Nope. Not Torture.

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3069619
The Federal Govt. shouldn't be able to benefit only a PART of the people in this country. Congressional legislation is for ALL US citizens.
Do you mean things like affirmative action?
For the record, special interest groups are no better than lobbyists. I actually consider them the same.
+1

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3069578
your first statement shows again that you dont read, or think about, what you are arguing... i have said where i work, and its not wal mart... the reason i talk about this place is because of what it does to its workers... they are becoming a monopoly in many places, which allows them to pay their employees crap and NO ONE can do ANYTHING about it... people need jobs -->wal mart is the main employer in a lot of places--> they pay crap and no one can do anything about it... your argument here is that these people would be without jobs if it wasn't for wal mart... NO NO NO... where there is demand there is supply... if people in the town need the stuff wal mart is selling several store can open to supply those goods (therefore employing those people)... you need competition in a society... "big box" stores are running this into the ground... you have a handful of retailers that control a huge portion of the market (this is important because, as mentioned before, retail is what we have in this country)... you were talking about the viability of companies earlier and that the government should leave businesses alone not subsidize the ones that cant make it... this is fine and makes since in a capitalist society IN THEORY... but what this allows is monopolies... which, in turn, makes the class differences worse....

Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3069578
so think about it... you are advocating for monopolies, which allows for only a very small few at the top to control all the money in the country... and give a little to the lower 99%... if it wasnt for the government "giving" money to the countries that aren't viable... its as if you havent thought through your argument...
There are some primitive economic models that argue this. (This will probably go completely over your head.) But the typical train of thought when you hear people say the big company is going to turn into a monopoly, and hurt the general public as a whole. The mechanism they use is to undercut the competition and take a loss for a certain period of time. Outlast the competition, then turn around and jack up prices to reap mega profits.
But in practice this doesn't happen. Because the moment they start jacking up the prices, some one else is going to see an opportunity and enter the market.
Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3069578
i dont disagree with your stocks argument but i think it is coldhearted to say the least... yes, maybe 45-50% of people own stock... but they own less that 50% of the stock... again, the more money you have the more you can make... i think this is a moot point because the minor difference the stock prices make in an average persons life doesnt justify companies paying their employees crap to raise stock prices... the VERY FEW employees at the bottom at the pay scale that own stock would benefit much more by receiving more for their work...
I never said that what companies want or don't want is right or beneficial for the country as a whole. I'm simply pointing out that behind those companies are people too. And you can't lock those people out of the political process simply because they are rich or have better worked the system that is in place.
And please get off this class warfare stuff, it is nauseating.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3069616
It was spearheaded by foreign companies. It could have been the best bill ever drafted by congress, I detest the way foreign entities had access to our politicians.
I'm the first to say we should do what is best for our country. And who cares what our "world standing" is. If it means doing things that are detrimental to U.S. national interest. I'm not arguing for foreign countries to be able to pay for Tom Dashle's rolodex. Or buy president's brothers. But national lines in business are very blurred.
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3069616
You state a single case. I can state two cases where someone went over Niagara Falls, unprotected, unharmed. So, it must be safe..
My example is not just an isolated incident.

Unless you're an ostrich with your head in the ground I shouldn't need to provide further examples of globalization.
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3069616
Open your eyes. You are promoting the takeover of the U.S. government by the highest bidder (China? Saudi Arabia?)
I hear you complain about jobs being shipped overseas. Our representatives aren't lifting a finger to mitigate that for the American worker. Why is that you suppose? Who benefits from relocating jobs to India and China? Do you benefit? I'm not benefitting from it. Do you think Tata benefits from Hillary sending high paid IT jobs to India? I know Hillary benefitted from it from the big contributions to her campaign but the unemployed IT professionals I know didn't benefit.
Go find where I complain about outsourcing. I think this outcry about outsourcing is trumped up political fodder. In the "horrible" period of outsourcing we've experienced our lowest unemployment rates Nationally outside of war time...
I'm not promoting the takeover of the U.S. government to the highest bidder. I've said it about 10 times, and I'll say it again. I'm not saying the mechanism and system of quid pro quo is right. And you can't fault someone for using a faulty system if it is what is in place to use. I'm simply saying you can't run around saying you have to shut out lobbyists. Because behind a good portion of them are Americans that are pursuing their interests. And representational government is kind of the whole idea.

I'm not denying the system favors those who have more so than those who don't. But those who have, have more to lose making it worth while to spend what it takes to get face time... It isn't their fault politicians like to "feel special." In fact I'll bet they'd love it if they didn't have to spend any money to lobby...
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3069619
The Federal Govt. shouldn't be able to benefit only a PART of the people in this country. Congressional legislation is for ALL US citizens. You and I live in Texas. What benefit do I get if Phillip Morris gets money to support their crops or some irrigation lake in South Carolina, or whatever state they grow their tobacco? Just because I MIGHT drive through the state once every 20 years? You want to provide benefits for a portion of the electorate? Let the lobbyists and special interests groups do it there. That's what the STATE govt. is for.
For the record, special interest groups are no better than lobbyists. I actually consider them the same.
I have no problem with this statement. Especially when it comes to disaster relief for New Orleans... I think it might be a little difficult to implement. And there will be debate on what is "for the national benefit." Like border security. Some morons won't care. But the idea as a whole isn't a bad one. (I'm not liking this thread, this is the second time we've agreed on something)

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3069621
Do you mean things like affirmative action?
+1
Affirmative action? No. I mean that the Federal government should only pass laws and legislation that affects all Americans, not just a select few. If lobbyists and special interest groups wants to get legislation passed that will benefit their little groups, do it at the State level where they live. Why should my tax dollars pay for some 'Bridge To Nowhere' up in Alaska? How does that benefit all Americans?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3069696
Affirmative action? No. I mean that the Federal government should only pass laws and legislation that affects all Americans, not just a select few. If lobbyists and special interest groups wants to get legislation passed that will benefit their little groups, do it at the State level where they live. Why should my tax dollars pay for some 'Bridge To Nowhere' up in Alaska? How does that benefit all Americans?
Supposedly our great and fearless leader was going to end all pork barreling. Little did we know that mean, pork would now just be the main course for legislation...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3069583
i dont completely disagree with this post... i am arguing for the people that have jobs... people that work full time and are still under the poverty line... and think about what you said above... if jobs paid over the poverty line and there was a reason to work versus sitting at home and receiving a check dont you think more people would work???
i dont support the following view but think about it this way... wouldn't it be better to sit at home, hang out with friends and family, etc instead of going to a job you hate??? and you would be living about the same life style...
i think anyone receiving welfare that is able to work needs to have a job... maybe it is cleaning up the highway or something pointless like that but they need to work for the money they are receiving...
Thing is that until you have developed a job skill you aren't worth x per hour. There has to be entry level jobs or kids fresh out of school are never going to get a start. That was my beef with the retarded living wage BS the Acorns and New Party were pushing . There great Idea was to make companies that did business with the city pay "living wages". Of course that eliminates people entering the job market from ever being considered to get a job with those companies.
If you make a company pay the kid who sweeps up and refill the paper towel dispenser enough to support a wife and a kid or two how much is the cost of the goods or services produced going to be?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3069724
Thing is that until you have developed a job skill you aren't worth x per hour. There has to be entry level jobs or kids fresh out of school are never going to get a start. That was my beef with the retarded living wage BS the Acorns and New Party were pushing . There great Idea was to make companies that did business with the city pay "living wages". Of course that eliminates people entering the job market from ever being considered to get a job with those companies.
If you make a company pay the kid who sweeps up and refill the paper towel dispenser enough to support a wife and a kid or two how much is the cost of the goods or services produced going to be?
If you want to talk things forcing jobs overseas...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3069696
Affirmative action? No. I mean that the Federal government should only pass laws and legislation that affects all Americans, not just a select few. If lobbyists and special interest groups wants to get legislation passed that will benefit their little groups, do it at the State level where they live. Why should my tax dollars pay for some 'Bridge To Nowhere' up in Alaska? How does that benefit all Americans?
You're being WAY over simplistic in your thinking there.
Number one, members of Congress are specifically supposed to look out for people in their home districts. Thats is the way it was originally envisioned and the way it really makes sense. There are regional issues to be deal with as well. A lot of this comes down to you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.
Basically comes down to the representatives from the dairy states are going to bargain with the say the representatives from the citrus growing states to get each others pet projects taken care of. That is the only way our government works.
As for the lobbying end of it lobbyists are really nothing more than salesman. A dairy farmer might know cows but what does he know about talking to a government official? Does he understand the down stream aspects of the milk he produces? If he has an issue it effects the processing plant, distribution network etc. The dairy farmer doesn't have time to learn about those other areas nor do they have time to learn about his so they band together and hire a salesman to help look out for their best interests.

