Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Revolution512 1479]

How bad is trump? Liberals support this person. Socialism has completely thrown in the towel 

[RayDog 682]

2 hours ago, Revolution512 said:

How bad is trump? Liberals support this person. Socialism has completely thrown in the towel 

What is that supposed to mean?

Liberals, moderates and centrist conservatives are among the 60% of the population that support the platform of AOC and Bernie. It is social democracy not socialism.

[blackmarketbaby 118]

3 hours ago, RayDog said:

What is that supposed to mean?

Liberals, moderates and centrist conservatives are among the 60% of the population that support the platform of AOC and Bernie. It is social democracy not socialism.

No they don't. 

[RayDog 682]

32 minutes ago, blackmarketbaby said:

No they don't. 

A recent Koch funded poll showed 55% support for "government run healthcare." It usually polls at 60% or above when listed as Medicare for all.

The same Koch study showed 65% supported the 15 dollar minimum wage and 66% supported free public college.

You appear to be misinformed.

[Woodrow Call 494]

On 8/21/2018 at 9:43 AM, Chad Fuck said:

I'm wondering if she's into socialism in the bedroom.  Like maybe she invites a friend, and they put in some work, and we all get to share in the benefits.  

I'm in. 

[Woodrow Call 494]

On 8/13/2018 at 10:16 PM, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Green Party is the only hope. This thread is making sheet cake look good.

Yeah, the Dems have become feckless cowards. I'll never forget watching Schumer snuggle up to Trump during the first months of his so-called Presidency. It was disgusting. 

[RayDog 682]

13 minutes ago, Woodrow Call said:

Yeah, the Dems have become feckless cowards. I'll never forget watching Schumer snuggle up to Trump during the first months of his so-called Presidency. It was disgusting. 

When the Democrats regain the Senate majority in a couple months I hope they make Warren their  leader.

[blackmarketbaby 118]

3 hours ago, RayDog said:

A recent Koch funded poll showed 55% support for "government run healthcare." It usually polls at 60% or above when listed as Medicare for all.

The same Koch study showed 65% supported the 15 dollar minimum wage and 66% supported free public college.

You appear to be misinformed.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/

So you like liberteratrians when it fits the agenda? 

[Js1 85056]

17 minutes ago, Woodrow Call said:

Yeah, the Dems have become feckless cowards. I'll never forget watching Schumer snuggle up to Trump during the first months of his so-called Presidency. It was disgusting. 

I will give Schumer this - he figured out quickly that if you're nice to Trump behind closed doors, he'll be nice to you.  It was only a year he was tweeting about "Chuck and Nancy" and making deals and pissing off McConnell and Ryan in the Oval Office.

[Woodrow Call 494]

8 minutes ago, RayDog said:

When the Democrats regain the Senate majority in a couple months I hope they make Warren their  leader.

Zero chance of this happening, but kudos to her for promoting a good idea. 

"Elizabeth Warren has just introduced a modest bill that would require corporations to provide their employees with a minority of seats on their board of directors and consider the welfare of all those affected by corporate decisions, rather than shareholders alone. Warren’s plan is similar, though less radical, than the employee co-determination scheme that operates in Germany. "

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

6 minutes ago, Woodrow Call said:

Zero chance of this happening, but kudos to her for promoting a good idea. 

"Elizabeth Warren has just introduced a modest bill that would require corporations to provide their employees with a minority of seats on their board of directors and consider the welfare of all those affected by corporate decisions, rather than shareholders alone. Warren’s plan is similar, though less radical, than the employee co-determination scheme that operates in Germany. "

 

 

That's sort of intriguing.  First objection is that it would presumably be a federal law, when corporation law is all state, and that is more than a technical problem, I think it probably has a constitutional dimension.  Also, I tend to think that employee board members might tend to rapidly become "captured" by board interests, that is, become fatcats rather than advocates for the little guy.

