View Poll Results: What should be done to battle income inequality in the USA?

Voters
92. You may not vote on this poll
  • Do not intervene

    47 51.09%
  • Yes, do intervene

    45 48.91%
Page 29 of 101 FirstFirst ... 1927282930313979 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 1006

Thread: Income Inequality

  1. #281
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinKohler View Post
    This is a vague answer. So, no FDA? OSHA? What I mean is, in what way, exactly, would you free the US market?
    The majority problem is with government oversight and corporate welfare. The rules would need to be changed to hold everyone to the same standards, and we'd have to stop allowing the government to bail out losers of economic games, the market would have to take care of it.

    FDA? Probably would still exist on some level. OSHA? Of course. It's not to say that government intervention is always bad or unwarranted. Sometimes the market will not have innate limitations that need to be enforced by an outside source. But when it entangles so completely and then starts to select winners itself, we move away from the Free Market system.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #282
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,561

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    Based on my searches and readings, it appears dues can be used by unions for political purposes. As I wrote in another post, Prop 32 in 2012 sought to curtain this type of spending and was defeated.

    This NY Times article outlines the issue.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/us...anted=all&_r=0

    If passed, it would also bar unions from using automatic payroll deductions to raise money for political campaigns, a major source of labor’s political funding.

    I'm not sure what the distinction is regarding automatic payroll deductions. Aren't dues collected via automatic payroll deduction?

    Going with the assumption they are, it would appear all dues collected can be used in any manner the unions seem fit, including political activity, otherwise Prop 32 would not have been introduced.
    From the article:

    The measure, Proposition 32 on the November ballot, would prohibit both unions and corporations from making contributions, but the corporate provision is far less stringent than the one aimed at unions, analysts said. If passed, it would also bar unions from using automatic payroll deductions to raise money for political campaigns, a major source of labor’s political funding.
    It would supposedly prohibit all donors other than individuals from contributing to campaigns, but (surprise) the corporate provision is "less stringent", read, "unenforceable".


    And, the wording of the proposition does imply that union dues are used for political campaigns, which would be something new. Let's see what I can find out:

    The landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Communications Workers of America v. Beck (1988) lets union members get a refund for the part of their dues that are used for political activity. Learn more about your Beck rights.
    Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (2010) altered the ways that unions can spend money in federal elections. Find out how Citizens United changed union political spending.
    From the "citizens United" link:

    The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2003, also known as “BCRA” or “McCain-Feingold”, put restrictions on unions and corporations and the independent expenditures they could make if the funds came from the general treasury:

    No “electioneering communication,” defined as “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” that is “publicly distributed” within 30 days of a primary election
    No speech that expressly advocates for a candidate’s election or defeat
    If a union or corporation wanted to do this, it had to set up a separate political action committee (PAC), that is typically funded by individuals within the union or corporation.

    An “independent expenditure” is money spent by groups or individuals that are not controlled by a candidate (such as his or her campaign committee).

    Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation created under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Citizens United wanted to run television commercials to advertise their documentary that negatively portrayed then-candidate for president Senator Hillary Clinton within 30 days of a primary. The group asked for a court order that said it would be able to run the commercials and stop the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from finding it in violation of BCRA. After many decisions and appeals, the case made it to the United States Supreme Court.

    Supreme Court Opinion

    The Supreme Court’s opinion said several things, but the key takeaways were that a union or corporation:

    Can make independent expenditures from its general treasury without creating a PAC. The court held that the BCRA section that banned this political speech violated the First Amendment.
    Must still publicly disclose its identity if it sponsored an advertisement.
    Cannot directly donate to a candidate or candidate’s committee.

    So, the rules have changed since I was involved. The union can, as per the Supreme Court, sponsor "speech", i.e., political ads, but can't contribute to a candidate.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  3. #283
    Sage
    Geoist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,916

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post

    1.) What has caused this phenomenon
    Fred Foldvary has an excellent article on the causes and possible solutions to poverty
    Foldvary on Fixing Capitalism

    While some wealth inequality is perfectly natural, the privatization of our commons without proper restitution is a major contributor to the inequality we are seeing.

    2.) What are the long term implications if the trend is allowed to continue
    Continuing growth of inequality, unrest, more crime, possible revolution.

    3.) What, if anything, should be done to adjust our course
    Replace our current tax system with LVT and create a citizens dividend.
    "Men did not make the earth ... it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." -- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/

  4. #284
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    From the article:



    It would supposedly prohibit all donors other than individuals from contributing to campaigns, but (surprise) the corporate provision is "less stringent", read, "unenforceable".


    And, the wording of the proposition does imply that union dues are used for political campaigns, which would be something new. Let's see what I can find out:



    From the "citizens United" link:



    So, the rules have changed since I was involved. The union can, as per the Supreme Court, sponsor "speech", i.e., political ads, but can't contribute to a candidate.
    There may have been some special type of union worker contribution that had to be kept separate, but based on what I've known and what I have seen, dues have always been available for political purposes.

    This automatic function was behind the scam the SEIU pulled with Home Health Care workers. I'm going to guess they collected close to $400 million over the years from California alone, when the legislators they purchased approved the classifying of in home health providers as public employees, and immediately started collecting dues, which the state withheld from payments and sent to the SEIU.

