Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[dnsmith35]

George, are you planning to ever answer the few questions I asked you? What's the matter? Do you think if you answer them honestly it will blow your socialist cover?

I can't find the questions. I'm new here and the board is difficult for me to navigate. Send me the questions PM and I will be happy to answer them.

I know the answers! They were specifically for George Phillips to answer because of his weird concept of economics. The were posted, then reposted several pages ago.

 

[dblack]

In the past CEO's made 35 times more than the average worker. Today it's 350 times. Why were we wrong to unionize and demand profit sharing? You call it class warfare when we ask for a raise or our fair share but when the CEO goes from 35-350 times you defend it. You don't value workers apparently. You think the CEO should get it all and the workers should get the crums. I understand.

It doesn't matter what you or I think CEOs should be paid. Obviously, someone thinks they're worth it. Why should you or I have the power to overrule their decision?

 

[dnsmith35]

In the past CEO's made 35 times more than the average worker. Today it's 350 times. Why were we wrong to unionize and demand profit sharing? You call it class warfare when we ask for a raise or our fair share but when the CEO goes from 35-350 times you defend it. You don't value workers apparently. You think the CEO should get it all and the workers should get the crums. I understand.

It doesn't matter what you or I think CEOs should be paid. Obviously, someone thinks they're worth it. Why should you or I have the power to overrule their decision?

Envy! The concept that the top CEOs should not have high incomes is associated with the Socialist paradigm of economics. When socialist economies are evaluated (over the short time they existed) invariably the people who lose the most prosperity or the masses and the Commissars continue to get wealthy.

Every experiment with socialism has failed miserably. Even when the true Utopian socialists look at the past experiments, they tend to whine that, "it was not real socialism." That is because theoretical socialists over look the fact that for "socialist" cannot exist without authoritarian/dictatorial government protecting the commissars and very little "trickles down" to the worker. Other experiments have ended with the experiment becoming capitalist such that they can compete with other capital enterprises.

 

[sealybobo]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

Want to see the GOP's dream of a government free utopia with no regulations, libertarian/tea party style? Just look at Russia. Russia is basically run by Corporations. Completely corrupt. Very similar to ours.

'You Can't Govern if You Don't Believe in Government'

It's unbelievable what moronic jackasses libturds are. Russia is nothing like a libertarian government. I have no idea how many regulations they have, but Putin is an arbitrary despot. He stripped the owner of the largest oil company in the country of his company and threw him in jail purely because he wanted the man's property. That's the kind of thing turds like you support, not libertarians.

I recall how all the libturds were hooting for the government to confiscate the property of British Petroleum because of the Gulf oil spill even though there was no law giving the government authority to do so. They all cheered when Obama intimidated the company into forking over $20 billion even though the president had no such authority. Obama acted just like a Putin style thug and you all loved it.

Turds like you don't give a flying fuck about the law.

Like Venesuela did, I would Nationalize the oil in America IMMEDIATELY. The companies can sub contract the actual work but that's it. So on this I'm a socialist.

I'm also a socialist on healthcare, water, heat, electric, schools, police and fire fighters. I'm also pro government unless the politician is serving the rich and corporations not their constituents. Then I'm anti government too. But you seem to want the government to get out of the way so corporations can pay us all $3 hr.

 

[sealybobo]

George, are you planning to ever answer the few questions I asked you? What's the matter? Do you think if you answer them honestly it will blow your socialist cover?

The middle class is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace. The rules of the game of business are defined by government. Any sports fan can tell you that without rules and referees sports would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules doesn’t work. Works for the top 1% but not for the rest of us. The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is,”stop government from defending workers and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade.”
Sorry but governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been if you want to do business in America you have to do business that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.
The middle class is not a normal result of free markets. Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small middle mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called serfs. The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business. It is, quite simply, an artifact of government regulation of markets and tax laws. Labor laws and don’t forget unions. New Deal, FDR. The rich called him a traitor to his class.
When government sets the rules of the game of business in such a way that working people must receive a living wage, labor has the power to organize into unions, and domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and we return to the Dickens-era "normal" form of totally free market conservative economics where the rich get richer while the working poor are kept in a constant state of fear and anxiety so the cost of their labor will always be cheap.

You are preaching to the choir when you argue to me about regulation. I have always been for regulation of business and industry, without which we would have a real major issue fairness in society.

