Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Last year, Bernie Sanders introduced a number of bills to that effect, including one to disallow "right to work" laws and otherwise weaken the anti-union Taft-Hartley law and another one to make the organization of an union easier. Of course, we all know what Evil Turtle will do to any bill but these might be steps worth trying.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman> that’s why I like the proposal where employees would get to own 40% of the company they work at.
It's a nice proposal but realistically it would be something like 25%-30%, 40% is 10 digets away from owning half the company,don't think any major employer would ever agree to it on the basis that it's too high a number when they want majority control
have a listen and have a link to my discord server@wisewillow: I can't agree. Employees are wage labor; they get what was promised to them by the contract. Now, the latter should be negotiated with a union and both sides should be regulated by law, but I'm not in favor of mandating that all businesses share out nearly half of their profits to their employees.
Likewise, I'm in favor of capping the top income or capital gains bracket at 70-90%. We are, in fact, a capitalist country, and people have a right to a share of the money that they earn - even if they want to spend it on gold-plated office buildings or swim around in a pool full of stock certificates.
That's pretty tautological—"we're a capitalist country, so we should be a capitalist country".
But then the question becomes how much of that money did they actually earn? How much of it is just CEOs giving themselves huge bonuses and salaries that in no way equate to the value of work they do for the company? I'd say day traders and other people who make their living off of buying and selling stocks are an example of this. What value is coming out of third party sales of stocks other than enriching yourself?
Edited by danime91 on Jan 9th 2019 at 8:56:33 AM
It's an irony of capitalism ideology that the nature of collective bargaining, "I.e. that the people who work will be able to get a fair wage" is attacked constantly. It's one of the oldest examples of conservative hypocrisy and lies.
Capitalism doesn't function without bargaining.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Doin' a crosspost from the Psychology Thread because the APA is an American organization with a fair amount of power and because it's kind of a watershed moment for the organization:
APA issues first-ever guidelines for practice with men and boys
But something is amiss for men as well. Men commit 90 percent of homicides in the United States and represent 77 percent of homicide victims. They’re the demographic group most at risk of being victimized by violent crime. They are 3.5 times more likely than women to die by suicide, and their life expectancy is 4.9 years shorter than women’s. Boys are far more likely to be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder than girls, and they face harsher punishments in school—especially boys of color.
APA’s new Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Boys and Men strive to recognize and address these problems in boys and men while remaining sensitive to the field’s androcentric past. Thirteen years in the making, they draw on more than 40 years of research showing that traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly.
APA’s Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Girls and Women were issued in 2007 and, like the guidelines for men and boys, aim to help practitioners assist their patients despite social forces that can harm mental health. Many researchers who study femininity also work on masculinity: Several contributors to the guidelines for girls and women have also contributed to the new guidelines for boys and men.
While the article itself still has some very androcentric verbiage, it's a good step in the right direction for an organization with a lot of influence and a sometimes less-than-stellar reputation among critical psychologists in particular, choosing to wield that power for a common good. Hopefully this gets adopted more abroad as a consequence.
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.Though an argument against a 100% income tax is that most absurd incomes are not, in fact, subject to an income tax—and all that will happen is moving towards stock options and other less-taxable assets.
Which is more or less what happens anyway, people don't exactly sit on enormous uninvested money piles.
While one might argue nobody 'needs' a billion dollars, I would argue there's no particular gain in preventing people from doing so. Money isn't a definite resource-one guy making a billion dollars does not intrinsically have a negative effect on the amount of money another person makes.
Moreover the logic of 'needing' something has issues as well. A lot of what people spend money on in general is pretty frivolous stuff.
Leviticus 19:34There's also the point that a lot of those "billions" are tied up in stocks and investments. If they actually want all that cash, they'd have to sell those off. And that means giving up the power and influence and potential for growth that comes with those.
Edited by M84 on Jan 10th 2019 at 1:56:50 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedEdited by MarqFJA on Jan 9th 2019 at 9:31:40 PM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Well, Trump is renewing threats to withhold disaster relief funds from California
.
![]()
. Actually, that’s the second version. The original tweet was:
Edited by megaeliz on Jan 9th 2019 at 2:22:32 PM
Mc Connell is from Kentucky. I take offense to the implication California would ever suffer his existence here and will challenge you to a duel at dawn for her besmirched honor.

Edited by M84 on Jan 9th 2019 at 10:18:20 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised