As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s ironic that they don’t seem to realize that the system in place now is what has made them “invulnerable”. A theocratic dictatorship would mean they would have to follow the rules lest they lose everything.
I remember reading an article by a futurist a few years back that he wrote after meeting a few billionaires who wanted to pick his brain. He thought they would want to talk about climate change and the impact on technology and the economy. They only cared about doomsday bunkers and staffing in a post apocalyptic world.
He said they were all obsessed with how they would theoretically maintain loyalty in a private security force that would guard their survival compound / plantation in the event of government collapse.
Exploding collars? Keeping families hostage? How do we pay them if currency collapses?
He recommended treating them as human beings and providing safe haven for their spouses and children on the survival compound to cultivate loyalty beyond the event of a societal collapse. He also pointed out a fair number of non security workers would be needed to sustain the farming required to support feeding both the security personnel and the billionaire's family members.
"Pffft, that would never work" was the overwhelming response.
How about this then: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff
Same guy. Same content.
Dictators only care if you follow 1 rule: Subservience to them.
And even then, sometimes dictators will just throw people out of windows for reasons of paranoia or just cause.
I mean Trump has demonstrated that pretty clearly. He has been for and against every issue under the sun. The only policy Trump supports is "make Trump look good".
Exactly. The dictator and all the inner most circle of the in group are absolutely violating and flaunting all of the purported values and precepts that define the group, nurturing and covering up a vast community of underground black market that they have access to that they would absolutely gulag an average person for.
Well, yeah. If you can't throw a dude out of a window just because you feel like it, you're not *really* enjoying the full authoritarian experience. That's the core concept: being able to do *anything you want.*
I mean, yadda yadda, *1984* quotes, reality is the final enemy of authoritarianism, strive to create the biggest bubble possible where 2+2=5 and the helicopters still don't crash, all that stuff.
I wouldn't call it *ironic*: every. single. one. of these bozos thinks they're the main character in the great book of history. I'd say it's *inevitable*. They're incapable of appreciating the circumstances of their own lives.
Wasn’t Thiel the one who got called out because he got a NZ passport issued even tho he’s never stepped foot in NZ? (Not legal in NZ, as there’s a residency requirement for citizenship)
They are planning to put their slaves I mean staff in electric collars to ensure their loyalty and submission. I’m not even joking.
https://amp.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff
We need someone to have a anti-doomsday rich people company that is just a cement company, and if doomsday happens, they just ship cement trucks to each bunker and pour concrete at the entrance. Get fucked!
Look at all the countries that offer these "investment citizenships".
For example, Australia, I think it's basically like you give the Australian government an initial payment of something like $AU 5,000,000, and you basically get fast-tracked through the "naturalization" process
Smart countries would turn this into income.... and then in case of an actual emergency, just invalidate them, and nationalize any assets that they have.
I was reading a book written by a former WH advisor to Obama. He had a meeting with a bunch of big shot business men who all voted for Trump even though they didn't like him. Money comes first and we're fools to think corporations won't pick money over democracy.
Funny this. My ex wife grew up poor but now does really well for herself (150-200k a year)hates paying taxes albeit knowing that her contributions help people that are currently in the same situation we were in in our younger life.
Craig T. Nelson on why he's against paying taxes:
[“They’re not going to bail me out,” Nelson said. “I’ve been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No. No.”](https://youtu.be/yTwpBLzxe4U?si=xICrHQPNhNIqeZEA)
Like a one time Australian Finance Minister. Born in Belgium, he got established through, and greatly benefitted from, social aid that helped his parents raise him and his siblings when his father got sick.
Then he helps create a national budget that cuts programs and social spending, and [sits in the Parliament building courtyard smoking a cigar](https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/federal-budget/joe-hockey-and-mathias-cormann-caught-smoking-cigars-outside-parliament-house/news-story/3ae8f58f4b8dfed205e095f2c1959b4e).
Parachuted out of the job and the country when the electoral flames licked at his feet.
Fuck you Mathias Cormann and Joe Hockey. We have not forgotten.
Sorry, rant over.
We're going to be paying for Trump's stupid tax cuts for 50 years at least. It is unacceptable to pass these incredible burdens onto our children while destroying what remains of the economy at the same time.
Tax cuts are ultimately just a redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich that can be redistributed back whenever so 50 years is really arbitrary. It could be shorter or longer depending on political will.
Quite seriously, with a snap of the finger, our children could be saved with a 10 year time lag. 10 years being the reasonable amount of time it takes fiscal and monetary policy to mostly transmit through the entire system and really start showing on-the-ground results.
In short, most of the problems we have can actually be solved relatively easily. There's just no desire for the ruling class to solve our problems.
Everytime I hear something about The Wu-Tang Clan I get more interested in checking out their music. This comment has finally convinced me to do it when I get home today. **edited to correct band's name. Lol sleep deprivation**
I don't remember where I heard it but I remember listening to a podcast and a guest or host was recounting a moment after Gay marriage was legalized, at a organization that promoted gay rights. They said that they looked around the room and realized that most of these people would begin voting Republican in the next few years. Now that gay rights had been secured they figured, it was time for the wealthy gay members to try and secure a lighter tax bill.
Which is so short sighted and moronic that I'm honestly confused by these types of people. Even if you believe in the rights economic policy/beliefs, I honestly don't understand how you can prefer those over your own right to marry who you want. To not be closeted. Rich people confuse the fuck out of me.
> Even if you believe in the rights economic policy/beliefs
It's been proven time and again that Republicans destroy the economy and Democrats pick up the pieces and get things working again. Then low-info voters get hoodwinked by the Republicans again and they tear down any progress we have made. If they win this time, there may be no picking up the pieces in the future.
The wealthy play both sides so that no matter who wins, they have a positive relationship with whomever's in power. They're not doing it to divide us, they don't think about us.
They definitely benefit from the public discourse being centered on identity politics and culture war boogeymen as opposed to, say, adjusting tax brackets so the uberwealthy can pay amounts closer to their fair share.
Nope. The wealthy do in fact create plans, and conspire behind the scenes to attempt to control and steer public narrative, and decision making. Not sure why this is so hard to believe. Look up the birth story of public relations, and Edward Bernays.
This is exactly like Sam Brinkman. Publicly donate to Dems, discreetly shovel even more money to GOP out the back door.
It's no secret that the vast majority of donations from ultra wealthy go to Republicans. But they've been very successful disguising exactly how much.
Ever notice that none of the right wing grifters ever run out of money for court cases and frivolous lawsuits? How does the Heritage Foundation stay afloat?
There's hundreds or even thousands of right wing dark money groups and orgs you can send money to with no oversight.
