View Full Version : My fellow Democrats, a website to live by
Thu, 27th Jan '05, 6:16am
I recently stumbled upon what is quite frankly the most useful website I've ever seen: www.BuyBlue.org (http://www.buyblue.org). What a wonderful resource! They give a listing of dozens of companies, with a corresponding rating indicating how "blue" or "red" the company is on the basis of political contributions.
The most unethical business of our time, Wal-Mart, is decidedly red, as is Fruit-of-the-Loom, the manufacturer of uncomfortable underwear. Ha!
Currently, I am in the market for a new computer. I'm rather disappointed that Dell received such a low score (12%). The way I see it is, that if a company is so irresponsible as to help Repugs, they simply don't deserve my business. Lucky for me, Fry's is 100% blue (kinda). :D (Perhaps I could get an Apple computer [99%] while I'm there...)
The one real tragedy here is that Wendy's is only 6% Blue. I loved their chicken nuggets, and I will miss them dearly. Now I'm the one who is blue. :(
[ January 27, 2005, 07:03: Message edited by: Ankiseth Vanir ]
Thu, 27th Jan '05, 6:23am
I hope you're not serious about this
Thu, 27th Jan '05, 6:37am
Amaster, thank you for your wonderful post.
Thu, 27th Jan '05, 9:26am
Though I am not residing in the US I think its a good website and I will be careful where I shop. I was very annoyed when I realised my credit card 'Morgan Stanley' had made a donation to Bush. I transered my balance to my Virgin card.
2 years ago I got a 'forward' to my email account about 'French' products that Americans should avoid and one of them was Black Bush and Bushmills whiskey - that are some of the olders products from the Republic and North of Ireland! Infact Bushmills is one of the worlds oldest breweries. Think carefully before you shop and boycott products.
Thu, 27th Jan '05, 1:01pm
I hope you're not serious about this
Thu, 27th Jan '05, 1:21pm
No M$ on the list?
Thu, 27th Jan '05, 1:32pm
pfff those childish americans, not buying anything because the owner of the shop voted red! Whahaha :)
Thu, 27th Jan '05, 2:00pm
great post !
highly recommend this website for all your shopping needs.
hit 'um where it hurts! in thier pocket books.
Thu, 27th Jan '05, 2:18pm
LeFleur you might think boycotting certain businesses is childish now but you should try some 'Dutch' cheese's in the US! I was surprised at the 'traditional Guiness stew' :aaa:
Thu, 27th Jan '05, 2:35pm
So, if I am to take this correctly...you wish to punish businesses for taking part in a Democratic process? So you are really saying that you oppose the lawful right of corporations to contribute to recognized groups? Riiiiigght.
Better not start a "buyblue" vs. "buyred" war, Ankiseth...everyone knows that red has all the money...and far more passion.
Thu, 27th Jan '05, 2:52pm
No and No
boycotting is as democratic as you can get!
the 'right' are experts on this
Thu, 27th Jan '05, 3:07pm
I hope people make some serious use of this list. :)
Thu, 27th Jan '05, 3:38pm
I never buy stuff from Coca Cola since their Union managers in South America have been "mysteriously" dissapearing as soon as a major demand have been told, is that undemocratic of me?
Thu, 27th Jan '05, 3:48pm
Its been 5 years since I was last at an American fastfood chain, however I do go to the occasional US style cafe's that are owned by private individuals (yes they are American owned).
As for Coke I will never drink that again unless they can make up for the atrocities they have commited.
Chandos the Red
Thu, 27th Jan '05, 4:58pm
Before anyone starts thinking this is nonsense, or "undemocratic", the most successful boycott in the history of American business was conducted against Coors Beer.
The Coors family, as everyone knows is extremely conservative. Not only did they provide vital support to get Ronald Reagan started, but they also helpd to establish the Heritage Foundation. They also despise unions, and broke their own. Their attacks on blue-collar workers resulted in a boycott - take a guess who drinks a lot of beer. If you guessed blue-collar union workers than you guessed better than the Coors family, who were forced to sell out their privately owned company. I still won't buy their beer to this day. There are much better choices anyway. Isn't capitalism great?
Also, some of us will not shop in a Wal-Mart. In fact, I've only been in one once. But not because they are a Red company, but because of how poorly they treat their employees, and their shady busniess practices. Yes, people can vote with their dollars. Eveytime the Houston Chronicle calls to ask me to take their paper, I politley decline by telling them that they endorsed George II, and I cannot support a business that works actively agsinst my poltical interests. As a citizen, voting with my dollars is the most effective tool I have.
Are we becoming two Americas? It would certainly appear that we are becoming more polarized as a result of Geoge's failure of leadership. He has ignored almost one half of the country and, now that "other" half is making its presence felt.
Thu, 27th Jan '05, 5:13pm
I have two things to say to this: get over it, and get a life!
Thu, 27th Jan '05, 5:35pm
That is pretty sweet. Is there such a site for "redness"? I wonder if their ratings would match :)
So, if I am to take this correctly...you wish to punish businesses for taking part in a Democratic process? So you are really saying that you oppose the lawful right of corporations to contribute to recognized groups?It is not punishment; it is simply not patronizing them because you don't like what they stand for (or patronizing them because you do like what they stand for). There is no law saying everyone must patronize every business equally. I see this as the same thing as people refusing to buy Dixie Chicks music because of the political statements they made.
Thu, 27th Jan '05, 7:03pm
This is absurd. It's so absurd that I cannot believe anyone conceived it. Sure, I would like to know what a company presidency stands for, but either way, does anyone have a way to tell if that list is not skewed? Let's say that I would run a company and get 100% red. "OK," I say, "so what if I sent you $10,000, would that change my rating to 100% blue?" As far as I can tell, they can very well have such agenda on their mind. And people allow themselves to be pushed over the ledge.
Oh, thanks to the list, I now know what companies to buy at (those below 25%).
Thu, 27th Jan '05, 7:19pm
I can't believe people are getting so bent out of shape over this. Its an idea that was already in motion regarding lots of corporations previously mentioned (Walmart, Coors, etc.).
As far as I can tell, they can very well have such agenda on their mind. You're suggesting that the business model behind the site is to blackmail corporations to get a good, "blue rating?" :lol:
Thu, 27th Jan '05, 7:30pm
OK, I need to try harder to make sure that I’ve been clear. I’m not saying that boycotts are not a hallmark of a free society. I’m not saying that they don’t work (although last time I checked, the Coors family still controlled Coors brewery and didn’t Pete just run for Governor?) What I am saying is that they are infinitely stupid when taken in the context of a “blue” strategy to take down a Conservative run company.
A compassionate liberal is supposed to be all about taking care of the little guy…the worker. The first person, and sometimes the only person, to be hurt in an organized boycott is the little guy. Heck, he/she probably even voted blue. By being a proponent of such a boycott, you have made a travesty of the ideals of your party, in exchange for an opportunity to hurt someone else who you view as a threat. How much collateral damage is acceptable to make Dell stop being “conservative”? 100 workers?…1000 workers? Plant closures? (of course, you could always blame the layoffs and closures on a conservative administration) See what I mean…st00pid.
This is always the weakness of any boycott…the unseen damage to unseen people, but to see one called for as a matter of policy by Democrats only reinforces in my mind how lost the party I once belonged to has become.
The Great Snook
Thu, 27th Jan '05, 7:59pm
I don't have enough time in my day to worry about such nonsense. I'm supporting a red or blue corporation is meaningless to me.
Thu, 27th Jan '05, 8:23pm
You're suggesting that the business model behind the site is to blackmail corporations to get a good, "blue rating?" Basically -- yes. Why not? After all, a good bribe here, another one there, and you get instant good reviews. It's not rocket science, and the people running that website are not accountable to anyone. After all, upon which do they base the ranking on? How the management voted? (They'll always vote lower taxes.) How the workers voted? (Really nice -- you're not with us? We won't support you, even if we say we work for the common man.) How much and where they donated money? (Say, we donated money to help people in Iraq. Does it count towards supporting red or blue?)
Such a ranking can be easily skewed.
And, one of the pillars of a free society and of free elections is that they are secret (equal and common nonwithstanding). If they are secret, there should be no reason to punish anyone for their choices. Everyone is given the same. This is why I can say that I do not see their actions as being democratic. They are basically doing what communists did: you can vote, but we will denounce you if you support our political opponents. Is this how democracy is to be exercised in USA?
Fri, 28th Jan '05, 12:02am
Remember W Ketchup? (http://www.wketchup.com/)
(The funny thing is that Heinz gave far more money to Republicans than Democrats.)
@toughluck: Voting is secret, and will remain so. However, political contributions by public companies need to be disclosed by law, so they are not secret. Nuff said.
@HS: if Chandos decides to buy Apple instead of Dell, how is he harming workers? He's still buying a computer after all; just from a different company.
Somehow, the boycott of Disney by Dobson, Moral Majority, and the Southern Baptists come to mind. What about all those poor suffering Disney workers? What if, gasp, Dobson calls for a boycott of SpongeBob!
Look, it's not like this website is going to have much of an effect on anything. Most likely someone's working on a conservative version at this very moment.
If a voter can't use political opinions when choosing products, if shopping is "politically neutral," how come corporations are allowed to give so much money to political parties? Should corporations have more rights than citizens (don't answer that...)
Fri, 28th Jan '05, 1:41am
After all, upon which do they base the ranking on?If you'd bothered to go to the site, they explain how they calculate the ratings...
Fri, 28th Jan '05, 2:44am
And if you check the comments on the methodology section, you will see an interesting exchange that points out how fuzzy the "statistics" really are. However, there probably is at least a general correlation if that's what you are looking for. Me, I go for the combination of least expensive/best quality. I don't care if it's blue, red, or whatever, as long as the product is good.
Chandos the Red
Fri, 28th Jan '05, 7:20am
HS - It is my understanding that the family no longer runs the company, but I could be wrong here. I had read about most of this in the WSJ a few years back. BTW, didn't the Coors guy loose? :grin:
But I did find out that there is a new boycott; this time started by gays. It seems that Mary Cheney, yes the gay daughter of Dick, was hired by the company and telling everyone who was boycotting Coors that the family no longer runs the company. The AFL-CIO officailly called a successful end to the boycott several years ago, when they received concessions from the company.
In fact, the company is now run by a business group (which is what I had read in the WSJ), but the family still officially owns the company through a trust fund of some sort. The new boycott claims that the Coors family is still anti-gay beause the guy you were writing about, Pete, supports the anti-gay marriage amendment to the Constitution, a charge Pete strongly denies.
Fri, 28th Jan '05, 7:50am
I see this as the same thing as people refusing to buy Dixie Chicks music because of the political statements they made.Me too. That's why I'm not so fond of it.
I'm not saying people don't or shouldn't have the right. I just think that in situations such as this it's beeing exercised...poorly.
Now, if you want to boycott a company because it supports Kim Jong Il or some such thing, I'm right there with you. But America's polarized enough without this sort of thing.
Fri, 28th Jan '05, 11:00pm
AMaster, you are saying that it's okay to boycott one politican, but not another. Democracy at it's finest.
Sat, 29th Jan '05, 6:10am
Caleb* - Well, Kim Jong-Il is a politician in the same way that Josef Stalin and Saddam Hussein were politicians. Not exactly a matter of a popular vote.
This site is, as AMaster mentioned, serving essentially only to polarize even more a divided country. It's foolish, also, to assume that this website will decrease sales to conservative companies. Think of how high the sales would go if Republicans got ahold of the list and turned it around to suit their purposes?
Sat, 29th Jan '05, 8:09am
Well, Hack, I got to say I like your advice to us liberals: do nothing, cause we might hurt the "little guy"; these must be munchkins, or maybe hobbits. A lot of union members, which I am, think being referred to as a "little guy" is a term of contempt, and I frankly don't like it, but no doubt you have your own agenda and I'll move on.
Boycotts are effective because the "little guy" doesn't make corporate decisions. These are made by people we'll call "big guys". These "big guys" look at things called "profit and loss statements", and if profits are down, they tend to wonder why, and whether something called a "boycott" may be a factor, and whether they should do something about it. To expect them to quit being jerks is probably too much, but they might at least be brought to a sort of equilibrium.
As for the "little guy", when the butchers at ONE Wal-Mart store voted to unionize, Wal-Mart dealt with it by closing ALL of their meat departments. I'm sure you share my concern.
Sat, 29th Jan '05, 12:49pm
Slith, I say that you should polarize the country. USA is too big for one government to handle. split it up in two, three, or maybe ten parts of independent nations, and have an economic union like the EU(which I hate, but it's better than the style of governing USA suffers). If one state don't want to be a part of that union, don't force them.
Sat, 29th Jan '05, 12:52pm
Caleb, the American civil war was just that... and look what happened. The south wanted their own way of doing things...
You could say the same is being discussed in Ukraine. The east and south want to have closer ties to Russia, and heavilly disagree with the west and central regions. At what point is alright for a country to split apart?
Sat, 29th Jan '05, 1:45pm
At points that changes a Human's life enourmosly. If the eastern and southern parts don't want to be a member of the EU, let them vote on it and if they vote for a split, then let 'em split for crying out loud.
Sat, 29th Jan '05, 8:02pm
The USA isn't run by one government. It has a federal government, fifty state governments, and more county and city governments than I can count.
No, it isn't too big to be governed.
Sat, 29th Jan '05, 8:38pm
Hmmm . . . I know that there's a topic in here somewhere.
If you want to debate the relative merits of a federal system of state governments vs. the EU (or anything else), start a new thread. I know that I'd be interested to see how that goes.
Sun, 30th Jan '05, 3:07am
Caleb -- I am fairly certain that at least some of many country parts would love to secede. You would then have Southern and parts of Western Poland (the richest portions which the capital city is simply draining) wanting to secede from the rest (North, East and Northwest) who drain a large portion of country's budget. Also, I could easily envision the following happen (aside from Ukraine):
-- Moravia breaks away from the Czech Republic;
-- North Italy breaks away from South Italy;
-- Bayern breaks away from Germany;
-- West Germany breaks away from East Germany;
-- Scotland and Wales breaks away from the UK;
-- Catalonia and Basque breaks away from Spain;
-- Russia falls apart.
And all that happens in Europe, or close to Europe. I'm sure everyone would appreciate the need of forging relations with newly founded countries, finding out who is responsible for international debt, who is a member of which international organisations (I can envision that at least Southern Poland could vote against EU, but in favour of NATO), what about companies that suddenly became multinational and subject to multiple tax laws, and having to run subsidiaries instead of a central executive body, or what permits does it hold, and which ones doesn't it. Or, what about countries that would suddenly have no connection with earth gas from source country, and learn that they just got another middleman.
I'm sure everyone would appreciate that new order of things. I am all for the idea of a federated EU, because that could mean that there would be less Social Democrats (Democracy=chair, Social Democracy=electric chair), and Conservative/right wing would win more seats. Under one condition, however. That EU is split into states just like in USA -- less territory than that of original countries. And the same amount of freedom of legislation. I would love to live in a state that I would wind up in (Minor Poland), as there seems to be more level-headed people here than elsewhere in Poland (excluding chev :)). I would really love to.
[ January 31, 2005, 09:29: Message edited by: toughluck ]
Sun, 30th Jan '05, 6:51am
toughluck...I sense that you are a fellow Conservative, so I send you a big group hug...but WTF does any of this have to do with the DNC endorsing a boycott of 'republican' corporations?
I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I think even Ragusa would have trouble deciphering your last post.
Hang on...I'm going to have some more scotch then read it again.
Sun, 30th Jan '05, 8:26pm
Right. Please keep on topic. If there's nothing else you want to add about the original post or something related to it, start a new one.
Mon, 31st Jan '05, 9:27am
I've replied to Caleb about what I think is wrong, ie. thinking that it should be legally allowed for countries to secede, and stated multiple reasons for why it should not be allowed under any circumstance.
Mon, 31st Jan '05, 9:22pm
Amazon is red-ish.
How will Tal feel about that? He has a pact or somesuch with them, facilitating SPers to that company, thereby funding Bush indirectly. Sort of. :p
Dont let necessity compromise you, Tal. :D Stand tall, stand strong.
Mon, 31st Jan '05, 10:31pm
Well, there's always Barnes and Noble... ;)
Mon, 31st Jan '05, 11:50pm
Dendri, as far as I'm concerned, Amazon is the best at what they do, so it's really not an issue. I'd never go with something inferior just to prove something to myself. I have no illusions anyone would care for it, nor do I think there would be any point in it. If company A does things better than company B, I'll go with A, and I don't really care if their CEO gets Christmas cards from Bush.
Tue, 1st Feb '05, 7:37am
Now that we're totally off-topic, I'll throw in that I work at a small, independent bookstore, and Amazon is our worst enemy (apart from television, video games and general inertia). I do love SP dearly, and may even buy something from Amazon, someday, through this website, to prove it. (Too bad they're out of Planescape:Torment.)
Tue, 1st Feb '05, 10:28am
The problem is that most large companies do not do things better, while Amazon maybe an exception, I hardly think McDonalds does hamburgers better than most small independant American eateries with their own unique recipies, and not some factory produced 'meal' with no personality, taste nor health benefits.
I bet mcdonalds is 'red' ha!
Tue, 1st Feb '05, 12:24pm
OK, I went to the trouble of checking into the website. Seems like they base ALL of their records on political contributions.
And who told you they seem to accept bribes?
Nothing there, they have not been rated AT ALL, and they are 100% blue. Their explanation is just as silly. If a company is out there to do business, it's capitalist, 100% red, you might say.
Now, let me just analyse their system:
Community Involvement - any company can get itself involved with the community. This is a role of a responsible company, not necessarily blue or red. Oh, and I assume that blue companies involve themselves with the community and red do not? The stupidest thing I have seen today, even though I've seen a stupid pamphlet attacking the current mayor of my city.
Ethics - again, a matter of responsibility. Ergo, a blue company is ethical, and red is not. Otherwise, they wouldn't have put this up in a ranking. Or maybe it's blue ethics and red ethics? Sheesh.
Legal Disputes - explain that, perhaps? Everyone has right to dispute over what is legally theirs, don't they? Or maybe it's the red/blue that aggressively fight for what's rightfully theirs, and blue/red timidly give it up? Which side is better?
Predatory Lending - now this thing is stupid. Maybe it serves to some point, but I see it as such: Jews are decidedly leftist in almost every country (except in Israel). Jews are the ones that owned moneylending companies since the middle ages, and have always charged high percentage (as opposed to what Church condoned, ie. small fee and as low percentage as possible, but needed to keep in business). So should predatory lending be considered a blue thing or a red thing?
Distribution of Profits
Charitable Giving - they've struck something so idiotic here, I should not comment it. Charity has always been the domain of the right wing. This political outlook had been that charity should be a private thing, not founded by the state. Left wing was opposite -- charity should not be there, but people should rather receive help from the state. Or maybe it is that they support charities founded either by Republican or Democratic party? What's wrong with funding either, if 'the other side' doesn't offer it??? Personal reasons? Retaliation?
Executive Compensation - well, duh. It's absolutely normal for effective executives to be compensated for their stressful job. They make money for the company, so effectively they make money for every worker in the company. Yes, it is the man at the bottom that matters the most, but he himself would not be able to make money without combined efforts and without well-organised market.
Political Contributions - Ok, that I can understand.
Child Labor - this is a manner of legal issues, not being red or blue. In fact, you could name companies on either side that are employing children. How about paper boys/girls? There are both leftist and rightist papers employing them. Does it make them any more/less red/blue??? Think about it.
Discrimination - again, a matter of legislation and responsibility. And in what matter does it influence whether the company is red or blue? I can't see it. I'd consider myself 'red,' as in 'conservative,' but I would never discriminate as an employer. On the other hand, I see very strong leftist employers that give jobs to handicapped people only because it leads to benefits for them, as they have tax deductions. Does it make them blue (they don't discriminate) or red (they don't discriminate because it gives them profit)?
Diversity - again, matter of responsibility and approach. It wouldn't matter to me of which skin colour is the person. If they are qualified to do the job better than the other person, I would hire. One of the workers is more resourceful than others? Promote him, I don't care whether he's white, black, yellow, or blue or green for that matter.
Health and Safety - how's that for a cliche? "Blue companies are healthy and safe, and red are not." Again -- a matter of responsibility, not of political views. Besides, I would be inclined to believe that a RED company is healthier and safer, providing medical coverage as part of the package, and BLUE companies would put that on the state, as the state is bound to do so.
Human Rights - EXCUSE ME??? HUMAN RIGHTS??? If a company goes against them, this doesn't mean they are red or blue! If it goes against them, they are CRIMINALS, and that is what matters. And I'm sure you'll find fine examples on either side of the fence.
Sweatshop Labor - another thing which you'll find is a matter of responsibility. I wouldn't have anything against a little sweat from my workers -- that means that they are working and that they are willing to work. Not overwork them, but job is not for leisure. Unless you want to say that blue companies=failed companies.
Unionization - this is another silly argument. Some sectors of industry have no unions, regardless of whether the company is blue or red. Some are unionised completely, also regardless of the company. Furthermore, in modern politics (as opposed to 18th-19th century), in rightist countries workers' unions have political freedom to voice and act. In leftist countries, workers' unions take reins of power over. In extreme leftist cases (Communist states in the Soviet Bloc), workers' unions are made illegal. Did that make these companies blue or red, if they supported socialism?
Worker Benefits - again, a matter of responsibility. And how can you expect a company to give benefits to row workers that make $2,000 profit monthly, and are paid $1,800 monthly (after deducting social security, etc.)? What benefits would you give them for that $200?
Workforce Reduction - would you rather be fired and see the company afloat, or remain hired, and be fired three months later, without any pay, after the company had to file for bankrupcy? A rather extreme case, but it's sometimes better to do what is considered negative than try to keep a company afloat in spite of consequences.
Energy Consumption - strange it is that all the industry in the Eastern Bloc produced far less income than the value of environment it had been destroying. And these were NOT capitalist industries. As opposed to that, the more privately-owned the industries were in other countries, the less energy consumption there was. And I doubt it's a matter of being blue or red. Maybe it's because my fiancee is on environmental studies and conservation university course, but maybe not -- I've always been against degradation of the environment.
Packaging - see above. Furthermore, I do not wish to see what I buy packaged in easily breaking materials, regardless of their 'organic' origins. I'd rather buy my apples clean, not ones that were brought in mud or dung because their packagin broke. BTW, PE, PET, LD/HDPE packaging is environmentally friendly. You just need good incineration facilities. All these substances burn very easily and completely, releasing only carbon dioxide and water into the atmosphere, whilst producing a high amount of heat.
Recycling - again, a matter of responsibility.
Waste Reduction - see above.
Chemical Spills/Accidents - see above
Environmentally-friendly Initiatives - see above
Greenhouse Gas Emissions - see above
Nuclear Energy - see above. Furthermore, nuclear energy is still one of the cleanest, safest and most viable solutions in current times if such power plants are well maintained. Oh, and I can bring up an example of a completely 'blue' company -- Entergy -- who supported Kerry, but run their Indian Point power station completely unmaintained and likely to break at any point.
Superfund Sites - see above
Toxic Emissions Discharged - see above
Animal Rights Issues
Animal Testing - I am all against prevention of any cruelty to animals. If animals are required for some tests, make them as painless as possible. Would you rather see some tests, like for new medicines, being done on animals or on humans? Also, what I vehemently detest, are unnecessary tests -- on animals or otherwise.
Animal Welfare - see above
To summarise it, these are not the eighties, and this is not "Captain Planet." In that cartoon, the rich owners were always breaking each and every of the above laws. This is no longer the personal agenda of Mr. Turner, or of anyone else, for that matter. This is more a matter of responsibility, and I would much rather welcome a site that would comment on all those issues, and name themselves: "Buy responsibly," and best abstain from any political rooting.
How does being responsible count towards being blue or red? It's beyond me. It's blatantly stupid and completely detached from any view of reality. It's like saying: "We're Blue, we're not responsible for mistreated workers/mistreated animals/polluted environment/evil business ethics. The Red are responsible for that, since if we're Blue, we don't do any of those disgusting things." Could anyone explain this rhetoric to me?
A question: would you rather buy Blue, from companies that support democrats, whilst at the same time breaking the mentioned issues, or buy Red, but from companies that are worker/environment friendly? Think about it.
[ February 01, 2005, 12:55: Message edited by: toughluck ]
Wed, 2nd Feb '05, 7:11am
Toughluck: The POINT of the post is where the political contributions go. Don't work it so hard.
Predatory Lending: I've noticed, in my unsolicited mail, that the credit card offerings now carry a default rate of 29% (it used to be 22%). Last week I received one that offered a monthly percentage rate of 29%, default 35%. How many Jews were involved I don't know.
Charitable giving: I trust you have some statistics to support your assertion that "Charity is the domain of the right wing". Sounds like special pleading to me.
Child Labor: Paper boys? Give me a break! Or are you still reading Horatio Alger stories?
Worker Benefits: $2000 monthly? And $1800 take home? I don't think you've gotten a paycheck lately. Try $1100-$1200 take home and re-compute. (Assuming your generous employer is paying you $2000.)
Many of the other points you make are vulnerable, and I hope others will contribute.
Chandos the Red
Wed, 2nd Feb '05, 7:16am
If a company is out there to do business, it's capitalist, 100% red, you might say.Why would one say that? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here.
Wed, 2nd Feb '05, 7:41am
The point I was making with:
Charity -- there are no statistics, and there's no point. However the solution that charity should be prevalent over state funding is a right wing one.
Child Labor -- there were two points I was making: 1) The amount of child labour had fallen very considerably. It's considered a crime now, and I doubt any company would risk it. 2) I doubt it is a domain of either political outlook to hire children.
Worker benefits -- it was more to show the scale. I doubt companies make much more than 10-20% margin over what they give a row worker -- in developed countries. This doesn't leave them with too much money to give reasonable worker benefits. Then again, I might be wrong. Besides that, worker benefits would serve any company, regardless of its political agenda.
About the other points -- the major point I was making was that none of the points apply to political views. You can have a predatory, extortionate, polluting, blue-donating business, and you can have a benevolent red-donating one. Unless you think of all right wing supporters as evil war mongers with murder on their mind...
Chandos -- it seemed reasonable at that time. I still think the system is flawed. Give one buck to the Republicans, and your company is 0% blue...
Chandos the Red
Wed, 2nd Feb '05, 8:15am
Give one buck to the Republicans, and your company is 0% blue... I think we can both agree that because a company donates to the republicans that it is not 0 percent blue; or that it should be unworthy of consideration by those who voted "blue" in the last two elections. I think people of conscience are looking for patterns of unethical behavior by certain companies.
But IMO this is largely a consquence of the Bushies. Let's say John McCain is the choice for Repuclicans in the next election. Certainly no one has been more outspoken of abuses by companies that donate large amounts of cash, hoping to get favorable legislation from the current government. Let's just say, for the sake of argument for a moment, that many of the same companies that donate to Shrub decided NOT to support McCain because of his stand on contributions. Would they still be red, even though they refused to back a conservative Republican? I think you will see much of this disappear once Shrub is gone, and America returns to "normal" again. IMO, companies should not be judged purely on donations to one party or another, but how they try to influence the civic responsibilty of the people's government.
Wed, 2nd Feb '05, 9:03am
Anyone that thinks this is un-democratic or un-american should look up the word 'embargo' in their early American history.
Wed, 2nd Feb '05, 1:02pm
Chandos -- you're right with that. But what if there was a company that tried to influence a Democratic government for favourable legislation over their own mistakes? Would they be 'red' or 'blue'? Would 'red' be considered good then, and 'blue' -- bad? Or would it be something completely different?
That's why I would advocate something a lot different -- buy responsibly, ie. from companies that do not break the law, regardless of whom they support. As a Democrat, at which company would you buy if you were faced with a choice between:
-- a completely fair, legal, worker-, animal-, and environment-friendly company whose board of directors are fiercely pro-Republican and pump a huge portion of their profits to that party; or:
-- an unfair, illegal, extortionate, cruel and polluting moloch, but whose board of directors support Democrats with all their hearts and money?