|
|
|
Caucus
|
Title:
U4Prez Socialist Caucus
Description:
font face="Times New Roman" size="4">INTRODUCTION:
I, Arjay, have always been at odds with the modern American two-party system, and along with others, I have been very vocal in not only my opposition to the doupoly of power the Republicans and Democrats have held for over 150 years, but the illegal and sinister means by which they keep other political parties from gaining access to the political process. I have been a staunch supporter of self-education for every voting American concerning all candidates, not just the ones with the R and the D after the names, but also the Libertarians, Greens, Socialists, Reform and Constitution Party candidates, and independents from all over the political spectrum.
It is in this spirit that I present this caucus as the first real U4Prez attempt to present the history, platform, candidates, and spirit of American democratic socialism to the U4Prez community.

In the past, I have openly advocated not only a more favorable tone toward the word socialism, but a realization that in America, not only does socialism thrive and has thrived on one level or another for over a hundred years, socialism has saved our bacon time and again and again.
For evidence of this, look no further than the US government's rescue of banks like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, and financing giants like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While these and other capitalist entities have made billions of dollars through deregulation and loopholes, at the end of the day, in order to save the entire American and possibly the world economy, they needed a taxpayer bailout.
For all the complaining about the so-called "welfare mama", corporate welfare far outstrips anything individual Americans could ever do to undermine the economy of the United States. Any self-proclaimed believer in free enterprise has to inherently be disgusted by what has become of American laissez-faire capitalism.

But the reason you don't have to worry, at least not this very second, about a second Great Depression, is because of socialism. Plain and simple. Say what you want about governments, they're not stupid, and if nothing else, they don't want a major collapse of the economy to happen on their party's watch. Using socialist tactics like government bailouts to industries capitalism dictates should rise and fall on their own merits, they keep the economy going for another day. While CEO's play their little games and make their billions, should they falter, it's the American people who end up bailing them out.
You can thank socialism for that.
In the coming weeks and months, I will be presenting a case for socialism, the rich history it has in America and around the world, how it has shaped our lives and saved our nation time and again, how we honor many socialists without knowing it, and possibly most important, how the idea of democratic socialism has been bastardized in this country, its perception morphed, the very word linked erroneously to some of the most heinous acts of the last century.

The truth of the matter is, socialism has always been a vital aspect of American society. The rise of the unions as a way for common workers to pull their power together for the sake of better pay, safer work environments, and upward mobility, this is socialism. The Nineteenth Amendment was largely supported by socialist parties of the day, and many of the more noteworthy suffragettes were reknown socialists. Authors like Upton Sinclair exposed the hidden evils of industrialized America, brought it the attention it deserved, and with it, socialist action. Self-proclaimed Jack London and H.G. Wells penned novels where Social Darwinism runs amok and alters the human condition for the worse. Woody Guthrie's ballads gave the common man voice in trying times, always with the slogan written on his guitar, This Machine Kills Fascists, reminding us all that the enemy of fascism and runaway corporatism has always been the socialist. Socialists played a role in the Harlem Renaissance. And in the hands of Franklin Roosevelt, socialism not only got millions back to work during the Great Depression and put our factories in a position to create the machinery necessary to fight World War II, socialism gave our returning soldiers what they needed to build the modern American middle class, like the GI Bill, giving veterans the chance to go to college, to better the lives of their families, and along with it, they built the America of the 1950's.

I put forth this caucus, and as it takes shape, I will also be using my profile as a source for links on the history, the legacy, the people, and the world shaped by democratic socialism.
I also encourage those who either have no idea what democratic socialism really is, or those who have a negative point of view on democratic socialism, to use this caucus for its educational possibilities, its historical analysis, or if nothing else, to show your disdain for an economic system which has saved America from its own selfishness time and again and again.
