AOC’s inspiration failed as solar company fires all employees after they unionized

a reply to: jacobe001

A lot of the economic problems in this country can be laid at the feet of Big Business and them purchasing politicians.

There is a conflict of interest when Big Business has to large a presence in our government.

If you're fishing for an argument, you won't get it with those statements. I agree.

However, it is not a problem with business as much as a problem with politicians. If the politicians were not offering to accept the bribes lobby money, businesses wouldn't be bribing lobbying them. Of course, in today's political climate, politicians can simply add a letter next to their name and become untouchable...

We can survive without politicians... not so much without businesses to hire people.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: jacobe001

A lot of the economic problems in this country can be laid at the feet of Big Business and them purchasing politicians.

There is a conflict of interest when Big Business has to large a presence in our government.

If you're fishing for an argument, you won't get it with those statements. I agree.

However, it is not a problem with business as much as a problem with politicians. If the politicians were not offering to accept the bribes lobby money, businesses wouldn't be bribing lobbying them. Of course, in today's political climate, politicians can simply add a letter next to their name and become untouchable...

We can survive without politicians... not so much without businesses to hire people.

TheRedneck

Where are these politicians coming from?
The Poor? The Middle Class?
Main Street small business?

Ever heard of the revolving door between business and industry?

They are coming from the Large Corporations and Banks. The same ones that have enough money to bank roll their campaigns. The Poor nor Middle Class bank roll politicians.
Goldman Sachs has a program to fast track their highest members into government positions to go and work for them.

Lay out all the politicians in Washington DC, and the majority were bank rolled and put there by Big Business.

Politicians are no longer working for the country, they are working for Big Business and Banking.
If half the population ends up on the streets and sinks further into poverty, it is no sweat all their back.
Not their problem, but they sure do help make it a problem with their policies when they commit treason by getting in bed with Communist China.

There was a thread about Capital Punishment.
I think people that move operations to a Communist Country should be charged with Treason and get the same sentence rapists and murderers get.

a reply to: jacobe001

Where are these politicians coming from?

They are coming from the Large Corporations and Banks. The same ones that have enough money to bank roll their campaigns. The Poor nor Middle Class bank roll politicians.

Wrong. There is only one politician in power today that fits that description.

Ronald Reagan was an actor.

Bill and Hillary Clinton never spent a single day in business (unless you count selling their influence).

George H. W. Bush was a lifelong government intelligence guy.

George W. Bush was in business... and failed.

Al Gore never even saw a tobacco leaf.

Barack Obama's expertise in business didn't go beyond organizing voters.

AOC worked as a bartender.

These politicians are not coming from business; they are coming for money. Most are well off, but few are extremely wealthy when they enter politics... but almost all become wealthy within a few years. Most of our politicians are career politicians, even! I do see some lower-level politicians moving into business, but that is usually multinational banks or media, where their primary skill is knowing how to get legislation passed in Washington.

Add to that the fact that most of the policies being proposed by the likes of AOC are anti-business. If she was there to help business, she wouldn't be running business away from her district, would she?

I strongly suggest you start vetting who you get your 'facts' from.. they've been lying to you.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: jacobe001
Business Owners may complain the amount of taxes they pay, but they include those costs in the products and services they sell. They are not taking those costs out of their own bank accounts so everyone is paying for it.

Now with wage earners, they have no way of pushing those costs to other people.
It is another way that they have the upperhand again.

There is more to it.

Businesses can write of every single penny that goes toward the running of the business. From all transportation and transportation costs, to the toilet paper in the bathrooms.

An Independent Contractor can't.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
"A lot of the economic problems in this country can be laid at the feet of Big Business and them purchasing politicians.

There is a conflict of interest when Big Business has to large a presence in our government."

If you're fishing for an argument, you won't get it with those statements. I agree.

However, it is not a problem with business as much as a problem with politicians.

No, it is a legal problem.

Organized, commercial lobbying should be a criminal offense, because that is what it is - bribery. It is just 'legalized' bribery.

What is needed is to simply eliminate that carve out, and declare all forms of organized commercial lobbying as illegal.

Individual people and groups will still be able to ask for meetings and talk with their Representatives to push agendas and such, but they must be Constituents, and absolutely zero 'quid pro quo' should be allowed.

There is one other simple change that would completely eliminate any and all of this nonsense, but it would require a Constitutional Amendment that very few would ever vote for (although I do think there are a few that would see the sense of it).

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: peskyhumans

What I do know - any company that does not have a employee profit sharing plan is the spawn of satan. Every business should share a percentage of it's profits with it's employees. It would fix stagnant wages and solve so many problems for people who are struggling to provide for themselves and their families.

I'm a big proponent of profit sharing. It's a great idea for some companies, but it doesn't work for others.

Consider a very small company: let's say they have two employees. That would mean that each employee would get 10% of the company profits. Now what would happen if the company decided to expand? Say they want to hire two more employees... that means each employee will then get 5% of the company profits. Now, if you were one of the original two employees, wouldn't that sound like a bad deal to you? Sure, maybe the company will make twice the profits, but maybe it won't... would you be willing to take that chance? Would you be tempted to actually sabotage the planned expansion to keep your 10%?

Consider a company with a high turnover rate (I drove for trucking companies that had turnover rates in excess of 300%... on average, they would have a new crew of drivers three times every year). Who gets the profit sharing? The workers there on the 1st of January? What would prevent the owners from picking their 'favorite' employees every December and just laying off the rest. They could always hire them back in February.

There's two instances where profit sharing doesn't work. For a low-turnover, large company it works great and I agree it is one of the best incentives to productivity a company can have, but I do not support any requirement for a company to engage in profit-sharing. There's too many instances where it doesn't work.

TheRedneck

I could see implementing such a law with some rules. Like you have to be employed at least X number of months to become a full fledged employee and receive your share.

But it is IMO a better answer to wage stagnation and wealth disparity than expecting minimum wage laws or charity to address the problem. Every time minimum wage is increased it's endlessly debated in congress by politicians who are bought by big business. The MSM runs propaganda pieces showing everyone how it's actually bad for employees when they make more money. It's ridiculous and it's not keeping up with cost of living and people are suffering. Also the people running those big businesses have no interest in charity and hoard their wealth. So thinking charity will help is just accepting that nothing will be done at all. The people with the money won't help.

We need a mechanism that ensures employees earn a fair share of the profits and while it may not be perfect, a law mandating profit sharing would be a big step towards solving these problems.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Businesses can write of every single penny that goes toward the running of the business. From all transportation and transportation costs, to the toilet paper in the bathrooms.

An Independent Contractor can't.

All horses eat hay. Brown horses can't eat hay. Therefore we must stop all horses from eating hay so brown horses can eat hay.

All independent contractors are businesses.

TheRedneck

a reply to: tanstaafl

What is needed is to simply eliminate that carve out, and declare all forms of organized commercial lobbying as illegal.

Individual people and groups will still be able to ask for meetings and talk with their Representatives to push agendas and such, but they must be Constituents, and absolutely zero 'quid pro quo' should be allowed.

Except where a member of a group or an individual person has some ownership in a business?

You just removed the right of every person with a 401k to talk to their representative.

On the other hand, you created a new industry. Poor people without a 401k or stock can be paid to talk to representatives by those who do own stock or have business interests. Nothing could go wrong with that now, could it?

You need to understand what a business is before you go trying to stifle them. Businesses do not lobby politicians; business owners and those with stake in businesses do. Everyone with any stock options, including those with 401ks, are technically business owners. Stock is partial ownership in a business.

TheRedneck

a reply to: peskyhumans

I could see implementing such a law with some rules. Like you have to be employed at least X number of months to become a full fledged employee and receive your share.

More rules, more bureaucracy, more expense, more ways to prevent people from starting businesses. Meanwhile, someone with lots of lawyers and money, as in someone who is already gaming the system, will find a loophole.

So how about this crazy idea? Companies with profit sharing tend to make better products, but they cost a little more on average. Most people like the idea of supporting companies with profit sharing, but a lot can't afford the extra cost. So why not just grow the economy... wages will go up and people will have more expendable income. Then people can decide if the extra cost of profit sharing is worth t by what products they buy. Companies with profit sharing will do better, while companies without profit sharing will suffer.

Yeah, I know, crazy to think that people should have power themselves instead of giving it to a bureaucratic government, but I still think it sounds good.

TheRedneck

a reply to: tanstaafl

Yes and no. My husband is part of an industry lobbying group. An important part of their function is to provide industry-side input and feedback on proposed regulation.

This is absolutely necessary. As Redneck above points out, many in government at all levels, not just elected politicians, are career, and yet regulatory bureaucrats have the power to impose rules with the force of law on industries they have no experience with or practical knowledge of. The lobbying group's job is to come to the table with that experience and provide feedback. They can head off a lot of pain for everyone that way because bureaucrats a lot of times don't know squat about what they're doing beyond the theory, and theory and practice are often two separate worlds.

a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly!

To emphasize that point, I'll give a little anecdotal story from many years ago. It was just after the gasoline spike that drove gas prices so high the jokes about having to take out a second mortgage for a tank of gas were flying. I had the news on in the background as usual (I think it was CNN back then?) and overheard one politician in a meeting to try and fix the gas price problem. She was told the price of a tank of gas was too high and her suggestion was legislation to make cars have smaller gas tanks.

I kid you not. And no, she was not joking... she was serious as a heart attack. One of the industry experts had to explain to her that making smaller gas tanks would not change how much it cost to drive. It took a little while to convince her, but she finally saw the light.

This is the intelligence level we're dealing with in Washington DC. Personally, I think it's the ties. Every politician I see on TV in Washington is wearing that tourniquet around their neck. Their brains have to be starving for oxygen! I say we just need to outlaw neckties in Washington, DC. Can't hurt...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: tanstaafl

What is needed is to simply eliminate that carve out, and declare all forms of organized commercial lobbying as illegal.

Individual people and groups will still be able to ask for meetings and talk with their Representatives to push agendas and such, but they must be Constituents, and absolutely zero 'quid pro quo' should be allowed.

Except where a member of a group or an individual person has some ownership in a business?

Where did I say that? I said:

a) they must be actual Constituents, and
b) no quid pro quo (e.g., no cash/gifts/paid vacations/trips, etc etc etc...

You just removed the right of every person with a 401k to talk to their representative.

Did I? No. You apparently assumed I said something I didn't.

On the other hand, you created a new industry. Poor people without a 401k or stock can be paid to talk to representatives by those who do own stock or have business interests. Nothing could go wrong with that now, could it?

Do you understand the meaning of the word 'commercial'? Someone being paid to speak to someone else is a commercial transaction - meaning, in this case, it would be illegal.

You need to understand what a business is before you go trying to stifle them.

I guess that came from the same place your other assumptions did...

You need to be sure you understand someone's meaning instead of ass-u-me-ing they said or meant something they didn't.

Businesses do not lobby politicians; business owners and those with stake in businesses do.

I agree. A business is a legal fiction, and cannot 'do' anything.

Everyone with any stock options, including those with 401ks, are technically business owners. Stock is partial ownership in a business.

True, but irrelevant to anything I said.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: tanstaafl

Yes and no. My husband is part of an industry lobbying group. An important part of their function is to provide industry-side input and feedback on proposed regulation.

This is absolutely necessary.

No, it isn't.

Understand, I'm not saying that this feedback isn't necessary. I'm saying it does not have to be in the form of 'lobbying'.

There is no reason the government could not form 'working groups' with reps from the Industries in question to provide such feedback.

The 'no quid pro quo' rule would still and should always have to apply, but in cases where the impact is general/national in nature, then the rule about being a Constituent would obviously not need to apply.

But this does bring up another rule that would be necessary: anyone who has ever worked on the legislative side of things should be forever enjoined from working in any Industry they had a hand in regulating, and vice versa. No more 'revolving door' garbage where the regulators and the regulated are essentially one and the same.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Where did I say that? I said:

a) they must be actual Constituents, and
b) no quid pro quo (e.g., no cash/gifts/paid vacations/trips, etc etc etc...

In that case, if I misinterpreted your meaning, then you are advocating for laws that already exist. It is already illegal to bribe a politician, and there are campaign finance laws that restrict outside influence. Of course, to prove a law was violated requires proof, and proof is hard to come by when all parties are satisfied with their actions. Not many people bribe politicians while holding a neon sign over their head announcing it.

That's why I made the interpretation I did... I did not consider you wanting to make things illegal which already are illegal. Is that cause for a new term? "Il-il-legal"?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: tanstaafl

Where did I say that? I said:

a) they must be actual Constituents, and
b) no quid pro quo (e.g., no cash/gifts/paid vacations/trips, etc etc etc...

In that case, if I misinterpreted your meaning, then you are advocating for laws that already exist. It is already illegal to bribe a politician,

Nope, wrong again.

I know outright bribery is already illegal, but commercial lobbying is exempted, and there are lots of ways around the 'no bribes' laws.

So, by all means:

Show me the law that says it is illegal for a man or woman to be paid to lobby for someone else.

Show me the law that says it is illegal for a member of Congress to become a lobbyist for an indusry they had a hand in regulating.

Show me the law that says it is illegal for lobbyists to send members of Congress on trips.

Show me the law that says it is illegal for lobbyists to donate to a member of Congress, or help with fundraisers, etc etc ad nauseum.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Show me the law that says it is illegal for a man or woman to be paid to lobby for someone else.

Such a law would be difficult to enforce, because it would be considered regulating an industry. If a group, say of myself and other involved individuals, wanted to send a message to their representatives, should it be illegal for us to designate one person to carry that message instead of all of us having to travel to Washington DC? And if not, then should it be illegal for the group to pay for the representative's time and expenses?

Show me the law that says it is illegal for a member of Congress to become a lobbyist for an indusry they had a hand in regulating.

Impossible to implement. Remember that even Congressmen are also citizens and after leaving office have the same rights as any other citizen in the United States. Every single Congressman has had a hand in regulating every single industry, through taxation if nothing else. So you would be removing the right of a citizen of the United States to file a grievance with the government for redress of grievances, which is a violation of the Bill of Rights.

Show me the law that says it is illegal for lobbyists to send members of Congress on trips.

That is actually illegal, either through regulations on gift acceptance or if through a campaign, must at least be disclosed as a campaign donation. I don't have the time to search through FEC regulations right now though.

Show me the law that says it is illegal for lobbyists to donate to a member of Congress, or help with fundraisers, etc etc ad nauseum.

Lobbyists are also citizens, and as such enjoy the same rights as all citizens.

What you are proposing is nothing short of removing the Constitutional rights of selected individuals based solely on their desire to exercise their rights. It is no different than a law that says that anyone who tries to buy a gun is considered a criminal-to-be and therefore forfeits the right to own a gun. Rights cannot be denied based on a desire to exercise them.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: tanstaafl
"Show me the law that says it is illegal for a man or woman to be paid to lobby for someone else."

Such a law would be difficult to enforce, because it would be considered regulating an industry. If a group, say of myself and other involved individuals, wanted to send a message to their representatives, should it be illegal for us to designate one person to carry that message instead of all of us having to travel to Washington DC? And if not, then should it be illegal for the group to pay for the representative's time and expenses?

Of course not, and yes.

"Show me the law that says it is illegal for a member of Congress to become a lobbyist for an industry they had a hand in regulating."

Impossible to implement. Remember that even Congressmen are also citizens and after leaving office have the same rights as any other citizen in the United States.

Not if there is a specific law forbidding them from engaging in certain, very specific, paid activity.

Every single Congressman has had a hand in regulating every single industry, through taxation if nothing else. So you would be removing the right of a citizen of the United States to file a grievance with the government for redress of grievances, which is a violation of the Bill of Rights.

Not at all. I would be removing the privilege of a former Congress person from being paid by the very industry they were regulating to try to influence legislation.

No clue how you equate 'lobbying for a law that eliminates all liability for pharmaceutical companies with respect to damage from vaccines' with 'redress of grievances'.

"Show me the law that says it is illegal for lobbyists to send members of Congress on trips."

That is actually illegal,

Not in some cases.

"Show me the law that says it is illegal for lobbyists to donate to a member of Congress, or help with fundraisers, etc etc ad nauseum."

Lobbyists are also citizens, and as such enjoy the same rights as all citizens.

These are not Rights. These are privileges.

What you are proposing is nothing short of removing the Constitutional rights of selected individuals based solely on their desire to exercise their rights. It is no different than a law that says that anyone who tries to buy a gun is considered a criminal-to-be and therefore forfeits the right to own a gun. Rights cannot be denied based on a desire to exercise them.

How you come to that conclusion is beyond me... unless you are extremely confused about the differences between Rights and Privileges.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Similar to some of the stories my husband has in dealing with regulators.

His business is into vaccines, and while you want a high percentage of efficacy, the higher you push it, the more likely you are to provoke adverse reactions from the host's own immune system. A 100% effective vaccine would be deadly, but he's had regulators who want to keep pushing the efficacy rate higher, even up to near 100%, because more is better. right?

Work in the industry where you have to do the testing, and you have an idea of where the cut off is along with having had it graphically demonstrated to you that in this case, more is most definitely not better!

a reply to: tanstaafl

Of course not, and yes.

I want to make sure I understand you here... you are saying that it should not be illegal for one person to act as a representative for the group, but it should be illegal for them to not pay for the whole trip themselves?

If so, it's going to be hard to find anyone who is willing to act as a representative.

Not if there is a specific law forbidding them from engaging in certain, very specific, paid activity.

Excuse me, but the exercise of rights cannot be denied by law. If they can be, they were not rights to start with.

Not at all. I would be removing the privilege of a former Congress person from being paid by the very industry they were regulating to try to influence legislation.

But, again, all Congressmen are involved in regulating all industries, by definition.

No clue how you equate 'lobbying for a law that eliminates all liability for pharmaceutical companies with respect to damage from vaccines' with 'redress of grievances'.

Logical fallacy. You are trying to use a specific instance to apply to the general group. How will you word the law to not apply to all lobbying by all former Congressmen?

Not in some cases.

Can you provide links to these exceptions?

These are not Rights. These are privileges.

Enumerated Constitutional rights are not privileges. The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How you come to that conclusion is beyond me... unless you are extremely confused about the differences between Rights and Privileges.

One more time, for posterity. The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

People have the right to contact their Congressional Representatives and Senators in order to promote their positions and complain about situations they consider improper or unfair.

TheRedneck