Why vote Republican if your not in the 1% or have a big business? (Without being up Democrats)


Recommended Posts

Charles Patterson

Neowin now getting into Politics, maybe time for me to LEAVE Neowin!!!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
+primortal
7 minutes ago, Euphoria said:

It works quite well, a lot of these people are paid more than minimum wage based on where they work, region, city, company... Again, if you are not happy you can quit and get a job somewhere else, then the business will have to fill these positions with another person, go through training, etc, etc... so employers have the responsibility of keeping the employees happy to keep them in but also run a profitable business...

 

And yes, that's how the cycle of life works and there are positions within a business that has a based salary.  But again as I stated that minimum wage was established so that business couldn't pay employees at sub-par wages and it should be increased to deal with the cost of living.

 

10 minutes ago, Euphoria said:

Isn't that up to the shareholders and board members to decide? If a person brings enough value and know-how to reorganize a company and quadruple its value, shouldnt they be compensated well, or are yo more for equal distribution of wealth?

Apple was doing quite poorly when Steve Job's was let go... only when he was brought back in as a CEO that the company saw a surge in profits and growth... based on your opinion, what would have been a fare paycheck/compensation to him, for taking Apple from the edge of bankruptcy to making it one of the most valuable companies in the world?

Yes, the CEO brings value, vision, and expertise to the business but who doesn't the actual work of that value, vision, and expertise?  It's definitely not the CEO. 

 

IHMO CEO salary should be no more than a percentage of the lowest paid employee; being they are the ones that brings the CEO vision life.  If the CEO wants a raise then basically the lowest paid employee would get a raise as well.

 

Plus the shareholders would love all that extra money going back into the company or stock buy-backs than into the CEO's bank account :)

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
+Biscuits Brown
1 minute ago, Charles Patterson said:

Neowin now getting into Politics, maybe time for me to LEAVE Neowin!!!!

Well... this is in a subforum called 'Domestic Politics' and this subforum has been here for years so... why did you come here?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dysphoria
13 minutes ago, primortal said:

And yes, that's how the cycle of life works and there are positions within a business that has a based salary.  But again as I stated that minimum wage was established so that business couldn't pay employees at sub-par wages and it should be increased to deal with the cost of living.

 

Yes, the CEO brings value, vision, and expertise to the business but who doesn't the actual work of that value, vision, and expertise?  It's definitely not the CEO. 

 

IHMO CEO salary should be no more than a percentage of the lowest paid employee; being they are the ones that brings the CEO vision life.  If the CEO wants a raise then basically the lowest paid employee would get a raise as well.

 

Plus the shareholders would love all that extra money going back into the company or stock buy-backs than into the CEO's bank account :)

Haha, alright... maybe one day when you get to that position you can lead by example and redistribute all your wealth and money to the people that "bring your vision to life"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dysphoria
15 minutes ago, Charles Patterson said:

Neowin now getting into Politics, maybe time for me to LEAVE Neowin!!!!

I hear you.. wish Neowin had an option to let you filter some topics from the activity feed...

Link to post
Share on other sites
+primortal
2 minutes ago, Euphoria said:

Haha, alright... maybe when one day when you get to that position you can lead by example and redistribute all your wealth and money to the people that "bring your vision to life"

I'd do it in a heartbeat because they would be instrumental in bring a CEO vision to life and boost the companies profits.

 

One CEO has done so, http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-seattle-ceo-pay-20150415-story.html

 

And there seems to be a start of pushback on CEO salaries now as well:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dysphoria
11 minutes ago, primortal said:

I'd do it in a heartbeat because they would be instrumental in bring a CEO vision to life and boost the companies profits.

 

One CEO has done so, http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-seattle-ceo-pay-20150415-story.html

 

And there seems to be a start of pushback on CEO salaries now as well:

Sure, few other CEO's have done other symbolic acts to work for a dollar, but they do get reimbursed in shares and other means.

Again, these are great examples where check an balance is being pushed from business side and not the government.

I knew, by the end of this conversation you will stray away from your socialist believes ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul1979UK
41 minutes ago, Euphoria said:

You not understanding the tax cut and how it affects and benefits the middle class is your shortcoming... dont blame the rest of us for it...

Edit: Sorry I just noticed you are from the UK...

