How Americans Continue to Relegate Themselves to Serfdom

[Johnfromokc]

I realize that you have said in previous posts that democrats have done wrong, but it seems like you place virtually all the blame on the right. This is always a mistake with anything, seeing as how all of our problems are complex, multifaceted and have their roots spreading out into numerous organizations and entities.

If I say the left has done wrong, how is that blaming everything on the right? If the left had done their job as the representative of the working class, the right would remain forever in the minority representing their minority of constituants in the corporate and monied classes.

You say basically that the democrats are the least of two evils, but what good is it to vote and support an evil? Our modern political systems need to be totally revamped. A new order needs to come about.

Until this revamping takes place, the only choice of the working class is to force the Democrats to actually represent us. The Republicans have already proven they are against the working class.

Yes, and this is because they have as much invested interest in lobbying and big business as the right does on Capitol Hill.

No shit. How many more times would you like to disect this?

So do the democrats and liberals. You must understand that in order to be in office, you MUST have moneyed interests and support the big businesses.

No, all you have to have an ignorant constituancy that can be turned against itself with wedge issues like religion, abortion, gun rights etc. If people had enough sense to see how these issues are being used to divide them, Republicans would be relegated to the minority they actually represent and the Democrats would once again represent the toiling masses.

It cannot be anything else as our system stands right now. So ragging on the right for basically everything the left does as well makes no sense and boils down to your predisposition to hate almost anything right-wing. You're engaging in tribalism, essentially.

What a load of convoluted circular bullshit. And you ask what good is it to vote for the lesser of two evils? Think about this a moment. You are a working class Joe. You KNOW the right is going to fuck you and your family by driving down your wages, allowing the insurance companies to charge you more for health insurance, raise your taxes to a higher percentage of your income than that of the top 1% - but you vote for them anyway? How much fucking sense does that make.

And you think a working family voting for the admittedly also corrupt Democrats - who at least want you to have good wages, universal health care coverage with a public option, and for the top 1% to pay at least the same overall tax rate as a percentage of income as you do in order to pay for the infrastructure that helped get them rich in the first place, is somehow worse than voting for the Republicans who you KNOW intend to fuck you???

Are you serious?

soooo...?

So you are going to support those that have proven they are going to fuck your family over instead of even looking at the party that occaisionally does right by the working class. Yeah - that makes complete sense.

This has many reasons. The working class is mostly religious, which the left wishes to dispose of.

Religion is one of those bullshit wedge issues that detracts from reality and cause otherwise intelligent Americans to vote against their own best interests.

The working class has a high amount of veterans in it.

I'm a veteran. There are an increasing number of us that see through the right wing bullshit of using us as cannon fodder for the profits of the military industrial complex.

The working class see their taxes increased incrementally to support our bloated bureaucracy which was set into place by both parties, but mostly democratic regimes over the past 60 years. Those are a few reasons why the working class still votes right-wing.

The working class is indeed seeing taxes increased as a percentage of their income as compatred to the top 1%. What we are seeing right now is the upper incomes paying less tax than ever. The best economic times this nation has ever seen was during the times when the marginal tax rate was 50% +. That's verifiable FACT. You have bought into the right wing lie that if taxes are reduced on the wealthiest, even more wealth will "trickle down" to the rest of us. Well we have had the last 30 years to PROVE that is incorrect.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

Right now, with the lowest marginal tax rates in over 60 years, we are in the worst economic condition since the Great Depression. The military industrial complex has reaped MASSIVE profits as the top 1% pays less tax and has seen their incomes more than triple as we BORROW the money to pay them those profits.

Both parties do not care about the middle class that much, but give me a break with this media thing. The only "conservative" (I say that lightly because modern conservatives would be considered democrats 50 years ago) media outlet is FOX and some talk radio shows. Leftists own Hollywood, most newspapers, the internet and TV outlets.

I just showed you PROOF of who owns the fucking mainstream media and you still insist on saying the media is leftist? Yeah, you are just like all the other conservatives I know that have never seen a fact they couldn't ignore.

Quick question: Do you support socialism in any respect?

