First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last

We need to talk about the Republican parties voting record.

Post Reply
mxdan 
12386 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 6/16/18 , edited 6/16/18
I'd like to hear from you why you think the Republican party is justified in routinely fighting for corporate rights over your own. I'm all ears.



June 15th:





10255 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
20 / M / Palm Coast, Florida
Offline
Posted 6/16/18 , edited 6/16/18
Okay.
16554 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
14 / M
Offline
Posted 6/16/18 , edited 6/16/18
14010 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
32 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 6/16/18 , edited 6/16/18
Not everything on your list is bad, e.g. "Protect Women’s Health From Corporate Interference Act" more like "Force Companies to Finance Employee Abortion Act."
38563 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/16/18 , edited 6/16/18
Not that you don't have a point that the GOP generally serves businesses and management over consumers and labourers, but that's been known for quite some time now. They pretty much wear that on their sleeve. You know what you're getting. The more interesting conversation, I think, is that there often seems to be just enough Democrats to help the GOP get the big ones through if they can't squeak it out themselves and that Democrats appear to be all too willing to turn on their principles at the slightest convenience for their leadership. The truth is that neither major political party in the United States is worth a damn anymore.

Maybe some examples to illustrate will help.

See how Democrats voted in favour of backing up paper ballots pretty strongly? Meanwhile, in Broward County, FL a Democratic elections official illegally destroyed paper ballots for the primary race between Tim Canova and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Another Democratic elections official illegally purged more than 200,000 people from the voting rolls during the New York presidential primary race. Jim Keady said in a recent interview with Jimmy Dore that during ballot selection in New Jersey the chairman of a Democratic screening committee was sneaking additional delegates into the voting facility after ballots had already been collected and were being tallied.

See how Dodd-Frank was passed pretty strongly by Democrats? Well, there were enough crossover votes from the Democratic side to dramatically roll back the standards of scrutiny that legislation put on banking institutions. They put small local banks and credit unions in front of the real paymasters (gargantuan international banks) for the repeal as a sort of PR plough and went ahead with helping the GOP push repeal through.

I've got more, but you get the idea.
mxdan 
12386 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 6/16/18 , edited 6/16/18

BlueOni wrote:

Not that you don't have a point that the GOP generally serves businesses and management over consumers and labourers, but that's been known for quite some time now. They pretty much wear that on their sleeve. You know what you're getting. The more interesting conversation, I think, is that there often seems to be just enough Democrats to help the GOP get the big ones through if they can't squeak it out themselves and that Democrats appear to be all too willing to turn on their principles at the slightest convenience for their leadership. The truth is that neither major political party in the United States is worth a damn anymore.

Maybe some examples to illustrate will help.

See how Democrats voted in favour of backing up paper ballots pretty strongly? Meanwhile, in Broward County, FL a Democratic elections official illegally destroyed paper ballots for the primary race between Tim Canova and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Another Democratic elections official illegally purged more than 200,000 people from the voting rolls during the New York presidential primary race. Jim Keady said in a recent interview with Jimmy Dore that during ballot selection in New Jersey the chairman of a Democratic screening committee was sneaking additional delegates into the voting facility after ballots had already been collected and were being tallied.

See how Dodd-Frank was passed pretty strongly by Democrats? Well, there were enough crossover votes from the Democratic side to dramatically roll back the standards of scrutiny that legislation put on banking institutions. They put small local banks and credit unions in front of the real paymasters (gargantuan international banks) for the repeal as a sort of PR plough and went ahead with helping the GOP push repeal through.

I've got more, but you get the idea.


Fair point. The Democrats are prone to outliers of corruption and seem to lack a unilateral support in important moments.

So my question then becomes -- Have the people deemed that fighting for Republican office and by extension corporate office is acceptable or are they being mislead to a degree? I tend to think that while kind of obvious one could easily get lost behind the personal freedom and limit small government jargon. In fact, it would seem they only care about putting limitations on the very thing that would hold them accountable for they money they make in the process of their time in office.

Secondly, there is nothing in the constitution that I'm aware of that deems it necessary to protect and serve certain conglomerate groups. Their duty is to protect and serve the peoples of the united states, not just an aspect of it. Especially when it harms the majority overall and liberates their own personal success and platitudes.

I'm interested in this because while I do think Democrats to be just as corrupt in many regards, they still don't exhibit a complete and total disregard for their countrymen and neighboring countrymen. Which if I think about it is something that has only gone to hell in the last 30 years or so.

