Take about 18 minutes out of your day and watch this video......regardless of your political affiliation.
http://youtu.be/GDtSSFEZY38
Thoughts?
I'm at work, so I'll look at it later and tell you what I think, if able.
Quote from: ConanEdo on May 22, 2014, 11:43:44 AM
If Taysby disagrees, it's a good idea. Without even looking this is to undo Citizens Untied which I am for as well.
Pretty much yes it is to undo citizens united with a constitutional amendment
Quote from: Taysby on May 22, 2014, 11:08:01 AM
There were a multitude of problems I noticed with it, but I'll focus on the proposed amendment
1). The businesses will have no rights? That leaves them open for the government to abuse them and put unneeded restrictions and regulations on them that will mainly kill small business and leave big corporations open but with raised prices.
2). Spending money is free speech. I want to tell a lot of people I support person a so I pay for a tv ad. Under that, I wouldn't be able to do that.
1) The constitution was not created or defended to allow corporate personhood. The Supreme Court, corporate lobbyist, and corrupt politicians have perverted the legislative system and loosely interpreted the constitution in a manner that allows the tailoring of laws that suit special interest and big business. The small business claim used by conservatives is just a ploy to trick everyday citizens into voting against their interest. They make claims that govt regulation or removal of unjust tax laws will hurt small business as well. This is just a way to make people feel like they will be harmed by these changes as well when typically the regulations will make it easier for small business to compete in different markets.
2) You, as a person, can spend money on a TV add to say whatever you want about .politics.. Why should businesses and special interest groups be allowed to do so? It is another perversion of our civil rights......the civil rights were established for oppression from bigger entities.....be it govt or whatever. Those rights were designed for the individual citizen.
Citizens United perverted that civil right by stating that taking away the right for businesses and special interest groups to make campaign contributions does not allow the citizens to hear that message put forth by those entities. It is freedom of speech....not freedom of hearing!
Back to my point about the establishment of the freedom of speech. Like I said, it was designed for individual in order to protect them from oppression from bigger entities. These campaign contributions from these big entities are in fact oppressing us by swaying these campaigns to fit the needs of the few instead of the many. Under that reason is why I feel our freedom of speech is being perverted in a way to be used against us to support this BS claim of corporate personhood and they are laughing all the way to the bank as they continue to trick voters into voting against their interest and siphon money from the average joe.
I'm all for anything that slows down mega corporations
The wording is anti AI, I have a problem with that :)
Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2014, 01:36:50 PM
The wording is anti AI, I have a problem with that :)
Anti AI?
Quote from: Taysby on May 22, 2014, 01:57:33 PM
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 22, 2014, 12:56:29 PM
Quote from: Taysby on May 22, 2014, 11:08:01 AM
There were a multitude of problems I noticed with it, but I'll focus on the proposed amendment
1). The businesses will have no rights? That leaves them open for the government to abuse them and put unneeded restrictions and regulations on them that will mainly kill small business and leave big corporations open but with raised prices.
2). Spending money is free speech. I want to tell a lot of people I support person a so I pay for a tv ad. Under that, I wouldn't be able to do that.
1) The constitution was not created or defended to allow corporate personhood. The Supreme Court, corporate lobbyist, and corrupt politicians have perverted the legislative system and loosely interpreted the constitution in a manner that allows the tailoring of laws that suit special interest and big business. The small business claim used by conservatives is just a ploy to trick everyday citizens into voting against their interest. They make claims that govt regulation or removal of unjust tax laws will hurt small business as well. This is just a way to make people feel like they will be harmed by these changes as well when typically the regulations will make it easier for small business to compete in different markets.
2) You, as a person, can spend money on a TV add to say whatever you want about .politics.. Why should businesses and special interest groups be allowed to do so? It is another perversion of our civil rights......the civil rights were established for oppression from bigger entities.....be it govt or whatever. Those rights were designed for the individual citizen.
Citizens United perverted that civil right by stating that taking away the right for businesses and special interest groups to make campaign contributions does not allow the citizens to hear that message put forth by those entities. It is freedom of speech....not freedom of hearing!
Back to my point about the establishment of the freedom of speech. Like I said, it was designed for individual in order to protect them from oppression from bigger entities. These campaign contributions from these big entities are in fact oppressing us by swaying these campaigns to fit the needs of the few instead of the many. Under that reason is why I feel our freedom of speech is being perverted in a way to be used against us to support this BS claim of corporate personhood and they are laughing all the way to the bank as they continue to trick voters into voting against their interest and siphon money from the average joe.
You didn't respond to the point that it would allow for more ridiculous restrictions and legislation so that shouldn't be put on business. And Why do you have a problem with big businesses like Walmart? They are constantly working to lower prices, give you quality service, and increase the standard of living? They aren't screwing over the average joe. They started out as small businesses and people liked them so they just kept on expanding.
I assumed "me" was the owner of a company. I would be working to do what's best for the company, which would then result in lower prices and better quality service for the customer.
How are they oppressing us? All they are doing is getting people educated with the candidate and what the candidate will do. There are still debates and such for the candidates to speak their opinions and the people to get I censored information.
I am not ok with the income gap that has trended since poor legislation such as Reagonomics and other crazy ideas to privatize as much of govt as possible. The average CEO once made 20-30 times the amount one of the company employees make. Nowadays this figure is around 300-1000+ times the amount one of the company employees make. The low taxes on the super wealthy only encourage hoarding that money and paying themselves more. If you eliminated the Reagon tax cuts you would see something like a tax rate of 90% on everything someone earned in a year past like $3 million. Now that seems high at 90% but that is everything beyond $3mill.....everything before $3mill is taxed regular. So this translates into company deciding if they want to give away 90% do they can pay their CEOs and executives super massive amounts of money or they could just pay them $3 million and use the rest to reinvest into the economy, pay the lower paid worker more, give more to charity, or do anything besides hoard the wealth like they do now!
I also can't stand the demonizing of people using the welfare system, unemployment, Medicare, etc. When you break it down to costs....it is obvious that big business takes advantage of govt dollars more than someone taking advantage of a social welfare system.
I could also trend on the privatization of war and the massive amounts of wasted tax dollars that go to defense contractor corporations. There is a lot of tax money waste but people tend to get tricked into only looking at the social welfare systems that help the poor instead of paying attention to corporate welfare!
One of my gripes with Walmart: move all production jobs to Mexico.
Take over small towns, destroying local business in the process and making small communities dependent upon Walmart.
Taysby -
People don't build business for the sole purpose of making money. Yes it is the largest driver but a big part is just the desire to be accomplished and the status of being "that person". So your argument that business would faulter as a result of higher taxes if just false in my opinion so I guess we will agree to disagree on taxation and what is deemed proper pay. I was not saying a burger flipper should be paid millions but the last thing I will say about low income people is that big companies take more advantage of social welfare systems by using these low paid workers.
To delve more into my point on that....let's take a Walmart worker since you earlier spoke so highly of the good deeds they do for our populace. Now wlamarts moto is to pay people the minimum and work them just enough hours so the worker can supplement their income with food stamps, free health care, etc. Now that extra cost comes out of the tax payer's pocket and not so much wlamarts. Now if Walmart paid a fair wage and worked the employees the proper hours they deserve so they can get employee provided health care....well then the tax burden of those social programs subside a bit, in-turn, freeing up more dollars to be spent locally. But that just does not make sense right??? Walmart is great!!! Junky stuff made oversees.....actually forced to be made oversees by Walmart.....just look up older Rubber Maid articles out there and you will see that Walmart threatened Rubber Maid if they did not lower prices by shipping manufacturing oversees. But hey nothing wrong with a big guy pushing a little guy around right???? After all it's just business!
Quote from: Taysby on May 22, 2014, 01:57:52 PM
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 22, 2014, 01:47:34 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2014, 01:36:50 PM
The wording is anti AI, I have a problem with that :)
Anti AI?
I'm confused as well...
Artificial Intelligence lol
This seems like a good idea, but I have to disagree with both parties. Spending money is free speech, but corporations shouldn't have the right to free speech and ergo shouldn't have the right to contribute moneys to political campaigns. Businesses would not be abused as you have stated, because we haven't had this ruling very long, and yet businesses have still thrived. To your, "no money=no business" comment, in a perfectly competitive capitalist market, there is not supposed to be any profit. Entrepreneurs are supposed to make "normal profit" (basically a salary), but shouldn't make anything over that in the long run. TL;DR: Support the 28th Amendment!
Let's expand more on govt providing social programs. Now let's contrast two examples that involve similar economic situations at a macro scale.
First was the Great Depression in 1929. The result of this economic collapse was starvation and utter misery and/or death for millions of people.
Next was the crash of 2009. This debatably was just as bad of a crash. One reason it can be debated as less of a crash is because of social welfare programs. No one had to starve because of unemployment insurance and food programs. Now would it have been fair for the children of those families to starve or even the adults who made the mistakes....or whatever the circumstance? Maybe someone will say yes they should because what incentivizes them to succeed? My answer would be the threat of failure is enough to empower people to succeed.....the reliance of social programs is just a form of safety net like insurance. I don't go out and crash my car intentionally because I can make an insurance claim......just the same as someone with a decent job will not lose it intentionally just to go on food stamps. Now sure people abuse the system and do infact go on unemployment or collect food stamps fraudulently and I do not support that......but the good it does out weigh the bad. Just like some politicians are corrupt and some are not. Corruption will occur in most situations....it's human nature when considering the macro side of things.
Guys watch this video. This guy talking , Thom Hartman, is a great mind and a well minded progressive who is definitely more left but he is not an extremist. He has some conservative ideals, albeit few, and he always provides factual support on anything he debates or talks about. He has a radio talk show I used to listen to a lot as well.
Super great mind of our day and age!
Quote from: Taysby on May 22, 2014, 04:07:04 PM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on May 22, 2014, 03:53:18 PM
Quote from: Taysby on May 22, 2014, 01:57:52 PM
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 22, 2014, 01:47:34 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2014, 01:36:50 PM
The wording is anti AI, I have a problem with that :)
Anti AI?
I'm confused as well...
Artificial Intelligence lol
This seems like a good idea, but I have to disagree with both parties. Spending money is free speech, but corporations shouldn't have the right to free speech and ergo shouldn't have the right to contribute moneys to political campaigns. Businesses would not be abused as you have stated, because we haven't had this ruling very long, and yet businesses have still thrived. To your, "no money=no business" comment, in a perfectly competitive capitalist market, there is not supposed to be any profit. Entrepreneurs are supposed to make "normal profit" (basically a salary), but shouldn't make anything over that in the long run. TL;DR: Support the 28th Amendment!
They shouldn't have the right to support the candidate that would make their customers happier?
First of all, there is no such this as perfectly this society's. And entrepreneurs would make their business better than their competitors so their business gets more money, so he gets paid more, and their competing CEO would get paid less, they fight for the money they want to make.
If they are just supposed to make a normal salary, why wouldn't they just get a normal job and not have to take all of the risk, or work the obscene hours?
No, the customers should take it into their own hands. They can vote.
Again, read an economics textbook before you try to argue with me about economics. Here is a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition
"in the long run, economic profit cannot be sustained. The arrival of new firms or expansion of existing firms (if returns to scale are constant) in the market causes the (horizontal) demand curve of each individual firm to shift downward, bringing down at the same time the price, the average revenue and marginal revenue curve. The final outcome is that, in the long run, the firm will make only normal profit (zero economic profit)."-Wikipedia
Quote from: Taysby on May 22, 2014, 04:15:13 PM
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 22, 2014, 04:00:34 PM
Guys watch this video. This guy talking , Thom Hartman, is a great mind and a well minded progressive who is definitely more left but he is not an extremist. He has some conservative ideals, albeit few, and he always provides factual support on anything he debates or talks about. He has a radio talk show I used to listen to a lot as well.
Super great mind of our day and age!
He does provide facts and he's really close to the middle. However there were a couple things I had problems with. The no taxation without representation thing for instance. He said that they were revolting from tax cuts and making it sound like they were hating out the competitors. What really happened was they unfairly taxed the Americans, and gave the company a bye on it, so they were being taxed unfairly without being repressed fairly.
Umm..you might want to watch the video again. He said that the Tea Tax was a tax cut to the East India Trading Company which gave them a huge advantage over the local firms, driving American businesses out of business. It is a common (but illegal) practice called dumping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_%28pricing_policy%29).
Quote from: Taysby on May 22, 2014, 04:11:34 PM
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 22, 2014, 03:56:02 PM
Let's expand more on govt providing social programs. Now let's contrast two examples that involve similar economic situations at a macro scale.
First was the Great Depression in 1929. The result of this economic collapse was starvation and utter misery and/or death for millions of people.
Next was the crash of 2009. This debatably was just as bad of a crash. One reason it can be debated as less of a crash is because of social welfare programs. No one had to starve because of unemployment insurance and food programs. Now would it have been fair for the children of those families to starve or even the adults who made the mistakes....or whatever the circumstance? Maybe someone will say yes they should because what incentivizes them to succeed? My answer would be the threat of failure is enough to empower people to succeed.....the reliance of social programs is just a form of safety net like insurance. I don't go out and crash my car intentionally because I can make an insurance claim......just the same as someone with a decent job will not lose it intentionally just to go on food stamps. Now sure people abuse the system and do infact go on unemployment or collect food stamps fraudulently and I do not support that......but the good it does out weigh the bad. Just like some politicians are corrupt and some are not. Corruption will occur in most situations....it's human nature when considering the macro side of things.
There is way too much corruption I the welfare system. If there wasn't so much, and people don't get money while they spend the money they do have on drugs/cigaretts/alcohol, etc then I'd be fine with it, but government haven't proven that they can fix those problems
Bottom line, I support welfare for people who need it, but rift now, there's way too much corruptions, and government haven't proven themselves capable of running good systems, hence why I'm opposed.
59 billion on social welfare programs yearly
92 billion on corporate subsidies
I would argue that social welfare programs are also subsidizing corporations via the Walmart example I put forth earlier. So if you took even 25% from the social welfare programs and put it in the corporate subsidies figure than it would look like this:
44.25 social welfare programs
106.75 corporate subsidies
Now lets do some more math and say at least 10-20% of these numbers are being abused and then the numbers look like;
4.425-8.85 to fraudulent users of social welfare
35.4-40 to needed recipients of social welfare
10.675-21.35 to fraudulent corporate subsidies
85.4-96.075 to corporate subsidies
Why is corporate welfare ok but social welfare is not? Social welfare invests in our nations human Capitol whereas the latter invests in making big business bigger. I see the problem there.
To rebuttal your last statement....if govt has not proven to run good systems.....I would point you to my early point that social welfare did prevent a full blown depression during the 2009 collapse. That is the tough thing about proactive programs.....hard to prove them functional....it's easier to prove them when they fail. That is why conservatives use the "food stamp queen" talking point......it's the only real thing they can point to as being a "failure"
Quote from: Taysby on May 22, 2014, 04:38:48 PM
I can't remember where, but I read on a reputable website that ~50% of welfare funds went to unnecessary things like porn and smoking.
Where did I say corporate welfare was ok?...
It didn't do anything to lessen the depression, just put people on food stamps as opposed to going to soup kitchens.
That last paragraph was very short sighted my friend. Of course it helped the economy. If someone gets food stamps then they can pay their bills....then the bill collectors can reinvest in the economy.
How does that not help during a financial collapse???
Quote from: Taysby on May 22, 2014, 04:29:32 PM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on May 22, 2014, 04:18:25 PM
Quote from: Taysby on May 22, 2014, 04:07:04 PM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on May 22, 2014, 03:53:18 PM
Quote from: Taysby on May 22, 2014, 01:57:52 PM
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 22, 2014, 01:47:34 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2014, 01:36:50 PM
The wording is anti AI, I have a problem with that :)
Anti AI?
I'm confused as well...
Artificial Intelligence lol
This seems like a good idea, but I have to disagree with both parties. Spending money is free speech, but corporations shouldn't have the right to free speech and ergo shouldn't have the right to contribute moneys to political campaigns. Businesses would not be abused as you have stated, because we haven't had this ruling very long, and yet businesses have still thrived. To your, "no money=no business" comment, in a perfectly competitive capitalist market, there is not supposed to be any profit. Entrepreneurs are supposed to make "normal profit" (basically a salary), but shouldn't make anything over that in the long run. TL;DR: Support the 28th Amendment!
They shouldn't have the right to support the candidate that would make their customers happier?
First of all, there is no such this as perfectly this society's. And entrepreneurs would make their business better than their competitors so their business gets more money, so he gets paid more, and their competing CEO would get paid less, they fight for the money they want to make.
If they are just supposed to make a normal salary, why wouldn't they just get a normal job and not have to take all of the risk, or work the obscene hours?
No, the customers should take it into their own hands. They can vote.
Again, read an economics textbook before you try to argue with me about economics. Here is a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition
"in the long run, economic profit cannot be sustained. The arrival of new firms or expansion of existing firms (if returns to scale are constant) in the market causes the (horizontal) demand curve of each individual firm to shift downward, bringing down at the same time the price, the average revenue and marginal revenue curve. The final outcome is that, in the long run, the firm will make only normal profit (zero economic profit)."-Wikipedia
Yes, I know that, however, if company a is better than company b then they will get more money and b will get less money. In the long run, if more people keep coming in, profit will hit 0, but why would they want to, if there isn't very much money to be made?
And do you honestly think most of the public understands economics enough to know what will lower prices?
To your first point: read the link, learn about economics, then get back to me.
To your second: The point of the quote wasn't to show that it lowers price, but that there is no profit in the long run. Also, yes most of the public understands the concept, because all it boils down to is competition=lower prices, which is taught in every high school in America.
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 22, 2014, 03:56:02 PM
Let's expand more on govt providing social programs. Now let's contrast two examples that involve similar economic situations at a macro scale.
First was the Great Depression in 1929. The result of this economic collapse was starvation and utter misery and/or death for millions of people.
Next was the crash of 2009. This debatably was just as bad of a crash. One reason it can be debated as less of a crash is because of social welfare programs. No one had to starve because of unemployment insurance and food programs. Now would it have been fair for the children of those families to starve or even the adults who made the mistakes....or whatever the circumstance? Maybe someone will say yes they should because what incentivizes them to succeed? My answer would be the threat of failure is enough to empower people to succeed.....the reliance of social programs is just a form of safety net like insurance. I don't go out and crash my car intentionally because I can make an insurance claim......just the same as someone with a decent job will not lose it intentionally just to go on food stamps. Now sure people abuse the system and do infact go on unemployment or collect food stamps fraudulently and I do not support that......but the good it does out weigh the bad. Just like some politicians are corrupt and some are not. Corruption will occur in most situations....it's human nature when considering the macro side of things.
No, people did not starve because of green revolution of 1960s. How many million exactly starved to death as a result of Great Depression?
Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2014, 05:20:26 PM
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 22, 2014, 03:56:02 PM
Let's expand more on govt providing social programs. Now let's contrast two examples that involve similar economic situations at a macro scale.
First was the Great Depression in 1929. The result of this economic collapse was starvation and utter misery and/or death for millions of people.
Next was the crash of 2009. This debatably was just as bad of a crash. One reason it can be debated as less of a crash is because of social welfare programs. No one had to starve because of unemployment insurance and food programs. Now would it have been fair for the children of those families to starve or even the adults who made the mistakes....or whatever the circumstance? Maybe someone will say yes they should because what incentivizes them to succeed? My answer would be the threat of failure is enough to empower people to succeed.....the reliance of social programs is just a form of safety net like insurance. I don't go out and crash my car intentionally because I can make an insurance claim......just the same as someone with a decent job will not lose it intentionally just to go on food stamps. Now sure people abuse the system and do infact go on unemployment or collect food stamps fraudulently and I do not support that......but the good it does out weigh the bad. Just like some politicians are corrupt and some are not. Corruption will occur in most situations....it's human nature when considering the macro side of things.
No, people did not starve because of green revolution of 1960s. How many million exactly starved to death as a result of Great Depression?
More than during the 2009 crash was all my point was stating. It is actually pretty hard to find numbers on the death count attributed to starvation but even if it was in the tens of thousands.....it could have been avoided with proper social welfare programs.
http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/12297/how-many-people-in-the-us-starved-to-death-during-the-great-depression
No, my point is that socialism is less damaging now than 100 years ago because technology of producing food and other wealth is much better now. Even with the scourge of socialism and subsequent financial crash caused by over regulation of the mortgage markets (Mac and Mae had government guarantees and 2/3 of the market, you cannot dispute these facts) no one starved.
Following your link reveals that your claims of starvation deaths during depression are coming from Soviet Union Pravda. The actual facts are that average length of human life in US during Great Depression objectively increased. How about that? :p
On the other hands, in places where socialism is fully implemented we had real starvation, real queuing, real famine.
Perhaps I should stop using the term 'socialism and the likes' and replace it with 'Central planning'.