53% of Americans Think Republicans are Too Extreme

[thereisnospoon]

You make a great secretary.

Now learn to make coffee, and get a job.

I'm retired. I'm letting my husband support me until he's old enough to retire. He's younger than me.

I did my own coffee and and so did my secretary. I had one boss who made ME coffee because my time was more valuable than his - if I wasn't working, he wasn't billing (his words, not mine). Smart man - very wealthy. He specialized in bringing new products to market - obtaining patents and trade marks, setting up manufacturing, issuing a prospsectus for investors.

Blah blah blah

 

[Charles_Main]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/12/20/rel18c-1.pdf

Wide sampling error though.

Then exactly why would you perpetuate it?

 

[thereisnospoon]

So contrary to what the Obama admin has been telling us, the middle class is NOT growing?

What would ever make you think the middle class is growing?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/us/middle-class-areas-shrink-as-income-gap-grows-report-finds.html

Eroding middle class falls to 51%, survey finds - Los Angeles Times

America's Middle Class Shrinks Further. Now, Blacks And Whites Equally Broke - Forbes

However, no matter how you slice it, placing additional tax burden on the job creators and the investor class helps no one. Not even the government.

Neo-con myths. The top 1% are not the job creators you have been lead to believe they are. That was the Republican excuse for cutting taxes - to help the job creators, but just the opposite happened.

Tax Cuts For The Rich Don't Lead To U.S. Economic Growth, But Income Inequality: Study

Clinton raised taxes and created more jobs than Reagan and both Bushes combined. Raising taxes on top wage earners does not kill jobs.

This idea that investors provide working capital reveals total igorance about what investing in the stock market does. Investor money does not pay wages or operating expenses. That comes out of income and operating expenses, not capital. Any business which has to dip into capital to pay wages and day-to-day operating expenses is in financial trouble. Investment pays for plant and equipment and capital investments - never wages or operating expenses.

You also said nobody works full-time in retail when I pointed out that Walmart only hires part time workers to keep costs down as part of wage suppression tactics. In Canada, people work full-time in retail as well as in other countries, and they used to work full-time in the US. That was before Walmart used their wage suppression tactics.

But keep blaming Obama for the economic woes, not Walmart and the other similar vulture corporations. Not those who use government programs to pad their profits.

Obama and Biden have said so. They both campaigned on "things are improving but more slowly than we would like."
If the wealthiest people are not the job creators, who is? The bottom 1%?
Umm, this is where I must say, discussing economics with a person such as yourself becomes frustrating. Because you haven't a clue. All you have are liberal talking points.
Look, you are Canadian. Which means your opinion counts as much as a flyspeck in the ocean.
"This idea that investors provide working capital reveals total igorance about what investing in the stock market does. Investor money does not pay wages or operating expenses. That comes out of income and operating expenses, not capital. Any business which has to dip into capital to pay wages and day-to-day operating expenses is in financial trouble. Investment pays for plant and equipment and capital investments - never wages or operating expenses."....Really? NO shit!...Thanks for making my point for me. A few posts back some other lefty was bitching and whining about Wall Street and investment income.
Now you are making an argument FOR investment. Sheesh!
As a matter of fact you are dead wrong.
K-mart was the only retailer that had full time regular employees.
I worked there. I also worked at Sears. They had NO full time positions for hourly workers inside the store. Only the auto center had full timers. Macy's was the same way. My Mom worked retail at a Dept store. Part time only for non management.
Most retail is like this. Walmart does not suppress wages. Your people don't like Walmart because the company keeps out unions.

 

[RandallFlagg]

That's, of course, very kind of you, don't you think? And who do YOU propose, should be the arbiter of making those decisions; about who makes how much and when is enough - enough?

Since corporations exist solely for the purpose of maximizing profits, and they hold the power over who works and who doesn't, labour law exists to prevent the unreasonable expoitation of workers. Basically, you can have reasonable laws regarding labour standards, or you can have unions.

In the absence of the former, the labour union movement grew in the late 1800's and early 1900's, when labour and safety standards were non-existent. There is now a huge movement afoot to unionize Walmart because of the exploitation of it's workers. Then the unions are planning on the rest of the big-box retailers.

As you said, those who don't learn from their mistakes, are condemned to repeat them. Unions or regulations - which would you prefer?

One would assume that reading your other humorous postings, That, of course, those decisions should be left up to an omnipotent and benevolent Central Government, shouldn't it. I mean, that's the only "fair and equitable" way to distribute others' profits - isn't it?

I love how those on the right think that the ONLY reason a company is profitable, is because the owner worked hard and made it a success. Any smart employer knows their success rise or falls on the backs of its workers and a successful company rewards it's employees first - before the shareholders, because without them, the employer has nothing. Sadly, there are more greedy employers than smart ones so that's where government regulations come in.

The corporations also use public roads, police, fire, and a host of other public services. They benefit from doing business in a stable, peaceful economy with a highly educated work force. Transportation systems are readily available to get their goods to market. The government has negotiated favourable trading arrangements and tarrifs for their imports/exports. Multi-nationals also benefit from having "American interests" abroad protected by the military.

American companies are successful because their government has provided them with the tools they need and which they aren't able to provide for themselves. As I pointed out in another, there are no large multi-national corporations employing thousands of people in countries without a strong central government, and none in countries with no income tax structure.

There are lots of countries in the world where you don't pay income tax - nearly all of which are oil-producing states in the Middle East, or tropical island nations who rely on tourism for their income. Andorra and Monaco are the only European nations with no income tax.

And who should pay the billions and billions of dollars that companies pay out ( from their bottom lines) for R&D? Marketing? Advertising? Again, one can only assume that in your "All for the collective and the collective for all" approach that the "People's government" would shoulder that responsibility, as well?

Unfortunately, that was the idea in the USSR and Red China. Hopefully, you see how far that got those folks.......

Why do you right-wing types always bring up the communist models? Regardless of what you may think, pure capitalism isn't working any better than communism, except that the fall of communism didn't crash the world's economy.

There needs to be a BALANCE. I know this is a foreign concept to right-wingers. In order for some to be wealthy, many must be poor. A social democracy recognizes that not all can or will succeed and provides a social safety net for those who don't thrive in a capitalistic society.

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

We've already had two world-wide depressions because of Republican transfers of wealth upward. The Robber Barons of the late 1800's and early 1900's crashed the economy in 1929, and Reagan Republicans and his successors did it again in 2008. How many times does this have to happen before you right-wingers learn?

Ok..Let's put your pseudo-intellectual nonsense to bed, right here and now. Taking little "snippets" from America history and using them as your basis for rebuttal is as ridiculous as the stereotypical "Canuck" portrayed on the cartoon show "South Park".

Us "right-wing" types use the "communism" model because I witnessed, for myself, what communism was all about. You may be correct in your statement that "capitalism isn't working any better than communism". However, I have never witnessed ANYONE in the United States disappearing in the middle of the night because they "disagreed" with the government. Whether it be John F Kennedy's government, Ronald Reagan's government or, at least to this point, Barry Obama' government.

I do not, nor have I EVER believed in the concept that it is MY responsibility to take care for those (especially of my race - Black) that choose to sit on their butts and wait to be cared for.Nor do I believe that it is the responsibility of the government to insinuate itself (in the name of some "social justice" mularkey) between the people and their ability to either rise, or fall, based on their own merit.

If the founding Fathers, who came to this country with nothing more than the "hope" of Liberty, lived by the present day, radical liberal lefts idea of "freedom", we would still be bowing before a King. As Benanin Franklin told the Lady in Philadelphia: " Madame, we have given you LIBERTY, if you can keep it".

We are now, in this present age, being attacked, on a daily basis by those, like you, who would rather America just "lay down" and accept the mantra of the left, that we should give up our liberties, in favor of a "kind, benevolent system" that will care for us and provide for our needs, based on the needs of the collective" - Karl Marx

"Those who would give up their liberty for a little security deserve neither"

Sorry there Canuck. I've seen that form of governance and, while she is absolutely imperfect, I'll take America, in it's Constitutional form any day of the week and three times on Sunday before I commit to live under the "threat" of a government that "cares" for me. I neither need them or any of the "promises" that comes with their "helping hand".

I still live under the philosophy that states " When a member of government shows up at your door with promises of "We're here to help you", run like HELL"

 

[thereisnospoon]

However, your concepts of what "Investor Money" does is definately does the most to demonstrate your intellectual inferiourity.

I guess my entire education and a 40 year career in banking, finance and law have been a total waste. Especially my work in corporate governance, preparing documentation and filings in advance of IPO's, and documenting shares purchases, investments and lending. Who knew??

Oh, I marked a couple of words you might want to look up: it's "definitely" and "inferiority". I don't usually correct other posters' spelling because I often need to edit my own posts for spelling and grammar, but it takes a special kind of idiot to to claim another poster is lacking in intellectual ability while misspelling "inferiority".

You know all that stuff?..
SO how is it you can write the insipid nonsense that you post?
How can you be from the financial industry and be so liberal?
Whatever. I guess you being retired now has moved you over to the entitlement class.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's, of course, very kind of you, don't you think? And who do YOU propose, should be the arbiter of making those decisions; about who makes how much and when is enough - enough?

Since corporations exist solely for the purpose of maximizing profits, and they hold the power over who works and who doesn't, labour law exists to prevent the unreasonable expoitation of workers. Basically, you can have reasonable laws regarding labour standards, or you can have unions.

In the absence of the former, the labour union movement grew in the late 1800's and early 1900's, when labour and safety standards were non-existent. There is now a huge movement afoot to unionize Walmart because of the exploitation of it's workers. Then the unions are planning on the rest of the big-box retailers.

As you said, those who don't learn from their mistakes, are condemned to repeat them. Unions or regulations - which would you prefer?



I love how those on the right think that the ONLY reason a company is profitable, is because the owner worked hard and made it a success. Any smart employer knows their success rise or falls on the backs of its workers and a successful company rewards it's employees first - before the shareholders, because without them, the employer has nothing. Sadly, there are more greedy employers than smart ones so that's where government regulations come in.

The corporations also use public roads, police, fire, and a host of other public services. They benefit from doing business in a stable, peaceful economy with a highly educated work force. Transportation systems are readily available to get their goods to market. The government has negotiated favourable trading arrangements and tarrifs for their imports/exports. Multi-nationals also benefit from having "American interests" abroad protected by the military.

American companies are successful because their government has provided them with the tools they need and which they aren't able to provide for themselves. As I pointed out in another, there are no large multi-national corporations employing thousands of people in countries without a strong central government, and none in countries with no income tax structure.

There are lots of countries in the world where you don't pay income tax - nearly all of which are oil-producing states in the Middle East, or tropical island nations who rely on tourism for their income. Andorra and Monaco are the only European nations with no income tax.



Why do you right-wing types always bring up the communist models? Regardless of what you may think, pure capitalism isn't working any better than communism, except that the fall of communism didn't crash the world's economy.

There needs to be a BALANCE. I know this is a foreign concept to right-wingers. In order for some to be wealthy, many must be poor. A social democracy recognizes that not all can or will succeed and provides a social safety net for those who don't thrive in a capitalistic society.

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

We've already had two world-wide depressions because of Republican transfers of wealth upward. The Robber Barons of the late 1800's and early 1900's crashed the economy in 1929, and Reagan Republicans and his successors did it again in 2008. How many times does this have to happen before you right-wingers learn?

Ok..Let's put your pseudo-intellectual nonsense to bed, right here and now. Taking little "snippets" from America history and using them as your basis for rebuttal is as ridiculous as the stereotypical "Canuck" portrayed on the cartoon show "South Park".

Us "right-wing" types use the "communism" model because I witnessed, for myself, what communism was all about. You may be correct in your statement that "capitalism isn't working any better than communism". However, I have never witnessed ANYONE in the United States disappearing in the middle of the night because they "disagreed" with the government. Whether it be John F Kennedy's government, Ronald Reagan's government or, at least to this point, Barry Obama' government.

I do not, nor have I EVER believed in the concept that it is MY responsibility to take care for those (especially of my race - Black) that choose to sit on their butts and wait to be cared for.Nor do I believe that it is the responsibility of the government to insinuate itself (in the name of some "social justice" mularkey) between the people and their ability to either rise, or fall, based on their own merit.

