What exactly does the "Left" want?

[rdean]

What exactly does the "Left" want?

We want our country back!

That's funny rdean, as you are the ones who keep calling for change. Back means the way it was. I can only dream that our Government would shrink back to the way it was.

Back from Confederate Republicinas who want to turn it into a kind of "Christian" Iran.

 

[Tom Clancy]

What exactly does the "Left" want?

We want our country back!

That's funny rdean, as you are the ones who keep calling for change. Back means the way it was. I can only dream that our Government would shrink back to the way it was.

Back from Confederate Republicinas who want to turn it into a kind of "Christian" Iran.

 

[Oddball]

What exactly does the "Left" want?

The right knows what we want. They are ALWAYS telling us what we want.

That's because you don't have the courage to be honest about your socialistic proclivities in the first place.

If y'all came right out and said, in plain English, that you want America to be like France, nobody would have anything to do with you.

 

[Bfgrn]

You'll note that Jethro has very few opinions of his own, other than "corp'ration bad...gubmint great" and "me smart...you pea brain".

The rest is pretty much copy-pasty and marginally relevant quotations.

I clearly state my beliefs and I back them up with credible evidence. All DUD/ball can grasp at is slanderous utterances. And DUD/ball can't even speak in proper English, he mutters them in Dudebonics.

 

[Meister]

You'll note that Jethro has very few opinions of his own, other than "corp'ration bad...gubmint great" and "me smart...you pea brain".

The rest is pretty much copy-pasty and marginally relevant quotations.

I clearly state my beliefs and I back them up with credible evidence. All DUD/ball can grasp at is slanderous utterances. And DUD/ball can't even speak in proper English, he mutters them in Dudebonics.

Actually, and most would agree that Oddball is spot on with his opinion. just sayin'

 

[Bfgrn]

You called me a pea-brain. That is the definition of an ad hominem attack. and you didnt answer anything, you just ignored what I said and substituted your own beliefs as a counter to mine. my arguments may be false in your exact case, but not in general. My interpretation of what leftist believe applies to a large portion of the left.

As for the polluter thing, with the current set of regulations pollution control to a degree is included in the COST of a manufactured item, not its profit. Companies will attempt to maintain a profit margin regardless of how much regulation you dump on them. Short of regulating the AMOUNT of profit a company can make, you cannot stop them from passing on the costs of whatever cost externalizing ponzi scheme you try to implement. So, in the end you end up forcing the CONSUMER to carry the weight of increased cost, not the company.

I didn't substitute anything, you are too obtuse to be able to differentiate between natural costs a society incurs (i.e. sanitation) and unnatural costs a society is burdened with.

'As for the polluter thing, with the current set of regulations on pollution'...society incurs a COST of around 4 trillion dollars PER YEAR.

The biggest threat to 'America as we know it' is not too much government, it is ineffective government control of multinational corporations. Entities that have NO allegiance to America, no desire to create or participate in a true free market or any intentions to play by any rules based on morality or ethics.

The biggest change the failed Reagan revolution brought about is rampant 'regulatory capture', where teams of corporate lawyers are allowed to WRITE LAWS that solely benefit them, by corrupt legislators. WHY do you think credit card applications went from one or two pages to 30 pages of legalese that even a lawyer has a hard time understanding?



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the world's largest 100 national governments and corporations in 2002, 76 were corporations. The largest, Wal-Mart, had revenues higher than the expenditures of all but six national governments.

There are two linked problems with such concentrations of corporate power. First, that power increases corporations' ability to influence societal affairs, from fixing prices to altering laws. Second, while corporations and governments may have similar amounts of power, the latter are designed-at least nominally-to serve the public interest, and many are accountable to these publics. Because of shareholder pressures and other demands, most corporations today focus almost entirely on maximizing profits for their shareholders-and they do so primarily by externalizing as many of their social and environmental costs as possible.

In his book Tyranny of the Bottom Line, Ralph Estes examined the extent of this cost externalization in the case of U.S. corporations. Factoring in workplace injuries, medical care required by the failure of unsafe products, health costs from pollution, and many others, Estes found that external costs to U.S. taxpayers totaled $3.5 trillion in 1995-four times higher than the profits of U.S. corporations that year ($822 billion). This sort of externalization toll is routinely evident in hazy skies, injured consumers, and impoverished workers in the United States and elsewhere.

According to a 2004 report released by U.S. Representative George Miller, one 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,000 per year because of the need for federal aid (such as housing assistance, tax credits, and health insurance assistance) for Wal-Mart's low-wage employees. Moreover, many corporations fill their labor needs offshore in order to exploit unorganized workers in low-cost and politically friendly countries. Over 40 million people now work in export-processing or "free trade" zones. These areas, often exempt from national legislation, allow manufacturers to demand long hours, pay lower wages, and ignore health and safety regulations.

Corporations have achieved considerable freedom to act in ways that harm the host on which they depend. They have done so primarily by means of regulatory capture, the redesign of societal laws by vested interests for their preferential benefit. This is not new; corporations have always sought to influence lawmakers. TNCs' current levels of power, money, and freedom are unprecedented, however, and regulatory capture has become widespread. The results can be seen in the scores of laws and court rulings that now protect corporations' right to profit, right to pollute, right to patent intellectual property-at the expense of citizens, farmers, workers, consumers, communities, and indigenous peoples. As U.S. President Rutherford B. Hayes once remarked, "This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations." That was in 1884; it's truer now than ever.

When Good Corporations Go Bad

Here is some more education for pea brains...

http://bdp.law.harvard.edu/pdfs/papers/Warren/CH_Middle_Class_Final.pdf

Ah, copypasta, I like mine with marinara sauce.

And I disagree with the point that goverments are less dangerous than corporations because they are nominally for the public trust. That only applies to a true democratic system. Corporations are regulated, and i know you claim ineffectively, but still regulated. Nothing regulates the goverment except the actions of those that are governed, and then only with great effort and cost.

So fine, if you are so against corporations in general propose a system for maintaining our standard of living, and removing this threat you see a so dire to our existance.

You have quite a mental disconnect going on in your tiny little pea. Our founding fathers didn't create a corporation, they created a representative GOVERNMENT. We, the People have NO representation in corporations. They answer to stockholders, NOT the American people. The stockholders, owners and CEO's of today's multinational corporations don't have to be American or even have America's best interests at heart. They can be and ARE foreigners like Hugo Chavez.

You right wing pea brains always like to elicit our founding fathers, so let's see how THEY treated and regulated corporations...

Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when.

1) Corporations could not own stock in other corporations

2) They were prohibited from any part of the political process.

3) Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation

4) In order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good

5) When corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

 

[martybegan]

I didn't substitute anything, you are too obtuse to be able to differentiate between natural costs a society incurs (i.e. sanitation) and unnatural costs a society is burdened with.

'As for the polluter thing, with the current set of regulations on pollution'...society incurs a COST of around 4 trillion dollars PER YEAR.

The biggest threat to 'America as we know it' is not too much government, it is ineffective government control of multinational corporations. Entities that have NO allegiance to America, no desire to create or participate in a true free market or any intentions to play by any rules based on morality or ethics.

The biggest change the failed Reagan revolution brought about is rampant 'regulatory capture', where teams of corporate lawyers are allowed to WRITE LAWS that solely benefit them, by corrupt legislators. WHY do you think credit card applications went from one or two pages to 30 pages of legalese that even a lawyer has a hard time understanding?



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the world's largest 100 national governments and corporations in 2002, 76 were corporations. The largest, Wal-Mart, had revenues higher than the expenditures of all but six national governments.