 

I'm just saying it as I see it, time after time Republican and Conservative goverments seem to protect the intrest of the rich and big corparation at the expense of the poor and middle classes and worse yet is that they both have a strong right wing media doing the bidding of them which makes it easier for the public to vote for things which are not really in our intrest.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dysphoria
1 minute ago, Paul1979UK said:

 

I'm just saying it as I see it, time after time Republican and Conservative goverments seem to protect the intrest of the rich and big corparation at the expense of the poor and middle classes and worse yet is that they both have a strong right wing media doing the bidding of them which makes it easier for the public to vote for things which are not really in our intrest.

I can argue that media has nothing to do with it... actually most media is left leaning. Conservative government is for creating a stable business ecosystem from which all people will benefit. This 1% rich are benefiting from it is a total BS fictional story... You know that many liberals/democrats are part of this top 5% wealthiest people pie... the question than would be why are they not sharing/re-distributing their wealth to the poor, but are gladly proposing to do the same but from the pocket of middle class America.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
+warwagon

Even the title of the thread is insulting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim K
1 hour ago, Charles Patterson said:

Neowin now getting into Politics, maybe time for me to LEAVE Neowin!!!!

 

46 minutes ago, Euphoria said:

I hear you.. wish Neowin had an option to let you filter some topics from the activity feed...

Under Real World Issues, click on "Mini Spy - Included" in the Domestic Politics sub-forum ... which will switch it to "Mini Spy - Excluded."  You will no longer see topics in Domestic Politics in the Mini Spy or Community Activity sections.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
+Biscuits Brown
1 minute ago, Paul1979UK said:

 

I'm just saying it as I see it, time after time Republican and Conservative goverments seem to protect the intrest of the rich and big corparation at the expense of the poor and middle classes and worse yet is that they both have a strong right wing media doing the bidding of them which makes it easier for the public to vote for things which are not really in our intrest.

Paul, outside of the US, this is likely more accurate. In the US, both sides land up treating the non-haves if you will about the same. The number of people in the country that are living in poverty does not really move much one way or the other regardless of who is running our government. As a foreigner,  you just can't fathom the absolute incompetency both of our parties really have and the lip service they serve to their bases.   Both sides are not in it for their constituents, but for the lobbyists. We truly have the best government money can buy - and that statement covers both parties.

 

It wasn't always this way. The democratic party was a pretty horrible party at times historically. The republicans (of old) were the champions of abolishing slavery and were the first states to support the woman's right to vote. The democrats of old were staunchly against those.  They had their good years but it was the Roosevelt administration after the depression with his 'New Deal' that we see the birth of the modern democratic beliefs with the followup of Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' in the mid sixties.  

 

A good example of our reality over here was the previous administrations health care bill. We desperately need to fix our health care process in this country but we just do not have the government to do it. The ACA bill certainly wasn't it. In the end, one of the key things that bill did was a big business republicans dream, force people to BUY insurance, filling the bank accounts of the insurance companies.  Problem was when the 'forced' membership didn't pan out the way the big insured were promised. People were happy with paying the paltry 'fine' and not getting insurance until they actually needed it. So the insurers started jacking up the rates and many eventually bailed from the program. Sure, many individuals and families initially got coverage they may not have otherwise had, but much of it was at the expense of a high deductible plans. Paying a subsidized $40/month premium doesn't help when you when you have a $12,000 deductible. Their great solution to fool the public was to subsidize a lousy, ultimately expensive product. 

 

Some then would say we need a single payer solution. Works in other counties so it should work here.   If you want to see what that would look like here, look at the version of it we DO have. Take your pick, Medcare or the VA hospitals. Both are horribly managed, can't care for the members and are rampant with fraud.

 

I guess in the end, I'd suggest the OP reword his question to be, "Why would anyone vote for Republican or a Democrat." because in this country, the difference isn't always that different for the lower class.   

 

  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer

Let's take your issues one at a time.

 

1.  SNAP - that itself isn't the issue; the issue is SNAP fraud (typically purchasing items with SNAP benefits that are not allowed to be; the biggest issue is, in fact, ready-to-eat foods in grocery stores that have deli departments - which  is any grocery store)  Why in fact do grocery stores HAVE deli departments?  We all know why; convenience.  They aren't new; they have existed for my entire lifetime (and longer)  the free-standing deli is also still around (most of these can only take SNAP for certain items due to the "no ready-to-eat foods" rule).  Does the "no ready-to-eat foods rule" even make sense?  This rule in particular definitely needs re-examination - it hasn't been since I was born.  I am not saying that SNAP benefit fraud isn't a problem - see my posts on it in RWI.

 

2.  Immigration - the largest problem with immigration is also the oldest - visa overstays.  This happens for the most understandable of reasons - a person comes into the nation on a work or education visa, likes what he or she finds, and doesn't want to leave.  Problem - how does this person become a citizen legally without breaking the law?  Right now, there's no way to do so - like the rule I mention in terms of ready-to-eat foods and SNAP, this one has been around my whole life.  As conditions deteriorate elsewhere (even, if not especially in Central and South America, and even the EU/EuroZone - as Cleopatran as the pols are about it)

 

3.  Health insurance/health care - the biggest problem is one they could have fixed - but didn't; benefit portability.  Medicaid STILL isn't portable; worse, it is deliberately non-portable.  Where Medicaid is an at-need add-on to a portable benefit that the subscriber already qualifies for (over half the Medicaid beneficiaries qualify for QMB - which is an adjunct to Medicare; Medicare, unlike Medicaid, is portable)  Add-ons that don't match up to the core benefit are almost unusable - and the non-portability of Medicaid is a real pain in the rear.  Throw in high co-pays (especially for bronze and silver-level plans on the exchanges - which QMB- covered folks don't use), and in what way are things ANY better for those the ACA was meant to help?  (I live in Maryland - a state that went whole-hog into the ACA.)  There were even pre-ACA demostrations program that were portable; Maryland had a PPO and HMO that were portable - even QMB qualifiers like me were eligible - and Maryland was not the only state with one.  What stings is that the same plan is offered on the exchanges today; however, QMB qualifiers can't get it.  Hoe logical is this?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
+primortal
2 hours ago, Euphoria said:

I knew, by the end of this conversation you will stray away from your socialist believes

That ain't going to happen ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
trag3dy
3 hours ago, Paul1979UK said:

I'm supprised anyone would vote for the Republican party just like I'm supprised that anyone would vote for the Conservative party, but you want to know whats really funny about all this, the public are crying out for change and yet in the UK they would never vote for Labour until Tony Blair changed Labour into new Labour which was more or less shifting them towards the Conservative party in a lot of policies, it's crazy that people want change but keep voting the same way and I suspect they do that because the right wing media are pretty powerful in shaping how a lot of people think, they've managed to beable to get the public to vote in ways that protects the intrest of the rich elites and big corparations. I mean look at Trump, his biggest success so far is tax cuts for the 1% and corparations and yet us muppets keep voting for them lol, so the real problem is us voters.

 

Anyway, as for gun controls in the US, thats only part of the problem, to me the much bigger problem in the US is the social system that doesn't look after enough of it's people which can lead to many other problems, the safey net in the US is quite weak compared to what we see in EU countries and I suspect that is having a impact on a lot of the other issue, some people do crazy things when down on there luck or things are getting desprate and wtith a weak safey net to help protect them, shootings and other crimes can happen as a result.

It's funny because the majority of the big media companies in the US lean far more to the left than they do to the right. So basically the opposite of what you're saying.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
ACTIONpack
23 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

It's funny because the majority of the big media companies in the US lean far more to the left than they do to the right. So basically the opposite of what you're saying.

The only thing big network companies lean left is social issues but everything else they lean right.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dysphoria
5 minutes ago, ACTIONpack said:

The only thing big network companies lean left is social issues but everything else they lean right.

Maybe you need to explain us what do you view/understand as left leaning and what right leaning... because I would agree here with trag3dy

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
trag3dy
11 minutes ago, ACTIONpack said:

The only thing big network companies lean left is social issues but everything else they lean right.

Just like everything else you've said in this thread you've got it wrong once again.

 

Unless you consider Fox News as being the only big media news outlet in the US, in which case. Yeah, you're right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kcbworth

Capitalism has MASSIVELY benefited global society. This includes globalisation btw (one of my big points of totally not understanding the current wave of trumpism)

 

However, as time has gone on the global society has got EVEN BETTER by mixing the idealism of capitalism with the social benefits of a teeny tiny bit of social safety based on the reality that there's no point having a prosperous society if the bottom 5% stink the joint out (e.g. make it unsafe, destroy infrastructure, unruly, etc). The best way to ensure this high quality of life that capitalism offers, in my opinion, is to clean up the bottom 5% with all this new wealth. Then society is better as a whole, which delivers happier people, happier safer society, and fuels the capitalism engine to be more effective and create even more wealth (and likely now with the contribution of the extra 5%)

 

People who fight to defend policies that don't help clean up the 5% stinking up the joint confuse the hell out of me. Rich people don't live in squalor they pay for nice houses and for people to keep their place clean (so they can get on with the business of getting richer).

 

Why the hell do some of you fight against our country doing the same thing?

 

I actually think cleaning up the bottom 5% is a CAPITALIST philosophy ffs

 

As a conservative I think minimum wage is a very effective model, as seen in the most prosperous democracies around the world

 

Saying there should be no minimum wage to me is akin to saying people that can't afford private school shouldn't go to school at all.  Same thing

Edited by kcbworth
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Memphis
13 hours ago, primortal said:

And yes, that's how the cycle of life works and there are positions within a business that has a based salary.  But again as I stated that minimum wage was established so that business couldn't pay employees at sub-par wages and it should be increased to deal with the cost of living.

 

Yes, the CEO brings value, vision, and expertise to the business but who doesn't the actual work of that value, vision, and expertise?  It's definitely not the CEO. 

 

IHMO CEO salary should be no more than a percentage of the lowest paid employee; being they are the ones that brings the CEO vision life.  If the CEO wants a raise then basically the lowest paid employee would get a raise as well.

 

Plus the shareholders would love all that extra money going back into the company or stock buy-backs than into the CEO's bank account :)

Companies would not provide the CEO with their paycheck if they were not worth it. It would be authoritarian to order them to pay the CEO any amount outside of what they wanted to. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mockingbird

Two words: racial resentment

 

Data have show strong correlation between racial resentment and how people vote.

 

The stronger they feel racial resentment, the more likely they are to vote Republican.

 

People vote against their own interests all the time.

 

For example, even though my relatives in Alabama got insurance for the first time under the ACA, they voted for Romney and Trump (who want to repeal the law).

 

It makes them angry when a "colored" man is doing better than they are.

Edited by Mockingbird
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
trag3dy
2 hours ago, Mockingbird said:

Two words: racial resentment

 

Data have show strong correlation between racial resentment and how people vote.

 

The stronger they feel racial resentment, the more likely they are to vote Republican.

 

People vote against their own interests all the time.

 

For example, even though my relatives in Alabama got insurance for the first time under the ACA, they voted for Romney and Trump (who want to repeal the law).

 

It makes them angry when a "colored" man is doing better than they are.

It's not surprising that you would be the first one to bring up racism.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dysphoria
7 hours ago, Mockingbird said:

Two words: racial resentment

 

Data have show strong correlation between racial resentment and how people vote.

 

The stronger they feel racial resentment, the more likely they are to vote Republican.

 

People vote against their own interests all the time.

 

For example, even though my relatives in Alabama got insurance for the first time under the ACA, they voted for Romney and Trump (who want to repeal the law).

 

It makes them angry when a "colored" man is doing better than they are.

Although I can see that you are obsessed with "racial" topics, race has nothing to do with voting Republican... You have racists in both sides Democrat and Republican, but just because CNN sells Trump as racist doesnt mean that he is and that all Republican are racist.

I hate when people take race as an excuse for things not going their own way.... BTW, Obama's mother was white.... if he did his job right I wouldnt have cared if he is a descendant of an Amazonian tribe

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Melfster

If Trump did his job correctly I wouldn't care but he is doing awful job.  Has anybody looked the US deficit lately the US and the world are in so much trouble. It looks like the democrats are the party of fiscal responsibly now.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dysphoria
49 minutes ago, Melfster said:

If Trump did his job correctly I wouldn't care but he is doing awful job.  Has anybody looked the US deficit lately the US and the world are in so much trouble. It looks like the democrats are the party of fiscal responsibly now.

Beg to differ.... your awful job includes: Improved Consumer Confidence, Lowest unemployment in decades especially among African Americans, Strong market, Tax cuts and business stimulus, deregulation, renegotiated export/import tariffs to benefit US companies, defeated ISIS, pushed NATO member countries to increase their contribution, moved US embassy to Jerusalem,  brought NK on the negotiation table for possible peace deal with SK and full nuclear demilitarization...etc.etc.etc.

 

Also, I would give him a full term before judging on the deficit ... What Obama did in 8 years cannot be cancelled and undone in only one year...

 

On that note, Trump just made it easier to fire federal workers.

Source: Trump takes aim at federal bureaucracy with new executive orders rolling back civil-service protections

Finally someone did it. By all accounts, considering all the Media warfare against Trump & negative media coverage and sabotage by the liberal left, he is doing an outstanding job.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.