn well and sure that companies are not individuals and cannot be charged as criminals unless the crime is comically large.

Everything they did made sense from the standpoint of capital. So a couple of bodies hit the floor and a hundred and change people were hurt and a couple thousand or so people were exposed to toxic gas. Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, right?

I blame the politicians.[/QUOTE]

If I ever have breakfast at your house, I would prefer to cook.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If I ever have breakfast at your house, I would prefer to cook.[/QUOTE]
Statistically, you would have very little to worry about. I would institute minimum safety requirements in order to maintain plausible deniability in the event of an "incident". I figure the money saved far outweighs any "incidentals" that may come along. The eggs would be just good enough for you to be satisfied and I'd make sure to throw the shells over my neighbor's fence.

My degree in Business Administration has in no way influenced my thinking. Trust me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stop talking about food, you're making me hungry and I don't get off for another hour and a half.

To relate this to the topic, if I was a CEO i would have six fully stocked mini fridges at my disposal.
 
I always liked this...

calvin.jpg
 
Calvin and Hobbes is both timeless and timely. If there is any justice in this universe, Bill Watterson will someday be compared to Mark Twain as one of the great American humorists to ever grace the medium. And he was an excellent artist.

He's my personal hero.
 
[quote name='Strell']Calvin and Hobbes is both timeless and timely. If there is any justice in this universe, Bill Watterson will someday be compared to Mark Twain as one of the great American humorists to ever grace the medium. And he was an excellent artist.

He's my personal hero.[/QUOTE]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Agreed.
 
[quote name='Strell']Calvin and Hobbes is both timeless and timely. If there is any justice in this universe, Bill Watterson will someday be compared to Mark Twain as one of the great American humorists to ever grace the medium. And he was an excellent artist.

He's my personal hero.[/QUOTE]

calvin.gif

Politics.
 
Right about now Pfizer's glad it can't be found criminally liable amirite?

“At the very same time Pfizer was in our office negotiating and resolving the allegations of criminal conduct in 2004, Pfizer was itself in its other operations violating those very same laws,” Loucks, 54, says. “They’ve repeatedly marketed drugs for things they knew they couldn’t demonstrate efficacy for. That’s clearly criminal.”
Click to expand...

Things the market can't sort out, Exhibit A: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a4yV1nYxCGoA&pos=10

“Marketing departments of many drug companies don’t respect any boundaries of professionalism or the law,” says Jerry Avorn, a professor at Harvard Medical School. “The Pfizer and Lilly cases involved the illegal promotion of drugs that have been shown to cause substantial harm and death to patients.”
Click to expand...
It's ok. "We're sorry" money is a reasonable thing to exchange for human beings' lives. Right Capitalizt?

Thank god this sort of thing is so rare. Whew.
 
The deliciously evil thing about the big-ass Pfizer settlement is that Pharmacia/Upjohn took the criminal fall for Pfizer, which mean zero accountability (Pharmacia/Upjohn is little more than a subsidiary that is a shadow company, and like a "patsy," took the fall for which Pfizer dodged most of the criminal liability.
 
Go play more videogames. It's working out for me. I just pretend all those damn monsters in Horde mode are crazed right wingers babbling about free markets, gun rights, and dirty illegals.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']So what do you guys propose we do other than argue with capitalists on a video game website?[/QUOTE]
To affect the problems of companies, there's nothing you can do. They have been granted the same free speech as an individual by the courts, and have likewise been allowed to shrink away from criminal liability by the courts. You'd have to completely reseat the court with friggin marxists to limit companies in America.

You wanna stop em? End limited liability. Everyone I've ever said that to with a straight face thinks I'm crazy except lawyers who defend the scumbags and know exactly how stripping the LLC and LLP would clean them up.

Ask why companies get to limit the liabilities of its actions therefore not being legally responsible for the sum of its parts, however, it has the rights of an individual.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']So what do you guys propose we do other than argue with capitalists on a video game website?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='depascal22']Go play more videogames. It's working out for me. I just pretend all those damn monsters in Horde mode are crazed right wingers babbling about free markets, gun rights, and dirty illegals.[/QUOTE]

If you guys are so anti-capitalism, how do you define yourselves? What is it you really want? Honestly? Do you want to make America into Sweden, or what? What changes do you want to make to this country to be happy? New constitution? New system of government? If capitalism sucks so much, what do you feel is better and why?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']If you guys are so anti-capitalism, how do you define yourselves? What is it you really want? Honestly? Do you want to make America into Sweden, or what? What changes do you want to make to this country to be happy? New constitution? New system of government? If capitalism sucks so much, what do you feel is better and why?[/QUOTE]

Well-regulated capitalism is fine. I have a problem with corporatism, plutocracy, and monopolies. Unfortunately we seem to keep heading in that direction.
 
