American Voters greatest mistake ?
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
0The world that we know in reality is far too important and imminently volatile to allow what happened in 2008 to ever happen again . To allow by voting , the "on the job training " syndrome of another American president ? The leader of the last world superpower ?
So what do you propose? Abolish the bit of the constitution that limits the amount of time any one person can serve as president?
Do away with the role of elected president altogether and have what, lifetime presidents?Greetings John , it probably involves the elimination of the political figurehead position , the presidency itself . How Ironic that the great experiment actually needed a president to begin with , one person with so much power ? When , in effect , it is a system designed for the controls of "of the people , all the people" , The three branches of government are somehow diabolically disconnected when two of them can be nullified by the vote of one ?
Perhaps a three member team or something instead of one ? Or , a far more visual circle of that silent and politically influential team behind him ! - As that , is who any president actually is , the twelve or so , advisors .
Either way , the American public seems incapable anymore , of properly vetting true leadership ! As you know , I call it the American Idol syndrome.But that is just your opinion, that hardly makes anything you say valid in this case. In 2008, the people had spoken, and whether you like it or not the majority of the electorate prevails. As I say to all right wing people, what can you do within the confines of the current system to change the outcome of 2008 or prevent the people from voting in who it is they want? But, again I forget the right is terrorized at the idea of universal suffrage for all citizens over the age of 18.... Not a lot you can do about that!
Term limits for one ! That last part escapes my understanding , but hey its the voters fault not the office ! Not the system itself so much . I would rather be right and wrong though , than left and blind !
Ok, term limits? I could go along with that.
But let's cut to the chase. Does your AMERICAN Idol syndrome apply to the voting public only when they select Democrats for national office? Would you have thought better of them if they had have voted for McCain, Sarah Palin or Romney?For resident , the terms don't change , for congress and senate ,not only short term limits but a more mainstream of American public participation , much like a jury in fact . NORMAL people would serve and not career political position ! Right or left we need fewer career types , no more 'high school class presidents " . Why is it Americans can be required by law to serve on a jury or in fact , go to jail , and yet can't be required to serve two years for senate ?
"... Why is it Americans can be required by law to serve on a jury or in fact , go to jail , and yet can't be required to serve two years for senate ? "
You begin by lamenting the apathy and lack of intelligence of the American voter - and now you want to give them the decision-making power of a Senator for a mandatory two years? Oh my...
GA
But John, If you limit the time they have to be president, how will they ever become a communist dictator?
If you actually bothered to read what was written you would have quickly seen that I was speaking in favour of term limits.
Yes I understood that. You see it is usually the position of communists and socialists such as yourself to be in favor of dictators. Which would make you the exception to the rule.
That's rich coming from somebody who gets into a froth at the thought of any president who isn't a republican.
So John , No , its just this one , One so disconnected from the reality of the world as to bury his head in the sand and pretend that there are no enemies to America .
Sometimes I am astounded at how little you pay attention.
Really! It is not me that makes sweeping statements with absolutely no basis in reality.
I do not know one single socialist or communist who wants to have a dictator in charge, and you don't either.Sure you do, you just don't want to admit that they are actually Communists or Socialists. Perhaps because they didn't use enough socialism in their crappy countries to be considered "real socialists" or Communists, whatever, same thing.
I'm nothing like a dictator. You see Dictators take away peoples money in an attempt to spread it around evenly like mayonnaise on what they deem beneficial to the state.
The opposite would be liberty. That is where you get to keep the money that you earn. You see you haven't been taught about liberty. It's that big scary thing that the American forefathers fought and died for. I know, liberty is harder than slavery. it's full of risks and unequal outcomes. It requires you to stand on your own and suffer the consequences of your choices. But in the end it's the only way that you and your intellectual cohorts may one day graduate from the academic fantasies of a state run utopia, and grow to be men and women instead of sheep.You're crazy.
Full of make believe and jumping to ill formed conclusions like there is no tomorrow.
You believe that you have liberty, I know just how much liberty the money men allow me and it's nothing to do with how much of my money the bosses allow me to keep..True insanity is when you look at a country like the United States which is awash in wealth, freedom, and the largest middle class in the world, and thinking that we would be better off implementing a system that has historically been proven to never work, and only creates a society of dictators and slaves.