If the founding Fathers, who came to this country with nothing more than the "hope" of Liberty, lived by the present day, radical liberal lefts idea of "freedom", we would still be bowing before a King. As Benanin Franklin told the Lady in Philadelphia: " Madame, we have given you LIBERTY, if you can keep it".

We are now, in this present age, being attacked, on a daily basis by those, like you, who would rather America just "lay down" and accept the mantra of the left, that we should give up our liberties, in favor of a "kind, benevolent system" that will care for us and provide for our needs, based on the needs of the collective" - Karl Marx

"Those who would give up their liberty for a little security deserve neither"

Sorry there Canuck. I've seen that form of governance and, while she is absolutely imperfect, I'll take America, in it's Constitutional form any day of the week and three times on Sunday before I commit to live under the "threat" of a government that "cares" for me. I neither need them or any of the "promises" that comes with their "helping hand".

I still live under the philosophy that states " When a member of government shows up at your door with promises of "We're here to help you", run like HELL"

I am PLUS repping you for that post! SPOT ON!!!!!

 

[Dragonlady]

All of this whining criticizing trickle down economics. To that I must ask, what is YOUR solution?

How many times do I have to post it: Higher taxes on the highest income earning corporations and individuals. Cuts to government spending as the job market improves, but as long as the government is shedding jobs almost as fast as the private sector is creating them, unemployment will remain high.

Here is a perfect example of how trickle down provides the most for the many.
North Dakota's gas and oil fields.
Once the region was opened up to oil and gas harvesting, the income levels of the people in the region have quadrupled. Housing, stores, lodging, etc...

Here is where you really display your ignorance of the economy. Opening up oil and gas exploration, is not "trickle down". Trickle down is where the rich get a big tax break so they go on a shopping spree and buy a bunch of stuff with their tax savings. That stimulates demand for goods which causes the production to increase. People get hired and the effect of the tax break "trickles down" to the working class through increased employment.

This is an example of a new industry moving into an area and developing the industry in the region. Incomes in the area increased because all of the workers moving into the area needed places to live, food, clothing and furniture, and services like car repairs, dry cleaning, doctors, dentists, child care, etc., etc., etc.

Reading your article it emphasizes all the points I've been making about higher wages for working folk:

The average worker in the oil and gas sector here earns more than $90,000 a year -- a sum so large that it’s pushed up incomes in non-oil sectors as well. The overwhelming majority of these oil jobs require a high school degree or less. The oil and gas workforce here has increased from 5,000 in 2005 to more than 30,000 today. The recession remains in their minds: Many hail from outside the state and are working grueling 80-hour-a-week shifts in hopes of earning enough money to save their homes elsewhere from foreclosure.

Meanwhile, the state has benefited enormously from taxes on the industry, which generated an estimated $839 million in FY 2011 and are expected to generate more than $2 billion over the next two years. As other states have been forced to make drastic budget cuts targeting education, public assistance and Medicaid spending, North Dakota recently approved a budget that increases spending by 12 percent over its upcoming two-year budget cycle. “This is a time of opportunity,” says Brad Bekkedahl, a Williston city commissioner. “It’s a time of growth. And it’s a time of amazing prosperity and wealth coming into our community.”

The left despises trickle down due to their mentality of entitlement and instant gratification.
You people cannot stand the fact that there are those who have more than you. You see wealth as criminal.

The left despises trick down because it doesn't work. We've been doing "trickle down" since Reagan was elected and it's resulting in a HUGE transfer of wealth - all of it UPWARD. Even Reagan admitted it didn't work. W revived the idea and Romney continued it but if tax cuts created jobs, the US should have full had full employment under Bush instead of crashing the economy and taking millions of jobs with it.

The left isn't pissed because some people got wealthy, they're pissed about the millions who have been made poor by the tax cuts given to the wealthy.

Wealth is not criminal. I love living large and indulging myself but I don't do it often, and not since I retired. I retired recently and I haven't really had an opportunity to absorb what the change in income will mean for the future. You do the numbers but until you've lived it for a while, you don't really know how it will work until you. So far, so good and I am planning my first trip. I love to travel.

 

[thereisnospoon]

All of this whining criticizing trickle down economics. To that I must ask, what is YOUR solution?

How many times do I have to post it: Higher taxes on the highest income earning corporations and individuals. Cuts to government spending as the job market improves, but as long as the government is shedding jobs almost as fast as the private sector is creating them, unemployment will remain high.

Here is a perfect example of how trickle down provides the most for the many.
North Dakota's gas and oil fields.
Once the region was opened up to oil and gas harvesting, the income levels of the people in the region have quadrupled. Housing, stores, lodging, etc...

Here is where you really display your ignorance of the economy. Opening up oil and gas exploration, is not "trickle down". Trickle down is where the rich get a big tax break so they go on a shopping spree and buy a bunch of stuff with their tax savings. That stimulates demand for goods which causes the production to increase. People get hired and the effect of the tax break "trickles down" to the working class through increased employment.

This is an example of a new industry moving into an area and developing the industry in the region. Incomes in the area increased because all of the workers moving into the area needed places to live, food, clothing and furniture, and services like car repairs, dry cleaning, doctors, dentists, child care, etc., etc., etc.

Reading your article it emphasizes all the points I've been making about higher wages for working folk:

The average worker in the oil and gas sector here earns more than $90,000 a year -- a sum so large that it’s pushed up incomes in non-oil sectors as well. The overwhelming majority of these oil jobs require a high school degree or less. The oil and gas workforce here has increased from 5,000 in 2005 to more than 30,000 today. The recession remains in their minds: Many hail from outside the state and are working grueling 80-hour-a-week shifts in hopes of earning enough money to save their homes elsewhere from foreclosure.

Meanwhile, the state has benefited enormously from taxes on the industry, which generated an estimated $839 million in FY 2011 and are expected to generate more than $2 billion over the next two years. As other states have been forced to make drastic budget cuts targeting education, public assistance and Medicaid spending, North Dakota recently approved a budget that increases spending by 12 percent over its upcoming two-year budget cycle. “This is a time of opportunity,” says Brad Bekkedahl, a Williston city commissioner. “It’s a time of growth. And it’s a time of amazing prosperity and wealth coming into our community.”

The left despises trickle down due to their mentality of entitlement and instant gratification.
You people cannot stand the fact that there are those who have more than you. You see wealth as criminal.

The left despises trick down because it doesn't work. We've been doing "trickle down" since Reagan was elected and it's resulting in a HUGE transfer of wealth - all of it UPWARD. Even Reagan admitted it didn't work. W revived the idea and Romney continued it but if tax cuts created jobs, the US should have full had full employment under Bush instead of crashing the economy and taking millions of jobs with it.

The left isn't pissed because some people got wealthy, they're pissed about the millions who have been made poor by the tax cuts given to the wealthy.

Wealth is not criminal. I love living large and indulging myself but I don't do it often, and not since I retired. I retired recently and I haven't really had an opportunity to absorb what the change in income will mean for the future. You do the numbers but until you've lived it for a while, you don't really know how it will work until you. So far, so good and I am planning my first trip. I love to travel.

Fewer government workers is a GOOD thing. Government creates nothing. Taxes are used to pay overemployment in government.

Nice try. You evade the facts on trickle down because they don't fit the liberal template.
Don't fucking call me ignorant. Trust me, you don't want to start that battle.
Higher wages should be reserved for and ARE reserved for people with skills and education. Taking unskilled labor and magically bestowing higher wages upon them when those wages have not been earned is counterproductive. As labor is the highest percentage cost of doing business, wages must be controlled. If not, business cannot turn a profit and then they fail. The result is FEWER job opportunities. France's 19% and rising unemployment rate is a perfect example of what occurs when government fixes the marketplace.
Why just you don't admit that you are hooked on government because you believe government exists to take care of you.
Trickle down has been a success because it has CREATED wealth. All of that nonsense about "upward" is just a bunch of class warfare crapola.

 

[Toro]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/12/20/rel18c-1.pdf

Wide sampling error though.

Then exactly why would you perpetuate it?

Because even if its still within the sampling error of 8%, it would still be the highest reading since they started that poll.

Of course, the sampling error might skew upwards, i.e. to 61%.

 

[Barb]

And that’s perfectly appropriate, corporations are in business to make a profit, not employ people. But that doesn’t mean we must enrich corporate profits at taxpayers’ expense.

I have no issue with profits but I do have an issue with greed and exploitation. I want EVERYONE to do well: I want companies to make a reasonable profit; I want investors to get a reasonable return on their investments; I want workers to be paid a "living wage", that is income adequate to support themselves and their families and contribute their fair share of taxes. Then everybody wins. The way things are now are great for the shareholders and the corporations, but not their workers, not the taxpayers, and not the government.

That's, of course, very kind of you, don't you think? And who do YOU propose, should be the arbiter of making those decisions; about who makes how much and when is enough - enough?

One would assume that reading your other humorous postings, That, of course, those decisions should be left up to an omnipotent and benevolent Central Government, shouldn't it. I mean, that's the only "fair and equitable" way to distribute others' profits - isn't it?

And who should pay the billions and billions of dollars that companies pay out ( from their bottom lines) for R&D? Marketing? Advertising? Again, one can only assume that in your "All for the collective and the collective for all" approach that the "People's government" would shoulder that responsibility, as well?

Unfortunately, that was the idea in the USSR and Red China. Hopefully, you see how far that got those folks.......

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

Well then, let us revisit the past and see why ordinary Americans believe that corporations should operate in a way that enhances society.

Recurrent observations Paul Rutherford made throughout "Endless Propaganda; The Advertising of Public Goods" were that business interests used advertising to promote the idea of the corporation as a public good; corporations disciplined the media through corrective advertising and withholding advertising dollars; and that advertisers partnered with government and charitable organizations to direct policy, enhance corporations public image, and insulate business from criticism.

In response to their negative image and calls for regulation of industry during the Great Depression, corporations cooperated to produce advertisements designed to “sell business, tarnish labor, and ward off government” In 1942, rather than ward off government, advertisers partnered with government to produce “civic advertising” via the Wartime Advertising Council, improving the public image of advertisers and business by supporting the war effort, and emphasizing their usefulness to government officials.

Once the war ended, the infrastructure of the council remained under the truncated heading “Advertising Council.” The Advertising Council was still very connected with government, but even more so to “corporate America.” One of the most important functions of the Advertising Council was to promote “social advertising,” making the Advertising Council a bridge between businesses, charitable, social, and government elites. Rutherford identified the initial capitalist propaganda initiatives as failures, but government did start listening more to business, and corporations, through the Advertising Council, were firmly entrenched in both the government and social spheres. Whatever their early mistakes, their position was set, their presence known, and their authority accepted.

source:

Paul Rutherford, Endless Propaganda; The Advertising of Public Goods, University of TORONTO Press, Toronto, Buffalo, London, 2000

So you see, business itself is what is responsible for the public perception that it does (therefore it should) operate as a public good rather than a detriment of a civilized society.

The same propaganda machine is NOW pushing the idea that they are NOT abdicating the same fucking responsibility that IT sold to the American public in the first place as a justification for ITS position, ITS privilege, ITS power. Because IT owns all the media content (most of) YOU see, IT is massively successful.

Mass culture, Mass media, MASS manipulation.

Congratulations, the idiot box owns YOU.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I have no issue with profits but I do have an issue with greed and exploitation. I want EVERYONE to do well: I want companies to make a reasonable profit; I want investors to get a reasonable return on their investments; I want workers to be paid a "living wage", that is income adequate to support themselves and their families and contribute their fair share of taxes. Then everybody wins. The way things are now are great for the shareholders and the corporations, but not their workers, not the taxpayers, and not the government.

That's, of course, very kind of you, don't you think? And who do YOU propose, should be the arbiter of making those decisions; about who makes how much and when is enough - enough?

One would assume that reading your other humorous postings, That, of course, those decisions should be left up to an omnipotent and benevolent Central Government, shouldn't it. I mean, that's the only "fair and equitable" way to distribute others' profits - isn't it?

And who should pay the billions and billions of dollars that companies pay out ( from their bottom lines) for R&D? Marketing? Advertising? Again, one can only assume that in your "All for the collective and the collective for all" approach that the "People's government" would shoulder that responsibility, as well?

Unfortunately, that was the idea in the USSR and Red China. Hopefully, you see how far that got those folks.......

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

Well then, let us revisit the past and see why ordinary Americans believe that corporations should operate in a way that enhances society.

Recurrent observations Paul Rutherford made throughout "Endless Propaganda; The Advertising of Public Goods" were that business interests used advertising to promote the idea of the corporation as a public good; corporations disciplined the media through corrective advertising and withholding advertising dollars; and that advertisers partnered with government and charitable organizations to direct policy, enhance corporations public image, and insulate business from criticism.

In response to their negative image and calls for regulation of industry during the Great Depression, corporations cooperated to produce advertisements designed to “sell business, tarnish labor, and ward off government” In 1942, rather than ward off government, advertisers partnered with government to produce “civic advertising” via the Wartime Advertising Council, improving the public image of advertisers and business by supporting the war effort, and emphasizing their usefulness to government officials.

Once the war ended, the infrastructure of the council remained under the truncated heading “Advertising Council.” The Advertising Council was still very connected with government, but even more so to “corporate America.” One of the most important functions of the Advertising Council was to promote “social advertising,” making the Advertising Council a bridge between businesses, charitable, social, and government elites. Rutherford identified the initial capitalist propaganda initiatives as failures, but government did start listening more to business, and corporations, through the Advertising Council, were firmly entrenched in both the government and social spheres. Whatever their early mistakes, their position was set, their presence known, and their authority accepted.

source:

Paul Rutherford, Endless Propaganda; The Advertising of Public Goods, University of TORONTO Press, Toronto, Buffalo, London, 2000

So you see, business itself is what is responsible for the public perception that it does (therefore it should) operate as a public good rather than a detriment of a civilized society.

The same propaganda machine is NOW pushing the idea that they are NOT abdicating the same fucking responsibility that IT sold to the American public in the first place as a justification for ITS position, ITS privilege, ITS power. Because IT owns all the media content (most of) YOU see, IT is massively successful.

Mass culture, Mass media, MASS manipulation.

Congratulations, the idiot box owns YOU.

And WHO is Paul Rutherford? Ahh yes, another all knowing all seeing "I say therefore it shall be"...
Yep..One guy's opinion. Case closed. Gee barb, you just nailed it here.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And that’s perfectly appropriate, corporations are in business to make a profit, not employ people. But that doesn’t mean we must enrich corporate profits at taxpayers’ expense.

I have no issue with profits but I do have an issue with greed and exploitation. I want EVERYONE to do well: I want companies to make a reasonable profit; I want investors to get a reasonable return on their investments; I want workers to be paid a "living wage", that is income adequate to support themselves and their families and contribute their fair share of taxes. Then everybody wins. The way things are now are great for the shareholders and the corporations, but not their workers, not the taxpayers, and not the government.

Agreed.

But you will have forever those on the radical fiscal right fighting this every step of the way in the context of blind adherence to the dogma of Social Darwinism.

Employers will continue to do everything in their power to keep wages low to maximize profit, taking advantage of an ever-more productive workforce:

The typical worker has had stagnating wages for a long time, despite enjoying some wage growth during the economic recovery of the late 1990s. While productivity grew 80% between 1979 and 2009, the hourly wage of the median worker grew by only 10.1%, with all of this wage growth occurring from 1996 to 2002, reflecting the strong economic recovery of the late 1990s.

The sad but true story of wages in America | Economic Policy Institute

 

[Barb]

That's, of course, very kind of you, don't you think? And who do YOU propose, should be the arbiter of making those decisions; about who makes how much and when is enough - enough?

One would assume that reading your other humorous postings, That, of course, those decisions should be left up to an omnipotent and benevolent Central Government, shouldn't it. I mean, that's the only "fair and equitable" way to distribute others' profits - isn't it?

And who should pay the billions and billions of dollars that companies pay out ( from their bottom lines) for R&D? Marketing? Advertising? Again, one can only assume that in your "All for the collective and the collective for all" approach that the "People's government" would shoulder that responsibility, as well?

Unfortunately, that was the idea in the USSR and Red China. Hopefully, you see how far that got those folks.......

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

Well then, let us revisit the past and see why ordinary Americans believe that corporations should operate in a way that enhances society.

Recurrent observations Paul Rutherford made throughout "Endless Propaganda; The Advertising of Public Goods" were that business interests used advertising to promote the idea of the corporation as a public good; corporations disciplined the media through corrective advertising and withholding advertising dollars; and that advertisers partnered with government and charitable organizations to direct policy, enhance corporations public image, and insulate business from criticism.

In response to their negative image and calls for regulation of industry during the Great Depression, corporations cooperated to produce advertisements designed to “sell business, tarnish labor, and ward off government” In 1942, rather than ward off government, advertisers partnered with government to produce “civic advertising” via the Wartime Advertising Council, improving the public image of advertisers and business by supporting the war effort, and emphasizing their usefulness to government officials.

Once the war ended, the infrastructure of the council remained under the truncated heading “Advertising Council.” The Advertising Council was still very connected with government, but even more so to “corporate America.” One of the most important functions of the Advertising Council was to promote “social advertising,” making the Advertising Council a bridge between businesses, charitable, social, and government elites. Rutherford identified the initial capitalist propaganda initiatives as failures, but government did start listening more to business, and corporations, through the Advertising Council, were firmly entrenched in both the government and social spheres. Whatever their early mistakes, their position was set, their presence known, and their authority accepted.

source:

Paul Rutherford, Endless Propaganda; The Advertising of Public Goods, University of TORONTO Press, Toronto, Buffalo, London, 2000

So you see, business itself is what is responsible for the public perception that it does (therefore it should) operate as a public good rather than a detriment of a civilized society.

The same propaganda machine is NOW pushing the idea that they are NOT abdicating the same fucking responsibility that IT sold to the American public in the first place as a justification for ITS position, ITS privilege, ITS power. Because IT owns all the media content (most of) YOU see, IT is massively successful.

Mass culture, Mass media, MASS manipulation.

Congratulations, the idiot box owns YOU.

And WHO is Paul Rutherford? Ahh yes, another all knowing all seeing "I say therefore it shall be"...
Yep..One guy's opinion. Case closed. Gee barb, you just nailed it here.

You really aren't the sharpest tool in the shed, are you? Still, you ARE a tool, and you'll always have that.