There are two linked problems with such concentrations of corporate power. First, that power increases corporations' ability to influence societal affairs, from fixing prices to altering laws. Second, while corporations and governments may have similar amounts of power, the latter are designed-at least nominally-to serve the public interest, and many are accountable to these publics. Because of shareholder pressures and other demands, most corporations today focus almost entirely on maximizing profits for their shareholders-and they do so primarily by externalizing as many of their social and environmental costs as possible.

In his book Tyranny of the Bottom Line, Ralph Estes examined the extent of this cost externalization in the case of U.S. corporations. Factoring in workplace injuries, medical care required by the failure of unsafe products, health costs from pollution, and many others, Estes found that external costs to U.S. taxpayers totaled $3.5 trillion in 1995-four times higher than the profits of U.S. corporations that year ($822 billion). This sort of externalization toll is routinely evident in hazy skies, injured consumers, and impoverished workers in the United States and elsewhere.

According to a 2004 report released by U.S. Representative George Miller, one 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,000 per year because of the need for federal aid (such as housing assistance, tax credits, and health insurance assistance) for Wal-Mart's low-wage employees. Moreover, many corporations fill their labor needs offshore in order to exploit unorganized workers in low-cost and politically friendly countries. Over 40 million people now work in export-processing or "free trade" zones. These areas, often exempt from national legislation, allow manufacturers to demand long hours, pay lower wages, and ignore health and safety regulations.

Corporations have achieved considerable freedom to act in ways that harm the host on which they depend. They have done so primarily by means of regulatory capture, the redesign of societal laws by vested interests for their preferential benefit. This is not new; corporations have always sought to influence lawmakers. TNCs' current levels of power, money, and freedom are unprecedented, however, and regulatory capture has become widespread. The results can be seen in the scores of laws and court rulings that now protect corporations' right to profit, right to pollute, right to patent intellectual property-at the expense of citizens, farmers, workers, consumers, communities, and indigenous peoples. As U.S. President Rutherford B. Hayes once remarked, "This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations." That was in 1884; it's truer now than ever.

When Good Corporations Go Bad

Here is some more education for pea brains...

http://bdp.law.harvard.edu/pdfs/papers/Warren/CH_Middle_Class_Final.pdf

Ah, copypasta, I like mine with marinara sauce.

And I disagree with the point that goverments are less dangerous than corporations because they are nominally for the public trust. That only applies to a true democratic system. Corporations are regulated, and i know you claim ineffectively, but still regulated. Nothing regulates the goverment except the actions of those that are governed, and then only with great effort and cost.

So fine, if you are so against corporations in general propose a system for maintaining our standard of living, and removing this threat you see a so dire to our existance.

You have quite a mental disconnect going on in your tiny little pea. Our founding fathers didn't create a corporation, they created a representative GOVERNMENT. We, the People have NO representation in corporations. They answer to stockholders, NOT the American people. The stockholders, owners and CEO's of today's multinational corporations don't have to be American or even have America's best interests at heart. They can be and ARE foreigners like Hugo Chavez.

You right wing pea brains always like to elicit our founding fathers, so let's see how THEY treated and regulated corporations...

Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when.

1) Corporations could not own stock in other corporations

2) They were prohibited from any part of the political process.

3) Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation

4) In order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good

5) When corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

So you bring up a system of doing business from the freaking late 1700's? Also remember back then anyone without PROPERTY was removed from the political process.

So you want to go back to this system for the current world? Again please tell me how to implement it, or keep complaining, and posting other peoples thoughts as your own.

 

[shintao]

So you bring up a system of doing business from the freaking late 1700's?

The right tends to use the founding fathers for everything else, so why would you complain about the corporate Achilleus heel?

 

[martybegan]

So you bring up a system of doing business from the freaking late 1700's?

The right tends to use the founding fathers for everything else, so why would you complain about the corporate Achilleus heel?

There is no real basis for a modern anti-corperatist agenda in the constitution. The corporation as we see it today was not possible back then due to the lack of real time communications. The closest thing was the East Inda Company.

The constitution is neutral when it comes to corporations, as it is mainly a vehicle for preventing goverment excesses, not excesses of the people. Hell the only things truly banned for individuals in the consitution is owning slaves and brining booze into a dry juristiction.

 

[Bfgrn]

Ah, copypasta, I like mine with marinara sauce.

And I disagree with the point that goverments are less dangerous than corporations because they are nominally for the public trust. That only applies to a true democratic system. Corporations are regulated, and i know you claim ineffectively, but still regulated. Nothing regulates the goverment except the actions of those that are governed, and then only with great effort and cost.

So fine, if you are so against corporations in general propose a system for maintaining our standard of living, and removing this threat you see a so dire to our existance.

You have quite a mental disconnect going on in your tiny little pea. Our founding fathers didn't create a corporation, they created a representative GOVERNMENT. We, the People have NO representation in corporations. They answer to stockholders, NOT the American people. The stockholders, owners and CEO's of today's multinational corporations don't have to be American or even have America's best interests at heart. They can be and ARE foreigners like Hugo Chavez.

You right wing pea brains always like to elicit our founding fathers, so let's see how THEY treated and regulated corporations...

Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when.

1) Corporations could not own stock in other corporations

2) They were prohibited from any part of the political process.

3) Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation

4) In order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good

5) When corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

So you bring up a system of doing business from the freaking late 1700's? Also remember back then anyone without PROPERTY was removed from the political process.

So you want to go back to this system for the current world? Again please tell me how to implement it, or keep complaining, and posting other peoples thoughts as your own.

Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
Edmund Burke

As I said in an earlier post, I am against MASSIVE government control. But I am equally against NO government control. How about EFFECTIVE government regulations and consumer protections? Is THAT too hard to understand?

Our economy was recently hit by a firestorm that cost the average hard working American much or all of his/her nest-egg. These were people that has played by the rules. What is really hard to fathom, is none of you right wing pea brains know what happened.

From the Civil War until the Great Depression America had unbridled capitalism and unregulated industry. It worked out great for the robber barons and miserably for the average American.

The New Deal brought about regulations and laws that allowed capitalism to thrive, AND also allowed hard working citizens to share in that prosperity. The largest and most robust middle class in the history of this planet was created. It is WHAT defined America and what the rest of the world envied.

Then around the mid to late 1970's, along came a group of radical ideologues who CALLED themselves 'conservatives'. But they weren't interested in 'conserving' and preserving the hard lessons of their ancestors, because these radical ideologues were smarter than anyone who ever lived. Ronbo Reagan, the pied piper on the road to serfdom, the great socialist, and his band of ideologues decided that the last 50 years that preceded them was a huge mistake...so began the systematic dismantling of the protections, regulations and agencies that had created the worlds most prosperous economy.

NOW that we are moving away from that firestorm, a whole group of right wing pea brains wants to drag us back into the flames.

Don't believe what Edmund Burke said? HERE is the proof...

 

[Toro]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the world's largest 100 national governments and corporations in 2002, 76 were corporations. The largest, Wal-Mart, had revenues higher than the expenditures of all but six national governments.

This is a disingenuous analogy.

Measuring the size of Wal-Mart's revenues, or almost any company's revenues, relative to a country's economy belies a basic misunderstanding of economics. The size of the economy is measured by the value added. Wal-Mart's revenues are just that, revenues. Two very, very different things that aren't comparable. Wal-Mart's profit margins are razor thin. It's value-added is a pittance compared to the total output of a national economy.

 

[Charles_Main]

They want everyone else to sit down, and shut up. So they, a Tiny MINORITY can run our lives in peace.

 

[Bfgrn]

They want everyone else to sit down, and shut up. So they, a Tiny MINORITY can run our lives in peace.

Actually, a very tiny minority of 'they' HAS gained power over the last 30+ years, but you right wing pea brains believe THAT is a good thing. It has to do with your subservience to and worship of the wealthy.

