Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: The True Adonis on August 11, 2011, 02:28:44 PM
-
-
While techincally true, he really flubbed that.
-
What was so wrong about what he said? Its true. How did he fuck it up? Hey, I liked Romney here. And those of you conservatives criticising him for being "wish washy" and "flip flopping" should have been proud of him in this clip.
Romney right now is my pick for the nominee. He has all the tools. He states the truth where it is most important to state it, and he backs off from making full fledged statements when it becomes politically necessary.
-
He's right. Corporate profits go to shareholders.
-
I'd rather have unprotected anal sex with the Top 6 from the Mr O lineup than vote Obama in 2012.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'd rather have unprotected anal sex with the Top 6 from the Mr O lineup than vote Obama in 2012
:D :D :D
-
Corporations are not people.
If shareholders want to contribute they can do it individually.
Allowing corporations to unlimitedly contribute to campaigns will end up being one of the many things contribute to the downfall of the middle-class and this country.
-
Corporations are not people.
If shareholders want to contribute they can do it individually.
Allowing corporations to unlimitedly contribute to campaigns will end up being one of the many things contribute to the downfall of the middle-class and this country.
Not true - legally corporations are considered people for many legal purposes.
-
Not true - legally corporations are considered people for many legal purposes.
Legally Obama is POTuS. BF-fucking-D
Legally you are allow to shave camels on Sunday in Alabama BF-fucking-D
Whether a coporation is considered a person for legal purposes in other matters has little to do with the absolute fact that a coporation is not a person. And therefore should not have the power to fund campaigns.
But it's all good if outfits like Goldman and Sachs force the issues with money during election right?
Or it's good and personable when corporations fund candidates that will never ever vote for bills to penalize corporations from out sourcing right?
-
Nice rant. But you are still wrong.
-
Nice rant. But you are still wrong.
Wrong about what? That a corporation doesn't have a heart and brain and born of a woman?
-
Basically what Romney is saying is that he'll bend over for any corporation that gives him money.
You might as well call him Obama jr.
-
He was restating what is existing law that law students learn in 2l
-
He was restating what is existing law that law students learn in 2l
Well that's nice and dandy. So what? I am glad you are demonstrating your schooling here.
For the purpose of some areas of law and legal issues I understand why corporations are condsidered people.
But for the purposes of representative government they should not be at all. ZERO
-
Why?
-
Legally Obama is POTuS. BF-fucking-D
Legally you are allow to shave camels on Sunday in Alabama BF-fucking-D
Whether a coporation is considered a person for legal purposes in other matters has little to do with the absolute fact that a coporation is not a person. And therefore should not have the power to fund campaigns.
But it's all good if outfits like Goldman and Sachs force the issues with money during election right?
Or it's good and personable when corporations fund candidates that will never ever vote for bills to penalize corporations from out sourcing right?
Well, I don't know where Romney stands on the Citizens United decision, but this has fuck all to do with it. He was talking about the impact to shareholders when answering a question about raising corporate taxes to increase revenue.
-
Well, I don't know where Romney stands on the Citizens United decision, but this has fuck all to do with it. He was talking about the impact to shareholders when answering a question about raising corporate taxes to increase revenue.
Ok.
What do you think about it? Do you think corporations should be able to contribute to campaigns as much as they want?
-
Why?
Because, in the near future when millions dollars comes from corporations to fund a campaign that politician will not have the "voters" interest at heart but instead have the corporation's interest at heart. We have already seen what 600 million can do in a presidential campaign.
-
Ok.
What do you think about it? Do you think corporations should be able to contribute to campaigns as much as they want?
Must admit, I'm a waffle on the issue, paralyzed by both arguments.
I don't want corporations to buy our elections.
But, I don't want the government to be able to go in a search offices without a warrant, confiscate telephone records, etc. of the corporation. So they have to have some degree of personhood.
How do you balance that legally and constitutionally? I really don't know.
-
But, I don't want the government to be able to go in a search offices without a warrant, confiscate telephone records, etc. of the corporation. So they have to have some degree of personhood.
Seems like a few protective laws for the rights of corporations should be able to fix that. Are there more issues on that side of it that weigh on your view of this?
-
"as a result of the war, corporations have become enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow. The money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its rule by preying upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is concentrated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-
Seems like a few protective laws for the rights of corporations should be able to fix that. Are there more issues on that side of it that weigh on your view of this?
Well, you would think, but it's really venturing beyond my knowledge. At best, I'm playing arm-chair lawyer, but at some point you have to differentiate from say an IBM versus a group of like minded people who want to assoiciate and voice their opinion in a corporate form. It then becomes hard to make such a distinction and apply the Constitution uniformly to everyone.
-
hahhaa Romney getting own3d by some do-nothing hicks in Iowa hahaha
-
newt is kicking ass tonight. Totally on fire.
-
Until we remove money from politics we're never going to get anywhere.
-
If Obama said "Corporations are my peoples", there would be plenty of threads bashing him for it.
People say "Oh, romney said it, let's defend it...."
ANY candidate of any party who is wacking off corporations like this should STFU. And anyone who attacked obama for his GSachs or other corporate donations should take a long hard look here.
-
If Obama said "Corporations are my peoples", there would be plenty of threads bashing him for it.
People say "Oh, romney said it, let's defend it...."
ANY candidate of any party who is wacking off corporations like this should STFU. And anyone who attacked obama for his GSachs or other corporate donations should take a long hard look here.
Did you take business law to get your mba?
-
they need to fix this corporations as people bullshit. A corporation has more in common with a virus than a human.
-
they need to fix this corporations as people bullshit. A corporation has more in common with a virus than a human.
Right - because the small corp. that is the local business should just be run over like a steamroller by the govt.
The govt should be able to do whatever the fuck it wants right?
-
Right - because the small corp. that is the local business should just be run over like a steamroller by the govt.
The govt should be able to do whatever the fuck it wants right?
Most sane people oppose corporatism, i.e. welfare for special interests. Do you really think the vast government handouts to companies like Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, Kellog, etc benefit the average American in ANY tangible way? A business, that is a legitimate business is different because it actually employs people and has a trickle down effect. The various industrial complexes do not.
-
Most sane people oppose corporatism, i.e. welfare for special interests. Do you really think the vast government handouts to companies like Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, Kellog, etc benefit the average American in ANY tangible way? A business, that is a legitimate business is different because it actually employs people and has a trickle down effect. The various industrial complexes do not.
The issue is a lot more complicated than focusing on the corrupt corps that get graft.
-
Case law
In 1818, the United States Supreme Court heard the case Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819), making the following statement in their decision: "The opinion of the Court, after mature deliberation, is that this corporate charter is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States. This opinion appears to us to be equally supported by reason, and by the former decisions of this Court." A public outcry ensued. State courts and legislatures, supported by many of their constituents, declared that state governments had an absolute right to amend or repeal a corporate charter.[10]
Seven years after the Dartmouth College opinion, the Supreme Court decided Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet, (1823) in which an English corporation dedicated to missionary work, with land in the U.S., sought to protect its rights to that land under colonial-era grants against an effort by the state of Vermont to revoke the grants. Justice Joseph Story, writing for the court, explicitly extended the same protections to corporate-owned property as it would have to property owned by natural persons. Seven years later, Chief Justice Marshall stated that, "The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men."[11]
It should be understood that the term 'artificial person' was in long use, prior to the Dartmouth College decision, and was in principle distinct from any contention that corporations have the rights of natural persons. 'Artificial person' was used because there were certain resemblances, in law, between a natural person and corporations. Both could be parties in a lawsuit; both could be taxed; both could be constrained by law. In fact the corporations had been called artificial persons by courts in England as early as the 16th century because lawyers for the corporations had asserted they could not be convicted under the English laws of the time because the laws were worded "No person shall...".[citation needed]
In the 1886 case Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause guarantees constitutional protections to corporations in addition to natural persons.[12]
Similarly, in 1877, in Munn v. Illinois (94 U.S. 113 (1876)), the Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment (because Munn asserted his due process right to property was being violated) did not prevent the State of Illinois from regulating charges for use of a business' grain elevators. Instead, the decision focused on the question of whether or not a private company could be regulated in the public interest. The court's decision was that it could, if the private company could be seen as a utility operating in the public interest.