A more interesting proposition might be to give voting shares/interests to employees.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

A more interesting proposition might be to give voting shares/interests to employees.

Pretty sure her legislation calls for the employees to elect 40% of board members.

[Chad Fuck 17503]

1 hour ago, Woodrow Call said:

I'm in. 

Not you, friend.

 

Sorry.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pretty sure her legislation calls for the employees to elect 40% of board members.

Appears that you are correct. And it avoids the federal problem, to an extent, by requiring federal charters.  Interdasting.

For better (and worse), I think rather than affecting directors and corporate policy outright, it might make for some interesting proxy and shareholder vote contests.  And would certainly seem to make the board more responsive to something other than next quarter's earnings report.

Gotta admit, it is a very intriguing proposition.  I am uneasy with government intervention, but this seems to be a pretty light touch.  She's a smart lady with some interesting ideas.

[Incredulity 11532]

How can Federal Charter for a business be referred to as “light touch”.  Anyone think once that power is given to the Feds it won’t be tweaked ad infintium?  What will AOC or Bernies next step be?

40% of the board.  That is no small thing either.  It’s a huge step towards Labor control of the means of production.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

12 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

How can Federal Charter for a business be referred to as “light touch”.  Anyone think once that power is given to the Feds it won’t be tweaked ad infintium?  What will AOC or Bernies next step be?

40% of the board.  That is no small thing either.  It’s a huge step towards Labor control of the means of production.

It works in Germany and, not surprisingly, Germany has a much smaller income gap.  

[Incredulity 11532]

So fucking what.  

Point being it isn’t a moderate, light touch proposal. It would be a massive structural shift.

You think Trumka got wood when he heard he could defacto control 40% of the board of mulitple Fortune 500 companies?    No chance for conflicts of interest there, right?

[GSU&UT 1798]

Oh my god, she's so radical and doesn't fully deep throat Israel!!! REEEEE!!!!

 

 

[Guest]

What is school-to-prison pipeline?

Also, any increases in property taxes to pay for even more public school money for any reason would just be lol to me, as most of even my middle aged Austin friends who are DINKs or single are already up to their ears with it and even the most liberal have started vocalizing annoyance.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Guest

[Brisketexan 104464]

6 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

What is school-to-prison pipeline?

Also, any increases in property taxes to pay for even more public school money for any reason would just be lol to me, as most of even my middle aged Austin friends who are DINKs or single are already up to their ears with it and even the most liberal have started vocalizing annoyance.

Yeah, you should tell your Austin friends who are fed up with the AISD tax rate of $1.19 per $100 of valuation to move the hell outta town!  They can go to Bastrop!  Whoops, $1.44 rate.  Move out to Dripping!  Wait....$1.52 rate.  

And of course, the point AOC is making isn't one about budget amount -- it's about budget diversion.  Instead of buying books, Betsy Devo wants to use already-allocated money for guns.

[Js1 85056]

6 hours ago, RayDog said:

A recent Koch funded poll showed 55% support for "government run healthcare." It usually polls at 60% or above when listed as Medicare for all.

The same Koch study showed 65% supported the 15 dollar minimum wage and 66% supported free public college.

You appear to be misinformed.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all

70% support MFA, including a majority of Republicans.

[David Dennison 18603]

25 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

So fucking what.  

Point being it isn’t a moderate, light touch proposal. It would be a massive structural shift.

You think Trumka got wood when he heard he could defacto control 40% of the board of mulitple Fortune 500 companies?    No chance for conflicts of interest there, right?

Why shouldn't labor have a seat at the boardroom table?

[Incredulity 11532]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Why shouldn't labor have a seat at the boardroom table?

A Board of Directors purpose is to represent the Shareholders.  

Diluting that representation is one of the most fundamentally regarded proposals ever.

Labors “seat at the table” won’t be limited to better pay, benefits, work conditions... etc. Even though thats what Vox, Mother Jones and yourself want to represent.

[wildcat09 29187]

10 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

A Board of Directors purpose is to represent the Shareholders.  

Diluting that representation is one of the most fundamentally regarded proposals ever.

Labors “seat at the table” won’t be limited to better pay, benefits, work conditions... etc. Even though thats what Vox, Mother Jones and yourself want to represent.

This is only true because laws enacted by THE GOVERNMENT (GASP!) say so.

[Brisketexan 104464]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This is only true because laws enacted by THE GOVERNMENT (GASP!) say so.

This sort of circular reasoning is exactly what we're dealing with in terms of political dialogue in this country.

"You can't do X!  It's against the law!"

"I know....what I'm proposing is, let's change the law."

"But you can't do that!  It's the law!"

[Incredulity 11532]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This is only true because laws enacted by THE GOVERNMENT (GASP!) say so.

Strawman 101.

If you’re in favor of giving 40% of the equity of every US corp over 1B in revenue to labor and the political machines that control them at least have the balls to just say so.

[wildcat09 29187]

20 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Strawman 101.

If you’re in favor of giving 40% of the equity of every US corp over 1B in revenue to labor and the political machines that control them at least have the balls to just say so.

This is a perfect post. It's like a work of art. I've never seen an erroneous assertion of the straw man fallacy double as projection for an actual straw man fallacy in the immediately following sentence. God bless you.

[Incredulity 11532]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This is a perfect post. It's like a work of art. I've never seen an erroneous assertion of the straw man fallacy double as projection for an actual straw man fallacy in the immediately following sentence. God bless you.

Horseshit.

Your argument regarding Government and Corporate Governance regulations is in fact a strawman.

Yet you still didn’t offer anything to the discussion regarding the fact Warrens proposal is expropriation of equity from shareholders to labor.

 

 

Edited August 23, 2018 by Incredulity

[wildcat09 29187]

18 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Horseshit.

Your argument regarding Government and Corporate Governance regulations is in fact a strawman.

Yet you still didn’t offer anything to the discussion regarding the fact Warrens proposal is expropriation of equity from shareholders to labor.

 

 

Oh my god, you're serious. You poor thing.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

I consider it a light touch because it isn't directly telling private enterprise to "do this" or "do that."  Of course it is telling them what to do, to a degree, but it isn't price controls, or five year plans, or even minimum wage.  it's a change to corporate governance structure that I think I can live with.

 

Hell, the enslavement of officers and directors to the next quarterly report isn't even good for corporations over the longer haul.

 

Corporations have only been accepted as legal entities for a couple hundred years.  Their structure is not etched in stone.  The connection between those who vote for directors (shareholders/employees), directors, and day to day operation of a corporation by officers is sufficiently attenuated as it stands.  Adding in an employee element isn't going to put the capital in the hands of the proles, but provide a countervailing force that could be very beneficial.

Edited August 23, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[David Dennison 18603]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

A Board of Directors purpose is to represent the Shareholders.  

Diluting that representation is one of the most fundamentally regarded proposals ever.

Labors “seat at the table” won’t be limited to better pay, benefits, work conditions... etc. Even though thats what Vox, Mother Jones and yourself want to represent.

We need to change the purpose of a corporate board of directors. They should have a duty not only to shareholders, but also to stakeholders, i.e., employees.

[Incredulity 11532]

39 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Oh my god, you're serious. You poor thing.

Of course you have nothing to offer but snide remarks.  Chickenshit

[wildcat09 29187]

Just now, Incredulity said:

Of course you have nothing to offer but snide remarks.  Chickenshit

Your empty little head isn't going to understand anything more substantive. You don't even know what the word "equity" means.

[Incredulity 11532]

17 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

We need to change the purpose of a corporate board of directors. They should have a duty not only to shareholders, but also to stakeholders, i.e., employees.

Well, at least you’re consistent in your desire to be a socialist.

