Displaying 5 Forum Posts 
  • Mar 04, 2016 10:25 AM
    Last: 4yr
    Schmidt Wrote:
    What you are advocating is indexing the minimum wage to the cost of living, much like Social Security benefits are indexed to inflation, the so called CPI-W.

    Far to late for that. Take it all the way back to post WWII, okay. Cost of living? Okay. But we need a better definition. If the SS was indexed properly, the elderly you apparently care about, wouldn't have lost anywhere near as much ground as they/we have. The other problem is when using a percentage increase across the board, the difference between the haves and have nots continues to widen.

    Why not attach it in some way to the 1%. That would seem far more fair. When those at the top keep more and more of the profits the employees created, while the cost of living doesn't go up, the labor output has.

    Why do we always have to make it better for those at the top of the pay scale over the majority of others. Democrats used to believe in protecting the many from the few. Now the few look more like the Party "leaders."
  • Mar 05, 2016 12:28 AM
    Last: 4yr

    Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

    Why did we steel this land from it's former (foreign) owner? The elite ignoring the rest and deciding what was best for them. The common interest was of no interest.

    Why is it that those that "represent us" are always asking how to pay for anything and everything for the common benefit of all citizens.

    However, when it comes to conflicts all over the world, and the profiteering that results, that question never seems to surface. How come every time there is yet another huge tax break or subsidy for Corporations, the Party never asks how "we" are going to pay for them?

    The only reason these things are so complicated, is because we hire lawyers to write things in ways we can't possibly understand. How else would so many unrelated things get attached to them.

    It kind of all went to heck after we started having the kind of people asking what the meaning of it, is.

  • Mar 10, 2016 12:29 PM
    Last: 4yr
    Schmidt Wrote: Chet -- I don't understand what point you are making when you talk about "hoarding". Personal Savings is running at about 5.2 percent, somewhat lower than the historical average.

    My head feels like it's going to pop. Since about 90% of the income has gone to the 1%.

    Don't you think it'd be more realistic to look at the "personal savings" of the bottom 90%.

    If I have a dollar in savings and you have a Billion in savings, it is true, we average $500M a piece. But what does that prove? Most of us understand simple math, but our understanding of math is far different that yours I'm guessing.

    PS: I'm happy your savings is going up, really.

  • Oct 29, 2015 12:07 AM
    Last: 4yr

    Sorry, I forgot one more thing, Hillary. Is she really the face the majority of the party wants? Or is she just who the DNC wants? The Democratic Party held control for most of many decades. Then the party changed. Then our control was lost.

    I'm just saying, perhaps the reason why a Democratic Socialist is the face that the majority of the people want is because looking at the very long and open book history of his political career, he is actually what a Democrat used to be and used to believe in.

  • Oct 29, 2015 12:07 AM
    Last: 4yr
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Pr -- Can I safely assume that you do not believe in trade with foreign countries?

    New to the forum. First post.

    You ask a question that is worthless to the people. Of course we believe in trading with foreign countries. But NOT the way we do it now. The old way worked great for most of the 20th century. Then many things started changing. New versions of Trade Agreements started. None of the new versions of "Free Trade Agreements" since and including NAFTA have done anything good for the majority of the U.S. population. The trade agreements were not the only problems or causes of our decline of the middle class. Perhaps the New DNC coming out during the Clinton years also had a significant hand in these changes. That was when the DNC no longer trusted the people to choose for themselves. That is when "everything changed." That is when the DNC itself decided they should have the last word. Not one "Free Trade Agreement" has increased the employment or financial health of the majority of Americans, here in the U.S. They have improved the lives in significant ways of millions of people, everywhere but in the U.S.

    Your original question is part of the problem. Trade itself is not the problem. Equality and Benefit to our citizens are what is missing in all of them. Trade that benefits only benefits one side isn't beneficial to "us." To not see the obvious, is the problem. The obvious to the majority is that any agreement "we" didn't write and negotiate during it's development, is a HUGE problem.

    The majority of Americans don't want this agreement. A few very powerful people do. Which side should both parties be on?

    So perhaps on this issue? The real question is, who is running this show?