My Brand of Socialism

[Mike T]

A DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST STATE

 

I have been a Democrat all my life. It is the party that represents the people issues.

The current chaotic economy of ours is the product of a corporate dollar mentality.

We must restore this economy to a Constitutional peoples government as the Constitution dictates. The aversion of the conservatives to Democratic Socialism and replacing it with corporate socialism is a clear violation of our Constitution and its intent of serving the people.

 

The most logical way to do this is by reforming the electoral system to get rid of the corrupting dollar influences that the wealthy and the corporations have used to get control of the politicians.

This can be done with the ‘Public Financing of Our Elections’ with the private dollars banned from this government function. Private dollars, which buy advertising, are NOT free speech and therefore can be legally banned.

Through this process, the politicians would be free from having to solicit these corrupting dollars and direct their attention to the peoples issues. Once we get the servants of the people into office, we can then push through a socialist platform such as the one below, which I would advocate.

 

My idea of a Socialist government would be to promote the following:

Guarantee jobs for all citizens.......... No unemployment!

Guaranteed pensions for all citizens.............For workers, management personnel, government employees and any other responsible citizens.

Guaranteed health care.............For all citizens.

 

And any other essential needs at a reasonable subsistence level.

All the details would be formatted by citizen committees.

The wonderful thing about this program is that one would not need to save any money. They can spend it all to contribute to a thriving economy that creates jobs.

 

Corporate and wealthy hoarded dollars (surplus) DO NOT contribute to a thriving Economy.

Our current economy is a lopsided one where the people that do the least have the highest incomes while the workers have had their incomes reduced to a barely subsistence level.

There are only two sources of ‘real tangible wealth’ (RTW). These sources are Nature as a commodity and the worker productions.

RTW is what we see and feel like the skyscrapers, bridges, highways, automobiles, homes and etc.

While on the other hand, the conservative capitalists creations are all in their heads. This is not tangible wealth. Therefore workers deserve better and a fairer distribution of the RTW that they create.

 

However, in this Socialist state, ‘free enterprise’ would be allowed and government supported.

But there would be limitations on this accumulated wealth as determined by the citizens.

Income taxes would be graduated on surplus income only from a rate of about 90% to a bottom rate of about 10%

Any other details can be worked out to restore our economy to a more balanced state...

Of course, all these reforms would result from the government financed and

modified electoral system in accordance with the Constitutional mandate of the ballot box and not through any revolutionary means by radical communists or coup d’etat power conspiracies. .

 

Mike T

[padren]

If we have 100% employment, when the guy who drives the garbage truck leaves to move to madagascar, how long will the garbage sit there stinking before they can find someone else to do it?

 

I lived in a place (Boulder, CO) with I think about a 2% unemployment, which was 1/2 the national average at the time. There were giant help wanted banners on the tops of buildings for whole years at a time. Many businesses were horribly understaffed at a time they really wanted to expand.

 

I am all infavor of utopia, I just can't see how 100% unemployment can work without causing complete stagnation of an ecomomy.

[Saryctos]

A DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST STATE

 

I have been a Democrat all my life. It is the party that represents the people issues.

The current chaotic economy of ours is the product of a corporate dollar mentality.

the economy is fine. The current chaotic feelings about it are a product of a socialistic mentality.

 

We must restore this economy to a Constitutional peoples government as the Constitution dictates. The aversion of the conservatives to Democratic Socialism and replacing it with corporate socialism is a clear violation of our Constitution and its intent of serving the people.

you might as well take out the partisan refrences and just say that blatent socialism is the problem.

 

The most logical way to do this is by reforming the electoral system to get rid of the corrupting dollar influences that the wealthy and the corporations have used to get control of the politicians.

This can be done with the ‘Public Financing of Our Elections’ with the private dollars banned from this government function. Private dollars' date=' which buy advertising, are NOT free speech and therefore can be legally banned.

Through this process, the politicians would be free from having to solicit these corrupting dollars and direct their attention to the peoples issues. Once we get the servants of the people into office, we can then push through a socialist platform such as the one below, which I would advocate.

 

My idea of a Socialist government would be to promote the following:

Guarantee jobs for all citizens.......... No unemployment!

Guaranteed pensions for all citizens.............For workers, management personnel, government employees and any other responsible citizens.

Guaranteed health care.............For all citizens.

[/quote']

how would you guarantee these jobs? how would you gaurentee any of these things for that matter.

 

And any other essential needs at a reasonable subsistence level.

All the details would be formatted by citizen committees.

The wonderful thing about this program is that one would not need to save any money. They can spend it all to contribute to a thriving economy that creates jobs.

 

Corporate and wealthy hoarded dollars (surplus) DO NOT contribute to a thriving Economy.

Our current economy is a lopsided one where the people that do the least have the highest incomes while the workers have had their incomes reduced to a barely subsistence level.

wealthy people do not just make money apear magiclly. People with large sums of continual income may not work as hard as someone with a lower pay level, but their decisions clearly have a larger impact. Outside of that judgement, why should you be payed less simply because someone else isn't making as much money as you?

 

There are only two sources of ‘real tangible wealth’ (RTW). These sources are Nature as a commodity and the worker productions.

RTW is what we see and feel like the skyscrapers, bridges, highways, automobiles, homes and etc.

While on the other hand, the conservative capitalists creations are all in their heads. This is not tangible wealth. Therefore workers deserve better and a fairer distribution of the RTW that they create.

a single worker does not build a bridge. it takes many workers following a plan, that plan is executed through the orginization of workers. that plan is worth more than the effort of the workers in most cases as the worker is fastly becoming obsolete due to automation.

 

However, in this Socialist state, ‘free enterprise’ would be allowed and government supported.

that is an outright impossibility

 

But there would be limitations on this accumulated wealth as determined by the citizens.

this is a clear limitation on success.

 

Income taxes would be graduated on surplus income only from a rate of about 90% to a bottom rate of about 10%

Any other details can be worked out to restore our economy to a more balanced state...

Of course, all these reforms would result from the government financed and

modified electoral system in accordance with the Constitutional mandate of the ballot box and not through any revolutionary means by radical communists or coup d’etat power conspiracies. .

 

Mike T

 

Capitolism works in the way that it does. Socialism may work someday, but not with such a strong emphasis on the labor force. The clear sentiment to redistrobution of wealth leads me to think that you want communism without the ramifications of using the word.

[In My Memory]

Mike T,

My idea of a Socialist government would be to promote the following:

Guarantee jobs for all citizens.......... No unemployment!

See economics 101: theres a difference between full employment and no unemployment. Unemployment occurs naturally by people switching jobs' date=' and at least for the US about 5% of Americans are switching jobs at any given time, right now our unemployment between people switching jobs and people who are actively seeking a job and cant find one is about 5.5%, so we are almost ideally where we want to be.

 

Right now, our capitalist system does a very good job at maintaing full employment without government aid, and I think having the government guarantee jobs adds waaay too much overhead and logistics for the government to handle properly.

 

If the government guaranteed everyone a job, it would basically be the same thing as the government selecting what jobs people have. I dont like this idea, its very dehumanizing and doesnt respect peoples autonomy to make choices for themselves (what would you think of your government if they put you in a career that you hated and had no choice to move elsewhere?).

 

Apart from that, I generally favor a semi-socialized economy. For instance, its a good thing to remove all trade barriers, eliminate all agricultural subsidies, and promote free trade... but socialized medicine and state-funded public schooling are also a good thing. With proper planning, we can have the best of both worlds

 

 

[b']Saryctos[/b],

wealthy people do not just make money apear magiclly.

So whats the latest Powerball jackpot up to these days

[Saryctos]

So whats the latest Powerball jackpot up to these days

 

I hardly think the lottery is magic. Now maybe if you used a psychic to get your numbers

[padren]

MMI, did you mean to have "Originally Posted by Mike T" instead of padren?

 

Good link on the difference between full employment and zero unemployment btw.

 

I am curious what the deal is in Japan: I hear they have people that are paid to regularily wipe down even the handrails on the subway stations, and that basically everyone has a job. (I heard that before their stock market collapse during the Clinton admin, I am not sure what it looks like now).

 

There is also an insane amount of pressure on people regarding their jobs over there too, but I wonder what useful lessons could come out of that end of the world in this regard.

[Phi for All]

I am curious what the deal is in Japan: I hear they have people that are paid to regularily wipe down even the handrails on the subway stations, and that basically everyone has a job. (I heard that before their stock market collapse during the Clinton admin, I am not sure what it looks like now).

This is not make-work nor is it superfluous to their economy. Keeping things looking clean and shiny shows you care and reduces crime while keeping quality of life high. This is part of the Broken Window Theory which many cities in the US have adopted in order to clean up many urban problems. The Japanese culture seems to be rooted in this concept.

 

I saw a cable show about the Bellagio Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas. They have staff who do nothing but wipe fingerprints off the plate glass doors that ring the entire hotel. It's a full-time position and by the time they make the complete circuit around the building it's time to start back at the beginning. It's important for the hotel owners that your first glimpse of the inside of the hotel as you enter throught the doors be unmarred by anything unsightly. This impression is important enough to keep several people employed to maintain it, and that's really what employment is all about anyway. If there's a need that requires a person to fulfill it you hire someone who is willing to work for what you offer.

[Mike T]

Padren quote

am all infavor of utopia, I just can't see how 100% unemployment can work without causing complete stagnation of an ecomomy.

 

reply

Do you mean 100%b employment? 100% employment would benefit the economy because the workers would all have money to spend. The more people working, the more money available to spend.

 

Solution to your 1st paragraph - pay the GW's more.

 

Saructos quote

the economy is fine. The current chaotic feelings about it are a product of a socialistic mentality.

 

reply

Yes, we have a 'corporate' socialistic state. That is why the workers today earn less while the billionaires are multiplying by the hundreds.

 

quote

you might as well take out the partisan refrences and just say that blatent socialism is the problem.

 

reply

Yes, corporate socialism.

 

quote

how would you guarantee these jobs? how would you gaurentee any of these things for that matter.

 

reply

By taxing all the unneeded surplus wealth that stagnates the economy

 

quote

wealthy people do not just make money apear magiclly. People with large sums of continual income may not work as hard as someone with a lower pay level, but their decisions clearly have a larger impact. Outside of that judgement, why should you be payed less simply because someone else isn't making as much money as you?

 

reply

I did not say everyone should be earning the same income. Capitalists do not create 'real tangible wealth (RTW). They use workers to do that for them.

 

quote

a single worker does not build a bridge. it takes many workers following a plan, that plan is executed through the orginization of workers. that plan is worth more than the effort of the workers in most cases as the worker is fastly becoming obsolete due to automation.

 

reply

It is the workers that operate the machines and the other equipment.

 

quote

that is an outright impossibility

 

reply

Government currently licenses people to make their fortunes. Without those licenses, there would be no wealthy people.

 

quote

this is a clear limitation on success.

 

reply

Greed has to be copntrolled.

 

quote

Capitolism works in the way that it does. Socialism may work someday, but not with such a strong emphasis on the labor force. The clear sentiment to redistrobution of wealth leads me to think that you want communism without the ramifications of using the word.

 

reply

Communism is a dictatorship and is unConstitutional.

 

IMM

You are unaware of the current state of our economy.

The 'new world order' created for capitalism such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) is the reason we are engulfed in this current war. We are running up a skyrocketing national debt because of it. Do you think those 'deadbeat' tax rebels will ever pay off this debt?

 

Mike T

[Phi for All]

Do you mean 100%b employment? 100% employment would benefit the economy because the workers would all have money to spend. The more people working, the more money available to spend.

If everyone is employed, who will work the new jobs that come along? You will need to invent more people.

Solution to your 1st paragraph - pay the GW's more.

Nice for the GWs. Now you are inventing more money.

Yes, we have a 'corporate' socialistic state. That is why the workers today earn less while the billionaires are multiplying by the hundreds.

Billionaires multiplying by the hundreds? Misleading Vividness or do you have some studies to back this up?

By taxing all the unneeded surplus wealth that stagnates the economy

Where exactly is this money stagnating? In banks? Banks lend their money, it doesn't stagnate.

It is the workers that operate the machines and the other equipment.

And you really believe the workers could organize everything on thier own? And they would get the machines and equipment from where?

Government currently licenses people to make their fortunes. Without those licenses, there would be no wealthy people.

It's not so cut and dried, Mike T. And part of licensing is regulation. Do you want the regulatory controls to go away, too?

Greed has to be copntrolled.

Controlling greed is like stifling creativity. Part of the pioneer spirit is wrapped up in acquisition and greed.

IMM

You are unaware of the current state of our economy.

The 'new world order' created for capitalism such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) is the reason we are engulfed in this current war. We are running up a skyrocketing national debt because of it. Do you think those 'deadbeat' tax rebels will ever pay off this debt?

I'm resoundingly confident that IMM is much more aware than you're giving her credit for. Economic investments are her business.

 

There is no one reason we are at war. There never is. I know you'd like the reasons and the solutions to be simple but they're not. Tamper with one part of a functional system and you'd better be prepared for that system to break down. That's not to say that you can't work towards admirable goals, but too much change too quickly is not good for anybody if we're not prepared to accept the repercussions.

[In My Memory]

Mike T,

Right now' date=' our capitalist system does a very good job at maintaing full employment without government aid, and I think having the government guarantee jobs adds waaay too much overhead and logistics for the government to handle properly.[/quote']

IMM

You are unaware of the current state of our economy.

The 'new world order' created for capitalism such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) is the reason we are engulfed in this current war. We are running up a skyrocketing national debt because of it.

Are you saying that our economy is due to a lack of jobs, caused by the World Trade Organization which put us at war in Iraq? I thought inept administration and making a non-sequitor shift on the War on Terror from hunting down Osama bin Laden to spreading democracy in Iraq was the reason for our skyrocketing debt; that, and the recent hurricanes which destroyed many businesses and required expensive cleanup. I'm not sure how these problems translate into a failure of capitalism, and I dont see how socialism could have avoided them.

 

And I cant really see what the WTO has to do with anything, especially the war in Iraq. Remember, the WTO has been around since 1944, and we've seen the economy boom and busts continually in members and non-members of it. You should be thankful for the WTO, because it enforces fair and free trade so that the cheapest goods get to the people who need them most, which raises the quality of living for everyone. Anti-globalization / anti-freetrade is probably one of the worst things anyone could wish on the country.

 

Do you think those 'deadbeat' tax rebels will ever pay off this debt?

I'm not sure which tax rebels you're talking about, but its very much possible that our current debt will be paid off eventually. Part of the problem is that we have a president who, while spitting in the face of conservatism, wont veto any expansions of government or military, so we're spending a lot more than we should to keep our country running efficiently.

 

Too much government is very wasteful, and maybe if the US took 4 to 8 years to reduce the number of military projects, government spying, and start forcing Congress to read bills before they sign every unnecessary expansion into law. For example, some of Clintons economic success is a direct result of the Cold War and Bush Sr's wars ending, because he could afford to scrap all those unnecessary government projects and cut the size of the military in half, which helped to turn a debt into a surplus (which became a debt again after Bush entered office).

 

If we find a good president who can get our government down to the prestine Clinton-era level, then we'll start building a surplus again.

[Mike T]

PfA and IMM

 

These posts are too long so I will reply with 'whats wrong with capitalism'.

 

Before I do that, I believe the WTO with its headwuarterw in NYC was referred to by Bush Sr. as being the 'new world order' that will come.

Clinton than followed up on that with the promotion of NAFTA and other free trade involvements. So our involvement in this 'new world order' is just recent.

See all the manufacturing jobs going abroad and the cheap labor imports used by the corporations to maximize their profits? All this ws just recent.

 

About capitalism, Below are its evils:

 

They are responsible for all the pollution of the air and waters.

They corrupt governments to extort welfare.

They have no moral scruples since they trade with communism, use child factories and the cheapest labor available, hire and fire at will, use their stagnant wealth to form mergers (jobs cut) buy out competition (jobs cut) and open secret bank accounts in the Carribean, create dinosaur corporations to eliminate small businesses and other such tactics to enrich themselves.

They are tax rebels and resort to tax evasion schemes.

Despite their multi-million dollar incomes, some still resort to stealing as was done on the stock market.

They oppose worker unions that are Democrati institutions and the producers of 'real tangible wealth' while denying health care and pensions.

They produce NO real tangible wealth but use the workers to do it for them.

Their god is the 'dollars'.

 

Mike T

[Dak]

Communism is a dictatorship and is unConstitutional.

 

No it isn't. Communism is the opisite of capitolism, NOT the oposite of democracy; it's entirely possible to have a democratic communism.

 

And, whilst im not the biggest fan of capitolism:

 

They are responsible for all the pollution of the air and waters.

theres no reason why communism would be less poluting. Capitolist govournments allow levels of pollution for money, communisms may well allow it for the good of the people (if being less polluting = being less productive, then less stuff will be produced for the population).

 

They are tax rebels and resort to tax evasion schemes.

tbh, i see this as more of a failing on the part of the govournment, rather than capitolism. close the tax holes that allow some companies to do this.

 

Despite their multi-million dollar incomes, some still resort to stealing as was done on the stock market.

Some. Not most.

 

most problems caused by capitolism, imo, could be fixed by better regulation of companies (ie, they're more of a failing of the govournment than of capitolism itself).

[Phi for All]

PfA and IMM

 

These posts are too long so I will reply with 'whats wrong with capitalism'. [sNIP mindless hand-waving' date= over-simplifications and generalizations]

Sorry you can't be bothered. My reply to to you would tax your attention span so I'll just say I disagree completely.

[In My Memory]

Mike T,

About capitalism' date=' Below are its evils:

 

1) They are responsible for all the pollution of the air and waters.

2) They corrupt governments to extort welfare.

3) They have no moral scruples since they trade with communism, use child factories and the cheapest labor available, hire and fire at will, (4) use their stagnant wealth to form mergers (jobs cut) buy out competition (jobs cut) and (5) open secret bank accounts in the Carribean, (6) create dinosaur corporations to eliminate small businesses and other such tactics to enrich themselves.

7) They are tax rebels and resort to tax evasion schemes.

8) Despite their multi-million dollar incomes, some still resort to stealing as was done on the stock market.

9) They oppose worker unions that are Democrati institutions and the producers of 'real tangible wealth' while denying health care and pensions.

10) They produce NO real tangible wealth but use the workers to do it for them.

11) Their god is the 'dollars'.[/quote']

In other words, you dont have any economic criticisms of capitalism, just social criticisms, so you see the obvious problem between your social criticisms and your opening post, right? Its basically that socialism changes our economic structure without really addressing the social problems, so nothing changes. For instance, theres nothing contradictory about a socialist system being built on child labor, and nothing contradictory about a socialist system that pollutes the environment... however, as soon as you find a way to deal with those social problems in socialism then you notice the solutions dont have to do with economics, so you can apply an identical solution to capitalism.

 

For instance, here are solutions to the problems you mentioned that are compatible or mostly compatible with capitalism:

 

1) Require companies to meet environmental standards.

2) Penalize corporations who make unfair trade or business practices.

3) This probably isnt consistent with free trade, but I think its justifiable to use protectionist policies against companies or countries who violate human rights. Personally speaking, whenever I can avoid it, I wont buy anything apart from US or UK products, because I dont want to have anything to do with supporting child labor. However, theres nothing inconsistent with capitalism about requiring companies to meet high safety and health standards.

4) Require companies to guarantee a pension for a while so minimize the harm of unemployment.

5) I'm not sure if its consistitutional to penalize people for putting their money in non-US banks, however this isnt a consequence of capitalism. Socialist systems work by taxing people at close to 100%, and its imaginable that some people might put away their money in a private account if they dont want their socialist government to take it away from them.

6) I suppose a dinosaur government which does the exact same thing is more preferable But seriously, you've oversimplified too much: small businesses thrive in urban and rural places, and the largest stores thrive in suburbs.

7) This isnt a consequence of capitalism either, however the solution in both capitalist and socialist systems for dealing with tax evaders is to penalize them.

8) This isnt a criticism of capitalism either, stealing can occur in any system. We should penalize people who steal.

9) By "Democratic institutions", are you talking about the Democratic party or the democracy as a system of goverment? Because the formation of unions isnt a principle of democracy as system of goverment, nor is democracy necessary for socialism or capitalism. However, theres no inconsistency with capitalism in requiring corporations to pay a pension or health care (most already do), and theres no inconsistency with capitalism in the formation of workers unions.

10) People should worship me

 

You probably dont know this about me, but I'm a member of the US Green Party, so I strongly favor civil rights and environmentalism more than most other political issues. But I'm also a businesswoman whose job description is "invest peoples money into the Green Market", so I use the capitalist stock market to help people make environmentally sound investments. That makes me an eco-capitalist, which is a good thing because I support capitalism to the fullest extent when it minimizes its harm to people, animals, and the environment. Like I said in my first post in this thread:

Apart from that, I generally favor a semi-socialized economy. For instance, its a good thing to remove all trade barriers, eliminate all agricultural subsidies, and promote free trade... but socialized medicine and state-funded public schooling are also a good thing. With proper planning, we can have the best of both worlds

Socialism just doesnt work because its a terrible economic system, because controlling prices and redistributing wealth entails such ungodly monumental overhead that no government could pull it off without huge expenses, and socialist systems destroy competition so economies grow much much slower than populations which hurts everyone. Compare to a capitalist system where prices are self-regulating and competition always keeps the economy moving in a forward direction. There are social problems with capitalism, but those problems can be dealt with by social means, not by changing our economy.

 

So in the end, we get a good economic system with a proper mix of social justice, and everyone goes home happy. Especially the Green Party.

[Pangloss]

Well said.

[Pangloss]

IMM's posts above, by the way, are, in my view, a perfect example of middle-ground reasoning. The great political success of western civilization in the last 50 years has been the realization that ideological extremes don't work. Just as pure capitalism doesn't work, neither does pure socialism. The same can be said of virtually any other modern political movement, from anarchy to objectivism, from the purest pacifism to hawkiest (sorry) war-mongering.

 

But we've also learned that a little bit of each of those extremes can teach us something valuable. It's almost as if we pull a little piece from here and a little bit from there and eventually, maybe, with a little more work, we'll come up with something that works perfectly and makes everyone happy.

 

It doesn't sell many books or radio spots, but then that's not the point, is it? ;-)

[Sisyphus]

Agreed. If anyone declares one kind of idealogy to be completely wrong and worthless and evil, you can be pretty well assured that they shouldn't be trusted with making actual decisions.

 

That doesn't mean that all idealogies are equal, however...

[Mike T]

Takes too much time to answer each one invidually so I will replt tp IMM.

 

reply

You a member of the green party? I won't even capitalize that.

Their presidential candidate nader threw the election to bush. Big mistake!

Now were stuck with bush and all his catastrophies.

 

Skyrocketing national debt, workers losing their pensions and savings with all the bankruptcies, jobs going abroad and cheaper labor being imported, hurricanes blasting the south, now all corporations can cheat the workers of their pensions, the 'outlaw' papal dogma being forced on all the citizens, rampaging corruption still going strong with no end in site, these are the rewards of the republican party and capitalism.

 

Mike T

[Phi for All]

Short replies:

Skyrocketing national debt,

Cyclical, as always.

workers losing their pensions and savings with all the bankruptcies,

Most corporations = not bankrupt.

jobs going abroad and cheaper labor being imported,

Are closed borders your answer?

hurricanes blasting the south,

Bush = Master of the Weather?

now all corporations can cheat the workers of their pensions,

No, they can't.

the 'outlaw' papal dogma being forced on all the citizens,

All the citizens? Not me.

rampaging corruption still going strong with no end in site, these are the rewards of the republican party and capitalism.

My advice = stay away from cults. You are extremely easily brainwashed.

[Jim]

Well said.

 

Ditto. I can't think of much to add to IMM's post.

[Pangloss]

Just as a side comment, I have to say that economic negativity and fear-mongering really turns me off. I agree that there are problems with the current economy (speaking of the US for the moment), but I can't think of a single time in the last 50 years when there haven't been any problems of some kind, and there's really no legitimate, objective assessment of our present economy that uses words like "shambles" or "disaster". A quick glance at the Fortune 500 reveals that for every struggling auto manufacturer or airline, there are plenty of Googles and ExxonMobils making money hand over fist.

 

And just to toss out one more side comment, there's a conundrum here for the far left is actually kind of sad and amusing. They hate corporations and want to convince us that they're evil and should be stopped, yet at the same time they want us to believe that the economy is bad because corporations are failing. The contradiction here is obvious: If they're failing, why do they need to be stopped?

 

 

"Generalizations (this one included) are almost always a bad thing."

-- Pangloss

[Phi for All]

I have to say also that I applaud IMM's patience when it comes to the OP's fervor in launching a diatribe while at the same time being unwilling to take the time to respond to dissenting views. Mike T feels it's worth our time to listen to him, but not worth his time to respond.

 

I really appreciate a young person's ideological drive to see perceived injustice corrected and the world made a better place. It should never be snuffed out but it needs tempering through debate and experience to show them that everything is not just black or white. Focussing on specifics is the key to changing a system, not attacking the system as a whole. Some things are working quite well and we don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[Mike T]

PfA quotes

Most corporations = not bankrupt.

 

reply

I am referring to the Bush era as well as the Reagan era that also had a high rate of bankruptcies.

 

quote

Bush = Master of the Weather?

 

reply

No, but ignoring the 'greenhouse effect' could have been a factor.

 

quote

No, they can't

 

reply

Congress passed a law recently that corporations can now dissolve any pensions they administer..

 

Mike T

[Jim]

PfA quotes

Congress passed a law recently that corporations can now dissolve any pensions they administer..

 

Mike T

 

Can you give me a link to this law?

[Phi for All]

There was a recent (2004?) pension overhaul bill passed that allowed for some restructuring because the 30-year Treasury bond rates were inadequate for pension purposes. I thought everyone from corporations to unions to House and Senate including Reps and Dems were behind that one.

 

Just because it allows corporations to dissolve pension plans doesn't mean they won't put something more effective into place. Dissolving the old in favor of the new shows the system is working and adapting, and doesn't guarantee the workers will be "cheated".