Welfare Capitalism

[BlueStreak]

The basic History of Welfare Capitalism;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_capitalism

Henry Ford and Welfare Capitalism;

http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~ppennock/L-FiveDollarDay.htm

Interesting article concerning the current condition and fate of WC;

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2004/09/goodbye_pension_goodbye_health_insurance_goodbye_v acations.html

University of Chicago article relating to The Pullman Palace Car Company and Sear Roebuck.

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1332.html

And, finally, a suggestion that we should return to the model of Welfare Capitalism;

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/09/19/how-welfare-capitalism-can-save-our-country/

Seems to me trying to convince modern day capitalists, steeped in the age of benefit slashing, outsourcing, downsizing and blatant Gordon Gekko-esque self-serving greed that generosity is the key to national success might be a tall order.

But, then again, the history also indicates that the control over workers lives that employers assumed in exchange for the capitalist welfare model led to some pretty ugly confrontations anyhow.

It would seem that whoever may hold the leash, no one really likes to be at the subordinate end, no matter what goodies are at stake. (Well, there may be some wierdos who do, but that's something else.)

So, how do we reconcile very real human needs without sacrificing human dignity in the process?

Also, I believe this kind of explodes the Randian notion, as history shows they did it to themselves................

Dave

[Charles]

I remember reading in "The Irreverent Guide to Corporate America" how Coca Cola announced that during WWII they would see that every American GI could get a bottle of Coca Cola, no matter where they were in the world.

The result being, Coca Cola had bottling plants, largely paid for by tax dollars, spread across the world at the end of the war, thus guaranteeing their global market share.

Chas

[Charles]

The basic History of Welfare Capitalism;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_capitalism

Henry Ford and Welfare Capitalism;

http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~ppennock/L-FiveDollarDay.htm

Interesting article concerning the current condition and fate of WC;

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2004/09/goodbye_pension_goodbye_health_insurance_goodbye_v acations.html

University of Chicago article relating to The Pullman Palace Car Company and Sear Roebuck.

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1332.html

And, finally, a suggestion that we should return to the model of Welfare Capitalism;

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/09/19/how-welfare-capitalism-can-save-our-country/

Seems to me trying to convince modern day capitalists, steeped in the age of benefit slashing, outsourcing, downsizing and blatant Gordon Gekko-esque self-serving greed that generosity is the key to national success might be a tall order.

But, then again, the history also indicates that the control over workers lives that employers assumed in exchange for the capitalist welfare model led to some pretty ugly confrontations anyhow.

It would seem that whoever may hold the leash, no one really likes to be at the subordinate end, no matter what goodies are at stake. (Well, there may be some wierdos who do, but that's something else.)

So, how do we reconcile very real human needs without sacrificing human dignity in the process?

Also, I believe this kind of explodes the Randian notion, as history shows they did it to themselves................

Dave

Actually, my take on Randian philosophy was that she pointed out than when the elite, the powerful corporations, and the government develop a death grip on the means of production and run the economy in the ground, kind of like now...the best method of resistance was to take your fucking ball and go home.

They need us more than we need them. And every now and then, we figure that out.

Chas

[BlueStreak]

I see what you're saying. And, I kinda concur. I say "kinda" because I always thought Rand was saying that it's the corporations that take their fucking ball and go home. Not us. We just get left standing in the middle of the court wondering "Where did everyone go?".

So, what's with all of this, "Corporations are people too." stuff?
What's with "Citizens United"?
What's with wanting to hire a powerful corporate snake to put in the Whitehouse?
What's with all of the powerful corporate folks like the Brothers Greedy, manipulating rightwing think tanks and dumping millions (Billions?) into Superpacs?

Isn't handing the Whitehouse to a corporate goon solidifying the deathgrip the powerful corporations and the government have on the means of production?

If you want to break the "deathgrip" you must drive a wedge between government and the corporate world, not hold a fuckin' wedding.

Which is precisely what the GOP is doing. Whether that asshat Tea Party knows it, or not.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

At anyrate,

My point in the last sentence of the OP was that under the "Welfare Capitalism" model, it would appear that some of these large corporations got generous voluntarily. (Albeit with less than desirable caveats.) Then later attempted to reneg, bringing labor troubles upon themselves, IMO.