[quote name='camoor']Well-regulated capitalism is fine. I have a problem with corporatism, plutocracy, and monopolies. Unfortunately we seem to keep heading in that direction.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely we do. But none of that will change until Americans realize that both political parties can't and won't fix it, since they are puppets of the entities with those goals.
 
I want offshore tax haven bank accounts closed. You know, the kind only the uber elite rich uncle shitbags get to open.

That would be a nice start - actually making the wealthiest 1% shoulder some of that 90% of wealth they own into actual tax usage, rather than sidestepping it, and thus passing the burden onto the rest of the chipmunks their corporations are built upon.
 
[quote name='Strell']I want offshore tax haven bank accounts closed. You know, the kind only the uber elite rich uncle shitbags get to open.

That would be a nice start - actually making the wealthiest 1% shoulder some of that 90% of wealth they own into actual tax usage, rather than sidestepping it, and thus passing the burden onto the rest of the chipmunks their corporations are built upon.[/QUOTE]

So you would argue the answer is to find more efficient and fair means of feeding the monstrosity, in order to solve this nations problems....

I would argue we need to put the monstrosity on a severe diet or get a much smaller monstrosity all together. At least, do that before addressing fairness/efficiency.

I guess that's the root of what makes many here call me a "right winger".....
 
Yes. Let's let these idiots continue to get away with something, allowing the little man to shoulder the burden, until it reaches some mythical idealized form that will never happen.

But hey, keep sidestepping this into some bullshit about how "it's just fairness" instead of addressing the core - that capitalism, as it stands now, simply rewards greed and allows the people with money to call the shots, and use their power to abuse the very system that got them there.

Again, 1% of the nation controls 90% of the wealth. That's fucked up.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']So you would argue the answer is to find more efficient and fair means of feeding the monstrosity, in order to solve this nations problems....

I would argue we need to put the monstrosity on a severe diet or get a much smaller monstrosity all together. At least, do that before addressing fairness/efficiency.

I guess that's the root of what makes many here call me a "right winger".....[/QUOTE]

I don't see why it's an either/or situation.

All it would take to close those tax havens is a quick up-and-down vote won by courageous politicians and a penstroke from our leader. I believe we have already taken the first half-step with recent legislation that is just starting to be enforced, let's go the whole nine.

Scoping down the federal government is going to be a long process no matter who starts it. The main cost is brought on by simultaneously fighting two wars started for all the wrong reasons, and while even a simpleton can get us into a war, it's going to take a long time and a team of the best and brightest to get us successfully out.

I see nothing wrong with fixing the easy problems right now at the same time that we work on the longer term issues.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']If you guys are so anti-capitalism, how do you define yourselves? What is it you really want? Honestly? Do you want to make America into Sweden, or what? What changes do you want to make to this country to be happy? New constitution? New system of government? If capitalism sucks so much, what do you feel is better and why?[/QUOTE]

Like camoor and Strell, I'd go with well-regulated markets. Corporations have proven they don't give a damn about America one bit so we have to have someone there to watch them like hawks. Capitalism at the local level is what makes this country great. Capitalism at the corporate level is the root of all evil.

I'd also go with the Swedish/Norwegian health care model. Give everyone equal access to medicine with pay clinics available to those that can afford premier out of pocket expense. That way, you don't have to wait until you pass out from crapping blood before you eventually drag yourself to a doctor. I wouldn't be against higher taxes for the peace of mind that I'll never have to file bankruptcy or raid my daughter's college savings to pay for an illness.

I wouldn't be against a new Constitution but we'd never agree on one so it's a moot point. The right and left would make it a huge fight about guns, God, and abortion and completely forget the much bigger problems we have going on right now.

Instead, I'd ban political parties and the Electoral College. Run on your own merits instead of being a robot spewing out talking points everytime you stop to talk to someone. If you want to be pro-abortion and pro-guns, then you can run on that platform. Be an individual.

I'd also implement strict term limits for EVERY government position in America.

I think things would sort itself out after that but that's just a pipe dream.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Like camoor and Strell, I'd go with well-regulated markets. Corporations have proven they don't give a damn about America one bit so we have to have someone there to watch them like hawks. Capitalism at the local level is what makes this country great. Capitalism at the corporate level is the root of all evil.
[/QUOTE]

Agree 100%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top