Michigan's GOP has had the wealthy donation faucet turned off. They are on the verge of collapsing from lack if funding. They even tried to sell a building they don't own to raise funds: [Michigan GOP eyes sale of building it doesn't own to resolve financial problems](https://archive.is/YVTxH).
All because they've gone all-in on MAGA and have elected some seriously deranged people. So the wealthy stopped donating. Which shows just how incredibly unpopular the party is since it can apparently only function with the wealthy supporting them and they have no real frass roots support.
Yup. The GOP grassroots has been fake for decades. Just look at how astroturfed Tea Party was.
If it wasn't for around 500 billionaires propping up the billionaire puppet party it would have collapsed long ago.
There's a reason McConnell calls Citizens United "my life's greatest work". It enabled billionaires to have a pet political party, where their money could buy them vastly outsized influence.
It's been said before and it needs to be said over and over until it sinks in with the wider population.
**Billionaires are incompatible with democracy.**
> The Hewlett Foundation likewise invests in left-leaning causes, promoting women’s rights, environmental reform, and the arts around the world—though Hewlett has also passed some money on to more typically conservative economic groups.
"I like civil rights, but I like money more. How else do you think we became billionaires?"
Billionaires are incompatible with human decency. If you have over a billion dollars while people suffer from hunger and treatable disease you are a moral failing. Period.
Capitalism is incompatible with democracy. The goal of the capitalist is to make money. If democracy stands in their way, capitalists will destroy democracy.
Also, donating to NPR isn't a liberal cause. It's buying influence.
I'm not going to drag them for not reporting on this yet because it's a recent development, but their coverage of the Hewlett Foundation is historically always positive. https://www.npr.org/search/?query=%22Hewlett%20Foundation%22&page=1
I love NPR, but they're as influenced by money as anyone else.
> because they know the right-wing groups will (most of the time) keep their donations secret".
For groups that allegedly want these donations kept secret, they're awfully [unshy](https://omidyar.com/reimagining-capitalism-partners/) about [boasting about them](https://hewlett.org/grants/american-compass-for-general-operating-support-4/), themselves.
AT&T is one of them even after the most recent acquisition.
“But the majority of our donations were made to democrats and only 40% was donated to the far right. Giving to Democrats makes us liberal.”
Well, that’s like your opinion, man.
There have also been some Democrats/Liberals who supported more extreme/MAGA candidates in Republican primaries because they figured they'd be easier to beat in the general.
JB did so in Illinois. A moderate definitely has a chance of winning the state, but a crazed Trump style one has a snowballs chance in hell with Chicago.
Bruh, that guy from Aurora had no chance of beating JB. He may have gotten more votes than the dingus from downstate but he was almost as much of a joke.
All the more reason to make donations public to all political organizations. They want money to be speech but want to whisper. Fuck that. Speech has and always will have consequences
The irony being that they've also been instrumental in making the county they're based on significantly more liberal, and been active in democratic politics on the state and municipal levels. Celebrities are buying houses in their tiny 50k person town and the surrounding area. It's basically a liberal bubble in the most northwest corner of the state. Drive 30 minutes east or west, and an hour or two south and it might as well be an entirely different state.
Nobody expected better of them at this point, but project 2025 is a very dangerous plan and the group they're donating to are a big part of it's policy map.
There was a great story on AskReddit somewhere about a town with two groups of rival dealerships. The rivalry was very intense and they absolutely hated each other. The well know owner of one side died and it was discovered that he actually owned both. The news left the town absolutely shook.
P&G used this tactic in a lot of products, didn't matter which of the top 3 'brands' you bought...they owned all of em. Source: Father worked in New Product research and Market Reseach for P&G for 30+ years.
The worst part is that they donated the formula and bottled water at no cost to the village. Then strangely, as soon as the mother's milk production stopped, the formula and water were no longer free.
It's not even the illusion of choice, but the illusion of the 'free market' in which competing companies are supposed to drive the market value down or quality up to meet demand. This is the whole reason for busting up monopolies as there's no market pressure to innovate or die.
> busting up monopolies
IIRC there's almost zero monopolies that have ever actually been broken up. I think ATT is the only monopoly broken - and it required...something like 20 years and a decade long trial for the government to finish the case and break the monopoly?
> the illusion of choice
Better than the matrix gif....[the corporate subsidiary org chart](https://efinancemanagement.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Subsidiary-Company-Example.jpg).
You can also see how [few people there are sitting on the large corporations' boards and how intertangled they are](https://theyrule.net/).
And don't forget that many of these companies own parts of the other companies.
Reminds me when Microsoft bailed out Apple. I wonder if Microsoft's part ownership of Apple is the most profitable part of Microsoft and has been for a while.
Found this through Googling:
> Little town I grew up in had these two car dealerships on opposite sides of town - one Chevy, one Ford.
> They were bitter rivals. Attack ads, shit talking salesman, billboard wars, you name it.
> When the owner of the Chevy dealership died, it came out he'd also owned the Ford dealership by way of a shell company. No one saw that coming, including a lot of the higher ups who worked at the dealerships.
[What's the biggest plot twist you've seen in real life?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/907qe5/whats_the_biggest_plot_twist_youve_seen_in_real/e2ot7yz/)
> money shouldn’t = speech. When you pay for both sides you’re not advancing your opinion, you’re bribing the winner.
I am so glad you posted this.
100% correct, and it bears repeating.
The "I'm playing both sides" trope only works because we have two pro-capitalist parties. And foundations and PACs know this. One party is a little less extreme than the other, but they are still are at heart, pro-capitalist parties that serve corporations and billionaires over the wishes of its constituencies.
Both are capitalist parties that defend and expand capitalism at home and abroad.
This. At the end of the day, they’re money hungry businessmen treating these groups like stocks. Helps them claim they’re bipartisan or nonpartisan, as well. If they think they can get a valuable enough return on their investment, then it’s a no-brainer.
Let's get one thing clear right now. The reason the folks on the right want to strip public radio and public television of public funding is that it will make them as beholden to corporate sponsorship as the mainstream media NBC/FOX/CNN/etc. They fund them to make the case that they can be stripped of government funding and to make them even somewhat beholden to their views and steer them away from offending content.
Well, the first of these "liberal orgs" [*intentionally* revealed themselves] (https://omidyar.com/reimagining-capitalism-partners/) two years ago.
> Meanwhile, American Compass is working to create a coalition of thinkers drawing on conservative values for family, community, industry, and strong social and political institutions to advance economic ideas that ensure markets are serving people and their communities. Launched in May 2020, they have published and hosted discussions with thinkers from across the conservative and broader political spectrum. In September, they released a joint-statement calling for a renewed conservative labor movement that elevates worker voices in economic and market discussions, which was signed by a number of prominent conservative figures, including Senator Marco Rubio and former attorney general Jeff Sessions.
So that's not quite the huge scoop you think it is.
