Attention, working-class Americans

[TalkToMeInSB]

"...nationalizing the means of production the way Elizabeth warren wants to do...."

This quote is absolute BS for sure... The right is getting waaaaayyyy too hung up on "socialism", making it an absolute evil - without ever truly knowing or defining what that word actually means! Hey at least BB pulled out the "nationalizing the means of production" aspect, even though attributing that to any modern politician is ludicrous....

Isn't it great how both sides "think" they know what will happen if the other side comes into power.

That would actually be a socially liberal movement, ever so slightly right of center because it's still highly capitalistic.

A leftist movement would pay for it all by taking over the economy, nationalizing the means of production the way Elizabeth warren wants to do.



That's social liberalism, and not at all the social justice/socialistic methods of centrally controlling/planning the economy the way democrats advocate.

 

[Kirkrapine]

No. They voted for him because the alternative was even worse.

Not when the alternative was Clinton.

 

[TalkToMeInSB]

Correction Sissy.... "What made this country's corporations so great..." Carry on....

Unions have and always will help the average Joe-worker have a better life. With the downfall of unions have come the age of the Corporation, and more damaging the Corporate Government - where laws NEVER work for common citizens...

Good thing your not a salesperson, you don't seem to be able to sell anything you are spouting off.
Unions are one of todays biggest downfalls, they are for the lazy that do not wish to work but want the high pay for loafing around.
Why do you thing they want the migrants so bad, someone to do their work for dirt cheep so they pocket the rest and live high on the hog.
What made this country so great, AMERICAN GREED.

 

[BotanyBoy]

For the thousandth fuckin time... it was a HUGE improvement over the repub plan of "fuck you and die"..


Mr Broken record has no problem lining up for his gubmint care tho..

No it wasn't...it was a micro improvement for a dry fuck up the ass. Your partisan zealotry and endless ability to church up any turd the (D)'s generate notwithstanding.

I accept their superior knowledge. I object only to your dishonest practice of citing dictionary definitions of politically-charged terminology. In that regard, TVTropes is a more reliable guide than Webster's.

It's not dishonest......the dictionary is honest, your pretending words don't really mean what all of academia and every respectable reference source says they mean is the only thing that's dishonest.

"...nationalizing the means of production the way Elizabeth warren wants to do...."

This quote is absolute BS for sure...

Elizabeth Warrens Accountable Capitalism Act....nationalizing most of the US economy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accountable_Capitalism_Act

BTW...she's not the only one either.

Maxine Waters wants to nationalize our energy markets.

If you want more google is your friend.

 

[TalkToMeInSB]

"Elizabeth Warrens Accountable Capitalism Act....nationalizing most of the US economy."

Yea, no.... All that does is force corporations to be partly accountable to their employees! I see no "nationalizing" going on here....

And that Waters vid is 7+ years old... Irrelevant.

Again, trying to push "socialism" as the inevitable outcome of the left coming into power is complete BS! It's part of Trump's hate mongering rhetoric, along with his only "true" news source Fox News! But it's just rhetoric....

No it wasn't...it was a micro improvement for a dry fuck up the ass. Your partisan zealotry and endless ability to church up any turd the (D)'s generate notwithstanding.



It's not dishonest......the dictionary is honest, your pretending words don't really mean what all of academia and every respectable reference source says they mean is the only thing that's dishonest.



Elizabeth Warrens Accountable Capitalism Act....nationalizing most of the US economy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accountable_Capitalism_Act

BTW...she's not the only one either.

Maxine Waters wants to nationalize our energy markets.

If you want more google is your friend.

 

[bellisarius]

Notice that Brazil is "de-nationalizing" their state run shit after over a decade of mismanagement, corruption, and a fucked up economy. Just like the Nordic nations did back in the 80's-90's. But there's always some SFB (Shit For Brains) that thinks it's a good idea to try it here too. And then there's the worst case situations like Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, the former Soviet Union, China before the 'Capitalist' economic reform, and how about that N. Korea, the black hole of planet Earth.

Of course they always say that they'll do it 'smarter.' Well, no you won't, because you can't. It will never work because of the diversity of human nature that they otherwise seem to celebrate, at least as well as racists can celebrate such things.

You see where they always go off the rails is that they don't see such initiatives as a means of improving anything, it's a means of getting even with or punishing all the imagined wrongs they see around them. And that is just the best of their group, the worst want to go there just for the raw power of it and those are the most dangerous of all.

 

[BotanyBoy]

"Elizabeth Warrens Accountable Capitalism Act....nationalizing most of the US economy."

Yea, no.... All that does is force corporations to be partly accountable to their employees! I see no "nationalizing" going on here....

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.

