Tired of bought and paid for politicos representing hidden interests and not you?

[Psychoblues]

I am. I don't know exactly how to change it but this seems to be the best thing I've run across. I've heard a lot about this from all sides of the political spectrum and I believe this may be a major key in bringing government back under the control of the people just like it was designed by our founders to be.

Check out http://www.getmoneyout.com/


Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

I clicked on my own link and it takes me to some completely unknown site. I apologize for that and I'll try to fix it. On edit, it's now fixed and I thank you for understanding.

Psychoblues

[chloe]

Thanks for the information PB, I linked to it just fine :salute:

[fj1200]

What's wrong with money? I'm all for transparency.

[Psychoblues]

What's wrong with money? I'm all for transparency.

I'm all for money and transparency. But when your money nullifies my vote I get rather testy. It has been substantially proven that in 94% of elections the candidate with the most money wins. And where that money comes from is to whom the politico is encumbered to represent. The rest of us become simpletons left with nothing other than ads and soundbites from which to make very unintelligent choices. That has to change. That and a hell of a lot more.

Psychoblues

[ConHog]

I'm all for money and transparency. But when your money nullifies my vote I get rather testy. It has been substantially proven that in 94% of elections the candidate with the most money wins. And where that money comes from is to whom the politico is encumbered to represent. The rest of us become simpletons left with nothing other than ads and soundbites from which to make very unintelligent choices. That has to change. That and a hell of a lot more.

Psychoblues


Glad to see you're on board with doing away with lobbyists and PACs. Your boy Obama sure isn't.

[Kathianne]

Glad to see you're on board with doing away with lobbyists and PACs. Your boy Obama sure isn't.

Indeed. He was very quick to reject the limits put on by accepting the money provided with limits.

[ConHog]

Indeed. He was very quick to reject the limits put on by accepting the money provided with limits.




What cracks me up is that his supporters are so stupid they actually believe that he is not in the pocket of big business even though the records are available for anyone to see that he accepted more in campaign donations from big business than any candidate in history.

[Kathianne]

What cracks me up is that his supporters are so stupid they actually believe that he is not in the pocket of big business even though the records are available for anyone to see that he accepted more in campaign donations from big business than any candidate in history.

Indeed. Notice my new avatar?

[Psychoblues]

The movement is to remove the money from politics. President Obama supports that and all of his supporters that I know agree. It takes only an idiot to agree that corporate money is more important than yours or my vote. This is NOT a partisan issue and the site I link to is not a partisan entity. We need change and this senseless and childish bickering isn't going to bring any of that about.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

I'm all for money and transparency. But when your money nullifies my vote I get rather testy. It has been substantially proven that in 94% of elections the candidate with the most money wins. And where that money comes from is to whom the politico is encumbered to represent. The rest of us become simpletons left with nothing other than ads and soundbites from which to make very unintelligent choices. That has to change. That and a hell of a lot more.

Not exactly shocking, it's been substantially proven that incumbents win ~94% of the time. Current laws limit the amount of money that can be raised which has the effect of favoring the very incumbents that you believe are "bought and paid for." The amendment that you apparently support would only serve to entrench those already in power by limiting the opportunity of those without that advantage. It's the advance of government intrusion into every day lives, that you support, which gives power to the government to dole out favors which are then "bought and paid for."

[fj1200]

The movement is to remove the money from politics. President Obama supports that and all of his supporters that I know agree. It takes only an idiot to agree that corporate money is more important than yours or my vote. This is NOT a partisan issue and the site I link to is not a partisan entity. We need change and this senseless and childish bickering isn't going to bring any of that about.

The man with the billion dollar campaign supports that? Are you kidding?

[Psychoblues]

The man with the billion dollar campaign supports that? Are you kidding?

I call bullshit and no, I am not kidding. Is the hate still hurting you?

Psychoblues

[ConHog]

I call bullshit and no, I am not kidding. Is the hate still hurting you?

Psychoblues

Who cares what you call? WHy didn't you just go ahead and call FJ a fucking racist for saying something negative about Obama while you were at. We all know you wanted to.

[MtnBiker]

Obama should be a real leader and show such devoted supports such as PB his leadership by returning all of his campaign funds and remove all of the money from his campaing for the remainder of the race.

[fj1200]

I call bullshit and no, I am not kidding. Is the hate still hurting you?

YOU call BS after making that BO money statement? :laugh: He's the one who turned down Federal matching to forgo the Presidential spending limits; sorry if his actions back me up.

Why would hate be hurting me? You're the one who's "tired." [/notices you ignored my other post]

[Psychoblues]

Obama should be a real leader and show such devoted supports such as PB his leadership by returning all of his campaign funds and remove all of the money from his campaing for the remainder of the race.

Money is the name and the game as it stands right now. The Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United in no way helps in that regard but only serves to further disenfranchise the honest will of the people of the United States of America. When money becomes obsolete as a virtual "vote" then and only then will the genuine will of the people be represented at the polls and in the elected offices. As I said in the OP I don't know the answer. I found what I think is a good start to a solution or maybe just a conversation but I am sick and tired of my votes being usurped by those with more wealth than me. One man, one vote. That's the way our founders envisioned it.

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

Glad to see you're on board with doing away with lobbyists and PACs. Your boy Obama sure isn't.

My boy's names are Billy and Shane, CH. Just what are you trying to say?

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

One man, one vote. That's the way our founders envisioned it.

That's what we have. CU allows anyone who could be adversely affected by legislation to act against the entrenched. And I already told you the answer; take away the power of legislators and you take away the money incentive.

[Psychoblues]

Who cares what you call? WHy didn't you just go ahead and call FJ a fucking racist for saying something negative about Obama while you were at. We all know you wanted to.

I'm worrying about you, ch. I do NOT think fj is a racist and have never considered him a racist. But, if he is a "fucking" racist then he at least has something going for him. You fucking jerk!!!!!!


:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:


Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

YOU call BS after making that BO money statement? :laugh: He's the one who turned down Federal matching to forgo the Presidential spending limits; sorry if his actions back me up.

Why would hate be hurting me? You're the one who's "tired." [/notices you ignored my other post]

To date it remains a money game. You are apparently ignoring the fact that my advocation is to change all that and I don't accept a word of your shallow analogy of the proposition as being even close to the meaning of it.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

To date it remains a money game. You are apparently ignoring the fact that my advocation is to change all that and I don't accept a word of your shallow analogy of the proposition as being even close to the meaning of it.

Of course you don't; it's too damning. You, however, are spending an awful lot of time and energy focusing on a symptom and not the disease.

[Psychoblues]

Of course you don't; it's too damning. You, however, are spending an awful lot of time and energy focusing on a symptom and not the disease.

