Down with evil corporations!!!

[Dravin]

The discouraging thing is that if we can do it why cant they? Or is it a case of they dont want to do it?

They could do it under the same circumstances we (those of us to participated at least) did, by (one of them) being the unilateral decider of the budget. I'm not saying that Congress couldn't do better than they do, but we on that little website have a decided advantage when it comes to the ability to make decisions that Congress does not enjoy.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Dravin

[annewandering]

True but didnt we all make compromises? I know I did. What I looked at was what we could do without and what we had to do for a decent future then tried to focus on making them fit. A lot of what we can do without are things that we really could use and would make life better but we need to get things on an even keel before we work those kind of things in again.

This is what our elected but bought officials dont seem to be able to do.

Say you and I were working on the budget. Your draft budget is not going to look like mine. If we sit down and lay out our plans then see what we agree with and put those aside as done. Maybe. Then we look at each part we disagree on. Maybe we can keep some of what the other wants if we modify them a bit. Some we will just have to agree to wait for better times to fund. Some we want badly but the other doesnt. Maybe I can cut a bit on something else I want. (notice I did not say cut a bit on something HE wants) Maybe he can do the same.

Now in the end neither of us get our entire wanted plan but we get a workable one.

This is what congress is supposed to be doing. Problem is they are all looking at the next election and if they dont promise major funders things they wont get the money to be elected. Another problem is they have lost the desire to compromise because they fear it makes them look weak. Instead they just end up looking bought and stupid and the 98% know it too.

So how do we change that?

Edited October 11, 2011 by annewandering

[Dravin]

True but didnt we all make compromises? I know I did.

Who would have blocked you from clicking on one of the options if you had not conceded or compromised on something? I must have missed that version of the website. No compromise was needed to do our little thing on the website. Who did you compromise to? A hypothetical political other? I can extract great concessions from myself too.

Say you and I were working on the budget. Your draft budget is not going to look like mine. If we sit down and lay out our plans then see what we agree with and put those aside as done. Maybe. Then we look at each part we disagree on. Maybe we can keep some of what the other wants if we modify them a bit. Some we will just have to agree to wait for better times to fund. Some we want badly but the other doesnt. Maybe I can cut a bit on something else I want. (notice I did not say cut a bit on something HE wants) Maybe he can do the same.

We did no such thing though. You went to a website where you were allowed to make unilateral decisions which nobody could prevent. I did the same thing. If you go and grab 99 other (politically diverse) people (and have a group of 435 to represent the House) and manage to get them to hash out a budget then, "We did it, why can't you?" actually has some bite to it.

Trust me, my objection is not that Congress has some issues, I fully agree. I just think clicking some boxes on a website and comparing it to the difficulties of getting a large number of people (yes I'm aware you don't need 100% agreement to pass a budget) to accept something is on the naive side of things. It's kinda like the kid talking smack to a professional guitar musician because he did it in Guitar Hero and it was easy.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Dravin

[annewandering]

Who would have blocked you from clicking on one of the options if you had not conceded or compromised on something? I must have missed that version of the website.

What you looked at was what you think we could do without and the like. Once you have genuine other opinions, other than some sort of angel on your shoulder representing an opposing viewpoint that can easily be dismissed things don't become nearly so simple.

Wow. Everyone I know will be very surprised that I dont have opinions.

We did no such thing though. You went to a website where you were allowed to make unilateral decisions which nobody could prevent. I did the same thing. If you go and grab 99 other people (and have a group of 435 to represent the House) and manage to get them to hash out a budget then you can claim, "I did it, why can't you?".

So you are saying we shouldnt try to compromise? And yes I did and so did you and if we sat down I think that even you and I could come to an agreement. If not at least one of us doesnt know what compromise means.

My objection is not that Congress has some issues, I fully agree. I just think clicking some boxes on a website and comparing it to the difficulties of getting a large number of people (yes I'm aware you don't need 100% agreement in the houses) to accept something is on the naive side of things. It's kinda like the kid talking smack to a professional guitar musician because he did it in Guitar Hero and it was easy.

Oh pft. If they want to accomplish something that is their job. No where did I say it was easy. You know what? I do like Pollyanna. You know why? Because she got things done. If you start out with a rotten attitude then you will get a rotten return.

[Dravin]

If they want to accomplish something that is their job. No where did I say it was easy.

You implied we (laymen) did it, why can't they? The phrase is generally used as scorn that someone is making a bigger fuss over a task then actually exists. Or in other words that, "It's so easy I could do it." And by comparing the actualities involved to clicking some boxes on the internet you are also implying it's easy. Unless you are trying to suggesting that the website gives some appreciable feel for what it is like to wrangle in Congress? In which case I definitely didn't get that version.