While I continue to seek official recognition of a U4Prez Socialist Party, I hereby proclaim myself the leader of the U4Prez Socialist Movement, and in this position, I seek to educate the populace on the true nature of socialism, with or without official recognition of a party that bears that name. I seek to correspond with like-minded candidates to not only find solidarity within U4Prez for such a movement, but to find honest, practical, and socialist means to combat the very serious problems facing this country and the world. From health care to Russian-Venezuelan alliances, socialists have answers.
I welcome you to this caucus, and I hope to complete my personal profile to better reflect this political stance.
Thank you, and God Bless Humanity.
|
|
|
Reply/Add Comment
|
|
Please
Login
to comment about this Caucus
|
|
Caucus Related User Comments |
| From |
Comments For This Caucus
|
|
|
Posted
7/13/2009 11:53:35 AM
|
|
Workers in New Jersey and Michigan die in industrial accidents
By Jack Cody 11 July 2009
Two fatal job accidents are focusing attention on the issue of workplace fatalities, which are rising as businesses cut costs to weather the recession by hiring temporary workers and sidestepping safety regulations.
In a processing plant in New Jersey, a temporary worker died Wednesday after falling into a vat of boiling chocolate. Vincent Smith II, 29, fell nine feet from a platform where he was pouring raw chocolate into a churner. Although the temperature of the molten chocolate in the vat was 120 degrees Fahrenheit, Smith did not die from the heat.
Within seconds of falling into the vat, Smith sustained a blunt head injury from the machine's large agitator blades. Fellow workers immediately hit the emergency shutoff mechanism to stop the mixers, but not before at least one had struck Smith. He was pulled out of the vat within 10 minutes, but he was already dead.
The facility in which the fatal incident occurred is owned by Cocoa Services, Inc. and managed and operated independently by Lyons and Sons. Smith was mixing chocolate for Hershey's at the time of his death.
On Tuesday, a Detroit construction worker died after falling into a sink hole that had opened up in the road of a residential neighborhood in which he was working. José Águilar was fixing a broken water main in residential eastern Detroit. As Águilar worked, the road collapsed beneath him, causing him to fall up to his shoulders in a sinkhole, as concrete, mud and debris rushed to fill in the space surrounding him.
Although neighbors claim Águilar was breathing and speaking at the beginning of the rescue operation, he was dead by the time he was removed, nearly two hours later.
Águilar had only been employed for two weeks by Imperial Construction Co., the firm to which the city of Detroit contracted out water pipe repairs.
After declining for a number of years, the number of yearly work-related deaths increased between 2002 and 2006, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. As shown in these two cases, these deaths are due to companies' efforts to deal with the competitive pressures unleashed by the economic crisis by cutting costs, hiring temporary workers and placing them in dangerous working environments with insufficient job safety training.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics also reports that the number of workers falling into the category labeled “Persons at work part time for economic reasons” rose from roughly 5.7 million in June of 2008 to roughly 9.2 million in June of 2009, a 62 percent increase. This means that far greater numbers of workers are being forced to accept temporary work wherever they can find it, including in industries where they have no work history. Inexperienced workers, the category to which Smith reportedly belonged, are at a greater risk to suffer work place injuries, as they are liable not to be adequately trained in proper safety techniques.
The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) is investigating whether repeated safety code violations by Imperial Construction Co. contributed to Águilar's death.
The Detroit Free Press reported that the company received numerous citations from MIOSHA, including a citation only two months ago for “not having a qualified person regularly inspecting excavations or trenches; for not properly sloping or shoring excavation sides more than 5 feet deep; and for not having a proper walkway, ramp or bridge across trenches or ditches.”
Águilar's death might have been avoided if Imperial Construction had complied with these mandatory safety measures.
Águilar's death raises a broader political question that the MIOSHA investigation will not address: why are broken water pipes being fixed by independent contractors rather than the city?
The answer is that, after decades of plant closures and social cuts, Detroit is broke. Imperial Construction Co. got the job because it charges less, sending out inexperienced and underpaid crews without adequate equipment or supervision. Responsibility for the consequences—including José Águilar's death -- lies primarily with the city's political and corporate leadership.
