2016 Presidential Primaries [ SUPER TUESDAY | 3-1-'16]

Which is one of the reasons why there are so many fat-cat Democrats and why Wall Street loves them some Bush/Obama/Clinton.

Wait, what? Doesn't this prove that both sides are puppets and the oligarchs really rule this country, and the "liberal policies" and "conservative policies" are just slight of hand BS meant to keep us from seeing what's really going on?
 
Wait, what? Doesn't this prove that both sides are puppets and the oligarchs really rule this country, and the "liberal policies" and "conservative policies" are just slight of hand BS meant to keep us from seeing what's really going on?

Of course. The both want larger government. Larger government always means the higher ups stay well fed.
 
Of course. The both want larger government. Larger government always means the higher ups stay well fed.

Well if ours get any better fed, they're gonna explode, which really doesn't sound like a terrible idea to me. By the way, did you see the pic of the big money oil guy in OK who tried to use his money/influence to get all the scientists at OU (the ones who were pointing out that his oil and fracking practices were a really bad idea) fired? If that beestard gets any better fed they can paint Goodyear on his side and use him to broadcast video from football games.
 
Regulation and high taxes.

taxing filthy rich people more hardly makes it difficult to become rich.
i'd also love to hear how regulation inherently makes it harder to become rich. if you mean it may make it harder to completely take advantage of middle or lower class people (sometimes), then I agree. complete deregulation would hardly favor poorer people. instead, it would allow the already out of control filthy rich people to do whatever they please (as if they don't already), those below them be damned.

just because you find a way to take advantage of people and make insane amounts of money off their backs doesn't mean it should be allowed. when all the money available is being taken up by a small amount of people, it is a massive problem, and it does not help the poor become rich. it does the exact opposite.
 
taxing filthy rich people more hardly makes it difficult to become rich.
i'd also love to hear how regulation inherently makes it harder to become rich. if you mean it may make it harder to completely take advantage of middle or lower class people (sometimes), then I agree. complete deregulation would hardly favor poorer people. instead, it would allow the already out of control filthy rich people to do whatever they please (as if they don't already), those below them be damned.

just because you find a way to take advantage of people and make insane amounts of money off their backs doesn't mean it should be allowed. when all the money available is being taken up by a small amount of people, it is a massive problem, and it does not help the poor become rich. it does the exact opposite.

Regulation to start your own business has become insane.
 
Wait, what? Doesn't this prove that both sides are puppets and the oligarchs really rule this country, and the "liberal policies" and "conservative policies" are just slight of hand BS meant to keep us from seeing what's really going on?

Pretty much.

Several years ago I remember having a conversation with a fairly well known minister in a particular southern city. He had had the audacity to criticize something Gov-Co was doing or not doing (I forget which). Guess who really tried to put the screws to him? The local heads of some pretty big banks. You see this here's a banking town run truly by an oligarchy. Pretty much the same where ever you turn truth be told.
 
WASHINGTON -- GOP presidential contender Carly Fiorina said on Sunday that she opposes changing federal law to require companies to provide paid maternity leave. Her position is at odds with the policies of virtually every developed country on Earth and considerably worse than the maternity leave policy in war-torn Afghanistan.

The Huffington Post reached out to other Republican presidential contenders to see where they stand on mandatory paid maternity leave. None of them, including Fiorina, responded with comment by deadline. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have, more broadly, backed guaranteed paid family leave.

The federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 provides 12 weeks of leave for the birth of a child and other needs, but it does not require wage compensation. In addition, employees who have worked at a company for less than a year are not covered.

Employers are left with a lot of leeway in how much they choose to accommodate mothers recovering from labor and parents with a newborn child. The result, as Rebecca Traister wrote in The New Republic, is that parenting has become "a privileged pursuit" that "ultimately affirms public and professional life as being built for men."

To put Fiorina's position in perspective, Afghanistan requires 13 weeks of maternity leave during which 100 percent of a woman's earnings are covered, according to a report published last year by the International Labour Organization. Individual companies are held liable for the costs.

According to the ILO report, out of 185 countries and territories for which information was available, the only nation besides the United States that does not require some cash benefits for women during maternity leave is Papua New Guinea, which is reportedly on the brink of a Greek-style economic meltdown. Papua New Guinea is also reportedly home to severe police abuse of detainees, violence against women, and vigilante killings, the U.S. State Department said last year.

