Is Warren's "Corporate Accountbility Act" Socialism or Facism?
7 responses | 0 likes
Started by TimNew - Sept. 3, 2019, 9:18 a.m.

In Socilaism,  government takes ownership of companies.   In facism,   government does not own the companies, they just run them,  setting quotas and policies, etc. I guess this act just takes the worst of both.  But either way,  it will be the biggest job killing company killing government act in the history of this country. She has "out-Bernied" Bernie on this one.  And not surprisingly, her supporters nod in gap mouthed approval thinking this is just a swell idea.

"Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, unveiled plans for her new legislation, the Accountable Capitalism Act, in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday. The proposed bill would require corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue to obtain a federal charter. The charter aims to mitigate income inequality by obligating company directors to consider the interests of all stakeholders, including employees and those in the community where the company is based, not just those who own the stock."

By bear - Sept. 3, 2019, 4:36 p.m.
Like Reply

there would be a whole bunch of companies that break themselves up into different entities so they would fall under that 1 billion threshold,  thus avoiding the law.

think about what happens in france.  if you have 50 employees, then there are a whole new list of govt mandates that kick in for a company.  so... there are a LOT of companies that have 49 employees.  instead of growing, when you have more contracts, you just create another business that tops out at 49 employees.   comical, right? 

when an naive person creates a law... smart people just find a way around the law.  it is rather unfortunate that naive people, who think they are addressing a problem,  create dumb laws in the first place,  ... without understanding the dislocation it will cause.  

By metmike - Sept. 3, 2019, 5:03 p.m.
Like Reply

Wonderful points.....thanks much!

By TimNew - Sept. 4, 2019, 3:44 a.m.
Like Reply

Actually,  many/most of our large corporations cannot be broken into sub 1 billion companies. So,  they would have to deal with it, or relocate.  Many would choose option 2.

And we've seen the effects of 50 or greater employees under Obama care.  It was limited to full time employees..  So hours were cut.  Then they reduced the # of hours that fell under "full time" and hours were cut further.  So, a company would have 49 full time employees and a few hundred part time employees, many working more than one job.

And the government, realizing that companies could break up into smaller units expanded the definition.  If I own 3 separate companies with 20 employees each,  I have 60 employees and all three companies are subject to Obamacare rules. Partnerships got very complicated and expansion, for many companies came to a screeching halt.

But Obamacare was/is good for us,  right? And Warren's act would be too.  Leftists all agree. Of course,only someone who has never managed anything think they can manage everything.

By metmike - Sept. 7, 2019, 2:01 p.m.
Like Reply

Banning Plastic Straws, Fossil Fuels: Here Are Seven Standout Moments From CNN’s Climate Town Hall

I don't even know where to start. I watched for a short while and couldn't take it any more when Warren was insisting that she's all about science and that its not fair that everybody has to breathe all the carbon pollution that some(like her interestingly) are putting in the air. 

Fact: Since humans have walked the earth, breathing ambient levels of CO2 have never caused 1 fact no harm to humans.............or any creature on this planet during that time frame.

CO2 is a beneficial gas in ALL fields of science..........biology, zoology, agronomy, climatology......etc.

The only field where CO2 has been defined as pollution is politics.

This past week, we heard lots of POLITICIANS giving us their ANTI science views about a beneficial gas on this greening planet during the current climate they continue to make stuff up in order to convince us that its actually a climate crisis(new scarier term is climate emergency)

Real science is what you get from going to the link below to see real data from this planet, not the imaginary one described by these politicians. 

Holocene climatic optimum


Temperature variations during the Holocene from a collection of different reconstructions and their average. The most recent period is on the right, but the recent warming is only seen in the inset.

Out of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for conditions warmer than now at 120 sites. At 16 sites, where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher than now.

By metmike - Sept. 7, 2019, 2:05 p.m.
Like Reply

They are just ramping up the brainwash/propaganda :

By TimNew - Sept. 8, 2019, 8:58 a.m.
Like Reply

And many polls show her as the dem front runner.  Politicians like her are not what will doom this country.   Having that many people who will buy that nonsense is what will doom this country.

By metmike - Sept. 8, 2019, 11:25 p.m.
Like Reply

CNN Democratic climate gabfest displays candidate’s monumental energy ignorance

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The stupendous display of global energy and emissions ignorance by the Democratic Party Presidential candidates on CNN’s climate alarmist gabfest was nothing short of astounding.

Before addressing some of these candidates ridiculous, totally useless and massively costly energy schemes its important to establish what is the global energy and emissions data status today and where is it likely to go in the future.

The Harvard Gazette recently published an article titled “One thing to change: Anecdotes aren’t data” that addressed the significant need for clearer delineation between facts and feelings regarding how leaders, politicians, journalists and academics attempt to assess the world through anecdotes and images rather than data.

Wind and solar accounted for 3% of global energy in 2018 that is staggeringly small given more than a decade of mandated use by government edict and trillions of dollars in global government subsidies.

In the decade leading to 2018 the developing nations increased CO2 emissions by about 4.5 billion metric tons completely overwhelming the developed nations that decreased CO2 emissions by about 1 billion metric tons led by the U.S.

About 67% of the developing nations CO2 huge emissions increase in the last decade was from India and China.

By year 2050 EIA projects that global energy use will climb by about another 36% from year 2018 levels with more than 85% of that increased growth coming from the developing nations that will then account for about 67% of global energy use.

The developing nations are projected by EIA to use fossil fuels for about 78% of their year 2050 energy with renewables accounting for less than 10% of year 2050 energy.

EIA projects that CO2 emissions will climb by over 8.8 billion metric tons by 2050 from year 2018 levels with the developing nations accounting for 92% of that increase resulting in these nations representing 70% of global CO2 emissions in year 2050.