This is, IMO, the heart of the problem. The sole objective of the publicly-traded company is ROI. It's not greed, because it's not emotional. And it won't change unless and until we decide that the purpose of the economic system of a democracy is to enable better lives for the people that democracy represents, instead of just creating a good business environment in which to build shareholder equity. And I'm not holding my breath.
This is, IMO, the heart of the problem. The sole objective of the publicly-traded company is ROI. It's not greed, because it's not emotional. And it won't change unless and until we decide that the purpose of the economic system of a democracy is to enable better lives for the people that democracy represents, instead of just creating a good business environment in which to build shareholder equity. And I'm not holding my breath.
Agree, but disagree. Executives are insanely compensated with stock options. Their self interest is in increasing shareholder value since it benefits them. They will blabber how great they are for society, and incompetent politicians will agree, and take their campaign contributions.
Make a law that no individual can be given any extra compensation (stocks, anything other than cash) in regard to their corporate employment then I can live with that. Cash only for everyone.
Yup, the campaign finance laws the SCOTUS approved are disgusting. I am empathetic for Scalia's family and friends but I thank god he's gone. Citizens United was irresponsible and an obviously bad decision.
The GOP is rupturing and their fear-based policies are being dragged into the light. The support for Trump is embarrassing, it's sad that many people support such a disgusting person... he stands for and campaigns on fear and hate.
My guess is people aren't going to put up with the GOP's current obstructionist tactics for much longer and soon the GOP will be a memory. IMO, the way they have approached their job in the Legislative branch is approaching treason.
Yes, but paid vacation is not a legal requirement. Many people have to work for years to get a couple weeks of paid vacation.
The stats for Denmark are wrong, they also get quite a few paid holidays on top of paid vacation leave. Basically, they get about 6 weeks off per year, paid. Workers in the US are guaranteed nothing at all.
Obviously, American workers are getting screwed big time and appear to take a certain pride in this witnessed by the conviction with which they sing their national anthem and say their pledge of allegiance and continue to declare the place the greatest nation on earth. I'm a little puzzled by the statistic though, because I get about 20 days of paid vacation, as do many many other american workers.
Why should anyone get paid not to work? You work, you get paid, you don't work, you don't get paid. I can accept giving a few sick days per year as a perk or a courtesy, but beyond that, people should carry their own insurance if they desire. Nobody pays me if I don't work.
You do understand, I hope, that using all of the tools available to the Senate to push back against what you think is an unacceptable nominee, is a completely different thing than announcing, before the Supreme corpse is even cool, that you will block and stall any nominee, that it is pointless to even nominate, that you wish to circumvent a president's constitutional obligation to nominate and fail to meet your own constitutional obligation to review that nominee, even if the review process leads to a filibuster?
Why should anyone get paid not to work? You work, you get paid, you don't work, you don't get paid. I can accept giving a few sick days per year as a perk or a courtesy, but beyond that, people should carry their own insurance if they desire. Nobody pays me if I don't work.
The Right loves to tout the BoR's or other parts of the Constitution, while circumventing it, under the guise of States Rights or some clever sound bite or phrase.
The Right loves to tout the BoR's or other parts of the Constitution, while circumventing it, under the guise of States Rights or some clever sound bite or phrase.
They are clowns. Like Scalia, they reject the living and breathing constitution doctrine, and then cite a (fictitious) 80 year tradition to justify not fulfilling their constitutional obligation to have a hearing for a candidate (I.e. Make the case tradition trumps constitutional text). They are playing the public for complete idiots, which is regrettably a pretty safe bet in politics.
They are clowns. Like Scalia, they reject the living and breathing constitution doctrine, and then cite a (fictitious) 80 year tradition to justify not fulfilling their constitutional obligation to have a hearing for a candidate (I.e. Make the case tradition trumps constitutional text). They are playing the public for complete idiots, which is regrettably a pretty safe bet in politics.
Yup, it would be nice if our elected officials actually cared about the people who elected them rather than playing partisan games and pandering to wall street.
But yes, "complete idiots" is a good description for people that vote for candidates that obviously don't have their own best interests in mind. It's like someone who stays in an abusive relationship hoping things will get better. Now it's time to wake up and kick that crap to the curb and move on to elect people who will have some respect for us and work for our best interests with much less regard for multinational corporations and financial institutions.
I know that if the shoe was on the other foot, the Democrats would be doing exactly the same thing.
Whatever you’re political persuasion, for the past 80 years, lame duck presidents don’t get to make successful nominations for lifetime appointments in an election year.
I know that if the shoe was on the other foot, the Democrats would be doing exactly the same thing.
Whatever you’re political persuasion, for the past 80 years, lame duck presidents don’t get to make successful nominations for lifetime appointments in an election year.
So 80 year "tradition" (historical coincidence in fact, there were only two occasions during these 80 years. Both got hearings), now trumps constitution? The other side might do the same in the current poisoned political climate, but has no such track record.
So 80 year "tradition" (historical coincidence in fact, there were only two occasions during these 80 years. Both got hearings), now trumps constitution? The other side might do the same in the current poisoned political climate, but has no such track record.
This is another perfect example of what is absolutely wrong with the country. Legal or not, it is wrong, and the law needs to change, and make these parasitic companies pay.
"On Friday, Reuters reported that in 2014 the tech giant—which now falls under parent company Alphabet—transferred 11.7 billion Euros (approximately $13 billion) to Bermuda in an effort to minimize the taxes it had to pay on its income through a little tax maneuver that has been dubbed a “Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich.” "
Additionally, there is a Federal airport in Silicon Valley next to Google's headquarters. Federal means tax payer built and owned. The government has leased it to Google which has effectively made this public airport a private, Google only, airport.
This BS of letting the rich do whatever they want has to stop.
I know that if the shoe was on the other foot, the Democrats would be doing exactly the same thing.
Whatever you’re political persuasion, for the past 80 years, lame duck presidents don’t get to make successful nominations for lifetime appointments in an election year.
Slippery slope, but the GOP position goes much further. The would categorically refuse to have a hearing, irrespective of qualification of the candidate. But no denying Reid is a partisan hack.
Harry was wrong. They have a duty to advise and consent. They took an oath to faithfully discharge those duties. The congress will end before the new president is sworn in.