Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (287871)	1/10/2016 3:31:08 PM
From: koan	Respond to of 540755

You know when you think about it the formula is really easy. You look around the world and find the smartest and most humanitarian people you can find and get your ideas from them. That'll put you on the right trail better than any other formulae I can think of. And make it a process of your life. Like jogging. The Mark Twain's, John Muir, Will Rogers, HL Mencken's, Bertrand Russell's are good guides to life and understanding. And guys like Pete Seeger to remind us of our humanity. We had it right in the 60s peace love and thinking. So I never read any right-wing stuff. I always saw it was a waste of time. The right wing is more problematic than many imagine. The right wing pretty much doesn't get anything right. Problem is they know both that we lefties probably do know what needs to be done, but also it makes them feel slighted. So they get mad. And that's how you get to Trump. I know you know all this. But if I had to bet right now, I'd bet Cruz and he scares the hell out of me

To: epicure who wrote (287871)	1/10/2016 9:59:07 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 540755

What do you think about this woman? Why one California teacher took her union to the Supreme Court In a potential watershed labor case, the Supreme Court is poised to weigh if mandatory ‘fair share’ union fees violate the First Amendment. The teacher at the center of the case speaks out. news.yahoo.com One of the questions that will likely arise during Monday’s oral argument is what might happen to collective bargaining and public sector unions should a majority of justices agree to overturn the Abood decision. Union supporters warn that mandatory fair-share fees are a linchpin of American public sector labor relations. If that linchpin is removed the system could come crashing down, weakening unions and jeopardizing the welfare of millions of workers, they say. Friedrichs disagrees. She says one solution would be to allow people simply to choose for themselves whether to join and support a union.“If we give people freedom to choose, I personally think the unions would improve,” she says. “They might go back to what they used to be because they would have to earn the respect and earn the support of the members.” She adds: “If we win this case, I honestly believe the unions will become better. They will have to up their game and they will have to give members what members want – and people will want to join.” I think she is an idiot, taking for granted what unions have achieved. As if unions could actually represent the political views of every member. Corporations give plenty of money to PACs, but neither shareholders nor most employees have any any say in it. Nor, for that matter, do many employees have any say in whether to donate to the PAC if they want to rise in the corporation. Of course, wingers wills say, just don't buy stock in that corporation or find another job. People could say that to union members too--find another job if you don't like it that much. A reasonable guess is that it will once again come down to Kennedy.

To: epicure who wrote (287871)	1/10/2016 11:54:20 PM
From: Alex MG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540755

“A COUNTRY that gives every citizen enough cash to live on whether she needs it or not: It’s got to be either a fool’s paradise or a profligate Northern European nation. And lo, in November, the Finnish government proposed paying every adult 800 euros or about $870 a month. Fits of this seemingly irrational generosity, called a universal basic income or U.B.I., are becoming surprisingly common. The Swiss will vote in a referendum on basic income this year. The Dutch city of Utrecht will soon start a basic-income pilot program. Canada’s ruling Liberal Party recently adopted a resolution calling for a similar experiment. Still, it couldn’t happen here. Or could it?” Over the past few years, a case for the U.B.I. has emerged that could make it appealing not just to the poor, who don’t vote in great numbers, but to women, who do. The feminist argument for a U.B.I. is that it’s a way to reimburse mothers and other caregivers for the heavy lifting they now do free of charge. Roughly one-fifth of Americans have children 18 or under. Many also attend to ill or elderly relatives. They perform these labors out of love or a sense of duty, but still, at some point during the diaper-changing or bedpan cleaning, they have to wonder why their efforts aren’t seen as “work.” They may even ask why they have to pay for the privilege of doing it, by cutting back on their hours or quitting jobs to stay home. Disproportionately, of course, these caregivers are women. Notwithstanding the advent of the stay-at-home dad, it’s still mothers who do most of the invisible labor of cleaning, schlepping, scheduling and listening. It’s Payback Time for Women