Dave

[bhunter]

So, what's with all of this, "Corporations are people too." stuff?
What's with "Citizens United"?
What's with wanting to hire a powerful corporate snake to put in the Whitehouse?
What's with all of the powerful corporate folks like the Brothers Greedy, manipulating rightwing think tanks and dumping millions (Billions?) into Superpacs?

Isn't handing the Whitehouse to a corporate goon solidifying the deathgrip the powerful corporations and the government have on the means of production?

If you want to break the "deathgrip" you must drive a wedge between government and the corporate world, not hold a fuckin' wedding.

Which is precisely what the GOP is doing. Whether that asshat Tea Party knows it, or not.

Dave

Seem to me that the left is doing quite well in garnering corporate support. The Citizens United decision was correct IMHO. Political speech ought not be hindered by legislation. The right of people to assemble in groups and associations, which BTW is exactly what a corporation or union is, and put forth their political view ought be sacrosanct under our form of government. There is a big difference between a corporation's ability to compel and a government's. My trust is with the myriad of distinct and competing corporations over a monolithic central government.

[bobabode]

As I recall the Citizen's United was a blatant overreach by activist group masquerading as a precedence respecting court. The attorney's involved had reached an agreement and the chief justice kicked it back down and basically told the attorneys to expand the rights of their corporate sugardaddies.

Corporations are about making money only. The only time they'll donate a penny is for a tax write off or a power grab ala bribing the very people we entrust to govern us.

Trust assumes that there's a two way street but when dealing with corporations it is strictly their way or the highway. (and those highways are rapidly turning into tollroads, if you haven't noticed) They get you comin' and goin'....

I would sooner trust Genghis Khan than a bunch of corporations cause when they're done what ain't Hoovervilles is going to be Masseytown or some similar POS corporate entity like China.

[bobabode]

So, how do we reconcile very real human needs without sacrificing human dignity in the process?
Dave

Easy, peasy-
the last thing you want to do is let big business decide what is best for the country. Those same corporations that had the well spun story of being paternalistic were trying to break up any organizing that was going on, by any means available. Not to mention the Social-ist movement that was raging in response to the Jay Goulds, Rockefellers, Carnegies and Mellons rapacious behavior of the 1880's. The Gilded Age was nothing but hardship and starvation for most of the country.

Sadly it takes a tremendous amount of suffering for the general public to wake up and smell the stench. What's really tragic is that we have to go through it all over and over again every few generations. Big Money gets to edit the history books is how I'm starting to see it.:mad:

[merrylander]

When I see the arguments put forth by the righties I can only conclude that the Koch Brothers and their ilk have done a great job of brainwashing. The Corporations already own our government and the Robert's court. We may as well just get used to it.

[BlueStreak]

Seem to me that the left is doing quite well in garnering corporate support. The Citizens United decision was correct IMHO. Political speech ought not be hindered by legislation. The right of people to assemble in groups and associations, which BTW is exactly what a corporation or union is, and put forth their political view ought be sacrosanct under our form of government. There is a big difference between a corporation's ability to compel and a government's. My trust is with the myriad of distinct and competing corporations over a monolithic central government.

If it is wrong for a union to use dues money to contribute to political campaigns, (Something the right has been whining about for decades.), then how is it right for my employer to take the fruit of my labor and use it to support political candidates? (In both cases, doing so without my concurrence. Just because the board of piglets supports a given candidate does NOT mean that I do.)

My trust is with people I at least have a chance to vote for (As imperfect as they may be.) and not some extremely small, autocratic group of unelected oligarchs. Because you know damn well there is some collusion at the top of the corporate world. The oil and auto industries have been perfect examples of this over the last century.

Corporate executives are not elected by the general populace, they are picked solely by their cronies.
And anyone who has EVER worked for a large, or even medium sized corporatioon knows this doesn't always have anything to do with competence. I know you will disagree, but the corporate structure is closer to dictatorship and top down rule than the U.S. Goverment has ever been. It in no way even closely resembles a Democracy, nor even Representative Republic.

That was the point of this entire thread. Those people once had what they now seek.

What happened?

Rebellion against corporate tyranny.

That's what.

Do we have to do it again?