If you start out with a rotten attitude then you will get a rotten return.

Who has a rotten attitude? I'm certainly not saying that it is impossible for congress to hash together a budget, or to do so better than they historically do. My point is that clicking some check boxes on a website and comparing it the the actual act of creating a budget in congress is asinine. It's the equivalent of playing Guitar Hero and figuring you know what it's like to be a professional guitar musician. You managed to be a rock star? Why aren't they?

Edited October 11, 2011 by Dravin

[annewandering]

Well there is the cup half full and the cup half empty.

Most Congressmen dont know much more about the cuts than we do. You think that because we check a box we dont have any idea what we are checking? What it means? What the implications are? I doubt anyone here is that dumb. At least I hope not.

Maybe I give too much credit to everyones intelligence? Or maybe its because I think congressmen could come to agreements if they really wanted to. Sadly not enough want it enough. If you think they do then good luck proving it.

[Dravin]

Most Congressmen dont know much more about the cuts than we do. You think that because we check a box we dont have any idea what we are checking? What it means? What the implications are? I doubt anyone here is that dumb. At least I hope not.

One of the more impressive non-sequiturs in my time, not number one though. Knowledge about the cuts and budget is moot. The massive difference between your little linked to game and actual congress is you don't have to get anyone to agree with you, there was no required compromise, debate, or even personal interaction. In the end you are comparing clicking boxes on a website game with getting a not insignificant number of people to agree with your proposed budget.

Edit: Please understand. My objection is not the idea that Congress should be more effective at creating a budget, or that they let considerations a lot of us may consider slightly (or more) scummy to get in the way of their efforts. My objection is to the idea implied that creating a budget on some website game is anything like the experience of negotiating a budget in congress. Even if we remove the scummy aspects of it, it still remains a quite different challenge because it involves people with differing viewpoints having to come together in compromise versus being able to click boxes unopposed.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Dravin

[Echo2002]

I think these protests are silly. Who do they think are responsible for providing jobs for Americans? It's not the Government, the Government can't create jobs, it's private businesses, big or small that create jobs. Ok so there are some companies out there who they think are greedy, do they really think that by protesting the company is going to say, "ok, we won't be greedy anymore, we will cap our profits to make it fair for everyone". No company should have to cap it's profits, a successful business is successful because we made it successful.

I don't think half the protestors even know what they are protesting for. I just hope it doesn't turn violent (I've heard some reports it already has) because it will be just like what they had to deal with in Europe.

[FunkyTown]

I'm uneasy with this SpringGirl. I respect you and what you have to say, but I think you're saying something here that even you don't believe.

1) Do you believe that companies should be able to pay people with credit, like the old mining companies did, where people would be economically enslaved because they would leave the job solely with lots of debt? If not, why not? Other companies used the metals, rare earths and gemstones that the mining companies produced and many were successful.

2) Do you believe that companies should be able to refuse to pay their employees for work, as many occasionally did before Unions came along?

Those are just a couple of examples. If you do believe those scenarios are wrong, know that most people disagree with you. Those policies were changed in law because of people protesting.

They were protesting because people with money had far more power than people without. Only by joining forces were they able to enact changes that they felt would make things more fair.

Thirdly: Wall Street has a problem. People are playing with Monopoly money. They are making investments, seeking to maximize profits by taking risks. If they succeed at the dice toss, they walk away with six and seven figures or more in bonuses. If they fail, they move to another company on Wall Street and start again, having lost nothing because it wasn't their money. In times of plenty, the risks were minimal and the profits plentiful. This caused the problem to not be apparent. Now that the risks are far greater because of market volatility, we still have Wall Street filled with the personality type that is attracted to that sort of job: Alpha males willing to take tremendous risks for tremendous reward.

They are still not personally invested in success or failure to the same degree that the country is dependent upon them.

Lastly: Wages have steadily risen in comparison to inflation for the past fifty years. This much is true. I want you now to remove the banking/investment industry from that equation. Once you do, compare wages to inflation for the past 20 years: The death of Manufacturing and skilled labor has made a bit more impact than many let on.

What's the solution? I don't know. But I'm glad people are angry. They have a right to be.

I think these protests are silly. Who do they think are responsible for providing jobs for Americans? It's not the Government, the Government can't create jobs, it's private businesses, big or small that create jobs. Ok so there are some companies out there who they think are greedy, do they really think that by protesting the company is going to say, "ok, we won't be greedy anymore, we will cap our profits to make it fair for everyone". No company should have to cap it's profits, a successful business is successful because we made it successful.

I don't think half the protestors even know what they are protesting for. I just hope it doesn't turn violent (I've heard some reports it already has) because it will be just like what they had to deal with in Europe.

[Spartan117]

I honestly never EVER thought the American public had it in them to organize and protest like they have.