Republicans and Democrats used to agree on certain things -- Leveling the playing field to liberate citizens, limiting corporate power that's centralized, funding programs that push power away from central bodies and into the hands of everyone. They now believe in centralized power, just not government power, but corporate power. This power exists in the hands of fewer and fewer because they embolden those with the most pull.

At the end of the day they, as public servants, could agree that giving prosperity to many was in their interest. The blatant selfishness and lack of ethics going on in Washington right now threatens the stability of not just the country, but of many.
Posted 6/16/18 , edited 6/16/18
I think you misunderstand the democrats and their "support for their countrymen." Typically, and this is mostly going to be anecdotal, they're populists who pass laws that people want with little regard to the actual consequences of those actions. To name a few, Social Security and Obamacare. Social security was a good way to secure votes in elderly demographics back in the day but now it's our single most excessive budgetary deficits. We spend nearly twice on Social Security what we spend on our vastly excessive military. Any economist will tell you that Social Security was an absurd idea that could've easily been replaced by a program instituting better financial education from public institutions and a vast expansion of tax exempt retirement accounts. Obamacare on the other hand secured votes in the poorer demographics but in all had a negative net impact. In my state alone, after every other health insurance corporation pulled out, the last remaining healthcare corp raised my premiums by 300%.

Avoiding mention anything about their absurd social policies and moral crusading in order to not start a flame war, the democrats are at the very least fiscally irresponsible. The only time I am grateful for them is when Conservatives go too far and the Democrats actually champion consumer rights and overturn actual social injustices. Otherwise their federalist policies only work until the bills come due.

Republicans are less populist and care far less what the mob wants. Not giving into what the mob wants it not innately a slight against their countrymen. That being said, it makes them far less responsive to their constituency. Their stance on net neutrality is a good example. While some of their intentions were good, repealing excessive bureaucracy in order to hand regulatory power over to an agency more apt to regulate the industry, the FTC, they were shortsighted in leaving the country without a plan ready to put in place immediately after repealing. Contrary to popular belief, massive mergers and corporate favoring legislation is not terrible for the country. Mergers can prove to be incredibly beneficial to people in ways that they don't even seen just by way of the basic economic principle of economies of scale. Larger companies can offer more products at lower prices. Lower prices means lower poverty. Actually lower poverty, not some stilted unemployment program that just shifts the burden of poverty around. Corporations are just organizations of people looking to make a profit. The general population can participate and benefit from corporations. They are not innately evil.

That being said, the Republicans have far too much faith in economics and hear no evil, see no evil when it comes to greed. This can be demonstrated by the disproportionate rise in corporate earnings compared to wages in recent years. This is also demonstrated by the erosion of consumer protections with no discernible direct or indirect benefit for the people. Republicans are also inept at gauging a non monetary gain for society. Their stance on environmental policies is a great example of this.

Both parties have a strength. Republicans bring stability through ignoring the mob and focusing on what they can't see for their own benefit. Democrats bring protection by making sure that everything that is done by the government has some benefit to its people. The problem isn't that they don't cooperate. They aren't meant to. They're opposites. The problem is that now they're simply trying to beat one another. And if one wins, we lose the stabilizing strength of the other.

If the government could effectively promote unhindered corporate growth, immensely aiding our economy, while also ensuring that corporations proportionately benefit the people and do not exploit them, this would be the ideal scenario.

29805 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 6/16/18 , edited 6/16/18
Yep, and if Trump hadn't drug the party to a nationalist platform votes for big business merged with free market policy would be bad. But supporting big business and encouraging them stay in the country with lower taxes and high import tariffs will right the ship in a few years.
mxdan 
12386 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 6/16/18 , edited 6/17/18

1337larry wrote:

I think you misunderstand the democrats and their "support for their countrymen." Typically, and this is mostly going to be anecdotal, they're populists who pass laws that people want with little regard to the actual consequences of those actions. To name a few, Social Security and Obamacare.


Disagree wholeheartedly.

While there is an element of populism to every political party to an extent these were things that the public more or less wanted done. Aside from ignoring the situation what would you have done?

Your arguments seems to be that of something in the economy for currency value over that of value in other areas. How do we put a number to combined value from someone whose life is better off due to help from obamacare and social security? We can't. The utilitarianism your argument is dependent on is one of numbers and numbers alone. People aren't numbers. They desired something, and public servants more or lies tried to answer. You may say it bleeds the economy and therefore it isn't good out of some cold mechanism but say that to the person whose loved ones life was helped.


Social security was a good way to secure votes in elderly demographics back in the day but now it's our single most excessive budgetary deficits. We spend nearly twice on Social Security what we spend on our vastly excessive military. Any economist will tell you that Social Security was an absurd idea that could've easily been replaced by a program instituting better financial education from public institutions and a vast expansion of tax exempt retirement accounts.


Hindsight is twenty twenty but something is better then never acting at all. Especially when something was needed in the time.


Obamacare on the other hand secured votes in the poorer demographics but in all had a negative net impact. In my state alone, after every other health insurance corporation pulled out, the last remaining healthcare corp raised my premiums by 300%.


My experience was positive. The experience was positive for many. Your experience was but one of many. The demands to help those who couldn't afford care was necessary though. Compounding medical debt was a real issue.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/upshot/grading-obamacare-successes-failures-and-incompletes.html


Avoiding mention anything about their absurd social policies and moral crusading in order to not start a flame war, the democrats are at the very least fiscally irresponsible. The only time I am grateful for them is when Conservatives go too far and the Democrats actually champion consumer rights and overturn actual social injustices. Otherwise their federalist policies only work until the bills come due.


If not for liberal like consumer thought the corporate abuses would be too great to account for. Public health would be all over the damn place. You and I both know that public concern is almost always ignored by the modern republican party. They seek to only liberate their own success under the veil of the policy you describe. But the policy concern like this doesn't exist anymore; Only selfishness.

When the bills come due? Don't make me laugh. They just gave the single biggest tax break in decades. The bills we owe are growing exponentially and now we are getting in trade wars that will only serve to make these debts steeper. Republicans of today care little for American stability.


Republicans are less populist and care far less what the mob wants.


Trump? Reagan? They serve their brand of economic idealism.


Not giving into what the mob wants it not innately a slight against their countrymen.


The Tea Party?


That being said, it makes them far less responsive to their constituency. Their stance on net neutrality is a good example. While some of their intentions were good, repealing excessive bureaucracy in order to hand regulatory power over to an agency more apt to regulate the industry, the FTC, they were shortsighted in leaving the country without a plan ready to put in place immediately after repealing. Contrary to popular belief, massive mergers and corporate favoring legislation is not terrible for the country. Mergers can prove to be incredibly beneficial to people in ways that they don't even seen just by way of the basic economic principle of economies of scale. Larger companies can offer more products at lower prices. Lower prices means lower poverty. Actually lower poverty, not some stilted unemployment program that just shifts the burden of poverty around. Corporations are just organizations of people looking to make a profit. The general population can participate and benefit from corporations. They are not innately evil.


Their job isn't to serve corporations. The founders wrote the constitution for people. Along the way we deemed corporations were people, something that still stands in my eyes as the single greatest mistake in American history. But corporations are a mass of people with endless resources and means to make decisions far better then a single person. This makes their pull far greater. The only pull a corporation knows is it's shareholders. They aren't like people. People seek food, shelter, family stability, happiness, etc. These things liberate us. A corporation knows no struggle beyond that of currency and so it should be no surprise that they influence our government to acquire more and more.

Greed with no bounds is evil frankly speaking. These companies have no allegiance to moral procedure. Why is it that Sociopaths succeed in CEO positions at a greater rate then people who aren't?


That being said, the Republicans have far too much faith in economics and hear no evil, see no evil when it comes to greed. This can be demonstrated by the disproportionate rise in corporate earnings compared to wages in recent years. This is also demonstrated by the erosion of consumer protections with no discernible direct or indirect benefit for the people. Republicans are also inept at gauging a non monetary gain for society. Their stance on environmental policies is a great example of this.

Agreed.


Both parties have a strength. Republicans bring stability through ignoring the mob and focusing on what they can't see for their own benefit. Democrats bring protection by making sure that everything that is done by the government has some benefit to its people. The problem isn't that they don't cooperate. They aren't meant to. They're opposites. The problem is that now they're simply trying to beat one another. And if one wins, we lose the stabilizing strength of the other.


Trump has systematically tried to destroy every policy Obama was involved in so your right. And I agree for the most part, but this is assuming the system is functioning under the pretense you think it is. I'm not convinced >_>.

The Republican party has shown little regard for policy that doesn't effect them and overwhelming regard for policy that does. If you can prove to me otherwise I'll revise my opinion.


If the government could effectively promote unhindered corporate growth, immensely aiding our economy, while also ensuring that corporations proportionately benefit the people and do not exploit them, this would be the ideal scenario.


Inhibiting corporate growth does aid our economy. It allows for startups and smaller more local communities and businesses to thrive. It makes it so Walmart can't dictate what prices they get on items that make them far cheaper then their competitors. It emboldens communities.

Democrats and Republicans used to tear down monopolies. Now they help them succeed more.
38563 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/16/18 , edited 6/16/18

mxdan wrote:

Fair point. The Democrats are prone to outliers of corruption and seem to lack a unilateral support in important moments.

So my question then becomes -- Have the people deemed that fighting for Republican office and by extension corporate office is acceptable or are they being mislead to a degree? I tend to think that while kind of obvious one could easily get lost behind the personal freedom and limit small government jargon. In fact, it would seem they only care about putting limitations on the very thing that would hold them accountable for they money they make in the process of their time in office.





Secondly, there is nothing in the constitution that I'm aware of that deems it necessary to protect and serve certain conglomerate groups. Their duty is to protect and serve the peoples of the united states, not just an aspect of it. Especially when it harms the majority overall and liberates their own personal success and platitudes.


Doing so is arguably pursuing fulfillment of the Welfare Clause via the Commerce Clause. That is to say, promoting the general welfare by setting up a regulatory environment where businesses are able to reliably and effectively operate. The problem is that no specific criteria are enumerated for promotion of the general welfare, so it's left to present day executives, legislators, judges, and constituents to determine what sort of regulatory environment to establish for the sake of promoting this or that sort of welfare. The Republican Party generally holds that a minimal regulatory environment is needed to foster economic growth, which will in turn improve living standards on its own. I would say that theory hasn't panned out and that the influence of campaign contributions and implicit guarantees of well-paid do nothing consulting jobs after politicians' and regulators' government service concludes play no small part in that strategy's continued pursuit, but that's just my own take on the situation.


I'm interested in this because while I do think Democrats to be just as corrupt in many regards, they still don't exhibit a complete and total disregard for their countrymen and neighboring countrymen. Which if I think about it is something that has only gone to hell in the last 30 years or so.


Which lines up with when the superdelegate system was put into place and Democratic strategists and consultants started insisting the more effective way to win elections would be to mirror Republicans' economic talking points. It's a coincidence, I'm sure.

Still, I don't want to overstate my case there and say this is altogether new. This sort of situation has been observed in US politics before. The days of Tammany Hall's slimy tendrils driving the fate of races would be a great example.


Republicans and Democrats used to agree on certain things -- Leveling the playing field to liberate citizens, limiting corporate power that's centralized, funding programs that push power away from central bodies and into the hands of everyone. They now believe in centralized power, just not government power, but corporate power. This power exists in the hands of fewer and fewer because they embolden those with the most pull.

At the end of the day they, as public servants, could agree that giving prosperity to many was in their interest. The blatant selfishness and lack of ethics going on in Washington right now threatens the stability of not just the country, but of many.


I'm sceptical of the idea that there was ever a time when Republicans and Democrats held hands in a sort of kumbaya moment and got together to try to find ways to limit the influence of commercial interests and big money donors over US political institutions, so you'll have to show me what you're talking about. I will, however, commend you for having that and promoting prosperity for the many, not the few as your goal.
Banned
runec 
43177 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/16/18 , edited 6/17/18

jtjumper wrote:
Not everything on your list is bad, e.g. "Protect Women’s Health From Corporate Interference Act" more like "Force Companies to Finance Employee Abortion Act."


Er, the word "abortion" doesn't even appear in the act. The act was about birth control coverage.



MysticGon wrote:
Yep, and if Trump hadn't drug the party to a nationalist platform votes for big business merged with free market policy would be bad. But supporting big business and encouraging them stay in the country with lower taxes and high import tariffs will right the ship in a few years.


Trade wars are not a positive. Your ship is going to capsize.



6376 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
F / BuBbLeS!
Offline
Posted 6/17/18 , edited 6/17/18
they reverted the NN back to pre 2016 aka before Obama destroyed it, it's now more fair and it's a joke bill in the first place put into effect by Bill C, it needs to be destroyed and redone, alone with a LOT more laws that are present.

oh look the dems are against the shackles on the people in regards to food stamps, republicans have always believed in a hand up, dems have always believed in a hand out. granted this is in our era, because one has to remember once upon a time the left were right and the right were left, around the civil war era the parties began to switch things around, possibly a tiny before, but civil war marks the actual turning point on so many levels.

min wage and paycheck fairness... why should someone who went to college be forced to make the same thing as someone who just joined the work force, let alone someone who's been on the job for 20 years, why are they entitled to the same amount. work up, the illusion society is under these days is disconcerting.

the "anti-hobby lobby" bill, well that's disappointing. why should a company be forced to give out the rights to abortions? they don't stop the giving of birth control, but if you want an abortion that's on you. and yes there are abortion pills, taken for 2 weeks within the first trimester. and some don't do birth control pills either, which should be a right unless it's medically needed for something, otherwise use condoms, better on the body and system long term.