When you go to your mailbox today, or turn on your television, I can guarantee that if there is something sent to you or pitched to you that could send you into bankruptcy or swallow up your life savings, it will NOT come from the government. It will come from a bank, corporation or lending source that has been allowed to WRITE LAWS that benefit only them at our expense. The 'they' have used their power to make unethical and immoral LAWFUL. The 'they' use lending practices that even the mafia disapproves of.

The real irony Charles_Main; you identify and worn about what HAS happened in your signature, but you just don't know who 'they' are...

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
-Benjamin Franklin

 

[MaggieMae]

So you bring up a system of doing business from the freaking late 1700's?

The right tends to use the founding fathers for everything else, so why would you complain about the corporate Achilleus heel?

Plus many of them want to revert back to the way the country was 200+ years ago! Except when some pesky Constitutional tenet messes up those dreams, that is. Ah yes, they will tell you--How much more simple life was in those days . They tend to forget how "simple" life actually is these days when they don't even need to lift their butts off their seats in order to dramatically affect just about anything, via the Internet.

 

[MaggieMae]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the world's largest 100 national governments and corporations in 2002, 76 were corporations. The largest, Wal-Mart, had revenues higher than the expenditures of all but six national governments.

This is a disingenuous analogy.

Measuring the size of Wal-Mart's revenues, or almost any company's revenues, relative to a country's economy belies a basic misunderstanding of economics. The size of the economy is measured by the value added. Wal-Mart's revenues are just that, revenues. Two very, very different things that aren't comparable. Wal-Mart's profit margins are razor thin. It's value-added is a pittance compared to the total output of a national economy.

For accounting purposes, WalMart's profit margin may be razor thin, but Sam Walton's offspring are as rich as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett combined. Imagine that.

 

[SFC Ollie]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the world's largest 100 national governments and corporations in 2002, 76 were corporations. The largest, Wal-Mart, had revenues higher than the expenditures of all but six national governments.

This is a disingenuous analogy.

Measuring the size of Wal-Mart's revenues, or almost any company's revenues, relative to a country's economy belies a basic misunderstanding of economics. The size of the economy is measured by the value added. Wal-Mart's revenues are just that, revenues. Two very, very different things that aren't comparable. Wal-Mart's profit margins are razor thin. It's value-added is a pittance compared to the total output of a national economy.

For accounting purposes, WalMart's profit margin may be razor thin, but Sam Walton's offspring are as rich as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett combined. Imagine that.

And the problem with someone making a razor thin profit is? So they sell more, way more, than anyone else.

 

[Old Rocks]

There are all kinds of arguements going on about his, but I really want to know what the "Left" really wants to see happen. What do you want to see the gov't do? Can someone please lay this out for me?

OK, here is what this old blue collar Liberal would like to see.

A Health Care System like that the other industrial nations have. Systems that achieve longer lives, full coverage for all citizens, at half the cost per citizen as here in the US.

An Economic system that does not concentrate the wealth in the upper two percent of the citizenry. One which considers that the people who do the neccessary work of the nation deserve a living wage.

A regulatory system that does not allow a few financial traders to crash the nations, and nearly the whole worlds, economy for their own enrichment.

A taxing system in which the people who have benefited the most from the system pay at least as high of a percentage of their wealth back into the system as the school janitor.

A legal system that would at least show where the source of the money for political ads and campaigns come from. A system in which white collar crime that steals millions from peoples retirement funds get hard time with the other criminals instead of a break at state ran country clubs.

The shutdown of most of our military bases outside of the nation, with the exception of the heavy lift bases. Use of some of the savings to rebuild our space program, and get back into the exploration of space in a serious manner.

Continued and increased R & D for alternative energy sources and storage. Not only get off of fossil fuels, but use the energy we have in far more efficient manner. And manufacture the technology that is created here in the US!

 

[Charles_Main]

They want everyone else to sit down, and shut up. So they, a Tiny MINORITY can run our lives in peace.