Dave

[BlueStreak]

As I recall the Citizen's United was a blatant overreach by activist group masquerading as a precedence respecting court. The attorney's involved had reached an agreement and the chief justice kicked it back down and basically told the attorneys to expand the rights of their corporate sugardaddies.

Corporations are about making money only. The only time they'll donate a penny is for a tax write off or a power grab ala bribing the very people we entrust to govern us.

Trust assumes that there's a two way street but when dealing with corporations it is strictly their way or the highway. (and those highways are rapidly turning into tollroads, if you haven't noticed) They get you comin' and goin'....

I would sooner trust Genghis Khan than a bunch of corporations cause when they're done what ain't Hoovervilles is going to be Masseytown or some similar POS corporate entity like China.

Beautifully stated. Thanks, Bob.

[piece-itpete]

...

If you want to break the "deathgrip" you must drive a wedge between government and the corporate world, not hold a fuckin' wedding.

....

This ship has sailed a LONG time ago, and news flash - your guy is a corporate goon too.

One thing I like about the United decision, that the political news/candidate/consultant machine encompassing both parties is no longer in total control. Whether it ends up being as entertaining as it should be remains to be seen.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Easy, peasy-
the last thing you want to do is let big business decide what is best for the country. Those same corporations that had the well spun story of being paternalistic were trying to break up any organizing that was going on, by any means available. Not to mention the Social-ist movement that was raging in response to the Jay Goulds, Rockefellers, Carnegies and Mellons rapacious behavior of the 1880's. The Gilded Age was nothing but hardship and starvation for most of the country.

Sadly it takes a tremendous amount of suffering for the general public to wake up and smell the stench. What's really tragic is that we have to go through it all over and over again every few generations. Big Money gets to edit the history books is how I'm starting to see it.:mad:

When I see the arguments put forth by the righties I can only conclude that the Koch Brothers and their ilk have done a great job of brainwashing. The Corporations already own our government and the Robert's court. We may as well just get used to it.

Sadly, you are both spot on, IMO. Although, every now and then........

One night I sat down at the lunch table with two young Dudes in their twenties. There on the Corporate Orwellian telescreen were the usual right-wing Fox piglets running their mouths. I asked the two young gentlemen, both college students working to make their way through school, "So, what do you guys make of that?", glancing towards the screen.

"They're just trying to make slaves of us all.", was one response.

"Romney doesn't care about making money for anyone but Romney. Isn't it obvious?", was the other.

Maybe there is hope for the future?

But, the damage is so deep, it will take a long time.

Dave

[bobabode]

This ship has sailed a LONG time ago, and news flash - your guy is a corporate goon too.

One thing I like about the United decision, that the political news/candidate/consultant machine encompassing both parties is no longer in total control. Whether it ends up being as entertaining as it should be remains to be seen.

Pete

If only they hadn't done it in such a smoke filled back room, underhanded and sleezy fashion. Trust me Pete, I don't need a set of crystal balls to say that their decision is going to be up for review when the composition of the court shifts as it always does. It'll be an easy one to set aside for many reasons. Too bad that so much coin will be wasted righting this perverse decision.

If someone wants to dramatically change the way the country is run they should take it to the people through the normal process of legislation. What the Roberts court has done is to water down (actually, pissed in the face of) the respect and confidence that we had in the court of last resort. (Well, what little was left after their crowning the Shrub in 2000, you know.):rolleyes:

Roberts, IIRC , at his confirmation had stated that he was against activism from the bench and the very next year pulled that Citizens United decision out of thin air. The two sides had already come to a compromise deal and it was narrowly focused on the issue before the court. Never in the 200+ years of the court has this kind of activism been seen. Law is a slowly built up succession of little steps but this one was a freaky gyration of convolutions and outright fables that I think everyone was left slackjawed and stunned by it. No one could believe much less mount any argument against this absolutely brazen power grab.

If ever there was a time for the Ol' Hickory response to a decision coming from the bench, this was it. (Actually, Old Hickory was wrong in his decision to ignore that one, BTW, and should've been impeached. IMO.) But war heroes being war heroes he got away with it.

