So after months of dems and repubs all playing their little game on the belief that somehow their position or news media one liners will embellish their re-election prospects, I come to the conclusion that I'm pissed. I'm sick of all of them and I'm looking for the obscure phrase in one of our Founding Documents that gives authority to the simple folks to get rid of their goverment if it fails.
For me, it's simple. We spend too damn much money, money that we don't have. Period. It's no different than you or I exceeding our income/credit resources. At some point, you gotta stop spending. So, why do these darn politicians think that for them, the simple facts of economics don't apply? Why is it a dem vs repub debate instead of a simple common sense position that we gotta stop the darn spending? Period.
I'm not sure who will reach a deal first the NFL or Congress lol.
The reason we don't have a deal is because deal, insist on taxing the rich. Understand you can't tax the job creators, when unemployment is at 9%.
Its a fact that poor people don't create jobs i "love poor people but they don't create jobs". Rich people create jobs, so when the dems insist on taxing the rich, all talks break down.
I don't for-see a deal getting reached, the president will probably use the 14th amendment, which requires America to pay its bills. But something better get done and real soon, because our economy could go to shit on Aug 2nd if no deal is reached.
We have a spending problem not a taxing problem.
Another damn Kool-Aid for abysmal Kool-Aid drinkers. Rich people don't create jobs corporations do on the basis of supply and demand.
Some people should not even try to debate politics, listen to what you just said.
Rich people don't create jobs corporations do on the basis of supply and demand.
And who the **** do you think owns the big corporations poor people? Think about it, if you were rich would you be more likely to hire someone or fire them if you're taxes were raised.
Some its really hard debating politics with people who don't understand how the economy works.
Because you both assume it's corporations that are the main job creators in this country. In fact, it's small businesses that are the primary job creators. It has been the Republicans' contention that the owners of small business often are taxed at the top individual rate, which is their argument for dropping the rate. Dems disagree. My position is, it can't be so hard to write a tax law that would distinguish bewteen fat cats and real job creators.
Another fact: most coporations are NOT owned by the rich. They are primarily owned by large mutual funds, which, in turn, are owned by union pension funds, 401Ks, etc. In other words, the middle class, not the rich.
And this is exactly the problem with flamers on the right and left. Both sides have simplistic views of the issues that are in many cases wrong. So when I hear any of you accusing anyone of not understanding how the economy works, after posting a simplistically wrong "analysis" I just LMAO!
Sorry to confuse you with the facts.
I agree with you're quote.
it can't be so hard to write a tax law that would distinguish between fat cats and real job creators.
That's what I've been saying you can't tax the job creators, now when it comes to fat cats to each his own.
because the Republicans refused to negotiate, unless it's about which cuts are to be made. The Dems insist it can't be done without more tax revenues and Republicans like David Stockman (Reagan's budget director) and Alan Simpson (conservative former Senator) agree. Neither side is willing to concede on the tax issue, so we have an impasse.
Personally, I don't buy the line about the rich being the job creators and, therefore, if we tax them they won't create jobs. First of all, the current top tax rates are the lowest they've been in years and hardly any jobs are being created, so toss that argument out. Second, the Dems only want to bring the rates back to what they were under Clinton. Remember how fast the economy was creating jobs back then? So, to me, the whole argument of the Reps. is bankrupt.
Beyond that, if it's true that the increase would hit small businessmen as opposed to the real fat-cats, you can write the changes to avoid hitting small business as long as they actually create some jobs.
I know you can't get the deficit down without serious spending cuts, which I favor. But you just can't do it without some revenue increases, too. I think what this really is about is the old "starve the beast" approach of the Republicans. If you cut tax revenues enough, they believe, there won't be any money to fund anything but defense so all the social programs will be ash-canned, which is what they really want.
This is what Obama did right from the jump, now he wants to "work together". Is it any surprise that some have the "Fuck Him" attitude?
I do agree with you however on the point that going back to Clinton era top rates for $250,000 and up will "kill business". Pity the rich, they are where the money is.
However, any "objective person" would agree that taxes should only be raised wher justified. I think government AT ALL LEVELS squanders money and stuffs their own pockets. Government is out of control. So government has the resposibility to get it's house in order BEFORE going to it's citizens for more revenue.
I agree with you except for the first sentence. I know there's a legitimate debate re whether Obama offered meaningful bi-partisanship from the get-go (I do, you probably don't). But he's been bitch-slapped, especially by McConnell, from the beginning. Every once in a while anyone is allowed to get ticked off.
The above is my first sentence, surely you don't DISAGREE with that.
Here's Obama 100 days in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKooYzRkSI4
Make no mistake, Obama was more than happy to sit back and watch his hatchetmen call Tea Party people racists and TEA BAGGERS. Libs and Proggies DELIGHTED and giggled at the TEA BAGGER reference. Well, he's getting it shoved right back into his arrogant face.
Ticked off? that's putting it lightly....
My god! That's what "ticked you off?" He was referring to people who actually DID wave tea bags, after all. And wasn't talking about Beohner, McConnell, et al. And this explains why the Reps. have bitch-slapped him from the get go? Not buyin' it. In fact, McConnell early on decided on a strategy of opposing Obama at every turn. Never accepting any overture and voting "no" to everything.
Nor did I show you the video to claim that that single video is what has cause the incalcitrance[sic?} by some in Congress. PLeeezzzz. It is but one example out of many. Unless you live in a cave or O'bubble, you know Obama and his monions have tried desperately to discredfit hte Tea Party movement in some of the mostly slimey ways possible. It would take extrtemely willful ignorance for someone from this site to not understand the "tea bagger" reference for the slander it is. And "tea bagger" is shouted from every Obama media rooftop.
Going back to my opening comment on the subject, insulting your opponent in a negotiation is not a terrific way to begin negotiations.
Proffesor Obama is simply reaping the "TEA BAG" whirlwind.
With whom does the Tea Party has credit? Let us start from there.
Without them, Komrade Obama would be jacking up taxes, spending triliions more borrowed money to prop up every union in the country, and not cutting spending by a dime.
end of report.
-- Modified on 7/20/2011 7:18:21 AM
Did you really just make this quote.
Personally, I don't buy the line about the rich being the job creators and, therefore, if we tax them they won't create jobs.
Question if the rich aren't the job creators, who creates jobs? Maybe poor people create jobs? Under your logic unemployment would probably increase from 9% to 15%.
And you are mis-reading (or mis-understanding) the rest of my post. Of course SOME of the rich do create jobs. And not ALL of the rich do create jobs, as I said. If you read me more carefully, you'll see I did not say the rich don't create jobs. What I said is they have not created many at all over the past few years despite low tax rates. So why continue to give them low tax rates for not creating jobs?
And, yes, I do know the lousy economy is a big factor. But it's also true that, in the very good economy of the 1990s and with higher tax rates, lots of jobs were created.
So what I'm actually saying is, you can't simply harp on low tax rates for the rich as a job engine. History simply does not support it. I hope that's clearer.
And it's also true that the huge deficit is largely because of the low Bush tax rates (plus two wars, which are winding down). Simply based on employment, we can't afford tax rates this low. And, yes, we also need to stop spending like drunken sailors. I"m very upset about that, too. You just can't fix things by only cutting spending. This is primarily a Republican political agenda.
Do you have any numbers? Where is it?
Since the rich has been paying the lowest taxes for the past 10 years, we should be having near full employment, should not have had a financial meltdown and a recession. Taxes were low for the rich.
What happened?
"Personally, I don't buy the line about the rich being the job creators and, therefore, if we tax them they won't create jobs. First of all, the current top tax rates are the lowest they've been in years and hardly any jobs are being created, so toss that argument out. Second, the Dems only want to bring the rates back to what they were under Clinton. Remember how fast the economy was creating jobs back then?"
Personally, I don't know of ANY jobs the poor have created except for government paper shufflers handing out more dole checks.
I remember Reagan and Bush policies creating a wave that Clinton rode, along with rapid internet growth creating millions of new jobs, not the tax increases.
Tax increases have never created jobs, except jobs for government slackers.
I remember the dot com bust that Bush inherited and average unemployment of 6% under Bush.
Does anyone remember the Obama administration promising unemployment would not go over 8% if the 780 billion spending package was passed.
Talk about "blind partisans!" Republicans now want to take credit for the Clinton boom years and give it to Reagan and Bush, Sr.? What a joke. What Bush gave Clinton was a recession.
But, of course, when a Dem points out that our current recession -- which is the cause for much of the huge deficit -- is a Bush recession, and that much of our debt is the result of Bush tax cuts and wars? Well, the Reps go ape-shit and call us blind partisans.
Do you people have any idea how blindly partisan you seem when you do that? Apparantly your own joke is lost on you.
-- Modified on 7/18/2011 5:00:59 PM
-- Modified on 7/18/2011 5:02:23 PM
And apparently you've forgotten all about Fannie and Freddie...
But, of course, when a Dem points out that our current recession -- which is the cause for much of the huge deficit -- is a Bush recession, and that much of our debt is the result of Bush tax cuts and wars? Well, the Reps go ape-shit and call us blind partisans.
Do you people have any idea how blindly partisan you seem when you do that? Apparantly your own joke is lost on you.
-- Modified on 7/18/2011 5:00:59 PM
-- Modified on 7/18/2011 5:02:23 PM
You'd know I blame Dems for Fannie and Freddie, and that, over all, I blame both parties pretty much equally. I really don't expect anyone to "go to school" on my posts, but I also don't plan to repeat the whole thing each time I post. Shit, man, my posts are long enough as it is! lol!
...isn't serious about solving the problem.
Anyone who looks at the problem and sees that 40% of the population isn't paying any income taxes and concludes we don't have a revenue problem isn't being serious. Anyone who looks at the 80% of the Fortune 100 who aren't paying any corporate income taxes, and concludes we don't have a revenue problem isn't being serious. Anyone who looks at the fact that the Defense budget has doubled since 2000 and concludes we don't have a spending problem isn't being serious. Anyone who looks at the explosion in intelligence and health and human services spending and concludes we don't have a spending problem isn't being serious.
It's going to take grown ups to save our nation and solve this problem. Bickering over cutting what you don't like and keeping what you do isn't going to solve this problem. In fact, it's how this problem was created in the first place.
-- Modified on 7/18/2011 11:24:31 AM
Let's begin with the salary of our rank-and-file Congress (senators and reps): average $174,000. Yes, they pay into Social Security now, but since we pay their salaries, maybe we should make them get used to a standard of living that they insist WE live with?
If they were doing something particularly useful, like producing tangible goods (cleaning the air and water, food for the table, etc.) then I wouldn't squawk. [face palm] Hell, what am I saying? If they were doing something particularly useful, they wouldn't be politicians!
...while I appreciate your sentiments, even wasting time looking at Congressional pay right now would cost us more than we'd save. It may be emotionally satisfying to defund the creeps on Capitol Hill, but the reality is that their pay doesn't amount to a hill of beans in terms of the federal budget. Their pay, while I agree is obnoxious, is a less serious problem than the funding to the National Science Foundation.
What would help with our budget, and our economy in general, is to tie Congressional pay increases with the minimum wage. If your average Congress Critter wants a pay hike, he's got to give one to the McDonald's fry cook too.
This is where you and I differ tremendously.
McDonald's is private enterprise, able to stay open for its owners based on what consumers spend. Employers then pay a person what they're worth based on the merits of the worker involved.
Congressional whoevers, on the other hand, are paid by taxes from the private sector. They're paid based on mostly promises to make things better. (Even you're paid by my private taxes, but I won't make any further comment about that at this time.)
I'd rather pay the McDonald's fellow what he's worth based on how well he's actually working, work that I can see and is tangible, than pay a Congressional anyone based on verbal promises and castles in the air.
And the National Science Foundation's budget is minuscule compared to Homeland Security. Now THERE'S a department we need to get rid of. Granted, I don't think government-back science is really useful, but neither is crying wolf every time we turn around either.
-- Modified on 7/18/2011 12:22:59 PM
Let's get rid of the government funding drug research so that the drug companies can create great pills such as cialis and then charge me a fortune for them, unless of course I live outside the US where the same pills are sold by the same drug companies for a fraction of what they charge me.
...why do you believe that someone is paid what they're worth?
How do you determine someone's worth as a worker? I consider someone's worth to be based on the value of their productivity. If you agree, then that McDonald's worker is certainly not getting paid what he's worth. Rather, he's being robbed blind. It takes one week of sales for your average McDonalds to pay the wages of the workers for an entire month.
If someone is going to run a private business, and be granted limited liability rights that no human being is allowed to enjoy, then we should be able to reserve the right to determine the rules of the game. I see no public benefit for a company being allowed to exist if they can't pay their lowest rung employees enough for them to put food on the table, put a roof over his head, and put clothes on his back. If you can't figure out how to make a profit doing that, then maybe you shouldn't run a business.
Congressmen aren't paid to make things better. They're paid to represent your interests. Of course, their bribes come first. I'm paid to apply the law, which my office does quite well.
I'm not disputing that many workers aren't getting paid what they're worth. I don't think I am in my retail position, but if I get unhappy enough, I've the freedom to go look elsewhere. So does every person who works for someone else - unemployment figures notwithstanding, employees can go look elsewhere if they don't think they're being paid fairly. It's often scary to leave one place, but it's do-able.
What employers pay and what workers accept has been around since biblical times (for illustrative purposes, look at the story of the men a wealthy man hired in the morning, during the day and in the evening [Matt 20:1-16]). I'd wager that the disagreement has been around even longer.
And I'm talking free men/women workers, not slaves. A worker accepts what he thinks he can get. An employer pays as little as he thinks he can just to keep his workers. If he doesn't pay enough, the worker is free to go to work elsewhere - and often does.
Ford paid his workers relatively well (compared to others in his era) just to keep his best workers. And the subject was even touched on in a recent comic (Zits, by Jerry Scott and Jim Borgman) wherein Jeremy's best friend created a job for himself and Jeremy decided to be a slacker.
Unfortunately, many people today think they'll pay as little as possible for even their best workers - and are then surprised when their best workers go elsewhere.
In all things except death, I've yet to see that there aren't alternatives. We don't always think of other alternatives, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. And sometimes the alternatives we think of scare the bejesus out of us. But, it still doesn't mean the alternatives don't exist. So, don't try to convince me that unemployment makes it impossible for some people to get other jobs.
The jobs are always there for those who want them badly enough - even if it means creating the jobs themselves and being their own employer.
-- Modified on 7/18/2011 6:54:18 PM
The problem I'm talking about is an institutional one. It doesn't particularly matter if a worker is better than another or if a worker looks and finds another job. If a business owner can't make a profit off of their employee's labor then they will not keep them on the clock. In order to turn your labor into money you must submit to being robbed.
That isn't always the case, however. There are a few jobs where you really can make what you're worth. There are a few worker cooperatives where profits aren't going to shareholders or executives. Rather, decision making is done democratically among the workers, and they share the profits.
I read about one particular place that's run like this, and all they do is make bread in a factory. It's a job that under the standard capitalist system, the workers would likely make $15 an hour if they're lucky. You know what the workers at this factory made? About 55 bucks an hour. If McDonald's workers were paid what they're worth, they would be making about 30 bucks an hour. That's how bad workers are getting ripped off.
The reality is that without the workers, the bosses not only wouldn't be able to make an income, they wouldn't be able to live. They would starve and die. Do the workers need the bosses to survive? If you look at the examples of the Spanish Revolution of the 30's, the worker run factories in Argentina and Bolivia today, and the Mondragon movement in Spain, the answer is obviously no.
McDonald workers should be making $30 an hour? Get a calculator. Do you have one? Good. First question willy. Most McDonald's are franchises, so what do you think is the annual sales/revenue figure for one average McDonald's? Maybe $1.5M, maybe $2M? Most McDonald's are open 18 hours a day. How many employees do you see working during peak times? Now due the math. Run the numbers and $30 bucks, $20 bucks, not even $15 bucks make these numbers work. Actually this is good practice for you as you learn about a company's financial performance.
Willy, we can debate worker cooperatives (ugh!) and all that shit, but at the end of the day the marketplace determines what someone will get paid. It's really that simple.
Now we have a bigger problem. We have 9.2% published unemployment. We all know the figure is higher. The unemployment rate for someone with at least an undergraduate degree is less than 5%. The unemployment rate for someone with just a high school diploma is 12.5%, probably higher. Been to a bank lately? Been to the airport lately? Do you use those self checkout lines at the market or Home Depot? Do you see where I'm going?
Think about this willy, GDP is now higher than what it was prior to the recession. If GDP is higher, then why isn't the unemployment rate closer to what it was prior to the recession? Remember those technology companies I mentioned last week? Good, bad, or indifferent willy, they are developing technology that helps companies (large and small) automate functions that used to be performed by a person. A person who probably didn't have an undergraduate degree. Now you have a lot of people with no education and no skills competing for fewer jobs. Why do I need to pay them $30, or $20, or $15, or for that matter $10 to flip burgers at McDonald's? That's a rhetorical question willy.
-- Modified on 7/18/2011 10:40:30 PM
underestimate what it takes to organize, create, and operate a business venture. Possibly they can "take one over" and operate it in a communal fashion for a period of time but I seriously doubt willy, or anyone else can cite examples of "workers" uniting to form the capital and create a business that does not otherwise exist.
Saint, I have crunched the numbers on this, and I did this when I worked at a McDonald's when I was a teen. I calculated the total number of working hours of each employee, multiplied by their likely wage, divided by the productivity of the employees, which I calculated by looking at the day's total sales. Everyone working there was literally producing 4 times more than they were earning. A few months later I got a job at Wendy's. I did the same calculation, and amazingly, got the same result. I had a friend who worked at Taco Bell, and got him to sneek me the same numbers, and it produced the same result. Several years later a friend worked at Pizza Hut, and I got them to give me the same data. When I took the driver's tips out of the equation, I got the same result. Ultimately, my suspicion is that this is very much by design. So when I say that if McDonald's really was run as a worker's coop, they could be paid $30 an hour. Granted, I have no way to calculate overhead costs on equipment and supplies, but I have my doubts it would be all much.
You're quite right that technology is replacing a lot of former jobs. I've noticed quite a number of "self-check out" lanes lately at many retail locations. You know what I've noticed about it? The self-check out lanes usually sit empty, and I will see customers ignore them and wait in line to be check out by a real human being. Why would they wait? Because they find checking things out themselves to be a royal pain in the ass. So for-profit companies are pissing off their customers when their customer base has declined in order to save on labor costs. This results in a higher unemployment rate and a wealthier businessmen.
Now suppose such a company was run as a worker co-op. Would self check out lanes exist? I think so, but it would be less of a PITA to use them. The workers as a whole would make more money because of it, who would then in turn spend it in other parts of the economy, which would have the net effect of lowering unemployment rates.
MisterNo, in the worker run coop examples of Argentina, the company that originally owned it didn't even raise it's own revenue. Rather, they just took endless subsidies from the gov't. It's quite a fascinating story, one that's well documented in Naomi Klein's film The Take. Similarly, during the Cochabamba Water Wars, Bechtel had just bribed gov't officials to take ownership of the publicly owned water system. Eventually, the workers just took back what they had paid for in the first place, and now run it cooperatively. The Mondragon collectives in Spain are the largest collection of worker coops on the planet, and they regularly raise the capital to open up new shops all the time.
willy, i know you know employee costs are not the sole cost of operating a restaurant. let me tell you from real world experience what the others are.
revenues = 100%
food 29-33% (this # is constantly growing as a %, in the 90's a good # was 25-28%)
labor 20-25% (again, this % used to be around 18-20%, minimum wage laws drive it up constantly)
advertizing 10% (with the advent of internet and cable, the vaule of national TV TRP's have PLUMMETED)
rent/occupancy 15%
maintenance 5-8%
utilities 10-12%(again, skyrocketing)
If you take the low end of these #'s you get 89%
What's missing? That dirty word called PROFIT. Should the guy who put all of this together and finacned it out of his own pocket get paid ANYTHING??? or should he just fork it all over to the WERKERS who did'nt do shit to get it started but NOW know how the whole thing should be run?
Show me how you double worker compensation as you suggest and I'll show a company ready to get gutted like the ones you used in your Argentian example. Which is an intersting study BTW but it should be noted that these are situations where at least some of the infrastrucure as available at bargain basement prices and the business model and market for products already existed.
I'd note:
"""The cooperative's products compete at a disadvantage in the local market today with cheap imports from Malaysia or Singapore. "Our products used to be cheaper, but that's not true any more," he says."""
"""In the last few years, the government has taken some steps that have given the businesses a boost. Through the Labour Ministry, it distributed more than one million dollars in subsidies. But it was a one-off arrangement. Without steady access to financing, the recovered companies "are condemned to teeter on the threshold of survival," the report concludes."""
All is not Nirvana in WERKER MECCA. Sounds like without Big Daddy government forking over some cash, the workers will have to come out of pocket. When if if they do, let me know.
You're quite right that employee costs are not the sole cost of operating a restaurant. But I've heard that labor costs are always the biggest expense for a business. If a worker-run coop that is nothing more than a bread factory can pay workers 50 bucks an hour, then I doubt a fast food joint couldn't pay their workers 20 some dollars an hour.
In a worker run coop, there is still profit, but depending on how the workers vote to allocate resources, those profits are divided up between investment on the business and in wages. Since in this model, the workers are the owners, they finance the business and take all the risks.
It's true that in the Argentinian examples the infrastructure for these businesses were largely already there (or at least the buildings were), but when the capitalists opened these factories it was funded primarily with taxpayer dollars, and not their own capital. These workers co-ops have gone from struggling to thriving without any government assisstance, which is an unbelievable accomplishment in and of itself. FaSinPat, which replaced Zanon Ceramics not only had to figure out how to reopen the factory with almost no resources, the workers had to guard the factory from capitalist friendly police, armed only with slingshots. There were a few attempts by Zanon to take the factory away from the workers, but due to their amazing organizational skills in the spirit of solidarity, the entire town came out and blocked the police from doing so.
Reclaiming a factory for workers, who sometimes went without pay for months, and in some cases, years, is no easy task. While capitalists used bribe money to get a steady stream of money from Big Daddy government, these worker coops have had to do it with almost no help at all from the government. And yet, against all odds, they're still doing it.
One advantage they have over the capitalists is that in a worker run coop there is no need for competition. Rather cooperation is utilized. One coop is free to help others get off the ground. In the case of FaSinPat, they help the local community by donating ceramic tiles to hospitals. Everyone helps each other to survive. It's no worker Nirvana for sure, but these guys are learning as they go, using this model, with what works and what does not work. And they are proving every single day that capitalists and bosses are not needed.
An activist in the Cochabamba Water War said:
"At the climax of the struggle, the army stayed in their barracks; the police also remained in their stations; the members of Congress became invisible; the Governor went into hiding; and afterwards, he resigned. There wasn't any authority left. The only legitimate authority was the people gathered at the city square making decisions in large assemblies. And, at the end, they made the decisions about the water. I think people, all of us, young and old, were able to taste, to quench our thirst for democracy. We've inherited a state company with technical problems and financial and legal problems with administrative problems. We are dealing with all of them. If we could prove that ordinary working people are able to resolve their own problems, we could be facing the possibility that all which was privatized, all that was sold, all that is in the hands of the corporations, be returned to the people's hands. So, I learned, at that time, a very important lesson, that one should never underestimate the power of the people. Seeing the slogan that I always repeated in the demonsrations: "The people, united, will never be defeated!" became a reality."
Anyone who says labor is always the biggest cost has no idea what they are talking about. I just cited you typical ongoing expenses. These are facts. Granted, there are outliers where employees make more per hour but the hiring standards and production expectations are significantly higher so it all nets out the same. Even within a single unit there are those who make more than others. These are deemed to be the most productive.
A single antecdote about a bread factory is not persuasive unless you know a great deal more.
In the case of Argentina, the people who took over the plant WERE the capitalist. PLEASE don't tell me that every single worker who was responisble for STARTING this business back up is thrilled at paying subsequent workers THE SAME WAGE. Please don't try to convince me they don't have a wage scale. They somehow raised capital. In this case they did it collectively and the colective reaps the rewards. In our system, the capitalist generates the capital and HE reaps the rewards or takes the pipe.
In either case, it's the same thing. However, here in the US, we have workers who have this dillusion that becasue they are employed by a company someone else built that THEY have a right to the profits. No, they have a job. They are FREE to go build their our Argentinian Nirvana right here in the good old US.
Just go do it own your own. The reason they don't is lack of initiative and know how.
In a worker run coop, there is still profit, but depending on how the workers vote to allocate resources, those profits are divided up between investment on the business and in wages. Since in this model, the workers are the owners, they finance the business and take all the risks.
It's true that in the Argentinian examples the infrastructure for these businesses were largely already there (or at least the buildings were), but when the capitalists opened these factories it was funded primarily with taxpayer dollars, and not their own capital. These workers co-ops have gone from struggling to thriving without any government assisstance, which is an unbelievable accomplishment in and of itself. FaSinPat, which replaced Zanon Ceramics not only had to figure out how to reopen the factory with almost no resources, the workers had to guard the factory from capitalist friendly police, armed only with slingshots. There were a few attempts by Zanon to take the factory away from the workers, but due to their amazing organizational skills in the spirit of solidarity, the entire town came out and blocked the police from doing so.
Reclaiming a factory for workers, who sometimes went without pay for months, and in some cases, years, is no easy task. While capitalists used bribe money to get a steady stream of money from Big Daddy government, these worker coops have had to do it with almost no help at all from the government. And yet, against all odds, they're still doing it.
One advantage they have over the capitalists is that in a worker run coop there is no need for competition. Rather cooperation is utilized. One coop is free to help others get off the ground. In the case of FaSinPat, they help the local community by donating ceramic tiles to hospitals. Everyone helps each other to survive. It's no worker Nirvana for sure, but these guys are learning as they go, using this model, with what works and what does not work. And they are proving every single day that capitalists and bosses are not needed.
An activist in the Cochabamba Water War said:
"At the climax of the struggle, the army stayed in their barracks; the police also remained in their stations; the members of Congress became invisible; the Governor went into hiding; and afterwards, he resigned. There wasn't any authority left. The only legitimate authority was the people gathered at the city square making decisions in large assemblies. And, at the end, they made the decisions about the water. I think people, all of us, young and old, were able to taste, to quench our thirst for democracy. We've inherited a state company with technical problems and financial and legal problems with administrative problems. We are dealing with all of them. If we could prove that ordinary working people are able to resolve their own problems, we could be facing the possibility that all which was privatized, all that was sold, all that is in the hands of the corporations, be returned to the people's hands. So, I learned, at that time, a very important lesson, that one should never underestimate the power of the people. Seeing the slogan that I always repeated in the demonsrations: "The people, united, will never be defeated!" became a reality."
that until you put your money where your mouth is, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Open a McDonald's. Hire your workers for $30 an hour. Pay all your bills, all your expenses, all your taxes, everything that you owe on regarding said McDonald's - and then see how much is left over for your restaurant to survive.
Entrepreneurs give the workers their jobs, not the other way around. Entrepreneurs think of the new things, open the ways for others to work. Entrepreneurs know how to make things happen; the workers help that, but they don't begin it. Entrepreneurs can and do begin again if a factory or a business or whatever closes; workers whine about not having a job instead of creating one for themselves.
So, until you actually open your own retail-type business, and run it with your $30 / hr workers - and make all your ends meet, plus make a profit so that the business can continue, then I'll be willing to listen to your blather. Until then, you're all talk and no trousers.
...before making any assumptions about it. A worker coop is a workplace democracy. No single person would be able to determine everyone's wages. That decision is made by popular vote.
You're quite wrong. Workers give entrepreneurs their jobs. Without the workers entrepreneurs wouldn't just be broke, they would be dead. If you think the bosses know how to make things work, then I suggest you look at what the actual procedure is determined by the company at your retail job and compare that to what you actually do to get things done. Labor is always prior to capital.
In a worker's coop profit is not given to executives, as they are no executives. It isn't given to stockholders, since there are none. Rather profit is divided up among the workers and for future business investment, dependant upon democratic vote.
No one is stopping anyone from doing the same thing here.
The only thing missing is initiative and leadership. As in my other post to you, here, workers want to scab off of already existing businesses. "They" don't take the risk of starting from scratch. And anyone that would would want to be rewarded for it.
Defacto capitalism.
and nobody who has never had to make a payroll has a fucking clue.
You go risk everything you can beg, borrow, or steal to make a business work and then tell me how easy I have it. Until you have gone months or even years without drawing a dime, but yet make sure that your employees paychecks bounce, then and only then will I listen to lectures from you. Try coming up on payday with a hundred thousand dollar payroll and twenty grand in the bank and then you have earned the right to shoot off your fucking mouth.
As the saying goes. "If it were that easy, everyong would be doing it"
You even start each one of your ridiculous assumptions with "I don't know much about_______, but it would seem to me", and that's the only part I ever agree with. You don't know much, and your opinions are generally worthless because they are based on a faulty foundation.
You seemed interested a few days ago in actually learning about the topics you were debating, WTF happened to that Willy?
that's another way of puttin' it. lol
I can live with a bit more taxes, since I will be part of the group expected to shoulder most of the pricetag, but I am not willing to give my drunken sailor uncle more drinking money until he sobers up and stops spending my money like it's going out of style.
You can just give the government more money until they can prove that they are going to be responible with it. Defense, entitlements, subisidies, they should all be on the table, and then once goverment has sobered up and is firmly "on the wagon" should our formerly punch drunk uncle come to his extended family for money to pay for his rehab. At that point, I will be willing to pay to make sure that he (and I along with him) aren't thrown out on the street.
Without spending cuts all the revenue increases in the world, up to and including taking every single penny us "rich folk" make is not going to solve the problem, and then what are we going to do when you taken all the rich peoples money?
Hey Gambler, I've seen the light and I will no longer get drunk, search the web for babes and give them all my money. Been doing that a long time and my credit is exhausted. I know its good for me and the population at large that I should have babes. After all, why should only the rich folks have access to the p4p game. I'm a funcking American and I deserve it too.
So, instead of any new government tax increase, let me make it easy for you and allow you to just open an account with one of the ATL agencies in my name, fill it up with cash, and let me go blindly into the night... LMAO...
But look at the comments of the knee-jerk right wingers. Just like their Congressional leaders they refuse to even consider targeted tax increases and elimination of loop-holes. With that off the table, how can you even have a meaningful negotiation? And no Dem has said the tax increases have to be anywhere near as large as the spending cuts. If I post (as I did above) that, yes, we need to stop spending like drunken sailors, I guarantee you not a single right-winger will even respond to that part of the post. All they'll do is flame about how taxes can't go up without killing jobs. Bull crap. I've even said "exempt those 'rich' who actually will create jobs, as opposed to the coupon-clippers," but their hair is already on fire and they can't even respond to that. Just one more reason why debating anybody but you or St. C (and sometimes mrnotrouble) on this board is a waste of the time I could spend drinking or fucking.
If it was just those two issues..... cut large amount of spending and small tax increase on the wealthy, maybe that's ok. But, according to all the cable news stations, that's not the only two issues. The third issue is that the dems ( Obama and Nancy ) want to "increase" spending selectively on some touchy feel good initiatives. That's why the repubs seem to be trying to draw a line in the sand by saying "no tax increases" as part of this debt ceiling issue, but if they want to bring up separate legistlation for tax increases and more spending, they can do that in separate legislation.
I'm taking it on faith that what I hear from the pundants is correct, but if so, then hell yes, the repubs need to stand their ground. If it's not true then Obama and Nancy need to sue the pundants and also set the record straight. Cheers.
I didn't read a single comment from anyone posting in this thread that read to the effect: "taxes on the elite should not be increased"....
The debate is about the debt limit and which party's positions are valid. Clearly, it is the Republicans' position that taxes on the upper bracket should not be increased. Or did you miss that somehow?
We have the same drunken sailor uncle. He really livens up the family party, well until the 10th drink then all bets are off. You can usually count on him to grab Aunt Sofie's ass, and then the real fun starts (lol).
You're 100% right. Let me just add that Obama during one of his recent press conferences mentioned that he wanted to conclude this debt issue so he can focus on "new programs". New Programs my ass. I can't trust Obama, Pelosi, liberals, fuck I don't like or trust the Republicans for that matter. They are all assholes as far as I'm concerned.
I have no idea if it's a $1T, a $2T or a $4T budget deal. But I want to know specifically the spending cuts by dept and/or program. I also want to know the amount. I want to know WHEN the cuts start, and no they can't be back-loaded. I want to ensure the cuts are somehow contractually agreed upon. I want it in fucking blood. Maybe then, and only then, will I even contemplate agreeing to pay more in taxes.
Last thing, every American needs to to have some ownership in this country. I don't care if it's $100 bucks in Federal income tax, or $10 bucks. We have 50% of the working population NOT paying any Federal Income tax. And no I don't want the liberals to say they pay SS, Medicare tax. They get that shit back in spades.
Really this is the last thing. If I have to pay more in taxes, every liberal has to take a fucking oath never ever ever to use terms like "pay your fair share", "shared sacrifice", "shared responsibility", and "it takes a village". That last one is a Hillary carryover from her campaign days, and uttered in SFO. So you can see why it pisses me off.
Back from Vegas. I even stopped by the RIO for a few minutes just to say I was at the WSOP.
If we are, it's on your wife's side of the family. As for the rest, I didn't realize you were so naive. Don't you realize the two clown-parties we have will cut a deal that seems to make sense? BUT! The bullshit machine behind the screen will spew out numbers that seem to make sense in terms of the facts you want, but they'll be based on some kind of "Wizard of Oz" bullshit accounting that will disguise the fact that NOTHING HAS CHANGED! Gosh! I am starting to sound like a righty! What we really need is term limits. On everybody. Not just Senators and Congressmen but staffers and administration experts. (Willy?). Throw them all out. Don't let the new people stay more than a few years. Our government needs an enema. And douching on a regular basis. These people need to go live in the real world that they have fucked up.
PS: I know it's not me you were talking about being related to. I just couldn't help it. Vodka was also a factor.
-- Modified on 7/18/2011 7:46:56 PM
Enemas and douches! How much is this the vodka talking? I trust more than 50%, and please tell you're NOT mixing it with something sweet
You're not even close to being a righty. Hell, I'm not even close to being a righty. Selfish yes, righty no!
But, sheesh, that was some rant! I guess vodka lets out the beast in me, just like wifey sez!
Your recognition of the “two-clown parties” and how they always agree to smoke and mirrors demonstrates why a significant number of conservatives are holding fast to no tax increases and no deal on debt limit increases period or unless there are real spending cuts NOW. The Democrat spending cuts thus far are non specific and at best are years into the future. The GOP got taken for a ride on spending cuts going way back to Reagan when Tip O’Neil never made good on his promises. No one believes the Democrat spending cuts promised will ever materialize.
You nailed it; both sides contain untrustworthy clowns. Case in point, Senator McConnell’s capitulation plan that surrenders all debt limit decisions to Obama was made purely for political reasons; so the GOP can blame him later.
We don’t need a political solution. We need an economic one. The same conservatives that you’ve noted as not wanting to negotiate are the same ones that flat out rejected McConnell’s plan.
You want a big idea like term limits? Think harder about the big idea of a balanced budget amendment. I’m not particularly fond of one and it will never pass this Congress but it might coral the clowns.
Before I rip you a new one! I drink vodka every fucking night! How much more often can I do it?
As for an amendment, you're right, it'll never happen. And neither will term limits, though I prefer the latter because it might obviate the need for a balanced-budget amendment. I'm not even sure we need such an amendment, so long as we don't go off the deep end the way we have. We need to flush out the career politicians. They are the ones who've fucked things up.
It will shut the dumb idiots who think Macro Econmics is equal to balanicng individual check books. Looks like somebody backed themselves into a corner.
A default will be a complete reset of the global economy so, go for the default and start over.
its the only way the republicans have a chance of winning the office in 2012. make it complete shit while a dem is pres then people ask for a change. the sad thing is i have been reading obama is going along more and more with the republican ideas, but as he agrees, they start to disagree...with there own ideas! lol. and i forget the name of the republican guy who passed a pledge around that many republicans signed saying THEY WILL NEVER RAISE TAXES. they can't go back on a signed pledge becuase of how it will make them look. its sad and fucking pathetic.
A default will be a complete reset of the global economy so, go for the default and start over.
After racking up another $4 Trillion in public debt in the past 4 years with these results and not even being close to being able to pay the bills right at a time when so many baby boomers are retiring...
And with what is really going on with the PIGS in Europe.... You can get it over with now.. or just delay it for a couple of more years.
It's going to hurt a lot more in a couple of years if you raise the debt ceiling because the same debate will just take place again. But at least more people will be able to prepare instead of believing Government is the solution to their financial woes so that's the plus side.
Whatever.... the cronies in D.C. can go back and forth. Dems really control two of the three branches of government and they can call the house Repubs evil people that hate the poor all they want for wanting to make the cuts that are needed to maybe survive it out.
Could have been corrected in 2008 with a little pain... but the wrong decisions have created an even bigger nightmare to deal with.
The tech bubble under the Clinton years fueled all of that fun. We turned it into the Real Estate Bubble under the RINO's (Bush Years)... and now we've turned it into an even bigger bubble since the Dems took over two branches of Government in 2007 that will be far more catastrophic for the clueless.
Go Libertarian ...
For me, it's simple. We spend too damn much money, money that we don't have. Period. It's no different than you or I exceeding our income/credit resources. At some point, you gotta stop spending. So, why do these darn politicians think that for them, the simple facts of economics don't apply? Why is it a dem vs repub debate instead of a simple common sense position that we gotta stop the darn spending? Period.