12539 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/18/18 , edited 6/18/18

mxdan wrote:




Their job isn't to serve corporations. The founders wrote the constitution for people. Along the way we deemed corporations were people, something that still stands in my eyes as the single greatest mistake in American history. But corporations are a mass of people with endless resources and means to make decisions far better then a single person. This makes their pull far greater. The only pull a corporation knows is it's shareholders. They aren't like people. People seek food, shelter, family stability, happiness, etc. These things liberate us. A corporation knows no struggle beyond that of currency and so it should be no surprise that they influence our government to acquire more and more.
.


So much of this is just ... false. I mean, factually incorrect. As, "What planet are you living on?" kind of incorrect. Most corporations don't even have shareholders. Corporations do not have endless resources. They are limited by bottom line factors. Corporations do not know only the pull of shareholders. They also feel the pull of taxes, employee satisfaction, wage demands, a zillion other market forces like supply and demand for their materials, labor, and skilled employees. It's like ... out of touch. Like, Karl Marx out of touch. Have you ever worked?
mxdan 
12386 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 6/18/18 , edited 6/18/18

karatecowboy wrote:


mxdan wrote:




Their job isn't to serve corporations. The founders wrote the constitution for people. Along the way we deemed corporations were people, something that still stands in my eyes as the single greatest mistake in American history. But corporations are a mass of people with endless resources and means to make decisions far better then a single person. This makes their pull far greater. The only pull a corporation knows is it's shareholders. They aren't like people. People seek food, shelter, family stability, happiness, etc. These things liberate us. A corporation knows no struggle beyond that of currency and so it should be no surprise that they influence our government to acquire more and more.
.


So much of this is just ... false. I mean, factually incorrect. As, "What planet are you living on?" kind of incorrect. Most corporations don't even have shareholders. Corporations do not have endless resources. They are limited by bottom line factors. Corporations do not know only the pull of shareholders. They also feel the pull of taxes, employee satisfaction, wage demands, a zillion other market forces like supply and demand for their materials, labor, and skilled employees. It's like ... out of touch. Like, Karl Marx out of touch. Have you ever worked?


Once again you serve to muddy up points and characterize the overall pretense to something someone wasn't making a point on.

Mod Edit: Removed the passive aggressive comment calling someone else passive aggressive. This has actually been a mostly civil and intelligent discourse so far, let's not let it go off the rail.

I've both worked and I'm not a marxist. Not only have I worked but I've done hard labor -- backbreaking picking up 60 pound slabs on a roof in the middle of summer labor. But I'm sure that won't stop you from your crusade to hunt Russian witches.

Your conflating massive multinational corporations with local ones. Of course they have bottom lines amigo >_>, that wasn't my point. My point was the pull they have is something your local business starter has almost no chance of competing with. Some have shareholders, some don't, that is unimportant. But my point was obviously meant for massive 'control 50% of the market' corporations of which there are few and for you to conflate that point towards something I wasn't talking about simply shows you simply being untruthful.. Again.
12539 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/18/18 , edited 6/18/18

mxdan wrote:

Once again you serve to muddy up points and characterize the overall pretense to something someone wasn't making a point on. I'm not surprised though, it seems to be what your best at.

I've both worked and I'm not a marxist. Not only have I worked but I've done hard labor -- backbreaking picking up 60 pound slabs on a roof in the middle of summer labor.

Your conflating massive multinational corporations with local ones. Of course they have bottom lines amigo >_>, that wasn't my point (Really? I mean, Really?). My point was the pull they have is something your local business starter has almost no chance of competing with. Some have shareholders, some don't, that is unimportant. But my point was obviously meant for massive 'control 50% of the market' corporations of which there are few and for you to conflate that point towards something I wasn't talking about simply shows you simply being untruthful.. Again.


... or you just did a poor job communicating your point; putting the word 'obviously' in front of something doesn't make it so. Reading your paragraph, it comes across as a gross misunderstanding of business management. And, if you're talking about big MNCs, well, you're still grossly out of touch. I've worked at big MNCs, and "their shareholders" is not 'the only pull' by a long shot. And, if you didn't really mean that it's the only pull then why write that?
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.