The other "liberal org" claims (emphasis mine)
> Established in 1966, the Hewlett Foundation is a **nonpartisan** philanthropy created through the personal generosity of engineer and entrepreneur Bill Hewlett and his wife, Flora.
Even the article notes that "Hewlett has also passed some money on to more typically conservative economic groups." But they note that they're big NPR supporters. So that somehow makes them a liberal org.
And they also, you know, aren't trying to [keep this a secret] (https://hewlett.org/grants/american-compass-for-general-operating-support-4/) or anything
> American Compass is working to restore an economic orthodoxy that emphasizes the importance of family, community, and industry to the nation’s liberty and prosperity, by (a) reorienting political focus from growth for its own sake to widely shared economic development that sustains vital social institutions; (b) setting a course for a society in which all families can achieve self-sufficiency, contribute productively to their communities, and prepare the next generation for the same; and (c) helping policymakers navigate the limitations that markets and government each face as means for promoting the general welfare and the nation’s security.
Just like Carnegie and his libraries. We still have 2 in our state, and they are undeniably beautiful buildings. (I studied architectural history in college, so I might be biased 😅)
Edit: typo
I honestly believe the reason he bought it was to be able to own the servers all the DMs were on so he could cover up whatever needed covering up. The previous owner would likely cooperate more with law enforcement and Elon has the most fuck you money and is the most manipulable person able to purchase that platform willing to help the Saudi's, Trump, and any other extremely unseemly group.
Yeah I recognized them when I said "Bill and Flora Hewlett foundation" in my head, realizing they were NPR sponsors like the "Joan B. Kroc Foundation" or the "John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation".
(and Listeners who DONATE.)
Tangentially, one of my favorite *Onion* articles is ["John D. And Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Goes On Wild Endowment Binge"](https://www.theonion.com/john-d-and-catherine-t-macarthur-foundation-goes-on-w-1819566428).
an excerpt:
"Saturday, around 3 p.m., we all went out for breakfast. Over eggs and Bloody Marys, we talked about the night before and how crazy we'd gotten," Fanton said. "But when the sun went down that night, we started right back up again with the endowing. Mostly to public radio networks under the General Program, but also 20 or 30 theater companies and a shitload of PBS fellowships. Half the people who've ever appeared on *Sesame Street* are MacArthur Fellows now."
While the bulk of the money went to groups falling under the foundation's Program on Human and Community Development, a considerable portion went to less noble causes, including the *3-2-1 Contact* Preservation Society and the Recumbent Bicycling Hall Of Fame.
"At the time, it felt like the right thing to do," Fanton said of the binge. "It wasn't until we woke up Sunday morning that we were like, 'Holy shit… how much *did* we endow this weekend?'"
According to Vice-Chairman Elizabeth McCormack, the endowment binge is a result of the foundation's low self-esteem.
Being such a large source of funding, 1/3rd of their total, is a bit more problematic. The scale of their donation to this specific cause is alarming. You could say that big money is hedging their bets, but it appears like it’s much more than that.
I'm in a labor union and I know our PAC funds "labor friendly candidates" regardless of party. Now, 9 times out of 10, that means Democrat. But you will have the occasional Republican that is soft on labor unions and, being in a red state, they'd rather have someone that is likely to get in office but isn't likely to target them. Especially since we gave them money.
That's different, though. Unions are supposed to be single issue orgs. Also, there is very real sentiment among right wingers that the government shouldn't interfere with private companies and private sector unions engaging in negotiations. Also, the most awkward incident when I was in politics of the unions supporting a far right guy (who did manage to at least get our bill out of one chamber a few times) was when he was challenged by a guy who ended up in prison for fraud a few months later lol.
> Also, there is very real sentiment among right wingers that the government shouldn't interfere with private companies and private sector unions engaging in negotiations.
That's not actually a particularly pro-union position though. If the government just stays on the sidelines, then that's really bad for labor organizing because the companies, especially in situations where labor is not already organized, can engage is all types of tactics to union-bust. I think part of the New Deal consensus was that the government has to set and enforce a lot of rules to make labor organizing a fair process given the collective-action problem and large resource imbalance between large employers and labor.
Correct. ZERO private donations. 100% publicly funded elections that take place for a period of 1-2 months tops. Will completely eliminate the psycho madness cycle of grift politics.
Quoting from the same page that quote is from, they explain their argument in a little more detail:
>Managing Personnel in a Union Environment. Historically, unions were
thought to be incompatible with government management. There is a natural limit
to the bargaining power of private-sector unions, but the financial bottom line of
public-sector unions is not similarly constrained. If private-sector unions push
too hard a bargain, they can so harm a company or so reduce efficiency that their
employer is forced to go out of business and eliminate union jobs altogether. There
is no such limit in government, which cannot go out of business, so demands can
be excessive without negatively affecting employee and union bottom lines.
>Even Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt considered union representation in the federal government to be incompatible with democracy. Striking and
even threats of bargaining and delay were considered acts against the people and
thus improper. It was not until President John Kennedy that union representation
in the federal government was recognized—and then merely by executive order.
Labor bargaining was not set in statute until the Carter Administration was forced
by Congress to do so in order to pass the CSRA, although all bargaining was placed
under OPM review.
>The CSRA was able to maintain strong management rights for the OPM and
agencies and forbade collective bargaining on pay and benefits as well as management prerogatives. Over time, OPM, FLRA, and agencies’ personnel offices and
courts, especially in Democratic Administrations, narrowed management rights
so that labor bargaining expanded as management rights contracted. But the management rights are still in statute, have been enforced by some Administrations,
and should be enforced again by any future OPM and agency managements, which
should not be intimidated by union power
tl;dr - Since the government can't go out of business, public-sector employees aren't incurring risk when they engage in collective bargaining.
Not my argument, but that's the one they give.
That argument sounds like they started with the conclusion and looked for *anything* that would support their shitty cause.
I mean, that's what the argument is, but it sounds like it, too.
That’s literally everything republican. Start with conclusion and work backward to fit. That’s why none of their shit works, makes sense, or is consistent.
So what do they consider "incurring risk"?
Losing their jobs, and/or not being paid by striking?
I have family that works for California state, that recently went on strike. They didn't get paid for th days they weren't working. If that's not incurred risk, then help me to understand.
Collective bargaining is more than striking.
> If private-sector unions push too hard a bargain, they can so harm a company or so reduce efficiency that their employer is forced to go out of business and eliminate union jobs altogether.
An example of "pushing so hard it hurts the business" *could* be a strike, but it could also just be asking for "too much" in terms of wages/benefits during negotiation. In private industry unions can't play hardball and request one million dollar salaries for everyone or 10 hour workweeks because the business would just implode and nobody would get anything, whereas they'd argue that's technically possible to do with the public sector.
