• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie Sanders rolls out ‘Stop WALMART Act’ that would block stock buybacks until retailer raises pa

poweRob said:
Stock bye backs should be hindered and highly regulated. This is a very small move of what should be a very big move against such actions on wall street. The only thing that outrages you about this is Bernie's name being a part of it.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. The government has no business interfering with the ordinary operations of businesses.
 
poweRob said:
It doesn't target specific firms. It is a threshold. If you are a company on wall street employing over 500 employees you can't do stock buy backs unless you pay your employees a $15 minimum wage. The stock buy backs are simply back door bonuses for executives that isn't in their paycheck.
Click to expand...
Nonsense.
 
Bullseye said:
Nonsense. The government has no business interfering with the ordinary operations of businesses.
Click to expand...

I take it you aren't a Smith Libertarian. The government is required. You can't have monopolies running free and if you are going to have a government at all, you need to collect taxes from all businesses. I think this particular move would be abhorrent if it were going to happen in any imaginary world. However, an unregulated market would be just as scary to me.
 
Bullseye said:
Nonsense. The government has no business interfering with the ordinary operations of businesses.
Click to expand...

Shall the government continue to provide benefits for employees while the "business" reaps profits for shareholders?
 
Bullseye said:
Nonsense. The government has no business interfering with the ordinary operations of businesses.
Click to expand...

All economies have rules that are set. So you are just going to have to get over your puritanistic notions of "free trade" economics that really don't exist anywhere.
 
Keridan said:
I think we are too close in our opinions to keep this train of thought going. Just wanted to say thanks for the nice discussion.
Click to expand...

Dammit... did I ruin it? Do you need a "EFFF YOU!" to keep this going? ;)
 
poweRob said:
It's trying to recoup from large corporations their penchant of bilking taxpayer subsidized employees for their companies. Where these highly profitably companies are offloading their employees healthcare to medicaid and other government subsidies while their execs do stock buy backs and get insane $'s at the same time.
Click to expand...
The whole notion of government "subsidizing" corporations by providing entitlements is idiotic ideological brain gas. There is no economic principle that I know of that says an employer has to pay enough for an employee to raise a family. Wages are determined by the value the employee adds to the bottom line and how difficult it would be to replace.
 
poweRob said:
Dammit... did I ruin it? Do you need a "EFFF YOU!" to keep this going? ;)
Click to expand...

I actually loled ... I'm happy to keep discussing any point with a rational person and will enjoy the hell out of it, but you and I are so close, I don't know how much we're adding to the discussion.

If you want to get into what I think of Bernie's views or government regulation, I suspect we could find a few areas to tell each other to FO :)
 
Bullseye said:
The whole notion of government "subsidizing" corporations by providing entitlements is idiotic ideological brain gas. There is no economic principle that I know of that says an employer has to pay enough for an employee to raise a family. Wages are determined by the value the employee adds to the bottom line and how difficult it would be to replace.
Click to expand...

Your right. And we are going to change that. Of course there's always slavery and indentured servitude and the criminal element to subsidize living if you'd rather opt for that.
 
JMR said:
Shall the government continue to provide benefits for employees while the "business" reaps profits for shareholders?
Click to expand...
Where does it say that businesses are responsible for their employees lives?
 
Sanders needs to piss off.

Greeting people at the door is not a $15/an hour job.
 
Roadvirus said:
Sanders needs to piss off.

Greeting people at the door is not a $15/an hour job.
Click to expand...

Walmart doesn't have door greeters any more. Nice try though.
 
Bullseye said:
Nonsense. The government has no business interfering with the ordinary operations of businesses.
Click to expand...

Nothing says freedom like the government telling a company what they can and cannot do!!!
Liberals... walking, talking contradictions. :lol:
 
trixare4kids said:
Nothing says freedom like the government telling a company what they can and cannot do!!!
Liberals... walking, talking contradictions. :lol:
Click to expand...

Every economy is a set of rules generally set by a government. Time to desist with the ignorant platitudes.
 
Keridan said:
I take it you aren't a Smith Libertarian. The government is required. You can't have monopolies running free and if you are going to have a government at all, you need to collect taxes from all businesses. I think this particular move would be abhorrent if it were going to happen in any imaginary world. However, an unregulated market would be just as scary to me.
Click to expand...
I'm actually a conservatarian but that wasn't any available choice on the "leans" dialog "libertarian right" was closest. I also favor classic liberal tenets. I don't blindly adhere to any "school" of thought.
 
I like the debate here and honestly think government should always be limited on what they enforce in business practice and such.

I think the fact that there is no chance of this bill ever passing is getting lost, though. Sanders doesn't even imagine it will get voted on. He is using it as a tactic (like he has in the past) to try and bring public pressure on a company he thinks is doing bad things.

I sure don't believe all Walmart workers bring in anywhere near 15/hr. He's just trying to get a living wage the best way he can. He's actually practicing government the way he was elected to do. Even Bernie doesn't think this is a reasonable bill unless I really miss my guess.
 
JMR said:
Shall the government continue to provide benefits for employees while the "business" reaps profits for shareholders?
Click to expand...

That sounds like one of those badly-written ballot measures. :lol:
 
trixare4kids said:
Nothing says freedom like the government telling a company what they can and cannot do!!!
Liberals... walking, talking contradictions. :lol:
Click to expand...
I think we should go to part time Congress, like every other year. Fewer chances to screw everything up. Require their first action is to pass a clean budget.
 
Bullseye said:
I'm actually a conservatarian but that wasn't any available choice on the "leans" dialog "libertarian right" was closest. I also favor classic liberal tenets. I don't blindly adhere to any "school" of thought.
Click to expand...

It wasn't my intent to pigeon-hole you. I just wondered because it had Libertarian under your name.

Do you mean, though, that you are looking for completely unregulated business practices or did I misunderstand your basis?
 
Bullseye said:
Where does it say that businesses are responsible for their employees lives?
Click to expand...

This business does not pay their employees a living wage, so employees turn to your tax dollars for assistance. Meanwhile shareholders are raking in profits, and executives are making millions. But do defend them, it is clearly their right to act in this way.:roll:
 
GDViking said:
I think you meant trumps corruption...
Click to expand...

I really don't. Hillary is the one who kept Bernie from getting the primary. She could not defeat him when almost anyone else could. Then she got backlash and lost the general for a hundred reasons.

I'm not at all pretending Trump is free of any corruption or pretending I know whether or not he did any unethical acts to get the general. But sans Hillary, Bernie would have been a lock to win the general.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom