we can repeal citizens united at the exact same time, all money goes out of politics
repeat....all money
candidates would be given a budget by local/state/feds depending on what they are running for
no money from pacs, lobbyists, companies, or persons allowed in any election
you stand on your own....no party backing you with millions and millions
if citizens wish to donate to the process, they donate to the fund that all monies are paid out of....with zero political affiliation
no entity can campaign for a candidate (no lobbyists, no unions, no robocalls, no pac ads, nothing)
i have zero issue getting rid of citizens united....lets change the entire freaking think though
The richest are getting all the profit from a smarter, harder working labor base. That's unsustainable and unjust.
Prove that's the case. Yes, the richest are getting richer, but laborers are still agreeing to work for those wages. It's a reciprocal agreement. They could refuse to work for those wages if they wished and start their own companies to compete with the richest. So again I ask, what have the laborers done to earn more.
Prove that's the case. Yes, the richest are getting richer, but laborers are still agreeing to work for those wages. It's a reciprocal agreement. They could refuse to work for those wages if they wished and start their own companies to compete with the richest. So again I ask, what have the laborers done to earn more.
Sadly you are correct.
100%. Hell yes.
Naturally, it won't happen. Politics is a billion dollar a year industry.
And if they don't?
I don't know that there's anything sad about it. America was built on people going out on their own and competing with existing companies. If you have a better idea, if you want to do something differently, you find investors, you get a loan, you work hard and you put your own money, time and reputation on the line and create something yourself. Your labor is worth what someone is willing to pay you for it and not a single dime more. If you don't like what you're making, go find someone who will pay you more for your skills. Yet in this absurdly liberal society we have today, the workers don't want to actually innovate or find someone who thinks they're worth a premium, they want to get the government to force their employers to give them more money for the same work.
Depends on whose labor you're talking about. I benefit from the hard work of myself.
Tacit consent isn't a permanent foregone conclusion.
Sometimes there's a labor movement, sometimes there are guillotines.
So, in summary, you're okay with unions so long as they have no authority, leverage, or strength and are relegated to ornamental tributes to workers rather than functional organizations fit to actually serve their needs.
I'm sorry that conservative politicians act in opposition to the public positions of labor leaders. It's easier to catch flies with honey...
Tacit consent isn't a permanent foregone conclusion.
Sometimes there's a labor movement, sometimes there are guillotines.
The amount of money we spend on politics is ridiculous and sad. I remember when Mitt Romney was in Ohio during Superstorm Sandy asking for money and people were donating cans of Campbell's soup, meanwhile, you know his financial backers were pouring in billion dollar donations for him to run the campaign.
Meg Whitman spend 140 million of her own money on a failed campaign. All that money wasted. Just think how many storm victims and how many people she could have helped with 140 million.
It's disgusting how expensive political campaigns are.
My point is that the average salary has no increased much while costs have, but your conservative principles are still true. Frankly I think govt has been more of a problem than a solution, as Reagan like to say.
The richest are getting all the profit from a smarter, harder working labor base. That's unsustainable and unjust.
I don't know, my salary has certainly increased. Maybe the problem isn't the system but the people.
It's indisputable fact that income inequality in the United States has grown substantially in the past few decades.
Median nominal incomes, adjusted for inflation, have not gone up in the USA since the 50's. (Median is the halfway point, so we are talking about the middle-earner). In contrast, the per capita GDP has risen quite dramatically, due to the increased purchasing power of the upper echelon.
I pose three questions to you:
1.) What has caused this phenomenon
2.) What are the long term implications if the trend is allowed to continue
3.) What, if anything, should be done to adjust our course
Thanks
The economy is interdependent. We benefit on the hard work of everybody else participating in the economy. I easily see it in my coworkers. I don't have to do anybody else's job at my firm. There are no lazy people here.
i have zero issues with unions under the following restrictions
1. it has to be an open shop.....we live in a democracy.....not fair to make people join something they dont necessarily believe in
2. Dues have to be optional.....if the union does good work, then the dues will be paid.....if not, the union leaders can starve
I dont really think unions are necessary myself anymore.....but if people want them, fine
But they have to be open....not dictorial
Prove that's the case. Yes, the richest are getting richer, but laborers are still agreeing to work for those wages. It's a reciprocal agreement. They could refuse to work for those wages if they wished and start their own companies to compete with the richest. So again I ask, what have the laborers done to earn more.
My salary has too, but a couple of salaries doesn't make a trend. Frankly I don't know exact what's causing it, maybe the FED pumping money into the market, maybe it's the build up of taxes on the populace over the decades.
Do you feel the same when a corporation donates money to causes some stockholders disagree with?
i have zero issues with unions under the following restrictions
1. it has to be an open shop.....we live in a democracy.....not fair to make people join something they dont necessarily believe in
2. Dues have to be optional.....if the union does good work, then the dues will be paid.....if not, the union leaders can starve
I dont really think unions are necessary myself anymore.....but if people want them, fine
But they have to be open....not dictorial
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?