Beyond that you have several comments which are simply untrue. I am not a conservative, I am liberal, JUST NOT LEFT WING EXTREME, as some on this thread are. Your contention that labor has "the power" to organized into unions may be true, but the majority of labor in the US chooses NOT TO HAVE THEM. Only 12% of our labor force is unionized and for good reason. The government has taken over the role of unions in so far as fairness and safety rules in the work place. Union usefulness has just about run its course in the US. However in 3rd world labor markets the labor revolution has not yet taken root, and that is where unions can still be useful to society. In addition protectionism against the big bad foreign competition does the US labor force more harm than good and globalization is here and will be here whether you like it or not. Also, your concept of conservatism is warped. Conservatives are the ones who WANT PROTECTIONISM and the status quo rather than globalism, and it is we liberals (not left wingers) who want to do business with the world such that ALL HUMANS ARE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE A DIGNIFIED LIFE. The platitudes you throw out are a reflection of the propaganda sources you read or listen to, and do not reflect reality in the Industrialized world.

1. The need for unions has never been stronger than it is today. Where has the middle class gone? Bunch of white collar broke asses raising families on $30K plus an hour. I see it. It's all around you. A lot of your friends went from middle class in the 90's to where they are today. Not saving anything, in debt, barely making ends meet, haven't had a raise in years, cost of living going up. Or a lot of my friends are making much less than they did in the 90's. They took steps backward. And today the jobs just aren't paying what they use to. So a lot of people are working but they are working for much less. It has become the new normal in America. Not saving a dime for retirement??? The new norm? And don't act like the GOP hate this. Paying employees less? They love it don't pretend they don't.

2. I'm re reading your rebuttal and I don't see where you are pointing out something I said that was untrue.

3. Do you know the tactics that corporations pull to get their employees to not vote to unionize? I wouldn't be so sure about how people feel about unions. The majority of people don't like unions because they've never been in one and they've been brainwashed to think they are bad. They aren't perfect but I can bet you that if a lot of people could vote anonymously and without fear/intimidation they would choose to have a union represent them.

ANYONE who hasn't gotten a raise in 10 years but their ceo is now making 350 times what they make when before it was 35 times more is a fool.

The smartest guys I ever knew worked in a union factory because at least they were smart enough to get their fair share of the profits.

P.S. The only reason non union companies paid so well all these years is because they were afraid their employees would unionize. They aren't afraid anymore and look where wages are.

If you are a liberal you aren't a smart one.

 

[sealybobo]

In the past CEO's made 35 times more than the average worker. Today it's 350 times. Why were we wrong to unionize and demand profit sharing? You call it class warfare when we ask for a raise or our fair share but when the CEO goes from 35-350 times you defend it. You don't value workers apparently. You think the CEO should get it all and the workers should get the crums. I understand.

It doesn't matter what you or I think CEOs should be paid. Obviously, someone thinks they're worth it. Why should you or I have the power to overrule their decision?

Yea, they think they are worth it. And don't expect the BOD to step in because the CEO we are talking about here sits on their companies BOD and so you scratch my back I'll scratch yours.

If the company had a union it would insist that the employees get some of the profits. My dad every year got a profit sharing check from Ford when they turned a profit, which by the way they did turn a profit for years even with union employees.

So it wasn't the union employees that bankrupt Ford. It was the global recession Bush and Friends caused.

 

[dnsmith35]

Want to see the GOP's dream of a government free utopia with no regulations, libertarian/tea party style? Just look at Russia. Russia is basically run by Corporations. Completely corrupt. Very similar to ours.

'You Can't Govern if You Don't Believe in Government'

It's unbelievable what moronic jackasses libturds are. Russia is nothing like a libertarian government. I have no idea how many regulations they have, but Putin is an arbitrary despot. He stripped the owner of the largest oil company in the country of his company and threw him in jail purely because he wanted the man's property. That's the kind of thing turds like you support, not libertarians.

I recall how all the libturds were hooting for the government to confiscate the property of British Petroleum because of the Gulf oil spill even though there was no law giving the government authority to do so. They all cheered when Obama intimidated the company into forking over $20 billion even though the president had no such authority. Obama acted just like a Putin style thug and you all loved it.

Turds like you don't give a flying fuck about the law.

Like Venesuela did, I would Nationalize the oil in America IMMEDIATELY. The companies can sub contract the actual work but that's it. So on this I'm a socialist.

I'm also a socialist on healthcare, water, heat, electric, schools, police and fire fighters. I'm also pro government unless the politician is serving the rich and corporations not their constituents. Then I'm anti government too. But you seem to want the government to get out of the way so corporations can pay us all $3 hr.