Sorry to tell you, but we abandoned slavery in the 1860's. You can keep it, we don't want it.You abandoned slavery in the 1860s!
Tell that to every one of your citizens living on the bread line.When I see all those young able bodied workers who were denied job experience because the socialists in power demanded a 15 dollar minimum wage, it reminds me of this quote from Benjamin Franklin;
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”But it is the right wing capitalists who want to keep wages low to keep profits high.
If you think young able bodied workers are denied jobs because some think that they should actually be paid for doing that job rather than having to rely on the tax payer to bring their income up to subsistence level you are missing the point entirely.If you think that 15 dollars an hour is suitable for an entry level position that was never intended to be a career, you are part of the problem.
Whereabouts in the USA is the minimum wage $15?
Seattle. Thanks to their openly socialist city council members.
Actually $10 from 1st April 2015 (up from $9.32) and taking up to 2021 to reach $15
Regardless, the dollar that you earned and saved for retirement will be worth less and less thanks to Seattle's liberal socialist kill the US dollar program.
Sure, really good reason for keeping people living in poverty and the economy stagnant.
The more the planners fail, the more the planners plan. Commies bringing the breadline to America.
The capitalist planners seem to be managing to fail without any help from outside.
More like the socialist planners. Capitalists believe in a free market, which is the opposite of economic planning.
However the socialists in Illinois are seeing the fruits of their efforts as their policies have been prompting the wage earners to leave the leaches behind for greener pastures in places like Texas and North Dakota where those evil Capitalists have been creating the most jobs and the most wealth.
And while the nation begins to recover from the recession, Illinois plummets in revenue.
Perhaps they could take a hint from their socialist counterparts in Europe and build a giant brick wall around the State to force the people to remain in their misery.Isn't it good! "The system I support is failing, what can I do? Ah, I know, I'll blame it on some other system rather than try to fix it."
By the way, Illinois is controlled by the Democrats. They are in no way shape or form socialists. They are as capitalist as the rest of you.They are more or less the Diet Coke of socialism because the American left has not fully embraced the idea that a few elitists in a far distant capitol know how to plan their lives for them better than they can do themselves.
They are still into vast government expansionism, still repressive towards religious rights, still advocates of moral relativism, and big government elitism, still advocates of class warfare, still anti individual rights, and they still want to disarm the citizenry. All the benchmarks of socialist and communist dictatorships.
My dear friend, WE DON"T CHOOSE THE PRESIDENTS! The two mob (party) system does and we play right along with them. The parties have to protect their contributors and it is best done with a figurehead in the White House. We are so busy quibbling with ourselves and pinning liberal and conservative slights on each others character that there is no time or effort left to figure out the solutions. Just when we do get a little clarity the mobsters (two parties) send us off on a mission against abortion or gay marriage or whatever else there is to direct attention away from them. Guess what! The news media is only too happy to comply with them.
I remember what a good car salesman once told me. You don't make money on the sale of a car, you make money when you purchase it. Think about it.................I agree rhamson.
Obama is the 44th President and 25th lawyer,also they would make great used car saleman.
The corportism is the puppy master and runs the ugly show business.
I don' t believe anything the Government has to say, unless you just like like fairy tales.Vote them all, they are all the same. Like pro wrestlers, after the fight, they go out together over beers
and talk about more
ways to screw us. I thought Clinton was a
great president,
maybe he was. Now
he is good pals with
GW Bush, now I know
I' ve been screwed
again.Take no sake in
it now. Only report
the freak show.
I agree, to allow another far left ideologue with Marxist goals would probably be too much for America to recover from. The future debts of unfounded mandates and Obamacare have already headed us to second rate status at best, unless we act soon to reverse the damage. Unless the provisions of Obamacare are reversed, the regulations and expenses will render the United States to a secondary economic power without the means to finance a world-class military. This we have global implications and make the world a much more dangerous place.
