Forum Post: a COPORATION would NEVER operate this way:
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 12, 2011, 4:18 p.m. EST by JeffBlock2012
(272)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
New York Times: Jobs Measure Is Turned Back in Senate Test, 10/12/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/us/politics/obamas-jobs-bill-senate-vote.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=jobs%20measure&st=cse
As the Senate moved toward a vote Tuesday, Mr. Reid made an accusation heard with increasing frequency from Democrats: Republicans were opposing the president’s jobs bill because, for political reasons, they wanted the economy to remain in bad shape. “Republicans think that if the economy improves, it might help President Obama,” Mr. Reid said. “So they root for the economy to fail and oppose every effort to improve it.”
The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, replied in kind. “Democrats have designed this bill to fail — they’ve designed their own bill to fail — in the hope that anyone who votes against it will look bad,” Mr. McConnell said. “This whole exercise is a charade that’s meant to give Democrats a political edge in an election that’s 13 months away.”
My comments: IS THIS ANY WAY TO RUN A GOVERNMENT ??? Democrats and Republicans posturing to look good for the next election…hey there, did you forget about US? “We the People” ???
Say what you will about corporations and protest them if you like, but there isn’t a business in the USA that would allow this kind of lack-of-decision making to go on in its executive ranks. There would be firings and reorganizations.
Do you want to fight FIRE with FIRE? Then “We the People” have to have a revolution that creates a new organizational structure, a new system of government that models the SUCCESS of corporations and have it report to, operated by for “We the People”.
http://www.JeffBlock2012.com We Have Permission to Change the System
Very true, the Republicans do want the economy to be bad because, historically, no President has ever survived re-election during a bad economy, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
if you want to be 1 of 100,000 people needed to support a Presidential Candidate – myself – at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.
Are you kidding? Corporations reward failure with even bigger bonuses. In fact, in their eyes, they never fail, they just downsize or buy each other out, and then, the party goes on. When the going gets tough, they get on the phone, call their lobbyist, and get some more subsidies and tax breaks from their bought-and-paid-for politicians, who are mostly Republicans. http://sibob.org/wordpress/
you have fallen for the word blasting of the extremes homie. most of us like our gov and capitalism. we are mad because of our lack of capital right? two things, one is already called for, money out of gov. that fixes that. now our business end. i have been suggesting a floating minimum wage evaluated quarterly pegged to inflation and cost.
how do you suggest getting money out of government ???
very few people actually work for minimum wage - mostly part-time jobs. The disappearing middle class has nothing to do with minimum wages.
if your description of wage relation was true, nobody would make what they do. i am starting to become disheartened at the level of ignorance and lack of research done by people on here and everywhere in this country. if we as a people are really this dumb, it's pointless.
you might enjoy this Winston Churchill quote: "The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter."
and since I don't agree with your opinion you claim I'm ignorant and without research? Okay, educate me - how does a person who is making $65,000 per year impacted by the minimum wage? Is this going to be "trickle up" theory?
"trickle up" good job, demand begets supply now doesn't it :)
okay, let's say I say "yes" to "demand begets supply". How does minimum wage enter into this discussion?
well how many people would you say make a low(close to minimum) wage? those people cannot pay their way let alone taxes. if they had a living wage they could pay taxes and purchase more goods than just the very basic. this gives profit and grows biz. as the small ones receiving from the commerce of low income persons they will need to expand and invest, thus the rolling uphill begins.
"Of the 76.5 million people paid by the hour in the United States in 2006, 2.2% make minimum wage or less" http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2007/10/09/who-earns-the-minimum-wage/
But in concept I agree with you. Henry Ford, the original, created the assembly line which reduced the cost of what he made, and then paid workers enough with the philosophy of a worker should be able to afford to buy the car he is making, thus creating a new customer too.
But raising a minimum wage also creates more incentive to automate and do with less workers. Most of the businesses that pay for minimum wage workers are NOT the ones where the owner has a Rolls-Royce parked out back. If a business owner is required to pay workers more, it reduces his/her income, he/she pays less taxes, and buys less stuff...or worse, goes out of business and now ALL the workers are unemployed...
ah, ok good deal, the tech part of that replacing jobs is already an interest of biz and we loose jobs to machines every day. this problem will accelerate and probably the next crisis. but for now i thing the floating wage will carry us to our next intersection.
Exactly. Both sides are claiming the other side is posturing for the upcoming elections. WHAT THE HELL?!? This is what we pay congress to do? Worry exclusively about the next election?