Actually, a very tiny minority of 'they' HAS gained power over the last 30+ years,

21% Of Americans is a tiny Minority Bub. No matter how you cut it. That is how many Americans say they are Liberal 21%, And were not even talking about Liberals here. Were talking about the extreme far left that has taken over the Dem Party. They reflect an even smaller Minority of Americans. They seem to want us all to shut the hell up and let them do what ever they hell they want.

The rest of your post is just you assuming you know anything at all about me and my voting past. I was always a Democrat, until the party started shifting so far to the left. It left me and millions of more fiscally and constitutionally conservative people behind. So please don't try and pretend you know me.

Peace

 

[Bfgrn]

They want everyone else to sit down, and shut up. So they, a Tiny MINORITY can run our lives in peace.

Actually, a very tiny minority of 'they' HAS gained power over the last 30+ years,

21% Of Americans is a tiny Minority Bub. No matter how you cut it. That is how many Americans say they are Liberal 21%, And were not even talking about Liberals here. Were talking about the extreme far left that has taken over the Dem Party. They reflect an even smaller Minority of Americans. They seem to want us all to shut the hell up and let them do what ever they hell they want.

The rest of your post is just you assuming you know anything at all about me and my voting past. I was always a Democrat, until the party started shifting so far to the left. It left me and millions of more fiscally and constitutionally conservative people behind. So please don't try and pretend you know me.

Peace

You're full of shit Charles. I am JFK liberal who has been around since Harry S. Truman was in the White House. The Democratic Party has moved to the RIGHT, not the left. What is considered the center today is FAR to the right of the center in the 60's.

Obama is no far leftist. America needed a second FDR and instead we got Hoover.

Please tell me ONE thing the Progressive caucus got in the health care bill? Single payer? Public option?

WHAT we got was a carbon copy of the 1993/4 Republican proposals from the Clinton health care debate.

The Republican Party has been hijacked by far right theocrats and war mongering Trotskyist neoconservatives.

Says WHO? Goldwater Republicans like Victor Gold and John Dean and even Reagan Republicans like Paul Craig Roberts and Bruce Bartlett.

Sorry Charles, go sell your fairy tale to someone that just fell off the back of a turnip truck. I know a right wing lifer when I smell one.

 

[Meister]

Actually, a very tiny minority of 'they' HAS gained power over the last 30+ years,

21% Of Americans is a tiny Minority Bub. No matter how you cut it. That is how many Americans say they are Liberal 21%, And were not even talking about Liberals here. Were talking about the extreme far left that has taken over the Dem Party. They reflect an even smaller Minority of Americans. They seem to want us all to shut the hell up and let them do what ever they hell they want.

The rest of your post is just you assuming you know anything at all about me and my voting past. I was always a Democrat, until the party started shifting so far to the left. It left me and millions of more fiscally and constitutionally conservative people behind. So please don't try and pretend you know me.

Peace

You're full of shit Charles. I am JFK liberal who has been around since Harry S. Truman was in the White House. The Democratic Party has moved to the RIGHT, not the left. What is considered the center today is FAR to the right of the center in the 60's.

Obama is no far leftist. America needed a second FDR and instead we got Hoover.

Please tell me ONE thing the Progressive caucus got in the health care bill? Single payer? Public option?

WHAT we got was a carbon copy of the 1993/4 Republican proposals from the Clinton health care debate.

The Republican Party has been hijacked by far right theocrats and war mongering Trotskyist neoconservatives.

Says WHO? Goldwater Republicans like Victor Gold and John Dean and even Reagan Republicans like Paul Craig Roberts and Bruce Bartlett.

Sorry Charles, go sell your fairy tale to someone that just fell off the back of a turnip truck. I know a right wing lifer when I smell one.

JFK democrats were far right of todays democrats. I don't know where your head was back then, but....
No matter how much you say that Obama isn't a leftist.....your not fooling the vast majority of Americans. But please continue with your yarn. I'm sure rdean, zona and jake will eat up what your saying.