Nope. Not Torture.

reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3069799
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
Just because someone works full time doesn't mean they automatically deserve to make enough money to support a family. They need to develop a work skill to make them a valuable asset to the company that hires them. If Walmart doesn't want to have full time workers thats their business. If you or anyone else doesn't like you don't have to work there. I've known 3 or 4 people who worked for wally world and I don't remember any of them complaining about it. Unions have been a destructive force in the workplace the last 20 years or so. Time for them to either reform or go away.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
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.
Thing is they shouldn't be able to "buy" it. They should be able to lobby but some have figured out how to game the system. I don't think its a bad thing if a company wants to fly some congressmen and senators to a location where they hope to establish trade but there needs to be regs in place to make sure these are legitimate trips and not just a golf vacation somethere.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3070060
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.
Here's a thought. How about the legislators do their stinking jobs and do the research themselves? They get paid 6-figured salaries to work, what, six months out of the year? How about spending the other 6 months in their districts talking to their constituents about their needs? I've read multiple opinions in my local newspaper's editorials about how people write to their Congressmen about issues, and all they get are form letters back that don't even address their concerns. I get phone spams from my Congressman everytime he's up for re-election, and he even states that I'm free to call his office anytime to voice my opinions. I tried calling one time, and got nothing but a recording to leave a message.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3070082
Here's a thought. How about the legislators do their stinking jobs and do the research themselves? They get paid 6-figured salaries to work, what, six months out of the year? How about spending the other 6 months in their districts talking to their constituents about their needs? I've read multiple opinions in my local newspaper's editorials about how people write to their Congressmen about issues, and all they get are form letters back that don't even address their concerns. I get phone spams from my Congressman everytime he's up for re-election, and he even states that I'm free to call his office anytime to voice my opinions. I tried calling one time, and got nothing but a recording to leave a message.

You can't expect even the best of legislators to be knowledgeable to a high enough degree to make expert judgments on all the issues that come before them.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3070027
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.
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.
Just asking for clarification. I thought that was what you meant, but wasn't sure.
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3070082
Here's a thought. How about the legislators do their stinking jobs and do the research themselves? They get paid 6-figured salaries to work, what, six months out of the year? How about spending the other 6 months in their districts talking to their constituents about their needs? I've read multiple opinions in my local newspaper's editorials about how people write to their Congressmen about issues, and all they get are form letters back that don't even address their concerns. I get phone spams from my Congressman everytime he's up for re-election, and he even states that I'm free to call his office anytime to voice my opinions. I tried calling one time, and got nothing but a recording to leave a message.

lol, on a practical level, it isn't possible to for him to talk to Everyone, and in some cases, for him to hire a staff to talk to everyone...
Sadly it is a popularity game now. And quite frankly the guys who are good people persons usually are dumb...
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3070111
Just asking for clarification. I thought that was what you meant, but wasn't sure.
lol, on a practical level, it isn't possible to for him to talk to Everyone, and in some cases, for him to hire a staff to talk to everyone...
Sadly it is a popularity game now. And quite frankly the guys who are good people persons usually are dumb...
Come on. With the Internet Age and all the staff members these people get, you can't tell me they can't address their constituent's issues? I remember a couple years ago, we had a Rep here named Henry Bonilla (at least I think he's no longer in office. That's sad). He left a message on my phone once that he was holding a 'Town Hall Meeting' to answer any and all questions his constituents had. At first I said, "Yea right. I'm sure he'll be on the phone." I decided to call in, and sure enough, he was online answering any and all questions. If you wanted to ask a question, you pushed a button on your phone to be put into the queue. I stayed on for at least 30 minutes, and before I left, he said he'd stay on until every question was answered.
What percentage of people actually try to contact their Congressperson at least once every term? When's the last time you tried to ask your Congressman something? For that matter, have you ever tried to ask your representative a question? What's the difference between getting a Senator to ask a question, and a House Representative to answer it? How big a district does each Congressman have? Isn't there at least one Senator and a House member assigned just for the Houston area, or are there more than one?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3070140
Come on. With the Internet Age and all the staff members these people get, you can't tell me they can't address their constituent's issues? I remember a couple years ago, we had a Rep here named Henry Bonilla (at least I think he's no longer in office. That's sad). He left a message on my phone once that he was holding a 'Town Hall Meeting' to answer any and all questions his constituents had. At first I said, "Yea right. I'm sure he'll be on the phone." I decided to call in, and sure enough, he was online answering any and all questions. If you wanted to ask a question, you pushed a button on your phone to be put into the queue. I stayed on for at least 30 minutes, and before I left, he said he'd stay on until every question was answered.
What percentage of people actually try to contact their Congressperson at least once every term? When's the last time you tried to ask your Congressman something? For that matter, have you ever tried to ask your representative a question? What's the difference between getting a Senator to ask a question, and a House Representative to answer it? How big a district does each Congressman have? Isn't there at least one Senator and a House member assigned just for the Houston area, or are there more than one?
You seem to be blurring the difference between an individual being able to address a concern and lobbyists. The scumbag politicians are given how many day off from Washington a year? I think they should be required to spend their so-called recess time working a minimum of 8 hours a day doing nothing but talking to the little guys they represent. I wouldn't have a problem if Lobbyists were not allowed to contact the congressmen at that time to give the average joes a chance to speak their piece.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3070140
Come on. With the Internet Age and all the staff members these people get, you can't tell me they can't address their constituent's issues? I remember a couple years ago, we had a Rep here named Henry Bonilla (at least I think he's no longer in office. That's sad). He left a message on my phone once that he was holding a 'Town Hall Meeting' to answer any and all questions his constituents had. At first I said, "Yea right. I'm sure he'll be on the phone." I decided to call in, and sure enough, he was online answering any and all questions. If you wanted to ask a question, you pushed a button on your phone to be put into the queue. I stayed on for at least 30 minutes, and before I left, he said he'd stay on until every question was answered.
What percentage of people actually try to contact their Congressperson at least once every term? When's the last time you tried to ask your Congressman something? For that matter, have you ever tried to ask your representative a question? What's the difference between getting a Senator to ask a question, and a House Representative to answer it? How big a district does each Congressman have? Isn't there at least one Senator and a House member assigned just for the Houston area, or are there more than one?
Reps may be a little easier. But he could spend 80 hours a week trying to stay in touch with his constituency. And he'd still not get to everyone.
 
taznut

taznut

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3069826
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.
i dont disagree that this would affect prices... i think it would but as you said, once they raise their prices too high they are going to have competition... there is a point they can raise prices that competition wont move in... plus, WM profit margin is going to be bigger due to getting the products for less even if they price their products the same as the guy next door... as you said once competition move in they could take a loss until they run them out of business... i dont think they would have to even do this since they could price most of their products lower than what a mom and pop store can buy their stuff for and still make a profit (again due to purchasing in bulk)...
however, this was not my argument... i was only talking about how it effects the work force...
 
taznut

taznut

Active Member
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.
since they are working to help the company they are helping the little guy... therefore, they become our unelected representative...
so why even vote??? just let anyone get elected and the lobbyist buy the legislation that gets passed
 
taznut

taznut

Active Member
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.
im not disagreeing with you here...
but, what is to say what effects the price... cant anything the gov't does to/for a company effect the price nationwide... i see the laker parade thing as a state issue but once anything is addressed in a milk/citrus/meat/etc plant at the gov't level doesnt that have potential to effect the national market... and once we get the issues that belong in the state, in the state, where does the money come from??? do we cut fed taxes and raise state taxes???
 
taznut

taznut

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3070072
Just because someone works full time doesn't mean they automatically deserve to make enough money to support a family. They need to develop a work skill to make them a valuable asset to the company that hires them. If Walmart doesn't want to have full time workers thats their business. If you or anyone else doesn't like you don't have to work there. I've known 3 or 4 people who worked for wally world and I don't remember any of them complaining about it. Unions have been a destructive force in the workplace the last 20 years or so. Time for them to either reform or go away.
im not saying one person at WM needs to make enough to support a family... never have said this... i have no problem with both people in the family and think this is the way it should be... but when two people are working i see no problem with this...
i agree there has been some problems with unions in the recent past and i think there needs to be reform... i dont think getting rid of them is wise at all... i think part of the problem is the difficulty of getting unions into the work place... by the time they get in a place they do anything and everything they can to look productive... if they were inherently built into companies once the company gets to a certain size this will stop this...
my main motivation for this stance has to do with the increasing number of people working (and getting stuck in) these "entry level jobs"... when it comes to high school kids, they are dependent on their parents so their money is for other things they want (opposed to need)... once these jobs are being filled by people that are supporting themselves it is time to look at what the pay/benefits are...
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3069127
Have you ever considered that the industry, corporation or company represents a portion of the constituency
Corporations have no vote. They are specifically and precisely created to be legal entities whose status, in turn, absolves individual employees from violations of the law.
Are you saying they should have a vote?
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3069303
Yes, we are in agreement. Corporations are not evil. They are created for the sole purpose of making money and increasing wealth.
Agreed. Corporations are not evil. In the same way that government is, they are amoral.
However, corporate status also accords them legal status, which has the effect of absolving their directors, employees and stockholders of illegal activities. If a corporation commits a crime the director is absolved of criminal activity as a result of the corporation's legal "personhood." The corporation is instead made to pay - for the most part.
Ken Lay is a rare exception to that rule.
Even on the corporate level, Exxon has yet to pay for the Valdez disaster. Union Carbide is even further removed from Bhopal because it didn't happen here...
When a politician votes a certain way because of a campaign contribution or the promise of a contribution from a corporation then in my humble opinion they have accepted a bribe. This is why I have the confusing attitude of encouraging lobbiests while at the same time wanting corporate lobbiests to be outlawed.
Precisely

My personal feeling on it is that US corporations ought to adhere to and be subject to US law regardless of where they operate, and their employees and financers ought not be exempt from responsibility.
After all, if I travel abroad, the corporation I work for can hold me accountable for having done something which is legal in another country, but isn't here. They should be held to the same standard.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3070318
Corporations have no vote. They are specifically and precisely created to be legal entities whose status, in turn, absolves individual employees from violations of the law.
Are you saying they should have a vote?
Why is this such a hard concept? I've never said that. The connection I've been trying to show you all, is when a domestic corporation, domestic industry association, or domestic business lobbies. They are representing a portion of the American general public. That is ALL I'm trying to say.
I'm not saying corporations should vote.
I proposed this apparently difficult concept. Because the following statement.
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3068888
It's not a problem unless action is taken that is contrary to the best interests of the politicians constituents (voters).
This led me to think that Bang Guy compartmentalizes the success of a company and the success of the employees of that company.
I was simply trying to point out that in many cases Americans make the decision what is the desired action of the government for entity X. And that if government does the desired action of company X that it will benefit the company, and the employees of said company.
And by arguing that corporations shouldn't be able to lobby, you are shutting those Americans out of the political process. And representational government is kind of the whole idea.
I'm not saying that corporations should be allowed to vote, I'm not saying the quid pro quo system is good, I'm not saying that gaining access is done ethically. I thinking the system borderlines a bribery. I'm not saying what the corporation wants would be good for the country on the whole.
But what I am saying is that we can't just draw a line and say no you can't talk to Government official X simply because you represent some sort of business interest.
Because the people, not the business, are the ones who have decided the course of action. And people will eventually bare the burden or benefit of the government action.
 
taznut

taznut

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3070383
They are representing a portion of the American general public. That is ALL I'm trying to say.
I was simply trying to point out that in many cases Americans make the decision what is the desired action of the government for entity X. And that if government does the desired action of company X that it will benefit the company, and the employees of said company.
And by arguing that corporations shouldn't be able to lobby, you are shutting those Americans out of the political process. And representational government is kind of the whole idea.
I still don't understand how this is cutting anyone out of the gov't. we are allowed to vote. if these issues are important enough to matter they should be asked before u vote for the person. not vote them in and pay them off later.
last time I checked we didn't elect lobyist. they do not represent me they represent the company. and in most cases u r right. I am INDIRECTLY represended. but what about outsoursing jobs? are u saying lobbyist don't work on this? im pretty sure this isn't going to bbenefit me. what if a company was looking for the gov't to help them buyy machines which meant they needed less employees? both cases mean I will probably lose my job. so there is a differecne between them representing the company and its workers
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3070383
This led me to think that Bang Guy compartmentalizes the success of a company and the success of the employees of that company.
I was simply trying to point out that in many cases Americans make the decision what is the desired action of the government for entity X. And that if government does the desired action of company X that it will benefit the company, and the employees of said company.
And by arguing that corporations shouldn't be able to lobby, you are shutting those Americans out of the political process. And representational government is kind of the whole idea.
The employees (and owners) of company x are NOT shut out of the political process if they are U.S. citizens. They can still vote, they can still communicate with their representatives. They just don't have MORE political influence that any other citizen and that's the way our system is supposed to work.
I'm not saying that corporations should be allowed to vote, I'm not saying the quid pro quo system is good, I'm not saying that gaining access is done ethically. I thinking the system borderlines a bribery. I'm not saying what the corporation wants would be good for the country on the whole.
But what I am saying is that we can't just draw a line and say no you can't talk to Government official X simply because you represent some sort of business interest.
I'm not suggesting that there can no longer be any communication between representatives and corporate entities. I am suggesting that corporate entities not be allowed to fund politicians in any way. No dinners, no campaign contributions, no perks whatsoever. Any fact finding trips or visits should be on the taxpayer dime in my opinion.
Because the people, not the business, are the ones who have decided the course of action. And people will eventually bare the burden or benefit of the government action.
Government should be "governing" business not steering it. Legistature should be targeting the ideal of fair competition, not hampering certain businesses nor helping other businesses. "Encouraging" banks to give NINJA loans is not a proper role for our federal government in my opinion. Nor is buying a car manufacturer.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3070485
I'm not suggesting that there can no longer be any communication between representatives and corporate entities. I am suggesting that corporate entities not be allowed to fund politicians in any way. No dinners, no campaign contributions, no perks whatsoever. Any fact finding trips or visits should be on the taxpayer dime in my opinion.
I'd be perfectly fine with that. Like I said the system borderlines bribery in its current form.
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3070485
Government should be "governing" business not steering it. Legistature should be targeting the ideal of fair competition, not hampering certain businesses nor helping other businesses. "Encouraging" banks to give NINJA loans is not a proper role for our federal government in my opinion. Nor is buying a car manufacturer.
No debate there. But that is an entirely different discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top