By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
badgenome on 17 August 2011
Edit Thread
fordy said:
badgenome said:

I just don't see why it would significantly change the market. Instead of just assuming that all employers are Dickensian villains, put yourself in their shoes and think logically: if you have a reliable employee, are you really going to replace them with someone new and unproven just because you can pay them a few bucks less a month? Of course not. And strictly from a standpoint of cost, if you have invested anything at all in training your employees, it wouldn't even be close to worth it.

So you only spend a few bucks a month on social security? And you're seriously wondering why it's going dry? For gods sake, add a bit more to your retirement, you tightwads!

Need I remind you of Microsoft? When they were simply giving away software (oh, what a crime), they were villainized beyond belief as some kind of evil monopoly. Now that they just hire lobbyists like everyone else, no one really gives a fuck about them. I assume you think it's Republicans who are in the pockets of big business, but why is it Democrats who receive the most money? In particular that shining white knight Barack Obama, who is planning to raise $1 billion for his reelection: that money isn't going to all come from small donors, especially not in this economy. Big business is totally cool with big government, because they can generally nudge regulations in the direction that they want, and who really cares when you have a department of compliance bigger than most other companies? The only people who find regulations truly limiting are small businesses.

I'd like a source on this, please. If I recall, there was a ton of campaign money thrown around for the Republican pre-elections, particularly on Gingrich. So what's your logic? The corporations are funding the Democrats? I thought the Democrats were for tighter regulation. I think we're mixing up regulation with subsidies. Regulation should be there so corporations don't go poisoning us all, or reclessly killing expendable workers in a mine somewhere. Subsidies should only be used to transition to better technologies smoothly, not to pay existing monopolies.

So if it's in terms f regulation vs subsidies, why are the Republicans against closing tax loopholes for corporate jet owners? Why are they against ending oil subsidies?

By the way, it's not as if this stuff is undisclosed like you suggest. It has to be disclosed, but... what does that mean? It's not like the media does a great job informing people, even when it doesn't have an agenda. So the information is out there, but unless you dig it up yourself or the media decides to slap you in the face with it, you'll probably never know about it. It's transparency without transparency.

The edia doesn't seem to be into it's job anymore. They're supposed to keep the bastards honest, but most times when I watch interviews with american politicians, it seems more like an afternoon chat over a cup of tea and piece of cake. Nobody is calling anyone on their bullshit anymore.

Again, I submit that the only way to really deal with the problem is to devolve power back to the states. Why should someone who lives on the ass end of the country have to follow all the ins and outs of some shitty little city on the eastern seaboard just to be able to make an informed decision when he goes to vote? Hooray for Australia and all that, but 310 million wildly diverse people cannot fucking be centrally governed.

That sounds more like urban vs regional to me. I'm not sure about many states there, but our states consist usually of one MASSIVE city, and a bunch of smaller towns. the states should have some power yes, and federal should have power over things the country holds dear. But idealistically, I'd say first thing would be to work towards decentralisation for each state, then look at holding state vs federal debate.



Don't be so literal. When I say a few bucks, I mean in relative terms. It's chump change to an employer, but not to anyone who's making, say, less than $30k a year. And as I've said before, the employee ends up paying the employer's share, because that's all figured into the cost of hiring someone and in making the decision as to how much you're going to pay them. But yeah, I'd be glad to save more for my retirement - unfortunately, it's just going to some fucking government boondoggle instead.

Both sides receive big money from business, but with the 2008 elections Democrats finally eclipsed Republicans for the first time in decades, and Wall Street has already given Obama almost as much towards his reelection as they did in during his entire first campaign. Why on Earth would they do this if they weren't benefitting from his policies? The idea that Republicans are owned by big business while the Democrats are the champions of the little guy is a stubborn piece of fiction, and apparently it doesn't limit itself to just my country.

Do you really take Obama's demagoging about private jets at face value? He apparently thought the accelerated depreciation program for private jets was a good enough economic stimulant to include it in his stimulus bill, for which only three Republicans voted out of both houses of Congress - and one of them turned Democrat shortly thereafter. What sort of brilliant and considered economic leadership is this, extending a tax credit one day because it's apparently so critical for economic recovery and then railing against it the next?

And if it's only Republicans who are in bed with Big Oil, BP is really fucking stupid for giving more money to Obama than to anyone else. I mean, I'm opposed to all this shit myself - subsidies and scads of very specific deductions that only benefit the very rich and whatnot - but to squabble over what amounts to a rounding error in the federal budget ($21 billion for oil, I believe) when the house is burning down around us... is nonsense and a total distraction.

I don't really agree on the urban vs. regional bit, either. Someone in New York City is just as controlled by the feds as is someone in Paducah, Kentucky. They just happen to have NYC's overbearing nanny state bearing down on them as well. At any rate, it would make more sense to me to let state capitals take over before decentralizing further, wouldn't it? How can you have a local government trump the state goverment, but not the federal government?