I for one don't see any entertainment value in demeaning the relevance of the Supreme court but what the hell do I know? I'm just a hophead nail pounder like my esteemed colleague from Bugtussle, ya know?

[piece-itpete]

If a corporation, a free association of individuals, cannot speak as they see fit, then no organization is safe from government regulation of speech. I think watching everyone scurry is extremely entertaining :D Wait till one of the new players says something really, really stupid.

Pete

[merrylander]

If a corporation, a free association of individuals, cannot speak as they see fit, then no organization is safe from government regulation of speech. I think watching everyone scurry is extremely entertaining :D Wait till one of the new players says something really, really stupid.

Pete

A corporation is a "free association of individuals"? Pete that is the biggest laugh I have had all week.:D

Speak all they want, they should not be allowed to buy elections. I don't know what the Roberts court has been smoking but they sure are not Camels.

Here is a thought, if a corporation is a person then run one for Congress.

[piece-itpete]

Then unions, nonprofits, any group at all should be silenced. One thing about freedom, it levels the playing field, even if it's scary.

Pete

[merrylander]

Me against Chuck Koch is not what I would call a level playing field as regards money being speech.

[bobabode]

C'mon now, bud. Freedom isn't a 'free for all'. There's got to be some rules. Pitting unions against big business is like me whipping out my Schrade Oldtimer pocketknife at a gunfight. We know how that will end, poor stiff crazy Bob layin' in a ditch!:rolleyes:

[BlueStreak]

If a corporation, a free association of individuals, cannot speak as they see fit, then no organization is safe from government regulation of speech. I think watching everyone scurry is extremely entertaining :D Wait till one of the new players says something really, really stupid.

Pete

This where you are wrong. My employer does not speak for me, only I do.

Just because I work for someone, does not automatically mean I agree with whatever that companies views are. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure there are some issues in which our views are polar opposites.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

A corporation is a "free association of individuals"? Pete that is the biggest laugh I have had all week.:D

Speak all they want, they should not be allowed to buy elections. I don't know what the Roberts court has been smoking but they sure are not Camels.

Here is a thought, if a corporation is a person then run one for Congress.

Or sentence one to execution in the next wrongful death case.:rolleyes:

The whole notion is absurd on it's face. And it is NOT designed to advance the wishes of every employee collectively, it is designed to advance the wishes of management and NO the the two are NOT always the same.

That's ridiculous.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Not the business made of employees, but the corporation made up of shareholders.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Not the business made of employees, but the corporation made up of shareholders.

Pete

Where does the money come from, Pete? The employees are not part of the organization? Managers and shareholders generate all of that revenue on their own with help from no one?

On which planet does this fantasy take place?

Furthermore, your post exposes the root of many of our problems today, IMO.

The only folks that matter are the managers and shareholders, the rest of us are just parasites, feeding off of them?
That's the attitude that needs to go, IMHO.

[bhunter]

If someone wants to dramatically change the way the country is run they should take it to the people through the normal process of legislation. What the Roberts court has done is to water down (actually, pissed in the face of) the respect and confidence that we had in the court of last resort. (Well, what little was left after their crowning the Shrub in 2000, you know.):rolleyes:


No, it is the court that needs to protect political speech against the silencing of a hostile legislature.


Roberts, IIRC , at his confirmation had stated that he was against activism from the bench and the very next year pulled that Citizens United decision out of thin air. The two sides had already come to a compromise deal and it was narrowly focused on the issue before the court. Never in the 200+ years of the court has this kind of activism been seen. Law is a slowly built up succession of little steps but this one was a freaky gyration of convolutions and outright fables that I think everyone was left slackjawed and stunned by it. No one could believe much less mount any argument against this absolutely brazen power grab.


One could say the same thing about Austin v. Michigan. Have you read Kennedy's dissenting opinion in the Austin case? The suppression of speech, any speech, ought be severely restricted when there is not a clear physical danger to life regardless of assumed potentialities of unfairness IMHO. Inasmuch that corporations are great contibutors to our way of life and generally compete amongst themselves, there is little reason to unfairly lock them out of campaign involvement.

[piece-itpete]

Where does the money come from, Pete? The employees are not part of the organization? Managers and shareholders generate all of that revenue on their own with help from no one?

On which planet does this fantasy take place?

