So... outright authoritarianism then?  That was a quick jump... i mean... really?

Otusde which... right now buisnesses DON'T have anything else to spend it on.   They have record profits, and yet, there is no real demand increase.  The only signfiicant demand increase we've really had has been fake government demand, which buisnesses were smart enough not to expand into because it's a losing proposition.

It's why we have record profits, but an unemployment rate that would be 11% if the partcipation rate was the same as when Obama took office and had 8.1 unemployment.  (Unemployment was just announced today to be the lowest since January 2009... you know, not counting the huge participation rate drop.)

If I were wrong and you were right and money does matter, then it would make sense to spend money to get a president in who you think would be better for the economy and buisness.  Companies normally would rather expand their pie then get a bigger piece of what exists afterall.

While if I'm right... it's not really being wasted anyway, because there is nowhere to go with that money anyway.... and hey there is more money to hire people like you... which  you'll use to buy stuff theoretically... granted, only some of those types of jobs would be permanent which is a bummer... but at least there will be some increase in permanent demand.

Eh, the odd hours bar me from the one job with the labor unions (can't take public transit at those hours, and my old car isn't up to commuting that far. Lost a tire and brakes just getting to the interview...). Haven't heard from the other one

It comes back to something we've discussed before, that businesses should be incentivized (though not straight-up forced) to spend money productively, to force them off of cash-hording and, in this case, rent-seeking.

The best way to incentivize is the standard free-market solutions. You can only disincentivize rent seeking by reducing the scope of Government.

And, that, really, is the fundamental solution to this whole money-in-elections campaign. It is physically impossible to prevent corporate money in politics, and so the only way to tackle it is to make it less worthwhile, that is, reduce the scope of the Government (here's one example - school dinners. If Government wasn't in charge of dictating what goes into a dinner, you would get less money from the food industry flowing into the Government).

That's a shame.  If anyone could use some good people it's the labor unions.  They've taken a beating lately.

I'm pro labor unions msyself, though i think part of it is on them as they tend to operate dumb using there power to save people who quite honestly shouldn't be saved, leading to lost productivity, hiring of new (hopefully) competent workers while keeping around the saftey violators and just in general people who do nothing.

Which hurts the companys bottom line.  Often leading to layoffs and people having to leave because some of the jackasses who hired on before them have seniority.

Yeah I thought it was going to be something along those lines as well. The "1% in tax for defense or the constitution?"  part I had no idea, which is why I clicked on the thread.

"I don't believe USAsians are as stupid as Europe thinks but the evidence is starting to overwhelm."

Do all Europeans really think this because  over 300,000,000 people is a large population to generalize.

Yes, all 740 million Europeans think that.

I tend to agree with that. Unions need to better-discipline themselves much like management does, but if we tilt too far in the interests of big business, we'll see deteriorating conditions all over.

I also don't agree in the Union's support of economic Protectionism. There should be an option for not treating american workers like garbage that doesn't involve tarriffs.

it doesn't seem so much like discipline as it does a change in culture.

Instead of "The union looks out for everbody"

it becomes "Everybody looks out for Everybody else."

Taxes were 1% in 1776?