When the government decides if there will be a company and then dictates decides how it is run and how much you are allowed to make? That's nationalization on the most fundamental and effective levels.

And that Waters vid is 7+ years old... Irrelevant.

Not anymore than any other pol's statements speak to their political alignments.

Again, trying to push "socialism" as the inevitable outcome of the left coming into power is complete BS!

How is it BS? Socialism is the ONLY TOOL the left has for reaching their political goals.

The left can't do ANYTHING it wants to do without it.

Shit, most of the Republicans aren't any better but fascism is socialism of the right, nationalistic instead of communistic.

Either way they are still authoritarians and supported by fuck heads the world over who need to be drug out into the streets and shot.

It's part of Trump's hate mongering rhetoric, along with his only "true" news source Fox News! But it's just rhetoric....

No, it's not...words mean things and it's not from Fox, it's from pretty much every MSM source out there. They might not say it....but they put it out there.

 

[TalkToMeInSB]

I understand your "get government out of my business" slant here but calling it "nationalization" is a bridge too far (from Wikipedia):

the transfer of a major branch of industry or commerce from private to state ownership or control.

Having corporations unhealthy and incorrect focus on "shareholder value", along with their long tentacles into our government is a huge problem for common citizen workers.

I like Jack Ma's (CEO of Alibaba) philosophy on a corporations priorities - Customer is number 1, Employees number 2, and shareholders are 3rd.

I see that Accountable Capitalism Act as an attempt to re-align big business's focus away from short term profits, and towards longer term benefits to both the company and citizens.

I seriously doubt that Act will get any traction as it digs too deep into corporate organization and structure. Still a good intention...

When the government decides if there will be a company and then dictates decides how it is run and how much you are allowed to make? That's nationalization on the most fundamental and effective levels.



Not anymore than any other pol's statements speak to their political alignments.



How is it BS? Socialism is the ONLY TOOL the left has for reaching their political goals.

The left can't do ANYTHING it wants to do without it.

Shit, most of the Republicans aren't any better but fascism is socialism of the right, nationalistic instead of communistic.

Either way they are still authoritarians and supported by fuck heads the world over who need to be drug out into the streets and shot.



No, it's not...words mean things and it's not from Fox, it's from pretty much every MSM source out there. They might not say it....but they put it out there.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I understand your "get government out of my business" slant here but calling it "nationalization" is a bridge too far (from Wikipedia):

the transfer of a major branch of industry or commerce from private to state ownership or control.

That's exactly what it describes....make over a billion and the government steps in and takes over your company if it even lets you continue to have one.

That's as close to Soviet style socialism as you can get without hanging a "US Department of _______" sign on every distribution hub (not a business anymore)for government controlled/managed goods and services.

Having corporations unhealthy and incorrect focus on "shareholder value", along with their long tentacles into our government is a huge problem for common citizen workers.

What is unhealthy and incorrect about focusing on "shareholder value"?

It's clearly not unhealthy or incorrect for the company.

I like Jack Ma's (CEO of Alibaba) philosophy on a corporations priorities - Customer is number 1, Employees number 2, and shareholders are 3rd.

Then you should run your company like him...and let others run theirs like Beezos or Gates or whoever.

Because individual rights, freedom and M'arica!!! Not United Soviet Socialist States comrade....

I see that Accountable Capitalism Act as an attempt to re-align big business's focus away from short term profits, and towards longer term benefits to both the company and citizens.

What is so good about economic oppression from the government?

I seriously doubt that Act will get any traction as it digs too deep into corporate organization and structure. Still a good intention...

No...it digs too deep into peoples rights, private property and economically oppresses them for the sake of who knows what.

I don't see where the good intentions in unnecessary arbitrary economic oppression are.

 

[Kirkrapine]

When the government decides if there will be a company . . .

That's always. No corporation ever exists save by the state's permission.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That's always. No corporation ever exists save by the state's permission.

Tell that to the multitude of black market, grey market and shadow corporations out there operating right now.

In fact some of the largest, most successful corporations of all time never asked permission from anyone.

And most states operate on a shall issue basis for anything that hasn't been totally corrupted.

Doesn't change that as a facet combined with other control factors it's extremely socialistic and screams of Marxism putting Warren demonstrably left of Sanders.

 

[TalkToMeInSB]

Regarding shareholder value... It's an old notion that is falling out of favor with the economists. Too much focus on the short term, and NO focus on your customers or employees. We now live in a world where working for the same company for years (if not your whole working life) is a thing of the past. Companies care no longer for the employee, using them as pawns in their short term game to increase shareholder value (for the current calendar quarter).

Interesting to see that you clearly espouse traditional conservative values regarding business. Also interesting that Trump's base are the very people that the focus on "shareholder value" has fucked! (Granted traditional conservatives and Trump's base have little to no cross over.)

I could talk about the notion of business having an obligation to society, not just for goods and services, but for the long term well being of society. Especially the regions where they operate most. Unfortunately that notion is long gone, leaving us with decimated wilderness, ghost towns, large populations with no jobs.

I can probably predict your conservative response might be about that notion. But isn't it interesting that at least one of those issues - large populations with no jobs - is EXACTLY what Trump thinks he is doing something about by propping up the coal industry and his freaking tariffs.

Regarding having employees vote for 40% of your board hardly constitutes"taking over your company". And " if it even lets you continue to have one" sounds like an opinion rather than a part of the Act. But again, I understand conservatives feeling about "any regulation is bad regulation" because it screws with the market forces. I disagree. We've clearly not seen what conservatives expected with their "lowering the corporate tax" equaling "trickle down" to employees, prices. They've only used their savings to buy back more stocks.

As long as the corporations have the free reign to do whatever gives them "shareholder value", then only those in the corporate executive suites will benefit. (Ok, the shareholders benefit too) And the rest of society gets fucked!

In the interest of full disclosure I am a shareholder in that I'm invested in the market.

Finally... "individual rights, freedom and M'arica!!!" I'm on board with that. However, corporations are NOT individuals. That ruling equating the two began the fuckary with which we find ourselves now... Big Business bankrolling government for their interests only.

That's exactly what it describes....make over a billion and the government steps in and takes over your company if it even lets you continue to have one.

That's as close to Soviet style socialism as you can get without hanging a "US Department of _______" sign on every distribution hub (not a business anymore)for government controlled/managed goods and services.




What is unhealthy and incorrect about focusing on "shareholder value"?

It's clearly not unhealthy or incorrect for the company.



Then you should run your company like him...and let others run theirs like Beezos or Gates or whoever.

Because individual rights, freedom and M'arica!!! Not United Soviet Socialist States comrade....



What is so good about economic oppression from the government?



No...it digs too deep into peoples rights, private property and economically oppresses them for the sake of who knows what.

I don't see where the good intentions in unnecessary arbitrary economic oppression are.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Regarding shareholder value... It's an old notion that is falling out of favor with the economists. Too much focus on the short term, and NO focus on your customers or employees. We now live in a world where working for the same company for years (if not your whole working life) is a thing of the past. Companies care no longer for the employee, using them as pawns in their short term game to increase shareholder value (for the current calendar quarter).

Economists? LOL fuck them...they don't know shit.

If they did they would be out making mega bucks like the big dogs.

But they don't...they make 32,000 bucks a year fertilizing the minds of American youth with authoritarian leftist bullshit.

Interesting to see that you clearly espouse traditional conservative values regarding business.

Liberal, I'm not conservative.

I could talk about the notion of business having an obligation to society, not just for goods and services, but for the long term well being of society.

I can probably predict your conservative response might be about that notion.

Again liberal, and no bidnizzez don't have an obligation to society beyond obeying the laws of the land, IF you want to be a reputable bidnizz. But it's not necessary.

But isn't it interesting that at least one of those issues - large populations with no jobs - is EXACTLY what Trump thinks he is doing something about by propping up the coal industry and his freaking tariffs.

No...I find very little about Trump interesting.

Regarding having employees vote for 40% of your board hardly constitutes"taking over your company".

No being forced by the government is being told how to run it though and likely having a significant portion of it taken from you by the government and given to a democratically elected bunch of fuckers who's sole qualification is a fucking popularity contest.

That's the fucking dumbest way to run a company I've ever heard of and why leftist as bat shit and clueless as Elizabeth Warren should not be allowed anywhere near the US economy.

And " if it even lets you continue to have one" sounds like an opinion rather than a part of the Act.

Try reading it this time.

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.

But again, I understand conservatives feeling about "any regulation is bad regulation" because it screws with the market forces. I disagree.

Then you don't understand conservatives (economic liberals/libertarians).

We don't think all regulation is bad, we aren't anarchist.

We just don't think it's the governments place to force people to engage in business transactions they would rather not without just cause and "but feelings!!" don't cut it.

As long as the corporations have the free reign to do whatever gives them "shareholder value", then only those in the corporate executive suites will benefit. (Ok, the shareholders benefit too) And the rest of society gets fucked!

1st off society doesn't get fucked because a group of people get together and make a bunch more money. Quite the opposite actually.

2nd why should anyone but the people who invested in a project benefit from it?

Should I benefit from your labor and investments? Let me know when you want to start sending me a check I'll get you my email so you can just send the money digitally ok?

