USA move closer to equality in wages

Lucky Luke said:

Not on topic but Most 1st world countries have a highly paid defense force. Its very hard to get into and the pay an pensions are very nice- its a trade and pays like one. It seems to be a low paying job in the US. Which may explain all the "thankyou for your service" that is always on American sites/media but is not present in other countries where the defense forces are paid an above award wage with great pensions etc. (8-10 years service here and you can retire for life or chose to receive your tax free pension and work).

Click to expand...

NOT so off topic, in fact;
You'd love how the American veteran's medical system works, too.

Look- our military isn't for defending us anymore. If it were, we'd treat them with more respect. Its new purpose since WWII is for the enrichment of corporations and billionaire stockholders, at the expense of the American taxpayer. Why bother paying or respecting him when he joins up?

Sooooooooo, any vet who wants one can rsvp for a steak at my dinner table on Monday night. Because if my government can't be bothered to respect them, I guess it falls to me.

ttystikk said:

You'd love how the American veteran's medical system works, too.

Look- our military isn't for defending us anymore. If it were, we'd treat them with more respect. Its new purpose since WWII is for the enrichment of corporations and billionaire stockholders, at the expense of the American taxpayer. Why bother paying or respecting him when he joins up?

Sooooooooo, any vet who wants one can rsvp for a steak at my dinner table on Monday night. Because if my government can't be bothered to respect them, I guess it falls to me.

Click to expand...

Ours get a good free medical system ..but its not something ive ever asked about as we all (the whole population) get good free medical and subsidized drugs.

I always thought the "thank you for your service" response was govt driven and if you didnt thank a vet then your unpatriotic, but maybe its to replace actually PAYING them for their service..

Lucky Luke said:

Ours get a good free medical system ..but its not something ive ever asked about as we all (the whole population) get good free medical and subsidized drugs.

I always thought the "thank you for your service" response was govt driven and if you didnt thank a vet then your unpatriotic, but maybe its to replace actually PAYING them for their service..

Click to expand...

Speaking personally, I do it out of a sense of genuine gratitude that these men and women volunteered to serve in the highest tradition of the defense of our nation. That our corrupt politicians and system of monetized militarism misuses their noble intentions doesn't matter to me in the slightest. There's no obligation and no duty of patriotism- and no nationalism, either.

These men and women signed up knowing good and well they could and often would get shot at- and that's good enough for me.

ttystikk said:

Agreed; war pacifies the nation's populace and gins up profits for the megacorps. Since they have legitimately bought and paid for all that influence in Washington they get exactly what they want.

Click to expand...

You correctly identify a problem, war. War is a profit making and protection scheme. I commend you for that.

Then you turn around and embrace the use and existence of a war like tactic, the use of government force as a systemic norm, and wonder why you are traveling in a circle and getting dizzy.

Fogdog said:

Bernie lost but he's working to incorporate some of his platform in the government going forward. And he'll still be around in the Senate with his support intact.

Click to expand...

Bernie has NOT lost yet. Till the nom. is given its not a given.

mynameisnobody said:

Bernie has NOT lost yet. Till the nom. is given its not a given.

Click to expand...

Winning California will make rather a big difference in his prospects.

mynameisnobody said:

Bernie has NOT lost yet. Till the nom. is given its not a given.

Click to expand...

That's right, and my lottery ticket is my ticket to great wealth.. The drawing won't be held until Tuesday when none of my numbers will get drawn. I'd like to be proven wrong. In any case, I hope Bernie takes Cali. The more wins and the more votes on this side, the more clout he has IN CASE he doesn't win the nomination.

Fogdog said:

That's right, and my lottery ticket is my ticket to great wealth.. The drawing won't be held until Tuesday when none of my numbers will get drawn. I'd like to be proven wrong. In any case, I hope Bernie takes Cali. The more wins and the more votes on this side, the more clout he has IN CASE he doesn't win the nomination.

Click to expand...

Tammany Hall, bro- play their game, they win.

Time to change the game.

ttystikk said:

Of course not. But he was unable to prevent it, and that's exactly my point.

Click to expand...

Maybe this is the nut of our discussion. The first two years of his administration, he had control of Congress or at least enough clout with it to get some things done. After much debate and so forth, the ACA was passed and has been the source of much froth in Washinton and across the country. It was a bad compromise but was it better than not doing anything at all?

For the last six years, Obama has been saddled with a completely antagonistic and unbending right wing controlled Congress. His actions have been largely defensive. Would a belligerent Obama have been more or less effective?

I am interested in reading your answers. My thoughts on this is no to both questions. The ACA still has insurance companies in the driver's seat with regard to financial control of the healthcare industry so, bad compromise. On the other hand, it expanded the number of people who can afford "insurance" actually, health care coverage, by federally subsidising those who qualify. It is anathema to the right because it is a step towards single payer system, which is why I think it was better to get the act passed before Obama's window of opportunity was closed. Also, a belligerent Obama would have in my opinion been less effective because it would have prevented any opportunity to work with the right wing congress. Would you rather that Obama shut down Washington until universal healthcare is passed and Glass Steagal is re-instituted?

ttystikk said:

Tammany Hall, bro- play their game, they win.

Time to change the game.

Click to expand...

I don't care if you vote or not. But is this your idea of changing the game?

Fogdog said:

I don't care if you vote or not. But is this your idea of changing the game?

Click to expand...

If candidate A is unacceptable and candidate B is no different, what would you suggest?

Fogdog said:

Maybe this is the nut of our discussion. The first two years of his administration, he had control of Congress or at least enough clout with it to get some things done. After much debate and so forth, the ACA was passed and has been the source of much froth in Washinton and across the country. It was a bad compromise but was it better than not doing anything at all?

For the last six years, Obama has been saddled with a completely antagonistic and unbending right wing controlled Congress. His actions have been largely defensive. Would a belligerent Obama have been more or less effective?

I am interested in reading your answers. My thoughts on this is no to both questions. The ACA still has insurance companies in the driver's seat with regard to financial control of the healthcare industry so, bad compromise. On the other hand, it expanded the number of people who can afford "insurance" actually, health care coverage, by federally subsidising those who qualify. It is anathema to the right because it is a step towards single payer system, which is why I think it was better to get the act passed before Obama's window of opportunity was closed. Also, a belligerent Obama would have in my opinion been less effective because it would have prevented any opportunity to work with the right wing congress. Would you rather that Obama shut down Washington until universal healthcare is passed and Glass Steagal is re-instituted?

Click to expand...

Antagonistic, Unbending republican controlled congress and Senate. Democrats willing to compromise. And you wonder how things keep sliding rightward?

If the right wing wants to be that way, beat them at their own game. The Democrats don't have the will for it because of who funds them.

There's no one left fighting for us.

You did a great job above, outlining why a conservative Democrat won't make any progress, but you still think electing one is a solution?

ttystikk said:

Antagonistic, Unbending republican controlled congress and Senate. Democrats willing to compromise. And you wonder how things keep sliding rightward?

If the right wing wants to be that way, beat them at their own game. The Democrats don't have the will for it because of who funds them.

There's no one left fighting for us.

You did a great job above, outlining why a conservative Democrat won't make any progress, but you still think electing one is a solution?

Click to expand...

Buried in my reply were descriptions of some progress. Not going to say it was Obama's fault that the right wing congress elected by the citizens of their own states pushed this country to the right. I claim it's to Obama's credit that this country isn't farther right than it now is.

ttystikk said:

If candidate A is unacceptable and candidate B is no different, what would you suggest?

Click to expand...

False analogy. If Trump is unacceptable and Clinton less so, then I have to take a hard look at Clinton. As I keep saying, it isn't just Clinton or Bernie for Prez. Neither will be successful without a Democratic Party controlled Senate.

ttystikk said:

Winning California will make rather a big difference in his prospects.

Click to expand...

Yeah
He is angling for VP

Fogdog said:

Buried in my reply were descriptions of some progress. Not going to say it was Obama's fault that the right wing congress elected by the citizens of their own states pushed this country to the right. I claim it's to Obama's credit that this country isn't farther right than it now is.

Click to expand...

True enough, yet here we are, to the right of where we were 8 years ago.

Another right leaning leader just isn't gonna do it. I don't give even one fuck if she calls herself a Democrat.

Fogdog said:

False analogy. If Trump is unacceptable and Clinton less so, then I have to take a hard look at Clinton. As I keep saying, it isn't just Clinton or Bernie for Prez. Neither will be successful without a Democratic Party controlled Senate.

Click to expand...

Well yeah but that's a different subject.

I believe you underestimate Bernie's ability to gain public support and thus wield enormous power.

ttystikk said:

Well yeah but that's a different subject.

I believe you underestimate Bernie's ability to gain public support and thus wield enormous power.

Click to expand...

i don't care who padawan doe sor doesn't vote for. he's out in cali.

you are in a swing state. your vote is important. don't throw it away on a bernie write in. give it to hillary for all the reasons you know you should.

then, in 2018, go to work for bernie's "brand new congress" plan.

http://brandnewcongress.org/home

that would be even more powerful than having bernie in the oval office.

UncleBuck said:

i don't care who padawan doe sor doesn't vote for. he's out in cali.

you are in a swing state. your vote is important. don't throw it away on a bernie write in. give it to hillary for all the reasons you know you should.

then, in 2018, go to work for bernie's "brand new congress" plan.

http://brandnewcongress.org/home

that would be even more powerful than having bernie in the oval office.

Click to expand...

Nice idea. Wouldn't this work no matter who is in the Wow House?

ttystikk said:

True enough, yet here we are, to the right of where we were 8 years ago.

Another right leaning leader just isn't gonna do it. I don't give even one fuck if she calls herself a Democrat.

Click to expand...

Obama is a right leaning leader?