The new middle

171 messages Options
1 ... 131415161718
PeeTex PeeTex
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: The new middle

Your questions are reasonable but this is not what the far left is preaching. Things like guaranteed minimum income where you get paid whether or not you work is what some are asking for. We can have an honest debate if people are honest. The current left wing tactics are to say that conservatives want to throw grandma and everyone else under the bus, that they are bigots, xenophobic deblorables, you can't even begin to have a discussion with the vitriol.
Milo Maltbie Milo Maltbie
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: The new middle

PeeTex wrote
Your questions are reasonable but this is not what the far left is preaching. Things like guaranteed minimum income where you get paid whether or not you work is what some are asking for. We can have an honest debate if people are honest. The current left wing tactics are to say that conservatives want to throw grandma and everyone else under the bus, that they are bigots, xenophobic deblorables, you can't even begin to have a discussion with the vitriol.
You continue with the straw man and add a little projection.

Guaranteed minimum income is not just a left wing thing.  Charles Murray at AEI has proposed, and the Wall Street Journal published his defense of that.  AFAIK, there has been no serious proposal to create a guaranteed income, and bringing it up is not advancing discussion, it's just doubling down on the "lazy people want free stuff" assertion, which in this case is free stuff that no one really expects or has even asked for.  

To be fair, I've never seen conservative throw grandma under a bus, but they have proposed to throw a lot of people off Medicaid, and raise premiums dramatically for some older people, so there's that.

But the "vitriol" comment is where you really go off the rails.  You can't talk sensibly about the anger in political discussion without acknowledging the role Fox News plays in ramping up that anger.  Hannity and O'Reilly ooze anger from their pores.  Fox has made a business model of provoking anger and grievance among older people, and they took control of the Republican Party in the process.  But the grievance business model requires perpetual anger and fear, do any rational discussion that might lead to solutions has to be slapped down before it starts. Hence, you don't engage in discussion, you just repeat "lazy people want free stuff" and accuse others of "vitriol" when no anger has been expressed.  Sad.

mm

 
warp daddy warp daddy
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: The new middle

In reply to this post by PeeTex
Beg  to differ with you Ptex , THAT is where the notion of LEADERSHIP that sets the TONE comes into play . LEadership that unites rather than divides . Currently it is based on his deplorable rhetoric from very beginning of his run

Servant leadership would have used critical yet analytical style rather than  employ the sledgehammer style he continues to employ . Remember the leader sets the tone and is accountable for what results or doesn't in his case . Is he capable of learning and changing his style for the greater good ? so far have seenlittle evidence he can do so and seems not able ro govern . He campaigns , but has failed to lead and engender broad support beyond a committed base.

When he matures ( albeit a long shot ) as a leader and realizes that this needs to be a conduct a symphony not a one man band and extends some civility and empathy rather than vitriol ,He MAY see movement toward the engenderment of loyal opposition rather partisanship .

Just sayin '


tjf1967 tjf1967
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: The new middle

In reply to this post by Milo Maltbie
You are doing the same thing with your fancy grammar.  

Do any of us know what the Affordable Care Act is doing to our budgets?  Or what Trumpcare will do?   There are tough decisions to be made and neither side is giving the us the information we need to make rational decisions.  I like the idea of everyone having to buy health insurance.  I don't know what the republicans gripe is with it.  Every one pays there own way.

You talk about changing the way people ask questions about jobs in corporations, I believe if you could get unions represented on the boards of corporations things would change.  As it stands there is no incentive to increase comp, benefits or satisfaction in the workforce other than it is the right thing to do.  The Matts of the world have the same types of decisions in daily life and they choose what benefits their family best.  Its human nature.  It became all about the customer and employees have been forgotten in the compensation packages.  They need to be put back into the picture and I believe unions on the boards would be a good step. not government involvement other than to mandate union representation on the boards.


MC2 5678F589 MC2 5678F589
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: The new middle

tjf1967 wrote
You are doing the same thing with your fancy grammar.
Where is the strawman in MM's post? And what is with the "fancy grammar" blast? Do you need him to dumb it down? You sound like this:

https://youtu.be/mZJHoInfWBA

 I don't know what the republicans gripe is with it.  Every one pays there own way.
I wonder about this, too. PeeTex seems to want to get rid of the law that says you have to buy insurance. Why? Doesn't he believe in "Personal Responsibility" like Republicans have been bitching about for years? Why should taxpayers have to pay for some guy who refused to buy health insurance, then got cancer? (I mean, if we had single payer, I'd gladly accept that we have to take care of the guy, but why should we accept this "freeloader" who wants "free stuff" if he doesn't pony up some premiums like the rest of us?)

You talk about changing the way people ask questions about jobs in corporations, I believe if you could get unions represented on the boards of corporations things would change.  As it stands there is no incentive to increase comp, benefits or satisfaction in the workforce other than it is the right thing to do.  The Matts of the world have the same types of decisions in daily life and they choose what benefits their family best.  Its human nature.  It became all about the customer and employees have been forgotten in the compensation packages.  They need to be put back into the picture and I believe unions on the boards would be a good step. not government involvement other than to mandate union representation on the boards.
Agree with this. The current system incentivizes corporations to be ruthlessly stingy with pay, ruthlessly high with prices, ruthlessly cartel-like in their interaction with the (few) other firms in their space, and ruthlessly litigious when it comes to keeping "their" money.

