"a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21010415 en Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:21:46 EDT Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:21:46 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21023952 amigo_boy :
said by jmn1207 See Profile :

it's much harder to see how things really are when you are an actual part of what is being viewed.
I agree. An example is how we're the beneficiaries of socialization of food and drug quality. Those laws negatively impact people some people who would benefit from more affordable (and lower quality, or riskier) food and drugs. But, the majority (me and you) benefit by having a "market" with more predictable outcome than a truly "free" market would provide. Less personal responsibility for caveat emptor. We can just assume food will have an expiration date, and be made to minimum standards. No need to exercise the massive due diligence that a true, free market would require.

We benefit, so it's easy to just believe "free markets" work. It's easy to forget how some people were harmed as the "needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few." But, when the price of pickles at Walmart might rise by 1% because of a proposed minimum-wage increase (or, forcing Walmart to pay for health care or parental leave) it's easy to say *that* is an unnecessary interference of the market.

I think it's just human nature to ignore other oxes being gored for our benefit. It's easy to ignore how those are socializations of a market, impacting willing buyers and sellers. But, if something will impact us, then we engage in principled, libertarian rhetoric about "government not being the answer," or "free markets work."

That's the problem I have with libertarianism. It's not a real political theory. It's just a way to enjoy the teat of society, while claiming everyone *else* is looking for a handout (using the most absolute, black-and-white rhetoric to reinforce the self deception).

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21023952 Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:05:56 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21021027 jmn1207 : I admit that I am a victim of the brainwashing myself, to a degree. I try to remain as objective as I can, and having spent some time living overseas gives me a another perspective, but it's much harder to see how things really are when you are an actual part of what is being viewed. (if that makes any sense at all :))]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21021027 Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:27:40 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21020978 amigo_boy :
said by jmn1207 See Profile :

Usually when people are promoting free markets, they are doing so from an idealistic vantage point. The same can be said for people that push for a more socialized agenda. The reality, as you have stated, often lies somewhere in between a true free market and a command economy.
I agree. The problem I see is that it seems like we Americans have been indoctrinated to *reflexively* recoil at the mere mention of the word "communism" or "socialism." People can have a perfectly reasonable discussion about whether we, as a society, are willing to let people work for (and live on) pennies per hour -- just as we have established that we're not willing to let people buy/sell poor-quality (and less-expensive) medical services or food and drugs.

But, someone opposed to minimum wage will invoke the "socialism" word, and 9 out of 10 Americans will line up with the "free market" rhetoric because "I don't want to be a socialist, that's evil and opposed to everything about being a 'Merican."

Completely oblivious to how virtually all our markets are socialized -- and those *same* people *like* it that way.

I'm not saying things can't go too far. Just always amazed at the false use of rhetoric that implies absolute principles. It's such a cheap and dishonest way to stop any discussion. And it's amazing how effective it is, which means we 'Mericans really are brainwashed.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21020978 Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:17:43 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21019703 tschmidt :
said by jmn1207 See Profile :

Usually when people are promoting free markets, they are doing so from an idealistic vantage point.
Exactly.

A totally unregulated market encourage corporate malfeasance and since end result of market pressure tends to be winner take all we end up with a monopoly or at best a duopoly.

Excessive government control discourages competition and investment.

Goal of government policy is to maximize benefit to society as a whole. Create incentives for investment and innovation while curbing free market excesses. This seems like common sense to me. I'm perplexed it is not obvious to everyone.

/tom ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21019703 Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:57:11 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21019619 jmn1207 : Usually when people are promoting free markets, they are doing so from an idealistic vantage point. The same can be said for people that push for a more socialized agenda. The reality, as you have stated, often lies somewhere in between a true free market and a command economy.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21019619 Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:41:59 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21019278 amigo_boy :
said by ChrisXP See Profile :

A free market has to be free to work. Add Socialism into it, it no longer is free, but just another State runned institution.
All of our markets are socialized to some extent. And it's because "free markets" in the literal sense often don't work (just as socialized markets in an absolute sense don't).

- Food and drug quality laws, setting standards to a level a free market wouldn't.

- Laws governing medical products and services. Eliminating willing buyers and sellers of lessor-quality products and services.

- The SEC, moderating the stock market, to create more predictable outcomes and eliminate a large amount of caveat emptor that goes with true "free markets." (The same thing with banking regulations, making it virtually impossible for you to open a bank of lessor quality to serve those who may be willing to purchase those services, or earn more interest with greater risk).