Detroit mayor David Bing has declined to comment publicly. |
|
|
|
Posted
5/2/2009 7:12:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted
5/1/2009 11:28:38 PM
|
|
See, this is why I don't just cut-and-paste, because I'm no good at getting rid of the ads. |
|
|
|
Posted
5/1/2009 11:26:54 PM
|
|
The secret war against American workers
The deepening recession is giving some businesses the excuse to fire people they'd have had to keep on in better conditions.
Editor's note: This article has also appeared on TomDispatch.com.
By Robert Eshelman
March 30, 2009
Juanita Borden, 39 and jobless, patiently waits as her résumé methodically works its way, line by line, through a fax machine at a state-run job center in downtown Philadelphia. Lying open before her on a round conference table is a neatly organized folder. "This is my résumé and everywhere I've been faxing to. This is how I keep track of what day I've sent them on, so I can call and check back," she says, leafing through pages of fax cover sheets. "I usually give five business days before I inquire whether or not they've received it and whether or not they're interested."
Juanita was fired last October, when her employer found out that her driver's license -- a job requirement -- had expired. "It was only a matter of $26. I was under the impression that it expired in November of '08, but it was actually November of '07, and because I hadn't been driving I wasn't aware of it." The one occasion on which she was required to drive, though, she couldn't, and that was all her employer needed to fire her for failing to fulfill her employment responsibilities. She has since renewed her license and says with an air of futility, "I'd like to have my job back if they would give it to me."
She hasn't been asked back and, despite her persistent efforts, she hasn't received a single call from a prospective employer either. "The good thing," she says, remaining remarkably buoyant despite her misfortune, "is that usually when I interview I get the job. So ... I'm hoping for an interview soon." Until then, her carefully managed folder serves as a small measure of control over an otherwise steady drift into poverty and homelessness.
Juanita isn't the only one at this job center on the precipice of acute need. And she isn't alone in relating a story about being fired for what would seem to many a frivolous reason. Chris Topher, 25 and making his first visit here, was axed in March of last year. The telecommunications company he had been working for sent him packing when, as he tells it, he installed cable equipment a customer hadn't ordered. It didn't matter that the mistake was on the work order Chris was given. "It was the best job I had since I graduated high school and I've had a few: Turnpike Commission, working in a senator's office. I've had some nice jobs, but that one, I enjoyed it the most."
And there was good reason to enjoy it. Chris pulled down $1,200-1,300 every two weeks in addition to receiving a full benefits package. He thought of contesting his termination, but at the time it looked like a long, uphill battle that he wasn't eager to take on. It's a fight that, in hindsight, he thinks he could have won and that his employer probably knew he would win as well. "And that's why I believe I was approved by my employer for unemployment," he says.
Under unemployment eligibility requirements, an employer must certify whether an employee committed a "fault" on the job and was therefore terminated. If an employer indicates that no fault was committed and the employee meets several other requirements, including being physically able to work, states grant an unemployment claim. In other words, Chris' former employer granted him a small concession, while otherwise turning his life upside down amid the worst job market since 1983.
"Unemployment is the pits pretty much," says Chris, whose unemployment compensation is significantly less than half what he made as a cable installer. Still, he's better off than Juanita, who has applied for unemployment twice and been denied both times. She is now appealing, but her employer is conceding nothing. In a recent arbitration hearing, Juanita says, her former supervisor claimed that, if she had only told them about her expired license, they would have allowed her renewal time. If only.
Now, Juanita lives with her brother and his wife, but they, too, have financial problems. "My brother is working part-time and it's driving him crazy, because it's causing money problems between him and his wife," she explains. "And with me being there," she hesitates, "it's a little constrained."