Money in politics. That is the disease. We can bullshit all night long about the symptoms and subsequentials but the disease is MONEY IN POLITICS.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

Money in politics. That is the disease. We can bullshit all night long about the symptoms and subsequentials but the disease is MONEY IN POLITICS.

No, although the entrenched would like you to believe so. I don't sling BS; LBJ would have loved himself some money limits:


John Samples: FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith points out in his book Unfree Speech (Princeton University Press, 2001) that campaign finance regulations make it harder for newcomers to enter the political game, in part because they have to learn all the rules and in part because of the uncertainty. It's hard to believe that was not one purpose of BCRA. Historically, such rules would have changed American history. Sen. Eugene McCarthy, whose 1968 campaign led to LBJ's withdrawal, has said he could never have made his race under the campaign finance regulations adopted in 1974. McCarthy ran with the support of several large contributions given by wealthy individuals troubled by LBJ's Vietnam policy. We need more competition and more money in elections not more regulations and less money.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5712

[logroller]

Of course you don't; it's too damning. You, however, are spending an awful lot of time and energy focusing on a symptom and not the disease.

Very true. The business of power is power. Money is merely a means, a symptom, if you will. The entrenched politicos are drunk with power, not money; as plenty of politicians have cut out of Congress in lieu of far more lucrative lobbying jobs. Though, i do have an issue with the recent changes re:corporate donors--- I just don't see how that could possibly make Congressmen any more attentive to their constituents' interests.

[fj1200]

Though, i do have an issue with the recent changes re:corporate donors---

Correct me if I'm wrong but if you're referring to the Citizens decision, The SC said that you couldn't place any limits on speech/money and advocacy ads but the contribution limits to candidates remained.

[logroller]

Correct me if I'm wrong but if you're referring to the Citizens decision, The SC said that you couldn't place any limits on speech/money and advocacy ads but the contribution limits to candidates remained.

In no uncertain terms, we have conceded to an oligarchy in this country.That's where we are at. I understand, and agree, on the standing law grounds for the Citizens decision. I guess my issue is with corporate person-hood. They're at the same time a person and a protected class of persons; it just seems duplicitous and ethically devoid of personal responsibility. I can extend "all men are created equal" to extend to women, but not organizations.

My problem is their mission isn't based on the ethically pure "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," but rather the pursuit of profits. Now I'm not saying profits are bad-- they are good, when naturally checked by loss. The question is, if seeking private profit is ethically sound from a social standpoint (more good than bad), why do they need public protection in the form of personhood?

[fj1200]

In no uncertain terms, we have conceded to an oligarchy in this country.That's where we are at. I understand, and agree, on the standing law grounds for the Citizens decision. I guess my issue is with corporate person-hood. They're at the same time a person and a protected class of persons; it just seems duplicitous and ethically devoid of personal responsibility. I can extend "all men are created equal" to extend to women, but not organizations.

My problem is their mission isn't based on the ethically pure "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," but rather the pursuit of profits. Now I'm not saying profits are bad-- they are good, when naturally checked by loss. The question is, if seeking private profit is ethically sound from a social standpoint (more good than bad), why do they need public protection in the form of personhood?

Well I'm pretty sure I disagree with most of that but I don't understand this big obsession with personhood. Why should a corporation not have protection from unreasonable search and seizure for example and not be able to engage in speech to advance the interests of its owners/employees? I generally think it's ultimately a distinction without a difference. You also seem to grant some sort of sainthood to a persons pursuit of profits (read wages) but not when an entity engages in the same activity.

[Psychoblues]

Well I'm pretty sure I disagree with most of that but I don't understand this big obsession with personhood. Why should a corporation not have protection from unreasonable search and seizure for example and not be able to engage in speech to advance the interests of its owners/employees? I generally think it's ultimately a distinction without a difference. You also seem to grant some sort of sainthood to a persons pursuit of profits (read wages) but not when an entity engages in the same activity.

I'm pretty sure you don't understand most of that as you continue to be confused as to the difference between a person and a corporation. It is certainly complicated both legal and moral but the two are completely different on so many levels that I'm not certain whether you would be qualified to engage in intelligent debate, I mean as a person. Perhaps I could get more sense out of a corporation?

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

I'm pretty sure you don't understand most of that as you continue to be confused as to the difference between a person and a corporation. It is certainly complicated both legal and moral but the two are completely different on so many levels that I'm not certain whether you would be qualified to engage in intelligent debate, I mean as a person. Perhaps I could get more sense out of a corporation?

That's about what I expect from one who loses a debate. Making claims and assertions he can't back up.

[Psychoblues]

That's about what I expect from one who loses a debate. Making claims and assertions he can't back up.

You've already admitted that you don't understand and now you come back and state that I have somehow lost a debate? Silly, you.


:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

You've already admitted that you don't understand and now you come back and state that I have somehow lost a debate? Silly, you.

How so? Specifics please.

[fj1200]

^Not logroller, he can hold a conversation.

[red states rule]

The movement is to remove the money from politics. President Obama supports that and all of his supporters that I know agree. It takes only an idiot to agree that corporate money is more important than yours or my vote. This is NOT a partisan issue and the site I link to is not a partisan entity. We need change and this senseless and childish bickering isn't going to bring any of that about.

Psychoblues

Does that include union money PB? They were the BIGGEST source of money in the last election

http://sg.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BI593_AFSCME_NS_20101021210401.gif


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566481761790288.html

[Psychoblues]

Unions represent people, rsr. Corporations survive and are concerned only for profit and morals be damned. Apples and oranges, piggy. But, I think the proposal includes Union money. Did you read the proposal? I support the proposal at the present time as I see no better solution being offered up. However, I'm a Progressive type and remain open to any good suggestions that might improve my condition in this world and the human condition at all times.

Psychoblues

[logroller]

Well I'm pretty sure I disagree with most of that but I don't understand this big obsession with personhood. Why should a corporation not have protection from unreasonable search and seizure for example and not be able to engage in speech to advance the interests of its owners/employees? I generally think it's ultimately a distinction without a difference. You also seem to grant some sort of sainthood to a persons pursuit of profits (read wages) but not when an entity engages in the same activity.
Wages(read: earnings) and profits are different; you know that. 'Sainthood'?, this isn't miraculous or a case of blind faith. Work fulfills a person's purpose; happiness is a purpose, as is profit. A corporations purpose is profit, not happiness. A corporation doesn't really work, does it? Is it on call, does it answer phones or make sales calls- attend board meetings-- these are all things persons do. As for personal rights, there are situations where an entity is justifiably granted protections which extend beyond the individuals involved, a husband and wife for example; because the mutual interests are assumed to be inextricably intertwined-- not so with a profit-centered agreement, partnership, corporation et al-- such an arrangement extends primarily to financial interest above any other.

[Psychoblues]

Wages(read: earnings) and profits are different; you know that. 'Sainthood'?, this isn't miraculous or a case of blind faith. Work fulfills a person's purpose; happiness is a purpose, as is profit. A corporations purpose is profit, not happiness. A corporation doesn't really work, does it? Is it on call, does it answer phones or make sales calls- attend board meetings-- these are all things persons do. As for personal rights, there are situations where an entity is justifiably granted protections which extend beyond the individuals involved, a husband and wife for example; because the mutual interests are assumed to be inextricably intertwined-- not so with a profit-centered agreement, partnership, corporation et al-- such an arrangement extends primarily to financial interest above any other.

Now that makes more sense than anything else I've seen lately on the personhood/corporation question. Thanks, lr. You deserve a gold star beside your name!

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

Wages(read: earnings) and profits are different; you know that. 'Sainthood'?, this isn't miraculous or a case of blind faith. Work fulfills a person's purpose; happiness is a purpose, as is profit. A corporations purpose is profit, not happiness. A corporation doesn't really work, does it? Is it on call, does it answer phones or make sales calls- attend board meetings-- these are all things persons do. As for personal rights, there are situations where an entity is justifiably granted protections which extend beyond the individuals involved, a husband and wife for example; because the mutual interests are assumed to be inextricably intertwined-- not so with a profit-centered agreement, partnership, corporation et al-- such an arrangement extends primarily to financial interest above any other.

I disagree, the people that are that entity have rights so I see no issue with those rights being extended. Do you think that any corporate property can be seized for eminent domain? Do you think that corporate property/records can be searched with no due process? Do you think the owners of a corporation have no right to petition their government?

As for your first premise; profit is the result of the owner's work, i.e. their purpose. Just because the wage/profit takes a different form does not make it any less noble. A wage earned for an evil purpose is not entitled to a higher status than profit used for an honorable purpose just because of it's status as wage.

[revelarts]

I think the Idea is Sound.
Get the money OUT of Politics.
I posted a vid in another thread where Ratigan from MSNBC is promoting this plan or a similar one.
I like the Idea but the analogies of Rattigan gave of Congress kind of show how difficult it will be to do.
the 1st analogy demonstrates the control the mony has over them
he says it's like they wear a money SUICIDE VEST, that if they stray out of line to far someone DETONATES the bomb and they are out of power.
Getting Congress to take off the vest seems like it will take a bomb squad and technical expertise. that's a problem

the other analogy he uses is that Congress people are like Drunken Uncle's that runs all the finances and decisions in the house. They may have good intentions while sober but they get to drinking and the Electric bill doesn't get paid, there puke on the floor, he's shot the neighbors dog and set part of the house on fire trying keep the house warm. Taking the drink away will reset the family on the right path.
BUT getting the Drink away from a serious Alcoholic or Drug addict is no easy trick. They are COMMITTED and DRIVEN by it with a passion that is hard to match by those who want the person sober.

Again i think it's a great IDEA, If the Left and Right rank and File can be serious enough to consider it before the house burns down it might have half a chance.
Union money, Military contractor money, Oil Money, PTA Money, Wall Street, If MONEY is a root Problem why bicker over the source. If the drugs come from the pharmacy or off the street an overdose can kill.

But If what's gone on prior to this post is any indication of bipartisan grass roots action we're in heap of trouble.

[fj1200]

I think the Idea is Sound.
Get the money OUT of Politics.

You CAN'T get the money out of politics, you need to get the power out of politics. Getting the money out of politics only serves to further entrench the current power structure, just ask LBJ.

[revelarts]

You CAN'T get the money out of politics, you need to get the power out of politics. Getting the money out of politics only serves to further entrench the current power structure, just ask LBJ. the power flows from the money.
there is no power if the bureaucracy is choked of from it teats. And if the congress aren't swayed by dollars. they don't create bridges to nowhere. Bail Outs to the same people who helped create the problem. etc.
you will get some crazy Ideas but they won't come from moneyed agendas like WAR for profit or Pharmacies protected from suits for bad drugs. No prosecution to certain well healled people or companies.

What are you talking about Fj?

[fj1200]

the power flows from the money.
there is no power if the bureaucracy is choked of from it teats. And if the congress aren't swayed by dollars. they don't create bridges to nowhere. Bail Outs to the same people who helped create the problem. etc.
you will get some crazy Ideas but they won't come from moneyed agendas like WAR for profit or Pharmacies protected from suits for bad drugs. No prosecution to certain well healled people or companies.

No, the money flows TO the power. As long as you give Congress the power to favor certain corporations/industries via tax rules, regulations, bailouts, etc. then you are going to have money flowing TO the power to influence the direction of those decisions.


What are you talking about Fj?

To what are you referring?

[revelarts]

No, the money flows TO the power. As long as you give Congress the power to favor certain corporations/industries via tax rules, regulations, bailouts, etc. then you are going to have money flowing TO the power to influence the direction of those decisions.


Ah... I see you your coming from....
Well that goes back to stripping the bureaucracies and congress and the president back to constitutional levels of authority.
I'm all for that to, but how do you get them to DIVEST THEMSELVES of their illegitimate authority?
At least, if the money is gone you've got a bit of incentive.
but sure if a vicious cycle we got here.

[fj1200]

Ah... I see you your coming from....
Well that goes back to stripping the bureaucracies and congress and the president back to constitutional levels of authority.
I'm all for that to, but how do you get them to DIVEST THEMSELVES of their illegitimate authority?
At least, if the money is gone you've got a bit of incentive.
but sure if a vicious cycle we got here.

Not necessarily completely back to constitutional levels but the starting point IMO is to identify the actual problem and not be distracted.

[ConHog]

Not necessarily completely back to constitutional levels but the starting point IMO is to identify the actual problem and not be distracted.

As much as I would like to see it, I think it is incredibly naive to believe that we could possibly say "okay the federal government can ONLY do what is in the COTUS" I mean sure it COULD be done, if enough amendments were added to the COTUS, but how likely is that to happen?

[Psychoblues]

the power flows from the money.
there is no power if the bureaucracy is choked of from it teats. And if the congress aren't swayed by dollars. they don't create bridges to nowhere. Bail Outs to the same people who helped create the problem. etc.
you will get some crazy Ideas but they won't come from moneyed agendas like WAR for profit or Pharmacies protected from suits for bad drugs. No prosecution to certain well healled people or companies.

What are you talking about Fj?

I think fj is pulling the "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" trick. I like fj but in this instance he obviously has some affection for corporate control of our congress and other political entities or he just hates that people are getting tired of being treated second class to monied interests. I dunno. I don't think he's shooting us a straight line on this question.