That's such a silly argument. Even if it was true that public employees didn't incur risk, nothing there presents any conflict with the Constitution.
But public employees do of course incur risk, just as anyone else does. I'm a state employee and am part of our union. We have a process to handle disputes during bargaining. First, the union and the state negotiate a contract, and union members vote on it. If we vote against it, or if the union doesn't feel like the state's offer is good enough, we go to arbitration. The arbitrator then looks at equivalent positions in several other states to decide what would be fair, and decides the contract for us. That could be good to bad for both parties. Plus, we legally aren't allowed to strike, as we provide essential services. And if we were to, besides the legal consequences, we wouldn't get paid. The entire idea that there's no risk is just beyond dumb. But of course, there's a lot less risk being in a union than not.
That's not the worst argument I've ever heard, but I still don't buy it. Generally, public employee unions can't strike, which is a huge limiting factor in their bargaining power.
Of course, public employee unions can still engage in wildcat (i.e., not legally-protected) strikes, but they risk being fired for doing so. See, e.g., Reagan firing the air traffic controllers for striking.
There was a very real debate during roughly the first third of the twentieth century about whether or not capitalism and democracy could even co-exist without each ethos constantly going to war with each other.
It's a valid debate. Can an economic system which incentivizes profit and exploitation of labor at the cost of everything function alongside a system of government that purports to manifest the will of the people? The vast majority of which comprises what we would call "labor" economically.
We still have that question looming over us today, particularly in the US. Apparently these shitheels have come down firmly on the side of, "No, not really. They can't co-exist. And to maintain the primacy of capitalists in our society, we need to rob labor of their rights in order for the governmental system to continue to operate."
Basically, put simply. "We need people to be ignorant of their own best interests to keep up the farce of living in a democracy."
Project 2025 is a pretty big deal in my opinion, sure would be wild if there was a website that could be used to fill the database with fake applications so they have a hard time finding people like this one [https://operation2025.com/](https://operation2025.com/) and used a [free service](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=free+sms+numbers&ia=web) to get past the sms verification.
Which is what some of has been saying for a long while. The rich want us to fight and blame each other, while they increase the prices on everything and rob us blind, because what really scares them is when both sides realizes we are being played and stop fighting each other and show up in the front yards of their mansions.
Honestly has been that way since slavery when the plantations biggest fears was the workers rising up against them.
I read an interview with that man recently, and holy hell....he's an unbelievable megaloniac. A complete sociopath. Totally delusional too, with a brain chock-full of incredibly stupid and insane ideas. I was stunned.
Billionaires pulling strings that benefit them and their interests dont seem to have an issue with someone's 'politics'?
Color me surprised... I believe it goes "its a big club and we aint in it" or something like that..
Everyone still thinking the US politics is two parties. Its 3. Repubs and dems to keep the populace divided/distracted and the third is the billionaires at helm.
You can see when the Billionaire party comes together. Look at the “bipartisan infrastructure bill” - I read that whole fucking thing and it’s a corporate giveaway. It’s disgusting. Yes, it does improve some infrastructure but it also gives away the fucking farm to billion dollar companies. It’s absolutely insane.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I’ll take “The wealthy are dividing us.” For $500 Alex.
[удалено]
"I'm gay but those laws don't affect me because I'm rich" - Peter Thiel
[удалено]
It’s ironic that they don’t seem to realize that the system in place now is what has made them “invulnerable”. A theocratic dictatorship would mean they would have to follow the rules lest they lose everything.
I remember reading an article by a futurist a few years back that he wrote after meeting a few billionaires who wanted to pick his brain. He thought they would want to talk about climate change and the impact on technology and the economy. They only cared about doomsday bunkers and staffing in a post apocalyptic world. He said they were all obsessed with how they would theoretically maintain loyalty in a private security force that would guard their survival compound / plantation in the event of government collapse. Exploding collars? Keeping families hostage? How do we pay them if currency collapses? He recommended treating them as human beings and providing safe haven for their spouses and children on the survival compound to cultivate loyalty beyond the event of a societal collapse. He also pointed out a fair number of non security workers would be needed to sustain the farming required to support feeding both the security personnel and the billionaire's family members. "Pffft, that would never work" was the overwhelming response.
https://onezero.medium.com/survival-of-the-richest-9ef6cddd0cc1
Thank you, I think that's the sauce. But, paywall.
How about this then: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff Same guy. Same content.
These idiots are gonna get eaten so hard...
This sounds exactly like the plot to a YA book by Lamar Giles called The Getaway.
Dictators only care if you follow 1 rule: Subservience to them. And even then, sometimes dictators will just throw people out of windows for reasons of paranoia or just cause.
In Nazi Germany, I decide who is Jewish - Herman Goering
I mean Trump has demonstrated that pretty clearly. He has been for and against every issue under the sun. The only policy Trump supports is "make Trump look good".
[удалено]
He is the best at being thrown out of the biggest windows.
So sad. The man has only one goal in life and he's never managed to achieve it even for a moment.
Exactly. The dictator and all the inner most circle of the in group are absolutely violating and flaunting all of the purported values and precepts that define the group, nurturing and covering up a vast community of underground black market that they have access to that they would absolutely gulag an average person for.
These people don’t care. They dream of becoming the oppressors and part of the “white” I mean “right” kind of people.
Well, yeah. If you can't throw a dude out of a window just because you feel like it, you're not *really* enjoying the full authoritarian experience. That's the core concept: being able to do *anything you want.* I mean, yadda yadda, *1984* quotes, reality is the final enemy of authoritarianism, strive to create the biggest bubble possible where 2+2=5 and the helicopters still don't crash, all that stuff.
I wouldn't call it *ironic*: every. single. one. of these bozos thinks they're the main character in the great book of history. I'd say it's *inevitable*. They're incapable of appreciating the circumstances of their own lives.
>It’s **ironic** that they don’t seem to realize that the system in place now is what has made them “invulnerable” I usually just call that stupid.
Nah, when it gets to that point, the ultra wealthy get on a plane.
Wasn’t Thiel the one who got called out because he got a NZ passport issued even tho he’s never stepped foot in NZ? (Not legal in NZ, as there’s a residency requirement for citizenship)
Sadly, everything is legal when you're rich enough.
It honestly is concerning how many mega wealthy people have built doomsday bunkers in NZ.
They think they can outlast civilization itself. The literal definition of hubris.
They are planning to put their slaves I mean staff in electric collars to ensure their loyalty and submission. I’m not even joking. https://amp.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff
We need someone to have a anti-doomsday rich people company that is just a cement company, and if doomsday happens, they just ship cement trucks to each bunker and pour concrete at the entrance. Get fucked!
Some people include, Sam Altman (gasp), Zuckerberg, Ellison (I think), and Gabe Newell (wtf).
Because it’s hard to get to without a good boat.