Ratcheting up the fear

The mainstream media has generally sketched a picture of a labor market in which, under the pressure of an economic meltdown, workers succumb to two types of downsizing. In one, a fierce recession forces businesses, desperate to cut costs in terrible times, to lay off workers. They, in turn, face grim prospects for gainful employment elsewhere. In a kinder, gentler version of the same, employers, desperate to cut costs in terrible times, offer -- or sometimes force workers to take -- "furloughs," salary cuts, union givebacks, four-day work weeks, or unpaid holidays rather than axing large numbers of them.
In this case, tough as it may be, workers benefit, retaining at least some of their income, while businesses wait out the recession. In both cases, businesses are largely depicted as unenthusiastic dispensers of pink slips. Managers and bosses are just facing up to an unpalatable reality and unavoidable pressures imposed on them by the worst economic moment in recent memory.
A visit to a job center is hardly a scientific survey. The experiences of Juanita and Chris, along with those of other unemployed people I spent time with while in Philadelphia, may be purely anecdotal evidence. But they do raise questions about a subject of no small importance, and it's not one you're likely to read about in your daily paper -- not yet anyway. If a deepening recession weighs down and threatens businesses, some of those businesses are undoubtedly also making convenient use of the times to do things they might have wanted to do, but were unable to do in better conditions.
In some cases, under the guise of "recession" pressure, they may be waging a secret war against their own workers, using even the most innocuous transgressions of workplace rules as the trigger for firings -- and so, of course, putting the fear of God into those who remain. In this way, company payrolls are not only being reduced by mass layoffs, but workers are being squeezed for ever greater productivity in return for lower wages, worse hours and fewer benefits. The weapon of choice is the specter of unemployment, a kind of death by a thousand (or a million) cuts.
Companies stand to gain a lot these days from such small-scale but decisive actions. After all, they reap a double benefit. Not only do they pare down the size of their payroll, often without needing -- as in Juanita's case -- to consent to unemployment compensation, but they also contribute to a climate of intensifying fear. Workers who remain on the job are now not only on edge about layoffs or scaled-back hours, but also know that a late return from a bathroom or lunch break might mean being shown the door, becoming another member of the legions of unemployed -- now at 12.5 million and rising fast.
This dynamic is, of course, hardly new. Countless critics of working conditions have written about it since the dawn of the industrial age. But at the moment, even as the latest unemployment figures make screaming headlines, this is a subject that seldom comes up. Consider, though, that in December, Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, settled 63 outstanding class-action lawsuits that alleged massive wage and hours violations. Fearing termination, Wal-Mart workers, according to their testimony in the lawsuits, labored through lunch breaks and past their scheduled hours for just above minimum wage pay, with little hope of getting enough hours to qualify for the company's health benefits.
As a condition of the settlement, Wal-Mart will pay out as much as $640 million to those workers. If corporations were able to exert such coercive power when the unemployment rate was around 5 percent, what can they do in a job market in which 14.8 percent of the population can't find adequate work?
In fact, the world's largest retailer is one of the few American corporations doing well in dark times. While retail sales slid almost everywhere, the company's same-store sales went up 5.1 percent in February (when compared with February 2008 sales). Yet, in that same month, it announced a move to "realign its corporate structure and reduce costs." It cut 700 to 800 jobs at its Wal-Mart and Sam's Club home offices, in effect acting no differently than any of the companies being battered by the deepening recession.
Free-firing zone
Rodney Green, a soft-spoken 52-year-old, comes to the job center three times a week to search online job listings. He describes his decades-long drift from full-time employee with benefits to marginalized temp worker with no benefits and, finally, to the category of unemployed for an extended period.
From the late 1970s until the early 1990s, he worked for Bell Telecommunications, where he earned a good salary and full benefits. Since Bell laid him off, he's worked periodically as a forklift operator for various companies, getting temporary placements through an employment agency. Most recently, he earned $12 an hour working for a deli meat and artisanal cheese producer. No benefits were provided. A year's work, he explained, would mean a week's vacation, "but they don't keep you that long. They lay you off or rotate you into another job before then."
Today, as he's discovered, even such temp jobs are becoming scarce. "In the '80s, it wasn't as bad as it is now," he comments from the unemployment heartland of what, in 2009, is a deeply deindustrialized Philadelphia. "The city had jobs, but then the jobs moved to the suburbs. Now they're moving overseas. Back then, say, you applied for a job, maybe 50 others applied, too. Today, that same job, you're going to have hundreds -- I mean, a thousand for that one job. It's hard. It's depressing."
For the past year and a half, Rodney has been collecting unemployment periodically, and in that time, he hasn't landed a single interview. Recently, because the Bush administration finally acquiesced to grass-roots and congressional pressure to lengthen unemployment benefits, he received a 13-week extension, providing him a little cushion (unlike equally interview-less Juanita). "That helped me a lot. Times are hard right now. I hear there are over 4 million people collecting unemployment. That's kind of high."
If Juanita and Chris are casualties of the intensified war of attrition businesses are quietly waging on workers, Rodney represents a deeper unraveling of jobs and job security, thanks to a globalized economy in which the hard-pressed workers in this country are pitted against cheaper labor pools in Latin America, South Asia, China and even the American South. In such a job environment, what is one to do?
Someone I interviewed prior to my job center visit described her reaction when she heard that her company had recently closed a plant in the Midwest: "The first thing I thought, and I felt bad for thinking it," she recalled, somewhat sheepishly, "was that means more work for us -- at least for the time being."
Her comment speaks volumes, as does her request not to be identified. Who needs union busters, patroling shop stewards, or legions of high-paid lawyers fighting wage and hours claims when a worker is so anxious about job security that she responds positively to the laying off of those she imagines as potential competitors? When employees police their own behavior for fear of the ax -- monitoring their time checking e-mail or using the bathroom -- bad times distinctly have an upside for management.
In this job environment, it's easy to turn not just on others, but on yourself. Reflecting on what she will do without a job and unemployment benefits, Juanita wonders if the problem isn't the economy, but the choices she made in life. "I left home when I was 16 and lived in my own places, had my children, and got married," she says nervously, continually folding and refolding a local newspaper. "I should have gone to school and did a lot more things to make myself more marketable earlier in life. Now I'm left having to start over again."
A look at corporate opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), whose passage in Congress is a central demand of organized labor, offers a glimpse of how persistently companies seek to disadvantage their workers. EFCA would allow workers to form a union when a majority of them sign union cards in a given workplace. "Card check," as it is frequently called, enables them to organize unions without the need for an election. In a November column surveying the business elite's response to the act, Wall Street Journal Op-Ed columnist Thomas Frank wrote: "Card check is about power. Management has it, workers don't, and business doesn't want that to change."
Right now, for Juanita, Chris and others at this center, there are actually two wars going on, and only one of them seems to have caught the attention of labor and business reporters. The headlines about the first read: "Desperate Companies Forced to Cut Jobs." But many here seem to be experiencing a second war in which businesses are using bad times to act in ways they couldn't in the best of times.
Shouldn't reporters be heading out in search of this one-sided, covert struggle? Isn't it time for the second business war of our moment to make a few headlines of its own? |
|
|
|
Posted
3/15/2009 9:15:31 PM
|
|
Is Iraq Going Socialist?
Part 2: A Message of Solidarity
Message of Solidarity addressed to International Labor Conference by MDS (Movement for Democratic Socialism) President SATO Kazuyoshi
Dear worker delegates from around Iraq and the world attending this precious event, the First International Labor Conference,
Dear friends and comrades in the labor unions and councils in Iraq and Iraq Freedom Congress who have been devoted to organizing the Conference,
Representing Movement for Democratic Socialism, I wish to show my strong endorsement for holding this International Labor Conference, and express my heartfelt solidarity to everyone who attends it.