The current administration has made us look weak in the eyes of the world. When Obama came into office we were winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but now that Obama has announced the timetable of withdrawal to our enemies all that is necessary for them was to wait in the weeds for us to leave to make their move, which they’re now doing. He’s also humiliated and turned his back on our most reliable ally in the middle east, Israel.
I’m not sure Obama is incompetent because he’s doing what he promised which is to fundamentally change America. Is his mind, America needs to be downsized for its own good and the good of the world, so that Russia, China, India, Brazil are all in a rough parity with the United States. People complain about Obama’s excess time at the golf course but I wish he stay there indefinitely, I’d spring for a full time pass at the course of his choosing!So, I guess you are voting for Hillary if you want on the job experience.
Exactly, Barack Obama is the BIGGEST MISTAKE ever. To many Americans, he was the president of promise but he became the president of one unmitigated disaster after another..........after yet another. Obama"CARE", the amnesty program, NEED I SAY MORE.....
I like cars, do not have the passion to be a good car saleman. Unless the cars were made out of hemp, still corportism rule with oil.
No luck.
The Myth of The Rational Voter by Bryan Caplan
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Myth-Rational-V … onal+voter- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
My point is that what was once the political arena is now the coliseum , a lowering of the political and social intelligence of the voting public has helped to lower the pole , the expectations and the end result of voting outcomes . Maybe ..............its time for a king , queen and the usual entourage , Oh hell - we're there already !
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Except who can you report the freak show to , Polarization has its hold in the voting booth and like here there is no unity !
What is all too true is that the polarization is the mobsters way of control. What is pathetic is how easily we the lemmings play into it.
Yes, it is hard to get a snap shot of faceless people.
And we need to exile all lobbyists of all kinds from the halls of congress , the white house and senate ......speaking of the Faceless people " !
Just from the halls, or any of the government's physical properties? Or from any form of contact?
It sounds like you think all lobbyists are bad... my point of view is that the ones that obey the laws are fine with me, (and that does not mean I approve of the Abramoff-type lobbyists) - it is their job. I suspect there are probably many instances where they serve a valuable function - it is unrealistic to expect every politician to know the intricate details of every possible issue.
It is the crooked politicians that I think should be exiled.
Just sayin'
GADisagree , if he [her ] isn't intelligent enough with their advisors , they don't belong in office , the lobbyist's are the downfall of our system !
We are not talking about the resources available to a president. For instance, a Representative can hire up to 18 permanent staffers, (plus free interns), for both their Washington and District offices.
Not nearly enough to include experts on every possible issue. So what to do? Assign a staffer to find an authority source to get the information the legislator needs. Guess who those authority sources usually are on big issue/big industry questions - yep, lobbyists.
So a legislator with integrity will use the lobbyist's expertise, unspin it, resist the efforts to influence that is the lobbyist's job - and get the information they need to do their job - legislate.
A politician without integrity yields to the influence of the lobbyist for personal or professional gain.
I know that is a simplistic illustration, but it makes the point that lobbying doesn't have to be a bad thing.
A grandma attending a town council meeting to buttonhole a council member to get a "Kids at play" sign for her street is also a lobbyist. And if she brings a plate of homemade cookies - could they be an attempted bribe?
Of course we can disagree, but I still think it is the slimy politician that should be exiled instead of the lobbyist.
GAI lobbied 3 of my congressmen lately (email), to look at a fix a specific tax issue.
Got back two answers. One said "Thank you for your concern", the other said "Taxes are too high and I work to get them down". Neither mentioned what I wrote about at all.
Should I have sent cookies, do you think?I write my elected officials all the time. I never get anything back but a form letter telling me what they are going to do whether I like it or not. I'm an independent/progressive living in a suburb of Atlanta (Republican Heaven), so the only representation I have is in the White House, but they send form letters too. Maybe cookies are the trick!
I too have been rewarded with a customary response stating my representatives position when contacting them. The response is always down party lines and does not require much thought such as a form letter. Whoever thinks that we are being represented by these politicians should have their head examined. The two party system is strangling this country with partisan wrangling and gets nothing accomplished in the process. The mistake in 2008 was ours for not correcting it. The system is broken and cannot work.