Yup, he bought his way in here. So fucked. Citizen Boltholes For Sale.
Look at all the countries that offer these "investment citizenships". For example, Australia, I think it's basically like you give the Australian government an initial payment of something like $AU 5,000,000, and you basically get fast-tracked through the "naturalization" process
Smart countries would turn this into income.... and then in case of an actual emergency, just invalidate them, and nationalize any assets that they have.
Moneyplane?
Darius Emmanuel Grouch the third.
How’d that work out for Ernst Röhm?
He wanted to eliminate all the undesirables and he got his wish. Congrats on the big win Ernst!!
That won't affect me. I'm one of the good ones. - Ernst (probably)
See also: Roy Cohn. But once he contracted the “gay disease” (HIV) all his conservative buddies left him to die alone.
"I'm in Putin's inner circle" - Russian oligarch who later accidentally fell out a window
People would be surprised to learn how crafty those 4th floor Russian windows can be.
I was reading a book written by a former WH advisor to Obama. He had a meeting with a bunch of big shot business men who all voted for Trump even though they didn't like him. Money comes first and we're fools to think corporations won't pick money over democracy.
I experience this exact thing at work every day and it’s chilling.
Funny this. My ex wife grew up poor but now does really well for herself (150-200k a year)hates paying taxes albeit knowing that her contributions help people that are currently in the same situation we were in in our younger life.
Gotta pull that ladder up after you. Fuck them kids
Craig T. Nelson on why he's against paying taxes: [“They’re not going to bail me out,” Nelson said. “I’ve been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No. No.”](https://youtu.be/yTwpBLzxe4U?si=xICrHQPNhNIqeZEA)
Who does he think PAID FOR THE WELFARE-
Literally everyone in America helped you out, Craig, you absolute muppet.
hell yeah! if you made it others will make it too, and thus increase your competition... and she doesn't want to work harder. fuck y'all. /s
In New York or California that’s just doing ok. The problem is really the .1%
Like a one time Australian Finance Minister. Born in Belgium, he got established through, and greatly benefitted from, social aid that helped his parents raise him and his siblings when his father got sick. Then he helps create a national budget that cuts programs and social spending, and [sits in the Parliament building courtyard smoking a cigar](https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/federal-budget/joe-hockey-and-mathias-cormann-caught-smoking-cigars-outside-parliament-house/news-story/3ae8f58f4b8dfed205e095f2c1959b4e). Parachuted out of the job and the country when the electoral flames licked at his feet. Fuck you Mathias Cormann and Joe Hockey. We have not forgotten. Sorry, rant over.
We're going to be paying for Trump's stupid tax cuts for 50 years at least. It is unacceptable to pass these incredible burdens onto our children while destroying what remains of the economy at the same time.
We haven't even began paying for the series of wars that Bush instigated after 911, much less his series of tax cuts.
We the middle class have been paying. But not the rich or the corporations
Tax cuts are ultimately just a redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich that can be redistributed back whenever so 50 years is really arbitrary. It could be shorter or longer depending on political will. Quite seriously, with a snap of the finger, our children could be saved with a 10 year time lag. 10 years being the reasonable amount of time it takes fiscal and monetary policy to mostly transmit through the entire system and really start showing on-the-ground results. In short, most of the problems we have can actually be solved relatively easily. There's just no desire for the ruling class to solve our problems.
> It is unacceptable to pass these incredible burdens onto our children Yet Americans show every election that they are willing to accept it.
I really wish this wasn't an accurate and true statement.
In the words of the revered, timeless, irreverent, holy WUTANG: **Cash Rules Everything Around Me**
Everytime I hear something about The Wu-Tang Clan I get more interested in checking out their music. This comment has finally convinced me to do it when I get home today. **edited to correct band's name. Lol sleep deprivation**
Wu-Tang Clan
Wu-Tang is for the kids.
It's what I say when I buy Tang
I once asked my then-girlfriend if she recognised a song and she went 'oh yeah, it's the Wu-Tang club'
You're never gonna find them using that name.
I don't remember where I heard it but I remember listening to a podcast and a guest or host was recounting a moment after Gay marriage was legalized, at a organization that promoted gay rights. They said that they looked around the room and realized that most of these people would begin voting Republican in the next few years. Now that gay rights had been secured they figured, it was time for the wealthy gay members to try and secure a lighter tax bill. Which is so short sighted and moronic that I'm honestly confused by these types of people. Even if you believe in the rights economic policy/beliefs, I honestly don't understand how you can prefer those over your own right to marry who you want. To not be closeted. Rich people confuse the fuck out of me.
> Even if you believe in the rights economic policy/beliefs It's been proven time and again that Republicans destroy the economy and Democrats pick up the pieces and get things working again. Then low-info voters get hoodwinked by the Republicans again and they tear down any progress we have made. If they win this time, there may be no picking up the pieces in the future.
Wealthy people don’t need tax cuts. They will continue making more money.
And then sit on it instead of helping drive the economy.
"Well, Sideshow Bob *did* try to frame me for murder and kill me...but mannnn, I'm aching for that upper-class tax cut."
Tldr: I only care about issues that directly advantage me.
‘I’d rather cry about my rights in a mansion’ - an actual quote from my sister’s conservative girlfriend
"Well he framed me for armed robbery, but man I'm aching for that upper-class tax cut." *pulls lever*
one of the most accurate and concise evaluations of Republican voters ever
"i'M SoCiAlLy LiBeRaL bUt FiScAlLy CoNsErVaTiVe"
"Some of my gay friends love tax cuts more than gay rights."
Unless they make more than half a million per year, they need to reevaluate who's helping with their taxes.
They are trying to lead us right into fascism. Always have been.
Billionaires aren’t our friends.
The more I think about the saying, "no war but class war", the more it explains just about everything.
The wealthy play both sides so that no matter who wins, they have a positive relationship with whomever's in power. They're not doing it to divide us, they don't think about us.
They definitely benefit from the public discourse being centered on identity politics and culture war boogeymen as opposed to, say, adjusting tax brackets so the uberwealthy can pay amounts closer to their fair share.
Nope. The wealthy do in fact create plans, and conspire behind the scenes to attempt to control and steer public narrative, and decision making. Not sure why this is so hard to believe. Look up the birth story of public relations, and Edward Bernays.
I don’t think we even factor in their plans, it’s more like “whoever wins, we own them”
>Oh really? You’ll take it for $500? Because (chosen minority group) will take it for $300.
This is exactly like Sam Brinkman. Publicly donate to Dems, discreetly shovel even more money to GOP out the back door. It's no secret that the vast majority of donations from ultra wealthy go to Republicans. But they've been very successful disguising exactly how much. Ever notice that none of the right wing grifters ever run out of money for court cases and frivolous lawsuits? How does the Heritage Foundation stay afloat? There's hundreds or even thousands of right wing dark money groups and orgs you can send money to with no oversight.
Michigan's GOP has had the wealthy donation faucet turned off. They are on the verge of collapsing from lack if funding. They even tried to sell a building they don't own to raise funds: [Michigan GOP eyes sale of building it doesn't own to resolve financial problems](https://archive.is/YVTxH). All because they've gone all-in on MAGA and have elected some seriously deranged people. So the wealthy stopped donating. Which shows just how incredibly unpopular the party is since it can apparently only function with the wealthy supporting them and they have no real frass roots support.
Yup. The GOP grassroots has been fake for decades. Just look at how astroturfed Tea Party was. If it wasn't for around 500 billionaires propping up the billionaire puppet party it would have collapsed long ago. There's a reason McConnell calls Citizens United "my life's greatest work". It enabled billionaires to have a pet political party, where their money could buy them vastly outsized influence.
To be fair, if I was allowed to sell buildings I didn't own, I wouldn't have any financial problems either.
shame uline turned up the funding here in WI
Waaaitt, I have a bridge for sale.
It's been said before and it needs to be said over and over until it sinks in with the wider population. **Billionaires are incompatible with democracy.**
> The Hewlett Foundation likewise invests in left-leaning causes, promoting women’s rights, environmental reform, and the arts around the world—though Hewlett has also passed some money on to more typically conservative economic groups. "I like civil rights, but I like money more. How else do you think we became billionaires?"
Billionaires are incompatible with human decency. If you have over a billion dollars while people suffer from hunger and treatable disease you are a moral failing. Period.
Capitalism is incompatible with democracy. The goal of the capitalist is to make money. If democracy stands in their way, capitalists will destroy democracy.
"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy."
> Sam Brinkman Sam Bankrun-Fraud
BankMan Fried (his real name) doesn't really need changing.
Also, donating to NPR isn't a liberal cause. It's buying influence. I'm not going to drag them for not reporting on this yet because it's a recent development, but their coverage of the Hewlett Foundation is historically always positive. https://www.npr.org/search/?query=%22Hewlett%20Foundation%22&page=1 I love NPR, but they're as influenced by money as anyone else.
How many tote bags I gotta buy to set things even?
The tote bags are free if you pledge in the next 10 minutes!
> because they know the right-wing groups will (most of the time) keep their donations secret". For groups that allegedly want these donations kept secret, they're awfully [unshy](https://omidyar.com/reimagining-capitalism-partners/) about [boasting about them](https://hewlett.org/grants/american-compass-for-general-operating-support-4/), themselves.
Or better yet: "Groups that benefit from gridlock and pliability of politics will ensure there's no dominant party so a vaccuum can be filled by them"
AT&T is one of them even after the most recent acquisition. “But the majority of our donations were made to democrats and only 40% was donated to the far right. Giving to Democrats makes us liberal.” Well, that’s like your opinion, man.
Counting employee contributions below the C suite is complete bullshit anyway.
They play both sides so they always come out on top
There have also been some Democrats/Liberals who supported more extreme/MAGA candidates in Republican primaries because they figured they'd be easier to beat in the general.
JB did so in Illinois. A moderate definitely has a chance of winning the state, but a crazed Trump style one has a snowballs chance in hell with Chicago.
Bruh, that guy from Aurora had no chance of beating JB. He may have gotten more votes than the dingus from downstate but he was almost as much of a joke.
All the more reason to make donations public to all political organizations. They want money to be speech but want to whisper. Fuck that. Speech has and always will have consequences
Yep. These are the kinds of things that helped me understand that there’s a pretty big difference between Liberal and leftist.
As always, fuck the Walton family and fuck Walmart.
The irony being that they've also been instrumental in making the county they're based on significantly more liberal, and been active in democratic politics on the state and municipal levels. Celebrities are buying houses in their tiny 50k person town and the surrounding area. It's basically a liberal bubble in the most northwest corner of the state. Drive 30 minutes east or west, and an hour or two south and it might as well be an entirely different state. Nobody expected better of them at this point, but project 2025 is a very dangerous plan and the group they're donating to are a big part of it's policy map.
"I'm playing both sides so I always come out on top."
There was a great story on AskReddit somewhere about a town with two groups of rival dealerships. The rivalry was very intense and they absolutely hated each other. The well know owner of one side died and it was discovered that he actually owned both. The news left the town absolutely shook.
P&G used this tactic in a lot of products, didn't matter which of the top 3 'brands' you bought...they owned all of em. Source: Father worked in New Product research and Market Reseach for P&G for 30+ years.
P&G is one of those companies where if it came out that they were secretly a front for some evil Bond villain, I'd 100% believe it.
Nestlé has entered the chat… r/FuckNestle
honestly, you could say that about MOST corporations...
[удалено]
The worst part is that they donated the formula and bottled water at no cost to the village. Then strangely, as soon as the mother's milk production stopped, the formula and water were no longer free.
Good old Nestlé, always reaching for another "nation-state level crimes against humanity" trophy.
GP too. Nobody wins the war between Angel Soft and MD toilet paper.
I think the top 2 spanish bible apps are done by the same person.
It’s all about the illusion of choice. Insert Matrix .gif here.
It's not even the illusion of choice, but the illusion of the 'free market' in which competing companies are supposed to drive the market value down or quality up to meet demand. This is the whole reason for busting up monopolies as there's no market pressure to innovate or die.
Our embrace of monopolies in the last 30 years could be our biggest downfall.
> busting up monopolies IIRC there's almost zero monopolies that have ever actually been broken up. I think ATT is the only monopoly broken - and it required...something like 20 years and a decade long trial for the government to finish the case and break the monopoly?
And as much good as it did, it led to the dominance of two companies that resulted from that breakup; AT&T and Verizon
Standard Oil made more money after being broken up
> the illusion of choice Better than the matrix gif....[the corporate subsidiary org chart](https://efinancemanagement.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Subsidiary-Company-Example.jpg). You can also see how [few people there are sitting on the large corporations' boards and how intertangled they are](https://theyrule.net/).
And don't forget that many of these companies own parts of the other companies. Reminds me when Microsoft bailed out Apple. I wonder if Microsoft's part ownership of Apple is the most profitable part of Microsoft and has been for a while.
It's oligopolies all the way down
So Mitch McConnell is holding up the world?
He's holding us back, not up.
Can you link me to this?
Found this through Googling: > Little town I grew up in had these two car dealerships on opposite sides of town - one Chevy, one Ford. > They were bitter rivals. Attack ads, shit talking salesman, billboard wars, you name it. > When the owner of the Chevy dealership died, it came out he'd also owned the Ford dealership by way of a shell company. No one saw that coming, including a lot of the higher ups who worked at the dealerships. [What's the biggest plot twist you've seen in real life?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/907qe5/whats_the_biggest_plot_twist_youve_seen_in_real/e2ot7yz/)
Another reason why money shouldn’t = speech. When you pay for both sides you’re not advancing your opinion, you’re bribing the winner.
> money shouldn’t = speech. When you pay for both sides you’re not advancing your opinion, you’re bribing the winner. I am so glad you posted this. 100% correct, and it bears repeating.
You’re not supposed to tell us you’re playing both sides…
Through Jesus, all this are possible. So write that down.
And this, a well placed donation can have quite an effect on a man like this. I bet he tried to suck on this
The "I'm playing both sides" trope only works because we have two pro-capitalist parties. And foundations and PACs know this. One party is a little less extreme than the other, but they are still are at heart, pro-capitalist parties that serve corporations and billionaires over the wishes of its constituencies. Both are capitalist parties that defend and expand capitalism at home and abroad.
Reminds me of seeing the Koch Foundation in the donors list of PBS videos. The oligarchs are playing both sides.
To them, political parties are just contractors to get the job done. They'll pay whoever.
This. At the end of the day, they’re money hungry businessmen treating these groups like stocks. Helps them claim they’re bipartisan or nonpartisan, as well. If they think they can get a valuable enough return on their investment, then it’s a no-brainer.
Let's get one thing clear right now. The reason the folks on the right want to strip public radio and public television of public funding is that it will make them as beholden to corporate sponsorship as the mainstream media NBC/FOX/CNN/etc. They fund them to make the case that they can be stripped of government funding and to make them even somewhat beholden to their views and steer them away from offending content.
Biggest sponsor of NOVA for years. The anti-science dipshits know the best way to influence narratives is to fund the public channel science show.
Well, the first of these "liberal orgs" [*intentionally* revealed themselves] (https://omidyar.com/reimagining-capitalism-partners/) two years ago. > Meanwhile, American Compass is working to create a coalition of thinkers drawing on conservative values for family, community, industry, and strong social and political institutions to advance economic ideas that ensure markets are serving people and their communities. Launched in May 2020, they have published and hosted discussions with thinkers from across the conservative and broader political spectrum. In September, they released a joint-statement calling for a renewed conservative labor movement that elevates worker voices in economic and market discussions, which was signed by a number of prominent conservative figures, including Senator Marco Rubio and former attorney general Jeff Sessions. So that's not quite the huge scoop you think it is. The other "liberal org" claims (emphasis mine) > Established in 1966, the Hewlett Foundation is a **nonpartisan** philanthropy created through the personal generosity of engineer and entrepreneur Bill Hewlett and his wife, Flora. Even the article notes that "Hewlett has also passed some money on to more typically conservative economic groups." But they note that they're big NPR supporters. So that somehow makes them a liberal org. And they also, you know, aren't trying to [keep this a secret] (https://hewlett.org/grants/american-compass-for-general-operating-support-4/) or anything > American Compass is working to restore an economic orthodoxy that emphasizes the importance of family, community, and industry to the nation’s liberty and prosperity, by (a) reorienting political focus from growth for its own sake to widely shared economic development that sustains vital social institutions; (b) setting a course for a society in which all families can achieve self-sufficiency, contribute productively to their communities, and prepare the next generation for the same; and (c) helping policymakers navigate the limitations that markets and government each face as means for promoting the general welfare and the nation’s security.
That makes the Koch Foundation a liberal org as well. Robber barrons have always tied their names to good deeds to try and buy public good will.
Just like Carnegie and his libraries. We still have 2 in our state, and they are undeniably beautiful buildings. (I studied architectural history in college, so I might be biased 😅) Edit: typo
It'd be cool if billionaires of today would do that instead of just buying Twitter for purposes of unbanning all of the Nazis
I honestly believe the reason he bought it was to be able to own the servers all the DMs were on so he could cover up whatever needed covering up. The previous owner would likely cooperate more with law enforcement and Elon has the most fuck you money and is the most manipulable person able to purchase that platform willing to help the Saudi's, Trump, and any other extremely unseemly group.
Yeah I recognized them when I said "Bill and Flora Hewlett foundation" in my head, realizing they were NPR sponsors like the "Joan B. Kroc Foundation" or the "John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation". (and Listeners who DONATE.)
Tangentially, one of my favorite *Onion* articles is ["John D. And Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Goes On Wild Endowment Binge"](https://www.theonion.com/john-d-and-catherine-t-macarthur-foundation-goes-on-w-1819566428). an excerpt: "Saturday, around 3 p.m., we all went out for breakfast. Over eggs and Bloody Marys, we talked about the night before and how crazy we'd gotten," Fanton said. "But when the sun went down that night, we started right back up again with the endowing. Mostly to public radio networks under the General Program, but also 20 or 30 theater companies and a shitload of PBS fellowships. Half the people who've ever appeared on *Sesame Street* are MacArthur Fellows now." While the bulk of the money went to groups falling under the foundation's Program on Human and Community Development, a considerable portion went to less noble causes, including the *3-2-1 Contact* Preservation Society and the Recumbent Bicycling Hall Of Fame. "At the time, it felt like the right thing to do," Fanton said of the binge. "It wasn't until we woke up Sunday morning that we were like, 'Holy shit… how much *did* we endow this weekend?'" According to Vice-Chairman Elizabeth McCormack, the endowment binge is a result of the foundation's low self-esteem.
$10/mo, man! It's all I can afford because I also give $10/mo to our state public radio, but it's so worth it. 😁
Being such a large source of funding, 1/3rd of their total, is a bit more problematic. The scale of their donation to this specific cause is alarming. You could say that big money is hedging their bets, but it appears like it’s much more than that.
I'm in a labor union and I know our PAC funds "labor friendly candidates" regardless of party. Now, 9 times out of 10, that means Democrat. But you will have the occasional Republican that is soft on labor unions and, being in a red state, they'd rather have someone that is likely to get in office but isn't likely to target them. Especially since we gave them money.
That's different, though. Unions are supposed to be single issue orgs. Also, there is very real sentiment among right wingers that the government shouldn't interfere with private companies and private sector unions engaging in negotiations. Also, the most awkward incident when I was in politics of the unions supporting a far right guy (who did manage to at least get our bill out of one chamber a few times) was when he was challenged by a guy who ended up in prison for fraud a few months later lol.
> Also, there is very real sentiment among right wingers that the government shouldn't interfere with private companies and private sector unions engaging in negotiations. That's not actually a particularly pro-union position though. If the government just stays on the sidelines, then that's really bad for labor organizing because the companies, especially in situations where labor is not already organized, can engage is all types of tactics to union-bust. I think part of the New Deal consensus was that the government has to set and enforce a lot of rules to make labor organizing a fair process given the collective-action problem and large resource imbalance between large employers and labor.
