• 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!

Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

The company line?

It seems to me that it would be the non union workers who would toe the company line.

Point is, ten thousand union members kicking in a hundred bucks each is voluntary, just like one oligarch kicking in ten million. It's the same thing, and both of them expect a return on that investment (and usually get it).

By company, I mean Union.

I agree it's the same thing, but consider the thread title, and the message it's attempting to give. Do the Koch Bros have charitable foundations providing ideologically driven educational content to public schools? It's not just the money, it the depth and breadth of the effort. What the Koch Brothers appear to be doing pales in comparison to their ideological counterparts on the left.
 
Yes, that's what MA did. Do we need Obamacare? No, probably not. As you said, the states can take it on. Federal minimum wage? States could take that on, too, and have. Regulation of health insurance? States already took that on, yet the Republicans seem to want the feds to take it over. To me that seems a bit inconsistent.

Or, consistent..... with doublethink that is.

Glad we are in agreement, these are state issues
 
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.
 
That's why none of this gets solved. One year the Democrats get a lot more money than the Republicans, and the next year the Republicans get a lot more money than the Democrats. Neither side wants to shut down business because they know it could spell a bad year for their party. Shameful.

:agree: ... :thumbs:
 
Still playing silly huh? Figures.
No such right exists.

OK if you say so. I'm happy to know I can build a smelting plant next to your home without you objecting.
 
Glad we are in agreement, these are state issues

and that shoots down totally the "if only insurance companies could compete across state lines" solution to the most expensive health care on Earth.

What, again, is the Republican plan? I mean, once they overturn the ACA, what will replace it?
 
Why? because it seemed to me that you were trying to justify Obamacare being a Federal Program and pointing to what you seemed to feel were issues showing the public supporting what you called socialized programs. You didn't seem to understand the difference between a Federal Program and state programs as well as funding. I am not against states choosing to do what MA did so tell me again why we need ACA when the states can do the same thing as MA did?

Re-read post #639 and you'll see that you made several assumptions that were not based on what I actually wrote. I was addressing which government programs are labeled as socialist.
 
I'm expecting that the expect, and probably will get, a good return on investment.

Election are now the land of the rich and powerful. And they, the elected will always have debts to pay.
Democrats and Republicans are selling out the people.
Recall the history of the last great Republic.
 
Good for them.


/thread
 
LOL

I know it's important to avoid understanding why.

I know exactly why you think it is happening.

Because simply stating that corporate fiduciary duty ****ing REQUIRES the maximization of profit for stockholders and that means exploiting the desperate elsewhere and replacing expensive workers with machines just doesn't sway swing voters, nor maintain support for what our form of capitalism has become.

It is what it is, and we are subject to a constant barrage of persuasive messaging, squeaking the toy to distract us from what is demonstrably happening because we would never accept the current iteration of the "divvy up" and lots of folks are getting fat on the current model.

Y'all squawk about people needing to get the skills to compete in the new economy like there would be jobs for them if they did. And basically give a big "**** You" to all the janitors and cooks and sewer screen cleaners because their efforts don't generate profits for owners, the only worthy thing for any human to do in YOUR paradise.

Just to deconstruct one of your frames beforehand, labor cost differential completely negates any issues of taxes and regulations. One can literally get a whole small factory of semi skilled workers for 12-14 hours for what one burger flipper gets here for 8.

Business moved to foreign labor because it was cheaper and POSSIBLE due to advances in container ship technology, computers and telecommunication.

Because it is more profitable, plain and simple.

Same with automation. Simple truth. Business 101. Required by law for corporate officers.

Far too much of your rhetoric is a bald attempt to keep people from thinking about these simple, demonstrable truths. Because if they do, they will demand revision of our utterly made up economic philosophy because it is no longer serving everyone in our society. The balance of power between capital and labor has shifted too far towards capital, and capitalism is now serving the ownership class FAR better than it is serving the working class.
 
toles01302015.jpg
 
and that shoots down totally the "if only insurance companies could compete across state lines" solution to the most expensive health care on Earth.

What, again, is the Republican plan? I mean, once they overturn the ACA, what will replace it?

My hope is nothing as I have stated over and over again this is a state issue and up to the electorate of the state to decide, not a federal bureaucrat in D.C. I keep asking myself why does anyone still believe anything that comes out of Washington? Did you ever ask yourself why those Federal bureaucrats are pushing so hard for ACA? couldn't have anything to do with control, power, and more money now could it?
 