Furthermore, your post exposes the root of many of our problems today, IMO.

The only folks that matter are the managers and shareholders, the rest of us are just parasites, feeding off of them?
That's the attitude that needs to go, IMHO.

Of course, that's not my argument, and not what I'm saying. I think you know that.

Pete

[bhunter]

On which planet does this fantasy take place?

Furthermore, your post exposes the root of many of our problems today, IMO.

The only folks that matter are the managers and shareholders, the rest of us are just parasites, feeding off of them?
That's the attitude that needs to go, IMHO.

No one said that employees do not matter, but the corporation exists for the shareholders and not the employees. The employees contract their labor to the employer. I liken it to, say, leasing a piece of machinery. I know it sounds callous. This doesn't mean that employees are not valuable or have an inherent worth beyond their capacity to provide labor, but it does mean that their interests are not as important to the corporation as the interests of the shareholders.

It must also be pointed out that our higher standard of living has been brought about by the corporate structure and its concomitant increase in efficiency. Corparations do indeed have divergent and often competing interests, thus, as Obama's campaign has demonstrated, there will be plenty of competition with corporations participating in elections.

[BlueStreak]

Of course, that's not my argument, and not what I'm saying. I think you know that.

Pete

No one said that employees do not matter, but the corporation exists for the shareholders and not the employees. The employees contract their labor to the employer. I liken it to, say, leasing a piece of machinery. I know it sounds callous. This doesn't mean that employees are not valuable or have an inherent worth beyond their capacity to provide labor, but it does mean that their interests are not as important to the corporation as the interests of the shareholders.

It must also be pointed out that our higher standard of living has been brought about by the corporate structure and its concomitant increase in efficiency. Corparations do indeed have divergent and often competing interests, thus, as Obama's campaign has demonstrated, there will be plenty of competition with corporations participating in elections.

And that needs to change. You honstly don't see where likening people to "...a piece of machinery" might lead to problems? Did you read any of what I posted here. It already has. We've been here before. The reaction to "Welfare Capitalism" was not just unfavorable, it was violent.

In my opinion, "Citizens Untited" is antithetical to a free society. It is further consolidation of power into the hands of moneyed interests rather than the will of the common populace. It subjugates the common folk to the will of corporate bosses and their shareholders.

One man, one vote. Any other path leads to tyranny.

Dave

[Charles]

Damn, this is just like watching All Star Wrasslin'.

What we need it a digital version of the folding chair so that we can bash one another in the head.

In the meantime, our esteemed leaders will be down in the locker room having a drink and splitting up the money.

Chas

[BlueStreak]

Bugger off. I was getting all deep-n-intellectual-n-shit. Then you had to come along and ruin the mood.

[merrylander]

What amazes me is how the righties are only too willing to sell themselves into economic slavery, it is completely astounding.

[piece-itpete]

LMAO! Where's that chair? :)

You take away from one part, they end up coming after you too. Our esteemed founders understood this - as much as some things sound wonderful and great, no one is worthy of the power, certainly not a faceless bureaucracy.

Pete

[merrylander]

Pete, you are fond of quoting Thomas Jefferson, I trust that you realize that the Citize.s United decision has him spinning in his grave.:rolleyes:

http://soundingcircle.com/newslog2.php/__show_article/_a000195-000205.htm

For one so fond of history you have a few blind spots.:p

[piece-itpete]

The amendment isn't there though. By imposing restrictions by legislative action or judicial fiat the door is open for all speech to be regulated, my take. He wouldn't have liked that much either.

Here's the reason I have issue with it. Whomever has the power or money tries to keep it. As they age as a power center they become calcified brittle and rotten in the center. The more power they have to protect themselves the worse it becomes before the inevitable fall.

Right now the whole 'debate' is framed by the political/ruling class, lock stock and barrel. If they can they will try to keep it that way.

So let loose cannon PACs in :D Shake things up a bit. Just my take. I do understand the concern.

Pete

[merrylander]

The amendment isn't there though. By imposing restrictions by legislative action or judicial fiat the door is open for all speech to be regulated, my take. He wouldn't have liked that much either.

Here's the reason I have issue with it. Whomever has the power or money tries to keep it. As they age as a power center they become calcified brittle and rotten in the center. The more power they have to protect themselves the worse it becomes before the inevitable fall.