Finally... "individual rights, freedom and M'arica!!!" I'm on board with that. However, corporations are NOT individuals.

They are though.

That ruling equating the two began the fuckary with which we find ourselves now... Big Business bankrolling government for their interests only.

No, the apathetic electorate who will make up endless excuses for anything their party/political icons do are the reason we are in the fuckary we are in now.

Hillary spent the big bucks AND LOST!!! Because bitch all you want but the VOTE not the dollar is the standard political currency.

First group of voters to start holding their congress critters feet to the fire is going to win the USA.

 

[TalkToMeInSB]

Dude, you're all over the map here....

Economists? LOL fuck them...they don't know shit.

If they did they would be out making mega bucks like the big dogs.

But they don't...they make 32,000 bucks a year fertilizing the minds of American youth with authoritarian leftist bullshit.



Liberal, I'm not conservative.



Again liberal, and no bidnizzez don't have an obligation to society beyond obeying the laws of the land, IF you want to be a reputable bidnizz. But it's not necessary.



No...I find very little about Trump interesting.



No being forced by the government is being told how to run it though and likely having a significant portion of it taken from you by the government and given to a democratically elected bunch of fuckers who's sole qualification is a fucking popularity contest.

That's the fucking dumbest way to run a company I've ever heard of and why leftist as bat shit and clueless as Elizabeth Warren should not be allowed anywhere near the US economy.



Try reading it this time.





Then you don't understand conservatives (economic liberals/libertarians).

We don't think all regulation is bad, we aren't anarchist.

We just don't think it's the governments place to force people to engage in business transactions they would rather not without just cause and "but feelings!!" don't cut it.



1st off society doesn't get fucked because a group of people get together and make a bunch more money. Quite the opposite actually.

2nd why should anyone but the people who invested in a project benefit from it?

Should I benefit from your labor and investments? Let me know when you want to start sending me a check I'll get you my email so you can just send the money digitally ok?



They are though.



No, the apathetic electorate who will make up endless excuses for anything their party/political icons do are the reason we are in the fuckary we are in now.

Hillary spent the big bucks AND LOST!!! Because bitch all you want but the VOTE not the dollar is the standard political currency.

First group of voters to start holding their congress critters feet to the fire is going to win the USA.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Dude, you're all over the map here....

No, I'm just betting you're using the MSM/FOX news idea of 'liberal' being the same thing as a socialist, democratic socialist, progressive and or a social democrat.

They are not.

All the above consider even social liberals to be total fucking Nazi scum because they are capitalists.

 

[TalkToMeInSB]

You lost the bet. Liberals may be some part of any of those, or not. I mistook you for conservative based on your capitalist views. I would like to think that being "liberal" at some level includes the understanding that profits are not the end all, that consideration for the environment, both earth and human, has value and needs to be taken into consideration. At times, government intervention is the only way to ensure that consideration.

No, I'm just betting you're using the MSM/FOX news idea of 'liberal' being the same thing as a socialist, democratic socialist, progressive and or a social democrat.

They are not.

All the above consider even social liberals to be total fucking Nazi scum because they are capitalists.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Tell that to the multitude of black market, grey market and shadow corporations out there operating right now.

They're not corporations. The difference is that they have no legal existence as business entities, and have no recourse to the courts to enforce their contracts without running the risk of a gang war. It really is much, much better to be a middle-management corporate exec than to be a black marketeer, no matter how lucrative the black-market business. Like Detective Harris in the old Barney Miller sitcom once said to an arrogant teenage loanshark, "I've got something you never will -- credit! You ain't nobody until you can sign for somethin' with dignity!"

 

[BotanyBoy]

You lost the bet. Liberals may be some part of any of those, or not. I mistook you for conservative based on your capitalist views. I would like to think that being "liberal" at some level includes the understanding that profits are not the end all, that consideration for the environment, both earth and human, has value and needs to be taken into consideration. At times, government intervention is the only way to ensure that consideration.

*shrug*

No they aren't. Liberalism is RW because it is capitalistic.

Liberalism is not those things.

Liberalism is a political philosophy that holds protecting and maximizing individual liberty to be the primary concern of politics.

Of course with in reason and there a number of takes on that concept ranging from social liberalism to libertarian.

But telling me I gotta give up 40% of my company to an elected board of fuck heads because some asshole thinks that's "more fair" ???

LOL!!!! Fuck no...that's not liberal, that's socialism.

You should be allowed to get as rich as you want.

They're not corporations.

*shrug*

Operate just like them.

"I've got something you never will -- credit! You ain't nobody until you can sign for somethin' with dignity!"

Credit is for suckers and dealers....and there is little dignity in either.

If I can't pay cash I can't have it.