Why Do The Far Left Dems Want A Government Shut-Down?

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

I thought they cared about the little people?

What is different now?

Schumer is suddenly democrata-non-grata for keeping those SS checks in the e-mail.

Wow.

 

[Univee2]

I thought they cared about the little people?

What is different now?

Schumer is suddenly democrata-non-grata for keeping those SS checks in the e-mail.

Wow.

I am going to disabuse you of something here. No politician, of any time, any place or of any party ever has given a flying fvck about the “little people” or even the middle-sized and large-sized people, unless they can bring big bucks to the table to make the same politician rich.

It’s cute and all when they say they are just working for “the people.” But here’s the secret: they don’t give a damn.

Against government shutdowns - they’re evil and will hurt people. But now they’re good and necessary. Until next year, that is.

Teslas were good . . . .until they aren’t. Schumer was good . . . . Until he became pond scum.

Politicians are shitheads. They learn to be shitheads in some secret school somewhere. There are secret handshakes and blood oaths and all that.

And, to top it off, we still let these snakes run/ruin our government.

 

[Spartans9312]

 

[Eppy99]

I am going to disabuse you of something here. No politician, of any time, any place or of any party ever has given a flying fvck about the “little people” or even the middle-sized and large-sized people, unless they can bring big bucks to the table to make the same politician rich.

It’s cute and all when they say they are just working for “the people.” But here’s the secret: they don’t give a damn.

Against government shutdowns - they’re evil and will hurt people. But now they’re good and necessary. Until next year, that is.

Teslas were good . . . .until they aren’t. Schumer was good . . . . Until he became pond scum.

Politicians are shitheads. They learn to be shitheads in some secret school somewhere. There are secret handshakes and blood oaths and all that.

And, to top it off, we still let these snakes run/ruin our government.

That’s how I feel when companies lay off employees and stock prices go up. It only seems to serve one group of people, and it ain’t the littles.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

That’s how I feel when companies lay off employees and stock prices go up. It only seems to serve one group of people, and it ain’t the littles.

A for-profit company’s primary responsibility is to generate returns for its shareholders. It’s the reason they’re formed. They wouldn’t be formed but for that purpose. Thus the “for-profit” distinction.

The other positive and desirable things companies do — like providing goods/services people want and need, creating jobs, paying taxes, buying from suppliers, making charitable donations, etc. - are all secondary to this.

And there’s really nothing to regret or lament about this. The secondary positives are still positives. And it doesn’t necessarily mean the only consideration in anything they do is maximization of profit.

But, for whatever reason, a lot of people struggle with this concept.

 

[iuwclurker]

A for-profit company’s primary responsibility is to generate returns for its shareholders. It’s the reason they’re formed. They wouldn’t be formed but for that purpose. Thus the “for-profit” distinction.

The other positive and desirable things companies do — like providing goods/services people want and need, creating jobs, paying taxes, buying from suppliers, making charitable donations, etc. - are all secondary to this.

And there’s really nothing to regret or lament about this. The secondary positives are still positives. And it doesn’t necessarily mean the only consideration in anything they do is maximization of profit.

But, for whatever reason, a lot of people struggle with this concept.

Where is struggle on the love-hate continuum? 😈

 

[iuwclurker]

I thought they cared about the little people?

What is different now?

Schumer is suddenly democrata-non-grata for keeping those SS checks in the e-mail.

Wow.

Private fetish for Ego Man’s diapers?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Where is struggle on the love-hate continuum? 😈

I don't understand what this means.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I am going to disabuse you of something here. No politician, of any time, any place or of any party ever has given a flying fvck about the “little people” or even the middle-sized and large-sized people, unless they can bring big bucks to the table to make the same politician rich.

It’s cute and all when they say they are just working for “the people.” But here’s the secret: they don’t give a damn.

Against government shutdowns - they’re evil and will hurt people. But now they’re good and necessary. Until next year, that is.

Teslas were good . . . .until they aren’t. Schumer was good . . . . Until he became pond scum.

Politicians are shitheads. They learn to be shitheads in some secret school somewhere. There are secret handshakes and blood oaths and all that.

And, to top it off, we still let these snakes run/ruin our government.

Yup. Take a flamethrower to them

 

[Eppy99]

A for-profit company’s primary responsibility is to generate returns for its shareholders. It’s the reason they’re formed. They wouldn’t be formed but for that purpose. Thus the “for-profit” distinction.