Right now the whole 'debate' is framed by the political/ruling class, lock stock and barrel. If they can they will try to keep it that way.

So let loose cannon PACs in :D Shake things up a bit. Just my take. I do understand the concern.

Pete

And do you honestly believe that the corporations will change things. Right now they have all the marbles and they are not about to give any of them back.

They have won, my poor friend, and we are the worse for it. I at least have the option of selling the property and moving back to sanity.

[BlueStreak]

The amendment isn't there though. By imposing restrictions by legislative action or judicial fiat the door is open for all speech to be regulated, my take. He wouldn't have liked that much either.

Here's the reason I have issue with it. Whomever has the power or money tries to keep it. As they age as a power center they become calcified brittle and rotten in the center. The more power they have to protect themselves the worse it becomes before the inevitable fall.

Right now the whole 'debate' is framed by the political/ruling class, lock stock and barrel. If they can they will try to keep it that way.

So let loose cannon PACs in :D Shake things up a bit. Just my take. I do understand the concern.

Pete

I believe it's not just a mistake. I believe it's a HORRIBLE mistake. I don't think we're taking ANY power from the "political/ruling class" at all. I think we are solidifying corporatocracy, destroying Democracy and handing the keys directly to the "Ruling Class". We are ceding control to the wealthy elite out of fear that they will abandon us. (A nod to Ms. Rand)

Sorry, Pete. No offense intended. But I think you're wrong.

I think the founders would vomit at the sight of this.

(Or maybe not, seeing as how they WERE the slave owning wealthy elite of the day!)

But, what do I know? I'm just a stupid, lazy lefty..............

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Well you're honest :p :D

I do disagree about ceding control to the wealthy elite. We never got it from them in the first place.

Pete

[Charles]

I believe it's not just a mistake. I believe it's a HORRIBLE mistake. I don't think we're taking ANY power from the "political/ruling class" at all. I think we are solidifying corporatocracy, destroying Democracy and handing the keys directly to the "Ruling Class". We are ceding control to the wealthy elite out of fear that they will abandon us. (A nod to Ms. Rand)

Sorry, Pete. No offense intended. But I think you're wrong.

I think the founders would vomit at the sight of this.

(Or maybe not, seeing as how they WERE the slave owning wealthy elite of the day!)

But, what do I know? I'm just a stupid, lazy lefty..............

Dave

Ms Rand advocated us abandoning the wealthy elite.

Chas

[Charles]

Well you're honest :p :D

I do disagree about ceding control to the wealthy elite. We never got it from them in the first place.

Pete

Sure we did, they let us vote!!!

Chas

[BlueStreak]

Ms Rand advocated us abandoning the wealthy elite.

Chas

Obviously, the best way to abandon them is to allow them to choose our leaders for us, give them fat tax cuts and dismantle the regulations they bitch about.

Yeah, that'll show them.:rolleyes:

Just who is it you guys see as being "the wealthy elite" anyways? You moan when we decry the excesses of Wall Street bankers, howl when we point to the insatible greed of corporations, gasp when we ridicule the Koch Brothers, scream about "market forces" when we blame oil executives for the price of gas (Or try to turn it around and blame it on the prez, especially if he is a Dem.)....................

Wall Street high rollers, large corporations, billionaires, oil companies........................

If that isn't the "wealthy elite", then who is, Chas?

If the goverment is bought and paid for, then just who is it that doin' the buying? Tell me, who has their hands up the puppets ass?

You? Me? Little old Ladies drawing Social Security? The janitors union?

Say something mean about a wealthy businessman or a large corporation and a Republican will throw himself on the grenade everytime.

And yet it us "lefties" with our labor unions and our environmentalists and our Occupy protesters that suck up to the rich.:confused:

Sorry, but I'm just not buying it. It has all of the characterisitics of Grade 'A' bullshit.

Dave

[bobabode]

Some of them just can't help it Dave. They have this fantasy that if they keep sucking up to big biz they'll let them into the country club. It pathetic and a waste of gernades.;)

[BlueStreak]

Yeah, I know. But, it's fun......know what I mean?

[Charles]

Obviously, the best way to abandon them is to allow them to choose our leaders for us, give them fat tax cuts and dismantle the regulations they bitch about.

Yeah, that'll show them.:rolleyes:

Just who is it you guys see as being "the wealthy elite" anyways? You moan when we decry the excesses of Wall Street bankers, howl when we point to the insatible greed of corporations, gasp when we ridicule the Koch Brothers, scream about "market forces" when we blame oil executives for the price of gas (Or try to turn it around and blame it on the prez, especially if he is a Dem.)....................

Wall Street high rollers, large corporations, billionaires, oil companies........................

If that isn't the "wealthy elite", then who is, Chas?

If the goverment is bought and paid for, then just who is it that doin' the buying? Tell me, who has their hands up the puppets ass?

You? Me? Little old Ladies drawing Social Security? The janitors union?

Say something mean about a wealthy businessman or a large corporation and a Republican will throw himself on the grenade everytime.

And yet it us "lefties" with our labor unions and our environmentalists and our Occupy protesters that suck up to the rich.:confused:

Sorry, but I'm just not buying it. It has all of the characterisitics of Grade 'A' bullshit.

Dave

Pretty much all of the above, including their puppets, and their regulatory agencies.

I'll admit, I'm more caustic towards the international bankers and wall street executives who survive by manipulating the wealth of the nation, and friendlier towards the corporations which produce the widgets we need and use...thus creating the wealth of the nation.

As far as the Koch boys go, I'm not so much defending them as attacking the myopic view from the left that only right leaning corporations are capable of stealing the cat food money from the little old green haired ladies, while those from the left are a cross between Horatio at the bridge and Robin Hood, saving us from the conservative horde while stealing our money for our own good.

Labor unions? I'm in favor of unions, more so in private industry than in the government. By and large they've been good for the common man, even though they do tend to pull the ladder up behind themselves, and have been found to be corrupt enough times that I don't particularly view their leaders as knights in shining armor.

The occupy crowd? By and large I liked their message (which I've said several times), but thought their tactics left much to be desired.

I need to go to work, so I'm going to wrap this up. I think I see more gray area than perhaps you. Besides, you have a way of taking what I say and creating a new, and often contradictory, statement, which you then attack.

And Ms Rand's point was that the powerful need our labor to make them powerful. Her basic premise was that if we refuse to do their dirty work, even to the point of taking up substance farming if necessary, we have effectively robbed them of their power.

They can't very well destroy the world without our help, now can they?

Chas

[piece-itpete]

Sure we did, they let us vote!!!

Chas

True that, to a degree. But our vote is vetted, at least now.

....
As far as the Koch boys go, I'm not so much defending them as attacking the myopic view from the left that only right leaning corporations are capable of stealing the cat food money from the little old green haired ladies, while those from the left are a cross between Horatio at the bridge and Robin Hood, saving us from the conservative horde while stealing our money for our own good.

.....

LMAO! Their Chinese child labor is happier, knowing folks who speak nice platitudes crack the whip. ;)

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Okay, however you want to try and explain your way around it.

What I keep hearing and seeing is that if we don't lighten the load on "the job creaters" and start sucking up to them and give them whatever they want, they'll stop creating jobs and society collapses. And I believe that despite the twist you've presented here, that that is the basic premise of "Atlas Shrugged". And that is what has Republicans shitting their pants. Christ it's all nearly they talk about anymore.

What is the answer? I dunno. But, I do know that if we decide to take the track of pushing everything back to Guilded Age style freewheeling capitalism, we're gonna find out that that was no Xanadu either. Truth is, most of us today live way better than those folks did.

As imperfect as it is, I still believe in "one man, one vote". If Dave and Chuck and their buddies don't like it, they can go piss up a rope. Fuck them, their billion dollar SuperPacs and thier well paid for conservative SCOTUS justices. No, corporations are not people. I do NOT want my employer and his shareholders making political decisions for me, our goals are not, and most likely never will be exactly the same.

So, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[merrylander]

Okay, however you want to try and explain your way around it.

What I keep hearing and seeing is that if we don't lighten the load on "the job creaters" and start sucking up to them and give them whatever they want, they'll stop creating jobs and society collapses. And I believe that despite the twist you've presented here, that that is the basic premise of "Atlas Shrugged". And that is what has Republicans shitting their pants. Christ it's all nearly they talk about anymore.

