OWS: End Corporate Influence and income equality? Im not buying it...

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by sonnny1

 

My point was we need smaller Government,not the big Bureaucracy of 16 trillion in Debt.

Let me show you how to address a point.

Maybe the government is too big, maybe its too small. But it IS there for a reason.

The more a population grows and develops, the more a government does the same. Think about it, government governs the people. People change. So logically government changes too.

Sidenote: I find it odd that you would say the government is too big immediately after saying it would be practical for the government to hire those on welfare. Odd...

Really ,this is getting old,and your cherry picking is getting old also.

Either you stop talking down to me,or I can end the conversation.

Maybe you havnt heard ,but OUR Government is BROKE. We cant sustain your version of Government. In the 30's,People had different morals and principles. Those are long gone,and with it,the subscription of living within our means. Its that simple.

reply to post by sonnny1

Maybe you havnt heard ,but OUR Government is BROKE.

Maybe you haven't heard, but BROKE comes prepackaged with capitalism. Guaranteed to pop up sometime.

We cant sustain your version of Government.

I dont see why not.

In the 30's,People had different morals and principles. Those are long gone,and with it,the subscription of living within our means. Its that simple.

Who are we talking about again? Government or people? Cause most people DO live within their means and the government never had morals, especially in the thirties..

reply to post by TsukiLunar





Crony Capitalism, Socialism,Communism,Corporatism.

Common denominator ? They all stem from government control.

Originally posted by PrimalRed
You want income equality and to stop "corporations" from using their money to leverage politics in their favor? Why focus on just corporations?

It appears that MOST of the money is NOT coming from corporations and banks, so why does OWS not go on about how unions can buy their share of the government?

Quick, name a piece of pro-union legislation passed in the last thirty years. Tick tock, tick tock, time's up, but don't feel bad; it was a trick question. Unions lobby; but they essentially lobby in vain.

Feel free to take all the time you want to argue that there's been no business / banks handouts in the last thirty years, though.

Basically no one's really worried about the unions "losing their voice," because they haven't had a voice since 1951.Strike out lobbying, across the board. It's not a hard thing to understand, is it?

So don't put all the blame on price increases and how hard it is on JUST the corporations, remember many of them employ union workers who will go on strike the moment anyone talks about touching their benefits which they feel entitled to

Well, first off, they are entitled to it. It's called a contract. In a contract are the terms of employment; what the boss can expect from the employee and what the employee can expect from the boss. In so-called union shops, these contracts do often include benefits that were negotiated as a whole by the workers of that establishment, using, as their leverage, the very simple fact that business will not exist without workers, and their boss would be living in a box, sucking the last bit of gravy from a Beanie-Weenie can without them.

Second, do blame the corproations; they're certainly not losing money. Most are turning a tidy profit in fact. Granted a lot of this is illusionary, generated primarily from decimating their own labor pool in "downsizings" and "competitive reallocation of resources," but hey, why should YOU have a problem with hte sudden destitution of hundreds of thousands of Americans and the accompanying gutting of the middle class? Some of them are undoubtedly.... union workers... WoooOOOooOOooo!

while the rest of the world has to work and pay for things like health coverage.

At least those portions of the world that lives under the auspices of "Free Trade zones" stitching sneakers for nike at wages of a nickel a day (with a daily charge of six cents a day for use of thread and glue). Much of the world - even nations far poorer than the US - have government-paid health care... which obliviates the need for your precious corporate overlords to include that in contract negotiations.

And what can the corporations do? They have to raise prices to keep up with union demands (screwing you) or some people will have to get laid off (so they can point the finger back at the evil fat cat). In either case you pay for all this.

Or they could just skip the idea of buying a gold-lined luxury jet for the CEO-of-the-week. See, this is where you're not getting it. The owners are not toiling under the oppressive yokes of hte evil, demonic, baby-eating unionista communisthippypinkofags. They're doing really damn well for themselves. o much so that even a moderate pay cut for them would be a massive pay increase for everyone that works for them.

But daddy needs to leave sparkly hashmarks in his horts so, screw the workers.

To bash on JUST the corporations and ignoring the Unions and trade associations would be the same as protesting wells fargo then making a deposit.

Actually it's not even remotely the same. I would go as far as citing them as being entirely unrelated. The only think they have in common is that in your hectic ravings, unions are evil, OWS is evil, therefore... aliens, I guess, I dunno, you seem pretty ill-informed.

So if don't get too caught up in supporting this OWS business too much. I mean if you really support some of these things that OWS is saying that is fine but take a look at the WHOLE picture not just where they try to steer your eyes.

this message brought to you by someone who literally falls over themselves four times a week to bitch and moan about how evil OWS, unions, and anyone to the left of Clarence Thimas is in general.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Quick, name a piece of pro-union legislation passed in the last thirty years.

Okay
www.leginfo.ca.gov...
thetruthaboutplas.com...

There you go

Tick tock, tick tock, time's up, but don't feel bad; it was a trick question. Unions lobby; but they essentially lobby in vain.

Hello, welcome to the internet. Simply saying something does not make it so

reply to post by PrimalRed


Okay. So. Since you seem to be in a schooling sort of mood, care to explain how these two pieces of Californian legislation are completely and utterly destroying everything nationwide, through the evil, infant-raping might of UNIONS?

I mean that IS your premise, isn't it? That the barbaric blood-drinking hordes of UNIONS is causing everything to be super-expensive, corrupts government, causes acne, and shot JR?

So! Explain, if you will, how this Californian legislation is the cause of this travesty, this plague, this UNIONS-led apocalypse.

You can pair this with explaining how thirty years of declining UNION membership, government assault upon UNIONS (From Saint Ronny's mass firings all the way up to Walker's assault on all public UNIONS in Wisconsin) have led us into the wonderful, unprecedented economic utopia we now dwell in, where wealth is had by all and prices are low and kids aren't going hungry and everyone has shelter!

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Okay. So. Since you seem to be in a schooling sort of mood, care to explain how these two pieces of Californian legislation are completely and utterly destroying everything nationwide, through the evil, infant-raping might of UNIONS?

I'm not in a "schooling sort of mood" you asked me to "name a piece of pro-union legislation passed in the last thirty years" so I did. I never said unions were destroying anything that is a horrible straw man much like the rest of your post.

reply to post by PrimalRed


I'm sorry, but did you actually read your OP?
According to you...

Unions are just as bad as corporations, based on the fact that they give campaign contributions.
Unions are directly causing prices to go up, "screwing" the rest of us.
Unions are trying to "push out the competition" in lobbying.
Unions are leading OWS protestors around blindly.

You further seem to believe that unions carry massive influence in Washington, and that contracts should freely be violated if one party feels like it.

Do you directly say "they're out to destroy everything?" No. But then you do not need to. See, when you write stuff, people reach conclusions based on your stated positions and claims. This is knows as "inferral" and it is a pretty big part of being more than functionally literate. One could even say that this is the point of writing anything at all.

Your point? Unions are terrible and OWS are deluded for not hating unions as much as you do. Your evidence? Mostly your own imagination paired with a deep and rather disgusting case of willful ignorance. Do did you say they're out to destroy everything? No, but you clearly feel they have no higher goal than "screwing" everyone, and that they are every bit as bad as the companies that caused this financial meltdown in the first place, or companies that profit from slave labor, or that wantonly inject your drinking water with lovely alchemical brews guaranteed to turn your liver the most scintillating shade of chartreuse.

You cited two pieces of California legislation that are "pro-union." Okay. There's eleven times that number of states with "Right to work" laws (two even have it in their constitutions) that essentially dramatically increase the cost of union membership, encourage union-busting, and dramatically lower wages through worker competition and fire-at-will policies. That GM bailout you're harping on? Came packaged with large wage cuts and restrictions on the union - the $182 billion handed to AIG had no such provisions stuck to it (and AIG celebrated with a big party and bonuses for everyone at the top)

And to top it off, the claim you make about Unions "busting the competition" (benefits for workers, how goddamned terrible!) is pretty much just made up. The OCCUPIED amendment recently introduced by Re. Deutsch, for instance, bars campaign funding from ANY "private entities." This would include unions

Though given that unions are already under stronger campaign finance laws than corporations (union dues cannot be used for political purposes, only member contributions... however a bailed-out corporation can use those tax dollars to lobby for another bailout. weird, huh?) all that this really changes is that union members have to spend more on postage.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

According to you...

Unions are just as bad as corporations, based on the fact that they give campaign contributions.

Yes and by OWS logic i am correct. If it is wrong for corporations to do it then it would be wrong for unions to do it.

Unions are directly causing prices to go up, "screwing" the rest of us.

Unions/corporation does not matter they are both at fault and the consumer gets screwed.

Unions are trying to "push out the competition" in lobbying.

Have you not been following OWS? OWS want to put an end to corporate lobbying and the unions are coming out in support of this. What would you call it?

Unions are leading OWS protestors around blindly.

I never said that

Do you directly say "they're out to destroy everything?" No. But then you do not need to. See, when you write stuff, people reach conclusions based on your stated positions and claims. This is knows as "inferral" and it is a pretty big part of being more than functionally literate. One could even say that this is the point of writing anything at all.

The whole point of the thread was to highlight the double standard within OWS on the issue of corporate lobbying. To just blame corporations then take favors and support from unions is hypocritical.

Your point? Unions are terrible and OWS are deluded for not hating unions as much as you do.

I never said i hated unions... and OWS is deluded for ignoring that Unions do the same thing corporations.

You cited two pieces of California legislation that are "pro-union." Okay. There's eleven times that number of states with "Right to work" laws (two even have it in their constitutions) that essentially dramatically increase the cost of union membership, encourage union-busting, and dramatically lower wages through worker competition and fire-at-will policies.

Again, you asked for a piece of pro-union legislation and i provided it. Lower wages through worker competition? That is a GOOD thing. If i work at a place and do 4 times as well as the next guy i should make more. In union land i can do 100 times more than the next guy and he will get paid more because he has worked there longer. There is nothing wrong with fire-at-will policies.

And to top it off, the claim you make about Unions "busting the competition" (benefits for workers, how goddamned terrible!) is pretty much just made up.

Nope

The OCCUPIED amendment recently introduced by Re. Deutsch, for instance, bars campaign funding from ANY "private entities." This would include unions

Please tell me where it bars anything
teddeutch.house.gov...
It just says congress can regulate its a PR move

Originally posted by PrimalRed

Originally posted by nightbringr
They are not against the unions because it is a leftist movement.

I want capitalism fixed, not dismantled. I don't think most of these protesters would have a clue of what to do if they could.

edit on 22-11-2011 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)

I honestly think many of them mean well they just really don't bother to get educated beyond watching "The Corporation" and discussing it with their friends.
Capitalism does need a tune up, where to start with that one? First off people should be protesting about the lack of AFFORDABLE housing and by that i mean housing you can afford NOT housing you can't afford (welfare section 8 ect...). Minimum wage should be enough to live on, and unions should recognize that when the worlds economy is sagging they should expect to take a hit like everyone else not threaten to go on strike.

Unions can and do take a lower pay scale when it is necessary to help the company. But don't ask the workers to take a pay cut when the pay scale for upper management keeps going up.

You want income equality and to stop "corporations" from using their money to leverage politics in their favor? Why focus on just corporations?

All the big unions that contribute to political campaigns are incorporated so this would affect the unions as well as normal corporations.

It doesnt matter how much pouting and foot stomping is done here by supporters of the status quo. The "I got mine, screw you all" mentality is the root of this socioeconomic tragedy and it has reached critical mass. Politicians continue to take obscene legal bribes and have no plan to end the massive theft perpetrated by the military industrial complex, corporations and banking cartels. Look at the corporate puppets bicker over gay marriage, making english the official language and nonesensical stuff while the whole country and the world go down in flames.

All theatre, dems and repubs playing their parts better than any award nominated actor/actress. The best acting is not in Hollywood but in DC, that's for sure. No real plan for the bankrupted nation but to push their stormtroopers on the disenfranchised while the theft orgy continues at the highest levels. Clearly elections are a sham when there is only one corporate party running. That said, OWS is not what will bring the direct debacle of the elite, but is an integral part nonetheless.

You see, ows has achieved a lot in letting the dwindling middle class and the totally ruined poor know that their rage is not alone. The false paradigm of left vs. right, democrats and republicans has been shattered for all to see. Also, the speed of assembly, strategy of peace, solidarity in thought and action let people know that all of this is possible at any time no matter the location; what only matters is the sincere will. Contrary to what authoritarian propagandists might want many to believe, OWS in itself is about peaceful awareness and not intended as a final cataclysmic thrust.

The economic and ecological ruin will continue until people wont have anything left to lose and only then will a true revolution strike overwhelmingly. It is not a matter of "if" but of "when" the spark ignites the flame. Clearly no change that benefits the 99% will come from above and as history dictates, the people will rise. Look at how peaceful protesting is in Egypt now for a clue.

The elite set the snowball in motion when they took the first step from a capitalist to fascist state on December 23, 1913.

reply to post by PrimalRed

But you will stand for a bailout of 482 billion dollars a year? How many jobs does GM provide? How many jobs do people on welfare provide?

Maybe, just maybe, because that bailout went to the autoworkers to KEEP THEM WORKING and functioning in society, you know, paying TAXES and such?

The bank bailouts when to the banks to cover THEIR toxic assets created in a game of FRAUD. They were bailed out to keep the economy afloat, to ease lending restrictions, but they did NONE of that, the very people who committed fraud and gambled, and LOST, took that bailout then assigned themselves the HIGHEST BONUSES ON RECORD.

You can't honestly try to compare that.

1 bailout kept an industry alive long enough to restructure, keeping jobs here in North America
the other bail out went directly into the pockets of the individuals who caused the crisis in the first place.

Besides that, regardless of whatever "data" you have learned from your 1960s era education system, not all unions are bad. Sure, some are greedy horrible groups demanding higher and higher wages, striking when they don't get their demands met. Others are actual UNIONS of the workers, ensuring the corporation above them can't literally screw them into the ground.

Unions represent the workers, workers are people, OWS is about fixing the system for ALL PEOPLE, so why wouldn't they stand with them? It's an open movement, with no "leadership" or "political sides" no matter how desperately you want it to be.

It's not 1967, it's not the Commies, and they don't want YOUR money, in fact, they want you to keep more of your money because if those at the top paid their fare share like those in the middle, there wouldn't be such a massive problem.

Go on trying to squeeze that massive round peg into that tiny square hole.

reply to post by PrimalRed



Why Corporations vs Unions ?

Simply Because corporations are for profit entities with little regard for the welfare of people but only for more profits.

For example a major corporation who supplies frozen pizzas to govt funded school lunch programs is paying money to lobbyists to have Pizza re categorized as a vegetable ....due to the small amount of tomato sauce they contain.

Realistically speaking Pizza is not a vegetable and provides very little nutrients per se.
But This exemplifies the extremes for profit institutions will go to solely attain more $$$.

With little regard for the health of the children they are feeding this fast food to.

This is only one an example of the influences of Corporate rule by $$$ upon our lives...

And what OWS is referring to...

Originally posted by CREAM
"Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions." occupywallst.org

If anyone actually believes that line of bunk I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya'.

reply to post by nh_ee

Why Corporations vs Unions ?

Why is it okay for unions to make campaign contributions but not corporations?

reply to post by phishyblankwaters

Maybe, just maybe, because that bailout went to the autoworkers to KEEP THEM WORKING and functioning in society, you know, paying TAXES and such?

The bank bailouts when to the banks to cover THEIR toxic assets created in a game of FRAUD. They were bailed out to keep the economy afloat, to ease lending restrictions, but they did NONE of that, the very people who committed fraud and gambled, and LOST, took that bailout then assigned themselves the HIGHEST BONUSES ON RECORD.

And what did i say about banks???

Originally posted by PrimalRed
Capitalism does need a tune up, where to start with that one? First off people should be protesting about the lack of AFFORDABLE housing and by that i mean housing you can afford NOT housing you can't afford (welfare section 8 ect...). Minimum wage should be enough to live on, and unions should recognize that when the worlds economy is sagging they should expect to take a hit like everyone else not threaten to go on strike.

This is a dangerous subject.

Lobby and special interest groups pushed the government for less restrictions on who could or could not get a loan on housing. The government in turn pushed the banks and loaners to lower standards. Suddenly, everyone could afford a house and all was good. Or was it?

People got mortgages on houses they could barely afford, not taking into account a loss or work or a downturn in the economy. When said downturn did happen, suddenly increased interest rates caused defaults by the thousands, then millions. I blame both the government for caving to this pressure and more importantly i blame the consumer for not educating themselves and purchasing more modest homes or moving into appartments. If you cant afford a home, you cant afford a home.

When i bought a house, i paid well bellow what i could afford. This allows me to be out of work, takes into account a downturn in the economy, and is somthing i can rebuild and profit from in the future. I dont need a 2,000 square foot, three story house on the river.

This Thanksgiving I am thankful that my parents taught me that if you want to get ahead in life you have to establish goals and work hard to achieve them, not whine and complain that life is unfair...... I am thankful that I am content with what I have earned through my efforts and don't spend all of my time hating others who may have achieved more than myself......I am thankful that I have the decency to respect the rights, opinions and property of others and that I don't trample on these things in an effort to put my own selfish desires to the forefront.....lastly I am thankful that, for now anyway, most of the people in this great country still share these same values...although I fear we are gradually becoming the minority.

reply to post by nightbringr


Affordable housing and loans are two different things, I could sell you a house for 2 dollars and that is "affordable housing" but i could also give you a loan that has an interest rate of 2000000000000000000% per second. See the difference?
They have had fixed rate FHA loans for low to moderate income earners for a while now but the standards a house has to meet for and FHA loan kind of defeats the purpose of the FHA loan in the first place creating a bigger problem.
With the whole bad loan thing the people who signed up for those ridiculous loans are just as much at fault as the banks that offered them. The truth is the 5 year fixed loans have ALWAYS been for suckers, im sure you could go through the records and a find a few times where a 5 year fixed would have been good but those adjustable rate mortgages have pretty much always been a losing mans bet.

Originally posted by PrimalRed
Affordable housing and loans are two different things, I could sell you a house for 2 dollars and that is "affordable housing" but i could also give you a loan that has an interest rate of 2000000000000000000% per second. See the difference?
They have had fixed rate FHA loans for low to moderate income earners for a while now but the standards a house has to meet for and FHA loan kind of defeats the purpose of the FHA loan in the first place creating a bigger problem.

Im not sure what you are suggesting here.

A home simply must pass proper building regulations. There are different quality levels you can buy, and it generally reflects in the price.

Are you suggesting that building quality standards be lowered? I dont see this as being a good idea. Bad wiring can cause fires resulting in death. Are you suggesting building companies comply with government regulations restricting what they can sell their finished products for? Seems very anti-capitalist. Can you clarify your position please?