The primary purpose of the Amendment was originally to protect freed slaves, not corporations.[citation needed] One of the 1886 judges, Samuel F. Miller, considered the purpose of the Amendment in 1872, only six years after the Amendment had become law, when the court was "called upon for the first time to give construction to these articles." In the Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1872)), Miller delivered the majority opinion and discussed the Thirteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment as well as the Fourteenth as follows:
The most cursory glance at these articles discloses a unity of purpose, when taken in connection with the history of the times, which cannot fail to have an important bearing on any question of doubt concerning their true meaning. Nor can such doubts, when any reasonably exist, be safely and rationally solved without a reference to that history, for in it is found the occasion and the necessity for recurring again to the great source of power in this country, the people of the States, for additional guarantees of human rights, additional powers to the Federal government; additional restraints upon those of the States. Fortunately, that history is fresh within the memory of us all, and its leading features, as they bear upon the matter before us, free from doubt. We repeat, then, in the light of this recapitulation of events, almost too recent to be called history, but which are familiar to us all, and on the most casual examination of the language of these amendments, no one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in them all, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.[13]
Careful research has shown that John A. Bingham, the member of Congress who is known to have been chiefly responsible for the language of Section One when it was drafted by the Joint Committee in 1866, had, during the previous decade and as early as 1856-1859, employed not one but all three of the same clauses and concepts he later used in Section One. More important still, Bingham employed these guarantees specifically and in a context which suggested that free Negroes and mulattoes unquestionably were the persons to which he then referred. On the other hand, laws often benefit those other than the original intended beneficiary. Just as whites clearly are beneficiaries of the Fourteenth Amendment, the primary purpose of the Amendment does not conclusively determine its ultimate effect.[citation needed]
In Northwestern Nat Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs (203 U.S. 243 (1906)), having accepted that corporations are for legal purposes "persons," the court still ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment was not a bar to many state laws that effectively limited a corporation's right to contract business as it pleased. However, this was not because corporations were not protected under the Fourteenth Amendment - rather, the Court's ruling was that the Fourteenth Amendment did not prohibit the type of regulation at issue, whether of a corporation or of sole proprietorship or partnership.[citation needed]
Political contributions by corporations were first banned in the Tillman Act of 1907, even though individual contributions remained unlimited, suggesting that Congress did not perceive an equal protection problem.[citation needed]
Two Supreme Court judges, Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, later rendered opinions attacking the doctrine of corporate personhood. Quoted here is the conclusion of Justice Black's opinion:
If the people of this nation wish to deprive the states of their sovereign rights to determine what is a fair and just tax upon corporations doing a purely local business within their own state boundaries, there is a way provided by the Constitution to accomplish this purpose. That way does not lie along the course of judicial amendment to that fundamental charter. An amendment having that purpose could be submitted by Congress as provided by the Constitution. I do not believe that the Fourteenth Amendment had that purpose, nor that the people believed it had that purpose, nor that it should be construed as having that purpose.
(Hugo Black, dissenting, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. Johnson (303 U.S. 77, 1938).)
Justice Black was not alone in his questioning of the legitimacy of corporate personhood. Justice Douglas, dissenting in Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander (337 U.S. 562, 1949), gave an opinion similar to, but shorter than, the one quoted above, to which Justice Black concurred. The extent to which the rights of personhood should attach to corporations has remained a subject of controversy.[14]
Yet both Justice Black and Justice Douglas dissented from the Supreme Court's 1957 decision in United States v. United Auto Workers, 352 U.S. 567 (1957), in which the Court, on procedural grounds, overruled a lower court decision upholding the prohibition on corporate and union political expenditures:
We deal here with a problem that is fundamental to the electoral process and to the operation of our democratic society. It is whether a union can express its views on the issues of an election and on the merits of the candidates, unrestrained and unfettered by the Congress. The principle at stake is not peculiar to unions. It is applicable as well to associations of manufacturers, retail and wholesale trade groups, consumers' leagues, farmers' unions, religious groups, and every other association representing a segment of American life and taking an active part in our political campaigns and discussions. It is as important an issue as has come before the Court, for it reaches the very vitals of our system of government. Under our Constitution, it is We The People who are sovereign. The people have the final say. The legislators are their spokesmen. The people determine through their votes the destiny of the nation. It is therefore important -- vitally important -- that all channels of communication be open to them during every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred, and that the people have access to the views of every group in the community.
[edit] LegislationSee also: Creature of statute
The laws of the United States hold that a legal entity (like a corporation or non-profit organization) shall be treated under the law as a person except when otherwise noted. This rule of construction is specified in 1 U.S.C. §1 (United States Code),[15] which states:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
This federal statute has many consequences. For example, a corporation is allowed to own property and enter contracts. It can also sue and be sued and held liable under both civil and criminal law. As well, because the corporation is legally considered the "person," individual shareholders are not legally responsible for the corporation's debts and damages beyond their investment in the corporation. Similarly, individual employees, managers, and directors are liable for their own malfeasance or lawbreaking while acting on behalf of the corporation, but are not generally liable for the corporation's actions. Among the most frequently discussed and controversial consequences of corporate personhood in the United States is the extension of a limited subset of the same constitutional rights.
Corporations as legal entities have always been able to perform commercial activities, similar to a person acting as a sole proprietor, such as entering into a contract or owning property. Therefore corporations have always had a 'legal personality' for the purposes of conducting business while shielding individual stockholders from personal liability (i.e., protecting personal assets which were not invested in the corporation).
The stronger concept of corporate personhood, in which (for example) First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been asserted by corporations, is often traced to the 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (118 U.S. 394). In that case, before oral argument took place, writing a summary of the decision in a headnote to the Court's opinion, court reporter Bancroft Davis stated:
"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[16]
Thus, at the outset, the Waite Court assumed that corporations were entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the court did not specifically address the matter of whether corporations could be considered 'persons' with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment as the decision made such a finding unnecessary (being based on less expansive law).
Liberal/progressive author and radio/TV talk show host Thom Hartmann has argued that the court was reluctant to establish precedent in that decision. Chief Justice Waite wrote in private correspondence that, "we avoided meeting the [Constitutional] question." Hartmann's book "Unequal Protection" cites the correspondence between Waite and Bancroft Davis (available in the Library of Congress) which he says demonstrates that Waite did not intend to create a legal precedent. The question of whether corporations were persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment had been argued in the lower courts and briefed for the Supreme Court, but in this interpretation, the Waite Court did not explicitly decide upon this issue. In numerous cases since, however, the Court has reiterated that corporations are protected in many activities by the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The extent of the protection is what continues to be at issue. Generally speaking, corporations may invoke rights that groups of individual may invoke, such as the right to petition, to speech, to enter into contracts and to hold property, to sue and to be sued. However, they may not exercise rights that are exclusive to individuals and cannot be exercised by other associations of individuals, including the right to vote and the right against self incrimination.
Ralph Nader and others have argued that a strict originalist philosophy, such as that of Justice Antonin Scalia, should reject the doctrine of corporate personhood under the Fourteenth Amendment.[17] Indeed, Chief Justice William Rehnquist repeatedly criticized the Court's invention of corporate constitutional "rights," most famously in his dissenting opinion in the 1978 case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti.[18] Nonetheless, these justices' rulings have continued to affirm the assumption of corporate personhood, as the Waite court did, and Justice Rehnquist himself eventually endorsed overruling "Austin," dissenting in "McConnell v. FEC."
-
::)
I am not interested in being a lawyer. Or playing lawyer cut and paste. But if you can't see the danger of corporations being allowed unlimited caaign contributions it shows your criticisms of Obama are based on obsession.
Are we going to give corporations the right to vote now?
-
"as a result of the war, corporations have become enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow. The money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its rule by preying upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is concentrated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-
::)
I am not interested in being a lawyer. Or playing lawyer cut and paste. But if you can't see the danger of corporations being allowed unlimited caaign contributions it shows your criticisms of Obama are based on obsession.
Are we going to give corporations the right to vote now?
What is the difference between a corp or and indiviudal giving money so long as there is disclosure? The issue is not money in politics, the issue is why there is money in politics - because the govt has too much power over all aspects of our lives.
Does Joe Plumbing, LTD giving obama 50k any better or worse than George Soros giving Obama 50K ?
-
What is the difference between a corp or and indiviudal giving money so long as there is disclosure? The issue is not money in politics, the issue is why there is money in politics - because the govt has too much power over all aspects of our lives.
Does Joe Plumbing, LTD giving obama 50k any better or worse than George Soros giving Obama 50K ?
If George sorus wants to give 50 million of his own money to campaigns good for him. He can give 50 million from his taxable personal income. Not a corporation like GE or GS with billions and billions.
-
If George sorus wants to give 50 million of his own money to campaigns good for him. He can give 50 million from his taxable personal income. Not a corporation like GE or GS with billions and billions.
Nice cliche, but utter BS.
To the best of my understanding donations are not deductible.
And for your info, there is legally no difference between Joe Plumbing LTD and GE.