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3069663
There are some primitive economic models that argue this. (This will probably go completely over your head.) But the typical train of thought when you hear people say the big company is going to turn into a monopoly, and hurt the general public as a whole. The mechanism they use is to undercut the competition and take a loss for a certain period of time. Outlast the competition, then turn around and jack up prices to reap mega profits.
But in practice this doesn't happen. Because the moment they start jacking up the prices, some one else is going to see an opportunity and enter the market.
my argument with the monopoly has nothing to do with the cost of goods... i understand what you are saying above and is true to some extent... a company having a monopoly, lets say wal mart, that can provide for all the basic need for people (food, soap, tp, etc) can control the wages in an area... i think wal mart actually causes the hourly wage to decrease (and there was a study cited in an article posted earlier that supports this)...
in simpler terms, wal mart has a monopoly in an area and pays min wage... how can a store come in and survive when they are probably paying more for their goods (since they dont buy more goods at once time than some countries) and they pay their employees a fair wage???

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3069724
Thing is that until you have developed a job skill you aren't worth x per hour. There has to be entry level jobs or kids fresh out of school are never going to get a start. That was my beef with the retarded living wage BS the Acorns and New Party were pushing . There great Idea was to make companies that did business with the city pay "living wages". Of course that eliminates people entering the job market from ever being considered to get a job with those companies.
If you make a company pay the kid who sweeps up and refill the paper towel dispenser enough to support a wife and a kid or two how much is the cost of the goods or services produced going to be?
this point is completely moot... one, because 'some kid' doesnt work full time (which was what i was saying in my post).. in Iowa high school kids cant work full time... this is simply solved by pay differences in working status... some one that is part time gets paid less (hourly) than some one who is full time... and this is where unions/gov't come in and stop companies like WM from keeping their employees from working full time... no more of this work 32 hours a week so we dont have to pay you benefits BS

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3069740
As for the lobbying end of it lobbyists are really nothing more than salesman. A dairy farmer might know cows but what does he know about talking to a government official? Does he understand the down stream aspects of the milk he produces? If he has an issue it effects the processing plant, distribution network etc. The dairy farmer doesn't have time to learn about those other areas nor do they have time to learn about his so they band together and hire a salesman to help look out for their best interests.
i cant think of any salesmen that will give you money to spend someone elses money... if you can think of any sales people that come up to you and say "i will give you $100 dollars if you give me $1000 dollars of job blows money" then you can compare these too... that is what they do, "we will donate you your campaign if you vote to give our company money, cut our taxes, or do something else that makes our company more money"...

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3069740
You're being WAY over simplistic in your thinking there.
Number one, members of Congress are specifically supposed to look out for people in their home districts. Thats is the way it was originally envisioned and the way it really makes sense. There are regional issues to be deal with as well. A lot of this comes down to you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.
Basically comes down to the representatives from the dairy states are going to bargain with the say the representatives from the citrus growing states to get each others pet projects taken care of. That is the only way our government works.
As for the lobbying end of it lobbyists are really nothing more than salesman. A dairy farmer might know cows but what does he know about talking to a government official? Does he understand the down stream aspects of the milk he produces? If he has an issue it effects the processing plant, distribution network etc. The dairy farmer doesn't have time to learn about those other areas nor do they have time to learn about his so they band together and hire a salesman to help look out for their best interests.
Your analogy pretty much validates what's wrong with the way the Federal Govt. does its job. Our govt. shouldn't 'work' on the basis of one group lining another groups pocket so their little part of America gets what they want. Again, laws enacted by Congress should be targeted towards all Americans, just not a specific group. If that dairy farmer needs issues addressed at his processing plant, do it at the state level where it belongs. Now if that farmer has issues that affect how his milk will be distributed to the market, that's a Federal issue. However, his senator shouldn't be able to go wheel and deal with the California senator and say, "I'll pass your bill that you want for paying for that Laker Championship parade, if you'll pass mine so that milk prices won't go up nationwide". One affects everyone in this country, the other only affects the people in a specific state. However, if that conversation went as, "I'll pass your bill that you want for paying for that seismographic study to monitor earthquakes in your state, if you'll pass mine so that milk prices won't go up nationwide". I have no problem with that '--- for tat'. Both of these laws could affect or benefit everyone in the nation.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3069797
my argument with the monopoly has nothing to do with the cost of goods... i understand what you are saying above and is true to some extent... a company having a monopoly, lets say wal mart, that can provide for all the basic need for people (food, soap, tp, etc) can control the wages in an area... i think wal mart actually causes the hourly wage to decrease (and there was a study cited in an article posted earlier that supports this)...
in simpler terms, wal mart has a monopoly in an area and pays min wage... how can a store come in and survive when they are probably paying more for their goods (since they dont buy more goods at once time than some countries) and they pay their employees a fair wage???
But it has everything to do with price! I'm not the one who hasn't logically thought through market share takeovers. Changing price points has the biggest influence on their bottom line.

 

[bang guy]

Please explain how preventing Corporations from buying legistation takes away an individual U.S. citizen's right to vote and petition their representatives.
The way I see it the corporations would no longer be able to influence politicians directly but the owners of the corporations can still vote, write letters, make phone calls, etc.
I don't blame them for doing it. In fact, I believe a board of directors is required to do it if it can increase profits. I just think they should be legally excluded from the practice.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3069854
Please explain how preventing Corporations from buying legistation takes away an individual U.S. citizen's right to vote and petition their representatives.
The way I see it the corporations would no longer be able to influence politicians directly but the owners of the corporations can still vote, write letters, make phone calls, etc.
I don't blame them for doing it. In fact, I believe a board of directors is required to do it if it can increase profits. I just think they should be legally excluded from the practice.
So basically you are saying?

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3069859
So basically you are saying?

Barring corporate lobbiests from accessing our representatives does not disenfranchise any U.S. citizens.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3069693
Go find where I complain about outsourcing.
I misspoke. Please accept my appology.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3069934
Barring corporate lobbiests from accessing our representatives does not disenfranchise any U.S. citizens.
how does that work with.
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3069854
I don't blame them for doing it. In fact, I believe a board of directors is required to do it if it can increase profits.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3070013
how does that work with.

I was responding to your statement of not blaming the corporations for their influence in U.S. politics. I don't blame them.
Two subjects.
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3069693
And you can't fault someone for using a faulty system if it is what is in place to use.
I used the wrong word, I'm not batting anywhere near 1.000 am I...

I don't believe I took you out of context though... I do not 'fault' them for using the system to the best of their ability for maximum gain.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3069811
Your analogy pretty much validates what's wrong with the way the Federal Govt. does its job. Our govt. shouldn't 'work' on the basis of one group lining another groups pocket so their little part of America gets what they want. Again, laws enacted by Congress should be targeted towards all Americans, just not a specific group. If that dairy farmer needs issues addressed at his processing plant, do it at the state level where it belongs. Now if that farmer has issues that affect how his milk will be distributed to the market, that's a Federal issue. However, his senator shouldn't be able to go wheel and deal with the California senator and say, "I'll pass your bill that you want for paying for that Laker Championship parade, if you'll pass mine so that milk prices won't go up nationwide". One affects everyone in this country, the other only affects the people in a specific state. However, if that conversation went as, "I'll pass your bill that you want for paying for that seismographic study to monitor earthquakes in your state, if you'll pass mine so that milk prices won't go up nationwide". I have no problem with that '--- for tat'. Both of these laws could affect or benefit everyone in the nation.
That is the way it is supposed to go but who makes the legislators aware of the need for the seismic study or the needs of the dairy farmer? All these different interest groups with legitimate needs hire people skilled at selling their programs or expressing their needs.