- Building codes and zoning laws, restricting how you can dispose of your property (the basis of free markets).

- Social creation of corporate charters. A corporation is a legal yet fictional "person" created through public law in the State legislature. It serves as the fall guy if officers and investors make bad choices in the pursuit of profits.

It's been my experience that those who promote their position by reference to "free markets" are either naive, or deceptively misusing a term which would be more accurately phrased: "freer markets work better for those things I think should be freer." At that point, we're just talking about who's ox will be gored because you're suckling at the same societal nipple as others. (I.e., we're not talking about good versus evil, or some kind of absolute principle.).

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21019278 Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:46:41 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21018558 anon : I am definitely not talking price (or wage controls-only a high minimum), no socialism, only what we are already doing in the way of bribed politicians generated subsidies to big business BUT this would be largely paid for with a massive reduction in welfare/health govt payments to people not producing anything but higher taxes.
Look at the whole picture, an example is what West Germany did when it gained back East Germany (a basket case similar to our welfare state). They-overnight traded worthless east German marks for hard currency real marks, AND required that wages would only be paid in real marks with a high minimum (although not as high as West Germany).
Most people thought they were completely crazy (most wanted a "welfare" approach) but look at Germany now! They eliminated their welfare state. Yes, there were many jobs temporarily lost but the explosion of well paying jobs made up for this quickly and created many new ones.
Don't get me wrong- I am not talking about those that really need govt help.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21018558 Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:53:38 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21018526 ChrisXP :
said by ultracooldave :

I am saying employer wage subsidies in a transition period of years entirely paid for with a reduction in welfare benefits for say 70% (in the able to work category)in this massive and growing welfare state we have created.
Problem there is it never stays for just a few years, just like welfare wasn't a crutch to keep a population down, either (single worst thing the government has done to Black people). It's too good for politicians to scrap.

Plus, price controls can't be managed as easy as folks think. And personally it should be individual businesses setting their prices, as they know their individual market better than some bean counters crunching numbers.

A free market has to be free to work. Add Socialism into it, it no longer is free, but just another State runned institution.
--
Zionism is a crime

»www.jewsagainstzionism.com »www.christianzionism.org]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21018526 Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:29:05 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21018502 anon : I am saying employer wage subsidies in a transition period of years entirely paid for with a reduction in welfare benefits for say 70% (in the able to work category)in this massive and growing welfare state we have created. At the moment we are getting nothing but higher taxes and no productivity at all from these people. And there will be jobs-the baby boomers are retiring and there will actually be labor shortages-lets get the welfare people working and pay them enough so they can take care of themselves including compulsory health insurance!
To give you an example, if say Walmart sells a product for $10 and all the various wages needed to get that product sold is $1 (it is much less) and you double the minimum wage-how much are you going to pay-$11, assuming no subsidies, but there will be subsidies because these people will no longer qualify for welfare benefits. So I would say that $10 product may cost $10.25 and the employee will earn double and SPEND that money! Some of it will be on compulsory health insurance-guess what, we are not paying for that anymore. Get the Govt out of peoples lives!
We would also see a massive reduction in State expenditures on these people so maybe sales taxes could be reduced. We would also have a number of Govt workers that would have to find a real job.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21018502 Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:16:49 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21018420 ChrisXP :
said by ultracooldaveOur real inflation is caused by massive govt spending[/bquote :

Which is but a small factor in how and why local prices are raised when pay scales in the region are raised.

Remember this is local prices, not national (and China is national!).

And no, socialism is bad news for everyone, as someone still has to pick up the tab for subsidises.

Everything that costs the employer will be passed onto the customer, as businesses aren't in business to lose money.
--
Zionism is a crime

»www.jewsagainstzionism.com »www.christianzionism.org]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21018420 Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:31:12 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21017982 anon : Why don't you actually LOOK at the inflation rates of just about every other civilized country not paying a little more for minimum wages but nearly double in most cases? You also have to consider things like-less govt benefits/ less govt health care/30% taxes collected on those higher wages/ products made in China would NOT increase in price.
Our real inflation is caused by massive govt spending (and massive tax cuts to the mega rich) and increasing the national debt 4 trillion in 6 years!
But if you want to - go on blaming the poor for everything-BUT they are Americans who would buy my products if they could earn more money. maybe there would be less family violence/drug abuse/ crimes leading to costly jail space we are paying for.
It would be much cheaper to subsidise employers' wage cost than pay for the ever increasing welfare state we have created! Lets elimilate this welfare state and let people earn enough to take care of themselves.
Take that minimum wage to $18 and require everyone to buy their own health insurance! Eliminate food stamps and everything else to anyone capable of working-BUT-pay them.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21017982 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:19:46 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21016849 amigo_boy :
said by ChrisXP See Profile :

It doesn't work out that way. ... Some things will go up by 2%, others 200%,
Tell me how raising the wage of the lowest wage-earner by 10% will cause products or services to rise 200%. It's mathematically impossible. Especially considering the lowest earner's wage contributes a small fraction to the end price of a product. Even more so, a fraction of other wages such as exempt, salaried employees and executives.

said by ChrisXP See Profile :

No free rides.
I didn't say there was. I agree that raising wages raises the end price of the product. Just not equal to the percentage wage increase. There are other components that go into the price of goods and services. Not just the wage.

That's why we've had inflation due to rising energy prices, completely unrelated to wage increases. You could have inflation due to wage increases, but not energy prices (and thus the end price would rise only a fraction of the percentage of the wage increase).

Or, as I said earlier, there's Europe and its unions who negotiate labor contracts gauranteeing wages rise with inflation. The central bank of europe not only has to adjust monetary policy for inflation due to commodities (oil, precious metals), but also wage inflation which is guaranteed to happen due to labor contract.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21016849 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:33:39 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21016585 ChrisXP :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by ChrisXP See Profile :

It assumes that businesses will pass on any wage increases to the consumer.
I agree. But, that's not what you originally said. You gave an example of wages rising 100%, resulting in product price rising 100%. That's an exaggeration. If labor is 25% of the cost of a product, and the price of labor rose 100%, the product price would only rise 25%.
It doesn't work out that way. Once the wage increases *everything else increases accordingly*. Some things will go up by 2%, others 200%, but the balance will be whatever your raise offered you gets eaten, as the business is going to pass on the wage increase on everyone else, who in turn raises their rates.

No free rides.

--

See what happened today. The Dems are certainly no better than their Reps counterparts...

»abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventio···2&page=1

Arresting reporters now -- even manhandling them -- while they investigate the VIPs and lobbyists who's glad handing the Dems now.

Same BS as before, different party.
--
Zionism is a crime

»www.jewsagainstzionism.com »www.christianzionism.org]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21016585 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:37:12 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21016555 amigo_boy :
said by ChrisXP See Profile :

It assumes that businesses will pass on any wage increases to the consumer.
I agree. But, that's not what you originally said. You gave an example of wages rising 100%, resulting in product price rising 100%. That's an exaggeration. If labor is 25% of the cost of a product, and the price of labor rose 100%, the product price would only rise 25%.

If the wages of the lowest wage earners rise 10%, and their wages account for 5% of the price of a product, their minimum-wage increase would raise the price of the product 0.5%.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21016555 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:30:33 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21016297 ChrisXP :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

That's false. It assumes labor is the only cost of a product.

It is true that rising wages contribute to inflation. In europe, the way unions negotiate contracts that tie wage increases to inflation, it contributes to prolonged inflation. But, it's not like the costs of goods rise by the same percentage as the union wages did. Because the cost of goods includes the cost of materials, transportation, office space, etc.
It assumes that businesses will pass on any wage increases to the consumer.

Unions increase the overall price of everything when they want to increase wages. The South has a lower price for goods because the pay scale is lower (and we don't have many unions -- heck, even the employees vote them down without the employers hounding them). Goto San Francisco and NYC, and see how expensive it is compared to Atlanta due to the pay scale differences. Everything goes up when the pay goes up -- food; transportation; housing; even entertainment.
--
Zionism is a crime

»www.jewsagainstzionism.com »www.christianzionism.org]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21016297 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:33:25 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21015469 amigo_boy :
said by ChrisXP See Profile :

Everytime the pay scale goes up, the cost for goods also goes up. So what is bought at $8/hr now for $5, will jump to $10 @ $16/hr.
That's false. It assumes labor is the only cost of a product.

It is true that rising wages contribute to inflation. In europe, the way unions negotiate contracts that tie wage increases to inflation, it contributes to prolonged inflation. But, it's not like the costs of goods rise by the same percentage as the union wages did. Because the cost of goods includes the cost of materials, transportation, office space, etc.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21015469 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:59:23 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21015417 ChrisXP :
said by ultracooldave :

Do you realize that the minimum wage is $12.43 hour in Australia, nearly every other civilized country is much higher than us and they almost all get 6 weeks paid vacation per year, in Australia tax free, why don't you look at the inflation rates in other countries- you are talking complete nonsense with your "skyrocketing inflation"
They aren't a super power, let alone innovators of technology, either. If we modelled our businesses after the French, with their 30hr days and other Socialist perks, we'll be in their same position.

Everytime the pay scale goes up, the cost for goods also goes up. So what is bought at $8/hr now for $5, will jump to $10 @ $16/hr.
--
Zionism is a crime

»www.jewsagainstzionism.com »www.christianzionism.org]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21015417 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:50:32 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21015399 ChrisXP :
said by HiDesert See Profile :

The democrats are no better then the Bush admin.
Yeppers.

Dirty politics need power and money, and corporations and online advocate websites helps to grease their very wheels.
--
Zionism is a crime

»www.jewsagainstzionism.com »www.christianzionism.org]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21015399 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:47:23 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21015296 anon : Do you realize that the minimum wage is $12.43 hour in Australia, nearly every other civilized country is much higher than us and they almost all get 6 weeks paid vacation per year, in Australia tax free, why don't you look at the inflation rates in other countries- you are talking complete nonsense with your "skyrocketing inflation"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21015296 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:29:09 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21015264 anon : You need term limits if you do not have the "none" option due to campaign financing, but I see no need to get rid of politicians if the majority wants them, good ones are rare!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21015264 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:22:08 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21015249 jmn1207 :
said by SLD See Profile :

I could care less whether McBush or Obama get elected - the outcome will be the same 4 years from now. Corporate agendas will be furthered by the administration at the cost of the citizens.
I'm willing to bet that the minimum wage is increased at some point in an attempt to gather some votes, further adding to the already skyrocketing inflation, and, naturally, congress will surely give themselves a raise at some point over the next 4 years. Anything that else that gets done will most likely be a few passed bills with deceiving names that help a few C-level types at large companies at the rest of our expense.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21015249 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:20:12 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21015159 SLD : The point is that "party platforms" are just corporate-driven agendas. I applaud his ability to "spoil" the race by forcing the major parties to take the third-pary will seriously. Same for the voters - make them aware that there really could be a choice. I could care less whether McBush or Obama get elected - the outcome will be the same 4 years from now. Corporate agendas will be furthered by the administration at the cost of the citizens.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21015159 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:07:18 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21015147 MrMoody : Here's a hypothetical question. Some are saying the president actually makes little difference, but what would the US and world be like today if we had no term limit and Clinton had been reelected in 2000? How would he have reacted to 9/11 and reports of Iraqi WMDs? What would the price of oil be? The national debt? Maybe he wouldn't have won after the sex scandal and IT bubble burst, but he still had a 65% approval rating and I would've voted for him.

I think term limits are counterproductive. The incumbent has no advantage when he's a screw-up.
--
Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over the choice for President put forth by either party.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21015147 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:05:39 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21014935 anon : I might add that I could not see any need for term limits with the "none", the voters need to be able to "fire" politicians they do not want, at least 1 chance to do so every election but in the interests of having a government "none" should only be able to be used once, the risk is that the new candidates may be worse but it gives voters tremendous power.
This is similar to a no confidence vote in the British system.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21014935 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:31:41 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21014844 anon : "None of the above" is simple, if that choice gets the majority of the votes, no candidate is allowed to run again for that office, a run off election must be held and the current office holder would retain that office until a new election. If "none" wins again whoever got the most votes wins.
It is not going to happen without a referendum and being upheld by the Supreme court-very unlikely. Every politician would be against it!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21014844 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:12:12 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21014768 jmn1207 :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by ultracooldave :

We desperately need "none of the above" !!!!!! Time is running out for the middle class.
I don't understand what "none of the above" would do. If it's just meant to make a statement, that same statement is already being made when 75% of the adult population doesn't vote.

