Politics The Joe Biden Thread

[Phatguysrule]

It’s fun to see some of this debunked Trump folklore still making the rounds in the far off corners of the internet. The fables of Orange Man never disappoint.

Good point. He didn't specifically say the word bleach. He said disinfectant, instead.

And then got the doctor's to agree to test injecting it

 

[crandc]

Agreed. Sanders would have beaten Trump in 2016.

No alternate universe so no one knows that. Trumpers were hoping to get Sanders voters so didn't attack him but reportedly had huge volume of attack talking points ready. Jew, socialist. They were ready to turn him into Pol Pot.
I do agree with point. Big majority wants legal abortion, gun safety, immigration reform, health care.

 

[Phatguysrule]

No alternate universe so no one knows that. Trumpers were hoping to get Sanders voters so didn't attack him but reportedly had huge volume of attack talking points ready. Jew, socialist. They were ready to turn him into Pol Pot.
I do agree with point. Big majority wants legal abortion, gun safety, immigration reform, health care.

Sanders would have handled all of that with no problems. It's what he does. He would have done more Fox Town Halls and taken a huge percentage of Trump's supporters.

Did you see the Fox Town Hall he did and actually turned the MAGA crowd against the hosts? They were cheering Sanders and almost jeering the hosts.

It would have been a monumental disaster for Trump to face Sanders.

Sanders has all of the facts on his side and he loves talking about them in detail. And he explains them in a way that people listen.

Oh well. As you say, there is no alternate universe for us to know for sure, but I would have loved to see it. Sanders would never have lost the rust belt to Trump.

 

[barfo]

This is a lie perpetuated by the mainstream media. 80% of the American public wants medicare for all. The majority of the American public is WITH Bernie on the issues. Free education, paid family leave, etc.

Yes, the mainstream media has a vested interest in keeping us from getting M4A. Because... uhm, why?

Why they didn't vote for him?

Yes, that's a good question. Unfortunately, your answer isn't so good:

Because the media keeps scaring people like you and saying progressives are not electable. Bernie is not electable. Marianne Williamson is not electable. And unfortunately it works.

Marianne definitely isn't electable. She's got absolutely nothing to offer.

Bernie could have been elected, and in the grand scheme of things, came quite close.
But he failed to win the primaries, in 2016 and again in 2020. Most people who run don't win, and he didn't.

Bernie would have destroyed Trump in '16. He was 20 points above him and Hillary. Because his proposals are notoriously popular. But the media scares the public by saying these guys aren't electable. It's absolute nonsense.

Bernie didn't lose primaries primarily because people were afraid to vote for him because they thought he was unelectable.

You know, there's a story about every single candidate that they are unelectable. It's not just Bernie.

Hillary is unelectable because she's a woman. Joe is unelectable because he's too old. Trump is unelectable because he's a felon. Obama is unelectable because he's black. Bernie is unelectable because...?

Bernie lost because he didn't get as many votes. It happens. All the time. It isn't some grand conspiracy when your favorite candidate loses.

Yeah, Bernie had some things that didn't go his way. Some people actually opposed his candidacy! Some people tried to help his opponents in ways that were unfair!

The job of a politician is to overcome those obstacles. I don't think Bernie faced anywhere near the structural hurdles that Obama had, yet Obama was able to slay the dragon Hillary.

barfo

 

[Sheldon Shape]

Yes, the mainstream media has a vested interest in keeping us from getting M4A. Because... uhm, why?



Yes, that's a good question. Unfortunately, your answer isn't so good:



Marianne definitely isn't electable. She's got absolutely nothing to offer.

Bernie could have been elected, and in the grand scheme of things, came quite close.
But he failed to win the primaries, in 2016 and again in 2020. Most people who run don't win, and he didn't.



Bernie didn't lose primaries primarily because people were afraid to vote for him because they thought he was unelectable.

You know, there's a story about every single candidate that they are unelectable. It's not just Bernie.

Hillary is unelectable because she's a woman. Joe is unelectable because he's too old. Trump is unelectable because he's a felon. Obama is unelectable because he's black. Bernie is unelectable because...?

Bernie lost because he didn't get as many votes. It happens. All the time. It isn't some grand conspiracy when your favorite candidate loses.

Yeah, Bernie had some things that didn't go his way. Some people actually opposed his candidacy! Some people tried to help his opponents in ways that were unfair!

The job of a politician is to overcome those obstacles. I don't think Bernie faced anywhere near the structural hurdles that Obama had, yet Obama was able to slay the dragon Hillary.

barfo

Lmao this reads like Chris Matthews wrote it no offense. But you've been poisoned by decades with these talking points so I'm not surprised. I think you're well-intentioned but incredibly misguided due to what you've been fed for so long.

It's all about framing. Did or didn't Jake Tapper not say we can't afford his healthcare plan when his healthcare plan actually costs less than what we're paying now according to the CBO?

You really don't understand why corporate news doesn't want medicare for all? Really?

I guess you don't know what you don't know.

Marianne has nothing to offer? She's on the right side on every economic issue and sides with Bernie on most issues. The American people as well. You could keep parroting the MSNBC propaganda, that's fine. But it has no basis in reality.

Continue to enjoy the failed policies of neo-liberalism and it's dishonest pushers in the corporate media. They'll continue to tell you Manchin is a "centrist" when he's to the right with most of America. It's all about framing.

How you can't acknowledge that Marianne Williamson is better than Joe Biden on at least the top 10 issues just tells me you've been drinking the MSNBC kool-aid and I'm not even a huge fan of her.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Yes, the mainstream media has a vested interest in keeping us from getting M4A. Because... uhm, why?

Because they are literally owned by large corporations who make more money off of the current system and have vastly more leverage over their employees as a result of it as well. Thereby protecting their establishment advantage. By limiting opportunities for newer hungrier and leaner upstarts.

Marianne definitely isn't electable. She's got absolutely nothing to offer.

Agreed.

Bernie could have been elected, and in the grand scheme of things, came quite close.
But he failed to win the primaries, in 2016 and again in 2020. Most people who run don't win, and he didn't.

Blocked by corporate Dems and Media once again. For reasons mentioned above. Even though he offered what most people actually want.

Bernie didn't lose primaries primarily because people were afraid to vote for him because they thought he was unelectable.

You know, there's a story about every single candidate that they are unelectable. It's not just Bernie.

Hillary is unelectable because she's a woman. Joe is unelectable because he's too old. Trump is unelectable because he's a felon. Obama is unelectable because he's black. Bernie is unelectable because...?

... he would actually work to shift real power back from corporations and toward the people.

The others wouldn't at even close to similar levels.

Bernie lost because he didn't get as many votes. It happens. All the time. It isn't some grand conspiracy when your favorite candidate loses.

Yeah, Bernie had some things that didn't go his way. Some people actually opposed his candidacy! Some people tried to help his opponents in ways that were unfair!

Actually did. CNN actually gave Hillary privileged information leading up to the CNN debate...

The DNC was actively coming up with stories internally to discredit Sanders. This is all proven.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html

The job of a politician is to overcome those obstacles. I don't think Bernie faced anywhere near the structural hurdles that Obama had, yet Obama was able to slay the dragon Hillary.

barfo

Obama was on the take as well. He agreed to play ball with the corporations, DNC and military.

 

[crandc]

Calling people stupid and brainwashed isn't very persuasive.

Some of you are starting to sound like Trump. Election was rigged and stolen! All that is lacking are exclamation points.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Calling people stupid and brainwashed isn't very persuasive.

Some of you are starting to sound like Trump. Election was rigged and stolen! All that is lacking are exclamation points.

The insanely wealthy really do engage in collusion and price fixing. And we really do allow them to literally bribe our politicians. We call it lobbying and it is considered a feature by corporations and politicians alike.

This is not some hidden conspiracy.

Both the DNC and RNC are set up to enforce that state level and higher politicians spend most of their time groveling to a list of lobbyists. Anybody who does not comply receives no support for their agenda, therefore they get nothing accomplished and are typically voted out their next term.

Again, this is considered a feature of American politics by the wealthy and corporations. Lobbying offers the highest return on investment available.

 

[Hoopguru]

The insanely wealthy really do engage in collusion and price fixing. And we really do allow them to literally bribe our politicians. We call it lobbying and it is considered a feature by corporations and politicians alike.

This is not some hidden conspiracy.

Both the DNC and RNC are set up to enforce that state level and higher politicians spend most of their time groveling to a list of lobbyists. Anybody who does not comply receives no support for their agenda, therefore they get nothing accomplished and are typically voted out their next term.

Again, this is considered a feature of American politics by the wealthy and corporations. Lobbying offers the highest return on investment available.

Its how many politicians get rich...Im all for new law's that prohibit lobbying whatever that may look like.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Lmao this reads like Chris Matthews wrote it no offense. But you've been poisoned by decades with these talking points so I'm not surprised. I think you're well-intentioned but incredibly misguided due to what you've been fed for so long.

It's all about framing. Did or didn't Jake Tapper not say we can't afford his healthcare plan when his healthcare plan actually costs less than what we're paying now according to the CBO?

You really don't understand why corporate news doesn't want medicare for all? Really?

I guess you don't know what you don't know.

Marianne has nothing to offer? She's on the right side on every economic issue and sides with Bernie on most issues. The American people as well. You could keep parroting the MSNBC propaganda, that's fine. But it has no basis in reality.

Continue to enjoy the failed policies of neo-liberalism and it's dishonest pushers in the corporate media. They'll continue to tell you Manchin is a "centrist" when he's to the right with most of America. It's all about framing.

How you can't acknowledge that Marianne Williamson is better than Joe Biden on at least the top 10 issues just tells me you've been drinking the MSNBC kool-aid and I'm not even a huge fan of her.

She may propose better policies than Joe Biden but she doesn't connect with or inspire confidence with enough people.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

She may propose better policies than Joe Biden but she doesn't connect with or inspired confidence with enough people.

Probably, but policies is what changes this country. Not "connection" with people.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

Calling people stupid and brainwashed isn't very persuasive.

Some of you are starting to sound like Trump. Election was rigged and stolen! All that is lacking are exclamation points.

It's not about people, it's about unveiling the dishonesty by the mainstream media. It's about framing. They'll tell you Manchin is moderate when he's considered extreme by voters. They'll call Bernie extreme and unelectable when 70-80% of the population agrees with Bernie's positions.

They've used fear to make people vote against their own self interests. And it certainly isn't just Fox doing it. CNN and MSNBC are doing it to Democratic voters.

 

[barfo]

Lmao this reads like Chris Matthews wrote it no offense. But you've been poisoned by decades with these talking points so I'm not surprised. I think you're well-intentioned but incredibly misguided due to what you've been fed for so long.

That's ok.

It's all about framing. Did or didn't Jake Tapper not say we can't afford his healthcare plan when his healthcare plan actually costs less than what we're paying now according to the CBO?

Jake Tapper is a moron. Yes, he has a show, and he says stupid stuff. If a candidate can't overcome Jake Tapper, then how is he going to overcome any other hurdles that come along?

You really don't understand why corporate news doesn't want medicare for all? Really?

I guess you don't know what you don't know.

I guess not.

Marianne has nothing to offer? She's on the right side on every economic issue and sides with Bernie on most issues.

So do you - does that qualify you to be president?

The American people as well. You could keep parroting the MSNBC propaganda, that's fine. But it has no basis in reality.

Good to know.

Continue to enjoy the failed policies of neo-liberalism and it's dishonest pushers in the corporate media. They'll continue to tell you Manchin is a "centrist" when he's to the right with most of America. It's all about framing.

How you can't acknowledge that Marianne Williamson is better than Joe Biden on at least the top 10 issues just tells me you've been drinking the MSNBC kool-aid and I'm not even a huge fan of her.

I'm fine saying she's better than Joe on various issues. But there's much more to both getting elected, and serving, than taking policy positions.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Probably, but policies is what changes this country. Not "connection" with people.

While I agree, you do have to get the people on board with your policies... And I don't think she can do that.

 

[barfo]

Because they are literally owned by large corporations who make more money off of the current system and have vastly more leverage over their employees as a result of it as well. Thereby protecting their establishment advantage. By limiting opportunities for newer hungrier and leaner upstarts.

Yes, the media are either large corporations or owned by large corporations. Agreed.
Now, why do large corporations oppose M4A?

Leverage over employees? I guess you are saying that employees have to keep working to keep their healthcare, and thus are disincentivized to quit and form their own media companies? I suppose that's true to some extent, but it's a pretty small extent. Small companies can purchase health insurance, it's a bit more expensive than what big companies pay, but it's not something that would ever keep a media startup from happening. And more generally, it's pretty easy in this country to start a new business. Zillions of people do it every year.

Or maybe you are just saying that corporations have an investment in the current general societal order, so they want to maintain it. That's fair. If you are a revolutionary, you'll be fighting the corporations as well as government. And a lot of citizens, for that matter, are also invested in the current system and want to see it continue in some form. "Burn it all down" isn't appealing to a majority of people at this time.

Blocked by corporate Dems and Media once again. For reasons mentioned above.

... he would actually work to shift real power back from corporations and toward the people.

The others wouldn't at even close to similar levels.


Actually did. CNN actually gave Hillary privileged information leading up to the CNN debate...

The DNC was actively coming up with stories internally to discredit Sanders. This is all proven.

It's also pretty irrelevant excuse-making. Why didn't he win in 2020 then? I guess a different conspiracy against him?

Obama was on the take as well. He agreed to play ball with the corporations, DNC and military.

If your starting point is that we need to burn the whole thing down, that's an accurate statement, I guess.
I expect I've been brainwashed by MSNBC into thinking that we can change the system without setting fire to it.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Yes, the media are either large corporations or owned by large corporations. Agreed.
Now, why do large corporations oppose M4A?

Leverage over employees? I guess you are saying that employees have to keep working to keep their healthcare, and thus are disincentivized to quit and form their own media companies? I suppose that's true to some extent, but it's a pretty small extent. Small companies can purchase health insurance, it's a bit more expensive than what big companies pay, but it's not something that would ever keep a media startup from happening. And more generally, it's pretty easy in this country to start a new business. Zillions of people do it every year.

Not only to prevent them from starting a competing business, but even just by making employees that much more afraid to lose their job. Or work for a smaller competitor who doesn't quite have the benefits yet. And even if they do offer healthcare it may not support specific thing you need. And you won't ACTUALLY know until you have already switched.

Our current healthcare model is anticompetitive and predatory all around. It is nothing book good for established businesses and nothing but bad from pretty much everybody else.

Or maybe you are just saying that corporations have an investment in the current general societal order, so they want to maintain it. That's fair. If you are a revolutionary, you'll be fighting the corporations as well as government. And a lot of citizens, for that matter, are also invested in the current system and want to see it continue in some form. "Burn it all down" isn't appealing to a majority of people at this time.

I'm not interested in burning anything down. Only building up by empowering the people of this country. All of them. [/QUOTE]

It's also pretty irrelevant excuse-making. Why didn't he win in 2020 then? I guess a different conspiracy against him?

Same reasons as 2016. The DNC and establishment had their puppet and they supported him. Until Biden was dug out of his basement Sanders was set to run away with the democratic primary.

If your starting point is that we need to burn the whole thing down, that's an accurate statement, I guess.
I expect I've been brainwashed by MSNBC into thinking that we can change the system without setting fire to it.

barfo

Nope. Burning it down (via violence, etc) can only have two outcomes. The people lose more power because it fails or half of the population dies in a successful overthrowing of the the US government. In which case, we don't know what we'll end up with. Just as likely to be something worse as something better.

I don't know what the solution is. I think I know what the big problems are, but I don't see how we can actually solve them. We need our leaders to want more than anything to make sound policy that helps empower and education the population.

To get that, we'll need the population to support policies that limit the power of money in politics. That will take an educated population. But we are destroying our education system...

 

[Sheldon Shape]

While I agree, you do have to get the people on board with your policies... And I don't think she can do that.

She's already on the side of the American people on all the top policies. The problem is the mainstream media is shutting her out of getting any exposure so they don't know she exists.

 

[barfo]

Not only to prevent them from starting a competing business, but even just by making employees that much more afraid to lose their job. Or work for a smaller competitor who doesn't quite have the benefits yet. And even if they do offer healthcare it may not support specific thing you need. And you won't ACTUALLY know until you have already switched.

Our current healthcare model is anticompetitive and predatory all around. It is nothing book good for established businesses and nothing but bad from pretty much everybody else.

Totally agree with you on that, of course. Just don't see the connection to why the media would be particularly concerned with keeping it from being fixed.

Edit: actually I disagree that it is 'nothing book good' for established businesses. Our current inefficient system costs established businesses lots of money. It might be (marginally) good in terms of keeping competition down, but it's bad for profits, and that's way more important.

Nope. Burning it down (via violence, etc) can only have two outcomes. The people lose more power because it fails or half of the population dies in a successful overthrowing of the the US government. In which case, we don't know what we'll end up with. Just as likely to be something worse as something better.

I don't know what the solution is. I think I know what the big problems are, but I don't see how we can actually solve them. We need our leaders to want more than anything to make sound policy that helps empower and education the population.

To get that, we'll need the population to support policies that limit the power of money in politics. That will take an educated population. But we are destroying our education system...

I don't know the solution either, of course. Campaign finance reform is badly needed, but it isn't clear how we even get there.

barfo

 

[Sheldon Shape]

It's also pretty irrelevant excuse-making. Why didn't he win in 2020 then? I guess a different conspiracy against him?

Did you forget? Bernie was about 24 hours away from taking it all before Obama got everyone to drop out and support the guy who was in 6th place. Joe Biden. Even George Bush thanked Clyburn for getting Biden elected. If Bernie was elected, I'm sure he would have been assassinated.

If your starting point is that we need to burn the whole thing down, that's an accurate statement, I guess.
I expect I've been brainwashed by MSNBC into thinking that we can change the system without setting fire to it.

barfo

As long as bribery is legal in our political system, there's no way to change it honestly. And I'm not saying burning everything down results in a perfect system either. That would likely mean a lot of strife. When you look at history, usually a few years after the first coup attempt there's a successful coup attempt. We aren't far. This isn't working for most people.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Totally agree with you on that, of course. Just don't see the connection to why the media would be particularly concerned with keeping it from being fixed.

Edit: actually I disagree that it is 'nothing book good' for established businesses. Our current inefficient system costs established businesses lots of money. It might be (marginally) good in terms of keeping competition down, but it's bad for profits, and that's way more important.



I don't know the solution either, of course. Campaign finance reform is badly needed, but it isn't clear how we even get there.

barfo

I don't think it's much of an expense at all, considering all of the competitors have to offer it as well. It's just a cost of doing business to them. They bill out rates high enough to cover it, hire somebody to deal with it and that's one more thing they can offer easier than smaller companies.

Big established companies love that stuff. More lock in.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Did you forget? Bernie was about 24 hours away from taking it all before Obama got everyone to drop out and support the guy who was in 6th place. Joe Biden. Even George Bush thanked Clyburn for getting Biden elected. If Bernie was elected, I'm sure he would have been assassinated.



As long as bribery is legal in our political system, there's no way to change it honestly. And I'm not saying burning everything down results in a perfect system either. That would likely mean a lot of strife. When you look at history, usually a few years after the first coup attempt there's a successful coup attempt. We aren't far. This isn't working for most people.

Scary to think about...

 

[barfo]

Did you forget? Bernie was about 24 hours away from taking it all before Obama got everyone to drop out and support the guy who was in 6th place. Joe Biden. Even George Bush thanked Clyburn for getting Biden elected. If Bernie was elected, I'm sure he would have been assassinated.

I suppose assassination is always a possibility.

Yes, political forces 'conspired' to support someone other than Bernie. Politics exists. Bernie is a politician, he knows that. His failure to round up enough support isn't a conspiracy, it simply shows that Biden was better at politics than Bernie, at that time. Plus there is a certain amount of luck/chance involved as well.

As long as bribery is legal in our political system, there's no way to change it honestly. And I'm not saying burning everything down results in a perfect system either. That would likely mean a lot of strife. When you look at history, usually a few years after the first coup attempt there's a successful coup attempt. We aren't far. This isn't working for most people.

I think that last point is worth exploring. Is it not working for most people? Objectively, standard of living is pretty good in this country. It could be better, of course. Could be worse. But subjectively, how unhappy are people with the current system, and are they willing to give up stability for the promise of change? Obviously a certain number of Trump supporters are. But is the average suburban mom/dad?

barfo

 

[barfo]

I don't think it's much of an expense at all, considering all of the competitors have to offer it as well. It's just a cost of doing business to them. They bill out rates high enough to cover it, hire somebody to deal with it and that's one more thing they can offer easier than smaller companies.

Big established companies love that stuff. More lock in.

I just don't think that's accurate. Certainly it's not my experience. Companies would love to not have to screw around with health insurance. It's a huge time suck to negotiate / administer / deal with employee complaints etc. The competitive benefits are in the noise, it really isn't hard at all for a small company to offer big-company level health insurance.

There are classes of companies that have financial reason to favor the existing system (for example, if you only hire people in their 20s, you probably have an advantage on rates currently vs. someone who only hires grandma and grandpa). But the grandma/grandpa company would equally favor M4A for the same reason.

barfo

 

[crandc]

I am aware of the problem of money in politics. But a disembodied "they" in a conspiracy to do bad things .....

 

[Phatguysrule]

I am aware of the problem of money in politics. But a disembodied "they" in a conspiracy to do bad things .....

I don't think it's disembodied at all, though. Just look at the list of the top lobbyists and that's the list of the people who are making our laws. Those are the people and companies who are controlling our government...

And it's not because they are evil. It's because they have a responsibility to their shareholders. They literally can't be responsible in the social sense because that would be bad for their shareholders in the short term.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I just don't think that's accurate. Certainly it's not my experience. Companies would love to not have to screw around with health insurance. It's a huge time suck to negotiate / administer / deal with employee complaints etc. The competitive benefits are in the noise, it really isn't hard at all for a small company to offer big-company level health insurance.

There are classes of companies that have financial reason to favor the existing system (for example, if you only hire people in their 20s, you probably have an advantage on rates currently vs. someone who only hires grandma and grandpa). But the grandma/grandpa company would equally favor M4A for the same reason.

barfo

But doesn't HR deal with that? You just pay an HR salary as a company and you no longer have to worry about it.

I get what you're saying, I just think it's a much bigger hassle for smaller companies than larger, simply based on economies of scale. It was a huge hassle for the owner of the company I work for until we got large enough to hire an HR person. And our healthcare kinda sucked as a result...

Now, it's never even much of a consideration and our healthcare and benefits are vastly improved.

And the really big companies get insanely low rates due to having a larger, more diverse pool, so that's another built-in advantage.

 

[barfo]

But doesn't HR deal with that? You just pay an HR salary as a company and you no longer have to worry about it.

HR employees are not free.

I get what you're saying, I just think it's a much bigger hassle for smaller companies than larger, simply based on economies of scale. It was a huge hassle for the owner of the company I work for until we got large enough to hire an HR person. And our healthcare kinda sucked as a result...

It certainly is a bigger hassle, proportionally, for small companies. But it isn't a hassle that prevents them from existing (unless they are on the edge of non-viability anyway, in which case they aren't a threat to BigCorporate).

And the really big companies get insanely low rates due to having a larger, more diverse pool, so that's another built-in advantage.

No, their rates are not insanely low. It's a few percentage points lower.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

HR employees are not free.



It certainly is a bigger hassle, proportionally, for small companies. But it isn't a hassle that prevents them from existing (unless they are on the edge of non-viability anyway, in which case they aren't a threat to BigCorporate).



No, their rates are not insanely low. It's a few percentage points lower.

barfo

Prices to the employees are much lower for larger companies.

No, it doesn't stop all new companies from existing, though you can bet it prevents many people from quitting and starting their own company.

What it also does is prevents talent from leaving larger companies to go to smaller companies.

These are all advantages that help large companies and they don't want to lose those advantages.

Large companies like regulation that make it harder for smaller businesses to compete. Even if they like to complain about the regulations to their employees.

And those big companies are owned by umbrella companies who also own media companies. And those big companies have advertising budgets that media companies need.

 

[barfo]

Prices to the employees are much lower for larger companies.

That's up to the company to decide. It's up to them how much they pay vs how much the employee pays.

No, it doesn't stop all new companies from existing, though you can bet it prevents many people from quitting and starting their own company.

If the task of buying health insurance prevents you from starting your own company, you are probably better off being an employee. It's a pain in the ass, but there are many, many things about owning or running a business that are a pain in the ass.

What it also does is prevents talent from leaving larger companies to go to smaller companies.

If a small company fails to acquire talent for that reason, they are doing it wrong.

These are all advantages that help large companies and they don't want to lose those advantages.

Large companies like regulation that make it harder for smaller businesses to compete. Even if they like to complain about the regulations to their employees.

Sure, this just doesn't happen to be a significant one.

And those big companies are owned by umbrella companies who also own media companies. And those big companies have advertising budgets that media companies need.

Some big companies are part of a conglomerate that includes media companies, sure. Not a very big percentage though.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

That's up to the company to decide. It's up to them how much they pay vs how much the employee pays.



If the task of buying health insurance prevents you from starting your own company, you are probably better off being an employee. It's a pain in the ass, but there are many, many things about owning or running a business that are a pain in the ass.



If a small company fails to acquire talent for that reason, they are doing it wrong.



Sure, this just doesn't happen to be a significant one.



Some big companies are part of a conglomerate that includes media companies, sure. Not a very big percentage though.

barfo

These are a lot of reasons why large companies would prefer to support the current system rather than M4A. You can say they aren't big reasons, but together it is clearly more profitable and better for large corporation to have the current system with a more desperate and fearful work force.

If we can agree that the current system is a huge pain in the ass for typical people then M4A would give employees far more leverage, there is no question about that. And large corporations want nothing to do with employees having more leverage.