To the highlighted comment I say "BAH HUMBUG."

To the rest of it, make a note, ONE IS EITHER SOCIALIST OR ONE IS CAPITALIST, there is no middle ground. We are in a democratically elected republic and the government's primary job is to PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY, not to usurp ownership from a menu of industries or companies.

You may THINK it would be great for there to be some form of government or collective ownership or control of production and distribution of goods and services, but if you ever were put into that position, UNLESS YOU WERE THE COMMISSAR, you would live in poverty as every attempt as socialism in our world has failed miserably. Mainly because government has to become autocratic/dictatorial just like it did in Russia when Lenin observed cracks in the "collective" functions.

 

[sealybobo]

In the past CEO's made 35 times more than the average worker. Today it's 350 times. Why were we wrong to unionize and demand profit sharing? You call it class warfare when we ask for a raise or our fair share but when the CEO goes from 35-350 times you defend it. You don't value workers apparently. You think the CEO should get it all and the workers should get the crums. I understand.

It doesn't matter what you or I think CEOs should be paid. Obviously, someone thinks they're worth it. Why should you or I have the power to overrule their decision?

Envy! The concept that the top CEOs should not have high incomes is associated with the Socialist paradigm of economics. When socialist economies are evaluated (over the short time they existed) invariably the people who lose the most prosperity or the masses and the Commissars continue to get wealthy.

Every experiment with socialism has failed miserably. Even when the true Utopian socialists look at the past experiments, they tend to whine that, "it was not real socialism." That is because theoretical socialists over look the fact that for "socialist" cannot exist without authoritarian/dictatorial government protecting the commissars and very little "trickles down" to the worker. Other experiments have ended with the experiment becoming capitalist such that they can compete with other capital enterprises.

You don't seem to realize that the USA has some socialism (gas, power, energy, schools, police, fire fighters, government workers, prisons) and then we have Capitalism too.

No 100% Capitalistic society ever existed.

America was at it's greatest when we had a strong social safety net, ss, medicare, unemployment benefits, welfare, unions, pensions.

The GOP didn't just tell us Government is bad they proved it.

 

[sealybobo]

It's unbelievable what moronic jackasses libturds are. Russia is nothing like a libertarian government. I have no idea how many regulations they have, but Putin is an arbitrary despot. He stripped the owner of the largest oil company in the country of his company and threw him in jail purely because he wanted the man's property. That's the kind of thing turds like you support, not libertarians.

I recall how all the libturds were hooting for the government to confiscate the property of British Petroleum because of the Gulf oil spill even though there was no law giving the government authority to do so. They all cheered when Obama intimidated the company into forking over $20 billion even though the president had no such authority. Obama acted just like a Putin style thug and you all loved it.

Turds like you don't give a flying fuck about the law.

Like Venesuela did, I would Nationalize the oil in America IMMEDIATELY. The companies can sub contract the actual work but that's it. So on this I'm a socialist.

I'm also a socialist on healthcare, water, heat, electric, schools, police and fire fighters. I'm also pro government unless the politician is serving the rich and corporations not their constituents. Then I'm anti government too. But you seem to want the government to get out of the way so corporations can pay us all $3 hr.

To the highlighted comment I say "BAH HUMBUG."

To the rest of it, make a note, ONE IS EITHER SOCIALIST OR ONE IS CAPITALIST, there is no middle ground. We are in a democratically elected republic and the government's primary job is to PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY, not to usurp ownership from a menu of industries or companies.

You may THINK it would be great for there to be some form of government or collective ownership or control of production and distribution of goods and services, but if you ever were put into that position, UNLESS YOU WERE THE COMMISSAR, you would live in poverty as every attempt as socialism in our world has failed miserably. Mainly because government has to become autocratic/dictatorial just like it did in Russia when Lenin observed cracks in the "collective" functions.

You can't talk to someone who thinks you are either 100% capitalist or you are 100% a socialist. If you believe in public schools are you a socialist?

If you can't see why we don't let corporations take over everything, that makes you a libertarian and you can't talk to those guys either. They are nucking futs.

With them you can never deregulate enough. So no matter how bad the results they'll keep telling you we need to keep deregulating MORE!

Yea, the reason bush trashed the economy was he was too liberal is what they said.

 

[sealybobo]

In the past CEO's made 35 times more than the average worker. Today it's 350 times. Why were we wrong to unionize and demand profit sharing? You call it class warfare when we ask for a raise or our fair share but when the CEO goes from 35-350 times you defend it. You don't value workers apparently. You think the CEO should get it all and the workers should get the crums. I understand.

It doesn't matter what you or I think CEOs should be paid. Obviously, someone thinks they're worth it. Why should you or I have the power to overrule their decision?

Envy! The concept that the top CEOs should not have high incomes is associated with the Socialist paradigm of economics. When socialist economies are evaluated (over the short time they existed) invariably the people who lose the most prosperity or the masses and the Commissars continue to get wealthy.

Every experiment with socialism has failed miserably. Even when the true Utopian socialists look at the past experiments, they tend to whine that, "it was not real socialism." That is because theoretical socialists over look the fact that for "socialist" cannot exist without authoritarian/dictatorial government protecting the commissars and very little "trickles down" to the worker. Other experiments have ended with the experiment becoming capitalist such that they can compete with other capital enterprises.

Was it envy when in the late 90's the rich decided to pull a coup and steal the 2000 elections, put bush in power and have him inact policies that would help corporations move operations overseas thus crushing the American labor force in an attempt to destroy unions and steal pensions. They let go of so many employees, meanwhile the GOP was insisting we cut government jobs too because hey, we're broke. Even more so flooding the market with workers so they could max profits. And the CEO's who did the most laying off got the biggest bonus'.

So did they envy us when they waged class warfare on the middle class? Remember jobs Americans won't do? Well the corporations starting giving illegals jobs Americans would do not just seasonal migrant work.

There is no doubt it was all done on purpose. So did the rich envy us when we were saving and spending and actually making the economy work because the only real way small business thrives and wages go up is if people have money to spend. The top 1% can spend enough. Business' need the masses spending. Wake up.

I could go on and on but it would just go right over your head I'm sure.

 

[sealybobo]

It's unbelievable what moronic jackasses libturds are. Russia is nothing like a libertarian government. I have no idea how many regulations they have, but Putin is an arbitrary despot. He stripped the owner of the largest oil company in the country of his company and threw him in jail purely because he wanted the man's property. That's the kind of thing turds like you support, not libertarians.

I recall how all the libturds were hooting for the government to confiscate the property of British Petroleum because of the Gulf oil spill even though there was no law giving the government authority to do so. They all cheered when Obama intimidated the company into forking over $20 billion even though the president had no such authority. Obama acted just like a Putin style thug and you all loved it.

Turds like you don't give a flying fuck about the law.

Like Venesuela did, I would Nationalize the oil in America IMMEDIATELY. The companies can sub contract the actual work but that's it. So on this I'm a socialist.

I'm also a socialist on healthcare, water, heat, electric, schools, police and fire fighters. I'm also pro government unless the politician is serving the rich and corporations not their constituents. Then I'm anti government too. But you seem to want the government to get out of the way so corporations can pay us all $3 hr.

To the highlighted comment I say "BAH HUMBUG."

To the rest of it, make a note, ONE IS EITHER SOCIALIST OR ONE IS CAPITALIST, there is no middle ground. We are in a democratically elected republic and the government's primary job is to PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY, not to usurp ownership from a menu of industries or companies.

You may THINK it would be great for there to be some form of government or collective ownership or control of production and distribution of goods and services, but if you ever were put into that position, UNLESS YOU WERE THE COMMISSAR, you would live in poverty as every attempt as socialism in our world has failed miserably. Mainly because government has to become autocratic/dictatorial just like it did in Russia when Lenin observed cracks in the "collective" functions.

Are you against medicare for seniors? Then I guess you aren't 100% capitalist then.

Or do you think without having to pay into medicare, you'd invest your money and instead you'd have more than you would need to pay for your own private health insurance.

Are you insane? Do you know how much a for profit corporation would charge your 62 year old ass?

This is the exact argument right wingers made about ending SS. They say they would do better investing their own money. Meanwhile lets say another Bush gets into office when they are in their 60's and that Bush like the last one trashes the economy and their investments aren't worth shit. Who's gonna take care of these people, the churches? HA! They'll starve before that happens. This is why we aren't 100% capitalism.

 

[bripat9643]

It doesn't matter what you or I think CEOs should be paid. Obviously, someone thinks they're worth it. Why should you or I have the power to overrule their decision?

Envy! The concept that the top CEOs should not have high incomes is associated with the Socialist paradigm of economics. When socialist economies are evaluated (over the short time they existed) invariably the people who lose the most prosperity or the masses and the Commissars continue to get wealthy.

Every experiment with socialism has failed miserably. Even when the true Utopian socialists look at the past experiments, they tend to whine that, "it was not real socialism." That is because theoretical socialists over look the fact that for "socialist" cannot exist without authoritarian/dictatorial government protecting the commissars and very little "trickles down" to the worker. Other experiments have ended with the experiment becoming capitalist such that they can compete with other capital enterprises.

You don't seem to realize that the USA has some socialism (gas, power, energy, schools, police, fire fighters, government workers, prisons) and then we have Capitalism too.

Gas, power and energy are not run by the government, numskull. They are privately owned. The government runs all the parts of our economy that cost way more than they should and were the service sucks, like schools, police and fire fighters.

No 100% Capitalistic society ever existed.

And no 100% socialist society ever existed. However, we know that the closer you get to 100% capitalism, the better the material well being of your citizens. The closer you get to 100%, the closer you get to abject poverty and mass starvation.

America was at it's greatest when we had a strong social safety net, ss, medicare, unemployment benefits, welfare, unions, pensions.

The GOP didn't just tell us Government is bad they proved it.

Another way of saying that is that the downhill slide began after we adopted all the programs you listed.

 

[dblack]

In the past CEO's made 35 times more than the average worker. Today it's 350 times. Why were we wrong to unionize and demand profit sharing? You call it class warfare when we ask for a raise or our fair share but when the CEO goes from 35-350 times you defend it. You don't value workers apparently. You think the CEO should get it all and the workers should get the crums. I understand.

It doesn't matter what you or I think CEOs should be paid. Obviously, someone thinks they're worth it. Why should you or I have the power to overrule their decision?

Yea, they think they are worth it. And don't expect the BOD to step in because the CEO we are talking about here sits on their companies BOD and so you scratch my back I'll scratch yours.

What about the investors who elect the BOD and fund the company? The customers who buy the products and services the company offers? All of these people are making value judgements that result in the salary of the CEO.

Why shouldn't it be up to individuals how they spend their money? Because that's really what this is all about. Those of you advocating for wage and price controls are demanding that we give up our right to spend our money the way we want, that our personal economic decisions should be dictated by government.

 

[sealybobo]

UNREGULATED CRONY CAPITALISM leads to income inequality.

People like to talk about our founding fathers

At what point does great wealth held in a few hands actually harm democracy, threatening to turn a democratic republic into an oligarchy? It's a debate we haven't had freely and openly in this nation for nearly a century, and last week, by voting to end the Estate Tax, House Republicans tried to ensure that it wouldn't be had again in this generation. -April 2005 Thom Hartmann.

In a letter to Joseph Milligan on April 6, 1816, Thomas Jefferson explicitly suggested that if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their death.

In this, he was making the same argument that the Framers of Pennsylvania tried to make when writing their constitution in 1776 "an enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals is dangerous to the rights, and destructive of the common happiness of mankind, and, therefore, every free state hath a right by its laws to discourage the possession of such property."

 

[bripat9643]

Want to see the GOP's dream of a government free utopia with no regulations, libertarian/tea party style? Just look at Russia. Russia is basically run by Corporations. Completely corrupt. Very similar to ours.

'You Can't Govern if You Don't Believe in Government'

It's unbelievable what moronic jackasses libturds are. Russia is nothing like a libertarian government. I have no idea how many regulations they have, but Putin is an arbitrary despot. He stripped the owner of the largest oil company in the country of his company and threw him in jail purely because he wanted the man's property. That's the kind of thing turds like you support, not libertarians.

I recall how all the libturds were hooting for the government to confiscate the property of British Petroleum because of the Gulf oil spill even though there was no law giving the government authority to do so. They all cheered when Obama intimidated the company into forking over $20 billion even though the president had no such authority. Obama acted just like a Putin style thug and you all loved it.

Turds like you don't give a flying fuck about the law.

Like Venesuela did, I would Nationalize the oil in America IMMEDIATELY. The companies can sub contract the actual work but that's it. So on this I'm a socialist.

And just like Venezuela, the minute you did that the production of oil in this country would begin to decline. You really don't know much about the Venezuelan economy, do you? That's to be expected. Ignorance is the basis for most of the socialist agenda.

I'm also a socialist on healthcare, water, heat, electric, schools, police and fire fighters. I'm also pro government unless the politician is serving the rich and corporations not their constituents. Then I'm anti government too. But you seem to want the government to get out of the way so corporations can pay us all $3 hr.

You're just a socialist, period. Under socialism, politicians serve corporations and the rich. Haven't you noticed who is doing the best under the Obama regime?

 

[sealybobo]

It doesn't matter what you or I think CEOs should be paid. Obviously, someone thinks they're worth it. Why should you or I have the power to overrule their decision?

Yea, they think they are worth it. And don't expect the BOD to step in because the CEO we are talking about here sits on their companies BOD and so you scratch my back I'll scratch yours.

What about the investors who elect the BOD and fund the company? The customers who buy the products and services the company offers? All of these people are making value judgements that result in the salary of the CEO.

Why shouldn't it be up to individuals how they spend their money? Because that's really what this is all about. Those of you advocating for wage and price controls are demanding that we give up our right to spend our money the way we want, that our personal economic decisions should be dictated by government.

Whereas directors are elected by the shareholders in publicly traded companies, a private company decides for itself how board members are chosen.

If you think just because you have 1 stock in a company that you get to pick who the BOD'ers are, you are wrong. Major shareholders might but they again are VP's or CEO's of other companies. I know how it works. I have a brother who's one of them. Do you know how it works? Then you wouldn't be arguing that it is fair.

You are arguing like a VP or CEO or Libertarian would. We should just all boycott those companies, except for a few things.

1. They'll all bad.
2. They have a monopoly

Hey, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. The fact that so many less poor and middle class people are going to show up this midterm than will in 2016 tells me that the people are happy with what they are making. If they want better/more then they need to show up and vote and next time there company votes for a union vote YES. Have some balls. Don't be scared you'll lose that $8 job.

 

[sealybobo]

It's unbelievable what moronic jackasses libturds are. Russia is nothing like a libertarian government. I have no idea how many regulations they have, but Putin is an arbitrary despot. He stripped the owner of the largest oil company in the country of his company and threw him in jail purely because he wanted the man's property. That's the kind of thing turds like you support, not libertarians.

I recall how all the libturds were hooting for the government to confiscate the property of British Petroleum because of the Gulf oil spill even though there was no law giving the government authority to do so. They all cheered when Obama intimidated the company into forking over $20 billion even though the president had no such authority. Obama acted just like a Putin style thug and you all loved it.

Turds like you don't give a flying fuck about the law.

Like Venesuela did, I would Nationalize the oil in America IMMEDIATELY. The companies can sub contract the actual work but that's it. So on this I'm a socialist.

And just like Venezuela, the minute you did that the production of oil in this country would begin to decline. You really don't know much about the Venezuelan economy, do you? That's to be expected. Ignorance is the basis for most of the socialist agenda.

I'm also a socialist on healthcare, water, heat, electric, schools, police and fire fighters. I'm also pro government unless the politician is serving the rich and corporations not their constituents. Then I'm anti government too. But you seem to want the government to get out of the way so corporations can pay us all $3 hr.

You're just a socialist, period. Under socialism, politicians serve corporations and the rich. Haven't you noticed who is doing the best under the Obama regime?

That's just insane. Then why are they unhappy if they are doing so good? And why aren't they hiring more then? What do you think it will take for them to give their employees a raise? I mean they are making record profits. Amazing you are ok that the CEO's pay went up 350 x but the workers haven't had a raise in 10 years.

Either you are a CEO or a fool.

 

[Unkotare]

Like Venesuela did, I would Nationalize the oil in America IMMEDIATELY.

Oh yeah, 'cause that worked out so well for Venezuela and EVERY OTHER COUNTRY THAT HAS TRIED SUCH SOCIALIST NONSENSE.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

The poor haven't benefited from the unbridled capitalism you and your ilk promote. They've benefited from a capitalism held in check by regulations and labor unions. Those checks have been slowly eroding over the past several decades. As a consequence the share of benefis that accrue to the working class with every economic advance have been getting smaller and smaller over time.

 

[sealybobo]

Like Venesuela did, I would Nationalize the oil in America IMMEDIATELY.

Oh yeah, 'cause that worked out so well for Venezuela and EVERY OTHER COUNTRY THAT HAS TRIED SUCH SOCIALIST NONSENSE.

At least heavily regulated the oil industry.

I'll give you a great example. The oil companies/lobbyists/republicans/rich/sara palin were all screaming DRILL BABY DRILL, when the fact is that would have lowered gas prices 3 cents a gallon. BFD.

But they/you don't want to discuss how wallstreet speculation is jacking up the price $12 for SUV's and $8 per fill up on economy cars.

So keep crying about 3 cents and keep allowing speculators to needlessly jack up the price of gas $8 a fillup on Im sure you drive an economy car.