The current system also incentivizes individuals to act in the same way (ruthlessly pursue wealth, ruthlessly bail on their companies at the prospect of a better place to work, ruthlessly hoard what's "theirs" and never give any of it away).

Here's a good article that compares big companies to mini-dictatorships, and calls for reforms similar to what you're calling for:

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/7/17/15973478/bosses-dictators-workplace-rights-free-markets-unions

(Long quote):

What can we do about this? Americans are used to complaining about how government regulation restricts our freedom. So we should recognize that such complaints apply, with at least as much force, to private governments of the workplace. For while the punishments employers can impose for disobedience aren’t as severe as those available to the state, the scope of employers’ authority over workers is more sweeping and exacting, its power more arbitrary and unaccountable. Therefore, it is high time we considered remedies for reining in the private government of the workplace similar to those we have long insisted should apply to the state.

Three types of remedy are of special importance. First, recall a key demand the United States made of communist dictatorships during the Cold War: Let dissenters leave. Although workers are formally free to leave their workplace dictatorships, they often pay a steep price. Nearly one-fifth of American workers labor under noncompete clauses. This means they can’t work in the same industry if they quit or are fired.

And it’s not just engineers and other “knowledge economy” workers who are restricted in this way: Even some minimum wage workers are forced to sign noncompetes. Workers who must leave their human capital behind are not truly free to quit. Every state should follow California’s example and ban noncompete clauses from work contracts.

Second, consider that if the state imposed surveillance and regulations on us in anything like the way that private employers do, we would rightly protest that our constitutional rights were being violated. American workers have few such rights against their bosses, and the rights they have are very weakly enforced. We should strengthen the constitutional rights that workers have against their employers, and rigorously enforce the ones the law already purports to recognize.
.
Among the most important of these rights are to freedom of speech and association. This means employers shouldn’t be able to regulate workers’ off-duty speech and association, or informal non-harassing talk during breaks or on duty, if it does not unduly interfere with job performance. Nor should they be able to prevent workers from supporting the candidate of their choice.

Third, we should make the government of the workplace more public (in the sense that political scientists use the term). Workers need a real voice in how they are governed — not just the right to complain without getting fired, but an organized way to insist that their interests have weight in decisions about how work is organized.

One way to do this would be to strengthen the rights of labor unions to organize. Labor unions are a vital tool for checking abusive and exploitative employers. However, due to lax enforcement of laws protecting the right to organize and discuss workplace complaints, many workers are fired for these activities. And many workers shy away from unionization, because they prefer a collaborative to an adversarial relationship to their employer.

Yet even when employers are decent, workers could still use a voice. In many of the rich states of Europe, they already have one, even if they don’t belong to a union. It’s called “co-determination” — a system of joint workplace governance by workers and managers, which automatically applies to firms with more than a few dozen employees. Under co-determination, workers elect representatives to a works council, which participates in decision-making concerning hours, layoffs, plant closures, workplace conditions, and processes. Workers in publicly traded firms also elect some members of the board of directors of the firm.
PeeTex PeeTex
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: The new middle

In reply to this post by Milo Maltbie
Oh, so now you also support guaranteed minimum income. What do you call a person who wants to get paid for doing nothing?

I'll agree that Limbaugh & Hannity sell a message that does not promote a middle ground but so does Maddow and the other left wing pundits.

You seem to be sitting on a pretty high horse there bucko
Milo Maltbie Milo Maltbie
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: The new middle

PeeTex wrote
Oh, so now you also support guaranteed minimum income.
I never wrote anything like that.  Actually, I think guaranteed minimum income is science fiction. You need to read more carefully.

PeeTex wrote
What do you call a person who wants to get paid for doing nothing?
NBA bench player?  Paris Hilton?  Eric Trump?

PeeTex wrote
I'll agree that Limbaugh & Hannity sell a message that does not promote a middle ground but so does Maddow and the other left wing pundits.
I don't watch Maddow much, but I see much more sarcasm than anger among left wing pundits.  Olberman could be angry, maybe John Stewart sometimes.  It's just not the relentless anger as a business strategy that you see with Fox News.  And as bad is the effect on political discussion has been, it is arguably worse on a personal level that Fox makes so many of my older relatives are angry all the time, when they should just be happy to spend time with their grandchildren.  Anger creates more anger, and if anger comes through in my posts (and I hope it doesn't), that's the source right there.

PeeTex wrote
You seem to be sitting on a pretty high horse there bucko
Can't avoid name calling and ad hominen attack?  We really don't even disagree on all that much.  We could probably sit down together and solve all the problems.  It's the other a$$holes in the world that ruin it for everyone.

mm
Milo Maltbie Milo Maltbie
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: The new middle

In reply to this post by tjf1967
tjf1967 wrote
You are doing the same thing with your fancy grammar.  
Thanks for noticing!

mm
tjf1967 tjf1967
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: The new middle

It was meant as a compliment, you are an excellent writer.
Milo Maltbie Milo Maltbie
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: The new middle

I took it as a compliment.

mm
Reply
1 ... 131415161718