Global capitalism has caused the world depression and is now bringing destruction upon itself. At this particular time, the forces around the globe aspiring peace and democracy shall put an end to wars and fight against massive layoffs resulting from the depression. US President Barack Obama has announced that he would withdraw his troops from Iraq, only for aiming at permanent stationing of the US military in order to secure the oil resources in the country. It is high time to realize an immediate, unconditional and complete withdrawal of the US troops to ensure safety and security for the people of Iraq.
In addition, global capitalism is forcing workers all around the world to pay the price for the economic crisis it has caused. Global capitals that harvested enormous wealth from war and exploitation are greedy enough to dismiss workers and cut wages just to continue to maximize profits even in the depression.
We share with you the conviction that, under such circumstances, it is extremely significant to hold the International Labor Conference in Iraq.
I believe that the Conference will surely be effective in terms of addressing the current situations when it has formulated the course for the complete withdrawal of the occupation forces and establishment of a secular democratic government in Iraq, strengthened workers' international solidarity and protection of workers' rights, and fighting back globally against mass dismissal and wage reduction.
In closing, I sincerely hope the Conference will have a great success.
Thank you very much.
?? ??
SATO Kazuyoshi
President of Movement for Democratic Socialism
Copyright © 2007 Workers Today All Rights Reserved ???? ?????? ?????? |
|
|
|
Posted
3/13/2009 3:01:24 AM
|
|
Is Iraq Going Socialist?
Part 1: The Realization
Having spent six years, the lives of 5000 American soldiers and, depending on who you talk to, a quarter million Iraqis, and several times more turned into refugees, after throwing hundreds of billions of dollars down the rathole, after the US sought to make over Iraq into some capitalist paradise where the government there works at the behest of Exxon, is it possible that, for all the Neo-Con shenanigans and war profiteering and American patriotic fist-pumping, after all that, is Iraq going socialist?
I found this, and I will be dissecting it as we go on. The image itself should be enough to make all those self-serving Republicans who stuck their thumbs in purple ink in mock support of the people of Iraq in their seeking to vote quiver just a bit. While I will always honor workers anywhere in the world seeking to improve their conditions by way of unions, I don't know if my conservative brethren will be quite as enthusiastic.  |
|
|
|
Posted
3/11/2009 11:20:38 PM
|
|
Okay, fine. I disagree with your bad opinion. Is that what you're looking for? While every wannabe capitalist defender out there is erroneously pulling the word socialist out of their asses, here's Donald Trump, his initial and greatest claim to fame is his entrepreneurial spirit eclipsed only by his own arrogance, saying something socialists agree on. That's why this article has relevance.
Now, forgive me for not validating your relentless cynicism, Wiz. There comes a point where it gets old. If that's all you have to offer, let me know, I'll act accordingly. I'm just not in the mood to cater to the negativity tonight. I thought the article would generate a conversation about socialism, or Donald Trump, or the validity of the core of the argument, that if taxpayer money is used to bail out banks, taxpayers via the government get to call the shots.
Instead, I get Wiz's clever HE IS AN ACTOR. Needless to say, I'm disappointed.
