amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Interesting though that this gaggle of misfits would be so committed to maintaining the gender binary.
The 99% Declaration
- Thread starter Integral
- Start date
jtb1127
Deity
What companies and how do we make them smaller?
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Harsh words don't you think for a fundamentally good idea. I agree that immediate family is too wide a ban. But one for the official and the official's spouse should do.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Although I understand the principled reasoning of just targeting the office holder and the office holder alone, marriage does make two people one 'unit'.
In Singapore, there is a similar rule that requires politicians to not hold office of any major corporate bodies and similar organisation. Some politicians just pass on their position to their spouse to which they later claim back upon ending office. Furthermore, any married couple, although they are two people, share very similar concerns, problems and opportunities. The needs of one spouse will be important to that of the other no matter how much integrity exist.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Sounds like good stuff to me. Let's roll.
squadbroken
King
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2009
- Messages
- 716
It's a start.
Also I have to laugh at the guy who said this is "revolutionary". This is an attempt to fix what's wrong with the current system, not a revolution.
Also I have to laugh at the guy who said this is "revolutionary". This is an attempt to fix what's wrong with the current system, not a revolution.
OK, my brush is a bit broad, but some of the items do indeed have the effect of reducing profits.
Forcing use of more expensive energy sources reduces profits.
The "military industrial complex" does not have a goal of perpetual war, but it certainly does stand to lose profits under this plank. Also these engineers, machinists, and other workers are a big part of the segment of the economy that creates wealth. Manufacturing creates wealth, services consume it.
Deferment is already available, so this is a strawman to begin with. Clearly a surcharge reduces profits.
Single payer takes differentiation out of the system which destroys profits for the insurers and providers, and removes all incentive for doctors.
Farm subsidies keep farmers in business. The mortgage deduction is what allows home ownership for the middle class, eliminating it would keep the housing industry on the ropes indefinitely. Oil and gas are strategic, not economic -- we don't want to be back under the boot of OPEC.
It seems that the US is already embroiled in "trade wars" with its major partners, but doesn't seem to realize it. Consequently the US is losing those trade wars, and its economy is suffering as a result.
I find it interesting that the Wikipedia article on trade wars does not contain *any* historical examples of trade wars as defined in the article (i.e. an escalating cycle of retaliatory tariffs).
Which, of course, explains why the healthcare systems of the UK, Australia, and Canada are in such a disastrous state compared to the USA's.
The declaration is overwrought and bloated.
The root cause is the fact that Congress is owned, lock, stock, and barrel, by corporate interests. Fix that, take Congress off the payroll of these massive entities and everything else will follow.
So, essentially, we need an amendment that ends donations to politicians from anything but individuals and then cap individual donations at, say, $5k per candidate.
An additional law preventing politicians from working for corporations directly related to legislation they initiated or had oversight to, for, say, 3 years, would also be good. But you probably don't need an amendment for that.
The root cause is the fact that Congress is owned, lock, stock, and barrel, by corporate interests. Fix that, take Congress off the payroll of these massive entities and everything else will follow.
So, essentially, we need an amendment that ends donations to politicians from anything but individuals and then cap individual donations at, say, $5k per candidate.
An additional law preventing politicians from working for corporations directly related to legislation they initiated or had oversight to, for, say, 3 years, would also be good. But you probably don't need an amendment for that.
I don't think it's true the Congress is owned by the corporations. The representative from my district certainly isn't, and I don't think my senators are either. Maybe there are some who are unduly influenced.
Corporations are groups of people. They're owned by people, people work for them, people buy their products and provide them services. If something hurts my employer, it hurts me, indirectly at a minimum and potentially very directly. If my 401(k) owns some Ford stock, and Ford loses value because of a carbon cap or tax, then I lose. The only people who might benefit from things that hurt corporations are people who don't work and have no investments -- and they still lose due to increasing prices the corporations charge to offset their losses.
Corporations are groups of people. They're owned by people, people work for them, people buy their products and provide them services. If something hurts my employer, it hurts me, indirectly at a minimum and potentially very directly. If my 401(k) owns some Ford stock, and Ford loses value because of a carbon cap or tax, then I lose. The only people who might benefit from things that hurt corporations are people who don't work and have no investments -- and they still lose due to increasing prices the corporations charge to offset their losses.
I like the proposals, but I don't understand the point of having a convention. It seems to really go against the spirit of this movement, having a chosen few represent everyone else. Not to mention, July 4 is a long time away.
Why not have a convention online, and do it right away? Iceland style. Let everyone participate!
Why not have a convention online, and do it right away? Iceland style. Let everyone participate!
So why shouldnt the Federal government just buy shares of stock for the mere benefit of institutional investors? Basically this 401k concern trolling BS.
@aronnax- kinship politics is much more of a thing in Asia, isn't it? The same concerns may not be applicable to the US. I would think that some basic ethics rule and oversight would be better than a complete restriction on the occupation of family members.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Given enough greed and enough walk-abouts, people will take the path.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
You will have a pretty crappy nation if the bureaucracy if it didn't undertake government orders.