Define Socialism. I sincerely doubt you have the slightest clue what it actually is.

 

[All Else Failed]

Well we're never going to get anywhere so I'll just ask you about socialism

Define Socialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism


Specifically, are you for forced wealth redistribution?

 

[Johnfromokc]

Well we're never going to get anywhere so I'll just ask you about socialism




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism


Specifically, are you for forced wealth redistribution?

A wikipedia link is not good enough. I want to hear your concept and understanding of what socialism is.

 

[All Else Failed]

Erm, my definition of socialism is the standard definition. You'll basically get from me what they say on the wiki because that is what I believe socialism is. That is the accepted definition of socialism.

There are different kinds of socialism, but usually it can be defined through the fact that the means of production are in the hands of the community or the distribution of said resources by the state

Can you answer my question?

 

[Johnfromokc]

Well we're never going to get anywhere so I'll just ask you about socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism


Specifically, are you for forced wealth redistribution?

Here's the problem with your Wikipedia link that you would use for your own definition since you are unwilling to be bothered with actually researching and learning for yourself.

From the Wikipedia staff:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.​

• It needs additional citations for verification. Tagged since December 2011.
• It may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since December 2011.
• Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since December 2011.

This is what I'd love to see for labor law in the United States:

1. A living wage for full time employees 18 years and older. $15.00 per hour would be a fair start.

2. Universal health care coverage for 100% of Americans not tied to employment. This will unburden small business from the financial strain of having to locate and maintain health insurance for employees.

3. 4 weeks paid vacation plus a 15% pay premium for all full time employees.

4. A superannuation retirement program for 100% of Americans.

5. The right of workers to form a union which elects its own independent representatives.


Taxation as follows:

Taxable income	Tax on this income
0 - $6,000	Nil
$6,001 - $37,000	15c for each $1 over $6,000
$37,001 - $80,000	$4,650 plus 30c for each $1 over $37,000
$80,001 - $180,000	$17,550 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000
$180,001 and over	$54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

Now lets see you attempt to call that socialist.

 

[All Else Failed]

I already said:

There are different kinds of socialism, but usually it can be defined through the fact that the means of production are in the hands of the community or the distribution of said resources by the state

Answer my question.

1. A living wage for full time employees 18 years and older. $15.00 per hour would be a fair start.

How do you expect small businesses to pay that?

 

[Johnfromokc]

How do you expect small businesses to pay that?

All business will be on a level playing field without cutthroat competition being played with working class wages.

 

[All Else Failed]

All business will be on a level playing field without cutthroat competition being played with working class wages.

I have a hard time believing that. If a small business only makes a certain amount each year and is scraping by with employees at say, $8 an hour, and you force them to pay their employees $15, you'd essentially sink that business. not to mention the fact that the businesses would have to actually raise their prices to compensate for the pay hike.

 

[Johnfromokc]

I have a hard time believing that. If a small business only makes a certain amount each year and is scraping by with employees at say, $8 an hour, and you force them to pay their employees $15, you'd essentially sink that business. not to mention the fact that the businesses would have to actually raise their prices to compensate for the pay hike.

Wrong. It is being done in other nations and has been done successfully for decades. Yes, prices will go up - you'll pay about $1.00 more for a Happy Meal. We are talking about FULL TIME employees over 18 years. Business would still be allowed to hire students part time at a reduced wage.

Nothing is free. We are ALL going to have to step up and participate in making things work - and that means the top 1% has to pay fair wages and fair taxes to pay for all the infrastructure that made their fortunes possible in the first place.

Money has to FLOW in order for an economy to prosper. The top 1% hoarding TRILLIONS stagnates economies - we are witnessing that very fact right now.

BTW - one country this is being done in has less than 5% unemployment and was essentially unaffected by the financial meltdown we are suffering from.

 

[All Else Failed]

Sorry, but McDonalds is not a small business.