Paul Rutherford's work is documented, referenced, and peer reviewed enough to be considered authoritative reading and documentation for graduate level course work. What have you published (or read) lately that meet those standards?

 

[RandallFlagg]

I have no issue with profits but I do have an issue with greed and exploitation. I want EVERYONE to do well: I want companies to make a reasonable profit; I want investors to get a reasonable return on their investments; I want workers to be paid a "living wage", that is income adequate to support themselves and their families and contribute their fair share of taxes. Then everybody wins. The way things are now are great for the shareholders and the corporations, but not their workers, not the taxpayers, and not the government.

That's, of course, very kind of you, don't you think? And who do YOU propose, should be the arbiter of making those decisions; about who makes how much and when is enough - enough?

One would assume that reading your other humorous postings, That, of course, those decisions should be left up to an omnipotent and benevolent Central Government, shouldn't it. I mean, that's the only "fair and equitable" way to distribute others' profits - isn't it?

And who should pay the billions and billions of dollars that companies pay out ( from their bottom lines) for R&D? Marketing? Advertising? Again, one can only assume that in your "All for the collective and the collective for all" approach that the "People's government" would shoulder that responsibility, as well?

Unfortunately, that was the idea in the USSR and Red China. Hopefully, you see how far that got those folks.......

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

Well then, let us revisit the past and see why ordinary Americans believe that corporations should operate in a way that enhances society.

Recurrent observations Paul Rutherford made throughout "Endless Propaganda; The Advertising of Public Goods" were that business interests used advertising to promote the idea of the corporation as a public good; corporations disciplined the media through corrective advertising and withholding advertising dollars; and that advertisers partnered with government and charitable organizations to direct policy, enhance corporations public image, and insulate business from criticism.

In response to their negative image and calls for regulation of industry during the Great Depression, corporations cooperated to produce advertisements designed to “sell business, tarnish labor, and ward off government” In 1942, rather than ward off government, advertisers partnered with government to produce “civic advertising” via the Wartime Advertising Council, improving the public image of advertisers and business by supporting the war effort, and emphasizing their usefulness to government officials.

Once the war ended, the infrastructure of the council remained under the truncated heading “Advertising Council.” The Advertising Council was still very connected with government, but even more so to “corporate America.” One of the most important functions of the Advertising Council was to promote “social advertising,” making the Advertising Council a bridge between businesses, charitable, social, and government elites. Rutherford identified the initial capitalist propaganda initiatives as failures, but government did start listening more to business, and corporations, through the Advertising Council, were firmly entrenched in both the government and social spheres. Whatever their early mistakes, their position was set, their presence known, and their authority accepted.

source:

Paul Rutherford, Endless Propaganda; The Advertising of Public Goods, University of TORONTO Press, Toronto, Buffalo, London, 2000

So you see, business itself is what is responsible for the public perception that it does (therefore it should) operate as a public good rather than a detriment of a civilized society.

The same propaganda machine is NOW pushing the idea that they are NOT abdicating the same fucking responsibility that IT sold to the American public in the first place as a justification for ITS position, ITS privilege, ITS power. Because IT owns all the media content (most of) YOU see, IT is massively successful.

Mass culture, Mass media, MASS manipulation.

Congratulations, the idiot box owns YOU.

Of course! The usual suspects come from the depths to "school" me with their "properly formatted" (usually APA) disortations written by someone in academia and, who, for the most part, never left the halls of academic achievement.

Lady, you are dealing with an individual who graduated from the University of Louisville, most likely long before you were hatched into this world, and stopped at the lowly BA. I couldn't care less about your "book learning" spears that you hurl in an attempt to feel better about yourself. I used the GI bill to obtain my degree. I majored in the feeble enterprise of "communication" with a minor in Political Science.

I spent 25 years (after the military) as a Teamster (surprise!! a pensioned union member here) and STILL, I couldn't care less for your point of view.

You hate. That's what you do. You hate this country. You hate republicans. You "most likely" hate straight people and, in particular, men. You hate the social morays that "most" folks try to live by. You hate anyone and anything that doesn't fit into your little box of weirdness. You are, by definition, a miserable hater. My God. What a worthless way to live.

Please, however, I beg you. when you come here to impress those "lowly" right wing republicans that you despise with every fiber of your miserable being, please, PLEASE use your own thoughts to form your posts. I, and the rest of the "idiots" that make up the conservative base here would much rather read YOUR posts and not the plagiarism you use from "scholars" who have never ventured farther than 100 yards from the classroom.

And just for the record, why not put on your best flannel shirt and combat boots and go out and have some fun with your significant "other"....

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[JustTheFacts]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/12/20/rel18c-1.pdf

Wide sampling error though.

I suggest that much higher than 53% of Americans are out and out stupid.

But in this case, those folks are probably right, Republicans have went extreme in the face of extremism from the Democrats in the other direction.

Just amazes me how many idiots point fingers as they are doing exactly what they are pointing fingers about.

Sad really.

 

[RandallFlagg]

And that’s perfectly appropriate, corporations are in business to make a profit, not employ people. But that doesn’t mean we must enrich corporate profits at taxpayers’ expense.

I have no issue with profits but I do have an issue with greed and exploitation. I want EVERYONE to do well: I want companies to make a reasonable profit; I want investors to get a reasonable return on their investments; I want workers to be paid a "living wage", that is income adequate to support themselves and their families and contribute their fair share of taxes. Then everybody wins. The way things are now are great for the shareholders and the corporations, but not their workers, not the taxpayers, and not the government.

Agreed.

But you will have forever those on the radical fiscal right fighting this every step of the way in the context of blind adherence to the dogma of Social Darwinism.

Employers will continue to do everything in their power to keep wages low to maximize profit, taking advantage of an ever-more productive workforce:

The typical worker has had stagnating wages for a long time, despite enjoying some wage growth during the economic recovery of the late 1990s. While productivity grew 80% between 1979 and 2009, the hourly wage of the median worker grew by only 10.1%, with all of this wage growth occurring from 1996 to 2002, reflecting the strong economic recovery of the late 1990s.

The sad but true story of wages in America | Economic Policy Institute

Frankly, I have a hard time taking someone like you seriously. What I mean is that when I originally entered the workforce (at the ripe age of 14), I made $.80 per hour. I never once, at that part-time job EVER thought that I would make enough to support a family, buy a house, car and still have enough to send my kids to College. Go figure.

Subsequent jobs ( to include the military ) had the strangest circumstances! At each job, I made more and more money!!! I returned from Vietnam, went to College, graduated, got a nice job, made great money (never got rich - wouldn't want to offend you) got married, raised a family, bought several houses, sent the kids to college and now have a very nice retirement ( That I paid for - not you). Very comfortable in my old age.

The "moral" of this story? You want something "given" to you and your throwing a tantrum because those "evil old capitalists" aren't giving you what some clown told you that you are "due". Don't like it? QUIT!!!!! Get off your butt and look for a better job!!!!! Quit wasting your time HERE and do something CONSTRUCTIVE!!! Quit preaching and start achieving !!

 

[Barb]

That's, of course, very kind of you, don't you think? And who do YOU propose, should be the arbiter of making those decisions; about who makes how much and when is enough - enough?

One would assume that reading your other humorous postings, That, of course, those decisions should be left up to an omnipotent and benevolent Central Government, shouldn't it. I mean, that's the only "fair and equitable" way to distribute others' profits - isn't it?

And who should pay the billions and billions of dollars that companies pay out ( from their bottom lines) for R&D? Marketing? Advertising? Again, one can only assume that in your "All for the collective and the collective for all" approach that the "People's government" would shoulder that responsibility, as well?

Unfortunately, that was the idea in the USSR and Red China. Hopefully, you see how far that got those folks.......

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

Well then, let us revisit the past and see why ordinary Americans believe that corporations should operate in a way that enhances society.

Recurrent observations Paul Rutherford made throughout "Endless Propaganda; The Advertising of Public Goods" were that business interests used advertising to promote the idea of the corporation as a public good; corporations disciplined the media through corrective advertising and withholding advertising dollars; and that advertisers partnered with government and charitable organizations to direct policy, enhance corporations public image, and insulate business from criticism.

In response to their negative image and calls for regulation of industry during the Great Depression, corporations cooperated to produce advertisements designed to “sell business, tarnish labor, and ward off government” In 1942, rather than ward off government, advertisers partnered with government to produce “civic advertising” via the Wartime Advertising Council, improving the public image of advertisers and business by supporting the war effort, and emphasizing their usefulness to government officials.

Once the war ended, the infrastructure of the council remained under the truncated heading “Advertising Council.” The Advertising Council was still very connected with government, but even more so to “corporate America.” One of the most important functions of the Advertising Council was to promote “social advertising,” making the Advertising Council a bridge between businesses, charitable, social, and government elites. Rutherford identified the initial capitalist propaganda initiatives as failures, but government did start listening more to business, and corporations, through the Advertising Council, were firmly entrenched in both the government and social spheres. Whatever their early mistakes, their position was set, their presence known, and their authority accepted.

source:

Paul Rutherford, Endless Propaganda; The Advertising of Public Goods, University of TORONTO Press, Toronto, Buffalo, London, 2000

So you see, business itself is what is responsible for the public perception that it does (therefore it should) operate as a public good rather than a detriment of a civilized society.

The same propaganda machine is NOW pushing the idea that they are NOT abdicating the same fucking responsibility that IT sold to the American public in the first place as a justification for ITS position, ITS privilege, ITS power. Because IT owns all the media content (most of) YOU see, IT is massively successful.

Mass culture, Mass media, MASS manipulation.

Congratulations, the idiot box owns YOU.

Of course! The usual suspects come from the depths to "school" me with their "properly formatted" (usually APA) disortations written by someone in academia and, who, for the most part, never left the halls of academic achievement.

Lady, you are dealing with an individual who graduated from the University of Louisville, most likely long before you were hatched into this world, and stopped at the lowly BA. I couldn't care less about your "book learning" spears that you hurl in an attempt to feel better about yourself. I used the GI bill to obtain my degree. I majored in the feeble enterprise of "communication" with a minor in Political Science.

I spent 25 years (after the military) as a Teamster (surprise!! a pensioned union member here) and STILL, I couldn't care less for your point of view.

You hate. That's what you do. You hate this country. You hate republicans. You "most likely" hate straight people and, in particular, men. You hate the social morays that "most" folks try to live by. You hate anyone and anything that doesn't fit into your little box of weirdness. You are, by definition, a miserable hater. My God. What a worthless way to live.

Please, however, I beg you. when you come here to impress those "lowly" right wing republicans that you despise with every fiber of your miserable being, please, PLEASE use your own thoughts to form your posts. I, and the rest of the "idiots" that make up the conservative base here would much rather read YOUR posts and not the plagiarism you use from "scholars" who have never ventured farther than 100 yards from the classroom.

And just for the record, why not put on your best flannel shirt and combat boots and go out and have some fun with your significant "other"....

I quoted my source. If anything longer than 40 words was a direct quote it would have been in the appropriate

box

For the record, my significant other would make you piss your woefully inadequate pants. HE doesn't post in these forums, but hey, stop by and say hello someday. HE also likes to see me tear a motherfucker up.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Well then, let us revisit the past and see why ordinary Americans believe that corporations should operate in a way that enhances society.

Recurrent observations Paul Rutherford made throughout "Endless Propaganda; The Advertising of Public Goods" were that business interests used advertising to promote the idea of the corporation as a public good; corporations disciplined the media through corrective advertising and withholding advertising dollars; and that advertisers partnered with government and charitable organizations to direct policy, enhance corporations public image, and insulate business from criticism.

In response to their negative image and calls for regulation of industry during the Great Depression, corporations cooperated to produce advertisements designed to “sell business, tarnish labor, and ward off government” In 1942, rather than ward off government, advertisers partnered with government to produce “civic advertising” via the Wartime Advertising Council, improving the public image of advertisers and business by supporting the war effort, and emphasizing their usefulness to government officials.

Once the war ended, the infrastructure of the council remained under the truncated heading “Advertising Council.” The Advertising Council was still very connected with government, but even more so to “corporate America.” One of the most important functions of the Advertising Council was to promote “social advertising,” making the Advertising Council a bridge between businesses, charitable, social, and government elites. Rutherford identified the initial capitalist propaganda initiatives as failures, but government did start listening more to business, and corporations, through the Advertising Council, were firmly entrenched in both the government and social spheres. Whatever their early mistakes, their position was set, their presence known, and their authority accepted.

source:

Paul Rutherford, Endless Propaganda; The Advertising of Public Goods, University of TORONTO Press, Toronto, Buffalo, London, 2000

So you see, business itself is what is responsible for the public perception that it does (therefore it should) operate as a public good rather than a detriment of a civilized society.

The same propaganda machine is NOW pushing the idea that they are NOT abdicating the same fucking responsibility that IT sold to the American public in the first place as a justification for ITS position, ITS privilege, ITS power. Because IT owns all the media content (most of) YOU see, IT is massively successful.

Mass culture, Mass media, MASS manipulation.

Congratulations, the idiot box owns YOU.

Of course! The usual suspects come from the depths to "school" me with their "properly formatted" (usually APA) disortations written by someone in academia and, who, for the most part, never left the halls of academic achievement.

Lady, you are dealing with an individual who graduated from the University of Louisville, most likely long before you were hatched into this world, and stopped at the lowly BA. I couldn't care less about your "book learning" spears that you hurl in an attempt to feel better about yourself. I used the GI bill to obtain my degree. I majored in the feeble enterprise of "communication" with a minor in Political Science.

I spent 25 years (after the military) as a Teamster (surprise!! a pensioned union member here) and STILL, I couldn't care less for your point of view.

You hate. That's what you do. You hate this country. You hate republicans. You "most likely" hate straight people and, in particular, men. You hate the social morays that "most" folks try to live by. You hate anyone and anything that doesn't fit into your little box of weirdness. You are, by definition, a miserable hater. My God. What a worthless way to live.

Please, however, I beg you. when you come here to impress those "lowly" right wing republicans that you despise with every fiber of your miserable being, please, PLEASE use your own thoughts to form your posts. I, and the rest of the "idiots" that make up the conservative base here would much rather read YOUR posts and not the plagiarism you use from "scholars" who have never ventured farther than 100 yards from the classroom.

And just for the record, why not put on your best flannel shirt and combat boots and go out and have some fun with your significant "other"....

I quoted my source. If anything longer than 40 words was a direct quote it would have been in the appropriate

box

For the record, my significant other would make you piss your woefully inadequate pants. HE doesn't post in these forums, but hey, stop by and say hello someday. HE also likes to see me tear a motherfucker up.

For the record, I have no doubt whatsoever that your Girlfriend could tear me limb from limb. I sincerely doubt that at my age (68) and with my present afflictions that I could mount much resistance.

Still doesn't change the fact that you are a poseur. Your obvious butchering of the King's English proves that to me beyond a shadow of a doubt. Fortunately, I have spent my life as a Black man working with members of my own race dispelling the "myth" of the street vernacular that you use in attempt to intimidate. Doesn't work with me, Sally.

 

[JustTheFacts]

I have no issue with profits but I do have an issue with greed and exploitation. I want EVERYONE to do well: I want companies to make a reasonable profit; I want investors to get a reasonable return on their investments; I want workers to be paid a "living wage", that is income adequate to support themselves and their families and contribute their fair share of taxes. Then everybody wins. The way things are now are great for the shareholders and the corporations, but not their workers, not the taxpayers, and not the government.

Agreed.

But you will have forever those on the radical fiscal right fighting this every step of the way in the context of blind adherence to the dogma of Social Darwinism.

Employers will continue to do everything in their power to keep wages low to maximize profit, taking advantage of an ever-more productive workforce:

The typical worker has had stagnating wages for a long time, despite enjoying some wage growth during the economic recovery of the late 1990s. While productivity grew 80% between 1979 and 2009, the hourly wage of the median worker grew by only 10.1%, with all of this wage growth occurring from 1996 to 2002, reflecting the strong economic recovery of the late 1990s.

The sad but true story of wages in America | Economic Policy Institute

Frankly, I have a hard time taking someone like you seriously. What I mean is that when I originally entered the workforce (at the ripe age of 14), I made $.80 per hour. I never once, at that part-time job EVER thought that I would make enough to support a family, buy a house, car and still have enough to send my kids to College. Go figure.

Subsequent jobs ( to include the military ) had the strangest circumstances! At each job, I made more and more money!!! I returned from Vietnam, went to College, graduated, got a nice job, made great money (never got rich - wouldn't want to offend you) got married, raised a family, bought several houses, sent the kids to college and now have a very nice retirement ( That I paid for - not you). Very comfortable in my old age.

The "moral" of this story? You want something "given" to you and your throwing a tantrum because those "evil old capitalists" aren't giving you what some clown told you that you are "due". Don't like it? QUIT!!!!! Get off your butt and look for a better job!!!!! Quit wasting your time HERE and do something CONSTRUCTIVE!!! Quit preaching and start achieving !!

A reality some, including you, are going to have to face at some point is that half of Americans are STUPID and incapable of achieving what was once considered normal.

Some people simply aren't capable of college or a decent job. That doesn't mean the government should support them,but a blind call for them to go to college and get a better job if they aren't successful is ignoring a few things.

1. Sending everyone to college not only increases the cost of college , it sends people who are wasting their and everyone elses time. There are many people in college already who have no business being there, and you want to increase their numbers?

2. There are many many service jobs in this country that must be done and can be done by people who aren't qualified for college or a job that a college degree would bring , but still need a full time job.

I personally believe that the minimum wage should be bumped to $20/HR and that all welfare save that of the emergency variety should be cut out of the budget.

We have entirely too many working poor in this country who have full time jobs and are honestly trying to make a living yet can't even feed their families without food stamps. As for those who won't work at all. I don't care about them, let them die. Able bodied only of course.

I consider welfare to be not only all traditional welfare, but pel grants , earned income credit etc etc.

We have to stop thinking that everyone in this country deserves to go to college, they don't.

And by the same token, we have to stop pretending like all menial jobs are some disgrace that a person should be ashamed of having, they are not.

I have a college degree, served several years in the Army and have owned my auto repair bushiness for several years,but if all that disappeared tomorrow and my family was hungry I'd say a big screw you to anyone who looked down on me for picking uptrash to feed them.