|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 12 2016 08:32 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 08:22 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 08:09 Nebuchad wrote:On April 12 2016 04:45 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 04:09 Jormundr wrote:On April 12 2016 03:58 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 03:36 Jormundr wrote:On April 12 2016 03:24 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 03:10 Jormundr wrote:On April 12 2016 02:58 Ghanburighan wrote:
Frankly, I've had it with this thread. In the last few weeks I've been insulted by pretty much everyone I've had a prolonged exchange with (except a few pleasant individuals, who know who they are). This includes mods, the OP preaching a "no bashing policy" and many others. I just don't need this.
One shouldn't need to write full length essays covering all of one's bases every time they post in this thread to avoid patronizing, being called stupid, ignorant and worse. And, in fact, people don't seem to read prior posts anyway so even if you have covered a particular base, that doesn't seem to matter much. So I'm done. I blame myself for thinking I could enjoy a conversation on politics on the internet, but this little experiment only demonstrates that it's a waste of time and energy that only creates pointless arguments.
I'm sure many of you will be happy to see me go (greetings to GH - I do actually wish Sanders the best of luck, he almost made this primary cycle a nail-biter) but I'll remind you that self-reflection is a virtue. I haven't been following too much lately (yay romance) but every single time I come in here you're starting a new strawman about how literally any type of socialism is going to eventually equate to life behind the iron curtain. I understand your frustration. I didn't have to grow up in it, but my father and grandparents did. Unfortunately that doesn't make your argument correct, it just makes it understandable. This is because a lot of regimes starts with promises of socialism and end with assault rifles knocking on your front door asking if you're part of the revolution or not. It might be easy for people in the west to think this is an academic argument, but for those of us whose parents had to bribe both rebels and police to stay out of the fighting before moving to the west--it comes as a slap in the face for people to think it doesn't happen. Again, emotional argument that's completely useless in the context of the US. Secret police in the US? That's a fucking joke. Our government isn't stupid enough to be that open and heavy handed with its laundry. They already have so much power that instituting what you fear would essentially be tantamount to relinquishing control, not gaining it. Being selective of some countries over other countries as your anecdote does not make you less emotional. It simple shows your racial bias. Please do inform me of my racial bias and its effects on my argument. You're using the fact that socialist movements worked in white countries (like Sweden) allow you to pretend that socialist movements in other countries don't count (China, Philippines, South America, etc...) So telling people of color that your white examples are more relevant than their non-white examples shows a lot about your bias. For the sake of someone having said it, the difference between those two sets isn't that one is white and the other isn't. The difference is that one case refers to a social democracy movement and the other refers to a socialist movement under the american (or historical) definition. Your examples aren't dismissed because they aren't white enough. They are because we're not talking about the same thing. You mean you guys didn't make reform laws through the democratic process and had the side effects happen only after passing it through legal means? Or are you mainly imagining China and Cuba's rise to communist power when you imagine social reforms. Sometimes trying to fix the economy by giving more power to the workers does not work. Sometimes it leads to bloodshed, and other times it doesn't. Don't pretend that somehow the US is safe from these issues just because you imagine it is more similar to the EU than to the non-white social reform states. So when people share their stories about what has gone wrong, listen to them. And makes sure to develop safeguards against it. Remember that the power you give to the good leaders will be the same ones used by the bad ones who came later. Do not think of things as being innately good or innately bad--but as mere options that you have to take in context with the resources available, the people available, and the types of leaders you can envision following after you. I don't mean that and I'm not pretending any of this. I usually mean what I write. You are putting in the same sentence political tendancies that are different and you've said that the only reason we're not putting them in the same sentence is because we don't care about non-white people experience. You are incorrect. We're not putting them in the same sentence because they don't belong in the same sentence. That is the entirety of what I'm saying.
You have made zero argument as to why they are not the same things other than because you say so. The argument you're making is "Look at the US, look at the EU, so same. Look at US, look at America, so different" and its just sickening to me. There is nothing that suggests that somehow social reform in the US will follow the EU and not how many other countries go. There are a lot of people in the US, armed people, people with highly vitriolic and highly rigid ideals. You're telling me that there is zero chance they have a breaking point, that social movements in a country where half the population are okay with gun violence so long as they keep their guns too, a country where half keeps saying that if the government overreach becomes too much that they will respond in kind. You're telling me that this country has nothing to fear about putting into a place a socialist movement just because the EU did well and pointing to non-EU countries that didn't do well is somehow "DON'T BELONG IN THE SAME SENTENCE."
Please, enlighten me how different the US is from non-EU countries.
|
On April 12 2016 08:42 Naracs_Duc wrote:
There are a lot of people in the US, armed people, people with highly vitriolic and highly rigid ideals.
So does Germany.
|
On April 12 2016 09:13 Soap wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 08:42 Naracs_Duc wrote:
There are a lot of people in the US, armed people, people with highly vitriolic and highly rigid ideals. So does Germany.
In some peoples wet dreams maybe. Not in reality. Not even remotely close. Like, not the same solar system not close.
|
well those parts of the US are already suffering, especially in some GOP governed fly over states.. maybe enacting redistribution and stability backed by the federal government is a last chance for the left behind disenfrenchised people in trailer parks... or let it all go to shit because tech workers, lawyers and finance guys on the coasts have a nice life, and everyone not applying themself to become one deserves everything that happens to them?
it is not "all is great and reform is unnecessary" it is "shit is getting worse and worse for some, and better for others, the discrepancies are creating turmoil, something has to be done, maybe redistribution for a stabilizing effect (more equality)"
edit: state ownership (and treating it like a real important public good) of critical infrastructure like water, electricity and internet could improve many lifes, without bringing about doom and destruction
|
On April 12 2016 08:42 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 08:32 Nebuchad wrote:On April 12 2016 08:22 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 08:09 Nebuchad wrote:On April 12 2016 04:45 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 04:09 Jormundr wrote:On April 12 2016 03:58 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 03:36 Jormundr wrote:On April 12 2016 03:24 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 03:10 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
I haven't been following too much lately (yay romance) but every single time I come in here you're starting a new strawman about how literally any type of socialism is going to eventually equate to life behind the iron curtain. I understand your frustration. I didn't have to grow up in it, but my father and grandparents did. Unfortunately that doesn't make your argument correct, it just makes it understandable. This is because a lot of regimes starts with promises of socialism and end with assault rifles knocking on your front door asking if you're part of the revolution or not. It might be easy for people in the west to think this is an academic argument, but for those of us whose parents had to bribe both rebels and police to stay out of the fighting before moving to the west--it comes as a slap in the face for people to think it doesn't happen. Again, emotional argument that's completely useless in the context of the US. Secret police in the US? That's a fucking joke. Our government isn't stupid enough to be that open and heavy handed with its laundry. They already have so much power that instituting what you fear would essentially be tantamount to relinquishing control, not gaining it. Being selective of some countries over other countries as your anecdote does not make you less emotional. It simple shows your racial bias. Please do inform me of my racial bias and its effects on my argument. You're using the fact that socialist movements worked in white countries (like Sweden) allow you to pretend that socialist movements in other countries don't count (China, Philippines, South America, etc...) So telling people of color that your white examples are more relevant than their non-white examples shows a lot about your bias. For the sake of someone having said it, the difference between those two sets isn't that one is white and the other isn't. The difference is that one case refers to a social democracy movement and the other refers to a socialist movement under the american (or historical) definition. Your examples aren't dismissed because they aren't white enough. They are because we're not talking about the same thing. You mean you guys didn't make reform laws through the democratic process and had the side effects happen only after passing it through legal means? Or are you mainly imagining China and Cuba's rise to communist power when you imagine social reforms. Sometimes trying to fix the economy by giving more power to the workers does not work. Sometimes it leads to bloodshed, and other times it doesn't. Don't pretend that somehow the US is safe from these issues just because you imagine it is more similar to the EU than to the non-white social reform states. So when people share their stories about what has gone wrong, listen to them. And makes sure to develop safeguards against it. Remember that the power you give to the good leaders will be the same ones used by the bad ones who came later. Do not think of things as being innately good or innately bad--but as mere options that you have to take in context with the resources available, the people available, and the types of leaders you can envision following after you. I don't mean that and I'm not pretending any of this. I usually mean what I write. You are putting in the same sentence political tendancies that are different and you've said that the only reason we're not putting them in the same sentence is because we don't care about non-white people experience. You are incorrect. We're not putting them in the same sentence because they don't belong in the same sentence. That is the entirety of what I'm saying. You have made zero argument as to why they are not the same things other than because you say so. The argument you're making is "Look at the US, look at the EU, so same. Look at US, look at America, so different" and its just sickening to me. There is nothing that suggests that somehow social reform in the US will follow the EU and not how many other countries go. There are a lot of people in the US, armed people, people with highly vitriolic and highly rigid ideals. You're telling me that there is zero chance they have a breaking point, that social movements in a country where half the population are okay with gun violence so long as they keep their guns too, a country where half keeps saying that if the government overreach becomes too much that they will respond in kind. You're telling me that this country has nothing to fear about putting into a place a socialist movement just because the EU did well and pointing to non-EU countries that didn't do well is somehow "DON'T BELONG IN THE SAME SENTENCE." Please, enlighten me how different the US is from non-EU countries.
