Political Discussion

So.much.to.say.brain.exploding....
Long story short, from what I have read about the US economy and people in the 20th century, we started as a nation who understood that socialist policies were not only good but needed for economic recovery after the inequality of the Guilded Age. But there was a huge attack on socialist policies in the 1970's during another recession. That's when our astounding elite minds decided that letting corporations take over to end government wasteful spending (there was also the restructuring of welfare benefits to try to get "welfare moms" of the welfare rosters--I have so much to say about these racist, sexist laws and the family court structure that led to all of it, but that is for another day). Slowly as investors and financiers were seeing amazing profit potential by cutting government programs and letting them be run by contractors from for profit companies, we started getting fed the line that the government was wasteful; worker protections just got in the way of doing business; and everything could be done easier and cheaper if it's done in a for profit contractor system where people don't have to be provided with insurance or retirement--just don't look too hard at the work produced. It took a lot of popular media brainwashing for us, the American people, to embrace these tenets as truth, but with the red scare in the 50's and 60's, it wasn't too hard to equate socialism with communism--and communism was, of course, the devil.

Now we are here, where neoliberal policies of unrestricted corporate monopolies are actually eroding our democracy--because the only people that get heard are campaign donors. Most of our top economist still believe in some aspects of trickle down economics even though it's been thoroughly debunked. Business as usual is now unsustainable because the only way to increase profits for shareholders is to pay workers less and replace parts and pieces with cheaper materials or try to make a process quicker by automation or just plain cutting corners. We've painted ourselves into a corner that we can't get out of. Many public retirement pensions rely on the stock market making consistent returns and our economy is inevitably tied to the stock market regardless of how decoupled it looks right now. Karl Marx and Adam Smith both warned that financiers/rentiers (people who make money off of rents and interest instead of production) were great servants but horrible masters. They both warn against this class having power as it creates a stew of corruption. This is who is in charge and because of creative accounting and insane financial "products", they have created this environment where the stock market does not reflect the actual economy, and inequality is running rampant. This isn't the first time in this country that inequality has been bad, and it's certainly not the first time in history. There is always a realignment. There is always a rebalancing. It can be peaceful or it can be violent. I'm hoping for the peaceful solution where we pass a lot of laws that protects workers and rebalances the stock market to something that again looks like it's mimicking the economy--but this will require us to tax billionaires a whole bunch which we in the US don't like. We enjoy the myth of the self made man that gained wealth from his own two hands--this is a myth that keeps most of the US against socialist policies. We don't understand that behind every self made man is usually a bunch of inherited cash, and that we, as regular people have no real path to wealth anymore thanks to the belief that we shouldn't hassle billionaires because they "earned" their money, instead of the truth that they exploited people like you and me to make those billions.

ETA: If you want to read about how billionaires are eroding democracy, here's a good article: The Political Immortality of Billionaires
why can’t I like this more than once. It’s absolutely right in every way.

Largely due to a smear campaign by the companies this legislation was trying to reign in. And now there is legal action against HR 22 as they think it's unconstitutional (and I agree).

Of the $203 million spent by the Yes on Prop 22 campaign, some $57 million was contributed by Uber and another $49 million by Lyft. By Wednesday morning, news of the results had rapidly increased the ride-hail companies shares prices and valuations by tens of billions of dollars in premarket trading. Uber saw a return on its spending of nearly 19,300 percent, while Lyft saw a more modest return of around 3,670 percent.

The methods through which this was achieved were, in a word, dirty. Yes on Prop 22 spent millions on misleading “progressive” voting guide mailers, sent out chief executives on media tours, and paid $85,000 to a firm run by the leader of California’s NAACP chapter in a bid to paint themselves as champions of racial justice. The campaign made misleading claims about wages and worker flexibility, and Uber and Lyft weaponized their popular apps to push Yes on Prop 22 propaganda to customers and drivers alike.


Here's the stuff on the law suit:
The drivers claim that Prop 22, which was approved by California voters last November, violates the state’s constitution by “stripping” the state legislature’s ability to empower workers to organize, as well as by “illegally” excluding ride-hail drivers from the state workers’ compensation program.

But drivers are trying to use this language to argue that Prop 22 was illegal from its inception. The plaintiffs note that California’s state constitution gives the legislature “unlimited” authority to provide for a worker’s compensation system, “so that authority cannot be limited by a statutory initiative.”

“We look forward to the court affirming that gig companies cannot strip workers of their fundamental right to bargain for better pay and working conditions — and that corporations alone should not dictate the laws in our state,” said Bob Schoonover, president of SEIU Local 721 and SEIU California State Council, in a statement.

The gig economy is an absolute cancer. These companies are creating the restrictive relationship of employer/employee yet voiding all the ensuing employer responsibilities by claiming that they're self employed contractors. Uber Lyft at al should be avoided by anyone who believes that workers rights are a thing worth having and protecting.
 
Not sure what you mean there. Do you mean 3 full-time jobs? As in, working 120 hours per week?

Obviously unfeasible in the long run for health reasons, but if we're talking strictly money then you'd make $43,500 (6000 hours worked). The median individual income in the U.S. is around $36,000.

I mean the people that work 3 part time jobs for about 80 hours a week. Because you know, they won't give you more than 30 hours a week because then they have to give you benefits.

I know of people that work 3 low wage jobs for around 80 hours a week just to get by.
 
So, Senator Burr sent back a form letter basically playing both sides to be safe. However, it had absolutely nothing to do with filibusters, which is what I emailed him about. Instead it yammered on about the events of Jan 6, the election and his vote to affirm Biden’s victory while supporting Trump’s right to legally challenge the results.

I sent back a email saying thanks for the form letter and doing pretty much what I asked you not to do. Explained a little bit about how the filibuster actually takes away from the goals he states he wants to accomplish. Sort of laid the ground work for I’ll talk to you but don’t just brush me off and then hit him with, since you brought it up... be sure to convict Trump since he incited the “unprecedented violence” and reminded him that his life was in danger too.

I mean I already had a pretty low opinion of this dude, but really?
 
This is mamby pamby milquetoast thinking TBH. You think the GOP asked itself how far is too far and what will the public accept? Nah. Scooter Libby pushed hard on "50%+1 is the only majority needed and screw anyone who doesn't like it". Between that and redistricting, republicans got shit done. despicable policies that only benefit the wealthy and screw the poor, but they got done. we need some shameless "i don't care if you don't like it, fuck you and do it" from the left. they have exactly 2 years before things get tight in congress. already they're acting like the republicans are doing things in good faith.



AOC and Bernie, a bit, I guess. Everyone else is business as usual. Schumer? useless. Pelosi can play political chess but she moves slow.

also AOC lending her support to a successful strike in the Bronx. The originally asked for a 1$ raise and were being threatnend with increased healthcare costs. The won 1.85 and don’t have to pay a cent out of pocket for healthcare.
 
Very very interesting developments from the land down under. The Aussies are passing a law forcing google and Facebook to enter into negotiations with news corporations to agree payments for the use of their stories on feeds.

Both have thrown the toys out of the pram. Google are threatening to pull their search engine from Australia and Facebook are threatening to remove news from Australian users feeds! Lucky them!

 
I mean, in other news the judicial branch checks and balances the executive branch as intended?

well, that's one way to look at it.

But basically the way I'm looking at it. The conservative judges will allow any measure of against illegal immigration. But any action taken to try to solve the issue will be blocked.

This leads me to believe the checks and balances may not allow DACA to be reinstated by executive order.
 
Very very interesting developments from the land down under. The Aussies are passing a law forcing google and Facebook to enter into negotiations with news corporations to agree payments for the use of their stories on feeds.

Both have thrown the toys out of the pram. Google are threatening to pull their search engine from Australia and Facebook are threatening to remove news from Australian users feeds! Lucky them!

I love this quote:
“Today’s egregious threats show Google has the body of behemoth, but the brain of brat,” the executive director, Chris Cooper, said. “When a private corporation tries to use its monopoly power to threaten and bully a sovereign nation, it’s a surefire sign that regulation is long overdue.”
 
I love this quote:
“Today’s egregious threats show Google has the body of behemoth, but the brain of brat,” the executive director, Chris Cooper, said. “When a private corporation tries to use its monopoly power to threaten and bully a sovereign nation, it’s a surefire sign that regulation is long overdue.”

Yeah that did make me laugh, particularly as in my head I was reading it with an Aussie accent 😂

Also sadly very true. As well as regulation someone badly needs to break up these tech monopolies, both being allowed to buy up so many competing services was shocking, there’s no way in hell that Facebook, in particular, should be allowed to own either of Instagram or WhatsApp, never mind both!
 
well, that's one way to look at it.

But basically the way I'm looking at it. The conservative judges will allow any measure of against illegal immigration. But any action taken to try to solve the issue will be blocked.

This leads me to believe the checks and balances may not allow DACA to be reinstated by executive order.

DACA has been reinstated in full since December 4 (by court order), but still faces a court challenge on its constitutionality (the “Texas case”). Out of all the elements of the proposed US Citizenship Act, a codified DACA is probably the most likely one to pass with bipartisan support. Once it becomes law, there will no basis to challenge it.

(Obviously I hope the Act will pass in its entirety. While they’re at it, Dems should pack the Supreme Court.)
 
well, that's one way to look at it.

But basically the way I'm looking at it. The conservative judges will allow any measure of against illegal immigration. But any action taken to try to solve the issue will be blocked.

This leads me to believe the checks and balances may not allow DACA to be reinstated by executive order.
FWIW, Liberal States like CA, NY, and WA often sued to gum up Trump’s executive orders during his presidency too. This is part of the reason that EO are so problematic, besides being able to me immediately reversed when the opposing party wins the White House they also lead to a great deal of litigation.
 
FWIW, Liberal States like CA, NY, and WA often sued to gum up Trump’s executive orders during his presidency too. This is part of the reason that EO are so problematic, besides being able to me immediately reversed when the opposing party wins the White House they also lead to a great deal of litigation.

Totally.

But after the Trump presidency, the courts are packed more conservative than ever. So those checks and balances may heavily favor lawsuits from Republican states.
 
Back
Top