But that's okay, we'll try again tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Posted
3/11/2009 11:02:47 PM
|
|
You posted it as a thread to I guess start some debate. If you are just going to post something and shut down the debate, because the reason is that you didn't write it you just posted it. Well then what was the point. Whether its your work or not, I would expect you to defend it. But in this case you are taking the high road of a Progress or something. I am done with the whole thing. Seinfelds on. |
|
|
|
Posted
3/11/2009 10:58:04 PM
|
|
I always take responsibility for what I write and post. I'm not understanding why, if you read it, I have to explain it to you. |
|
|
|
Posted
3/11/2009 10:55:49 PM
|
|
Fine then don't take responsibility for reposting it. I will just leave it at that. |
|
|
|
Posted
3/11/2009 10:43:11 PM
|
|
"The Nation" disagrees with that cynical remark by virtue of printing the article. |
|
|
|
Posted
3/11/2009 10:28:38 PM
|
|
I read the article. Why you put Donald Trump in there was I guess to get us to read it. Donald Trump is in no position to make a ludicrious statement about banks after being CEO of three bankrupt casinos. It doesn't matter what he says now. He is an actor. Noone is going to put him in charge of anything. But the rest of your article has nothing to do with socialism. Its a socialist "party leader" giving Obama the preverbial OHH OHH OHH OHH OHH like he is in the audience of the Arsenio Hall show. And and old article at that, because its executive pay ceilings have been taken off the board. |
|
|
|
Posted
3/11/2009 10:16:08 PM
|
|
And yet, I'm just that kind of guy who will give it a go. You are certainly encouraged to read beyond the headline, Wiz. |
|
|
|
Posted
3/11/2009 10:07:03 PM
|
|
How do you go from Jesus to Donald Trump and still expect to be taken seriously? |
|
|
|
Posted
3/11/2009 9:38:14 PM
|
|
It is a whole new ball game when you use taxpayer dollars to keep failing companies afloat. That is why Citigroup, turning a profit for the first quarter of 2009, still can't get their stock price above the price of a starbucks coffee. They have taken billions in bailout funds that will have to be paid back at high interest rates, and they are under intense public scrutiny. As Obama himself said, now is not the time for profits. Bad Citigroup.
|
|
|
|
Posted
3/11/2009 9:29:00 PM
|
|

Donald Trump and the Socialists Versus the CEOs
posted by John Nichols on 02/06/2009 @ 5:17pm
There has been a good deal of grumbling from Wall Street about President Obama's proposal to cap CEO pay at companies that accept federal bailout money.
The line of complaint generally comes around to the question: "How can you get good help for $500,000?
Donald Trump--who knows a thing or two about attracting executive talent, or at least plays someone who does on TV -- thinks that's silly.
The other night, CNN's Larry King asked the Trump Organization CEO what he thought about the president's plan to set some executive pay limits:
KING: Is Obama right or wrong to go after these executives with salary caps?
TRUMP: Well, I think he's absolutely right. Billions of dollars is being given to banks and others. You know, once you start using taxpayer money, it's a whole new game. So I absolutely think he's right.
The Socialists agree.
Here's a statement from Brian Moore, who was the Socialist Party candidate for president last year--and who made the very good point that, despite what Sarah Palin said, Barack Obama was neither a capital "S" nor a small "s" socialist:
SPRING HILL, FLORIDA, February 5, 2009 -- President Barack Obama, who on Wednesday imposed $500,000 caps on senior executive pay for the most distressed financial institutions receiving federal bailout money, saying Americans are upset with "executives being rewarded for failure," has joined his 2008 minor party opponent who called for executive caps throughout the presidential election campaign.
Brian Moore, the Socialist Party USA presidential candidate in the 2008 presidential elections, stated on the "Issues" page of his presidential website (www.votebrianmoore.com) to "Cap and reduce corporate profits and excessive executive salary levels while fostering the transfer of corporate ownership and control to workers."
Moore continually advocated in his radio and television interviews, and in debates and presidential forums throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, that there should be a "worker/CEO ratio of no more than 5 to 1."
The Socialist Party platform also states in its "Economics" section that "We call for...a maximum income [for executives] of no more than ten times the minimum."
Moore does embrace Mr. Obama's criticism of corporate executives when the President was recently quoted that such exorbitant pay is "exactly the kind of disregard for the costs and consequences of their [corporate and capitalistic] actions that brought about this crisis--a culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain at the expense of everything else."
Moore further added in point 32 of his website's "Issues" page that "During transition to full worker control, [we should] require the private sector to implement a fairer economic system of consumer costs, profit-margins and regulation of services and products."