Socialization of healthcare/insurance/education is a far cry from socialization of the entire economy which is what you keep arguing, which is what absolutely nobody worth mentioning is planning to do in the united states.
|
On April 12 2016 09:15 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 09:13 Soap wrote:On April 12 2016 08:42 Naracs_Duc wrote:
There are a lot of people in the US, armed people, people with highly vitriolic and highly rigid ideals. So does Germany. In some peoples wet dreams maybe. Not in reality. Not even remotely close. Like, not the same solar system not close.
maybe he thinks about all 5 Reichsbürger, a couple thousand in biker gangs and other organized crime outfits?
or Schützenvereine are now militias..
|
On April 12 2016 08:16 kwizach wrote:Nobody commenting on this? Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 03:48 kwizach wrote:The NY Daily News just released the transcript of the interview they did with Hillary Clinton. Regardless of whether or not you agree with her views, I don't think anyone can dispute that she's incredibly more knowledgeable on the issues (and on what should be done) than Sanders. Compare it to his interview - the difference in detail is breathtaking. Source
It's excellent reading, but it doesn't reveal anything especially new or insightful. It was known that Clinton was the most knowledgeable candidate in the race by a long shot. The Sanders interview was much more surprising as it was a chance for him to show that he also had a wide depth of policy knowledge and could elucidate his plans regarding his chief planks but...he really flubbed it. The contrast between the two candidates was made on the first interview, the second only mildly reinforces it.
|
On April 12 2016 09:15 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 09:13 Soap wrote:On April 12 2016 08:42 Naracs_Duc wrote:
There are a lot of people in the US, armed people, people with highly vitriolic and highly rigid ideals. So does Germany. In some peoples wet dreams maybe. Not in reality. Not even remotely close. Like, not the same solar system not close.
The US currently has people who firebomb abortion clinics, has regular mass shootings, and there has been little to no effort to disarm that demographic. We literally have lawmakers in the US charging women for murder if they have a miscarriage, a presidential candidate whose main claim to fame is building walls and killing muslims with pigs blood.
So no, I don't have faith that major social reform will be accepted peacefully in this country.
|
On April 12 2016 09:23 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 09:15 m4ini wrote:On April 12 2016 09:13 Soap wrote:On April 12 2016 08:42 Naracs_Duc wrote:
There are a lot of people in the US, armed people, people with highly vitriolic and highly rigid ideals. So does Germany. In some peoples wet dreams maybe. Not in reality. Not even remotely close. Like, not the same solar system not close. The US currently has people who firebomb abortion clinics, has regular mass shootings, and there has been little to no effort to disarm that demographic. We literally have lawmakers in the US charging women for murder if they have a miscarriage, a presidential candidate whose main claim to fame is building walls and killing muslims with pigs blood. So no, I don't have faith that major social reform will be accepted peacefully in this country.
So now you've proved that virtually nothing about communism, socialism, OR the United States of America... what else do you have that qualifies you to be in this discussion?