The most ridiculous thing here is - It is EXACTLY like a corporation!! The problem is, it is nothing like the way our government and democracy should be !
Its like a corporation, they are all just doing what their bosses have told them. Their bosses are the people that pay them - their big money donors!! However, they all have different bosses, so we end up with gridlock. And nothing ever gets done.
We don't need a new system of government. We need to fix the political process to get the money out. So that we can have our government back and run the way it should be. For the people. Not JUST the 1%
1% buys their representation, 99% are left with the scraps.
you contradict yourself - In a corporation, executives do not all have different bosses.
"we don't need a new system..."..."we need to fix...to get the money out" (that would be and require a new system)
ok, they all work for different corporations then. Different big money donors.
I don't believe we need to change the fundamentals of the government. We have a representative Republic based on Democratic principles.
The problem is the political system that is driven by money.
okay, stay with me on this? How do you propose to take money out of politics? Ask people to stop giving money and ask politicians to stop taking money?
(retired) Senator Bill Bradley (and retired NBA star): "taking money out of politics is like taking jumping out of basketball"
and he wasn't commenting that money shouldn't be taken out of politics, just commenting on how difficult it would be.
I'm with you!! And I'll try to keep up, however condescending you may sound. But thats ok!
I believe we should have publicly funded campaigns and elections.
The huge problem with the written word is we lose voice inflection and body language. I might be sarcastic (some say there should be a sarcasm font), but I'm never condescending. Even my view of politicians is that 80% of them really are good people trying to do a good job for "We the People"
I try to "see" the root cause of problems, below the symptoms. Your "publicly funded" for example answers the question of "who should pay for (or not pay for) expensive campaigns". My comment is "who pays" is not the core issue. The core issue is why do campaigns and elections have to be expensive? Americans Elect (AmericansElect.org) is working on a platform of direct polling to then insert Presidential candidates on State ballots without costing the candidate a penny - GREAT step in the right direction. My view is anyone with a website should be able to run for office. Yes, an advantage will always go to the candidate with lots of money to spend on advertising, but that's not always a clear advantage - just ask Ross Perot, Steve Forbes, and Mitt Romney.
back to the "voice inflection" - read this sentence out loud, each time emphasizing the word in italics:
"I" didn't say I killed her (maybe somebody else said it?) I "didn't" say I killed her (flat out denial) I didn't "say" I killed her (maybe I texted it?) I didn't say "I" killed her (I said somebody else killed her) I didn't say I "killed" her (only left her by the side of the road, wounded) I didn't say I killed "her" (said I killed somebody else)
So six words, six different meanings when voice inflection is heard, yet if I simply type "I didn't say I killed her" I'd be leaving it up to you to decide which one of the six I meant...
I agree! Here are some videos that I suggest everyone watch, lots of interesting things to think about here: The nature of the problems-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNRVRbpJMP0 Potential solution-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIMy0QBSQWo Steps of each of us can take right now that will be beneficial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXdmNFNqaQc
Vote RON PAUL in 2012.... and do "Change the System"!
That's not changing the system, it's just exchanging one guy for another and they can't really affect the change we'd like to see once they get in there. Please watch the videos I posted above and also take this into consideration: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/shaffer1.html
I must protest. :)
You do not know that he won't bring the type of change that is needed. To me, he is the candidate most likely to actually live up to his oath of office: "...to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States".
I wrote him in, in 2008. Hopefully I'll just have to check a box in 2012.
I understand what you're saying but perhaps the system needs to change and the person in office is irrelevant? For clarification, please watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNRVRbpJMP0
You said: "We Have Permission to Change the System"
Yes, it's called the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Booth.
The voting booth can only place new players into a broken system. Then we'd still be asking the players to change the system from within - can't happen.
The US Constitution gives State Legislatures the ability to call for a Constitutional Convention with a 2/3 vote, and passage of any changes with a 3/4 vote. Been tried 70 times and never got to the 2/3
Here's from a seated Senator: "The system is broken and dysfunctional...and everyone knows that." ~ Senator Tom Udall, USA Today 9/29/2011
and from our recently retired Secretary of Defense "We Have Lost The Ability To Execute Even The Basic Functions Of Government" ~ Robert Gates - retired Secretary of Defense speech at the Constitution Center
But yes, you are in the majority, the 60% of voters who believe it's only a matter of electing the "right" politicians into office. Are we just that bad at electing the "right" politicians?