|
On October 11 2011 06:10 GeyzeR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 04:03 Undrass wrote:
I'm just curious, the political structure is very different from what I'm used to from Europe: How is it possible to cover all the political width with just two parties?
With just two parties, you have just two choices. This means that the you have less political diversity. The chance that one of the two parties has a political view very closely to your own, is very slim? I've got understanding that this is because it does not matter who do you vote for, politics serve to the rich. To make things easier and cheaper, the rich agreed to have only 2 parties. Actually this is what OWS do not like, as far as I understood, they feel like they are not participating anymore in the political life. And they cannot create another party, because they do not have money. I do not see any solution within the system, only to change the system. But again, they do not have power to do this. Mass media is very important in politics and it belongs to the rich. OWS just do not have means to bring the message to population, just internet, but it is not enough.
I agree with most of your post, but I think they do have the means to bring the message to the people. Internet is very good at spreading ideas, and a part of the media is speaking about the protests. Many people are aware of it, and more know every day.
|
Glad you guys in Sweden know about DN! It is the #1 news source inside the US, and gets more exclusive/first interviews with news-making persons.
|
A also want to add that the message is not clear.
It must be simple and easy for people to pick it up.
Many do not understand why, for example, money is debt. And if you go to deep into critics of the current economy, they will call you a commie. It is easier then understanding how economy works.
|
Wow, pepper spray, arrests and infiltration to discredit the movement. It is getting serious.
|
On October 11 2011 06:10 GeyzeR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 04:03 Undrass wrote:
I'm just curious, the political structure is very different from what I'm used to from Europe: How is it possible to cover all the political width with just two parties?
With just two parties, you have just two choices. This means that the you have less political diversity. The chance that one of the two parties has a political view very closely to your own, is very slim? I've got understanding that this is because it does not matter who do you vote for, politics serve to the rich. To make things easier and cheaper, the rich agreed to have only 2 parties. Actually this is what OWS do not like, as far as I understood, they feel like they are not participating anymore in the political life. And they cannot create another party, because they do not have money. I do not see any solution within the system, only to change the system. But again, they do not have power to do this. Mass media is very important in politics and it belongs to the rich. OWS just do not have means to bring the message to population, just internet, but it is not enough.
And this is what the tea party slowly learned. So instead of fighting the system they invaded the republican party and got tea party candidates to be put in the republican spots on the ballot. after they're candidates where in the election they could support them and get change in the party and government by having a quasi 3rd party. I don't see OWS doing this so I don't think it'll end up to doing anything
On October 11 2011 07:01 GeyzeR wrote:Wow, pepper spray, arrests and infiltration to discredit the movement. It is getting serious.
Thats not special at all it happens at every single political convention it doesn't get the same level of awareness but trust me the police aren't acting any different then if this was just a common protest they've trained for in the academy. If it makes anyone feel better the cops don't get to see they're families during this very much and its costing the city a hell of a lot of money the longer it goes on.
Whats really funny is that the tear gas and riot gear is made in the united states and exported throughout the world. the corporations in america are making a lot of money off of this protest and the government is having to foot the bill for it all.
|
On October 11 2011 04:51 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 04:31 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 04:20 XerrolAvengerII wrote:On October 11 2011 04:07 aksfjh wrote:You can't pin even most of this on "unsustainable welfare states" when most of the debt created in the past decade were direct results of tax cuts....
....and the waging of new wars that were paid with American money instead of American lives. Dude, wtf does that even mean? he wants to fund the development of mobile dolls, seen in gundam wing, so that war between countries relies wholly on economic costs rather than human costs. Well the cost of war for super powers anyways. I found a photo of aksfjh off of google. ![[image loading]](http://cdn.myanimelist.net/images/characters/4/40379.jpg) Wait, I thought he (or I in this case?) was against the increased use of mobile dolls... Anyways, I was merely providing commentary on the subject. When somebody employed at Haliburton loses 3 limbs or dies, the public doesn't hear about it or care. When somebody who is in service of their country dies, it's a much bigger deal and American citizens begin to turn against the war much quicker. I can't comment either way on this, since there are benefits to both approaches and it's already said and done anyways.