-
Right - because the small corp. that is the local business should just be run over like a steamroller by the govt.
The govt should be able to do whatever the fuck it wants right?
I'm always in total awe of your ability to take anything said and twist it into the most bizare bullshit. I'm really starting to think you're not real and you're some sort of first gen AI bot created by some psycho rightwing group.
A corporation is not the same as the local mom and pop business. ::) When there is one owner, that is a person that makes human choices. When there are thousands of owners, that's not a person. And I'm not talking legally, it's my opinion.
A corporation does have more in common with a virus. Do you really need me to explain why?
-
I'm always in total awe of your ability to take anything said and twist it into the most bizare bullshit. I'm really starting to think you're not real and you're some sort of first gen AI bot created by some psycho rightwing group.
A corporation is not the same as the local mom and pop business. ::) When there is one owner, that is a person that makes human choices. When there are thousands of owners, that's not a person. And I'm not talking legally, it's my opinion.
A corporation does have more in common with a virus. Do you really need me to explain why?
Yes it is moron! When Joe Smith incorporates himself to run a local pizza parlor, at that time there is no legal difference between Joe's Pizza, Inc. and GE for legal purposes.
You too are so far out of your legaue on this you have no clue whatsoever.
-
Nice cliche, but utter BS.
To the best of my understanding donations are not deductible.
And for your info, there is legally no difference between Joe Plumbing LTD and GE.
Not my point. Do you pay yourself a salary? I am assuming your collection agency is a corporation and you pay yrself a salary right?
If Joe plumber wants to pay himself 50k extra from his corporation so he can contribute to a particular campaign he can do so,but he will have to pay any taxes that apply from increased income, same with Sorus.
The point is, representatives to our Government need to held accountable to the voters not corporations.
-
Not my point. Do you pay yourself a salary? I am assuming your collection agency is a corporation and you pay yrself a salary right?
If Joe plumber wants to pay himself 50k extra from his corporation so he can contribute to a particular campaign he can do so,but he will have to pay any taxes that apply from increased income, same with Sorus.
The point is, representatives to our Government need to held accountable to the voters not corporations.
No, you are blaming the symptom, not the problem. The problem is that the govt has far too much power to pick winners and losers in society via the tax code and other bs.
You want this crap to end, you need to either to a flat tax no deductions or write offs, or a flat low sales tax.
-
Yes it is moron! When Joe Smith incorporates himself to run a local pizza parlor, at that time there is no legal difference between Joe's Pizza, Inc. and GE for legal purposes.
You too are so far out of your legaue on this you have no clue whatsoever.
When Joe pizza incorporates himself he then pays himself a salary or wage. From that wage he then can contribute to campaingns.
There a huge difference in GE Which is owned by thousands of share holders but controlled by a few and joes pizza which is owned by Joe.
-
Yes it is moron! When Joe Smith incorporates himself to run a local pizza parlor, at that time there is no legal difference between Joe's Pizza, Inc. and GE for legal purposes.
You too are so far out of your legaue on this you have no clue whatsoever.
glad the point flew right over your head, as usual... Can you please tell me the different forms of business ownership and explain why you left them out in your attack against me? That one person incorporates their business also doesn't mean anything to me as with me saying that a corporation is not a person works just fine because the one person who owns the company is a person. no shit huh? LOL... Is it still going over your head?
-
When Joe pizza incorporates himself he then pays himself a salary or wage. From that wage he then can contribute to campaingns.
There a huge difference in GE Which is owned by thousands of share holders but controlled by a few and joes pizza which is owned by Joe.
So? If Joes' Pizza has 50 owners whats the difference?
You do understand the idea of shareholders and directors right?
-
glad the point flew right over your head, as usual... Can you please tell me the different forms of business ownership and explain why you left them out in your attack against me? That one person incorporates their business also doesn't mean anything to me as with me saying that a corporation is not a person works just fine because the one person who owns the company is a person. no shit huh? LOL... Is it still going over your head?
It doesnt matter if its one person, 5 people, or 500,000 people for the purposes of treatment under the law. You guys act as if there is not hundreds of years of corporate law in existence on these issues.
Why don't we get even more basic here, do you even know why people incorporate businesses in the first place?
-
So? If Joes' Pizza has 50 owners whats the difference?