The other positive and desirable things companies do — like providing goods/services people want and need, creating jobs, paying taxes, buying from suppliers, making charitable donations, etc. - are all secondary to this.

And there’s really nothing to regret or lament about this. The secondary positives are still positives. And it doesn’t necessarily mean the only consideration in anything they do is maximization of profit.

But, for whatever reason, a lot of people struggle with this concept.

I understand the system. It just churns my stomach when when people lose their jobs and it simultaneously lines others pockets.

 

[iuwclurker]

I don't understand what this means.

You said a lot of people struggle with this concept. I’m suggesting that it might be more a question of loving or hating the concept than struggling with it. Since love and hate fall on the two ends of a continuum I jokingly asked you where struggle lies on that continuum.

 

[iuwclurker]

I don't understand what this means.

As a follow up to my previous post, I believe a lot of people, especially intelligent ones, understand stuff, but react emotionally to that understanding and allow their emotions to dictate their words and actions.

In the context of your analysis, some people understand that United States economy is based on capitalism and that companies are driven by the profit motive as the first principal, but they dislike this idea and so they get angry and complain about those companies rather than creating their own companies in their own vision.

Cell phones are one of my favorite examples for all sorts of discussions. People might complain about Apple being $1 trillion company and yet they will make these complaints using their iPhone, seemingly oblivious to their dependency and thereby hypocrisy.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

As a follow up to my previous post, I believe a lot of people, especially intelligent ones, understand stuff, but react emotionally to that understanding and allow their emotions to dictate their words and actions.

In the context of your analysis, some people understand that United States economy is based on capitalism and that companies are driven by the profit motive as the first principal, but they dislike this idea and so they get angry and complain about those companies rather than creating their own companies in their own vision.

Cell phones are one of my favorite examples for all sorts of discussions. People might complain about Apple being $1 trillion company and yet they will make these complaints using their iPhone, seemingly oblivious to their dependency and thereby hypocrisy.

OK, I get you.

And per your point about the Iphone, it's not only that they're using the products of capitalism in order to disparage it, it's also that capitalism is built upon willful exchanges of mutual benefit. It's a bunch of people armed with resources (money, skills, time, etc.), and a range of options. interacting with each other, free to decide what exchanges benefit them the most.

Apple became a ($3.2, not $1) trillion company because it creates a whole helluva lot of value for people -- not because it has somehow taken away money from employees, customers, suppliers, etc.

 

[hoosboot]

I am going to disabuse you of something here. No politician, of any time, any place or of any party ever has given a flying fvck about the “little people” or even the middle-sized and large-sized people, unless they can bring big bucks to the table to make the same politician rich.

It’s cute and all when they say they are just working for “the people.” But here’s the secret: they don’t give a damn.

Against government shutdowns - they’re evil and will hurt people. But now they’re good and necessary. Until next year, that is.

Teslas were good . . . .until they aren’t. Schumer was good . . . . Until he became pond scum.

Politicians are shitheads. They learn to be shitheads in some secret school somewhere. There are secret handshakes and blood oaths and all that.

And, to top it off, we still let these snakes run/ruin our government.

Why do some people think that politicians are some monolith unlike any other group of people? It's certainly fashionable to complain about them, but I couldn't disagree more about the point you are making here. Just like every other group of people, there are selfish ones, greedy ones, honorable ones, passionate ones, idiotic ones, and so on.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You said a lot of people struggle with this concept. I’m suggesting that it might be more a question of loving or hating the concept than struggling with it. Since love and hate fall on the two ends of a continuum I jokingly asked you where struggle lies on that continuum.

@Eppy99 said much the same thing. He understands how it works, just doesn't like it when people lose their jobs in service of profits. And I certainly get that. In a world where private equity has so much control and influence, even I have been very put off by some moves I've seen made. I don't think they necessarily try to kill the geese to get all its eggs, but a lot of PEs don't seem to mind maiming them in order to maximize the value of their exit.

So I can't and won't defend any and all decisions made for the profit motive. I'm just saying generally that it's the profit motive which lies at the center of a society's prosperity. And that does sometimes result in bad things for people in it. But we can't lose sight that our private sector is responsible for 135 million jobs.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Why do some people think that politicians are some monolith unlike any other group of people? It's certainly fashionable to complain about them, but I couldn't disagree more about the point you are making here. Just like every other group of people, there are selfish ones, greedy ones, honorable ones, passionate ones, idiotic ones, and so on.