=/ yeah you're right, sorry it didn't hold up i guess. he's a bit of a hypocrite then because he ends up using mobile dolls in the battle before he dies.
But you're wrong in terms of the Haliburton example. Everytime someone in the private sector dies, you can be damned sure that it's very public to stakeholders, just not every single person in the economy. Saftey is so highly valued in most (the ones I've been exposed to) if not all oil extraction/enrichment companies that some investors question its worth in the long term. Someone getting injured on the job is really, really bad for the PR of any company, and they tend to be very forthright about it because if they're not and the media discoveres that they aren't forthcoming about saftey issues then a fierce bloodbath will ensue.
If the US military was looked at as closely as the oil industry has been since the BP spill (redundant because the blame should have been spread across half a dozen companies involved in the rigs development, construction, testing, and operations) in the gulf (and that they cared to improve as much as BP did), you would see an immediate increase in combat efficieny and overall reduction of wasteful deaths. BP could never sanely withhold corporate assets to not increase safety, or investors and employees would note it and jump ship to a competator. Where are US soldiers going to go if they don't like the military's practices? No where, they'll get court martialed if they say anything against the upper echelons.
I don't mean to target you personally or your example, but I don't think people see just how much effort corporate America puts into being sustainable and being heavily tied to them I find it frightening.
In terms of occupy wallstreet, which targets the financial sector rather than the corporate sector, I think it's just another movement of lazy annons asking for handouts under the guise of being socialist (although some things I've read are extremely marxist, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they aren't THAT ignorant..) Investment bankers (the 1%...) work really hard for their money, and if it's so damn easy to make billions by corrupting the market I'm sure that all of the kiddies from 4chan would have already done it.
|
In terms of occupy wallstreet, which targets the financial sector rather than the corporate sector, I think it's just another movement of lazy annons asking for handouts under the guise of being socialist (although some things I've read are extremely marxist, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they aren't THAT ignorant..) Investment bankers (the 1%...) work really hard for their money, and if it's so damn easy to make billions by corrupting the market I'm sure that all of the kiddies from 4chan would have already done it.
Agree 100%, it's a movement birthed from contempt, that sustains itself from contempt, and hopes to grow off contempt.
Hate Republicans / capitalism so much that you couldn't bring yourself to hold a civil conversation with one, ever? Think democracy is a bullshit lie propagated by corporations, and that things would be much better if the heavy hand of government did some major pimp-slapping to those who 'deserve it,' regardless of their rights and freedoms? Occupy Wall Street is for you!
|
Alright, this may be because I'm not american, but why are the unions bad? As far as I know they are the organization that monitors employers and is looking out for the working people, so why do some people want to distant themselves from them? Now, it's obvious that something along the lines isn't working as it should, otherwise people wouldn't be worried about loosing support over this, but what is it and why?
|
On October 11 2011 07:51 sqrt wrote:
Alright, this may be because I'm not american, but why are the unions bad? As far as I know they are the organization that monitors employers and is looking out for the working people, so why do some people want to distant themselves from them? Now, it's obvious that something along the lines isn't working as it should, otherwise people wouldn't be worried about loosing support over this, but what is it and why?
Because unions are corrupt and anti-competitive. They have roots in racism as they have tried to deny blacks entrance into skilled job markets. They have too much money. There are labor unions that own golf courses. The bosses are living a lavish lifestyle. I've seen teacher in unions Florida that hire poor people to protest for them. Their overall reputation is just abysmal.
|
Alright, this may be because I'm not american, but why are the unions bad? As far as I know they are the organization that monitors employers and is looking out for the working people, so why do some people want to distant themselves from them? Now, it's obvious that something along the lines isn't working as it should, otherwise people wouldn't be worried about loosing support over this, but what is it and why?
US union membership has been dropping (in the private sector) for decades. Only something like 7% of US workers who work for private businesses are in unions.
On the other hand the number of union members working for government has increased, and unions have become a major spending machine for the Democratic Party (in 2008, unions spent more than any other outside group on the elections here, around 400 million dollars). Also, public sector unions got very very generous pension and benefits plans during contract negotiations in the 1990s.
Because of their identification with the Democratic Party, and because state budgets are in bad shape with the recession, and because private sector workers are losing their benefits and pensions and jobs while public-sector union members are more shielded from the bad economy thanks to their contracts, unions generate a lot of resentment among conservatives and conservative-leaning independents.
|
On October 11 2011 04:03 Undrass wrote:
I'm just curious, the political structure is very different from what I'm used to from Europe: How is it possible to cover all the political width with just two parties?
With just two parties, you have just two choices. This means that the you have less political diversity. The chance that one of the two parties has a political view very closely to your own, is very slim?
That is another issue. All elected people are only elected as the winners of local elections like in Great Britain. The Congress has 435 seats elected through a distribution among the states and each state is geographically split in as many districts as they have seats to fill. Winner takes it all.
The big thing about this system is that having a membership of one of the two parties, you gain a lot of power in who to nominate for president. Traditionally the president is a 100 % sure pick if he has a chance of reelection. Therefore it is the opposition having a plethora of choices for who to put up as candidate for the coming election.
Not in a party? Sucks for you, since you will have only 2 real choices for the election!
In mainland Europe (hereunder Norway and Denmark) we have a far more complicated system of also dividing in districts but with more than one seat for each + country-wide redistribution giving the parties seats to fill up based on total voter-distribution (if Florida had 1 % voter turn-up and California had 95 % turn-up, more candidates would be elected indirectly by California than Florida).
Denmark and Norway both suffer from having no direct election of a prime minister. However the way it is done, minorities can get a lot more say in matters and more importantly: It is a million time easier for any kind of new party to gain influence, making it a lot easier to get change! 
Something to think about: If Denmark had district-elections like in USA we would have up to 6 parties represented and 4 of them by only 1 or 2 seats, making Denmark practically a 2-party system. In reality 9 parties are represented in danish parliament and one party came in more or less for the first time (after changing name, politics and many of the candidates).
It is therefore not so much a matter of voting-habits but electoral system that determines the number of choices the voters have in each country.
See this post as a posibility for a subject of OWS. Changing the electoral system.
|
On October 11 2011 07:58 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 07:51 sqrt wrote:
Alright, this may be because I'm not american, but why are the unions bad? As far as I know they are the organization that monitors employers and is looking out for the working people, so why do some people want to distant themselves from them? Now, it's obvious that something along the lines isn't working as it should, otherwise people wouldn't be worried about loosing support over this, but what is it and why? Because unions are corrupt and anti-competitive. They have roots in racism...
Hilarious.
|
On October 11 2011 07:58 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 07:51 sqrt wrote:
Alright, this may be because I'm not american, but why are the unions bad? As far as I know they are the organization that monitors employers and is looking out for the working people, so why do some people want to distant themselves from them? Now, it's obvious that something along the lines isn't working as it should, otherwise people wouldn't be worried about loosing support over this, but what is it and why? Because unions are corrupt and anti-competitive. They have roots in racism as they have tried to deny blacks entrance into skilled job markets. They have too much money. There are labor unions that own golf courses. The bosses are living a lavish lifestyle. I've seen teacher in unions Florida that hire poor people to protest for them. Their overall reputation is just abysmal.
That is the most warped view of unions I have ever heard of. Without unions, we as workers would never have gained any of the rights or protections we have today. Next, are you going to say that the civil rights movement was a bunch of hippies and that we should go back to the way things were before the 60's?
|
Hilarious.
That is the most warped view of unions I have ever heard of. Without unions, we as workers would never have gained any of the rights or protections we have today. Next, are you going to say that the civil rights movement was a bunch of hippies and that we should go back to the way things were before the 60's?
Technically he's right about the racist part, but racism actually started becoming part of union identity more after World War I than during the prewar period when unions were born and had their critical development. And union racism diminished after the civil rights movement the way racism did in general.
But public-sector unions still suck today, they're vampires on state budgets.
|
I can never understand why people equate riches with hard work. It's a retardedly false platitude and yet everyone and their monkey throws it around like feces and no one even objects.