If it's meant to really vacate offices by electing no one, that would be unconstitutional. The way offices are filled is prescribed by the constitution. And there is a prescribed way to amend the constitution. Using the ballot to elect nobody would be circumventing the amendment processes which is made difficult and time consuming for a reason.

Mark
What I basically would like to see is an election where the people were choosing a candidate that they truly supported, if only a little. Today it seems that I am always left with a decision to pick the candidate that is the lesser of two evils. Our government seems more and more like a corporation, and just like most things offered by conglomerates, competition and consumer choice is largely non-existent.

The powers that have gained control of our resources need to be removed, or at least introduced to a third member that offers similar checks and balances that our founding fathers attempted to instill in our existing government. Unfortunately, this same group holds the keys to any doors leading to change in the system. It will be difficult, and amazing, to create some drastic modifications. And I am certain that whatever it is that brings about this change will most likely have many people longing for the way things are now.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21014768 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:49:10 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21014640 amigo_boy :
said by ultracooldave :

We desperately need "none of the above" !!!!!! Time is running out for the middle class.
I don't understand what "none of the above" would do. If it's just meant to make a statement, that same statement is already being made when 75% of the adult population doesn't vote.

If it's meant to really vacate offices by electing no one, that would be unconstitutional. The way offices are filled is prescribed by the constitution. And there is a prescribed way to amend the constitution. Using the ballot to elect nobody would be circumventing the amendment processes which is made difficult and time consuming for a reason.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21014640 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:25:55 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21014247 anon : We desperately need "none of the above" !!!!!! Time is running out for the middle class.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21014247 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:15:58 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21013873 jmn1207 :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

What we need is a tiered-ranking ballot where you could indicate your first, second, third, etc. choice. You could vote the Green candidate as your first choice. Then the Dem as your second. The tallying software would accumulate everyone's first choices, and if it isn't > 50%, discard them and proceed to the 2nd choice.
I'd be happy with a choice of "NONE OF THE ABOVE" included on every ballot. Even if we could not decide what actions should be taken if that result became the majority, at least it would raise the volume of our collective voices, the world would realize that many of us do not support the current government, and the actions of these leaders would not seen as mandated by the masses.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21013873 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:55:48 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21013851 cdru :
said by Jonbo298 See Profile :

There are other parties besides those 2 (I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not). Independents are the next largest, green party, etc..
Unfortunately, if you aren't red or blue, you have essentially no chance of getting into office. There are only 2 Congress Critters in federal office that are not affiliated with either major party, Joseph Lieberman and Bernie Sanders. Lieberman was formerly affiliated with the Democrats and both caucus with them. Prior to Sanders being elected, the previous independent in the house was in 1950.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21013851 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:50:11 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21013512 TheWickerMan :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

What we need is a tiered-ranking ballot where you could indicate your first, second, third, etc. choice. You could vote the Green candidate as your first choice. Then the Dem as your second. The tallying software would accumulate everyone's first choices, and if it isn't > 50%, discard them and proceed to the 2nd choice.

I think a lot of people would vote for third parties if they didn't feel "the worst of two evils" might get into office as a result.
Interesting idea. An idea I had was this: You know how our elected officials normally don't do jack for us, but once election year rolls around, they actually start doing their job, for fear of getting voted out of office? I say make every year an election year. Maybe then we could keep these bastards on their toes. Maybe if their jobs were in constant jeopardy, rather than only once every four years, we could get them to actually do something for us.

Then again, too many people can't be bothered to vote once every four years, let alone every year. And I have to admit, until about three years ago, I was no better. A politically-minded friend got me to finally start voting, at the age of 36.

said by amigo_boy See Profile :

But, modern Americans are pretty stupid. If they can't punch a pre-cut hole in a card (Florida), their heads would probably explode if they had to cope with 1 through n choices.

This may be the first time I actually find myself agreeing with you, but there's no arguing with that statement.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21013512 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:19:14 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21013411 DownTheShore :
said by SLD See Profile :

I guess if you are against people who fight for consumer protections, that is the appropriate response.
Not against them at all - in fact I support them. But Nader is a man whose time has come and gone as a viable third party candidate. The only role he has now is as a spoiler, and his presence in the presidential race has already helped the Bush machine one too many times. I don't want to see his presence do the same for McCain.

His voice would be better served organizing people to push the consumer agenda into party platforms - not getting a soundbite on the news stations.
--
Patriotism is not waving a flag, it is living the ideals]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21013411 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:39:39 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21013114 anon : "What we need is a tiered-ranking ballot where you could indicate your first, second, third, etc. choice. "
That's what they have in Australia, EVERY vote counts eventually, it seems good in theory but it does not lead to a real third party even there. They also make it illegal not to vote (with a small fine) and get a large % voting- does it help- nope, the mega rich worldwide control everything anyway!
The only place I know of where peoples vote actually counts against all that money and power is Singapore where it is illegal for any politician to accept ANYTHING, if you do you go to jail! I believe in China you could get the death sentence but they don't have a problem helping our politicians.
The system we have reduces the value of a vote in direct proportion to the money raised by the politicians, something that has been raised to a new level with Bush (and the Congress)--(transferring 5 trillion somewhere) and seems to be locked in now with both parties.
So go ahead with the voting, just remember that a $1 million contribution from the oil barons to McCain IS going to lead to $5 Billion in benefits to them!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21013114 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 03:14:16 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21012827 KrK : This is, it is broke, we should fix it. Also not sure about the Black Helicopter thing.... but it wouldn't surprise me.

Could of been just about anyone....

Yeah, he never should of left the race then re-entered. He claimed he didn't want it to be about him, but of course he was the icon of the movement, so of course everything was concentrated on him.

If he had been elected President, I think it would of been proof the system can be shaken up... but I expect the two party system in Washington would of tried VERY VERY HARD to lame-duck him and make him seem like an incompetent.

Who knows how it would of worked out. If the people liked him, Congress would have to get in line, but if Congress could make him seem stupid and incompetent, the people, especially party faithful, would buy it hook line and sinker. You'd see a impeachment in such a circumstance. Remember they also had the Unlimited office of Special Persecution back then, too. Something this administration has never had to face.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21012827 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:48:04 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21012803 amigo_boy :
said by KrK See Profile :

Question, a man who hires mercenaries to rescue employees held hostage overseas.... is that really a sign he's a loon?
I thought it was his Ron Paul'ish dismissal of complicated issues with "if it's broke, you gotta fix it." And then the part about his house being attacked by black-helicopter people, and he withdrew from the race, and then re-entered.

Personally, at the time I wished he would be elected just to shake things up. But, he really was a nut job.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21012803 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:40:10 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21012791 KrK : I don't believe he was that loony.

His style allowed him to be portrayed as kind of a bumpkin BUT we have other Presidents from Texas ... anyway, both parties went after him and tried to make him seem like a loose cannon.

Question, a man who hires mercenaries to rescue employees held hostage overseas.... is that really a sign he's a loon? Or maybe a loyal boss! ...Or a President who wants to invade a country? Which is worse?

Anyway, both parties went after him and tried to label him in two ways. 1: A fringe loonie and 2: Voting for Perot is "Wasting" your vote and helping the "Other" party win. BOTH parties preached this. I think this was the main reason people didn't vote for him...

Personally, I don't think a guy who becomes a billionaire and does it on his own really could be a stupid loon.

Either way, he failed... but he did make a big impact considering the relatively small amount of money he spent compared to the Republican and Democrat fund-raising juggernauts.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21012791 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:36:12 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21012739 MrMoody :
said by KrK See Profile :

Ross Perot came the closest in recent years.

I think TK is right about this... They need to start at the local and state level so they can build a base to propel them to the Federal Level.
Yeah, and if a loon like him* could get as far as he did in '92, imagine what someone more level-headed could do using the same strategy.

*Or at least he came off that way-how much due to media?
--
Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over the choice for President put forth by either party.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21012739 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:22:16 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21012678 KrK : Imagine if Americans actually took their duty to vote seriously, and we got 85% of the populace to vote.

That right there would cause some real changes. It would at least shake things up. I'm not sure Brad Pitt would make a good President, but hey, it's be different... :D
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21012678 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:07:30 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21012668 KrK :
said by nasadude See Profile :

It is correct to say this isn't really a D or an R issue - both sides (especially the Dem leadership) are equally craven and corrupt.
And the Democrats would equally say "especially the Republican Leadership."

What you just said is "Both sides suck, but the Dems suck worse, so vote for Republicans" which undermines the entire point, really.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21012668 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:04:32 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21012660 KrK : Ross Perot came the closest in recent years.

I think TK is right about this... They need to start at the local and state level so they can build a base to propel them to the Federal Level.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21012660 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:02:39 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21012655 KrK : I think the "Tax and spend" slogan is merely political labelling. It seems to me, both parties are "Spend & Spend" and it doesn't matter if it comes from borrowing, taxing, stealing until we break.

Basically it's massive waste, fraud, and graft all around amongst both parties.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21012655 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:00:17 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21012523 amigo_boy :
said by tschmidt See Profile :

With our winner take all system it is hard for third party candidates to gain enough traction to be elected.
I disagree. What hurts third parties is the lack of a runoff, requiring > 50% of the vote. Third parties can always be portrayed as a "wasted vote" or "voting for the greater of two evils by not voting for the lessor."

What we need is a tiered-ranking ballot where you could indicate your first, second, third, etc. choice. You could vote the Green candidate as your first choice. Then the Dem as your second. The tallying software would accumulate everyone's first choices, and if it isn't > 50%, discard them and proceed to the 2nd choice.

I think a lot of people would vote for third parties if they didn't feel "the worst of two evils" might get into office as a result.

But, modern Americans are pretty stupid. If they can't punch a pre-cut hole in a card (Florida), their heads would probably explode if they had to cope with 1 through n choices.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21012523 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:22:59 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21012471 hottboiinnc : it could happen if they didnt a ton of money nationally.

spend it in the states that matter and go from there. If you can win the states that matter or even maybe 2 of them then the other parties could have problems.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21012471 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:08:42 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21012447 hottboiinnc : and does that same consumer protection cover the drug addicts too?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21012447 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:03:34 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21011840 SLD : I guess if you are against people who fight for consumer protections, that is the appropriate response.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21011840 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:08:41 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21011432 DownTheShore :
said by SLD See Profile :

Nader!
Oh, puleez... :uhh:
--
Patriotism is not waving a flag, it is living the ideals]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21011432 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:45:45 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21011036 Maggs : He's got a point, start small and kick some ass. Divide and Conquer as they say.
--
NIL ILLEGITIMUS CARBORUNDUM!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21011036 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:26:15 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010972 SLD : Nader!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010972 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:13:39 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010817 tschmidt :
said by jmn1207 See Profile :

I keep hearing how I am wasting my vote by casting mine for anything other than R or D each election, but I know in my heart that I am really doing the right thing, and we have to start somewhere.
I tend to agree with the Democrats so in general have no problem voting for them.

If you find neither Republican nor Democratic acceptable then I think voting for a third party candidate is a good idea, better then not voting. With our winner take all system it is hard for third party candidates to gain enough traction to be elected. However they can and do influence the debate. In that role even though they do not win elections they perform a valuable service and voting for them provides a strong message to incumbents about popular sentiment.

/tom]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010817 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:41:44 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010812 en102 : I do agree that outsourcing is inevitable.
The issue that the politicians need to watch is the trade deficit, and who 'owns' the country.
--
Canada = Hollywood North]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010812 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:40:21 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010806 nasadude :
said by jimbo2150 See Profile :

said by tiger72 See Profile :

Stop voting (D)
Stop voting (R)
Who would you recommend then? If you don't vote D and don't vote R, you are not left with much. You suggest no one be president? Open office? ;P
I would recommend you find out how your representative and your senators voted. If their votes don't agree with your values, vote their @ss out of office.

It is correct to say this isn't really a D or an R issue - both sides (especially the Dem leadership) are equally craven and corrupt.

one telling fact: the republicans couldn't get the immunity provision thru when they controlled congress; they were enabled and abetted by a democratically controlled legislature.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010806 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:39:39 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010727 MrMoody :
said by jmn1207 See Profile :

I just want to see a national debate with a 3rd party participating.
Me too. Unfortunately neither the Ds, Rs nor media want this to happen, therefore it doesn't.
I keep hearing how I am wasting my vote by casting mine for anything other than R or D each election, but I know in my heart that I am really doing the right thing, and we have to start somewhere.
You said it, brother. I am sick of this, and I fully intend to vote for any third name that gets on my ballot, or write in someone (probably Nader) if there isn't. They have virtually no chance of winning, but if enough of us do it, maybe people will take heart and they will have a chance next time ...
--
Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over the choice for President put forth by either party.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010727 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:25:36 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010717 MysticGogeta : Yeah both party's do suck. However there never will be a perfect president from either party so you have to deal with BS all the time.
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010717 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:23:41 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010701 tiger72 : The LP is doing this to an extent, and slowly making inroads... ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010701 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:19:09 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010672 TKJunkMail :
said by tiger72 See Profile :

There are many 3rd parties who would love your support, and chances are there are 3rd parties which line up with precisely what you want - whether they're Reform, Green, Libertarians, or Constitutionalists...