Good to see ya, rev, and I like the way you're thinking.

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

Yeah, campaign financing has worked so well:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/06/19/uk-usa-politics-idUKN1946989620080619

[fj1200]

As much as I would like to see it, I think it is incredibly naive to believe that we could possibly say "okay the federal government can ONLY do what is in the COTUS" I mean sure it COULD be done, if enough amendments were added to the COTUS, but how likely is that to happen?

It won't. But changes can be made with the fortitude of some elected officials and the citizens.

[Psychoblues]

Yeah, campaign financing has worked so well:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/06/19/uk-usa-politics-idUKN1946989620080619

It's a work constantly in progress, Kath. What are we supposed to do? Nothing? Like our republican congress and their Senate cohorts? This demand for substantial changes to the way our politico systems work has in one way or another the support of vast majorities of us 99 percenters. I choose to get behind and agitate for this or a better change.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

I think fj is pulling the "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" trick.

You have yet to refute anything I've posted.

[logroller]

I disagree, the people that are that entity have rights so I see no issue with those rights being extended. Do you think that any corporate property can be seized for eminent domain? Do you assume it cannot be? Any personal property can be.
Do you think that corporate property/records can be searched with no due process? I'm not quite sure how that applies. I mean, a corporation's articles are registered with the state. Their financial documents too (when publicly traded)-- so I'm not quite sure. I mean, an organization doesn't really exist without a physical person-- so their rights are protected, individually. But I don't think that should extend to them as a class of profit seekers.
Do you think the owners of a corporation have no right to petition their government? Certainly, as individuals, the same as any other citizen.


As for your first premise; profit is the result of the owner's work, i.e. their purpose. Just because the wage/profit takes a different form does not make it any less noble. A wage earned for an evil purpose is not entitled to a higher status than profit used for an honorable purpose just because of it's status as wage.

I own stock in BP, making me an owner. I haven't done a lick of work for BP, but I still profit. I'm not knocking profit, so don't imply I feel work is more or less honorable than investment. They both serve their purpose-- govt too, needs to fulfill its purpose--and catering to the profit centered nature of for-profit corporations isn't one them, IMO. Just as I don't think they should be taxed, I don't feel they should be represented.

[logroller]

the power flows from the money.

Or does money flow to power?

[fj1200]

Ah... I see you your coming from....

Maybe you'll believe this guy:

“Campaign Finance Reform” Serves Entrenched Interests in Washington

Last week the Senate narrowly passed the highly publicized
McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill. I certainly understand that many
Americans are tired of the corruption in Washington, where special
interest lobbies pursue their agendas at the expense (literally) of the
nation’s taxpayers. Everyone knows that politicians use federal spending
to reward lobbies, certain constituencies, and favored individuals.
However, we must recognize that the McCain bill places restrictions only
on individuals, not politicians. Politicians will continue to tax and
spend, meaning they will continue to punish some productive Americans
while rewarding others with federal largesse. The same vested special
interests will not go away, and the same influence peddling will happen
every day on Capitol Hill. The reason is very simple: when the federal
government redistributes trillions of dollars from some Americans to
others, countless special interests inevitably will fight for the money.
The rise in corruption in Washington simply mirrors the rise in federal
spending. The problem is not with campaigns, but rather with the steady
shift from a relatively limited federal government to a virtually
socialist system intent on huge redistributions of wealth.
We cannot forget that the Constitution grants Congress only limited

enumerated powers, and no authority to regulate campaigns is provided.
...
Because contributions by individuals are limited, a challenger
must find hundreds or thousands of donors to support a campaign. The
incumbent can rely on a much larger base of people. This presents a
tremendous obstacle for virtually any challenger candidate who lacks name
recognition and elite social contacts.
...
The media will impact the outcomes of elections even
more than they do today.
Grass roots organizations and third-party candidates especially suffer
when contributions are limited. Such groups are prohibited from raising
needed seed money from sympathetic wealthy donors interested in funding a
new political movement. Millions of voters might be attracted to a third
party, but they lose interest when their candidate garners very little
publicity or is not on the ballot. It is virtually impossible for grass
roots campaigns and new parties to match the established parties $1,000
at a time.
http://www.ronpaularchive.com/2001/04/campaign-finance-reform-serves-entrenched-interests-in-washington/

[fj1200]

I have given you an honest overview and opinion which is a lot more than I think you're giving at this point. I've been in your juvenile circular firing squads before. Experience does count for something.

:laugh:

[fj1200]

I own stock in BP, making me an owner. I haven't done a lick of work for BP, but I still profit. I'm not knocking profit, so don't imply I feel work is more or less honorable than investment. They both serve their purpose-- govt too, needs to fulfill its purpose--and catering to the profit centered nature of for-profit corporations isn't one them, IMO. Just as I don't think they should be taxed, I don't feel they should be represented.

I don't have to imply it, you said exactly that. I don't expect government to "cater" to the profit motive, personhood doesn't mean catering. Either way, I've said before that what people are arguing over is a distinction with no ultimate difference.

[logroller]

I don't have to imply it, you said exactly that.
Quote me.

[Kathianne]

I moved the non-topical posts to Cage. Mind you all, continue to fight in the top of the board is going to get you thread banned, at best.

[Psychoblues]

I moved the non-topical posts to Cage. Mind you all, continue to fight in the top of the board is going to get you thread banned, at best.

Thanks, Kath. The regular board doesn't need to see all that. But, I meant every word I said. Now, I'm just looking for a system that puts our politicos on the auction blocks. It just ain't healthy for our wonderful country and will eventually be it's downfall, IMHO.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

Quote me.

OK.


Wages(read: earnings) and profits are different; you know that. 'Sainthood'?, this isn't miraculous or a case of blind faith. Work fulfills a person's purpose; happiness is a purpose, as is profit. A corporations purpose is profit, not happiness.

Did I misunderstand that?

[logroller]

OK.



Did I misunderstand that?
I believe you did, or perhaps I failed to elaborate. I had meant to imply happiness and profit are not causally linked. Not to imply one cannot pursue them both, separately-- even in a for-profit corp. Now I know this creates a logic issue-- how, the individuals within a corporation are free to fulfill their purpose, are corps not also?-- hence, why are they not granted that right by extension? Honestly FJ, I'd have an easier time arguing for corporate rights. I certainly don't believe all the bad things corporations do offset the many great things-- they're a net good IMO, historically anyway. Quite frankly all the bad things corps do aren't due to corps, but man. I believe the inherent selfish desires of man has been a burden since history began, and we have attempted, relatively successfully, to overcome this through organization. Government is a organization, whereby authority is granted to fulfill those desires individuals are incapable of providing for themselves (effectively on a large scale). To understand how this is accomplished, one needs to analyze the mechanisms that allows organizations (govt/orgs/corps/PACs/groups et al) to succeed where individuals fail.

There is an inherently impersonal nature to organizations, they are subordinate to their purpose, lacking the emotions which befuddle man's personal endeavors--that's what allows them to be as effective as they are. We have seen this throughout time. Totalitarian rule is extremely effective, great things were accomplished under such systems, but lack consideration of all those with an interest-- the stakeholders. Representative govt, republicanism specifically, was derived as a check to the shared interests of a few, and return to the individual stakeholders, an expression of personal interests to which authority was answerable. However, what we have seen with corporate interest is, to more effectively accomplish their purpose they circumvent this check, once again muting the individual stakeholder. Superficially, this is benign. When purposed towards profit, being so easily quantified, the qualitative purpose of government has been forsaken.

Lobbying, which is really a targeted form of advertising and marketing, is a tool used to convince those in power, that the stakeholders (ie public at large) are, rather, shareholders in the profit motive. Which they too seek to convince the public, but this is not necessarily so; and quite often, they are not. We see this time and time again; we're hammered with so much advertising and media punditry we have became convinced that we, as individuals, share the monetary stake in society, but this is not so.


I wish I had all the answers, but I do not. I can tell you there is a problem with our current system, and the solution to the problem doesn't lie in the free-market because money doesn't make one happy; therefore the role of government is not to protect the pursuit of profits, but rather happiness. There needs to be check, and the current system seems to be failing.

[fj1200]

I believe you did, or perhaps I failed to elaborate. I had meant to imply happiness and profit are not causally linked. Not to imply one cannot pursue them both...

OK.


I wish I had all the answers, but I do not. I can tell you there is a problem with our current system, and the solution to the problem doesn't lie in the free-market because money doesn't make one happy; therefore the role of government is not to protect the pursuit of profits, but rather happiness. There needs to be check, and the current system seems to be failing.

That's all interesting but you seem to take it farther than any government should be allowed to take it. It seems that you are equating personhood with "protecting profits" when I don't believe it to be anything of the sort; Personhood is just a thing, a thing that has been given negative connotations clearly, but it's still just a thing. It is not the source of ire IMO but it certainly is a populist target at the moment. CP could go away today and tomorrow case law would be right back in there to grant the protections that they already have.

I do not want government to protect profits and I certainly do not want government to protect happiness. Government should govern in a way to protect rights; Life, liberty, property, etc. But I can say with certainty that the solution does lie in the free-market it's just that what we have doesn't come close to meeting that ideal. Nevertheless this discussion to me is off on a tangent and not really on target to the real issue; The problem to me is that as government has grown so has the opportunity to wield power in a way that requires that money be spent on influencing that power.

[logroller]

I certainly do not want government to protect happiness.

Then you speak not in the spirit of America. There were a few men who dared to differ when they wrote this--
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/images/w.gifhen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/bartlett.htm), William Whipple (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/whipple.htm), Matthew Thornton (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/thornton.htm)
Massachusetts:
John Hancock (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/hancock.htm), Samuel Adams (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/adams_s.htm), John Adams (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/adams_j.htm), Robert Treat Paine (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/paine.htm), Elbridge Gerry (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/gerry.htm)
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/hopkins.htm), William Ellery (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/ellery.htm)
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/sherman.htm), Samuel Huntington (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/huntington.htm), William Williams (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/williams.htm), Oliver Wolcott (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/wolcott.htm)
New York:
William Floyd (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/floyd.htm), Philip Livingston (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/livingston_p.htm), Francis Lewis (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/lewis.htm), Lewis Morris (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/morris_l.htm)
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/stockton.htm), John Witherspoon (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/witherspoon.htm), Francis Hopkinson (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/hopkinson.htm), John Hart (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/hart.htm), Abraham Clark (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/clark.htm)
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/morris_r.htm), Benjamin Rush (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/rush.htm), Benjamin Franklin (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/franklin.htm), John Morton (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/morton.htm), George Clymer (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/clymer.htm), James Smith (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/smith.htm), George Taylor (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/taylor.htm), James Wilson (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/wilson.htm), George Ross (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/ross.htm)
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/rodney.htm), George Read (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/read.htm), Thomas McKean (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/mckean.htm)
Maryland:
Samuel Chase (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/chase.htm), William Paca (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/paca.htm), Thomas Stone (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/stone.htm), Charles Carroll of Carrollton (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/carroll.htm)
Virginia:
George Wythe (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/wythe.htm), Richard Henry Lee (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/rhlee.htm), Thomas Jefferson (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/jefferson.htm), Benjamin Harrison (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/harrison.htm), Thomas Nelson, Jr. (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/nelson.htm), Francis Lightfoot Lee (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/fllee.htm), Carter Braxton (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/braxton.htm)
North Carolina:
William Hooper (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/hooper.htm), Joseph Hewes (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/hewes.htm), John Penn (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/penn.htm)
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/rutledge.htm), Thomas Heyward, Jr. (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/heyward.htm), Thomas Lynch, Jr. (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/lynch.htm), Arthur Middleton (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/middleton.htm)
Georgia:

Button Gwinnett (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/gwinnett.htm), Lyman Hall (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/hall.htm), George Walton (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/walton.htm)

[Psychoblues]

Then you speak not in the spirit of America. There were a few men who dared to differ when they wrote this--

fj is yanking you off, I think. I still love your thinking.

Psychoblues

[logroller]

fj is yanking you off, I think. I still love your thinking.

Psychoblues
FJ and I are trying to make sense of a very complex issue, neither of us are 'yanking' one another(not that there's anything wrong with that;). Though I appreciate your affection and encouragement, I need you to understand I may be as misguided as you perceive his thinking to be.

[Kathianne]

FJ and I are trying to make sense of a very complex issue, neither of us are 'yanking' one another(not that there's anything wrong with that;). Though I appreciate your affection and encouragement, I need you to understand I may be as misguided as you perceive his thinking to be.

Very true. Then again, both of you may be correct in some areas, wrong in others. ;)

BTW, government was not established to 'protect happiness,' rather to protect our rights-thus to pursue happiness of our own choices, to our own according to our own abilities. What is happiness to you, may well be torture to me, thus it would be an impossible feat for government, even if so discharged.

[logroller]

Very true. Then again, both of you may be correct in some areas, wrong in others. ;)

BTW, government was not established to 'protect happiness,' rather to protect our rights-thus to pursue happiness of our own choices, to our own according to our own abilities. What is happiness to you, may well be torture to me, thus it would be an impossible feat for government, even if so discharged.

Absolutely Kath. I feel the extension of rights to entities has overridden our individual rights; thus, our own individual ability to pursue happiness. Impossible feats of govt belong in a long list, and it is a constant challenge to have a govt which doesn't trample those rights. I realize, as FJ has stated, that corps are not the problem in and of themselves; it is a systemic problem that has perverted our cultural values-- where happiness has become something you buy, allowing others to profit... handsomely, I might add.

2522

[red states rule]

Unions represent people, rsr. Corporations survive and are concerned only for profit and morals be damned. Apples and oranges, piggy. But, I think the proposal includes Union money. Did you read the proposal? I support the proposal at the present time as I see no better solution being offered up. However, I'm a Progressive type and remain open to any good suggestions that might improve my condition in this world and the human condition at all times.

Psychoblues

I did not see anything about union money PB. Of course did anyone expect the Dems to ban union money since the unions are one of their biggest givers?

Like when the Dems passed "financial reform" they left out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - the two biggest mortgage backers in the country

PB maybe this escaped your notice but corporations are people as well. People run those corporation. People are employed by those corporations

and perhaps if liberals like you would stop treating the private sector like the enemy they would start investing the money they are sitting on and even start employing people

[red states rule]

Yeah, campaign financing has worked so well:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/06/19/uk-usa-politics-idUKN1946989620080619

I remember well during the 2000 election the Dems and liberal media had a fit over the amount of money candidate Bush was raising. They were outraged when he said he not take public money and do it all himself

Then when candidate Obama broke the promsie and did what Bush did, the Dems and liberal media yawned

Now the same people who were all over Bush and demanding the money be taken out politics are cheering the goal of Pres Obama who said he would raise $1 billion in his re-election bid

Of course the Obama supporters like PB yawn and spin more then a Maytag washer to offer excuses for Obama

Seems Obama is doing all the things Bush did but on a much larger scale and the left has zero issues with it. It is all about the "D" at the end of Obama's name and holding on to their shrinking political power

[fj1200]

Absolutely Kath. I feel the extension of rights to entities has overridden our individual rights; thus, our own individual ability to pursue happiness. Impossible feats of govt belong in a long list, and it is a constant challenge to have a govt which doesn't trample those rights. I realize, as FJ has stated, that corps are not the problem in and of themselves; it is a systemic problem that has perverted our cultural values-- where happiness has become something you buy, allowing others to profit... handsomely, I might add.

As Kathi said, protect our rights, not protect our happiness. Have you wondered why they substituted "property" with "pursuit of happiness"? Why would the handsomeness of the profit be the issue?

[logroller]

As Kathi said, protect our rights, not protect our happiness. Have you wondered why they substituted "property" with "pursuit of happiness"? Why would the handsomeness of the profit be the issue?
I didn't say the handsomeness was an issue; it was merely a comment. Who are 'they' who have substituted property for happiness; all the stakeholders/citizens et al? Or shareholders in the corporate pursuit of profits; whose mission satisfies not what our founders so eloquently described in our dec of ind? As to why, look no further than who, what and how much one stands to gain.
Fj I'm not trying to overthrow govt or abolish the market system--anarchy is not my intended end. Have you considered my argument, really? That there are necessary checks to prevent any one person or class of persons from garnering an excess of political influence; and that the profit driven cycle of corporate lobbying has eroded this check.

[red states rule]

I did not see anything about union money PB. Of course did anyone expect the Dems to ban union money since the unions are one of their biggest givers?

Like when the Dems passed "financial reform" they left out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - the two biggest mortgage backers in the country

PB maybe this escaped your notice but corporations are people as well. People run those corporation. People are employed by those corporations

and perhaps if liberals like you would stop treating the private sector like the enemy they would start investing the money they are sitting on and even start employing people

Crickets chirping.........

[Psychoblues]

Crickets chirping.........

Replying to yourself indicates a strong mental instability, rsr, possibly needing professional monitoring But, I'll go back to another post you wrote to me and discuss it if you are willing to discuss and not simply fart off any facts as notions of any perceived simple opposition. I've known you for a very long time and I am very familiar with your hatefulness and propensities to derail about every thread or subject you enter.

rsr said:

I did not see anything about union money PB. Of course did anyone expect the Dems to ban union money since the unions are one of their biggest givers?

Psycho said:

The document is a work in progress, but in the case of Union money, they are bipartisan givers. Again, professional lobbying, including Union lobbying, are a scourge on our political system. I am a lifetime Union member but I would no longer expect you to desire Union membership than anything else. I won't bother you with Union membership but you stay out of my face because you're not. Dig it?

Like when the Dems passed "financial reform" they left out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - the two biggest mortgage backers in the country

There are about 10,000 pages involved in that legislation. Most of them are related to conservative desires to deregulate the mortgage industries, especially Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I don't know all the ends and outs but I do know that financial deregulation has been the largest contributor to our national debt and poor financial well-being than any other thing.

PB maybe this escaped your notice but corporations are people as well. People run those corporation. People are employed by those corporations

Insanity at best, rsr. I admit that people are employed by corporations, stockholders and all the such but still the bottom line of any corporation is the single notion of profit. Morals be damned. The health of the American workforce be damned. Corporations spend billions trying to escape environmental, product safety and labor obligations and much more. I don't hate them. I just want them to act like persons with morals and responsibilities to their neighbors, employees, customers and clients and again much more if they want to be treated like "persons".

and perhaps if liberals like you would stop treating the private sector like the enemy they would start investing the money they are sitting on and even start employing people


Where do you get it that I or any other liberal treats corporations like the enemy? That's just more rsr or otherwise reichwing hyperbole. We WANT corporate health. We WANT the abilities of corporations to employ as many as possible and build as much as possible and profit as much as possible and still abide their legal and moral responsibilities to their employees and their stockholders. It's a big pie. The fact that 99% of the people in this country have no chance at it is an American abomination. God bless the corporations but goddamn the cold abuses by them. Little people have zero chances for justice in regards to corporations. We've been warned repeatedly through history to limit the powers of corporations but we repeatedly, through greed and otherwise immoral purposes or just plain ignorance, fail to heed those warnings.



We could go on for days, weeks, months and years and never agree on any of this and I expect we probably will. But, obviously you would rather make wild assumptions and tell awful lies just to somehow make whatever ridiculous points you're trying to make. An THAT is the truth, and it is THAT that is just so sad.


Psychoblues

[ConHog]

Then you speak not in the spirit of America. There were a few men who dared to differ when they wrote this--

Incorrect sir. The COTUS speaks of the right to pursue happiness. NO ONE is guaranteed that they will be happy. Those are two different statements.

[fj1200]

I didn't say the handsomeness was an issue; it was merely a comment. Who are 'they' who have substituted property for happiness; all the stakeholders/citizens et al? Or shareholders in the corporate pursuit of profits; whose mission satisfies not what our founders so eloquently described in our dec of ind? As to why, look no further than who, what and how much one stands to gain.
Fj I'm not trying to overthrow govt or abolish the market system--anarchy is not my intended end. Have you considered my argument, really? That there are necessary checks to prevent any one person or class of persons from garnering an excess of political influence; and that the profit driven cycle of corporate lobbying has eroded this check.

You specifically mentioned the handsomeness of some profits and drop it in just about every post in this thread; what is the reason for that? Profits are to be hoped for and expected. The "they" I was referring to was Jefferson in the D of I; the traditional natural rights are life, liberty, property, he substituted in "pursuit of happiness."

I have considered your argument, really, and I understand what drives it. I understand what drives a lot of the populist movements but my point about populism is that most variations completely miss the mark on the true causes of what is driving the ire of the citizens. The growth of the money is politics is caused by, not just correlated to, the growth in the power of the Federal government. As favors are available to be doled out then the money is going to start arriving to seek those favors. If we had a flat corporate tax rate, or none in my perfect world, with no corporate welfare, etc. then there would be far less reason for corporations to lobby to be granted some of that welfare. Have you considered that?

[logroller]

You specifically mentioned the handsomeness of some profits and drop it in just about every post in this thread; what is the reason for that? Profits are to be hoped for and expected. The "they" I was referring to was Jefferson in the D of I; the traditional natural rights are life, liberty, property, he substituted in "pursuit of happiness." Profits are handsome FJ...hoped for--absolutely-- expected? eh, well sorta. One should expect losses some of the time too. Wait a sec..didn't you say 'they' substituted property, now you say 'they' substituted pursuit of happiness-- TJ meant what he wrote, nothing haphazard in his choice of words. I thought you had meant the federal government as 'they'-- to which you next statements would indicate such


I have considered your argument, really, and I understand what drives it. (a disconnected citizenry)
I understand what drives a lot of the populist movements but my point about populism is that most variations completely miss the mark on the true causes of what is driving the ire of the citizens. Perhaps/ most likely, but why? From the above I could construe your posit to mean, in layman's terms, the people dont know whats going on -- but a select faction does, i.e. a ruling class. Look at the Federalist papers, that was an overwhelming sentiment of Madison in #10-- that federal government was to provide balance to the Republic; as in a republic, populist sentiments could more easily corrupt delegates. But what is provide balance when the federal delegates have succumb to such factions-- if not the populist?
The growth of the money is politics is caused by, not just correlated to, the growth in the power of the Federal government. As favors are available to be doled out then the money is going to start arriving to seek those favors. And that growth has coincided with corporate growth--Do you think this is mere coincidence, or causally related as well?
If we had a flat corporate tax rate, or none in my perfect world, with no corporate welfare, etc. then there would be far less reason for corporations to lobby to be granted some of that welfare. Have you considered that? Well, yes. You and I have had conversations on taxes in the past, corp taxes specifically. Who is doing business with the govt, who does govt buy from? Of course, a smaller govt is better, I don't dispute this. Though tbh fj, I think its best to define the specific problems first, then develop a systematic solution, rather than chasing one problem after the next. I don't believe you and I have reached a consensus upon the problem. Whereas if we were in Congress-- we'd of logrolled both our laws already:laugh:

[fj1200]

Profits are handsome FJ...hoped for--absolutely-- expected? eh, well sorta. One should expect losses some of the time too. Wait a sec..didn't you say 'they' substituted property, now you say 'they' substituted pursuit of happiness-- TJ meant what he wrote, nothing haphazard in his choice of words. I thought you had meant the federal government as 'they'-- to which you next statements would indicate such

Expected, yes. I was referring to overall markets and not that they should be granted and guaranteed. I referred to they, the signers of the DI and yes I knew TJ wrote it; I was hoping not to quibble to much in that but ask the overall question of why the change in natural rights.


(a disconnected citizenry) Perhaps/ most likely, but why? From the above I could construe your posit to mean, in layman's terms, the people dont know whats going on -- but a select faction does, i.e. a ruling class. Look at the Federalist papers, that was an overwhelming sentiment of Madison in #10-- that federal government was to provide balance to the Republic; as in a republic, populist sentiments could more easily corrupt delegates. But what is provide balance when the federal delegates have succumb to such factions-- if not the populist?

They (generally) probably don't but hopefully enough of they (specifically but not the ruling class) do. I know what's going on and I'm not ruling class. ;) But when populism is used to serve the ruling class' purpose and the advance of populistic causes overwhelms the true causes then it's a lost cause. Populism drove the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and the ruling class ran with it and ultimately drove us into the Great Depression. There was also concern about concentration of wealth back then as well; do you think we can have cooler heads prevail or is the ruling class going to let the populist 99%-ers drive the train off the cliff?


And that growth has coincided with corporate growth--Do you think this is mere coincidence, or causally related as well?

And what do you base that on? We've had corporations for years before the major growth of government and there have been plenty of times where government has been in the position of granting corporate power over the benefits of a free-market.

Bring Back the Robber Barons (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703862704575099572105775414.html)
There's a big difference between entrepreneurs who make a fortune in the market, and those who do so by gaming the government.

Where corporations grow because they meet the needs of the market then I have no issue with that growth and its profits. If they grow because they have gamed the system then obviously that needs to stop. But to answer your question, it is coincidence, the maturation of our country and its industry is going to lead to a corporate culture; We clearly don't have mom-and-pops meeting the needs of 300 million people, they don't have the efficiencies.


Well, yes. You and I have had conversations on taxes in the past, corp taxes specifically. Who is doing business with the govt, who does govt buy from? Of course, a smaller govt is better, I don't dispute this. Though tbh fj, I think its best to define the specific problems first, then develop a systematic solution, rather than chasing one problem after the next. I don't believe you and I have reached a consensus upon the problem. Whereas if we were in Congress-- we'd of logrolled both our laws already:laugh:

I've already defined the problem: Congress as an Institution... is Stupid (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?30097-Congress-as-an-Institution...-is-Stupid). And I've pointed it out here a couple of times in this thread alone.

[red states rule]

Replying to yourself indicates a strong mental instability, rsr, possibly needing professional monitoring But, I'll go back to another post you wrote to me and discuss it if you are willing to discuss and not simply fart off any facts as notions of any perceived simple opposition. I've known you for a very long time and I am very familiar with your hatefulness and propensities to derail about every thread or subject you enter.

rsr said:

I did not see anything about union money PB. Of course did anyone expect the Dems to ban union money since the unions are one of their biggest givers?