    Considering they did the same in Illinois and in other states, that must be well over $1 billion they collected (The Supreme Court just stopped that) and have been using for whatever political purposes they want.

    I think one needs to be careful when making statements containing absolutes, as you did multiple times on this subject. "It's against the law in California for unions etc., etc." is clearly an inaccurate statement, and misrepresents the facts.

  5. #285
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,561

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    There may have been some special type of union worker contribution that had to be kept separate, but based on what I've known and what I have seen, dues have always been available for political purposes.

    This automatic function was behind the scam the SEIU pulled with Home Health Care workers. I'm going to guess they collected close to $400 million over the years from California alone, when the legislators they purchased approved the classifying of in home health providers as public employees, and immediately started collecting dues, which the state withheld from payments and sent to the SEIU.

    Considering they did the same in Illinois and in other states, that must be well over $1 billion they collected (The Supreme Court just stopped that) and have been using for whatever political purposes they want.

    I think one needs to be careful when making statements containing absolutes, as you did multiple times on this subject. "It's against the law in California for unions etc., etc." is clearly an inaccurate statement, and misrepresents the facts.
    It was against the law, and still is against the law to contribute to a candidate using dues money. Yes, there is a special type of contribution, and it is voluntary and above and beyond union dues. That hasn't gone away. I didn't realize that the Supreme Court had ruled that the prohibition of using dues for political ads was an infringement on free speech.

    But, you're right about one thing: One needs to be careful when making statements containing absolutes, like this one: "Dues have always been available for political purposes."
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  6. #286
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    It was against the law, and still is against the law to contribute to a candidate using dues money. Yes, there is a special type of contribution, and it is voluntary and above and beyond union dues. That hasn't gone away. I didn't realize that the Supreme Court had ruled that the prohibition of using dues for political ads was an infringement on free speech.

    But, you're right about one thing: One needs to be careful when making statements containing absolutes, like this one: "Dues have always been available for political purposes."
    They are, and they continue to be. Perhaps you should learn more about this issue before you add to evidence you have no idea. The Supreme Court ruling did not prohibit union spending on politics, it prohibited the way unions like the SEIU were confiscating dues from paychecks.

    Perhaps it's time you file your posts under "Quit while behind", because you've taken more steps backwards.

  7. #287
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,561

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    They are, and they continue to be. Perhaps you should learn more about this issue before you add to evidence you have no idea. The Supreme Court ruling did not prohibit union spending on politics, it prohibited the way unions like the SEIU were confiscating dues from paychecks.

    Perhaps it's time you file your posts under "Quit while behind", because you've taken more steps backwards.
    No more than you should have.
    "The Supreme Court ruling did not prohibit union spending on politics" No, according to my sources and what I said earlier, it expanded the ability of unions to spend dues money on politics.


    "It prohibited the way unions like the SEIU were confiscating dues from paychecks." No, unions still deduct dues just as they always have.

    Perhaps, before starting to leap, hoot, and declare victory in some debate no one is judging anyway, you need to read what has actually been posted.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  8. #288
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    No more than you should have.
    "The Supreme Court ruling did not prohibit union spending on politics" No, according to my sources and what I said earlier, it expanded the ability of unions to spend dues money on politics.


    "It prohibited the way unions like the SEIU were confiscating dues from paychecks." No, unions still deduct dues just as they always have.

    Perhaps, before starting to leap, hoot, and declare victory in some debate no one is judging anyway, you need to read what has actually been posted.
    LOL. I don't need to hoot and holler. That's not my style.

    Obviously, you have no idea what the Supreme court ruled on, nor what the scope of that ruling was.

    As to reading what was posted, I did. Try to remember that my original comment was in response to your claim about union spending on politics in California. We now understand the accuracy of that statement.

  9. #289
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,561

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    LOL. I don't need to hoot and holler. That's not my style.

    Obviously, you have no idea what the Supreme court ruled on, nor what the scope of that ruling was.

    As to reading what was posted, I did. Try to remember that my original comment was in response to your claim about union spending on politics in California. We now understand the accuracy of that statement.
    The Supreme Court ruling was that unions could use dues money to pay for political ads. Before that, it was against the law to do so, and so the unions had to collect funds for political purposes above and beyond the dues collected.

    So, now they can run political ads with dues money. Before that, they couldn't.

    I didn't know about the ruling until researching the issue, so I did learn something. Maybe you did too, I'm not sure.

    Now as for whether unions should be able to be involved in political decisions, that's quite another issue.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  10. #290
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,207

    Re: Income Inequality

    There's a lot of discussion about school choice. I haven't been able to find any but for the people that act as if it's a no brainer, which country that beats the US in test scores use a private system or a system that includes lots of private schools?

    Most I've found are highly centralized public school system and teacher are typically well paid. In some of the countries teachers are revered by society.

    If there is a school system out there performing well with a public private mix or heavily private I can see how some people might point to that as why we should go private but at the moment, all I see is trillion in potential wealth to private companies at stake and huge PR campaigns in which what's promised doesn't pan out.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

Page 29 of 101 FirstFirst ... 1927282930313979 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •