Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[georgephillip]

Petition Seeks to End Practice of Charge Stacking - Los Angeles Sentinel

"The practice of charge stacking is a simple and terribly effective method for prosecutors looking to win cases.

As broken down by Seeking Justice for the Innocent, the technique entails finding as many possible criminal counts to 'stack' against the defendant in order to strengthen the core case of the prosecution.

"This strategy is made wide open to prosecutors, because the main deterrent against stacking charges is the law of double jeopardy.

"In Blockburger v. United States, the Supreme Court said the government may separately try and punish the defendant for two crimes if each crime contains an element that the other does not."

While charge stacking does occur, how is one to decide when it is happening against a defendant? Here's and example: A man is charged with 3 counts of sexual assault of a child by a person in position of authority from 3 separate instance of committing the act. he individual is also charged with felony child abuse.

Is this charge stacking? If so, what reasoning do you use to make the decision?

While charge stacking does occur, how is one to decide when it is happening against a defendant? Here's and example: A man is charged with 3 counts of sexual assault of a child by a person in position of authority from 3 separate instance of committing the act. he individual is also charged with felony child abuse.

I'm far from qualified to parse legal semantics, but your example does not sound like stacking to me. Stacking is when prosecutors pile on charges that do not apply legally knowing the defendant is without adequate legal representation. If a plea bargain counts as a "conviction", the prosecutor advances her career at the expense of sending a possibly innocent defendant to prison.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And yes non-violent crime sometimes end up in prison, I get that. But you can't tell me, that the majority of people in prison, are not there because they committed a crime. And if they committed a crime, then that is why they are in prison.

Many are in prison because they could not afford adequate legal representation. If you have a white skin, it is probably difficult for you to grasp the fact black and brown-skinned males (in particular) are often arrested with little or no evidence of any crime being committed.

(Speaking to what I made bold) Is this your opinion or do you have factual evidence to support this claim.

They are then subjected to additional specious charges any competent defense attorney would easily defeat; however, public defenders don't have the same resources as prosecutors whose careers are measured solely by their "conviction" rate.

Again, supposition on your part or factual evidence to support the claim. As to the rest of the statement - I agree that public defenders don't have the same resources. That is a fault of the broken criminal justice system. The public defender's office should be on a par with the district attorney's office.

Defendants take a plea bargain only because they would rather serve five or six years in prison instead of fifteen to twenty years they would face if they went to trial on all charges leveled against them.

And that's on them, and normally recommended by their attorney after discovery. I know some damn fine attorney's who worked in the PD's office and learned quite a bit about how the gears grind on the defense side. Also, in the large number of the cases charges are dismissed as part of the deal, so offenders are spending less time in prison than they should be.

I agree that public defenders don't have the same resources. That is a fault of the broken criminal justice system. The public defender's office should be on a par with the district attorney's office.

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

If you ever paid taxes, you'd have a better idea how they worked.

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

 

[georgephillip]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

I find it interesting how you Progressives NEED to use the Gov as an enforcement agency for your every little whim.

I find it interesting how you Progressives NEED to use the Gov as an enforcement agency for your every little whim.

Progressives have noticed US capitalism is not working for a majority of Americans anymore. Corporate greed is the biggest reason why. What other agency besides government can correct such an imbalance?

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Section 5(b)(2) requires US corporations to have the purpose of 'creating a general public benefit', while section 5(c) requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term."

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

Petition Seeks to End Practice of Charge Stacking - Los Angeles Sentinel

"The practice of charge stacking is a simple and terribly effective method for prosecutors looking to win cases.

As broken down by Seeking Justice for the Innocent, the technique entails finding as many possible criminal counts to 'stack' against the defendant in order to strengthen the core case of the prosecution.

"This strategy is made wide open to prosecutors, because the main deterrent against stacking charges is the law of double jeopardy.

"In Blockburger v. United States, the Supreme Court said the government may separately try and punish the defendant for two crimes if each crime contains an element that the other does not."