I have said it many times before that term limits, publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform are paramount to getting the government back in the hands of the people. Lobby reform may include no lobbying but it is allowable in the constitution so to change that would take a great deal of effort and cooperation of the slime on the hill. What would be a more comprehensive policy would be to allow lobbying on issues as long as there are no campaign contributions, gifts or job offers for the outgoing politician. This would include appointments of family members to positions within the lobbying entity. It keeps communication on the issues open and intelligent while cutting out the nepotism.
The biggest mistake of the american voters is ,Not voting. The percentage of people who vote is shamefully low . The lobbyists are a problem, corrupt politicians are a problem ,but all those problems would be solved or become irrelevant if the vast majority of people voted on every election, from the local board of ed to the presidential election.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
We Americans HAVE to get it together and stop seeing either red or blue ! That no longer works for us , if in fact that it ever did ! Can you imagine how awesome an atmosphere of participation in the political system that ,that alone could create ?
We already have the most prolific system of an economy , a supporting government , and an other wise well educated society , Eliminating the two party system while cleaning house in congress would change our lives dramatically .
Hello.....................any real voters out there? ......helloEr. . . if you did away with the two party system wouldn't you just end up with a dictatorship?
Or perhaps you mean to have more than two parties so that you end up with the situation we have in the UK where the government is always formed by a minority!What John is trying to say is we would be much better off with a socialist dictatorship. Which is why he has dual citizenship in Cuba and North Korea.
Oh wait, it's more like a Michael Moore thing where you talk about how great communism is and how bad capitalism is while taking advantage of that very system without having to actually live in a communist country.Oh stop it please. My sides are hurting from laughing so much and now I find that not only do you do a comedy turn you do a mind reading one as well.
I should stick to the comedy though, your mind reading just doesn't cut it.I know, it is funny to think that a person who advocates socialism would remove themselves from the comforts of a capitalist society and actually live in a socialist hell hole.
I see that you are still desperately trying to avoid the fact that the capitalist system is broken and needs fixing by pretending that all your captains of industry, bankers and all are closet socialists.
So why not pack your bags and board the next flight to North Korea? You can hang with Un and Rodman in their commie utopia. I'm sure you will love it there, or do you like being a capitalist more?
So that's your answer to your failing capitalist system!
Yes, free one way tickets to North Korea for all the socialists and commies that are trying to screw up our economy.
You are still walking around with your head in the sand. The bankers and big business bosses are not socialists or communists.
Never said anything about them. I'm talking about academics such as yourself, that rail against capitalism yet refuse to live reality in a commie utopia like Cuba or North Korea. So pack your bags, and here's hoping you don't end up in a forced labor camp.
I'm saying that capitalism is broken. How is my going to Cuba or North Korea going to fix that?
Well it will help you thwart capitalism on the individual level. You wont be burdened with capitalistic innovations like telecommunications, medicine, transportation, and other things to distract you from your preferred non corporate, agrarian lifestyle. You'll get to build your own thatch hut, and you will no longer be bothered with trivial matters like running your life the way you choose. It'll be great! That is, after all, what you want for everybody else.
I told you before, your mind reading act is not very good, in fact it's rubbish.
So instead of actually living in a socialist hell hole you would rather live comfortably in a capitalist society. I guess capitalism isn't that bad after all.
And you get all that from me saying that capitalism is broken and needs fixing! Sheesh
Nope I get that from the "remedy" you would propose.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Well , what I mean is eliminate all parties and make people think for themselves , thereby including all "party" ideals , the minute we join someone else's idea we lose control over that which we know as truth . If I vote for a democrat I am selecting , joining someone else's idea of what's best , if I vote a republican ticket I am selecting a group choice .
I have met so many otherwise bright individual thinkers who , when pressed , back themselves into the corner of a group thought , or choice . We become political robots , thereby toiling away at a lazy man's way of acting .
I'm too lazy to think , to chose , to vet a candidate for myself so I think i'll just let that guy there make my choice for me .
Pass legislation to make party affiliation illegal , make people think for themselves again . We had to in the beginning , why not now ?
