Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no reason to "reward" those that are sending our jobs overseas and making ridiculous profit margins, at the expensive of screwing over america and the middle class.
No he hasn't. Obama very much supports a strong middle class and small businesses. The greedy right wing machine is out for nothing but profits, more profits, mountains of government handouts, and to hell with the nation and middle class, which is very dirty.
Every job sent overseas, or slashing pay to a middle class american for the big corporations own filthy greed is the equivalent of taking food off the table of a hard working american.
Thanks, Tempest, for getting to the root of the whole dispute. When you line up with mainstream Democrat thinking and allow no room for profit, you necessarily are advocating some form of socialism, communism, fascism, or something other than a free people making their own decisions. Thanks for clarifying it.
Thanks, Tempest, for getting to the root of the whole dispute. When you line up with mainstream Democrat thinking and allow no room for profit, you necessarily are advocating some form of socialism, communism, fascism, or something other than a free people making their own decisions. Thanks for clarifying it.
When presented with facts, all you can resort to are throwing those exact programmed right wing catch words that this thread is all about, interesting
When presented with facts, all you can resort to are throwing those exact programmed right wing catch words that this thread is all about, interesting
The pertinent fact is that neither you nor the president understands the key role that profit plays in the commerce of a free people.
But I will allow for the possibility that I am ignorant of some new way of organizing human affairs that involves neither profit, nor socialism or any of those other words you dislike. What, pray tell, is this new way?
The pertinent fact is that neither you nor the president understands the key role that profit plays in the commerce of a free people.
But I will allow for the possibility that I am ignorant of some new way of organizing human affairs that involves neither profit, nor socialism or any of those other words you dislike. What, pray tell, is this new way?
It's quite simple to see what happens when we have common sense fiscal plans, vs. what was started under Reagan and kicked into high gear by W and the republicans, and continues to this day which is right wing fascism.
When you give the middle class and small business fair wages and the ability to thrive they have larger incomes. When the middle class has large incomes, they spend. When they spend, it creates demand. When you create demand, it creates jobs, which also befits the rich from their increase in sales. It's a win/win
Under GOP plans, they want to screw over the middle class so they have little extra funds. When the middle class doesn't have money to spend, it causes a loss of revenue for the rich. When the rich start losing revenue, they ship jobs to China, India, and hire illegals to compensate. By doing so it leads to mass unemployment, the middle class becoming the poor, and small business unable to thrive making people be at the mercy of crappy paying, faceless mega-corporations.
It's been proven time and time again that investing in america and the people leads to thriving economies and allowing everyone to experience the american dream. It's also been proven that right wing fascism screws over everyone but the rich, and leads the nation into massive debt, high unemployment, and a poor quality of life for everyone but the richest of the rich.
Our differences arise from the question of whether or not it is possible to "give" a wage level or the ability to thrive to anyone. In my view, we earn by being of value to the rest of society. It is not possible to either systematically underpay or overpay on a sustainable basis. Wages are not a form of charity; they are mutually agreed payments for performing a job. Small business income is likewise not charity, but the net result of the attempt to provide a product or service to society. Any small business may increase its income by being more valuable to more customers. Any wage-earner may increase his or her income by becoming more valuable to potential employers.
For the most part, Democrats and Republicans do not enter into the equation--except insofar as they might promote policies that decrease the demand for labor, or depress overall levels of business activity.
Our differences arise from the question of whether or not it is possible to "give" a wage level or the ability to thrive to anyone. In my view, we earn by being of value to the rest of society. It is not possible to either systematically underpay or overpay on a sustainable basis. Wages are not a form of charity; they are mutually agreed payments for performing a job. Small business income is likewise not charity, but the net result of the attempt to provide a product or service to society. Any small business may increase its income by being more valuable to more customers. Any wage-earner may increase his or her income by becoming more valuable to potential employers.
For the most part, Democrats and Republicans do not enter into the equation--except insofar as they might promote policies that decrease the demand for labor, or depress overall levels of business activity.
This is all fine in the abstract, but in reality wages often show very little correlation with worth to society. A cigarette salesmen will tend to make much more than a school teacher or college professor. And a "quant" cooking up snake oil on Wall Street will earn multiple times what a brain surgeon earns, even as he poisons the world economy. The market is not always right in its valuations about everything. Asking that a public school teacher earn, say $50k/year, is not asking for charity. It is simply providing a sensible value to a critical job. Of course, if you are really thinking (as I think many wealthier people are), damn if I will pay those losers above $30k, because my kids is going to Lord Fauntleroy Academy! If you cannot afford it, you are a loser parasite! So, valuation is a conversation, and a messy one.
I don't think most Democrats devalue profit, far from it. But they know that it needs to be balanced with some civic responsibility. Assuming that pure greed is best for society is even more foolish. That push for balance is spun by the propagandists as a push toward communism. Hardly, very, very few people who observed the communist dictatorships and failures of the 20th Century want to go that route. However, nearly all the successful countries in the world today pursue some sort of mixed economy with strong and collaborative public and private sectors. But the right has drank so much of its own kool aid that the self-evident models all around the world and even in their own country for last century are now COMMUNISM!!!!!! Total bs. Nothing has really changed except that people have become addicted to insulting slogans for the centrist and leftist view, which must be due to a drift towards extremism on the right. Nothing else remotely makes sense.
[Look at the poll to see where we have arrived politicially. No moderate votes on this topic!!!]
This is all fine in the abstract, but in reality wages often show very little correlation with worth to society. A cigarette salesmen will tend to make much more than a school teacher or college professor. And a "quant" cooking up snake oil on Wall Street will earn multiple times what a brain surgeon earns, even as he poisons the world economy. The market is not always right in its valuations about everything. Asking that a public school teacher earn, say $50k/year, is not asking for charity. It is simply providing a sensible value to a critical job. Of course, if you are really thinking (as I think many wealthier people are), damn if I will pay those losers above $30k, because my kids is going to Lord Fauntleroy Academy! If you cannot afford it, you are a loser parasite! So, valuation is a conversation, and a messy one.
I don't think most Democrats devalue profit, far from it. But they know that it needs to be balanced with some civic responsibility. Assuming that pure greed is best for society is even more foolish. That push for balance is spun by the propagandists as a push toward communism. Hardly, very, very few people who observed the communist dictatorships and failures of the 20th Century want to go that route. However, nearly all the successful countries in the world today pursue some sort of mixed economy with strong and collaborative public and private sectors. But the right has drank so much of its own kool aid that the self-evident models all around the world and even in their own country for last century are now COMMUNISM!!!!!! Total bs.
Nice post.
The biggest gap between my vision and the reality is the tragic condition of our education system. If we want to promote the idea that we each are in charge of extracting whatever fraction of our own potential we care to, then we really need to start people out with the ability to read, write, spell, and figure. And that doesn't seem to be happening.
The biggest gap between my vision and the reality is the tragic condition of our education system. If we want to promote the idea that we each are in charge of extracting whatever fraction of our own potential we care to, then we really need to start people out with the ability to read, write, spell, and figure. And that doesn't seem to be happening.
There are countless highly educated people these days that are being forced to work any job they can simply to makes ends meet. That's the problem with the right wing analogy that "people should be paid what they worth" which in their minds means to have highly overqualified people fill positions they are very overqualified for as the jobs they could be filling, are sent overseas to up the profit margins of the very rich.
Also look at the GOP propaganda machine, they are making out teachers and those that thrive for higher education to be the enemy and that being an uneducated, obedient imbecile is a good thing.
Simply put, the democratic ideal is to put these hard working, educated people in positions the are qualified for, to allow them to bring diversity and competition to the market, and allow everyone from the ditch digger to the corporate CEO to thrive.
The GOP would rather screw over everyone so the corporate execs can get every single penny they can.
There are countless highly educated people these days that are being forced to work any job they can simply to makes ends meet. That's the problem with the right wing analogy that "people should be paid what they worth" which in their minds means to have highly overqualified people fill positions they are very overqualified for as the jobs they could be filling, are sent overseas to up the profit margins of the very rich.
Also look at the GOP propaganda machine, they are making out teachers and those that thrive for higher education to be the enemy and that being an uneducated, obedient imbecile is a good thing.
Simply put, the democratic ideal is to put these hard working, educated people in positions the are qualified for, to allow them to bring diversity and competition to the market, and allow everyone from the ditch digger to the corporate CEO to thrive.
The GOP would rather screw over everyone so the corporate execs can get every single penny they can.
This can't be entirely true, because very few GOP voters are CEOs, but perhaps they have been able to convince the rank and file that they are all just temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
Our differences arise from the question of whether or not it is possible to "give" a wage level or the ability to thrive to anyone. In my view, we earn by being of value to the rest of society. It is not possible to either systematically underpay or overpay on a sustainable basis. Wages are not a form of charity; they are mutually agreed payments for performing a job. Small business income is likewise not charity, but the net result of the attempt to provide a product or service to society. Any small business may increase its income by being more valuable to more customers. Any wage-earner may increase his or her income by becoming more valuable to potential employers.
For the most part, Democrats and Republicans do not enter into the equation--except insofar as they might promote policies that decrease the demand for labor, or depress overall levels of business activity.
What you argue is that those are royally compensated deserve their compensation because they create wealth. That theory goes against what we have witnessed with our own eyes. Corporate executives often control the Board that sets their salaries. It's a wash my back, I'll wash yours, relationship.
Moreover, in the aftermath of the financial meltdown it's even harder to accept that theory, as economist Joseph Stiglitz points out:
Quote:
Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin. The corporate executives who helped bring on the recession of the past three years—whose contribution to our society, and to their own companies, has been massively negative—went on to receive large bonuses. In some cases, companies were so embarrassed about calling such rewards “performance bonuses” that they felt compelled to change the name to “retention bonuses” (even if the only thing being retained was bad performance). Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin.
Nobody can seriously claim that a Saudi prince, that officially heads and oil company but does very little work, actually deserves their high compensation. Their compensation is merely the result of a power system that control wealth. Likewise, in America, the corporate aristocracy are compensated lavishly because they have the power to make it so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