But as long as we're stuck in the (D)-(R) chasm, we're going to just continue to fall.
said by jmn1207 See Profile :

I just want to see a national debate with a 3rd party participating.
The problem with most 3rd parties is that they spend too much time and money on national campaigns. If they went whole hog in a limited # of selected states they could actually get people elected to Congress(especially the House) and then use their leverage in a non-majority D-R split in Congress to negotiate some of the things they want and gain higher visibility for future elections. Until they do that they are going nowhere in Presidential elections.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010672 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:14:13 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010668 jmn1207 :
said by tiger72 See Profile :

Really? You really can't believe they did this?

Partisanship has only hidden the reality of politics. Each side points and cries "THEY are horrible!". When it comes down to it, both parties do the same crap, just under different banners.

Stop voting (D)
Stop voting (R)

Vote on the issues, and this will stop. Until then, it'll continue to be business as usual.
I just want to see a national debate with a 3rd party participating. We generally keep voting the incumbents back into office over and over again and we are going nowhere. There is very little separating a Democrat from a Republican other than the direction the mud is being slung. I keep hearing how I am wasting my vote by casting mine for anything other than R or D each election, but I know in my heart that I am really doing the right thing, and we have to start somewhere.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010668 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:12:06 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010667 cornelius785 : i hate this whole 'outsourcing' issue on how people cry like BABIES all over it. it is a FACT OF LIFE that it happens, you can NOT stop unless you cut off entirely from the world (nothing in or out of the country). i'd suggest anyone concerned with 'outsourcing' should take a good look at history. find me a place in time in which a technology or knowledge or 'jobs' did not get 'outsourced' to another country or place. we live, now more so than ever, in a world with a tightly intertwined global economy in which some competition is not confined to just locally.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010667 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:11:54 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010635 tiger72 :
said by jimbo2150 See Profile :

said by tiger72 See Profile :

Stop voting (D)
Stop voting (R)
Who would you recommend then? If you don't vote D and don't vote R, you are not left with much. You suggest no one be president? Open office? ;P
At the current rate things are going, that just might work!

There are many 3rd parties who would love your support, and chances are there are 3rd parties which line up with precisely what you want - whether they're Reform, Green, Libertarians, or Constitutionalists...

But as long as we're stuck in the (D)-(R) chasm, we're going to just continue to fall.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010635 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:05:37 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010624 Jonbo298 : There are other parties besides those 2 (I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not). Independents are the next largest, green party, etc..]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010624 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:03:44 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010551 en102 : I agree. Both want your support for their agendas, and both are horrible.

Whether it's the Democrats:
Tax us till we break, and spend irresponsibly (medical/medicare fraud, general wasteful spending). Sue for discrimination wherever possible, and kill off any hope of running your own business.

Or the Republicans:
Sell it all to the highest bidder, outsource north America, and still raise fees on everything possible. Become the world's police, for corporate interests.
--
Canada = Hollywood North]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010551 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:47:46 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010539 jimbo2150 :
said by tiger72 See Profile :

Stop voting (D)
Stop voting (R)
Who would you recommend then? If you don't vote D and don't vote R, you are not left with much. You suggest no one be president? Open office? ;P]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010539 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:45:14 EDT Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010453 tiger72 : Really? You really can't believe they did this?

Partisanship has only hidden the reality of politics. Each side points and cries "THEY are horrible!". When it comes down to it, both parties do the same crap, just under different banners.

Stop voting (D)
Stop voting (R)

Vote on the issues, and this will stop. Until then, it'll continue to be business as usual.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010453 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:31:40 EDT "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties" http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010415 HiDesert : This was dead wrong.. A total violation of the 4th amendment. The democrats are no better then the Bush admin. I still can't believe they did this. At least my Telco Qwest did not allow illegal wiretaps. And reading about these parties really burns me up. What corruption. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21010415 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:25:29 EDT