I always find it very interesting for others who's political systems have absolutely failed who think they can advise me . 'Clean up your own house " ,come's to mind ,"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. "
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965), Hansard, November 11, 1947Fair enough but that idea overlooks the fact that we are tribal. It would be difficult if not impossible to prevent like minded people from banding together.
John with this you just described the middle eastern world perfectly ," tribal" ,.... Neanderthal even ?!
It's just more obvious in the middle east because it is an alien world to us. We are just as tribal. Think about sport teams, old schools, work places even. We like, even need, to group together.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Just like right here , lets eliminate the sticks and stones and talk real world problems , solutions .
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
John , quite the contrary , capitalism is on the rise here ,it's only the nay-sayers have convinced you that it's failing ! The truth is large corporations are failing and as well they should . All large companies become too big to succeed profitably eventually, with little exception and yet many others have a successful mindset , Small business on the other hand here , are thriving , I believe there is a new basis of smaller company mindsets that are actually very successful ., you've got to be careful who you listen to , who's "statistics " of the day you site. I live in a far more rural area of America where small business has become the new major employer of the millennium ..
Quite frankly capitalism is thriving here , a small town where I grew up forty years ago has lost all it's major jobs of manufacturing , , shoes , furniture and micro manufacturing jobs are gone for sure BUT , smaller companies are now thriving ., and employing more people than ever . Given that and the" big box" stores , the new mix is far more successful.
You have to read further down into the stories and individually analyze the specific truths and the agenda's of those who present the stats my friend , America's economy is on the rise , yes it wears some new colors but ., on the rise it is . Why ? Americans are consumers right ? , and so consume we do for one , also the service oriented economy is the "new - old" manufacturing based model for this success .. Can't call the fight yet ! This is the American ingenuity we're seeing .Part of the problem is that you and I have a different definition of capitalism.
To you it seems to be any sort of work.
To me it is any business where the primary purpose is making money.John , drop the textbooks and step away from the ideals . I live capitalism , you study it , I think I know of which I live in the heart of ,I wonder if you do ?
Oh yes, I know which I live in the heart of. I only have to look around me to know. I see people working impossibly long hours for impossibly low wages whilst their employers and there banks rake in the money.
Absolutely impossible hours! 36.3 hours per week (average work week in the UK, minus 28 paid days per year without working) is simply beyond comprehension. How can anyone possible expect their employees to put in such onerous hours!
(I've never had a job at under 40 yours per week, and at times worked as much as 7X18=126).Wilderness, what is your source for such erroneous figures?
You do realise that that is average? It includes folk working 16 hours a week (in one job).
Are you suggesting that people should work 126 hours a week as a matter of course?"The ONS said that across the whole UK workforce average hours worked were 36.3 per week, down 4.7% from 38.1 hours per week in 1992."
"The UK average of 42.7 hours compares with 41.6 across the EU."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16082186
While 126 hours/week is impossibly long (literally - people cannot work very many weeks like that without collapsing): neither 36.3 or 42.7 hours/week is "impossibly long". For comparison purposes:
"According to a study by the National Sleep Foundation, the average employed American works a 46-hour work week; 38% of the respondents in their study worked more than 50 hours per week. "
http://www.libraryspot.com/know/workweek.htm
Past history: "In 1890, a hundred years or so after the start of the Industrial Revolution, the work week was 60 hours. During the first half of this century, the length of time per week we spent "workin' for the man" gradually drifted downwards. In 1914, it was 51.5 hours. In 1930, 43.9; in 1940, 38.6.1950, 40.5; 1975, 39.4; 1990, 40.8. In 1994, the average workweek had begun to climb again, to 42 hours. For those on the fast track, the average work week skyrocketed to 49 hours." "Of course, these were the official hours. Time spent at home working on projects or reports, or updating information, often isn't counted. (Neither is women's work. They work, on average, 80+ hours per week.)" (These figures are the average, not just average full time workers)
http://www.newwork.com/Pages/Opinion/Ar … 0Week.html
Again, neither 38 or 42 hours seems "impossibly long"; our ancestors did considerably more as a matter of course and farmers still do."Workers in the UK are in the middle of the pack, working 36.3 hours, about an hour a week less than the EU average; but the ONS points out that's because of the growing prevalence of part-time work, as flexible hours have become more common. If you look at full-time work, it puts us the top of the biggest economies in the region."
"Looking at full-time jobs alone, workers in the UK are chained to their desks (or more likely stuck on a building site, since the occupation with the longest hours is crane driver), for a miserable 42.7 hours a week."
Don't forget that those are averages which mean that some work far longer.
Same source of stats as you but via http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo … king-hoursThat jibes pretty well with what I found, yes.
You make a 43 hour per week job sound like the end of the world. I have a hard time sympathizing; I've worked more than that for most of my life. When I left the factory job, it was 54 hours per week - no breaks, no lunch. It didn't kill me, it wasn't "impossible" and I did it for years before I decided it wasn't going to change and found other work.
Yes, don't forget that some work longer. And many work hours considerably shorter. That's what an average means, you know.None of that means that I don't look around me and see people working impossibly long hours for impossibly low pay.
Many would be happy to do such short time as 54 hours a week, many others would love the opportunity to work that many hours a week.Perhaps they should swap jobs? Capitalism isn't slavery, after all - everyone is free to take whatever job they wish.
(Of course it's a small problem when they want impossibly few hours for lots and lots of money. That puts the employer in the position of going broke, but hey - that's what socialism is all about isn't it? Set work and wages according to artificial designations rather than actual value?)When there are more people looking for jobs than there are jobs how free are people really to take whatever job they wish?
That's life, isn't it? We never get exactly what we want.
The go-getters, though, do their own work in finding income. Start their own business, maybe, or move about until they DO find something they like. Others depend on socialistic governments to support them. Everyone must make their own choice - sadly, for too many the choice is to simply sit back and collect charity while exclaiming "There is no work for me!".
But then, you already know this. You just make your own choice to pretend that it isn't so - that there is nothing BUT charity for half the world. That they must enslave themselves to entitlement programs forever in order to survive.The biggest fall in unemployment in the UK is caused by people taking up self employment.
This idea that folk should move around to find work is absolutely crackers, high unemployment is endemic in the UK.
When there are ten applicants for every job what choice do people have?
There is plenty more than charity for everybody, it involves capitalists not sitting on their capital because they either have enough of it or they are too scared of spreading it around..
Vote for socialism and an end to so called entitlement.and other forms of capitalist oppression.Then people ARE employed; by taking up self-employment they have reduced the unemployment and the load on entitlement programs at the same time they began taking care of themselves. A good thing I'd have to say.
We've been over this before; capitalists are not shoving their wealth under the mattress. It is being put to work somewhere, providing jobs for someone.
Absolutely; vote for socialism and end entitlements as they grow to the point they cannot be sustained and the entire country goes broke (look around at Greece and others to see it in action). Both socialism AND entitlements will end that way. It's a hard road to follow, though, particularly for those that have been accustomed to government caring for their every need.Oh yes, they've reduced unemployment, but not the costs. They still don't earn enough to survive and still need help from the tax payer.
If capitalists are not sitting on their wealth where has it all gone to? There is no less money around than there was during the good times but it's not on our high streets or in our pockets Where are laa these jobs that you claim it is providing?Probably in India or China.
I know that if I were wealthy in a socialistic country I'd get the money out of the country ASAP, before the government finds a "better use for it" than I can (quote from our socialist president, wanting to take that wealth from the owners).If you really believe that you have a socialist president then there is really no purpose in continuing this debate.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
No matter the way you describe socialism , communism and the big bad wolf of Capitalism , your system of entitlements fall conveniently under simply just another cloak ! And there is the problem ! lets eliminate economic entitlements and watch whatever -the system blossom .
The very minute the powers that be begin to provide social , economic , entitlements for a society they begin the long slippery but ALWAYS downhill slope to doom . Its been proven over and over ,
"Here , you can't feed yourself or your children , let Uncle Sam feed them " is the new mentality in America . Oh , and here's money for your masters too " ,...... We can't feed our kids but were smart enough to get a masters , THAT isn't hungry , that's lazy !Unfortunately ahorseback, it's not my system of entitlements, it's your system. It is capitalism's way of passing off its costs to the tax payer whilst passing on the blame to socialism. Very clever
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
I don't know that most people do not create their own situation , at least here !