While charge stacking does occur, how is one to decide when it is happening against a defendant? Here's and example: A man is charged with 3 counts of sexual assault of a child by a person in position of authority from 3 separate instance of committing the act. he individual is also charged with felony child abuse.

Is this charge stacking? If so, what reasoning do you use to make the decision?

While charge stacking does occur, how is one to decide when it is happening against a defendant? Here's and example: A man is charged with 3 counts of sexual assault of a child by a person in position of authority from 3 separate instance of committing the act. he individual is also charged with felony child abuse.

I'm far from qualified to parse legal semantics, but your example does not sound like stacking to me. Stacking is when prosecutors pile on charges that do not apply legally knowing the defendant is without adequate legal representation. If a plea bargain counts as a "conviction", the prosecutor advances her career at the expense of sending a possibly innocent defendant to prison.

I agree, it is not stacking. There were 3 other charges as well, I just don't remember what they were. I know the case well as my stepdaughter was the victim in this case and at the time she was only 7 years old. Because of an appellate court ruling we are now facing going to trial for the third time. My daughter, an adult now, has asked the DA to offer a plea to one count of sexual assault of a child by a person in a position of authority with an open sentence recommendation, which means the judge decides punishment (probation is a possible sentence).

So, each case has to be viewed carefully and if there is possible charge stacking the judge has the authority to have the DA amend the charges to remove the stacked charges. Does it happen much? No.

The criminal justice system has many problems. I could discuss that alone all day.

 

[georgephillip]

How 'bout mandatory profit sharing?

Starting at Whole Foods?

Whole Foods (Owner Bezos Is Worth Billion) Is Cutting Health Care Coverage for Part-Time Workers

 

[georgephillip]

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

 

[georgephillip]

And yes non-violent crime sometimes end up in prison, I get that. But you can't tell me, that the majority of people in prison, are not there because they committed a crime. And if they committed a crime, then that is why they are in prison.

Many are in prison because they could not afford adequate legal representation. If you have a white skin, it is probably difficult for you to grasp the fact black and brown-skinned males (in particular) are often arrested with little or no evidence of any crime being committed.

(Speaking to what I made bold) Is this your opinion or do you have factual evidence to support this claim.

They are then subjected to additional specious charges any competent defense attorney would easily defeat; however, public defenders don't have the same resources as prosecutors whose careers are measured solely by their "conviction" rate.

Again, supposition on your part or factual evidence to support the claim. As to the rest of the statement - I agree that public defenders don't have the same resources. That is a fault of the broken criminal justice system. The public defender's office should be on a par with the district attorney's office.

Defendants take a plea bargain only because they would rather serve five or six years in prison instead of fifteen to twenty years they would face if they went to trial on all charges leveled against them.

And that's on them, and normally recommended by their attorney after discovery. I know some damn fine attorney's who worked in the PD's office and learned quite a bit about how the gears grind on the defense side. Also, in the large number of the cases charges are dismissed as part of the deal, so offenders are spending less time in prison than they should be.

I agree that public defenders don't have the same resources. That is a fault of the broken criminal justice system. The public defender's office should be on a par with the district attorney's office.

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

If you ever paid taxes, you'd have a better idea how they worked.

f you ever paid taxes, you'd have a better idea how they worked.

If I ever earn a billion dollars, I promise to pay taxes on it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

November 2011. They still had loss carryovers from 2008-2010.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid.

CEOs paid a bunch of taxes.

 

[JustAGuy1]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

I find it interesting how you Progressives NEED to use the Gov as an enforcement agency for your every little whim.

Government "for the people and by the people" must really piss you off, huh?

That's not what you Progressives want, you want to make everyone else do all the shit you think we should.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And yes non-violent crime sometimes end up in prison, I get that. But you can't tell me, that the majority of people in prison, are not there because they committed a crime. And if they committed a crime, then that is why they are in prison.