[David Dennison 18603]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

Strawman 101.

If you’re in favor of giving 40% of the equity of every US corp over 1B in revenue to labor and the political machines that control them at least have the balls to just say so.

You're equating labor with organized labor. The positions reserved for employees do not necessarily have to be filled with representatives associated with organized labor. They just need to be stakeholders of the corporation. They need to be employees.

[Incredulity 11532]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Your empty little head isn't going to understand anything more substantive. You don't even know what the word "equity" means.

Please explain it Mr Wizard.  

This should be good.

[David Dennison 18603]

2 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Well, at least you’re consistent in your desire to be a socialist.

That's not even close to what socialism is.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

Also, as I read it, it isn't giving ownership/equity to employees, it's giving a shareholder vote to employees.  I would want to see details on this, but it's interesting.  Very interesting.

[Brisketexan 104464]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, as I read it, it isn't giving ownership/equity to employees, it's giving a shareholder vote to employees.  I would want to see details on this, but it's interesting.  Very interesting.

That's the way I read it.

A company board being beholden to shareholders is a creature of legislative/regulatory creation.

Numerous restrictions on how shareholder votes for board representation occur are creatures of legislative/regulatory creation.

A company being a slave to quarterly reports is a creature of legislative/regulatory creation.

Corporations, as they presently exist, are ENTIRELY creatures of legislative/regulatory creation.

 

Yet having a legislative/regulatory requirement as to the makeup of the voting pool for board members....well, THAT'S socialism?  Seriously, this is the kind of cognitive dissonance that prevents any meaningful discussion from taking place in this country.  It's perfectly akin to "keep your dirty socialist government hands off my Medicare!"

[RayDog 682]

9 hours ago, blackmarketbaby said:

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/

So you like liberteratrians when it fits the agenda? 

I don't know why the media are attacking Bernie and AOC on this.

The current total cost of healthcare is 3.3 trillion a year. The cost of Medicare for all using current Medicare rates is 3.1 trillion per year.

In the cited study the author argues that Medicare would have to raise its reimbursement rates increasing the costs to 3.26 trillion per year. His study does not dispute the 3.1 trillion number.

[Incredulity 11532]

6 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

That's the way I read it.

A company board being beholden to shareholders is a creature of legislative/regulatory creation.

Numerous restrictions on how shareholder votes for board representation occur are creatures of legislative/regulatory creation.

A company being a slave to quarterly reports is a creature of legislative/regulatory creation.

Corporations, as they presently exist, are ENTIRELY creatures of legislative/regulatory creation.

 

Yet having a legislative/regulatory requirement as to the makeup of the voting pool for board members....well, THAT'S socialism?  Seriously, this is the kind of cognitive dissonance that prevents any meaningful discussion from taking place in this country.  It's perfectly akin to "keep your dirty socialist government hands off my Medicare!"

The structure of stock corporations   predates the USA.

 

[Incredulity 11532]

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, as I read it, it isn't giving ownership/equity to employees, it's giving a shareholder vote to employees.  I would want to see details on this, but it's interesting.  Very interesting.

Yes that is correct.  And my statement, “giving equity” was meant to be sensationalistic.

It definitely would strip shareholders of value by diluting their representation on the Board of Directors.

 

 

[Brisketexan 104464]

The structure of stock corporations   predates the USA.
 

I know this seems axiomatic...but no, or as to corporations incorporated in the US it doesn’t.

Create a US corporation today, it is an creature of statute. It is a legal fiction, given life only by legislatively-created terms.

Again, the argument here is very closely related to “keep your government hands off my Medicare.”

[this 107]

9 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

It works in Germany and, not surprisingly, Germany has a much smaller income gap.  

And why is income gap a problem? Other than your jealousy, I mean. Especially when the middle class lifestyle in US will classify as upper middle class  or better in almost all countries in the world including your beloved Western Europe. Here's a liberal source that blows your assinine, stupid argument out of water: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/05/through-an-american-lens-western-europes-middle-classes-appear-smaller/

While the U.S. middle class may be smaller than those in Western Europe, its standard of living – as measured by its median income – is higher. That raises a question: What shares of adults in Western European countries have the same standard of living as the American middle class? In other words, what would the middle-class share in Western European countries be if the middle class were defined as adults living in households with the same incomes as middle-class households in the U.S.?

In 2010, middle-class households in the U.S. had incomes ranging from $35,294 to $105,881 – that is, two-thirds to double the overall median income of $52,941. This U.S. standard can be applied to any country in Western Europe after incomes are adjusted for cost-of-living differences across countries. (Incomes in this analysis are adjusted to reflect a household of three and are expressed in 2011 prices. They are also converted to purchasing power parity dollars, which adjusts for cost-of-living differences across countries. For more, see full methodology.)

When the Western European countries the Center analyzed are viewed through the lens of middle-class incomes in the U.S., the share of adults who are middle class decreases in most of them. The greatest decline is in Italy, where the middle-class share in 2010 falls from 67% under that country’s national income standard to 44% under the U.S. income standard. In other words, 44% of Italians had the same standard of living as 59% of Americans who were in the middle class in 2010.

Also Germany doesn't have the innovation, the capital markets or the consumer markets to fuel that gap which keeps their wealthiest uh, not so wealthy compared to the American wealthy. 

And as if all of this wasn't enough, US also has a larger upper middle class than these bastion of economic heavens according to you Bernies. 

In summation, European economics is something we DO NOT WANT. It is a step down. 

But carry on with your ignorance. 

 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

24 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Yes that is correct.  And my statement, “giving equity” was meant to be sensationalistic.

It definitely would strip shareholders of value by diluting their representation on the Board of Directors.

 

 

While technically true, most shareholders of public corporations (which we are considering here), dgaf about voting or representation on the board, except in a very reactive way, if then.  Share value is rarely tied to the vote.

It will force institutional shareholders, who probably do care about the vote, to occasionally come to terms with employees to carry their intentions into effect, which would probably be a good thing.  It might even throw the brakes on some of the more indefensible, churn & burn m&a and private equity deals, and that is a very good thing.

[Incredulity 11532]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I know this seems axiomatic...but no, or as to corporations incorporated in the US it doesn’t.

Create a US corporation today, it is an creature of statute. It is a legal fiction, given life only by legislatively-created terms.

Again, the argument here is very closely related to “keep your government hands off my Medicare.”

This is circular logic.

Of course every US corporate entity exists under the statues of the US.

The question is should those statutes be changed.  Not do they exist.

[wildcat09 29187]

Our big smart boy incredulity is entering the rarified Swam territory of self-owning. This is like seeing a narwhal in person.

[Incredulity 11532]

Who the fuck are you Statler or Waldorf?

[TwiceHorn 31184]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

This is circular logic.

Of course every US corporate entity exists under the statues of the US.

The question is should those statutes be changed.  Not do they exist.

Right, it's a statutory change.  In some senses, it's huge.  But it isn't terribly coercive or even all that restrictive, especially when compared to some of the alternatives.  But I would argue that some of the fears of the original detractors of societes anonyme have come to pass.  Corporations can do everything humans do, now, including apparently having civil rights, but they aren't required or seemingly able to have a conscience or morality.  This is a way to inject some back in.

[Incredulity 11532]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Right, it's a statutory change.  In some senses, it's huge.  But it isn't terribly coercive or even all that restrictive, especially when compared to some of the alternatives.  But I would argue that some of the fears of the original detractors of societes anonyme have come to pass.  Corporations can do everything humans do, now, including apparently having civil rights, but they aren't required or seemingly able to have a conscience or morality.  This is a way to inject some back in.

The government already requires conscience and morality through OSHA, DOL, SEC, EPA, ..........