One thing I did years ago was to become self employed , there by eliminating the middle man ,so to speak , I am a home renovation , builder , remodeler , ...Before becoming self employed I worked forty to sixty hours a week or more to make a living , at the rate of average pay . $12.00 to 20 dollars an hour or so . Now , I charge the going rate for my trade per hour , pay my own taxes , etc.
I got tired of the "Company " making 100% again of what I was making per hour , per day , per year , does that mean someone was getting rich on my back ?, no I don't think so . Living better than I ? , yes !
I am now , at least , in control of the benefits of my own work ethics , I also suffer the consequences of a off [ slow ]season economics , But I'll say this . We ARE in control of our own destiny in a capitalist society , probably no where else in the world can one's work ethics and drive pay off as well as here . Unfortunately , for many more now than ever before , the system has paid off for those who run to the social services dept. to get help , more people than ever are doing just that !
America IS still the land where a dream [ because of good work ethics }can happen .Good on you. That doesn't make you a capitalist though.
"I got tired of the "Company " making 100% again of what I was making per hour , per day , per year , does that mean someone was getting rich on my back ?"
I don't think there is a company anywhere that shows a profit as large as it's labor cost. Maybe a one or two employee shop, but then you have to figure the owner works for free to make even that come out.Probably all the more reason for a flat tax , Instead of sooo many damned write offs for the corporate giants , I am actually amazed at the amounts of tax finagling a company CAN do !
I'm not; most of those write offs are a way for politicians to consolidate their power with both the people and with the corporations.
Think your inner city is going downhill? Give a big write-off to companies for hiring in that area, making both the company happy and the people grateful for the help. Same for hiring minorities; give away money and both are happy. "Help" (subsidize their efforts via the tax code) a business start up in a new locale and everybody is happy.....Think your inner city is going downhill? Give a big write-off to companies for hiring in that area, making both the company happy and the people grateful for the help.....
Fat chance of that making any difference. Relying on the charity of the corporations is not a road that we want to go down. How many cities can the or are they willing to help? How much "Throw Away" income are they willing to commit to when all they have to do is hire another lawyer to save them that money? Ridiculous notion and highly impractical thinking. You are also looking at a one and done scenario as far as long term development of such a plan. We have learned one thing about corporations and that is that they are money driven and if the profits are good enough one year that does not mean the following year will bring such benevolence. It almost sounds like Bush's letting the Churches and charities handle the homeless and hungry problem. Where has that gotten us? Many more are homeless since this policy which Reagan helped by throwing the insane out on the streets. Charity is not something that comes naturally to corporations or government when the bottom line is searched for.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/526/homeless-facts.html?? You misunderstand; corporations do not give charity to revive inner cities. They accept it, in the form of tax loopholes to defray the extra costs of building and hiring in such locations.
But as far as charity not being natural to governments: of course it is. With half the country accepting charity from Uncle Sam how can you ever say it is unnatural?....?? You misunderstand; corporations do not give charity to revive inner cities. They accept it, in the form of tax loopholes to defray the extra costs of building and hiring in such locations.....
Ridiculous. With the permanent loss of so many jobs to overseas labor markets and with the new TPP there are and will be fewer jobs still that corporations will be looking to hire. The few jobs that will be coming back are loaded with robotics and logistic distribution. Hardly an improvement.
....But as far as charity not being natural to governments: of course it is. With half the country accepting charity from Uncle Sam how can you ever say it is unnatural?....
You misunderstood. Charity is unnatural to the government because it cannot manage it properly. Many are skating the system to not work and the government neither has the skills nor wherewithal to monitor or administer it.Which is why corporations need charity to build in inner cities and still produce a profit. The location makes business inherently unprofitable, so govt. steps in and subsidizes them.