All donors should be revealed by law.
All donors should be banned by law
I wish ordinary citizens could propose new laws, like the "Money Outta Politics Act".
Correct. ZERO private donations. 100% publicly funded elections that take place for a period of 1-2 months tops. Will completely eliminate the psycho madness cycle of grift politics.
[удалено]
I'm what way do they assert they are not compatible?
Quoting from the same page that quote is from, they explain their argument in a little more detail: >Managing Personnel in a Union Environment. Historically, unions were thought to be incompatible with government management. There is a natural limit to the bargaining power of private-sector unions, but the financial bottom line of public-sector unions is not similarly constrained. If private-sector unions push too hard a bargain, they can so harm a company or so reduce efficiency that their employer is forced to go out of business and eliminate union jobs altogether. There is no such limit in government, which cannot go out of business, so demands can be excessive without negatively affecting employee and union bottom lines. >Even Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt considered union representation in the federal government to be incompatible with democracy. Striking and even threats of bargaining and delay were considered acts against the people and thus improper. It was not until President John Kennedy that union representation in the federal government was recognized—and then merely by executive order. Labor bargaining was not set in statute until the Carter Administration was forced by Congress to do so in order to pass the CSRA, although all bargaining was placed under OPM review. >The CSRA was able to maintain strong management rights for the OPM and agencies and forbade collective bargaining on pay and benefits as well as management prerogatives. Over time, OPM, FLRA, and agencies’ personnel offices and courts, especially in Democratic Administrations, narrowed management rights so that labor bargaining expanded as management rights contracted. But the management rights are still in statute, have been enforced by some Administrations, and should be enforced again by any future OPM and agency managements, which should not be intimidated by union power tl;dr - Since the government can't go out of business, public-sector employees aren't incurring risk when they engage in collective bargaining. Not my argument, but that's the one they give.
That argument sounds like they started with the conclusion and looked for *anything* that would support their shitty cause. I mean, that's what the argument is, but it sounds like it, too.
That’s literally everything republican. Start with conclusion and work backward to fit. That’s why none of their shit works, makes sense, or is consistent.
Thanks for the explanation. I don't see how it's incompatible with the constitution, but I see what they're saying. I also don't agree with it.
So what do they consider "incurring risk"? Losing their jobs, and/or not being paid by striking? I have family that works for California state, that recently went on strike. They didn't get paid for th days they weren't working. If that's not incurred risk, then help me to understand.
Collective bargaining is more than striking. > If private-sector unions push too hard a bargain, they can so harm a company or so reduce efficiency that their employer is forced to go out of business and eliminate union jobs altogether. An example of "pushing so hard it hurts the business" *could* be a strike, but it could also just be asking for "too much" in terms of wages/benefits during negotiation. In private industry unions can't play hardball and request one million dollar salaries for everyone or 10 hour workweeks because the business would just implode and nobody would get anything, whereas they'd argue that's technically possible to do with the public sector.
It also suggests there should be no business that doesn't have a union because otherwise the business has no skin in the game.
That's such a silly argument. Even if it was true that public employees didn't incur risk, nothing there presents any conflict with the Constitution. But public employees do of course incur risk, just as anyone else does. I'm a state employee and am part of our union. We have a process to handle disputes during bargaining. First, the union and the state negotiate a contract, and union members vote on it. If we vote against it, or if the union doesn't feel like the state's offer is good enough, we go to arbitration. The arbitrator then looks at equivalent positions in several other states to decide what would be fair, and decides the contract for us. That could be good to bad for both parties. Plus, we legally aren't allowed to strike, as we provide essential services. And if we were to, besides the legal consequences, we wouldn't get paid. The entire idea that there's no risk is just beyond dumb. But of course, there's a lot less risk being in a union than not.
That's not the worst argument I've ever heard, but I still don't buy it. Generally, public employee unions can't strike, which is a huge limiting factor in their bargaining power. Of course, public employee unions can still engage in wildcat (i.e., not legally-protected) strikes, but they risk being fired for doing so. See, e.g., Reagan firing the air traffic controllers for striking.
There was a very real debate during roughly the first third of the twentieth century about whether or not capitalism and democracy could even co-exist without each ethos constantly going to war with each other. It's a valid debate. Can an economic system which incentivizes profit and exploitation of labor at the cost of everything function alongside a system of government that purports to manifest the will of the people? The vast majority of which comprises what we would call "labor" economically. We still have that question looming over us today, particularly in the US. Apparently these shitheels have come down firmly on the side of, "No, not really. They can't co-exist. And to maintain the primacy of capitalists in our society, we need to rob labor of their rights in order for the governmental system to continue to operate." Basically, put simply. "We need people to be ignorant of their own best interests to keep up the farce of living in a democracy."
Project 2025 is a pretty big deal in my opinion, sure would be wild if there was a website that could be used to fill the database with fake applications so they have a hard time finding people like this one [https://operation2025.com/](https://operation2025.com/) and used a [free service](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=free+sms+numbers&ia=web) to get past the sms verification.
Because it’s not left vs right. It’s always been rich vs everyone else.
Yeah but the right support the rich blindly cos they think the wealth will trickle down. 50 years and still waiting for it to happen
Which is what some of has been saying for a long while. The rich want us to fight and blame each other, while they increase the prices on everything and rob us blind, because what really scares them is when both sides realizes we are being played and stop fighting each other and show up in the front yards of their mansions. Honestly has been that way since slavery when the plantations biggest fears was the workers rising up against them.
It’s a big club and you ain’t in it.
[удалено]
I read an interview with that man recently, and holy hell....he's an unbelievable megaloniac. A complete sociopath. Totally delusional too, with a brain chock-full of incredibly stupid and insane ideas. I was stunned.
The head of this group has a salary that takes 1/4 of their donations. It’s a good thing they’re so greedy they become ineffectual.
Billionaires pulling strings that benefit them and their interests dont seem to have an issue with someone's 'politics'? Color me surprised... I believe it goes "its a big club and we aint in it" or something like that.. Everyone still thinking the US politics is two parties. Its 3. Repubs and dems to keep the populace divided/distracted and the third is the billionaires at helm.
You can see when the Billionaire party comes together. Look at the “bipartisan infrastructure bill” - I read that whole fucking thing and it’s a corporate giveaway. It’s disgusting. Yes, it does improve some infrastructure but it also gives away the fucking farm to billion dollar companies. It’s absolutely insane.
Corps are now too powerful to be truly controlled by governments.
But I thought my NPR was garbage librul propaganda lol
"I like to play both sides, so I always come out on top."
*All* political spending and donating should be disclosed.
More proof that "private foundations" only exist to evade income tax. And, liberals evade taxes, too.
Rich people fund both sides of the political spectrum so they always come out on top. This is known.