So what are they proud of?

:lol:

 

Where am I getting ''bloodmoney'' from How am I getting a ''tax break'' - remember where I live before you respond to these question.

HOW ?.

If this is the best response you can give - then I think somebody needs a nap.

 

:lol:

 

In what way and where - nothing I have said in this thread is a lie.

Your politics effects our politics - why should I not have a interest in your politics ?.

Untrue I think Bush is a grade A moron. That does not mean that I accept when somebody is being derided and abused with out concern for any truth - The majority of things that get said by you and ''your buddies'' are completly biased and unfounded in any reasonable truth. So yeah it does seem like i'm saying ''Bush is right and everybody on the planet is wrong ''.
To suggest everybody on the planet thinks like you is slightly ridiculous - but I do know what you mean.
The 'facts' that you post here are for the most part untrue. Even if I accept they are ''out of date'' - then correct the mistakes and be honest. If you can't even alter the fact $15 million [though that is ofcourse going to be a lot higher if you factor in other costs] was the amount spent on the the 9/11 commision - what does it say for your integrity and reasonable behaviour towards maintaining a level of the truth ?.
It just says to me : He does not care - why should I accept anything you say and evaluate it for the merits ?.

You are kidding me - right ?.
They mean a great deal - I have said over and over show me where my 'facts' are innacurate - show me where I am wrong.
If you post these kind of lists you had better have the stones to back them up.

Well apparently it is for the ''blood money'' and the ''tax breaks''.

 

At least we agree on something. Speaking of where we come from, I read somewhere that Blair's approval ratings were quite high, EXCEPT for his support for the Iraqi war.

 

I think it depends on who you listen too.
No doubt whoever you do listen too a shadow has been hovering over Blair for a long time - that would be Iraq.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/15889

 

The only sure thing Blair will leave office with is finacial security for the rest of his life. Something the poor working person has not seen for years.

 

Can't all these things be said about the Bush Administration as well? And backed up with evidence.

 

So what ? So will pretty much everybody in the goverment and shadow goverment and pretty much everybody that works in parliament.
How can a poor person have ''financial security'' - how could they have had it years ago ?.
Has not the minimum wage dragged a lot of people out of poverty ?.

 

If you have the time and inclination feel free to do so.

 

Twenty years ago working people had security and benefits. It's only been since the nineties with the promises of wealth and a global economy that the workers let their rights be eroded. Here in the states, during the sixties and seventies employers provided health insurance and retirement plans, now it's up to the worker to provide for themselves, because we were sold on the fact that we couldn't be competitive with the global market and still focus on workers rights and benefits. Who has that loss benefitted?

Why should working people be viewed as poor, they aren't they add to the very economy you want us all to support, but less and less are they ever considered.

 

In what way - what 'benefits' did people have ? job security ? a job for life ?.

What workers rights [in your country] have been eroded ?.

Is that true for EVERY business ? - I am aware of the shift towards personal responsibility as far as ''health insurance and retirement plans'' - Not many companys have ''jobs for life'' anymore - so ultimately these provisions are going to be shifting from company to company. Maybe it was a inevitibilty that economicaly having the ''sweet life'' you envisage from the 60s and 70s - could not be maintained for ever.

I do appreciate where you are coming from and agree with you [on some level] - hard as that might be to see.

The workerforce obviously - but imho the bubble had to burst.

'poverty' is relative - I'm 'poor' . I have no money. I do have more than others. I have a roof over my head and food to put in my stomach. More than a lot of people.
I'm not ''financialy secure'' - i'll more than likely have to work till I drop - BUT I have the opportunity to become ''financialy secure'' if I so wish.
That is the main point - I have the freedom to become more than I am.
Thanks to a healthy economy and pretty much 100% employment.
I do not begrudge Tony Blair for not having to worry about money - why should I ?.
He has worked for it and more than likely earned it.
Gee whiz Nelson Mandela has ''financial security'' - do we have to judge if a person is entitled to that on their morality or something ?.

 

Health insurance, workers comp, retirement not to mention workers rights to privacy and personal rights...drug screenings, Walmarts provisions for personal behavior, allowing companies to check your financial standing before hiring.

Whose inevitibility? Only the corporations are now seeing record profits. They don't shift from company to company. No one even offers them any longer. Sweet life...my parents fought world war II, and negotiated labor laws to secure some rights for the workers. They could have be maintained if the labor force had not sold out to empty promises of an improved stock market, deregulation and lower rates. Have any of those benefited the working man?

You may have the right to strive for this, but if the corporations can continue to control individual rights you will never achieve them, because that would be counter to their goals. Glad the Brits have 100 percent employment, we don't have that here.

 

Fair point.

Yeah I had that kind of check before I started working for a bank - it is a little invasive but I do see why they do it.
Do you not think those things occured in the past - it was called the class system.
I'd never have got a role within a bank with the responsibilities I had - if we were living living 50-60 years ago.

I'd never detract what ''people fought for'' I do agree with you in principle - just not your intensity.

It is a bit of a trite answer but ''that is the way it is''.
Do you think this type of behaviour is exclusive too ''big business''.
Every person employeeing another has the possibility to screw the worker over.
Infact bigger companys are far more accountable than the smaller companys imho.
Yes they may hide it better - but the consequences of exposure are far higher and far more likely.

I don't have to work for ''corporations'' - I can set up a business of my own.

 

But even to work at a video store nowadays you have to agree to it.

Not so. Huge corporations operate within their own rules today, because the individual is no longer granted any rights. And by granting them the right to operate in this manner has left it open to small employers to also employ these means and operate under the same laws and restrictions, or lack there of.

Good luck because the huge corporations have lobbied for so many restrictions that protect their own interests, small companies have huge problems competing with them.

 

Not where I live.

I agree that small comapanys can be as bad as larger ones - but i'd disagree that all ''big business'' is inherently bad and attempts to screw over the worker wholesale. Yes ok the points you have made where i said ''fair point'' you could argue are ''bad'' but the whole picture is complicated and convoluted.
Imho they do have their own rules but they still have to play by the bigger rules - everybody does.
The level of interference a company lays on the employee is the same level of interference that the goverment lays on a company. It is a bit difficult because i'm talking about British business not American - but i'd assume there are similarities.

Well i'm not going to open a burger chain or try my look finding some oil.
I'd open a business that was likely too succeed [obviously] .

 

Wish you luck in your endeavor.

Governments have only laid the amount of oversight on the employee, that corporations have sought and the populus has agreed to, based on promises of lower prices and safety ....but we've seen how that has played out with our imports from China and other global markets. I for one don't brush my teeth with anti-freeze, or feed my pets food that causes kidney failure anymore.

 

I think its time to drop the myth that 30 years ago you could bag groceries for a living and get private health insurance and a pension. Its complete nonsense.

Yes they have. You somehow think the corporations are somehow seperate from the economy - as if corporate profitability has nothing at all to do with the health of the economy. The US economy has lower unemployment and faster growth than any other rich country over the past 10 years... is this coincidence?

Can't the capital markets that helped launch Yahoo, Amazon, eBay take any credit for the jobs they create? Would people have been so willing to risk billions of dollars creating these silicon valley success stories if politicians with your business hating, class resentment, high tax, protectionist policies been in power? Probably not. You do realise few people dream of getting a factory job for life when they graduate, right? That many people want an open, flexible vibrant economy where they can pursue their dreams rather than just signing up for a lifetime at the local paper mill?

 

I am sure the average Joe looks forward to switching jobs every two years and providing their own health insurance.

 

Not to mention having to learn new skills as the globalised corporations shift their manufacturing operations elsewhere to countries where they can employ people at a fraction of the cost with no concern for the wellfare of the workers, meanwhile enjoying tax breaks and subsidies from our government, that we as citizens ultimately pay for. But, hey, the investors benefit, and that's the important thing, right?