Oh, government has the wherewithal to both monitor and administer it. They just choose not to do so as it would inevitably mean loss of many recipients and the votes they produce. When I visit a city park where the free summer lunch program is going on and find nothing but for-profit day care centers bringing bus loads of kids to cut their lunch costs and boost the bottom line...well, government could do the same thing. They just don't; free lunches for "needy" kids sounds just too wonderful and buys too many votes.....Which is why corporations need charity to build in inner cities and still produce a profit. The location makes business inherently unprofitable, so govt. steps in and subsidizes them.....
More trickle down BS. Corporations already have a source for cheap labor and are not going to switch now. That is why I mentioned the TPP. It is the next step to withdraw more jobs from the country. Corporations are not looking to help anyone but themselves and that is why their money is busy buying votes in the Senate to make this debacle of a treaty a reality. The only reason they would consider buying into a community at this point is to buy the property tax reduced or free and then down the road when they can't get anything started sell the land at a profit.
Like I said you still misunderstood what I said. Government does not have the wherewithal to administer charity as the votes are tied to it and so are the special interest groups that get cushy jobs faking like they are making a difference. I did not say charity was not needed but on both ends of the spectrum (churches and government) are not meeting the challenge.Perhaps you mean that govt. has the resources and ability to police charity but refuse to do so. I could agree with that.
I would also agree that neither churches and govt. are meeting the challenge. More than enough is being spent, it just isn't going to where it is needed.
He didn't mention profit. A charge doesn't equal a profit.
Employment agencies usually make three or four times the hourly rate paid to agency workers.We'll have to get clarification: I read "making 100% again" as a profit, not a charge. Nor do companies even charge double what they pay out for wages, not unless there is considerably more involved than just labor.
Sorry, temp agencies are here don't make 3 or 4 times the hourly rate they pay out. It's less than 1.5 times the amount - I know, having been on both ends of the contract.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
There is plenty of charity from churches , municipalities , local, federal and state governments in America !
What's needed far more in America right now ....is the drive to actually work for a living once again .
The newer generations want to begin at upper levels of pay , benefits and amenities in the work place . In spite of the fact that they may be beginning with higher debts than ever from college educations [ self inflicted ] perhaps the new five year diploma's for the sake of easy study programs and more frat parties shouldn't have been part of the education cost plan .
Want to be better off in America than you are now , earn it !
Related Discussions
- 29
Do We Need To Have Washington Dectating Voter Laws?
by Sharlee 3 years ago
The House will vote on this bill Wed, 3rd, 2021. Would appear the Federal Government wants its fingers in one more pie...Improve Access – H.R. 1 expands access to the ballot box by taking aim at institutional barriers to voting, including cumbersome voter registration systems, disenfranchisement,...
- 27
New Idea for an American Political Revolution: Masse Voter Protest by not Voting
by Catherine Mostly 6 years ago
New Idea for an American Political Revolution: Masse Voter Protest by not Voting for Either Party.What if we filled Congress & POTUS during the next big election with people not running under the GOP or Democrat party? (It could be a one-time protest, not necessarily a new way for us to...
- 18
Something interesting! Negative partisanship is the main issue.
by Tim Mitchell 10 days ago
New research suggests that concerns about threats to democracy match the economy and immigration as issues shaping the 2024 election by Ipsos (Mar 1, 2024)https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/new-researc … es-shapingSetting it up . . ."In this study, Ipsos experimented with three different sets...
- 22
Does voting actually matter or do secret societies run the show? illuminati, fre
by HeavyGuns 12 years ago
Does voting actually matter or do secret societies run the show? illuminati, free masons etc.Different you tube series such as "the extermination - a new world order" suggest that secret societies run the world. Tv shoes such as the conspiracy theory with jesse ventura and the whole...
- 186
President Trump Will Win Re-Election
by Allen Donald 4 years ago
The November jobs numbers came out and are very strong.There is a simple historical fact at play here: Presidents get credit when the economy is strong and blame when it is weak. As much as conservatives may hate it, many saw Obama succeeding in this way and that's why he won a second term. The...
- 44
Why should voters support a candidate that he/she does not agree with
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 7 years ago
What would be the rational for voting for someone because of party affiliation? Are strategic party moves detrimental to the democratic process? Do we need political parties.