Tea Party now officially hijacked by the GOP

reply to post by Section31


I think we should make the "party system" illegal. There was a big concern amongst many of the "founding fathers" that political parties would form. Their only usefulness is to EXCLUDE others NOT in the party -- so what is the point when we are hiring someone to be our representative? Is there EVER a need to create a loyalty to some other group beyond the Public? It's like trying to pick between two mob bosses for the one who will be "steal the least." Which is our current political system, actually. The Democrats would perhaps be some corporate Mob Bosses who spend some grease making Unions happy enough not to notice they are working for the corporations in the first place, and the Republicans would be mob bosses from the planet Venus who want to get the wealthy polluters to reduce the population so that reptiles can eat the well-fed rich people who are left.

A business should NEVER have a right to influence politics -- period. And that isn't some "anti-business" sentiment. If PEOPLE in a city, want jobs, they won't vote to destroy business -- but some robber baron in a business, will have no problem destroying people to help himself to more power and money. Isn't that what is really going on right now? We cannot even slap the wrist of BP for destroying the Gulf.

>> Imagine, voting for a candidate based on his record, and what his positions are, and then he isn't able to lie on TV without his opponent or a News interviewer clearly pointing out; "that's a lie." Without saying; "well, that's controversial...." and letting it go. Imagine we had a system where you COULD NOT give candidates money, because we found it's cheaper for the PEOPLE to pay for elections, than to let EXXON / GE pay for them. Imagine that you had instant run-off, proportional voting with no primaries, and you vote for the person you MOST liked, rather than the person slightly less objectionable than the freak you'd jump off a tall building to not allow him to be in control of things.

Well, keep imagining, because we haven't even gotten rid of "electronic black box voting" in this country, and corporations have shut down many small efforts to have public financing or instant run-off. They like the system where the "most money wins." One Thousand in bribes to a candidate, can easily turn into One Billion in "corporate welfare" -- the biggest cost in our budget.

Originally posted by armtx
Unfortunately, we will get barry for another 4 years because no one wants to run against Barry that is worth a damn, I wonder why that is?

What are they afraid of?

Losing..that is what they are afraid of. Spending their political capital on a losing bet.

The real question ambitious POTUS wanabees ask themselves is now? or 2016?

In 2016 it will be a race between two unproven entitites and a GOP candidate will have a much better chance.

If they run now and lose then it dampens thier chances for 2016.

The GOP candidates that are running now are not able to wait to 2016.

The younger, newer GOP are looking to establsih power, build momentum for a 2016 run against a non-incumbant.

The older GOP like Romney and Gingrich have decided as far as their careers, it is now or never, despite the odds.

Love him or hate him, from a pure, politicaly objective/strategist stand-point, Presdient Obama is strong as an incumbant and the GOP has little to show for the past 10 years as far as successes beyond emotional rallying on sub-issues.

All of that will change by 2016...Pres. Obama won't run and the GOP will hopefully have some genuine successes to point to by then.

If there are any solid up and commers they are thinking "wait". Make allies, propose lots of popular legislation you can point to 5 years from now.

Folks like Romney and Newt? They aren't getting younger, they have already run before. What do they have to lose?

If the economy slips into a double-dip it could potentially weaken pres. Obama. Let's hope for all our sakes that the GOP doesn't try hard to engineer that for political purposes via the debt cieling debate or blockaiding any recovery measures that actually work....education and innovation incentives.

I actually think if they choose to spend this election cycle convincing the American people that the economy is about to double dip that it might become a self-fulfilling prophecy as consumer confidence erodes. Economists are already citing the lack of raising the debt ceiling as one of the cuases of the recent decline in investor confidence. Getting a Republican in the White House is not worth a second recession in my opinion. I am not sure GOP strategists feel the same way.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


So, why bother making multi-national companies "illegal". You'd then lose the ability for them to use slave labor in China and elsewhere, costing us more money. Just imply make them "legal", or maybe we can call them "undocumented" multi-national corporations. Yeah, that would fix it.

You left out a VERY important fix for the illegal alien problem. You think that stopping the free healthcare and welfare for them will cost more. I think you are totally wrong. In fact, I would bring our troops home tomorrow and put them on the border. Your socialist "fixes" cannot work as long as the borders stay wide open. The only thing you'll accomplish is bringing the United States to a 3rd or 4th world standard of living. How many illegals is enough? I notice you only mention the agriculture side of it. What about Swift Meat Packing, what about the ones working construction? Where was the "this house was built with illegal labor" discount? There has never been a discount. Houses built with illegal labor are sold at the same price as those that aren't. So, your logic is flawed if you really think your vegetables are going to skyrocket in cost. The cost would remain relatively the same, but profits and bonuses for the large corporate executives would have to shrink to the same ratio of the 1950's, when Americans manned the fields. This argument is baseless, and proven wrong time and time again by simply looking at the fact that these jobs were once staffed by Americans. Caesar Chavaz HATED illegal aliens. Immigrants (legal) picked the crops. Chavez organized them, and they were paid a fair wage. Illegals have broken the union, along with Reagan's policies.

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

That video is from 2009. In case you haven't noticed, it's 2011. I guess the question is WHY isn't the MSM covering the 2 or 3 people from Code Pink protesting today, in 2011? Are they told not to by their master?

....

And if you spent another 56 nanonseconds on Google before COMPOUNDING YOUR ERROR;
Code Pink STILL PROTESTING!
... guess what, we are really suspicious of an invasion of Libya and especially for a President declaring war without Congress.

There is a LOT LESS support from Democrats for Obama than there was for George Bush by Republicans 8 years ago. But the same corporations that own the media and buy the commercials are more "in line" with George Bush and Obama. We just don't see anything better to get behind... it's not about being satisfied.

The "Tea Party" gets more coverage by CNN and Fox News, with 500 people and a fleet of Rascals, than 100,000 anti war protestors and maybe a couple dozen running naked to try and pander to ratings. Guess who is "in line" with the same agenda? Why do you think that the Tea Party even gets noticed? It's the smallest group of protestors I've ever seen, and it keeps getting "noticed". How the heck can you call it a "Liberal Media" when the most "Liberal of things; anti-war and pro-union" NEVER get shown on TV? When was the last time you heard about what good they do, or why we started unions in the first place?

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


About Code Pink: Very good. I went to their site every day for over a week after the Libya war, and there wasn't anything. I'm glad they're finally speaking out about it. It's about damn time. As for the illegal operation into Pakistan, I still haven't heard much. At least UBL, OBL, or whatever you want to call him, is dead...maybe...or something like that. LOL

About the Tea Party: I find myself to be more of a rogue. Like I've said before, I've never voted for a Republican president. I voted for Clinton in 1996, since Ross Perot dropped out. However, I think Obama is a total fraud, and a thousand times worse that Bush could have even dreamed of being, and that's saying a LOT, because Bush was a total douche.

Corporate Welfare: End it immediately. My CEO just spent $40-million on a house, because he didn't like his neighbor's trees. Meanwhile, nobody here has been given raises in four years.

Illegal Aliens: Secure the border today. Bring our troops home, and militarize the border. We have a drug war going on south of the border that is spilling over. Not to mention the other costs that illegals are causing this country. And the human death toll is insane. More than our wars! www.immigrationshumancost.org...

Wars: OBL is dead. Bring the troops home.

Energy: Let's drill our own, or raise the price of grain going to the middle east.

China: Tricky one here. But, technologically, they are 20 years behind our Navy. They have nukes though, so that could be an issue. Still, if we bring manufacturing back to the U.S., this would help us, and lower their economic power. What is it, something like 2014 when their economy will surpass the U.S. economy? Not good!

Sorry but the Tea Party is not now "officially" hijacked by the GOP.

It has been hijacked by the GOP for a few years now. It is just now being acknowledged.

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

So, why bother making multi-national companies "illegal". You'd then lose the ability for them to use slave labor in China and elsewhere, costing us more money. ....

>> I have a problem with people who talk about MONEY in the same breath as they excuse SLAVE LABOR. Not only is there an "ethical disconnect" going on, but economic suicide over the long term.


ONE; the COST you are talking about is 90% of Americans WAGES. I do no benefit from "slave labor" in China. That all goes to PROFIT. I MIGHT spend about 10 to 20% more if car parts for our Autos were made in America. The cost of LABOR in a Ford? 10%. The cost of Executive Compensation in a Ford Car? 40%.

So unless you are the Executive of some Multinational, over time -- this "global competition" of lowering COSTS (WAGES AND RESOURCES) is screwing you.

TWO; The Civil War was about Costs. I know there is a lot of other "stuff" that is said. But in the USA, the number of people who benefitted from Slavery was really small. So they hired some people to get angry for them, when the North was ruining their slave trade.

It reminds me a lot of the Tea Party. Or "Pro Pollution" groups who deny Global Climate Change -- but basically just try and stand in the way of ANY kind of control of pollution or profits. These groups are getting angry for issues that help the status quo screw the rest of us.

>> Not only do I "not" want to get 10% fatter over some kid in China making my tennis shoes, so that Nike needs only spend $2 to make a shoe they charge $60 for in the USA, I also think that economically, my neighbor getting paid $15 an hour to make that shoe in the USA is going to come out of "profits" -- it won't change the price of the shoe that much -- and even if it did, I'd probably have MORE income as a result of wage pressure.

>> So, here is the summary;
1) Slavery is bad -- not good even if we make a buck.
2) COSTS are good for 95% of the people if they go UP. They are good for Wall Street if they go down.
3) More profit does NOT and NEVER WILL translate into more jobs -- profits go to shareholders (sometimes) and Robber Barons (ALWAYS).
4) The planet cannot survive this.


>> That last part is important. History might teach us, that another "great thing" will come along, like the Industrial Revolution or Computers, and industry can grow us out of this. However, all those "improvements for everyone" were accompanied by a growth in energy output and population. We are about to run into ACTUAL limits on supply, and no way to really keep growing demand year over year because we don't want to keep increasing population.

So the current Economic model is not sustainable. It will lead only to resource wars and finally have us making a living as a security guard or mercenary protecting someone else's wealth or starving.

The Rich Southern plantation owners did a great job of making the southerners feel like "Them Yankees are after Us!" And you know how that turned out.

>> Tea Baggers are today's equivalent of Pro-Plantation Philosophy. Not only is it morally bankrupt, it's not even a good idea to keep you and I from going bankrupt.

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

About Code Pink: Very good. I went to their site every day for over a week after the Libya war, and there wasn't anything. I'm glad they're finally speaking out about it. It's about damn time. As for the illegal operation into Pakistan, I still haven't heard much. At least UBL, OBL, or whatever you want to call him, is dead...maybe...or something like that. LOL

About the Tea Party: I find myself to be more of a rogue. Like I've said before, I've never voted for a Republican president. I voted for Clinton in 1996, since Ross Perot dropped out. However, I think Obama is a total fraud, and a thousand times worse that Bush could have even dreamed of being, and that's saying a LOT, because Bush was a total douche.

Corporate Welfare: End it immediately. My CEO just spent $40-million on a house, because he didn't like his neighbor's trees. Meanwhile, nobody here has been given raises in four years.

Illegal Aliens: Secure the border today. Bring our troops home, and militarize the border. We have a drug war going on south of the border that is spilling over. Not to mention the other costs that illegals are causing this country. And the human death toll is insane. More than our wars! www.immigrationshumancost.org...

Wars: OBL is dead. Bring the troops home.

Energy: Let's drill our own, or raise the price of grain going to the middle east.

China: Tricky one here. But, technologically, they are 20 years behind our Navy. They have nukes though, so that could be an issue. Still, if we bring manufacturing back to the U.S., this would help us, and lower their economic power. What is it, something like 2014 when their economy will surpass the U.S. economy? Not good!

>> OK, I agree with you now -- we are on common ground;
I voted for Ross Perot, and then Clinton after he dropped out as well. Can't say I was happy about Clinton -- but he got MORE SUPPORT by me due to the hounding he got from Kenneth Starr.

I'm not falling for that this time; I'm not happy with Obama and I think the "Birthers" are ignorant AT THE SAME TIME! A pox on both their houses. But the Birthers are also a way for Obama to keep doing bad things -- The wars won't end unless we all come together and say; "A war is wrong unless their is a clear threat to America, or it will stop an immediate threat of Genocide, AND Congress approves it." I'd also say; all Wars should require a "War tax on business" starting at the Fortune 500. If the Oligarchs think it is so important to go to war - let THEM pay. None of these wars were fought for America or my benefit.

>> I disagree however about the Border. That border problem is totally a "WAGE PROBLEM." If Tyson foods weren't using them to have cheap labor in chicken processing plants -- there wouldn't be a border problem.

But it's also a "trade issue." If we do not have tariffs on imported goods -- as soon as you close the border with Mexico, then Tyson foods will start making nuggets in Tiawanna. Our economy does slightly better with illegal aliens getting NO BENEFITS and still paying for things (everything they buy is ultimately taxed at some point) in this country, rather than them making less and doing all the same things in Mexico.

If we had Tariffs again, based on Labor Costs and Environmental Costs (like, some standard for a fee on them dumping junk in the water to make their industry cheaper) than we HAVE NO BORDER PROBLEM.

>> The real problem is that we are not looking out for the little guy -- it eventually comes back to haunt us. Sweat shops in China and Mexico will NEVER benefit those countries -- despite the self-serving economic theories of a few elites. And eventually, you and I will pay for the misery of others.

We have worse food, more energy use, and lower wages because we import crap that isn't inspected and ends up making some Rich exploiter more rich. He gets to move his business to whichever country he can pay the least and ruin the environment the most -- and WE are stuck in one country with closed borders paying for the military that allows him to do it. Not a fair deal.


>> Just remember that you are only LUCKY to be born in America and not Mexico (on average, I suppose) -- and that those are humans to. Closing the border and not doing something about exploitation, means that you will be producing more people with "nothing to lose." The Right thing, is good for people and most of the workers. The Wrong thing, requires a military and a lot of lies to keep it going and eventually, it is going to hurt the most people.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


You and I agree more than you think. Personally, I'd rather pay more, and know it's made here, with American labor. Executive salaries/bonuses/etc. are where the problem lies. It's "greed". They want slave labor (Illegal aliens), so they can have more profits. Yet, they charge us the SAME as they would otherwise. No discount for us!!!

I would like to see executive compensation based on a formula based on the number of employees, the average employee salary, the cost of living, etc. Then, multiply that number times some some factor and get the CEO's salary. Have penalties for layoffs, or outsourcing, etc. Just my 2 cents.

reply to post by Section31


If you think voting GOP is winning the short battle in the long war to getting a third part candidate, then you sound like exactly the type of person the GOP is targetting. They do not need to convince you they have a good candidate. They know they just have to have a candidate. Any candidate. How that will help you ever get a third party in is beyond me. Further, to claim there is not enough time because the election is right around the corner kind of does away with that whole "The TEA PARTY started with Bush" crap that gets tossed around. What have they been doing all this time that they are so caught off guard by the election next year? Sending money to Sarahpac?

Do what you gotta do but I know damn well if I were running the GOP, you would be gold to me. All I have to do is stick Palin in front of a few flags and you will vote for her. I am not willing to give that kind of power to any party over me. I hope it works out for you.

reply to post by Section31


OK, what are you going to GET if Republicans win?

Seriously, I want to know, what you THINK the Republicans are going to give you that would be better than the Democrats....

Taxes - can they go lower than 9.4% on Gross economic activity? I know, you MIGHT be paying more than that, but you see, since you buy things and probably live in the middle class -- you pay a larger share of the tax burden than corporations or rich people. They just have MORE money so it looks like they pay more. But 15% on a Billion is a better deal than 50% on a million. Do YOU have 10 times the buying power you did 20 years ago? I don' think so.

Out infrastructure is falling apart. Most of these water lines, gas lines, and power lines are many decades old when we had HIGHER taxes. You actually spend more of your income now on these "utilities" than you did a decade or two ago -- so maybe it's all going to profits and the companies are coasting on stuff that is GOING to break. We could save lots of money on roads if we pushed for more mass transit -- who is going to PUSH for more infrastructure or a move to mass transit (more government organized) solutions?

Entitlements - did-ja-know, that with the same Tax policies we had in 2000, there wouldn't BE this budget crisis in the first place? Social Security is actually solvent and in good shape until Baby Boomers are expected to die off -- that's when the account goes to zero (not bankrupt), at that point in time, there will be more people paying in than taking out. Medicare is a different matter however, it's mostly about the rise in health care costs. Follow the money... who is making MORE money, hand over fist? Health Insurers, major private Hospitals, and Drug Companies. Who is paying more and making less; Patients, Doctors, Nurses. ANYONE, who doesn't confront the MONEY MAKERS when they talk about making "health care more affordable" is really saying; "Less healthcare for somebody." That means old people dying sooner, or some kid dying in a corner while we pay no attention.

Security - Osama Bin Laden is gone. #2 in Al Qaeda has been killed off more times than I've got coupons in my wallet. There is more "al Qaeda" getting trained in Southern Florida than Afghanistan according to the CIA. What do you want; MORE security or less? MORE internal spying or less? Would Mitt Romney get out of Pakistan, Yemen and Libya which are the emerging hotspots, or respond with military force?

Jobs - Every Republican I've heard so far has talked about "tightening our belts." A lot of teachers are losing jobs in this belt tightening.

The tea party are beggining to look like a goverment safety valve to direct dissent back into the 2 party con trick

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


www.redstate.com...

I used this brand new thang called google to get that.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
OK, what are you going to GET if Republicans win?

The same thing we got in 2008 when a Democrat won. More bailouts, more corruption, etc. It's a 2 headed hydra. The only difference between the Republican party and the Democrat party is the sheep that follow them lock step.

Originally posted by watchitburn
Tea Party to Back Any GOP Nominee

Well at least they are now admitting to being corporate propaganda machines under the guise of constitutionalists.

I thought the Tea Party was hijacked by the GOP almost as soon as it was recognized as a force.

"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it." Lenin

reply to post by navy_vet_stg3

You and I agree more than you think. Personally, I'd rather pay more, and know it's made here, with American labor. Executive salaries/bonuses/etc. are where the problem lies. It's "greed". They want slave labor (Illegal aliens), so they can have more profits. Yet, they charge us the SAME as they would otherwise. No discount for us!!!

I would like to see executive compensation based on a formula based on the number of employees, the average employee salary, the cost of living, etc. Then, multiply that number times some some factor and get the CEO's salary. Have penalties for layoffs, or outsourcing, etc. Just my 2 cents.

No, executive salaries are not the problem. A corporation has the right to set it's own salaries. And the gov has nothing to do with it; it's up to the stockholders and the Board of Directors. Unions have a much more detrimental affect on society and economics.

Basing salaries on some formula - or the idea that you have the right to have any say about their salaries - is pure marxism.

reply to post by notmirelnam


A Progressive income tax? That is what we already have by decree of the Socialists running this country. It is one of the planks of desired communist goals for the West which was realized a long time ago. The only difference is in what percentages.

The spending at the top has to stop. We have a runaway govt which thinks it can engineer society as much as it wants with no real consent of the governed.

The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government
In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.

Read more: History of the Income Tax in the United States — Infoplease.com www.infoplease.com...

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

www.redstate.com...

I used this brand new thang called google to get that.

Touche!

It does appear that they have some Dems -- but are those in areas where it actually matters? Meaning, Grayson is awesome, but he's also a "shoe in" so is he the "Beard" or do they actually like him.

>> And seriously, how can anyone be endorsing Michelle Backman and try and convince me they are a "serious" group. That girl is two fries short of a happy meal.

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by navy_vet_stg3

 

You and I agree more than you think. Personally, I'd rather pay more, and know it's made here, with American labor. Executive salaries/bonuses/etc. are where the problem lies. It's "greed". They want slave labor (Illegal aliens), so they can have more profits. Yet, they charge us the SAME as they would otherwise. No discount for us!!!

I would like to see executive compensation based on a formula based on the number of employees, the average employee salary, the cost of living, etc. Then, multiply that number times some some factor and get the CEO's salary. Have penalties for layoffs, or outsourcing, etc. Just my 2 cents.

No, executive salaries are not the problem. A corporation has the right to set it's own salaries. And the gov has nothing to do with it; it's up to the stockholders and the Board of Directors. Unions have a much more detrimental affect on society and economics.

Basing salaries on some formula - or the idea that you have the right to have any say about their salaries - is pure marxism.

>> Why do you say having a formula is Marxism? What do you actually know about Marxism anyway? A lot of people think that China is Communist -- but it's really as Capitalist as any other nation now -- it just has tyrants who sometimes plan things well for farmers. But other than some areas of a planned economy, there isn't much "commune" to this ism.

In "Capitalism" -- if we read all those great Economists who tell us how unstable and easy to break it is WITHOUT RULES, we have to have government to set the rules. I mean, if GE and Google, run everything, then don't they change things so that nobody can compete? What would make GE get smaller, or NOT put on Pro-war news stories on NBC -- except for the fact that they sold it to some other company....


These "stock holders" that you speak of -- I used to be one. Most stocks are held by large hedge funds, mutual funds and are managed not by Granny citizen -- but by the same, well connected, seat at the table, groups who might have a place on the board of directors. You can track MOST of the control of the Fortune 500 companies to about 2000 people. THEY run the show.

Stock holders, in vary rare instances, are not voting on salaries. You get a prospectus for the 50 odd shares you might buy and and hold and MAYBE check a few things to vote on. Unless you are an institution, you don't have enough of these nor the time to research the matter.

So, in theory, stocks MIGHT be a mitigating factor, but in reality, I don't think they are anything more than a "chit" for people to gamble with in a rigged game at a craps table.


>> I think a BETTER formula, would be perhaps 50X the lowest salary in the company. The problem, however becomes, that they could OUTSOURCE everything but the profit-taking. So you get one tiny company of nothing but VPs and Execs and a few paper pushers, and the company that DOES STUFF, is just held by this one.

The tricks that can be performed by a Corporation or Multinational are truly astounding. You cannot DEFINE what the company is anymore. So, really, even setting a Formula would only work on "regional companies" within the borders of the USA -- so to make that actually work, you'd have to simplify how a company was defined and create a "fire wall" between it's activities and any other nations.

I actually LIKE that the Chinese don't allow more than 50% ownership of any company in China -- good for them. But I figure, that it's only another decade before the right jackals bribe, threaten, maneuver the right bureaucrats in China and most of those companies will be virtual.

Every company in the world will one day be in debt to some shadow offshore holding company. Every government will also be "in debt" -- and some offshore accounts constantly manipulate the "leaders" to create ever more entanglements that citizens "owe." There is no "way possible" we can get out of our Debt Crisis, without Taxing it from the wealthy and businesses, or having some sort of tariff -- no way in He11. If you reduce "costs" that means firing people or lowering their wages, or making resources cheaper with ALSO means, some state getting less revenue for what gets sucked out of its ground and ends up polluting it's water and air. You cannot take a modern society, and turn them into "ditch diggers" and somehow get ahead -- the food people eat is worth more than manual labor in the scheme of things.

These "austerity measures" are the same scam that the WTO uses on "third world nations" in debt.

>> By the way, if "minimum wage" were increased to keep up with inflation, it would be somewhere between $14 and $17 by now. At the same time, during the 40's when we had a booming economy, the head of a company might make 40 times the wages of the worker -- now it's up around 400 times.

So this theory that "stock holders" hold executives "accountable" or there is market forces setting the compensation is nonsense in the real world. Executive compensation keeps going up. Why don't we import some "CEO's" from India and pay them $35,000 a year? I'm sure SOMEONE on the planet has the chops to lose shareholder value for less than $400,000 a year and a golden parachute.

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
OK, what are you going to GET if Republicans win?

The same thing we got in 2008 when a Democrat won. More bailouts, more corruption, etc. It's a 2 headed hydra. The only difference between the Republican party and the Democrat party is the sheep that follow them lock step.

I wouldn't say that's the ONLY difference... the difference for me is that the Democrats occasionally SAY things that sound like they are embarrassed for screwing the common person. Republicans and Libertarians, ALWAYS seem to promote concepts that would turn this country into a "third world paradise for corporations." I've always felt that all these "free market" fanatics who don't want government regulating anything or making ANY handouts, could find their Economic Paradise in Haiti.

It USED to be, that Everyone knew we had to play by the rules and if you lowered standards -- then those that got ahead would have the lowest standards -- guaranteed. But it seems like too many nowadays think they will one day "win" and become CEO's and so are more worried about limiting their upside potential than limiting the guaranteed DOWNSIDE that most Americans have to survive.