Psycho said:

The document is a work in progress, but in the case of Union money, they are bipartisan givers. Again, professional lobbying, including Union lobbying, are a scourge on our political system. I am a lifetime Union member but I would no longer expect you to desire Union membership than anything else. I won't bother you with Union membership but you stay out of my face because you're not. Dig it?

Like when the Dems passed "financial reform" they left out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - the two biggest mortgage backers in the country

There are about 10,000 pages involved in that legislation. Most of them are related to conservative desires to deregulate the mortgage industries, especially Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I don't know all the ends and outs but I do know that financial deregulation has been the largest contributor to our national debt and poor financial well-being than any other thing.

PB maybe this escaped your notice but corporations are people as well. People run those corporation. People are employed by those corporations

Insanity at best, rsr. I admit that people are employed by corporations, stockholders and all the such but still the bottom line of any corporation is the single notion of profit. Morals be damned. The health of the American workforce be damned. Corporations spend billions trying to escape environmental, product safety and labor obligations and much more. I don't hate them. I just want them to act like persons with morals and responsibilities to their neighbors, employees, customers and clients and again much more if they want to be treated like "persons".

and perhaps if liberals like you would stop treating the private sector like the enemy they would start investing the money they are sitting on and even start employing people


Where do you get it that I or any other liberal treats corporations like the enemy? That's just more rsr or otherwise reichwing hyperbole. We WANT corporate health. We WANT the abilities of corporations to employ as many as possible and build as much as possible and profit as much as possible and still abide their legal and moral responsibilities to their employees and their stockholders. It's a big pie. The fact that 99% of the people in this country have no chance at it is an American abomination. God bless the corporations but goddamn the cold abuses by them. Little people have zero chances for justice in regards to corporations. We've been warned repeatedly through history to limit the powers of corporations but we repeatedly, through greed and otherwise immoral purposes or just plain ignorance, fail to heed those warnings.



We could go on for days, weeks, months and years and never agree on any of this and I expect we probably will. But, obviously you would rather make wild assumptions and tell awful lies just to somehow make whatever ridiculous points you're trying to make. An THAT is the truth, and it is THAT that is just so sad.


Psychoblues

PB unions were the biggest dones to the Dems in 2010. I posted the facts to back up that post. We had unions pour $30 million into the WI recall elections and they came up snake eyes. Unions are a wholly owned subsidary of the Dem party. We see the union thugs siding with Obama and the hippies yet you claim they are "bipartisan".

As far as Fannie and Freddie why would the Dems leave them out of any "financial rform" when they have cost the US taxpayers hunderds of billions of dollars? Perhaps becuase Dems told us home onwership was a "right" (like health care) and they were determined to fix that flaw in our country. Again you plead ignorance on the topic. OK.

This administration has openly trashed the private sector, aded mountains of new regulatons, and imposed massive taxes on them - and they are shocked when they do not hire more workers. They are tagged as greedy leaches and when they sit on their money they are trashed again in the liberal media

PB, corporatons are indeed people. They are run by people and they need people to work to rpovide the goods/services. Yet you and Obama look at them as the enemy. You want them "punished" for their success, and you see them as a renewable money source to finance your programs

That is one reason why the unemployemnt rate is at 9.1% and will not go down anytime soon

[sundaydriver]

PB unions were the biggest dones to the Dems in 2010. I posted the facts to back up that post. We had unions pour $30 million into the WI recall elections and they came up snake eyes. Unions are a wholly owned subsidary of the Dem party. We see the union thugs siding with Obama and the hippies yet you claim they are "bipartisan".

As far as Fannie and Freddie why would the Dems leave them out of any "financial rform" when they have cost the US taxpayers hunderds of billions of dollars? Perhaps becuase Dems told us home onwership was a "right" (like health care) and they were determined to fix that flaw in our country. Again you plead ignorance on the topic. OK.

This administration has openly trashed the private sector, aded mountains of new regulatons, and imposed massive taxes on them - and they are shocked when they do not hire more workers. They are tagged as greedy leaches and when they sit on their money they are trashed again in the liberal media

PB, corporatons are indeed people. They are run by people and they need people to work to rpovide the goods/services. Yet you and Obama look at them as the enemy. You want them "punished" for their success, and you see them as a renewable money source to finance your programs

That is one reason why the unemployemnt rate is at 9.1% and will not go down anytime soon

If taxes are low historically and in comparison with our global competitors, how are Republicans able to maintain that taxes are excessively high? They do so by ignoring the effective tax rate and concentrating solely on the statutory tax rate, which is often manipulated to make it appear that rates are much higher than they really are.


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

[fj1200]

If taxes are low historically and in comparison with our global competitors, how are Republicans able to maintain that taxes are excessively high? They do so by ignoring the effective tax rate and concentrating solely on the statutory tax rate, which is often manipulated to make it appear that rates are much higher than they really are.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

Revenues to GDP are a poor indicator currently because we're in a recession with high unemployment. This is exactly why rates do NOT need to rise as revenues will rebound with real economic recovery. Also, do you (or Bruce Bartlett in the case of your post :rolleyes: ) wonder as to the extent of the wasted effort that the private sector must go through to get our highest-in-the-world corporate rate down to levels at or below the rest of the world? It's also precisely one of the reasons that US corporations will look overseas to remain competitive not to mention payroll taxes that raise the cost of employment.

[Psychoblues]

PB unions were the biggest dones to the Dems in 2010. I posted the facts to back up that post. We had unions pour $30 million into the WI recall elections and they came up snake eyes. Unions are a wholly owned subsidary of the Dem party. We see the union thugs siding with Obama and the hippies yet you claim they are "bipartisan".

As far as Fannie and Freddie why would the Dems leave them out of any "financial rform" when they have cost the US taxpayers hunderds of billions of dollars? Perhaps becuase Dems told us home onwership was a "right" (like health care) and they were determined to fix that flaw in our country. Again you plead ignorance on the topic. OK.

This administration has openly trashed the private sector, aded mountains of new regulatons, and imposed massive taxes on them - and they are shocked when they do not hire more workers. They are tagged as greedy leaches and when they sit on their money they are trashed again in the liberal media

PB, corporatons are indeed people. They are run by people and they need people to work to rpovide the goods/services. Yet you and Obama look at them as the enemy. You want them "punished" for their success, and you see them as a renewable money source to finance your programs

That is one reason why the unemployemnt rate is at 9.1% and will not go down anytime soon


Batshit. That's why it's impossible to talk with you. You skirt around the issues, ignore what I said, tell more wild-eyed lies, sheesh. Address exactly what I wrote like I did to your writing. I think that is the respectful thing to do.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb1011cd20111010082422.jpg