What is the answer? I dunno. But, I do know that if we decide to take the track of pushing everything back to Guilded Age style freewheeling capitalism, we're gonna find out that that was no Xanadu either. Truth is, most of us today live way better than those folks did.

As imperfect as it is, I still believe in "one man, one vote". If Dave and Chuck and their buddies don't like it, they can go piss up a rope. Fuck them, their billion dollar SuperPacs and thier well paid for conservative SCOTUS justices. No, corporations are not people. I do NOT want my employer and his shareholders making political decisions for me, our goals are not, and most likely never will be exactly the same.

So, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Pretty well sums it up.

[piece-itpete]

It is one man one vote.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Yeah, right.

Maybe technically so. But, now they can use money raised from the fruit of my labor to fund campaigns on my behalf without my permission or consulting me at all. (And, even if they did ask me, we all know how those things go..."We're moving on this and everyone here is expected to be on board. Any questions? No? Good.") Pete, this is exacty the thing that the right has complained labor unions shouldn't be able to do for decades. Around here they've been running the anti-union ads complaining about this very thing. What? Unions should be barred from making political donations, but not employers? Yeah, I'm too dumb to see what that is all about.

And, don't give me that, "Well, you don't have to keep working there." stuff, either. You know it's not that simple. Would you just get up and walk away from your job if your boss told you he donated big money to the Obama campaign? Of course not, you need your job. And, so do I.

I could squeeze out maybe $50 to donate to a campaign. The company I work for is a multi-billion dollar multi-national. Who has the ability to make the greater impact?

[piece-itpete]

Money = vote? I thought only Dem machine town people got to vote more than once :p

Pete

[merrylander]

It takes money to get the information out, even if it is a simple sheet of paper. I have some great ideas for a TV spot but I doubt that even selling the property would cover the bill.

[BlueStreak]

Money = vote? I thought only Dem machine town people got to vote more than once :p

Pete

Some claim it does when they see it going into democratic SuperPacs......:rolleyes:

No, money doesn't always = votes, but it does buy influence (And Florida Supreme Court justices.:p) and it does pay for a whole lot of propaganda. Doesn't it?

If I had my way, political campaigns would last maybe two months, party primaries for a month. Nomination. Debate for a month. Election. All funded with public money, equally distributed, no outside donations or private funding allowed. Your vote is your voice, your money stays in your pocket, no matter who you are.

But, I'm nobody.

[piece-itpete]

Me too bro. One day, when we grow up, we'll still be nobodies :-)

Pete

[JJIII]

[QUOTE=BlueStreak;98683
If I had my way, political campaigns would last maybe two months, party primaries for a month. Nomination. Debate for a month. Election. All funded with public money, equally distributed, no outside donations or private funding allowed. Your vote is your voice, your money stays in your pocket, no matter who you are.

But, I'm nobody.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like a plan to me.

[Charles]

Okay, however you want to try and explain your way around it.

What I keep hearing and seeing is that if we don't lighten the load on "the job creaters" and start sucking up to them and give them whatever they want, they'll stop creating jobs and society collapses. And I believe that despite the twist you've presented here, that that is the basic premise of "Atlas Shrugged". And that is what has Republicans shitting their pants. Christ it's all nearly they talk about anymore.

What is the answer? I dunno. But, I do know that if we decide to take the track of pushing everything back to Guilded Age style freewheeling capitalism, we're gonna find out that that was no Xanadu either. Truth is, most of us today live way better than those folks did.

As imperfect as it is, I still believe in "one man, one vote". If Dave and Chuck and their buddies don't like it, they can go piss up a rope. Fuck them, their billion dollar SuperPacs and thier well paid for conservative SCOTUS justices. No, corporations are not people. I do NOT want my employer and his shareholders making political decisions for me, our goals are not, and most likely never will be exactly the same.

So, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I thought I was entirely reasonable. Guess not.

But I'll toss you a bone...I don't like superpaks either.

For what it's worth,

Chas

[BlueStreak]

You were reasonable. I'm not shouting. Apologize if I came across that way.