Re-read post #639 and you'll see that you made several assumptions that were not based on what I actually wrote. I was addressing which government programs are labeled as socialist.

So what you are telling me is you weren't basing support on Federal Govt. mandate for health insurance on state issues like schools, police, fire, roads, hospitals, etc? I made assumptions indeed based upon what you posted not what you think you said.

Most people in the USA have no problem with socialized schools, emergency medical services, police, fire fighting, road building and repair, public transportation etc. but if you advocate for socialized medical care you are labeled a socialist

Looks to me like you are comparing Federally mandated healthcare to state and local issues like the ones I mentioned. There is no comparison as healthcare is a personal issue
 
OK if you say so. I'm happy to know I can build a smelting plant next to your home without you objecting.
Oh look, more silliness from you. :doh Figures.

Again:
No such right exists.
You do not have the "right" to non-polluted air.


So back to the original comment.

You have a right to petition the Government for redress of your grievance, but as of yet there is nothing enunciated anywhere within the Constitution that says you have a "right" to breathe unpolluted air.

If that were the case, automobiles and chimneys would have been outlawed long ago.

Do you, or do you not understand that having a "right" to petition the Gov for redress of a grievance allows you to complain/seek redress etc... to stop that which is actually wrongly harming/affecting you?
But you have no "right" to unpolluted air (which was the false and corrected claim), as no such right exists, nor could it as all air is naturally polluted to some extent.

So stop playing your absurd game of bringing up irrelevant bs. No such right exists.
 
Oh look, more silliness from you. :doh Figures.

Again:
No such right exists.
You do not have the "right" to non-polluted air.


So back to the original comment.

You have a right to petition the Government for redress of your grievance, but as of yet there is nothing enunciated anywhere within the Constitution that says you have a "right" to breathe unpolluted air.

If that were the case, automobiles and chimneys would have been outlawed long ago.

Do you, or do you not understand that having a "right" to petition the Gov for redress of a grievance allows you to complain/seek redress etc... to stop that which is actually wrongly harming/affecting you?
But you have no "right" to unpolluted air (which was the false and corrected claim), as no such right exists, nor could it as all air is naturally polluted to some extent.

So stop playing your absurd game of bringing up irrelevant bs. No such right exists.

The constitution is not the last word in establishing our rights. The ninth amendment makes that clear: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In the USA the constitution, ratified treaties, case law and legislation determine our rights under the law. Otherwise, our rights are a matter of opinion. Google "right to clean air" and you will find many people and organizations who share my opinion that everyone has a right to clean air.

In passing the Clean Air Act of 1970 our legislators empowered citizens to sue polluters who violate limitations on air pollution and to sue regulators for failing to enforce the law. That is a defacto right to clean air. Not perfectly clean air, but relatively clean air per established standards.

"In 1970, when amending the Clean Air Act, the United States Congress was inspired by similar legislation in the civil rights arena[5] to begin including specific provisions for citizens to bring suit against violators or government agencies to enforce environmental laws. Today, most anti-pollution laws have provisions for citizen suits and they have become a major means of ensuring compliance with environmental laws."
Wikipedia

1970 Clean Air Act text: https://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/documents/publiclaws/PDF/91-604.pdf
 
The constitution is not the last word in establishing our rights. The ninth amendment makes that clear: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In the USA the constitution, ratified treaties, case law and legislation determine our rights under the law. Otherwise, our rights are a matter of opinion. Google "right to clean air" and you will find many people and organizations who share my opinion that we have a right to clean air.

In passing the Clean Air Act of 1970 our legislators empowered citizens to sue polluters who violate limitations on air pollution and to sue regulators for failing to enforce the law. That is a defacto right to clean air. Not perfectly clean air, but relatively clean air per established standards.

"In 1970, when amending the Clean Air Act, the United States Congress was inspired by similar legislation in the civil rights arena[5] to begin including specific provisions for citizens to bring suit against violators or government agencies to enforce environmental laws. Today, most anti-pollution laws have provisions for citizen suits and they have become a major means of ensuring compliance with environmental laws."
Wikipedia

1970 Clean Air Act text: https://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/documents/publiclaws/PDF/91-604.pdf

"The Constitution is what the judges say it is." --Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes
 
The government makes the rules ultimately, that where change needs to occur. Govt cannot control every aspect of your life though and make everything all fair. Too many rules can have their own unintended effects.