Many are in prison because they could not afford adequate legal representation. If you have a white skin, it is probably difficult for you to grasp the fact black and brown-skinned males (in particular) are often arrested with little or no evidence of any crime being committed.

(Speaking to what I made bold) Is this your opinion or do you have factual evidence to support this claim.

They are then subjected to additional specious charges any competent defense attorney would easily defeat; however, public defenders don't have the same resources as prosecutors whose careers are measured solely by their "conviction" rate.

Again, supposition on your part or factual evidence to support the claim. As to the rest of the statement - I agree that public defenders don't have the same resources. That is a fault of the broken criminal justice system. The public defender's office should be on a par with the district attorney's office.

Defendants take a plea bargain only because they would rather serve five or six years in prison instead of fifteen to twenty years they would face if they went to trial on all charges leveled against them.

And that's on them, and normally recommended by their attorney after discovery. I know some damn fine attorney's who worked in the PD's office and learned quite a bit about how the gears grind on the defense side. Also, in the large number of the cases charges are dismissed as part of the deal, so offenders are spending less time in prison than they should be.

I agree that public defenders don't have the same resources. That is a fault of the broken criminal justice system. The public defender's office should be on a par with the district attorney's office.

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

If you ever paid taxes, you'd have a better idea how they worked.

f you ever paid taxes, you'd have a better idea how they worked.

If I ever earn a billion dollars, I promise to pay taxes on it.

No fear of that, eh?

 

[Andylusion]

I've been in the lower class my entire life. Up till 2016, the most money I've ever made in a given year was $20,000 or less, since I was in college.

Never been incarcerated. Likely because I don't violate the law. Have I been pulled over by police? Sure. And I said things like "yes sir", and followed their every command.

If you get put in prison... it's because you deserved to be in prison. Not because you are poor. Being poor is not a crime, and I have seen a video of a police officer asking for a tax return before being arrested, yet.

If you are in prison.... the cause is in the mirror.

If you are in prison.... the cause is in the mirror.

What explains the racial disparity in US prisons?

Jim Crow or redlining?

Or.... people that commit violence crimes end up prison?

People who commit non-violent crimes end up in prison too. And that's the problem. The regulatory state might seem invisible to people with a regular income. It's just an expense of life that they write off. But when you're dead broke, it's damned hard to stay legal. The system pushes the poor into state dependency by regulating away their right to look out for themselves.

I've been poor most of my life. I have never found it 'hard to stay legal'. If you want to buy something you don't have money for.... Wendy's is hiring. Work. Earn money, and buy what you want.

And yes non-violent crime sometimes end up in prison, I get that. But you can't tell me, that the majority of people in prison, are not there because they committed a crime. And if they committed a crime, then that is why they are in prison.

So what is the point?

And yes non-violent crime sometimes end up in prison, I get that. But you can't tell me, that the majority of people in prison, are not there because they committed a crime. And if they committed a crime, then that is why they are in prison.

Many are in prison because they could not afford adequate legal representation. If you have a white skin, it is probably difficult for you to grasp the fact black and brown-skinned males (in particular) are often arrested with little or no evidence of any crime being committed.

They are then subjected to additional specious charges any competent defense attorney would easily defeat; however, public defenders don't have the same resources as prosecutors whose careers are measured solely by their "conviction" rate.

Defendants take a plea bargain only because they would rather serve five or six years in prison instead of fifteen to twenty years they would face if they went to trial on all charges leveled against them.

Prove it. Prove that black people are sent to prison on little to no evidence. Prove it.
I actually know a public defender, and he was darn good at his job, and I never heard him complain he didn't have the resources to help people.

 

[Andylusion]

The only reason a capital investment firm is willing to invest capital.... is because they believe they can turn the company around.

Yeah, and you're not chock full of shit!

I don't understand your statement. Are you suggesting I'm wrong? If so, how?

The only exception I can think of to the above statement, is if they can buy the company at such a low price, that they can sell off the assets of the company for more than how much they paid for the company.

That is a extremely rare situation. And if that were to happen, then the company was going to close anyway. Honestly, if the owners of a company are selling that company off for less money than the value of the companies assets... then that company was on it's way to liquidation anyway.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

 

[daveman]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

I find it interesting how you Progressives NEED to use the Gov as an enforcement agency for your every little whim.

Well, c'mon, man -- it's not like people are going to voluntarily choose to be oppressed.

 

[daveman]

How 'bout mandatory profit sharing?

How 'bout you get a job and earn what you get?

 

[daveman]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

I find it interesting how you Progressives NEED to use the Gov as an enforcement agency for your every little whim.

Government "for the people and by the people" must really piss you off, huh?

So why do you want unelected bureaucrats to make all your decisions for you?

 

[Cellblock2429]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

I find it interesting how you Progressives NEED to use the Gov as an enforcement agency for your every little whim.

Government "for the people and by the people" must really piss you off, huh?

So why do you want unelected bureaucrats to make all your decisions for you?

/——/ Maybe they want to be the unelected bureaucrats who run everyone’s lives. They of course would be immune.

 

[daveman]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

I find it interesting how you Progressives NEED to use the Gov as an enforcement agency for your every little whim.

Government "for the people and by the people" must really piss you off, huh?

So why do you want unelected bureaucrats to make all your decisions for you?

/——/ Maybe they want to be the unelected bureaucrats who run everyone’s lives. They of course would be immune.

Yes, they all seem to think they'll be given a big corner office and a seat on the Politburo.

In reality, they'll be put in mass graves when the Party finds out how useless they are.

 

[Andylusion]

You didn't answer why a senior after working for 40-50 years, should be required to stand on her feet for forty hours a week after retiring? Perhaps when you are a little older and wiser, you will understand?

Yeah, I kind of skipped over that, because it was a dumb question.

How about because they don't want to be homeless? Or how about because they don't want to starve to death?

Those seem like normal answers for why all people of any age, tend to work.

Where did you get this idea that somehow you are owed money from other people? Answer that question. Since when are you owed anything when you don't work? No, you are not. You by virtue of existing... does not entitle you to other people's property. Sucking air, and pooping, does not mean that you are owed the money I earned.

But the real reason I ignored your question, is because it was irrelevant to the topic.

The average Social Security check is $1300 a month. That means 50% of all those on Social Security, get LESS than $1300 a month. In short, if you intend to retire on Social Security, then you intend to be impoverished until you die.

And by the way, the most likely way that they will "fix" Social Security, is by raising the retirement age. Again, you people seem to ignore a fundamental called "math".

Again, no system on the face of the Earth has avoided this problem.... the problem of "math".

Take Greece for example. The average pension in Greece is just $960 a month. Yet the Greek government, even with drastically higher taxes than the US, went bankrupt.

The idea the younger generation of workers, are just going to pay out so the older generation can be lazy.... is just simply not how life works.

My personal opinion on whether an older person should be required to work or not, doesn't matter. What matters is math. There is no money for old people to not work. Unless they want to be impoverished for life. Which is what we've seen.

Perhaps when you are a little older and wiser, you will understand?

Well, I doubt I'll ever get old enough to see your side of this argument, because I grew up in a family were work ethic was part of being a morally good Christian person.

My parents both continued to work into their 70s. In fact after they retired TWICE.... they still work. My parents have always been productive. Ironically now that they are both millionaires, they keep working. They honestly could hire people to serve them martinis on a beach for the rest of their life, and never run out of money. But instead, both of them are still working full time positions at different jobs even now.

So no, I don't think I'll ever get to the point myself, where I just sit at home, like a bloated leach on the butt of society, sucking away money from working people. I just don't see that in my future.

The only exception to that, would be if I literally am physically unable to work. And I have sympathy for those who are physically unable to work. My entire discussion asumes able bodied people. If you are able to work, I think you should, unless you are living off your own saved money.