[RipplecutBuddha]

I didn't like the budget simulator. It is not the real budget, it is just the hot-button toics affecting the budget, which are largely trivial in the long run. Give me the real budget and full flexibility in how/where the money is spent/cut, and I'd have the budget balanced almost overnight.

Among other issues, I want the ability to;

Constitutionalize a balanced budget amendment; spending cannot exceed available funds at any time other than officially declared times of war.

eradicate the current tax code and have a flat 7% national sales tax, internet sales included.

set income tax at 7% for all wage earners

de-fund the Departmenet of Education, which didn't exist until the '60's and has yet to show effectiveness in any of its related goals

sell off or make available for sale all federally-owned land not currently used for any purpose, as well as any land not slated for use in the next two calendar years.

establish term limits on all federally elected positions to two terms. If it's good enough for the President, it ought to apply to the rest of the lot.

set federally elected positions pay to whatever percentage of the GDP that would place them right at the bottom third level of all wage earners. Transportation for Gov't related travel would be included, but the current health care plan would be lowered to whatever the individual could find on the market available to an average private citizen, and retirement would be whatever SS they could salvage plus personal investments

cut funding to all non-constitutional Gov't expenditures domestically, including the Smithsonian museums. We're paying taxes to operate them, why pay to enter and get stuff from the gift shop?

Eliminate Federal Gov't labor unions. Federal employees are paid with money the citizens must give.

cut amtrak loose.

Open SS to supplemental investments by contributors, and lock off access to the mony by any other Gov't entity for any other purpose.

There's more but you get the idea....none of the issues the simulator works with will have any meaningful impact on the budget in the long term.

[Spartan117]

I'd like the federal government to operate completely inside the bounds set in the constitution.

I want the antitrust laws abolished, and I want businesses to to make it on their own in a real free market that doesn't have federal law safety nets. I want business to bear the full weight of their work, if they make a billion dollars then that's what they get. If you spend half a million dollars on bonuses and retreats for your "top" agents who run the company in the ground, then you get that. And you get to live it.

I want risk returned to the marketplace. No more limited liability, no more corporate personhood or extended human rights to businesses.

[beefche]

Constitutionalize a balanced budget amendment; spending cannot exceed available funds at any time other than officially declared times of war.

eradicate the current tax code and have a flat 7% national sales tax, internet sales included. Amen!

set income tax at 7% for all wage earners Amen!

de-fund the Departmenet of Education, which didn't exist until the '60's and has yet to show effectiveness in any of its related goals Didn't know that DOE didn't exist until 60's

sell off or make available for sale all federally-owned land not currently used for any purpose, as well as any land not slated for use in the next two calendar years. Nope, not agreeing with that

establish term limits on all federally elected positions to two terms. If it's good enough for the President, it ought to apply to the rest of the lot. AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

set federally elected positions pay to whatever percentage of the GDP that would place them right at the bottom third level of all wage earners. Transportation for Gov't related travel would be included, but the current health care plan would be lowered to whatever the individual could find on the market available to an average private citizen, and retirement would be whatever SS they could salvage plus personal investments THAT IS BRILLIANT!

cut funding to all non-constitutional Gov't expenditures domestically, including the Smithsonian museums. We're paying taxes to operate them, why pay to enter and get stuff from the gift shop?

Eliminate Federal Gov't labor unions. Federal employees are paid with money the citizens must give.

cut amtrak loose.

Open SS to supplemental investments by contributors, and lock off access to the mony by any other Gov't entity for any other purpose.

There's more but you get the idea....none of the issues the simulator works with will have any meaningful impact on the budget in the long term.

Some of those really caught my interest.

[HoosierGuy]

The title of this thread is called Down with evil corporations!!!

We liberals/progressives do not want to end corporations or kill them off. We are not against the basic idea of corporations. And we are not against the wealthy either. I don't care how many Ferrari cars you have. If you have ten and want to buy ten more, fine! If you want to buy a billion Ferrari cars, fine! I don't care. Go buy an old castle in Italy, I don't care.

What we are against is the growing bad power that corporations exert. They are gaining more and more power but at the expense of the rights and freedoms of the individual Americans. Plus they show very little loyalty to their home country.

We are all equal and should have the same rights. Corporations should not have special rights that let them abuse the rights of the rest of us, the individuals.

Your house should have the same importance as any corporation. Your apartment or mobile home or whatever you live in should have the same rights as corporations. And since corporations are not real people, corporations should have far less rights than we humans do.

People who argue for the "job makers" are enslaving themselves and their own kind. That's no shock though. Half the men in the country work to enslave their own children.

I'm starting to see where the old Greek religion comes from where Cronus eats his old children. It seems to happen every day in America since 1980.

[Dravin]

What we are against is the growing bad power that corporations exert. They are gaining more and more power but at the expense of the rights and freedoms of the individual Americans. Plus they show very little loyalty to their home country.

If the American consumer wasn't willing to buy products made in Taiwan or Mexico various corporations wouldn't be shifting things over seas. Obviously this doesn't apply to stuff like hiring programmers because there isn't a "Programmed by Americans" sticker on software you can check, but when we're talking things like t-shirts, electronics, and the like there is. The Americans who buy the T-shirts made in Mexico are no more loyal than the company that makes them in Mexico. The consumer has communicated quite clearly that we are happy having our TVs made in Southeast Asia so that we get them cheaper, businesses are simply giving us what we want: The items as cheap as possible even if it means it is made outside of the USA.

[FunkyTown]

Yep. People are inherently short-sighted and corrupt. The American consumer in general is at fault for what's going on, but the people with money and power are every bit as short-sighted and corrupt as the people with little money and power. This doesn't let those in power off the hook. It just means things need to change in general.

If the American consumer wasn't willing to buy products made in Taiwan or Mexico various corporations wouldn't be shifting things over seas. Obviously this doesn't apply to stuff like hiring programmers because there isn't a "Programmed by Americans" sticker of software, but when we're talking things like t-shirts, electronics, and the like. The American who buys the T-shirt made in Mexico is no more loyal than the company that makes it. The consumer has communicated quite clearly that we are happy having out TVs made in Southeast Asia so that we get them cheaper, businesses are simply giving us what we want: The items as cheap as possible even if it means it is made outside of the USA.

[John11111]

So lemme get this straight, If I were to work my butt off because I wanted 4 cars, and A tv in all 4 of my bedrooms.

My 3 neighbors should have the right to take 3 of my cars because they dont have there own? 3 of my tvs because they cant afford one themselves?

So whats the point of working past a certain point? What incentive is there for growth? If everything I make from a certain point on goes to other people then why should I keep working?

Maybe im just selfish and greedy? Or maybe I dont think its fair I have to share my hardearned money with people who are lazy...

I know we aiming at the super rich powerful greedy people but when we start going down that road where does it stop?

Edited October 17, 2011 by John11111

[FunkyTown]

So lemme get this straight, If I were to work my butt off because I wanted 4 cars, and A tv in all 4 of my bedrooms.

My 3 neighbors should have the right to take 3 of my cars because they dont have there own? 3 of my tvs because they cant afford one themselves?

So whats the point of working past a certain point? What incentive is there for growth? If everything I make from a certain point on goes to other people then why should I keep working?

Maybe im just selfish and greedy? Or maybe I dont think its fair I have to share my hardearned money with people who are lazy...

I know we aiming at the super rich powerful greedy people but when we start going down that road where does it stop?

John? Can you quote who it is you're responding to?

As far as I can tell, nobody has said anything even remotely close to what you're saying in this thread. If you could go ahead and quote the person you think has said what you said after 'Let me get this straight', then I think they could better make sure you had it straight.

As it is, there's nobody even saying anything even remotely close to what you've suggested was said here.

[John11111]

1% of the population makes massive amounts of money and everyone wants to force that top 1% to spread the wealth? Maybe im just confused? As much as I wouldnt mind having some of that wealth spread to me when does it stop?

Im just trying to get a better understanding on whats going on and from what im reading it seems like the scenario I posted is what we are trying to do to the owners of the corporations?

They make too much money so they need to share it?

I wasnt replying to anyone in particular, im basically asking if the scenario I posted is what people are wanting in a simpler fashion.

[FunkyTown]

I wasnt replying to anyone in particular, im basically asking if the scenario I posted is what people are wanting in a simpler fashion.

Ah! Fair enough. Then the answer to your question is 'No'.

[Backroads]

1% of the population makes massive amounts of money and everyone wants to force that top 1% to spread the wealth? Maybe im just confused? As much as I wouldnt mind having some of that wealth spread to me when does it stop?

Im just trying to get a better understanding on whats going on and from what im reading it seems like the scenario I posted is what we are trying to do to the owners of the corporations?

They make too much money so they need to share it?

I wasnt replying to anyone in particular, im basically asking if the scenario I posted is what people are wanting in a simpler fashion.

Didn't see anything until this last post, but I agree with you in essence. I'm sure what people really want is a lot more complex than this, but to me it seems to be the basic idea.

A lot of people say we have a moral obligation to help others in need and I agree. I think more highly of people who do share than those who don't. But who am I to demand they share? Forced charity is not true charity.

[skippy740]

Per Moderator discussion, we are closing threads in relation to the "occupy" movement and classifying it as a political movement.

Even though this is "anti-occupy", it still classifies as discussion on a political movement and therefore are closing the thread.