|
On April 12 2016 09:20 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 08:42 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 08:32 Nebuchad wrote:On April 12 2016 08:22 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 08:09 Nebuchad wrote:On April 12 2016 04:45 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 04:09 Jormundr wrote:On April 12 2016 03:58 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 03:36 Jormundr wrote:On April 12 2016 03:24 Naracs_Duc wrote:
[quote]
This is because a lot of regimes starts with promises of socialism and end with assault rifles knocking on your front door asking if you're part of the revolution or not. It might be easy for people in the west to think this is an academic argument, but for those of us whose parents had to bribe both rebels and police to stay out of the fighting before moving to the west--it comes as a slap in the face for people to think it doesn't happen. Again, emotional argument that's completely useless in the context of the US. Secret police in the US? That's a fucking joke. Our government isn't stupid enough to be that open and heavy handed with its laundry. They already have so much power that instituting what you fear would essentially be tantamount to relinquishing control, not gaining it. Being selective of some countries over other countries as your anecdote does not make you less emotional. It simple shows your racial bias. Please do inform me of my racial bias and its effects on my argument. You're using the fact that socialist movements worked in white countries (like Sweden) allow you to pretend that socialist movements in other countries don't count (China, Philippines, South America, etc...) So telling people of color that your white examples are more relevant than their non-white examples shows a lot about your bias. For the sake of someone having said it, the difference between those two sets isn't that one is white and the other isn't. The difference is that one case refers to a social democracy movement and the other refers to a socialist movement under the american (or historical) definition. Your examples aren't dismissed because they aren't white enough. They are because we're not talking about the same thing. You mean you guys didn't make reform laws through the democratic process and had the side effects happen only after passing it through legal means? Or are you mainly imagining China and Cuba's rise to communist power when you imagine social reforms. Sometimes trying to fix the economy by giving more power to the workers does not work. Sometimes it leads to bloodshed, and other times it doesn't. Don't pretend that somehow the US is safe from these issues just because you imagine it is more similar to the EU than to the non-white social reform states. So when people share their stories about what has gone wrong, listen to them. And makes sure to develop safeguards against it. Remember that the power you give to the good leaders will be the same ones used by the bad ones who came later. Do not think of things as being innately good or innately bad--but as mere options that you have to take in context with the resources available, the people available, and the types of leaders you can envision following after you. I don't mean that and I'm not pretending any of this. I usually mean what I write. You are putting in the same sentence political tendancies that are different and you've said that the only reason we're not putting them in the same sentence is because we don't care about non-white people experience. You are incorrect. We're not putting them in the same sentence because they don't belong in the same sentence. That is the entirety of what I'm saying. You have made zero argument as to why they are not the same things other than because you say so. The argument you're making is "Look at the US, look at the EU, so same. Look at US, look at America, so different" and its just sickening to me. There is nothing that suggests that somehow social reform in the US will follow the EU and not how many other countries go. There are a lot of people in the US, armed people, people with highly vitriolic and highly rigid ideals. You're telling me that there is zero chance they have a breaking point, that social movements in a country where half the population are okay with gun violence so long as they keep their guns too, a country where half keeps saying that if the government overreach becomes too much that they will respond in kind. You're telling me that this country has nothing to fear about putting into a place a socialist movement just because the EU did well and pointing to non-EU countries that didn't do well is somehow "DON'T BELONG IN THE SAME SENTENCE." Please, enlighten me how different the US is from non-EU countries. Socialization of healthcare/insurance/education is a far cry from socialization of the entire economy which is what you keep arguing, which is what absolutely nobody worth mentioning is planning to do in the united states.
Really? A 15 trillion dollar plan that will require extracting money for businessmen and bankers is not a first step into economic reform? That somehow we won't treat that tax bracket the same way social security is handled? As an easy source of splurge pork spending whenever a congressman or congresswoman needs more votes to pass a civil rights bill and so has to tack on infrastructure spending into it?
Don't wait for the corrupt to tell you they're being corrupt. Be watchful early, be watchful often, and don't let your idealism blind your critical eye.
|
The issue of militant right-wing terrorism has been present since before the Oklahoma City bombings. Radical anti-government/anarchist elements have a long history in this country, the problem recently being that 9/11 dramatically shifted the focus of anti-terrorist activities (and public focus) externally and towards the global jihadist movement instead. It's also been, to a large extent, exacerbated by the Culture Wars the Republicans instigated in the early 00's over issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Despite helping them win elections at the time as powerful wedge issues, they are now presently losing on these very issues, and at an ever-increasing pace.
Some of the chief and most powerful opponents, for instance, to Republican-led anti-LGBT state laws and regulations are now businesses.
|
On April 12 2016 09:25 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 09:23 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 12 2016 09:15 m4ini wrote:On April 12 2016 09:13 Soap wrote:On April 12 2016 08:42 Naracs_Duc wrote:
There are a lot of people in the US, armed people, people with highly vitriolic and highly rigid ideals. So does Germany. In some peoples wet dreams maybe. Not in reality. Not even remotely close. Like, not the same solar system not close. The US currently has people who firebomb abortion clinics, has regular mass shootings, and there has been little to no effort to disarm that demographic. We literally have lawmakers in the US charging women for murder if they have a miscarriage, a presidential candidate whose main claim to fame is building walls and killing muslims with pigs blood. So no, I don't have faith that major social reform will be accepted peacefully in this country. So now you've proved that virtually nothing about communism, socialism, OR the United States of America... what else do you have that qualifies you to be in this discussion?
Proved that what? Your sentence makes no sense. I've proved what?
|
On April 12 2016 09:30 Lord Tolkien wrote:
The issue of militant right-wing terrorism has been present since before the Oklahoma City bombings. Radical anti-government/anarchist elements have a long history in this country, the problem recently being that 9/11 dramatically shifted the focus of anti-terrorist activities (and public focus) externally and towards the global jihadist movement instead. It's also been, to a large extent, exacerbated by the Culture Wars the Republicans instigated in the early 00's over issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Despite helping them win elections at the time as powerful wedge issues, they are now presently losing on these very issues, and at an ever-increasing pace.
Some of the chief and most powerful opponents, for instance, to Republican-led anti-LGBT state laws and regulations are now businesses.
These types of radical sentiments are best managed in a slow but steady pace, one at a time. Gay marriage here, LGBT hiring practices there, an smoother green card vetting process here, etc... People resist sudden changes and people resist big eye sore changes. The tactics the Obama coalition has been doing has been very effective for a reason--its laser focused and only tackles one issue at a time preventing the discussion from being a class one.
People like Bernie sanders with his wanting to make this be a large scale class issue threatens to undermine the very positive steps forward we been having.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there's actually a lot of substance to that daily news interview with hillary. she's talking about some pretty important things with the lack of long term investment with our big public companies, and the dividend hunger that drives part of this dynamic. it's pretty important to look at these inside baseball issues to figure out a way forward.
Daily News: That I think is the fundamental theory of your economic plan.
Clinton: Right, but I also want to change...I didn't get to the long-term part, but let me just finish on fairness quickly. I support the increase in minimum wage. I supported the Fight for 15. I think the way New York has done it makes a lot of sense, because, you know, applying it more quickly in New York City, having a more phased-in application upstate, keeping an eye out for unintended consequences. California's doing something similar.
So I think raising the bottom historically has meant you also bump up those above the bottom. We also have to guarantee equal pay for women. And you know, people look at me when I say this like, "Well, that's a luxury." It's a necessity. It goes into the wage base. It goes into the pocket book, and we have a continuing big problem about unequal pay for women. And the women's soccer team is just the latest example. There's a lot of issues around this because we have a lack of transparency.
So this is a big deal to me. I point out all the time, because when I'm speaking to big crowds, I say we have to guarantee equal pay for women. The women all applaud wildly, and a lot of the men are just sort of looking at me. And then I quickly say this is not just a women's issue. It's a family issue. If you have a mother, a wife, a sister, a daughter who is not being paid fairly, she does not get a gender discount when she's checking out at the supermarket. You're a white woman, therefore you only have to pay 78 cents on the dollar, or you're an African-American woman, you only have to pay 68 cents, or you're a Latino, you only have to pay 58 cents. That doesn't happen, so it is a family issue and it's a broader issue of economic fairness and I would argue growth.
And then long-term, we've got to look at capital gains as well as corporate tax. I want to reward patient capital. I think the more we can try to nudge our business leadership into looking at what will grow their companies and grow their employment base.
And the final thing I'll say about this, because I could talk on for a long time. When I was giving one of my economic speeches and I was looking through a lot of the reporting, there was a survey that had been done with leaders of major American corporations, people in the top 100, right? And they were asked a question, to paraphrase, that went like this, "If you could make an investment today in plant and equipment, in research, in training and education for your workforce and you could be guaranteed it would pay off in five to 10 years in your bottom line, but it would knock a penny off your share price, would you do it?" To a person, they said no. And I guessed that one of the people saying no is somebody I know who heads one of these big corporations. So I called that person up. I said, "Were you part of this?" "Yes," the answer was. I said, "You really said no?" and the response was, "You have no idea. The activist shareholders, the market would destroy me. I can't make those kinds of long-term investments."
So we're looking at the incredible cost that quarterly capitalism is imposing on our economy. And if we aren't smart enough to figure out how to look at that and deal with it, shame on us. Because I remember when I went to law school, shareholders were not the only constituency of a corporation that had to be given priority, and we have slowly moved away from that for all kinds of legal and economic reasons and pressures. So we've got to take a look at how we are funding ourselves and the kind of pressures we are putting on corporations, which are driving American growth but not feeling like they can make the investments that will actually pay off.
the takeaway is that hillary spends a lot of time thinking about policy issues, because she cares.
|
On April 12 2016 09:21 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 09:15 m4ini wrote:On April 12 2016 09:13 Soap wrote:On April 12 2016 08:42 Naracs_Duc wrote:
There are a lot of people in the US, armed people, people with highly vitriolic and highly rigid ideals. So does Germany. In some peoples wet dreams maybe. Not in reality. Not even remotely close. Like, not the same solar system not close. maybe he thinks about all 5 Reichsbürger, a couple thousand in biker gangs and other organized crime outfits? or Schützenvereine are now militias..
Of course they are. And so are hunters. They're like headhunters. Literally.