Policies like the one in Afghanistan, while stronger than that in the U.S., still leave mothers vulnerable to job discrimination, because employers may be reluctant to hire or promote pregnant workers to avoid paying the direct and indirect costs linked to their leave, the ILO pointed out. The ILO report also did not indicate to what extent Afghanistan's policy is actually enforced.

Most developed countries, particularly in Europe, offer paid parental leave that is financed out of social insurance. But GOP support for that kind of financing also seems unlikely. Democrats introduced the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act again this year, which would guarantee new parents and caretakers a portion of their income while on leave. It would be paid for by employee and employer contributions. But there are no Republican cosponsors.

In the U.S., the glorification of individualism during the Reagan years turned some Americans away from the idea of guaranteed paid leave, tainting it as another tax expansion. As it stands, high-end companies like Netflix, whose policy Fiorina praised, offer generous paid parental leave policies. But companies that employ lots of minimum-wage workers don't. Even at Netflix, the new parental leave policy does not extend to workers in its DVD division.

According to a study published by the Families and Work Institute, only 9 percent of companies in the U.S. offered fully paid maternity leave benefits in 2014, down from 16 percent six years earlier.

"I don't think we can afford to wait for corporations, out of the goodness of their hearts, to come up with a policy," said Steven Wisensale, a professor at the University of Connecticut who has written on family leave policy.

Parental leave experts said the current U.S. policy exacerbates the economic gap between women who work for companies that offer job protection and paid maternity leave, and women who do not. "We want everybody to have a fair shake, and one way to do that is to have mandated leave by the government," Wisensale added.

"At the national level, it is dead obvious why this should be funded -- you're talking about raising the next generation of citizens and that's why most countries fund it," said Joan Williams, a professor at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, who noted that she did not actually expect any change on the national level.

She added, "Not having mandated leave for employers is a recipe for pushing women out of the workplace."
 
WASHINGTON -- GOP presidential contender Carly Fiorina said on Sunday that she opposes changing federal law to require companies to provide paid maternity leave. Her position is at odds with the policies of virtually every developed country on Earth and considerably worse than the maternity leave policy in war-torn Afghanistan.

The Huffington Post reached out to other Republican presidential contenders to see where they stand on mandatory paid maternity leave. None of them, including Fiorina, responded with comment by deadline. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have, more broadly, backed guaranteed paid family leave.

The federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 provides 12 weeks of leave for the birth of a child and other needs, but it does not require wage compensation. In addition, employees who have worked at a company for less than a year are not covered.

Employers are left with a lot of leeway in how much they choose to accommodate mothers recovering from labor and parents with a newborn child. The result, as Rebecca Traister wrote in The New Republic, is that parenting has become "a privileged pursuit" that "ultimately affirms public and professional life as being built for men."

To put Fiorina's position in perspective, Afghanistan requires 13 weeks of maternity leave during which 100 percent of a woman's earnings are covered, according to a report published last year by the International Labour Organization. Individual companies are held liable for the costs.

According to the ILO report, out of 185 countries and territories for which information was available, the only nation besides the United States that does not require some cash benefits for women during maternity leave is Papua New Guinea, which is reportedly on the brink of a Greek-style economic meltdown. Papua New Guinea is also reportedly home to severe police abuse of detainees, violence against women, and vigilante killings, the U.S. State Department said last year.

Policies like the one in Afghanistan, while stronger than that in the U.S., still leave mothers vulnerable to job discrimination, because employers may be reluctant to hire or promote pregnant workers to avoid paying the direct and indirect costs linked to their leave, the ILO pointed out. The ILO report also did not indicate to what extent Afghanistan's policy is actually enforced.

Most developed countries, particularly in Europe, offer paid parental leave that is financed out of social insurance. But GOP support for that kind of financing also seems unlikely. Democrats introduced the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act again this year, which would guarantee new parents and caretakers a portion of their income while on leave. It would be paid for by employee and employer contributions. But there are no Republican cosponsors.

In the U.S., the glorification of individualism during the Reagan years turned some Americans away from the idea of guaranteed paid leave, tainting it as another tax expansion. As it stands, high-end companies like Netflix, whose policy Fiorina praised, offer generous paid parental leave policies. But companies that employ lots of minimum-wage workers don't. Even at Netflix, the new parental leave policy does not extend to workers in its DVD division.

According to a study published by the Families and Work Institute, only 9 percent of companies in the U.S. offered fully paid maternity leave benefits in 2014, down from 16 percent six years earlier.

"I don't think we can afford to wait for corporations, out of the goodness of their hearts, to come up with a policy," said Steven Wisensale, a professor at the University of Connecticut who has written on family leave policy.

Parental leave experts said the current U.S. policy exacerbates the economic gap between women who work for companies that offer job protection and paid maternity leave, and women who do not. "We want everybody to have a fair shake, and one way to do that is to have mandated leave by the government," Wisensale added.

"At the national level, it is dead obvious why this should be funded -- you're talking about raising the next generation of citizens and that's why most countries fund it," said Joan Williams, a professor at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, who noted that she did not actually expect any change on the national level.

She added, "Not having mandated leave for employers is a recipe for pushing women out of the workplace."

Ahh yes... force those corporations to pay for work they're not getting. Leaving aside that the majority of corporations DO provide assistance, why don't we just have more government interference?

Better yet, let's not bare any responsibility to the woman to work for a company who will be accommodating to a major event in her life that will require her to miss significant time. No way! Responsibility in this country? Get out of here.

I tell ya, if I was a pregnant woman, I'd go interview for a high paying job somewhere. When I don't get the job, I would certainly sue for discrimination. If I did get the job, then I'll get months of high pay for doing nothing. That's a great gig!
 
I really hope he's found true happiness. Last seen he was in a desperate way.
Mumbling something about "goldfly says ... "

He was in fact flavor of the day.
Bachmann
Kane
Trump
Perry finally realizing all he was going to get was -- Pomney
 
This is in reply to yeezus:

Liberals support higher taxes for the upper end of the middle class as well. People that I wouldn't consider rich. There are a couple of ways that people can become rich. One is to start a small business. Taxes and regulations can hinder small businesses from even getting started. The second way is investment. And really anyone can become a multimillionaire by saving long enough. However, high taxes make it difficult to save enough to obtain that goal. Those people who are moderately successful may struggle to find enough money to invest.
 
Bernie seems to be very selective about his understanding of supply and demand... I believe aces has brought this point up about the left before.

I'm taking this from another source - link

When a Presidential candidate declares war on economic law, they're declaring war on an opponent that they cannot beat. Leonardo da Vinci noted long ago that "Nature never breaks her own laws." As true as that statement is, it has never stopped politicians (and their supporters) from trying to do the impossible.

Presidential contender Bernie Sanders is vociferously trying to put da Vinci's truth to shame, specifically with the well-known economic law known as supply & demand. Sanders definitely knows that supply & demand exists. There's no doubt about that.

In fact, here is Ezra Klein describing Bernie's carbon tax proposal:

"Sanders’s boldest move on climate change is his plan for a carbon tax. He has introduced legislation, alongside Sen. Barbara Boxer, that would tax carbon emissions at $20 per ton."

Let's put aside the fact that the federal government has absolutely no business creating a "carbon tax". Let's also put aside the arbitrary "$20 per ton" magic number that these politicians have concocted.

Let's focus on the motive:

"The point of this tax, though, isn’t to raise money. It’s to change the way the economy works. By making carbon-intensive activities more expensive, Sanders hopes to push producers and consumers toward more sustainable alternatives."

So Bernie does understand supply & demand. He understands that if he pushes up the price of "carbon-intensive activities," it will force companies to find other alternatives. Sanders gets it! He shouldn't be making such a proposal, but he gets it!

Unfortunately, Sanders' respect for supply & demand is very selective. He wants it to exist for the "carbon tax," but he wants supply & demand to disappear when it comes to the minimum wage. As opposed to da Vinci, Sanders wants nature to break her own laws.

Bernie champions the imposition of a $15/hr minimum wage on employers. He sells this to his supporters as help from the government. In his mind, it's the job of the government to "give America a raise," or whatever slogan he uses.

But if Sanders forces an arbitrary $15/hr minimum wage, won't that make "labor activities" more expensive? Won't that force employers to find other alternatives? Yes, of course it will!

Raising the minimum wage is like a kick to the gut for teenagers, the poor and low-skilled. They're forced (by law) into the unemployment line. These individuals could find work were the minimum wage abolished, but politicians (like Bernie) are apparently fine with them remaining jobless.
 
Rick perrys presidential war chest is broke

He isn't paying anyone anymore but says he will still compete

How could such a brilliant fiscal mind go broke so early?
 
Back
Top