Out of the ten or so people whom I personally know to be rich two are true workaholics who built businesses from the ground up and another two work about as much as the average Joe. The other six are either inbred descendents of old money who, apart from copious amounts of cocaine and their cars, don't even have hobbies let alone jobs (some of the dumbest, vilest, hopelessly empty people I've ever met) or are well known mobsters.
On the other hand a great majority of poor people I know work very hard just to make ends meet. Even my friends with amazing jobs (like district attorney or hotel manager) who are from middle class families are still middle class, with loans to pay off for run-of-the-mill housing.
I guess these schmucks who apparently "earned" their 50 million work 572 hours a day or? Society should go back to where money is earned by actually doing something productive. People who shove money from left to right and leech it out of the system aren't hard working, they are a cancer and should be treated as such.
|
Hail well-met comrade, might you be from the People's Commissariat for the Interior?
|
On October 11 2011 07:51 sqrt wrote:
Alright, this may be because I'm not american, but why are the unions bad? As far as I know they are the organization that monitors employers and is looking out for the working people, so why do some people want to distant themselves from them? Now, it's obvious that something along the lines isn't working as it should, otherwise people wouldn't be worried about loosing support over this, but what is it and why?
1. Present day Unions do things like sue to prevent Boeing from opening a new plant in South Carolina because South Carolina is a "right to work" state. The would-be jobs created in South Carolina do not replace Union jobs, they are an expansion of Boeing.
2. Present day public sector (employees who work for the government) Unions make substantial contributions (bribes) to get Democrats elected, who, in turn, award government contracts to Union businesses and who negotiate Union benefits. Yes, the Union-bought politicians are the very people who are negotiating on behalf of the People and "against" the Union trying to increase benefits and salary.
3. Present day public sector Union employees make much more, including benefits, than their fellow "workers" in the private sector. They have it better because they have bought the politicians who negotiate against them.
4. Unions require U.S. companies to pay higher expenses than their foreign competition (auto industry), and as a result, U.S. companies can't compete in a world market.
5. The failed auto industry required taxpayer bailouts, which in large part, went to satisfy Unions.
6. When State governors try to bring their budgets into line with what States can afford, the Unions are the ones protesting. They run ads that politicians are trying to kill granny, prevent kids from getting an education, all that stuff, when really what the Union is fighting for is more money for themselves. This was most evident when teachers went to protest in Wisconsin, while school was in session. They didn't care about the kids' education, they cared about themselves.
|
Canada2068 Posts
On October 11 2011 08:30 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Hail well-met comrade, might you be from the People's Commissariat for the Interior?
Nice throwback to McCarthyism. I thought we'd left those dark days behind by now or is history simply repeating itself?
It's really sad how much politics is driven by fear. Fear of communists, fear of terrorists, fear of unions, etc. Fear makes people easily manipulated by the rich and powerful to push through their agenda that would otherwise be seen as insane.
|
On October 11 2011 08:45 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 07:51 sqrt wrote:
Alright, this may be because I'm not american, but why are the unions bad? As far as I know they are the organization that monitors employers and is looking out for the working people, so why do some people want to distant themselves from them? Now, it's obvious that something along the lines isn't working as it should, otherwise people wouldn't be worried about loosing support over this, but what is it and why? 1. Present day Unions do things like sue to prevent Boeing from opening a new plant in South Carolina because South Carolina is a "right to work" state. The would-be jobs created in South Carolina do not replace Union jobs, they are an expansion of Boeing. 2. Present day public sector (employees who work for the government) Unions make substantial contributions (bribes) to get Democrats elected, who, in turn, award government contracts to Union businesses and who negotiate Union benefits. Yes, the Union-bought politicians are the very people who are negotiating on behalf of the People and "against" the Union trying to increase benefits and salary. 3. Present day public sector Union employees make much more, including benefits, than their fellow "workers" in the private sector. They have it better because they have bought the politicians who negotiate against them. 4. Unions require U.S. companies to pay higher expenses than their foreign competition (auto industry), and as a result, U.S. companies can't compete in a world market. 5. The failed auto industry required taxpayer bailouts, which in large part, went to satisfy Unions. 6. When State governors try to bring their budgets into line with what States can afford, the Unions are the ones protesting. They run ads that politicians are trying to kill granny, prevent kids from getting an education, all that stuff, when really what the Union is fighting for is more money for themselves. This was most evident when teachers went to protest in Wisconsin, while school was in session. They didn't care about the kids' education, they cared about themselves.
Thanks, the first informative explaination on the topic. Most countries in europe have well-organised unions. Some of the problems described here has also been issues in european countries, but it has been dealt with to some extend most places. The unions in europe are very strong and they negotiate with employers and not the state. It is law in some countries that you need to be in a union and in the rest of the countries the workers demand you to join one. It is used as a kind of tax on construction for all members to be in a union and also as a guarantee for the job being done professionally.
The unions in europe are under pressure because of their earlier political ties, that are fading fast and a huge increase in use of cheap alien work.forces.
|
On October 11 2011 08:45 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 07:51 sqrt wrote:
Alright, this may be because I'm not american, but why are the unions bad? As far as I know they are the organization that monitors employers and is looking out for the working people, so why do some people want to distant themselves from them? Now, it's obvious that something along the lines isn't working as it should, otherwise people wouldn't be worried about loosing support over this, but what is it and why? 1. Present day Unions do things like sue to prevent Boeing from opening a new plant in South Carolina because South Carolina is a "right to work" state. The would-be jobs created in South Carolina do not replace Union jobs, they are an expansion of Boeing. 2. Present day public sector (employees who work for the government) Unions make substantial contributions (bribes) to get Democrats elected, who, in turn, award government contracts to Union businesses and who negotiate Union benefits. Yes, the Union-bought politicians are the very people who are negotiating on behalf of the People and "against" the Union trying to increase benefits and salary. 3. Present day public sector Union employees make much more, including benefits, than their fellow "workers" in the private sector. They have it better because they have bought the politicians who negotiate against them. 4. Unions require U.S. companies to pay higher expenses than their foreign competition (auto industry), and as a result, U.S. companies can't compete in a world market. 5. The failed auto industry required taxpayer bailouts, which in large part, went to satisfy Unions. 6. When State governors try to bring their budgets into line with what States can afford, the Unions are the ones protesting. They run ads that politicians are trying to kill granny, prevent kids from getting an education, all that stuff, when really what the Union is fighting for is more money for themselves. This was most evident when teachers went to protest in Wisconsin, while school was in session. They didn't care about the kids' education, they cared about themselves.
1 Opening a non union plant allows Boeing to close union plants without loosing the ability to make shit, look at plant closers for auto makers it's bargaining leverage in favor of boeing, boeing can easily wait 1 year close a union plant then wait depending on the state 4 5 years and re open that plant non union all while being able to fill orders.
2 How is a union paying for political power any different from the super wealthy doing it? In fact a union is more representative of people then a wealthy corporation as the union's interests is to it's people while a corporate interest is just to it's bottom line =p
clearly Whitman was more bought then jerry brown
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1321867&session=2009&view=late1
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1315466&session=2009&view=late1
3 Wait unions work?!?! who would have fucking thought that a union who can actually negotiate with it's employer be able to get more pay and benefits then a single person. You say public sector union employees like there are private sector union's that are comparable but there aren't. Show me the private sector union for teachers? oh wait there isn't one of any sizable amount but then again a private sector teach doesn't have to be qualified or pass any state mandates to be hired.
4 http://www.globallabourrights.org/reports?id=0503
Yes we should all strive to be like toyota
We should all just give up rights that US citizens fought for and died for, unions clearly killed all those striking in late 19th and earily 20th century. Clearly unions set fire to homes and broke peoples legs in the virgina's.
5 it also in large part was bad management who would trade in parts for union contracts immediate things like salary increases and benefits to long term things they cannot handle. The unions didn't make GM manage like shit =p Unions held GM accountable for promises like all unions they bring power to an otherwise powerless worker.
6. It's because they cut the budget in area's they can cut which if often in education so the teacher union complains, if you look at California budget problems it has very little to do with unions, very much so to do with direct democracy, allowing mandates for the state that cost money to do so but doesn't make a mandate in order to pay for that so the state has to defund other area's often in the only area's they can maintenance and education. The usual problem of people want benefits but do not want to pay for such crap
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
