There are loads of factors in why that person is struggling for work. While shine's initial comment was unbelievably crass (sorry, but it was), to place this at the Romanians' door alone is mad and wrong. Why not examine the way that work is set up for society as a whole - the way that mechanisation, bad employment practice and the selling off of industry has made it harder for everyone? Why demonise the working-class Romanian rather than the robber baron? Our world is interconnected, and exploitation is everywhere.
Try not blaming foreigners. Try looking for someone or something else to blame. It'll surprise you.
I can't see anyone demonising Romanians? Who's blaming them directly? They aren't, ME14's husband and I'm sure many others feel let down by the system.
People in this country ARE being affected by immigration - my husband has experience of this working in the kitchen of a pub/restaurant.
Before Romanians were allowed free access, my husband was paid well above the minimum wage, as it was difficult to get people to do the job. By paying above the minimum wage they were able to recruit British workers.
When Romanians were allowed free access to the labour market my husband's wages did not increase until it was forced on his employer with this year's increase.
For 4 years he had no wage increase. The Romanians were happy to work for minimum wage and whenever anyone left, one of their friends or family was waiting for a job and it wasn't necessary to advertise. Consequently a British worker had no chance of being employed.
All the other employees doing the same work as my husband speak very little English and when they work together, speak their own language and my husband feels like a foreigner in his own country.
At the age of 62 it is not easy for him to find alternative employment so he is stuck with it for now.
His greedy employer is surely to blame, for both what he pays and for not advertising the job to UK workers?
Unfortunately for Obama the way the congress was whilst he was in power he was never going to be able to achieve what he wanted. A lot of the time things were blocked out of spite just because he was a Democrat. That's how it seemed from the outside anyway. Petty twats.
How he was able to achieve something as major as Obamacare?
This is well worth watching and will answer your question.
People in this country ARE being affected by immigration - my husband has experience of this working in the kitchen of a pub/restaurant.
Before Romanians were allowed free access, my husband was paid well above the minimum wage, as it was difficult to get people to do the job. By paying above the minimum wage they were able to recruit British workers.
When Romanians were allowed free access to the labour market my husband's wages did not increase until it was forced on his employer with this year's increase.
For 4 years he had no wage increase. The Romanians were happy to work for minimum wage and whenever anyone left, one of their friends or family was waiting for a job and it wasn't necessary to advertise. Consequently a British worker had no chance of being employed.
All the other employees doing the same work as my husband speak very little English and when they work together, speak their own language and my husband feels like a foreigner in his own country.
At the age of 62 it is not easy for him to find alternative employment so he is stuck with it for now.
His greedy employer is surely to blame, for both what he pays and for not advertising the job to UK workers?
So using that logic and blaming the employer, does that mean the UK is either gonna have to support either unemployed Brits or unemployed Romanians.
Or, is there another way to stop the problem I wonder?
There are loads of factors in why that person is struggling for work. While shine's initial comment was unbelievably crass (sorry, but it was), to place this at the Romanians' door alone is mad and wrong. Why not examine the way that work is set up for society as a whole - the way that mechanisation, bad employment practice and the selling off of industry has made it harder for everyone? Why demonise the working-class Romanian rather than the robber baron? Our world is interconnected, and exploitation is everywhere.
Try not blaming foreigners. Try looking for someone or something else to blame. It'll surprise you.
Be careful, someone will think you're volunteering....
Unfortunately for Obama the way the congress was whilst he was in power he was never going to be able to achieve what he wanted. A lot of the time things were blocked out of spite just because he was a Democrat. That's how it seemed from the outside anyway. Petty twats.
How he was able to achieve something as major as Obamacare?
He only just pushed it through after a monumental struggle. He even turned up at Republican events to appeal to Republican politicians, but the thing that swung it for him was actually mobilising this lot
There are loads of factors in why that person is struggling for work. While shine's initial comment was unbelievably crass (sorry, but it was), to place this at the Romanians' door alone is mad and wrong. Why not examine the way that work is set up for society as a whole - the way that mechanisation, bad employment practice and the selling off of industry has made it harder for everyone? Why demonise the working-class Romanian rather than the robber baron? Our world is interconnected, and exploitation is everywhere.
Try not blaming foreigners. Try looking for someone or something else to blame. It'll surprise you.
I can't see anyone demonising Romanians? Who's blaming them directly? They aren't, ME14's husband and I'm sure many others feel let down by the system.
And that there is the reason. In any system you are going to have winners and losers. It's practically impossible to have everyone benefiting from every policy or agreement implemented. Some will argue we need to protect British jobs but then that's at the expense of everyone else in the country. You want a British person cooking your food or serving you pints, that's going to mean you pay more for it. Unfortunately more often than not those on the lower pay scales are going to be the ones suffering but then of course it ignores those lower paid people who are doing as well if not better than before mass immigration. I can completely understand where ME14 is coming from and I do sympathise but Governments have a duty to ensure the country as a whole is benefiting from whatever has been implemented.
There are loads of factors in why that person is struggling for work. While shine's initial comment was unbelievably crass (sorry, but it was), to place this at the Romanians' door alone is mad and wrong. Why not examine the way that work is set up for society as a whole - the way that mechanisation, bad employment practice and the selling off of industry has made it harder for everyone? Why demonise the working-class Romanian rather than the robber baron? Our world is interconnected, and exploitation is everywhere.
Try not blaming foreigners. Try looking for someone or something else to blame. It'll surprise you.
I can't see anyone demonising Romanians? Who's blaming them directly? They aren't, ME14's husband and I'm sure many others feel let down by the system.
And that there is the reason. In any system you are going to have winners and losers. It's practically impossible to have everyone benefiting from every policy or agreement implemented. Some will argue we need to protect British jobs but then that's at the expense of everyone else in the country. You want a British person cooking your food or serving you pints, that's going to mean you pay more for it. Unfortunately more often than not those on the lower pay scales are going to be the ones suffering but then of course it ignores those lower paid people who are doing as well if not better than before mass immigration. I can completely understand where ME14 is coming from and I do sympathise but Governments have a duty to ensure the country as a whole is benefiting from whatever has been implemented.
Not necessarily. We all might agree that it's OK for the government to (say) subsidise the cost of a ferry service to a small Scottish island, using a bit of mine and your tax £££s. We are 'worse off' in the SE as a result, but it's a price many of us down here would be happy to pay. And as a consumer I might be prepared to pay a bit more for pub food..
There are loads of factors in why that person is struggling for work. While shine's initial comment was unbelievably crass (sorry, but it was), to place this at the Romanians' door alone is mad and wrong. Why not examine the way that work is set up for society as a whole - the way that mechanisation, bad employment practice and the selling off of industry has made it harder for everyone? Why demonise the working-class Romanian rather than the robber baron? Our world is interconnected, and exploitation is everywhere.
Try not blaming foreigners. Try looking for someone or something else to blame. It'll surprise you.
I can't see anyone demonising Romanians? Who's blaming them directly? They aren't, ME14's husband and I'm sure many others feel let down by the system.
And that there is the reason. In any system you are going to have winners and losers. It's practically impossible to have everyone benefiting from every policy or agreement implemented. Some will argue we need to protect British jobs but then that's at the expense of everyone else in the country. You want a British person cooking your food or serving you pints, that's going to mean you pay more for it. Unfortunately more often than not those on the lower pay scales are going to be the ones suffering but then of course it ignores those lower paid people who are doing as well if not better than before mass immigration. I can completely understand where ME14 is coming from and I do sympathise but Governments have a duty to ensure the country as a whole is benefiting from whatever has been implemented.
Not necessarily. We all might agree that it's OK for the government to (say) subsidise the cost of a ferry service to a small Scottish island, using a bit of mine and your tax £££s. We are 'worse off' in the SE as a result, but it's a price many of us down here would be happy to pay. And as a consumer I might be prepared to pay a bit more for pub food..
Well clearly but then I'm talking about he big policies. And I knew people would say they'd be willing to pay more but then I always see on here the moaning about the cost of pints and how pubs are struggling to keep going. You can't have it both ways I'm afraid. If I'm offered two things, one prepared by a British person the other prepared by an immigrant and they are to the same quality. I'm going with whichever is cheapest and so would the majority of the country.
Well isn't this just so f*cking hilarious. Looks like some of you should have studied the evidence about the Clinton Foundation that I posted earlier (and was subsequently proved to be true by Wikileaks), instead you continued to believe the crooked, biased leftist media, the crooked, biased Polls and your Twitter feeds, where the likes of Leuth seems to get all his information lol. The game is now up for you Marxists and leftists. You have infected academia, the media and the Hollywood set. Your social engineering ideals have brought the Western World and western culture to the edge of destruction. Your brand of PC, Identity politics has caused terrible devision, animosity, and left huge numbers of people afraid to even open their mouths for fear of being labelled "racist, xenophobic, homophobic" etc, simply because they want secure borders, safety for their families, jobs, or even because they simply believe in the traditional definition of marriage. Well, the silent majority has now spoken. First with Brexit, now Trump, and next watch for France and Germany to go exactly the same way. Seriously though, how out of is the media these day's? How out of touch is CL?Where are all the conservatives? (Too frightened to speak out probably for fear of being labelled a Jimmy Savile sympathiser or a bigot, as I have been on this thread!) The mainstream media and Charlton Life are certainly not representative of the majority are they ( Trump is winning the popular vote as well BTW). 65 pages here of overwhelmingly anti Trump sentiment, and yet the majority of Americans voted for him, very strange! Suck it up all you Lefties, this is where the kick back begins, you got so far but ultimately you failed, just as socialism always fails, but not before it has caused immeasurable damage. Mwahahhahaaahaah!
I like you.
Imagine the knicker twisting that will go on, on here if Le Pen gets in over in France hahaha.
The revolution has started people, change is a coming
Here's my question to you both. What change do you actually want ?
I'm off to start a nine hour shift soon. By the time I get home I'm certain this question won't be answered.
The end of social engineering, the end of political correctness and the "I'm offended" culture, secure borders, law and order, jobs for indigenous citizens, justice, honesty, a fair and balanced media, an education system that teaches conservatism rather than indoctrinating every single student with only socialist views, safety for our families, encourage aspiration and hard work by lowering taxes, discouraging welfare dependancy. There, you won't agree with any of it, but that's my answer.
Mate if you know of other Socialists and Marxist in the country please don't hold out on me. I have a hard enough time dating as is and it would be nice to at least meet someone else with my economic views.
There are loads of factors in why that person is struggling for work. While shine's initial comment was unbelievably crass (sorry, but it was), to place this at the Romanians' door alone is mad and wrong. Why not examine the way that work is set up for society as a whole - the way that mechanisation, bad employment practice and the selling off of industry has made it harder for everyone? Why demonise the working-class Romanian rather than the robber baron? Our world is interconnected, and exploitation is everywhere.
Try not blaming foreigners. Try looking for someone or something else to blame. It'll surprise you.
I can't see anyone demonising Romanians? Who's blaming them directly? They aren't, ME14's husband and I'm sure many others feel let down by the system.
And that there is the reason. In any system you are going to have winners and losers. It's practically impossible to have everyone benefiting from every policy or agreement implemented. Some will argue we need to protect British jobs but then that's at the expense of everyone else in the country. You want a British person cooking your food or serving you pints, that's going to mean you pay more for it. Unfortunately more often than not those on the lower pay scales are going to be the ones suffering but then of course it ignores those lower paid people who are doing as well if not better than before mass immigration. I can completely understand where ME14 is coming from and I do sympathise but Governments have a duty to ensure the country as a whole is benefiting from whatever has been implemented.
Not necessarily. We all might agree that it's OK for the government to (say) subsidise the cost of a ferry service to a small Scottish island, using a bit of mine and your tax £££s. We are 'worse off' in the SE as a result, but it's a price many of us down here would be happy to pay. And as a consumer I might be prepared to pay a bit more for pub food..
Well clearly but then I'm talking about he big policies. And I knew people would say they'd be willing to pay more but then I always see on here the moaning about the cost of pints and how pubs are struggling to keep going. You can't have it both ways I'm afraid. If I'm offered two things, one prepared by a British person the other prepared by an immigrant and they are to the same quality. I'm going with whichever is cheapest and so would the majority of the country.
It's the same principle for big and small issues though. And on ME14's issue, we are nowhere near sorting anything out - still waiting for Farage's exact proposals on immigration.
I think the problem is the too many people want it both ways... gushing about the great prices in Aldi then bemoaning the death of their high street, shedding tears about the closure of a pub they visit once every 6 months, etc. That's the irony of much of this... some of the big policy downsides (e.g. post-Brexit inflation) will hit some of the its biggest supporters hardest (elitists working for multinationals will ride the storm more easily)
There are loads of factors in why that person is struggling for work. While shine's initial comment was unbelievably crass (sorry, but it was), to place this at the Romanians' door alone is mad and wrong. Why not examine the way that work is set up for society as a whole - the way that mechanisation, bad employment practice and the selling off of industry has made it harder for everyone? Why demonise the working-class Romanian rather than the robber baron? Our world is interconnected, and exploitation is everywhere.
Try not blaming foreigners. Try looking for someone or something else to blame. It'll surprise you.
I can't see anyone demonising Romanians? Who's blaming them directly? They aren't, ME14's husband and I'm sure many others feel let down by the system.
And that there is the reason. In any system you are going to have winners and losers. It's practically impossible to have everyone benefiting from every policy or agreement implemented. Some will argue we need to protect British jobs but then that's at the expense of everyone else in the country. You want a British person cooking your food or serving you pints, that's going to mean you pay more for it. Unfortunately more often than not those on the lower pay scales are going to be the ones suffering but then of course it ignores those lower paid people who are doing as well if not better than before mass immigration. I can completely understand where ME14 is coming from and I do sympathise but Governments have a duty to ensure the country as a whole is benefiting from whatever has been implemented.
Not necessarily. We all might agree that it's OK for the government to (say) subsidise the cost of a ferry service to a small Scottish island, using a bit of mine and your tax £££s. We are 'worse off' in the SE as a result, but it's a price many of us down here would be happy to pay. And as a consumer I might be prepared to pay a bit more for pub food..
Well clearly but then I'm talking about he big policies. And I knew people would say they'd be willing to pay more but then I always see on here the moaning about the cost of pints and how pubs are struggling to keep going. You can't have it both ways I'm afraid. If I'm offered two things, one prepared by a British person the other prepared by an immigrant and they are to the same quality. I'm going with whichever is cheapest and so would the majority of the country.
It's the same principle for big and small issues though. And on ME14's issue, we are nowhere near sorting anything out - still waiting for Farage's exact proposals on immigration.
I think the problem is the too many people want it both ways... gushing about the great prices in Aldi then bemoaning the death of their high street, shedding tears about the closure of a pub they visit once every 6 months, etc. That's the irony of much of this... some of the big policy downsides (e.g. post-Brexit inflation) will hit some of the its biggest supporters hardest (elitists working for multinationals will ride the storm more easily)
Completely agree on your second part. People are hypocritical. As I said on another thread principles are great when it suits you.
Interesting you left out the newspapers that did back Trump.
You're free to inform us of all the papers that backed Trump.
Google is your friend. I'm not going to bother doing it, you've made your mind up that all media is against anything you believe in, I'm sure me posting the names of some US publications that backed Trump is not going to make you change that.
You have to remember, q_a sits somewhere to the right of Musilini so to him even the Daily Mail is part of the liberal leftie media conspiracy.
Ironic as well that an English fella living abroad is so desperate for an end to immigration. I'm sure he'd be happy to give up his job and move the back of the line and wait until all the indigenous ausies are in happy full time employment.
Interesting you left out the newspapers that did back Trump.
You're free to inform us of all the papers that backed Trump.
Google is your friend. I'm not going to bother doing it, you've made your mind up that all media is against anything you believe in, I'm sure me posting the names of some US publications that backed Trump is not going to make you change that.
You have to remember, q_a sits somewhere to the right of Musilini so to him even the Daily Mail is part of the liberal leftie media conspiracy.
Ironic as well that an English fella living abroad is so desperate for an end to immigration. I'm sure he'd be happy to give up his job and move the back of the line and wait until all the indigenous ausies are in happy full time employment.
A lot of the things he's said in past on social policies have linked up somewhere between run-of-the-mill Republicans and alt-right Americans. Don't know what that sayd about my country...
Unfortunately for Obama the way the congress was whilst he was in power he was never going to be able to achieve what he wanted. A lot of the time things were blocked out of spite just because he was a Democrat. That's how it seemed from the outside anyway. Petty twats.
How he was able to achieve something as major as Obamacare?
I don't think Republicans got control of the house until 2011 so it was all in place and ready to go. As soon as they got control they tried to repeal it but think that's harder than blocking it. @SDAddick is probably better placed than me to answer though mate.
So I think we should take a step back and do a quick civics lesson. The President cannot write laws, and is not formally involved in the legislative process. What has traditionally happened is that a President says to congress "I propose we do XYZ" and then two parties discuss it and negotiate on it and end up with something kind of like XYZ. Over the course of the last 8 years, that has stopped completely. The President now says "I propose we do XYZ, like close tax loopholes for CEO and large corporations" and congress says "no, not even going to discuss it." And that is just the case for everything proposed by a Democratic President now. It's literally in our constitution that Congress must approve Supreme Court justices, and this year they won't even have a hearing to CONSIDER the very moderate man put forward by Obama because it was something done by a Democrat.
It's also worth noting that because of the way our political campaigns are run and how money in our system works, part of the reason why Congress says no to regulating drug prices, or closing loopholes in tax codes for large corporations, is because those large corporations and drug companies donate HUGE amounts of money to their campaigns or Political Action Committees (PACs) which is unregulated money put into a sort of trust that can spend that money however they like on behalf of the candidate(s) or causes they like. For example, drug companies can run ads against Obamacare calling it "filthy socialist medicine" because they know that if it passed in its original form drug prices would be controlled like the government AS THEY ARE IN EVERY OTHER WESTERN COUNTRY and the obscene amounts of money they make will be reduced.
By the way, PACs and Campaign Contributions are not unique to Republicans, just using the examples from that PolitiFact list.
Unfortunately for Obama the way the congress was whilst he was in power he was never going to be able to achieve what he wanted. A lot of the time things were blocked out of spite just because he was a Democrat. That's how it seemed from the outside anyway. Petty twats.
Correct. They prevented him from banning mentality ill people from owning assault rifle. I wonder what he could have achieved. I think Obamacare will be scrapped as soon as Trump can do so.
Unfortunately for Obama the way the congress was whilst he was in power he was never going to be able to achieve what he wanted. A lot of the time things were blocked out of spite just because he was a Democrat. That's how it seemed from the outside anyway. Petty twats.
How he was able to achieve something as major as Obamacare?
I don't think Republicans got control of the house until 2011 so it was all in place and ready to go. As soon as they got control they tried to repeal it but think that's harder than blocking it. @SDAddick is probably better placed than me to answer though mate.
So I think we should take a step back and do a quick civics lesson. The President cannot write laws, and is not formally involved in the legislative process. What has traditionally happened is that a President says to congress "I propose we do XYZ" and then two parties discuss it and negotiate on it and end up with something kind of like XYZ. Over the course of the last 8 years, that has stopped completely. The President now says "I propose we do XYZ, like close tax loopholes for CEO and large corporations" and congress says "no, not even going to discuss it." And that is just the case for everything proposed by a Democratic President now. It's literally in our constitution that Congress must approve Supreme Court justices, and this year they won't even have a hearing to CONSIDER the very moderate man put forward by Obama because it was something done by a Democrat.
It's also worth noting that because of the way our political campaigns are run and how money in our system works, part of the reason why Congress says no to regulating drug prices, or closing loopholes in tax codes for large corporations, is because those large corporations and drug companies donate HUGE amounts of money to their campaigns or Political Action Committees (PACs) which is unregulated money put into a sort of trust that can spend that money however they like on behalf of the candidate(s) or causes they like. For example, drug companies can run ads against Obamacare calling it "filthy socialist medicine" because they know that if it passed in its original form drug prices would be controlled like the government AS THEY ARE IN EVERY OTHER WESTERN COUNTRY and the obscene amounts of money they make will be reduced.
By the way, PACs and Campaign Contributions are not unique to Republicans, just using the examples from that PolitiFact list.
So @i_b_b_o_r_g when you say Obama "lied" by not enacting policies, I don't think that "lied" is the best way to characterize it.
Unfortunately for Obama the way the congress was whilst he was in power he was never going to be able to achieve what he wanted. A lot of the time things were blocked out of spite just because he was a Democrat. That's how it seemed from the outside anyway. Petty twats.
How he was able to achieve something as major as Obamacare?
I don't think Republicans got control of the house until 2011 so it was all in place and ready to go. As soon as they got control they tried to repeal it but think that's harder than blocking it. @SDAddick is probably better placed than me to answer though mate.
So I think we should take a step back and do a quick civics lesson. The President cannot write laws, and is not formally involved in the legislative process. What has traditionally happened is that a President says to congress "I propose we do XYZ" and then two parties discuss it and negotiate on it and end up with something kind of like XYZ. Over the course of the last 8 years, that has stopped completely. The President now says "I propose we do XYZ, like close tax loopholes for CEO and large corporations" and congress says "no, not even going to discuss it." And that is just the case for everything proposed by a Democratic President now. It's literally in our constitution that Congress must approve Supreme Court justices, and this year they won't even have a hearing to CONSIDER the very moderate man put forward by Obama because it was something done by a Democrat.
It's also worth noting that because of the way our political campaigns are run and how money in our system works, part of the reason why Congress says no to regulating drug prices, or closing loopholes in tax codes for large corporations, is because those large corporations and drug companies donate HUGE amounts of money to their campaigns or Political Action Committees (PACs) which is unregulated money put into a sort of trust that can spend that money however they like on behalf of the candidate(s) or causes they like. For example, drug companies can run ads against Obamacare calling it "filthy socialist medicine" because they know that if it passed in its original form drug prices would be controlled like the government AS THEY ARE IN EVERY OTHER WESTERN COUNTRY and the obscene amounts of money they make will be reduced.
By the way, PACs and Campaign Contributions are not unique to Republicans, just using the examples from that PolitiFact list.
So @i_b_b_o_r_g when you say Obama "lied" by not enacting policies, I don't think that "lied" is the best way to characterize it.
I keep seeing that "progressives" need to engage and stop looking down on the disenfranchised and disillusioned. The need to engage is fair enough in principle. I don't look down on anyone, until their actions are deserving of derision. During the Brexit campaign I tried pretty hard to reason with people, I used facts and logic. I persuaded a few "floating voters" to go the right way (as I see it), but no-one who had made their mind up was budging. One actually said "I am not interested in facts", after I had shown him proof that what he had stated was wrong. I did it in a kind way, I wasn't ridiculing or belittling him in any way (he's a big bloke, and I'm not that stupid).
To others I used the analogy of being a member of a sports and social club to explain why the EU would almost certainly give the UK a rough ride post Brexit. If you pay your subs to get to use the subsidised bar, the bowling green, free golf on Saturday mornings and a half price jolly up to Margate twice a year, and then stop paying, why would the club continue to give you those privileges? It wouldn't happen and you wouldn't expect it. I was told they need us more than we need them. I explained that while as a whole we buy lots from the EU, between 26 individual countries it wasn't such a big deal. I just got told I was scaremongering. When the EU started suggesting that this might be the case, they quoted the the redtops who screamed that they were bullying the UK and we should always fight back against bullies.
The papers stated that millions of Turks were just waiting for the nod to come in and there was nothing we could do about it. I pointed out that under EU law every nation had a veto, and that even if the "democratically elected" UK government decided to say yes, there was no way Greece or Cyprus were ever going to let that happen. I was just told it wasn't true, basically because they had read it in the paper.
Finally I ask a perfectly reasonable question on here of someone who is neither disenfranchised or disillusioned, about how he manages to be doing much better financially at his particular job, while colleagues are being undercut by Romanians, I ask it twice and I still don't get an answer.
People in this country ARE being affected by immigration - my husband has experience of this working in the kitchen of a pub/restaurant.
Before Romanians were allowed free access, my husband was paid well above the minimum wage, as it was difficult to get people to do the job. By paying above the minimum wage they were able to recruit British workers.
When Romanians were allowed free access to the labour market my husband's wages did not increase until it was forced on his employer with this year's increase.
For 4 years he had no wage increase. The Romanians were happy to work for minimum wage and whenever anyone left, one of their friends or family was waiting for a job and it wasn't necessary to advertise. Consequently a British worker had no chance of being employed.
All the other employees doing the same work as my husband speak very little English and when they work together, speak their own language and my husband feels like a foreigner in his own country.
At the age of 62 it is not easy for him to find alternative employment so he is stuck with it for now.
His greedy employer is surely to blame, for both what he pays and for not advertising the job to UK workers?
So using that logic and blaming the employer, does that mean the UK is either gonna have to support either unemployed Brits or unemployed Romanians.
Or, is there another way to stop the problem I wonder?
Who is talking about unemployed people? We are talking about working people. If you want to continue being the people's moderator you need to read things more carefully...
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0755gxg
Or, is there another way to stop the problem I wonder?
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/578/the_59000_nuns_for_obamacare.aspx
The Clintons do have history of thinking they're above all that though don't they. Caring about their reputation or not
#SaveTheMarxist1
I think the problem is the too many people want it both ways... gushing about the great prices in Aldi then bemoaning the death of their high street, shedding tears about the closure of a pub they visit once every 6 months, etc. That's the irony of much of this... some of the big policy downsides (e.g. post-Brexit inflation) will hit some of the its biggest supporters hardest (elitists working for multinationals will ride the storm more easily)
Ironic as well that an English fella living abroad is so desperate for an end to immigration. I'm sure he'd be happy to give up his job and move the back of the line and wait until all the indigenous ausies are in happy full time employment.
It's also worth noting that because of the way our political campaigns are run and how money in our system works, part of the reason why Congress says no to regulating drug prices, or closing loopholes in tax codes for large corporations, is because those large corporations and drug companies donate HUGE amounts of money to their campaigns or Political Action Committees (PACs) which is unregulated money put into a sort of trust that can spend that money however they like on behalf of the candidate(s) or causes they like. For example, drug companies can run ads against Obamacare calling it "filthy socialist medicine" because they know that if it passed in its original form drug prices would be controlled like the government AS THEY ARE IN EVERY OTHER WESTERN COUNTRY and the obscene amounts of money they make will be reduced.
By the way, PACs and Campaign Contributions are not unique to Republicans, just using the examples from that PolitiFact list.
To others I used the analogy of being a member of a sports and social club to explain why the EU would almost certainly give the UK a rough ride post Brexit. If you pay your subs to get to use the subsidised bar, the bowling green, free golf on Saturday mornings and a half price jolly up to Margate twice a year, and then stop paying, why would the club continue to give you those privileges? It wouldn't happen and you wouldn't expect it. I was told they need us more than we need them. I explained that while as a whole we buy lots from the EU, between 26 individual countries it wasn't such a big deal. I just got told I was scaremongering. When the EU started suggesting that this might be the case, they quoted the the redtops who screamed that they were bullying the UK and we should always fight back against bullies.
The papers stated that millions of Turks were just waiting for the nod to come in and there was nothing we could do about it. I pointed out that under EU law every nation had a veto, and that even if the "democratically elected" UK government decided to say yes, there was no way Greece or Cyprus were ever going to let that happen. I was just told it wasn't true, basically because they had read it in the paper.
Finally I ask a perfectly reasonable question on here of someone who is neither disenfranchised or disillusioned, about how he manages to be doing much better financially at his particular job, while colleagues are being undercut by Romanians, I ask it twice and I still don't get an answer.
How are progressives supposed to engage ?