And not to mention, those biker gangs etc wouldn't go ham for a "governmental overreach", they're criminals.
The US currently has people who firebomb abortion clinics, has regular mass shootings, and there has been little to no effort to disarm that demographic. We literally have lawmakers in the US charging women for murder if they have a miscarriage, a presidential candidate whose main claim to fame is building walls and killing muslims with pigs blood.
So no, I don't have faith that major social reform will be accepted peacefully in this country.
I only refuted the dumb comment about germany, i won't get involved in another socialist or nah discussion. 
|
On April 12 2016 09:36 oneofthem wrote:there's actually a lot of substance to that daily news interview with hillary. she's talking about some pretty important things with the lack of long term investment with our big public companies, and the dividend hunger that drives part of this dynamic. it's pretty important to look at these inside baseball issues to figure out a way forward. Show nested quote +Daily News: That I think is the fundamental theory of your economic plan.
Clinton: Right, but I also want to change...I didn't get to the long-term part, but let me just finish on fairness quickly. I support the increase in minimum wage. I supported the Fight for 15. I think the way New York has done it makes a lot of sense, because, you know, applying it more quickly in New York City, having a more phased-in application upstate, keeping an eye out for unintended consequences. California's doing something similar.
So I think raising the bottom historically has meant you also bump up those above the bottom. We also have to guarantee equal pay for women. And you know, people look at me when I say this like, "Well, that's a luxury." It's a necessity. It goes into the wage base. It goes into the pocket book, and we have a continuing big problem about unequal pay for women. And the women's soccer team is just the latest example. There's a lot of issues around this because we have a lack of transparency.
So this is a big deal to me. I point out all the time, because when I'm speaking to big crowds, I say we have to guarantee equal pay for women. The women all applaud wildly, and a lot of the men are just sort of looking at me. And then I quickly say this is not just a women's issue. It's a family issue. If you have a mother, a wife, a sister, a daughter who is not being paid fairly, she does not get a gender discount when she's checking out at the supermarket. You're a white woman, therefore you only have to pay 78 cents on the dollar, or you're an African-American woman, you only have to pay 68 cents, or you're a Latino, you only have to pay 58 cents. That doesn't happen, so it is a family issue and it's a broader issue of economic fairness and I would argue growth.
And then long-term, we've got to look at capital gains as well as corporate tax. I want to reward patient capital. I think the more we can try to nudge our business leadership into looking at what will grow their companies and grow their employment base.
And the final thing I'll say about this, because I could talk on for a long time. When I was giving one of my economic speeches and I was looking through a lot of the reporting, there was a survey that had been done with leaders of major American corporations, people in the top 100, right? And they were asked a question, to paraphrase, that went like this, "If you could make an investment today in plant and equipment, in research, in training and education for your workforce and you could be guaranteed it would pay off in five to 10 years in your bottom line, but it would knock a penny off your share price, would you do it?" To a person, they said no. And I guessed that one of the people saying no is somebody I know who heads one of these big corporations. So I called that person up. I said, "Were you part of this?" "Yes," the answer was. I said, "You really said no?" and the response was, "You have no idea. The activist shareholders, the market would destroy me. I can't make those kinds of long-term investments."
So we're looking at the incredible cost that quarterly capitalism is imposing on our economy. And if we aren't smart enough to figure out how to look at that and deal with it, shame on us. Because I remember when I went to law school, shareholders were not the only constituency of a corporation that had to be given priority, and we have slowly moved away from that for all kinds of legal and economic reasons and pressures. So we've got to take a look at how we are funding ourselves and the kind of pressures we are putting on corporations, which are driving American growth but not feeling like they can make the investments that will actually pay off.
the takeaway is that hillary spends a lot of time thinking about policy issues, because she cares.
Which, if you pay attention and care about what Hillary campaigns on and not whatever right-wing tabloid that gets upvoted to the top of r/politics by rabid Bernie supporters, you already knew and understood.
In other words, it's not as groundbreaking as the Sanders interview and treads relatively old ground. Doesn't drastically affect the race besides highlight the pre-existing contrast that Sanders inadvertently made in his NYDN interview.
|
Police needed most of Monday afternoon to arrest all of the sit-down protesters outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington at a demonstration in favor of changing the rules on political money, voting rights and redistricting.
More than 600 turned out for the protest, and more than 400 were arrested in the sit-in at the Capitol steps, U.S. Capitol Police reported. The nonviolent protest was led by Democracy Spring, a coalition of more than 100 progressive groups.
The protest was cheery and peaceful. Police blockaded the marble staircase with a chain and a cordon of officers. Demonstrators sat in front of the chain and on the plaza, talking, chanting, singing and taking pictures as police led them away one by one. Police, badly underestimating the potential crowd, initially brought a single bus to Capitol Plaza to haul the protesters away.
In a rally preceding the protest, organizer Kai Newkirk of the group 99Rise told the crowd that "we send a message — to everyone in our country who needs a government that represents us all — that this House is your House too, and now is the time to stand up and to take it back."
The coalition wants a "Congress of Conscience" to pass legislation limiting undisclosed and big-donor money, giving more clout to small donors; to restore powers in the Voting Rights Act; and to put an end to gerrymandered districts that insulate incumbent lawmakers from election challenges.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 12 2016 09:53 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 09:36 oneofthem wrote:there's actually a lot of substance to that daily news interview with hillary. she's talking about some pretty important things with the lack of long term investment with our big public companies, and the dividend hunger that drives part of this dynamic. it's pretty important to look at these inside baseball issues to figure out a way forward. Daily News: That I think is the fundamental theory of your economic plan.
Clinton: Right, but I also want to change...I didn't get to the long-term part, but let me just finish on fairness quickly. I support the increase in minimum wage. I supported the Fight for 15. I think the way New York has done it makes a lot of sense, because, you know, applying it more quickly in New York City, having a more phased-in application upstate, keeping an eye out for unintended consequences. California's doing something similar.
So I think raising the bottom historically has meant you also bump up those above the bottom. We also have to guarantee equal pay for women. And you know, people look at me when I say this like, "Well, that's a luxury." It's a necessity. It goes into the wage base. It goes into the pocket book, and we have a continuing big problem about unequal pay for women. And the women's soccer team is just the latest example. There's a lot of issues around this because we have a lack of transparency.
So this is a big deal to me. I point out all the time, because when I'm speaking to big crowds, I say we have to guarantee equal pay for women. The women all applaud wildly, and a lot of the men are just sort of looking at me. And then I quickly say this is not just a women's issue. It's a family issue. If you have a mother, a wife, a sister, a daughter who is not being paid fairly, she does not get a gender discount when she's checking out at the supermarket. You're a white woman, therefore you only have to pay 78 cents on the dollar, or you're an African-American woman, you only have to pay 68 cents, or you're a Latino, you only have to pay 58 cents. That doesn't happen, so it is a family issue and it's a broader issue of economic fairness and I would argue growth.
And then long-term, we've got to look at capital gains as well as corporate tax. I want to reward patient capital. I think the more we can try to nudge our business leadership into looking at what will grow their companies and grow their employment base.
And the final thing I'll say about this, because I could talk on for a long time. When I was giving one of my economic speeches and I was looking through a lot of the reporting, there was a survey that had been done with leaders of major American corporations, people in the top 100, right? And they were asked a question, to paraphrase, that went like this, "If you could make an investment today in plant and equipment, in research, in training and education for your workforce and you could be guaranteed it would pay off in five to 10 years in your bottom line, but it would knock a penny off your share price, would you do it?" To a person, they said no. And I guessed that one of the people saying no is somebody I know who heads one of these big corporations. So I called that person up. I said, "Were you part of this?" "Yes," the answer was. I said, "You really said no?" and the response was, "You have no idea. The activist shareholders, the market would destroy me. I can't make those kinds of long-term investments."
So we're looking at the incredible cost that quarterly capitalism is imposing on our economy. And if we aren't smart enough to figure out how to look at that and deal with it, shame on us. Because I remember when I went to law school, shareholders were not the only constituency of a corporation that had to be given priority, and we have slowly moved away from that for all kinds of legal and economic reasons and pressures. So we've got to take a look at how we are funding ourselves and the kind of pressures we are putting on corporations, which are driving American growth but not feeling like they can make the investments that will actually pay off.
the takeaway is that hillary spends a lot of time thinking about policy issues, because she cares. Which, if you pay attention and care about what Hillary campaigns on and not whatever right-wing tabloid that gets upvoted to the top of r/politics by rabid Bernie supporters, you already knew and understood. In other words, it's not as groundbreaking as the Sanders interview and treads relatively old ground. Doesn't drastically affect the race besides highlight the pre-existing contrast that Sanders inadvertently made in his NYDN interview.
there's a lot more in there that doesn't receive much coverage. leave it to a ny tabloid to do the job lol.
im just here highlighting stuff for some people in this thread
|
On April 12 2016 10:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Police needed most of Monday afternoon to arrest all of the sit-down protesters outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington at a demonstration in favor of changing the rules on political money, voting rights and redistricting.
More than 600 turned out for the protest, and more than 400 were arrested in the sit-in at the Capitol steps, U.S. Capitol Police reported. The nonviolent protest was led by Democracy Spring, a coalition of more than 100 progressive groups.
The protest was cheery and peaceful. Police blockaded the marble staircase with a chain and a cordon of officers. Demonstrators sat in front of the chain and on the plaza, talking, chanting, singing and taking pictures as police led them away one by one. Police, badly underestimating the potential crowd, initially brought a single bus to Capitol Plaza to haul the protesters away.
In a rally preceding the protest, organizer Kai Newkirk of the group 99Rise told the crowd that "we send a message — to everyone in our country who needs a government that represents us all — that this House is your House too, and now is the time to stand up and to take it back."
The coalition wants a "Congress of Conscience" to pass legislation limiting undisclosed and big-donor money, giving more clout to small donors; to restore powers in the Voting Rights Act; and to put an end to gerrymandered districts that insulate incumbent lawmakers from election challenges. Source
LMFAO what a joke. They arrest 400 peaceful protesters but don't do anything about all the violent rioters and looters that were happening some time ago, or about the trump rallies where people got beat up by trump supporters.
|
On April 12 2016 09:36 oneofthem wrote:there's actually a lot of substance to that daily news interview with hillary. she's talking about some pretty important things with the lack of long term investment with our big public companies, and the dividend hunger that drives part of this dynamic. it's pretty important to look at these inside baseball issues to figure out a way forward. Show nested quote +Daily News: That I think is the fundamental theory of your economic plan.
Clinton: Right, but I also want to change...I didn't get to the long-term part, but let me just finish on fairness quickly. I support the increase in minimum wage. I supported the Fight for 15. I think the way New York has done it makes a lot of sense, because, you know, applying it more quickly in New York City, having a more phased-in application upstate, keeping an eye out for unintended consequences. California's doing something similar.
So I think raising the bottom historically has meant you also bump up those above the bottom. We also have to guarantee equal pay for women. And you know, people look at me when I say this like, "Well, that's a luxury." It's a necessity. It goes into the wage base. It goes into the pocket book, and we have a continuing big problem about unequal pay for women. And the women's soccer team is just the latest example. There's a lot of issues around this because we have a lack of transparency.
So this is a big deal to me. I point out all the time, because when I'm speaking to big crowds, I say we have to guarantee equal pay for women. The women all applaud wildly, and a lot of the men are just sort of looking at me. And then I quickly say this is not just a women's issue. It's a family issue. If you have a mother, a wife, a sister, a daughter who is not being paid fairly, she does not get a gender discount when she's checking out at the supermarket. You're a white woman, therefore you only have to pay 78 cents on the dollar, or you're an African-American woman, you only have to pay 68 cents, or you're a Latino, you only have to pay 58 cents. That doesn't happen, so it is a family issue and it's a broader issue of economic fairness and I would argue growth.
And then long-term, we've got to look at capital gains as well as corporate tax. I want to reward patient capital. I think the more we can try to nudge our business leadership into looking at what will grow their companies and grow their employment base.
And the final thing I'll say about this, because I could talk on for a long time. When I was giving one of my economic speeches and I was looking through a lot of the reporting, there was a survey that had been done with leaders of major American corporations, people in the top 100, right? And they were asked a question, to paraphrase, that went like this, "If you could make an investment today in plant and equipment, in research, in training and education for your workforce and you could be guaranteed it would pay off in five to 10 years in your bottom line, but it would knock a penny off your share price, would you do it?" To a person, they said no. And I guessed that one of the people saying no is somebody I know who heads one of these big corporations. So I called that person up. I said, "Were you part of this?" "Yes," the answer was. I said, "You really said no?" and the response was, "You have no idea. The activist shareholders, the market would destroy me. I can't make those kinds of long-term investments."
So we're looking at the incredible cost that quarterly capitalism is imposing on our economy. And if we aren't smart enough to figure out how to look at that and deal with it, shame on us. Because I remember when I went to law school, shareholders were not the only constituency of a corporation that had to be given priority, and we have slowly moved away from that for all kinds of legal and economic reasons and pressures. So we've got to take a look at how we are funding ourselves and the kind of pressures we are putting on corporations, which are driving American growth but not feeling like they can make the investments that will actually pay off.
the takeaway is that hillary spends a lot of time thinking about policy issues, because she cares.
Whats she suggesting, that female soccer players should be paid the same as the men despite the fact far fewer people watch womens sport? Who pays the difference? Pretty scary to think that she is the frontrunner in this race, she is all over the place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
