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.

 

[VanPastorMan]

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.

In other words, for-profit companies are not charities.

 

[VanPastorMan]

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 think it is because they want to blame President Trump for the shut down. The pundits will say, "He's a billionaire who doesn't care about the little guy. He's inflexible etc etc blah blah. Hopefully the American people are not fooled.

 

[NPT]

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.

In theory I think that is true, but I think a lot of decisions are made with their next big bonus in mind. I have always thought the Board on most companies is just a "Good ol boys" club (I know...there are women). They sit on each other's board and have the "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" attitude.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

In theory I think that is true, but I think a lot of decisions are made with their next big bonus in mind. I have always thought the Board on most companies is just a "Good ol boys" club (I know...there are women). They sit on each other's board and have the "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" attitude.

I don't necessarily disagree. Case by case. In many cases, I think there's a proper and healthy connection between shareholder value and exec comp. In others, there isn't. One example of the latter is when Home Depot fired a CEO who had produced bad results and sagging stock value -- and he walked away with something like $30M in severance pay.

I'm sure there are plenty of stories like this - and it should come as no surprise that corporate executives are just as motivated by their own self-interest as everybody else. That's why I'm a big fan of stock options comprising a big share of exec comp. Just tie them together: perform well and you get paid well...don't perform well and it'll cost you.

But also keep in mind that the vast majority of businesses in the country aren't big, publicly-traded entities.

 

[NPT]

That's why I'm a big fan of stock options comprising a big share of exec comp. Just tie them together: perform well and you get paid well...don't perform well and it'll cost you.

I would be if certain rules were put in place and those rules would be: 1) You can't exercise them for 10 years and 2) You have to exercise them even if the price is below the exercise price.

However a lot of companies switched to restricted stock units rather than options after the 2008 meltdown.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You have to exercise them even if the price is below the exercise price.

Whew. Man, I don't know if I'd ever sign that kind of a contract.

Seems to me that foregoing cash compensation in order to get the options would entail its own risk without this. And companies compete over executive talent so much that I'm just not sure they could get something like this to hold up in that market.

It's similar to high-level sports coaches having these lucrative buyouts, even when they're getting fired for poor performance. They all have those because schools/teams compete like hell to hire them. Anybody who doesn't offer those kinds of guarantees will get priced out of the market and left to hire from the 2nd or 3rd tiers.

 

[hoosboot]

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.

I don't necessarily agree with your statement either, but even that is a long way off from Univee's universal blanket condemnation of all politicians as awful, corrupt, greedy sh!theads (and I don't intend to pick on Univee here because that perspective is cheered and shared by loads of people here and elsewhere). It's no better than saying that all corporate business execs or all lawyers are awful, corrupt, greedy sh!theads. Sure, there are plenty of examples of that in both those groups of people but it's lazy and counterproductive to make those kinds of blanket condemnations.

 

[BradStevens]

I don't necessarily agree with your statement either, but even that is a long way off from Univee's universal blanket condemnation of all politicians as awful, corrupt, greedy sh!theads (and I don't intend to pick on Univee here because that perspective is cheered and shared by loads of people here and elsewhere). It's no better than saying that all corporate business execs or all lawyers are awful, corrupt, greedy sh!theads. Sure, there are plenty of examples of that in both those groups of people but it's lazy and counterproductive to make those kinds of blanket condemnations.

 

[BradStevens]

I don't necessarily agree with your statement either, but even that is a long way off from Univee's universal blanket condemnation of all politicians as awful, corrupt, greedy sh!theads (and I don't intend to pick on Univee here because that perspective is cheered and shared by loads of people here and elsewhere). It's no better than saying that all corporate business execs or all lawyers are awful, corrupt, greedy sh!theads. Sure, there are plenty of examples of that in both those groups of people but it's lazy and counterproductive to make those kinds of blanket condemnations.

Which part don't you agree with?

(1) All politicians are not identical

(2) Certain jobs attract a certain type of person (doesn't mean 100% are of that type) and that politics is one of those

or

(3) Politicians' incentives don't align well with their constituents?