The former Socialist candidate said that he disagrees with the President's quote, as reported today in the New York Times (Thurs., Feb. 5, 2009) that "We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for achieving success. And we believe that success should be rewarded...but what upsets people are executives being rewarded for failure..."
Moore disagrees with President Obama's mindset, arguing that that is the trouble with capitalism, it focuses on profit and individual success and wealth instead of focusing "on production for the needs of the community instead." Moore contends that "success can also be rewarded under socialism, but not exorbitantly, or at the expense of the common good." "That is where we differ from Mr. Obama and his capitalistic mindset, his capitalistic political party and the faltering capitalistic economic system which our country is presently burdened by," the former socialist candidate stated.
Moore says that Socialism stands for "a fundamental transformation of the economy," and that only a "global" transformation from capitalism to democratic socialism will provide the conditions for international peace, justice and economic cooperation.
Moore argues that Socialism is seeking a "classless society," one that is fairer and more egalitarian, and where the majority of citizens can benefit from a more democratic economic system, instead of rewarding only the select few at the top. "An executive salary cap, as a bailout condition, is a good start, in our direction toward socialism," Moore happily stated.
So there you have it.
Obama may be struggling to get Republicans and Democrats together. He may even be struggling to get mainstream Democrats and Blue Dog fifth columnists on the same page.
But the president has united Donald Trump and the Socialists.
Just the extremes? Perhaps. But the American people are with Trump and the Socialists. Polls consistently show that roughly two-thirds of Americans (63 percent in a USA Today survey) say it is "very important" to limit the pay of executives whose firms benefit from the plan.
|
|
|
|
Posted
3/11/2009 9:27:39 PM
|
|
That's not any more ludicrous than saying killing a pregnant woman is a double homicide but abortion isn't anything, or saying we should fight to save a 6 month old born pre-maturely but it's ok to leave an abortion survivor on the table or in the bio-waste closet to die.
|
|
|
|
Posted
3/11/2009 8:40:55 PM
|
|
The problem with making abortion a state's issue has to do with the definition of life, when during a pregnancy it starts. How ludicrous is it to say life starts at conception in Texas, but in California, life starts when the brain forms. |
|
|
|
Posted
3/11/2009 7:22:12 PM
|
|
Abortion is not a state's issue. Abortion laws are a states issue, but abortion itself is not. The supreme court ruled that abortion is constitutional. Like it or not, the ruling was made and has stood the test of time. |
|
|
|
Posted
3/11/2009 4:48:21 PM
|
|
Dont get me wrong I would like to see states take over more issues but I go back and forth on it. |
|
|
|
Posted
3/11/2009 4:36:02 PM
|
|
Yea and Jim Crow was at one time the will of alot of states. |
|
|
|
Posted
3/11/2009 4:10:29 PM
|
|
I don't know about Grrrrr, but I'm OK with that. That is what it means to have a federal system and government that represents the will of the people.
|
|
|
|
Posted
3/11/2009 3:58:56 PM
|
|
So Grrr then you have no problem with abortion being legal in some states then? I mean after all if its a state issue right? |
|
|
|
Posted
3/10/2009 11:29:31 PM
|
|
There is no "Faith" anymore there is only what is and what is not. Many of you thought Bush was bad, well for us out here Obama is redefining bad. Under his rule we are screwed. we must abide by rules we don't agree with on a political basis and worse on a personal basis.
|
|
|
|
Posted
3/10/2009 11:26:06 PM
|
|
The solution is to let the states decide what is best for that state thats why we elect em. If they are strongarmed like Obama is doing to the majority of the western states we are null and void due to "majority rule" meaning the east dictating to us what we WILL DO AND WON'T DO. That is unacceptable. There are no 10,000 acre ranchers in the east trying to fight weather conditions, lousy economys and still take care of the ranch hands in even a minimal way. We love those MEN who do their jobs and "ride for the brand" we would ove to give em more cause they deserve it . We can't thanks to DC we are screwed
|
|
|
|
|
|