Lets say I have a small deli where I employ 8 employees. Five of them make $8.00 and hour and three of them make $9.15. The five that make $8.00 each work an average of 25 hours a week, and the three work 35-40 hours a week. Don't forget the fact that *I* have to pay myself enough to support not only myself but the family I have. Oh, and all of the bills, overhead, insurances and taxes I have to pay that go along with owning a small business. I already JUST make enough to pay myself and my employees and keep the shop going. Some years are better than others, but normally I do not make all that much. Now, lets say I have to pay everyone $15.00 an hour now. How do you propose I stay in business? If I raise my prices to compensate, it may drive customers away. If I have to lay-off half of my workforce, I put people out of jobs.


????






More examples:

Proponents of the “living wage” argue that it is necessary in order to provide an adequate standard of living for a family. Although it seems pretty clear that the minimum wage (at $8 an hour in California, about $16,000 a year) is not adequate to support a family, it’s not clear how many people who are paid the minimum are also the primary breadwinners for their families. As a matter of fact, an Employment Policies Institute study found that “the average family income for employees who would ‘benefit’ from the proposed minimum wage hike was $37,782.” Why is that?
The reason is that nearly 70 percent of minimum wage employees “live with their parents or relatives or have a working spouse.” Only 2.8 percent of the employees older than age 30 are paid the minimum wage. The people the “living wage” seeks to help are generally part of that 2.8 percent. So, why is it necessary to raise the minimum wage for 100 percent of the employee population to provide a “living wage” for less than 2.8 percent of them? How much money will be wasted to accomplish this?

http://www.noozhawk.com/harris_sher...herline_the_living_wage_is_a_bad_idea_part_i/

 

[Johnfromokc]

Sorry, but McDonalds is not a small business.

Lets say I have a small deli where I employ 8 employees. Five of them make $8.00 and hour and three of them make $9.15. The five that make $8.00 each work an average of 25 hours a week, and the three work 35-40 hours a week. Don't forget the fact that *I* have to pay myself enough to support not only myself but the family I have. Oh, and all of the bills, overhead, insurances and taxes I have to pay that go along with owning a small business. I already JUST make enough to pay myself and my employees and keep the shop going. Some years are better than others, but normally I do not make all that much. Now, lets say I have to pay everyone $15.00 an hour now. How do you propose I stay in business? If I raise my prices to compensate, it may drive customers away. If I have to lay-off half of my workforce, I put people out of jobs.


????

First off, every business will fall under the same labor laws. If you cannot compete, you're out of business. That's Capitalism Capitalism operates under a system of laws to prevent the owner class from screwing the worker class.

If your business depends on low wages to keep you in business, then you don't need to be a business owner. You would be much better off working in a job for someone who actually knows how to operate a successful business. Too many business people have an entitlement mentality that they should be legally allowed to pay shit wages and zero benefits in order to profit. Sorry - but that's not how true Capitalism works. True Capitalism is win-win with the workers and the owners.

 

[All Else Failed]

First off, every business will fall under the same labor laws. If you cannot compete, you're out of business. That's Capitalism Capitalism operates under a system of laws to prevent the owner class from screwing the worker class.

So you're completely fine with forcefully putting small businesses out of business. You're totally fine with forcing 9 people out of jobs, and putting them in a bad position?

Sure, Capitalism is about having stronger businesses survive, but you're actually manipulating the market so that businesses fail and puts small ones out of business. This could potentially put thousands and thousands of small businesses out for good.

If your business depends on low wages to keep you in business, then you don't need to be a business owner.

How is minimum wage "low wages"? Especially if the minimum wage mostly applies to younger people still in school or still under their parent's roofs?

Sorry, but first and foremost I need to stay in business. That is the point of having a business. You want to come along and shut me down by force.

You would be much better off working in a job for someone who actually knows how to operate a successful business.

My business is successful. I manage to provide a product to my public that want it, and I pay my employees and myself. I just happen to not be super successful. There is a difference.


Can you imagine how many small businesses this would destroy in rural parts of the nation or in poorer parts?





"Sorry pal, you're out of business"


"Why? I'm running a successful business"

"No, sorry, you have to pay these teenagers $15 to make sandwiches."


"But the area doesn't have enough volume for me to pay that..."


"Well, looks like you're out of a job then! Have fun on unemployment!"

 

[Johnfromokc]

So you're completely fine with forcefully putting small businesses out of business. You're totally fine with forcing 9 people out of jobs, and putting them in a bad position?

I thought you were a Capitalist. Sounds to me like you want government to ensure your success by mandating low wages for everyone else so you can prosper at your employees expense.

Sure, Capitalism is about having stronger businesses survive, but you're actually manipulating the market so that businesses fail and puts small ones out of business. This could potentially put thousands and thousands of small businesses out for good.

Millions were put out of work in 2008 alone as a result of lack of regulation of the financial industry. Reasonable regulation and stronger labor laws would have prevented that. But instead, doing it the way you advocate, millions are still out of work, and millions more are now working for a lot less than before with no health insurance at all.

We've tried it your way and failed. Time for a newer, better way.

How is minimum wage "low wages"? Especially if the minimum wage mostly applies to younger people still in school or still under their parent's roofs?

Pay attention. The law will allow for student labor at a lower wage. Your full time people will earn $15 hourly - you can hire teenagers under 18 at a lower rate for your part time coverage. In addition YOUR health care will be taken care of universally with everyone elses, so you won't have that expense - not that you would have offered it to your employees in the first place.

Sorry, but first and foremost I need to stay in business. That is the point of having a business. You want to come along and shut me down by force.

Wrong again. I want to help you succeed. By making the laws uniform, small business will have equal footing with big business for acquiring and retaining quality employees.

My business is successful. I manage to provide a product to my public that want it, and I pay my employees and myself. I just happen to not be super successful. There is a difference.

And you'll be able to do it paying a living wage to your full time staff because your competition will be operating under the same laws. If you suck at your business, and are an incompetent manager, you'll be out of business regardless.

 

[All Else Failed]

I thought you were a Capitalist. Sounds to me like you want government to ensure your success by mandating low wages for everyone else so you can prosper at your employees expense.

Haha, a minimum wage is not ensuring success at all.

You forcing small businesses pay an arm and a leg when they simply cannot afford it is more anti-capitalist than anything.

Millions were put out of work in 2008 alone as a result of lack of regulation of the financial industry. Reasonable regulation and stronger labor laws would have prevented that. But instead, doing it the way you advocate, millions are still out of work, and millions more are now working for a lot less than before with no health insurance at all.

We've tried it your way and failed. Time for a newer, better way.

What is this "my way" bullshit? You only know that I do not want an absurd living wage in terms of economics, and that is it. What the thieves do in Washington is not "my way".


Oh, and millions are out of work because manufacturing went overseas, seeing as how the masses want a cheap product for less.


Apparently, the "newer better way" forces people out of business, or pay their employees absurd wages for jobs that do not deserve $15 and hour, like making a god damn sandwich. This is coming from someone who before getting their full-time job, worked in the service industry.

Pay attention. The law will allow for student labor at a lower wage. Your full time people will earn $15 hourly - you can hire teenagers under 18 at a lower rate for your part time coverage. In addition YOUR health care will be taken care of universally with everyone elses, so you won't have that expense - not that you would have offered it to your employees in the first place.

What if my small business has nothing but full time employees?

What is the student wage? I'm guessing it is not that much lower.

Wrong again. I want to help you succeed. By making the laws uniform, small business will have equal footing with big business for acquiring and retaining quality employees.

Want to help me succeed? Don't force me to pay people $15 for work that doesn't deserve $15 and hour.

And you'll be able to do it paying a living wage to your full time staff because your competition will be operating under the same laws. If you suck at your business, and are an incompetent manager, you'll be out of business regardless.

yeah see it won't be an equal footing since other small businesses will probably be in the same boat as me. They will probably not be able to afford it. You act as if there are no other expenses to a small business besides wage payment.

and nothing in the scenario suggests that the manager/owner is incompetent. In fact, it is specified that he is indeed successful.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Haha, a minimum wage is not ensuring success at all.

Slave wages with no health care will not overcome managerial incompetence either.

You forcing small businesses pay an arm and a leg when they simply cannot afford it is more anti-capitalist than anything.

Paying living wages is anti-capitalist? Really?

What is this "my way" bullshit? You only know that I do not want an absurd living wage in terms of economics, and that is it. What the thieves do in Washington is not "my way".

So you have no problem with your workers living in poverty with no health care coverage so long as you think you can profit?

Oh, and millions are out of work because manufacturing went overseas, seeing as how the masses want a cheap product for less.

No - business went overseas because the owner class wants greater profits. Surely you have noticed how prices on everything keeps increasing - so where is the savings from the Chinese plants? Oh! That's right - it went in the pockets of the top 1%.

Apparently, the "newer better way" forces people out of business, or pay their employees absurd wages for jobs that do not deserve $15 and hour, like making a god damn sandwich.

So you think you are qualified to determine that someone making sandwiches and making you a profit does not deserve to earn a living wage? The new way has not been implimented here yet - we're still paying $7.25 an hour with zero benefits and up to 15% unemployment in some states...how's that working so far?

This is coming from someone who before getting their full-time job, worked in the service industry.

So you made sandwiches? And you have a full time job now? And you are not a business owner? And you feel confident you could actually get a successful business up and running with your current experience?

What if my small business has nothing but full time employees?

That would be a very good thing for you if you are a competent manager. Key word: COMPETENT.

What is the student wage? I'm guessing it is not that much lower.

Oh, let's call the student wage $7.50 hourly. Think you could acquire the competence and business acumen to manage that?

Want to help me succeed? Don't force me to pay people $15 for work that doesn't deserve $15 and hour.

Yeah...human beings do not deserve dignity according to your view of life. That's might Christain of you.

yeah see it won't be an equal footing since other small businesses will probably be in the same boat as me. They will probably not be able to afford it. You act as if there are no other expenses to a small business besides wage payment.

I've started, made profitable and sold 3 small businesses so far. I do indeed completely understand the world of business expenses. How about you?

and nothing in the scenario suggests that the manager/owner is incompetent. In fact, it is specified that he is indeed successful.

You can make up any scenario you wish. You can either manage a successful business or you can't. The rules will be the same for all. If you cannot survive playing on a level field, then you'll have to sell out to your competition who will fill the vacuum you failed to fill.

 

[Accountable]

Why? The Democrats have failed to get their message out.

I read your rant, applauding the whole time. I especially like your term "Corporatocracy." That's why I lump both parties together & call them Republicrats.

But then almost at the end I see the comment I quoted. WTF?? After all that you see and acknowledge, you still think that they just haven't been heard?? They had a supermajority for Chrissakes! Their message is being delivered loud and clear. It's time to face facts and leave this relationship, John.


eta: I didn't read the back & forth after this post. Is it worth my time?

 

[Tim]

I read your rant, applauding the whole time. I especially like your term "Corporatocracy." That's why I lump both parties together & call them Republicrats.

But then almost at the end I see the comment I quoted. WTF?? After all that you see and acknowledge, you still think that they just haven't been heard?? They had a supermajority for Chrissakes! Their message is being delivered loud and clear. It's time to face facts and leave this relationship, John.


eta: I didn't read the back & forth after this post. Is it worth my time?

Unfortunately they did not have the super majority. How soon you forget that the 110th congress had more filibusters than any other congress by a wide margin.
Nothing got to the floor unless it had 60 votes.
Our representatives passed a mountain of bills where they went to the senate to die, lacking the 60 vote threshold. Hell, we couldn't even get them to the floor for a debate.

 

[skyblue]

i find it amazing that the most modern,forward thinking nation on earth would even contemplate letting a citizen die because he cant afford an operation

 

[Johnfromokc]

i find it amazing that the most modern,forward thinking nation on earth would even contemplate letting a citizen die because he cant afford an operation

Maybe because we are not forward thinking at all?

We have a severe epidemic of cranial rectumitus. Too many people cannot think for themselves and rely on 30 second sound bites to do their thinking for them.

 

[skyblue]

Maybe because we are not forward thinking at all?

We have a severe epidemic of cranial rectumitus. Too many people cannot think for themselves and rely on 30 second sound bites to do their thinking for them.

ok,that explains why susan boyles so popular over there