You're not saying much of anything. Yes, I agree, we don't want to have too much government and too many rules. Government cannot make everything fair. I agree with that too, so you're not really addressing anything that I have said. If you claim government itself creates poverty, not the 1%, not the private sector, not crony capitalism, etc., then you're failing to admit the very top of the 1% are influencing policy and legislation, and it's leading to crony markets, not free markets.
 
My hope is nothing as I have stated over and over again this is a state issue and up to the electorate of the state to decide, not a federal bureaucrat in D.C. I keep asking myself why does anyone still believe anything that comes out of Washington? Did you ever ask yourself why those Federal bureaucrats are pushing so hard for ACA? couldn't have anything to do with control, power, and more money now could it?
There is one example of a state actually taking it on. It seems like it's pretty successful:

But perhaps the most intriguing lesson from Hawaii has to do with costs. This is a state where regular milk sells for $8 a gallon, gasoline costs $3.60 a gallon and the median price of a home in 2008 was $624,000 — the second-highest in the nation. Despite this, Hawaii’s health insurance premiums are nearly tied with North Dakota for the lowest in the country, and Medicare costs per beneficiary are the nation’s lowest.

the cost of living in Hawaii is the nation's highest, but their health care costs are among the lowest.

Interesting.

Maybe their health is suffering as a result?

Hawaii residents live longer than people in the rest of the country, recent surveys have shown, and the state’s health care system may be one reason. In one example, Hawaii has the nation’s highest incidence of breast cancer but the lowest death rate from the disease.

Nope. I guess not.

So, you do have a point. If more states were to adopt Hawaii's universal health care, or something like it, and the feds just got out of the health care business altogether, we could actually have a better system at a lower cost.
 
The constitution is not the last word in establishing our rights. The ninth amendment makes that clear: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In the USA the constitution, ratified treaties, case law and legislation determine our rights under the law. Otherwise, our rights are a matter of opinion. Google "right to clean air" and you will find many people and organizations who share my opinion that everyone has a right to clean air.

In passing the Clean Air Act of 1970 our legislators empowered citizens to sue polluters who violate limitations on air pollution and to sue regulators for failing to enforce the law. That is a defacto right to clean air. Not perfectly clean air, but relatively clean air per established standards.

"In 1970, when amending the Clean Air Act, the United States Congress was inspired by similar legislation in the civil rights arena[5] to begin including specific provisions for citizens to bring suit against violators or government agencies to enforce environmental laws. Today, most anti-pollution laws have provisions for citizen suits and they have become a major means of ensuring compliance with environmental laws."
Wikipedia

1970 Clean Air Act text: https://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/documents/publiclaws/PDF/91-604.pdf
:doh

Nothing you said counters the fact that no such "right" to unpolluted air exists, nor could it as all air is naturally polluted to some extent.

And clearly you do not know the difference between a "right" and a law. :doh

(And just in case some idiot comes along to assert there is rarefied air, the air I am speaking about it the atmosphere which we all breath on a daily basis.
It is naturally polluted to some extent.)
 
:doh

Nothing you said counters the fact that no such "right" to unpolluted air exists, nor could it as all air is naturally polluted to some extent.

And clearly you do not know the difference between a "right" and a law. :doh

(And just in case some idiot comes along to assert there is rarefied air, the air I am speaking about it the atmosphere which we all breath on a daily basis.
It is naturally polluted to some extent.)

The 1970 law gives individuals and groups the right to sue polluters and/or the government for failing to do the enforcement required to protect their defacto right to reasonably clean air.
 
The 1970 law gives individuals and groups the right to sue polluters and/or the government for failing to do the enforcement required to protect their defacto right to reasonably clean air.
:doh Wrong.
You clearly do not know the difference between a law and a "right".
The law allows, it does not make it a "right".
Nor does your absurd argument even pertain.

Again.
No such "right" to unpolluted air exists, nor could it as all air is naturally polluted to some extent.
 
There is one example of a state actually taking it on. It seems like it's pretty successful:



the cost of living in Hawaii is the nation's highest, but their health care costs are among the lowest.

Interesting.

Maybe their health is suffering as a result?



Nope. I guess not.

So, you do have a point. If more states were to adopt Hawaii's universal health care, or something like it, and the feds just got out of the health care business altogether, we could actually have a better system at a lower cost.

That has always been the point, the states are closest to the people and have the most to lose should a program fail and the most to gain if it succeeds. States are laboratories and are the closest to the people. The Federal Govt. record on social programs is a disaster which makes me wonder why anyone would think that Obamacare will be any different?
 
I know exactly why you think it is happening.

Because simply stating that corporate fiduciary duty ****ing REQUIRES the maximization of profit for stockholders and that means exploiting the desperate elsewhere and replacing expensive workers with machines just doesn't sway swing voters, nor maintain support for what our form of capitalism has become.

It is what it is, and we are subject to a constant barrage of persuasive messaging, squeaking the toy to distract us from what is demonstrably happening because we would never accept the current iteration of the "divvy up" and lots of folks are getting fat on the current model.

Y'all squawk about people needing to get the skills to compete in the new economy like there would be jobs for them if they did. And basically give a big "**** You" to all the janitors and cooks and sewer screen cleaners because their efforts don't generate profits for owners, the only worthy thing for any human to do in YOUR paradise.

Just to deconstruct one of your frames beforehand, labor cost differential completely negates any issues of taxes and regulations. One can literally get a whole small factory of semi skilled workers for 12-14 hours for what one burger flipper gets here for 8.

Business moved to foreign labor because it was cheaper and POSSIBLE due to advances in container ship technology, computers and telecommunication.

Because it is more profitable, plain and simple.

Same with automation. Simple truth. Business 101. Required by law for corporate officers.

Far too much of your rhetoric is a bald attempt to keep people from thinking about these simple, demonstrable truths. Because if they do, they will demand revision of our utterly made up economic philosophy because it is no longer serving everyone in our society. The balance of power between capital and labor has shifted too far towards capital, and capitalism is now serving the ownership class FAR better than it is serving the working class.

You know exactly? I don't think so. I will say, you've touched on some legitimate truths. However, your anger and frustration is keeping you for boring down to foundation, the gensis so to speak.

Profits are key, that is a simple truth that knows no ideological boundary. No profits, no company. No company, no jobs.

It's easy to get lost in the platitudes of reasons presented by those with an agenda. What are the solutions then? Nationalizing business? Setting regulations that require certain standards of pay and benefits be required to do business in the US? Those are the very things that have resulted in the US giving away it's advantages in many areas of business. Does that mean sweat shops and 7 day weeks? Of course not. It's intellectually lazy and dishonest to make that assumption.

It's not for business to exist for the pleasure of it's employees. It is a fantasy to think that is true. It is a fantasy to think that kind of employment environment can be created. If you think this can be achieved, seal the borders, allow no imports, allow no exports. Require all goods be created and consumed domestically. Go back to the 1800's before the business community in the US learned the capacity to produce far exceeded the capacity to consume.

Consider the "maker" communities of startups springing up around the country. What an awesome deal. However, when a great product proves it's place in the market, and demand shoots through the roof, where do they turn to produce products to meet that demand? Why is it so hard for domestic companies to provide that service? Sure, labor cost is an issue, but it's an incremental issue that can be absorbed into the unit cost per item produced. $2.00 in labor domestic, versus $.50 in labor offshore? Pffft. Unless the item requires a retail price of $10, that $2.00 is no big deal.

Learn rather than accuse. You're rants, accusations, and assumptions will never address the facts. They are just an excuse. That will never pay the bills.
 
.... Setting regulations that require certain standards of pay and benefits be required to do business in the US....

Yes, we should continue doing that and start requiring those standards (adjusted for differing costs of living of course) from those who import goods into the country. That has never been tried. Requiring adequate pay and safe conditions for all workers will reduce runaway shops, improve the quality of life for exploited workers around the world, and eliminate cheap labor as a competitive advantage for those who compete with the USA. We should also require meeting environmental standards to import goods into the USA.

Yes, we need to keep in mind that overly restrictive rules will result in more smuggling and a black market, so the regulations need to be realistic and phased in over time. To acheive this will require both legislation (which will be extremely difficult to acheive due to corporate dominance over our government) as well as an engaged public willing and able to use boycotts to motivate the profiteers to act like decent humans.
 
Last edited:
No such "right" to unpolluted air exists, nor could it as all air is naturally polluted to some extent.[/FONT][/COLOR][/INDENT][/INDENT]

Maybe you don't claim that right, but I do.

Not to perfectly clean air, but I have right to air that is not significantly unhealthy. I will fight for that right. I am joined by everyone who supports laws restricting air emissions, the members of organizations that fight pollution and especially by those who took advantage of the 1970 Clean Air Act's authorization to sue polluters and/or government aganecies that fail to enforce the law.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom