It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Elizabeth Warren’s Batty Plan to Nationalize . . . Everything

page: 6
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Implementing a plan like this would be exponentially worse than when Obamacare was passed illegally. Obamacare practically returned the country to "stone age" medical care because no one could afford it any longer. (Except those who couldn't afford it to begin with).
Fauxcahonta's mentally incapacitated idea should be considered sedition.




posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

How about we do the exact opposite? Why don't we take many of the overbloated government agencies and put them in private hands? I feel that the private sector does a better job, cheaper and quicker than the government. Give more power to the people, as they can choose which company to use.....



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults


Sounds nice but I'm going to see where it says that in the legislation.

I wish I could see it now.

I wonder if she'll make people pay to see the bill too? Sounds like a new fund-raising idea.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: SammyB0476
a reply to: ketsuko

How about we do the exact opposite? Why don't we take many of the overbloated government agencies and put them in private hands? I feel that the private sector does a better job, cheaper and quicker than the government. Give more power to the people, as they can choose which company to use.....

Yeah all those private prisons are KILLING it in human compassion. Oh wait no... The opposite of that is true.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: SammyB0476




Why don't we take many of the overbloated government agencies and put them in private hands


Medicaid,and medicare being spun off to the private sector would drastically reduce healthcare costs.

It would add over 120 million people in to the insurance pool.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Lot of people in those prisons because of GUN possession, and other related crimes.

For profit gun control.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Medicaid and Medicare are already in the private sector. The private pharmaceutical companies already own the legislation that is making them billions a year in profits.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Ok... Not sure what that has to do with my point that privatizing government ran entities is a terrible idea, but thanks for that info. I guess.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

No they aren't.

Tell me which evil corporation is taking out my payroll taxes.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What's terrible about it ?

Student loan debt is over $1 trillion.

Trillions more in state ran health insurance medicare/medicaid.

We don't even want to get started on Veterans health insurance, and Walter Reed.

Government can't do SNIP better than the private sector.


edit on 17-8-2018 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I mean I'm all for ending Citizens United as well, but this idea won't restructure how corporations are ran. Which is what I wanted here.


It absolutely will. Sadly if you can't see how taking the fiscal portion of political negotiations will affect politics, there is nothing we can really discuss on this topic.

That isn't what I said! I know that capping donations to politicians will change the landscape of our politics. You are changing the words I'm saying. I'm talking about corporation structure changing.


Bwaaaa😃😃

2 billion dollars went South on Hillary 2016.

Money doesn't always buy a winner.

💥🤓💥



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: DBCowboy




So corporate America can look like Amtrak?


Corporate America will look like Union America.

With people still searching for Hoffa's body.

But their version is 'better'!



It's times like this that I'm glad I'm old. I'll be long dead by the time Comrade Running-Crap puts this in effect.


Well, I still consider myself relatively young. But if the left passes socialism in America, I'm definitely not working again until they break out the whips and gas chambers. I mean why work when I can be lazy and have all the same things as everyone else.


Sounds like a plan!




posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Tell me which corporations are buying your FDA representatives?



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: neo96

Medicaid and Medicare are already in the private sector. The private pharmaceutical companies already own the legislation that is making them billions a year in profits.


Then why does Medicaid in most States require generic substitutes that are low profit ?

Boiiiiiinnnngggggg 😃



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Why does Big Pharmaceutical spend millions in lobbying for certain laws and (de)regulations if they get no benefit from it?



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Yes. There is always a loser in a election and you can say that the money donated to that losing campaign went down the drain. Fantastic. Now that we are done reliving 2016's greatest hits do you plan on addressing something that is relevant today?



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   
All of this brouhaha is about what the corps are doing with all of the excess cash flow from the tax cuts. Its not being used for R&D, raising the standard of living for employees or building infrastructure.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Edumakated
Unless they are shareholders their opinion really isn't a priority... I mean most companies want to know what their employees think, but they aren't owners.

Well yes. That is how it works currently. This bill would change that. I'm trying to identify why the changes are necessarily a bad thing.


If the employees care so much, they should ban together and buy some shares. Then they can vote as a shareholder and hold the board accountable. They also can have some skin in the game as an owner if bad decisions are made.


Did you know that companies used to give out stock options as a corporate benefit JUST for working at the company?


Board member seats typically are held by the CEO & President and one or two other key players at the company. Then largest shareholders (think VCs and Private Equity investors) and then they typically hire "outside directors" who have expertise in the industry & management. Board members typically hold fairly substantial stock positions.

While it is nice to say employees should have board representation that is not what the board is there for. Employees are just that.. employees. Companies are not run for the benefit of employees. That is some fantasy. Again, if employees want board representation, then they should purchase a substantial sum of the shares. it is that simple.

Yes, companies do offer stock options and the employees can cast votes a shareholder meetings if they are an owner just like any other investors. However, they may not necessarily have board representation. No company is going to give 40% of their board seats to employees. That is just retarded.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: xuenchen

Why does Big Pharmaceutical spend millions in lobbying for certain laws and (de)regulations if they get no benefit from it?


A lot of the lobbying is to stop nonsense like Pocahantas is proposing...

Lobbying isn't all about getting benefits, but more than not, it is to stop regulations pushed by community groups and other activists pushing regulations that will hurt a given industry.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

That's only the case because that is how it currently works. Nothing you are saying though suggests that it can't work this way going forward.


No company is going to give 40% of their board seats to employees

This bill isn't doing that either. It's letting employees have a say on 40% of the directors of the company.
edit on 17-8-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join