For sure but I think you can generalize. It’s a type that wants to do that. No different than a coach a car salesman or a trial lawyer

 

[iuwclurker]

Why do some people think that politicians are some monolith unlike any other group of people? It's certainly fashionable to complain about them, but I couldn't disagree more about the point you are making here. Just like every other group of people, there are selfish ones, greedy ones, honorable ones, passionate ones, idiotic ones, and so on.

Of course any group is composed of individuals. Groups tend to take on some sort of culture, which is also in some way a product of individuals, but it can affect individual behavior.

In Congress, there are earmarks. Senator John McCain tried his utmost to eliminate earmarks, to no avail. Earmarks in current practice are likely to have absolutely nothing to do with the bill being formulated. They’re simply a way for each congressperson to somehow service their constituents, usually as a means to get reelected. The culture of earmarks in Congress is monolithic in the sense that it’s virtually impossible for an individual member of Congress to prevent earmarks from getting tacked onto a bill.

This leads to blanket criticism of politicians and is justified. It’s the responsibility of members of Congress to change this or suffer such criticism.

 

[BradStevens]

A for-profit company’s primary responsibility is to generate returns for its shareholders. It’s the reason they’re formed. They wouldn’t be formed but for that purpose. Thus the “for-profit” distinction.

The other positive and desirable things companies do — like providing goods/services people want and need, creating jobs, paying taxes, buying from suppliers, making charitable donations, etc. - are all secondary to this.

And there’s really nothing to regret or lament about this. The secondary positives are still positives. And it doesn’t necessarily mean the only consideration in anything they do is maximization of profit.

But, for whatever reason, a lot of people struggle with this concept.

Why don't you apply this thinking to law firms?

 

[BradStevens]

Why do some people think that politicians are some monolith unlike any other group of people? It's certainly fashionable to complain about them, but I couldn't disagree more about the point you are making here. Just like every other group of people, there are selfish ones, greedy ones, honorable ones, passionate ones, idiotic ones, and so on.

They aren't all identical, but it is true that certain jobs attract a certain type of person and that their incentives don't particularly align with what their constituents desire or need.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Why don't you apply this thinking to law firms?

Because the purpose of the law is supposed to be justice.

And what many of them do is a bastardization of justice, where the goal is to extract as much money as they can from defendants to split with their clients. Whether or not the outcome is actually just is a secondary concern.

Selling a service is just fine. And legal representation is a valuable service - which people pay to receive. No issues with that, as with any other professional service.

But Lawsuit, Inc. is a whole different racket. And I have no respect for it.

 

[BradStevens]

Because the purpose of the law is supposed to be justice.

And what many of them do is a bastardization of justice, where the goal is to extract as much money as they can from defendants to split with their clients. Whether or not the outcome is actually just is a secondary concern.

Selling a service is just fine. And legal representation is a valuable service - which people pay to receive. No issues with that, as with any other professional service.

But Lawsuit, Inc. is a whole different racket. And I have no respect for it.

Well, in the wise words of someone here:


A for-profit [law firm's] primary responsibility is to generate returns for its [partners]. It’s the reason they’re formed. They wouldn’t be formed but for that purpose. Thus the “for-profit” distinction.

The other positive and desirable things companies do — like providing goods/services people want and need, creating jobs, paying taxes, buying from suppliers, making charitable donations, etc. - are all secondary to this.

And there’s really nothing to regret or lament about this. The secondary positives are still positives. And it doesn’t necessarily mean the only consideration in anything they do is maximization of profit.

But, for whatever reason, a lot of people struggle with this concept.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Well, in the wise words of someone here:


A for-profit [law firm's] primary responsibility is to generate returns for its [partners]. It’s the reason they’re formed. They wouldn’t be formed but for that purpose. Thus the “for-profit” distinction.

The other positive and desirable things companies do — like providing goods/services people want and need, creating jobs, paying taxes, buying from suppliers, making charitable donations, etc. - are all secondary to this.

And there’s really nothing to regret or lament about this. The secondary positives are still positives. And it doesn’t necessarily mean the only consideration in anything they do is maximization of profit.

But, for whatever reason, a lot of people struggle with this concept.

Those entities aren’t (sometimes) robbing Peter to split the booty with Paul.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that there isn’t ever such a thing as justice in the realm of Lawsuit, Inc.

But there’s a helluva lot of injustice, too. And that’s simply not the same thing as people who sell goods and services to willing customers in equitable trades…which I would consider a lawyer who charges hourly fees to be.

But not the grifters. They’re a pox on society.