You do understand the idea of shareholders and directors right?
yes, not your starting to get it ::) 50 owners is not a person. That's what we're saying dumbass. One person is a person. And yes I know legally I'm wrong, I knew that from the start ::)
-
It doesnt matter if its one person, 5 people, or 500,000 people for the purposes of treatment under the law. You guys act as if there is not hundreds of years of corporate law in existence on these issues.
Why don't we get even more basic here, do you even know why people incorporate businesses in the first place?
Will you shut the fuck up defining what the law is... Both Ozmo and I already know that a corporation is legally a person... NO FUCKING SHIT!!!
-
Will you shut the fuck up defining what the law is... Both Ozmo and I already know that a corporation is legally a person... NO FUCKING SHIT!!!
And?
Tell me what you want changed and why?
-
So? If Joes' Pizza has 50 owners whats the difference?
You do understand the idea of shareholders and directors right?
Then 50 people make 50 individual contributions from their separate individual taxable incomes.
That's the difference.
-
Then 50 people make 50 individual contributions from their separate individual taxable incomes.
That's the difference.
Why?
-
Why?
why what?
-
"as a result of the war, corporations have become enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow. The money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its rule by preying upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is concentrated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-
And? What would you do about it?
-
And? What would you do about it?
Why what? (from the other question)
Second, i have been posting on this thread what should be done about it.
Abe Lincoln figured it out, so did TJ.
-
Why what? (from the other question)
Second, i have been posting on this thread what should be done about it.
Abe Lincoln figured it out, so did TJ.
Figured out what? Again what would you do to rectify the matter? Do you think individuals who donate to pols are not equally looking for favors?
-
Figured out what? Again what would you do to rectify the matter? Do you think individuals who donate to pols are not equally looking for favors?
I can't believe you are actually this thick on this subject.
Abe Lincoln figured out that allowing corporations more influence will corrupt our system of government. the quote is from him.
Here's what Thomas Jefferson (TJ) said:
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance the laws of our country."
Allowing a CEO of let's say Exxon to freely fund any campaign he wants with his 50+ billion a year in profit, (even if its just 1% of it) puts corporations in an even stronger position to control our country by buying government. We are quickly becoming a corporate democracy NOT a democracy by the people for the people.
-
Shareholders, employees, retirement funds, bondholders, regular investors, amateur investors, people who build and design products, people who mop the floors, local/national/global economies.
Those are comprised of people, a whole lot of fucking people. A corporation isn't just some faceless fatcat with a cigar in his mouth on the 100 floor suite, a corporation is comprised of people. Now how that corporation is directed at the top and how the govt. see's fit to regulate the field is another story entirely.
-
And? Why are you only looking at one side of the equation? with the growth in the power of govt, many corps seek the equivalent of "protection money" from these parasitic pols who also have the power to regulate and shut them down at the whim of nearly anything.
You want to empower people like holder, napolitano, et all even more? Yeah, that will work out well.
The problem is the tax code and tax system to where pols are able to reward and punish citizens and businesses.
We need to take away that power from these ravenous leeches in the govt.
Funny too how you brought up Exxon. funny fucking shit. They make 10% on a gallon of gas and people like yourself scream and stamp your feet like a baby while the govt takes many times that much in taxes and did absolutely nothing to bring the gasoline to market.
But oh "BIG OIL" is who I should get angry at. ::) ::)
Yeah whatever - grow up.
-
Shareholders, employees, retirement funds, bondholders, regular investors, amateur investors, people who build and design products, people who mop the floors, local/national/global economies.
Those are comprised of people, a whole lot of fucking people. A corporation isn't just some faceless fatcat with a cigar in his mouth on the 100 floor suite, a corporation is comprised of people. Now how that corporation is directed at the top and how the govt. see's fit to regulate the field is another story entirely.
Of course corporations are comprised of people. If "People" want to contribute to a particular campaign they are free to do so. People can band together and can start a PAC if they want. However a corporation is not an individual person and not recognized by our constitution as a person. A corporation's CEO or BoD should not (but does now) have the right to fund campaigns with corporation's (this group of people as you have defined) money the way they see fit.
-
Of course corporations are comprised of people. If "People" want to contribute to a particular campaign they are free to do so. People can band together and can start a PAC if they want. However a corporation is not an individual person and not recognized by our constitution as a person. A corporation's CEO or BoD should not (but does now) have the right to fund campaigns with corporation's (this group of people as you have defined) money the way they see fit.
Funny I never have seen you say the same things about teachers' unions, AFSME, CSEA, AFL, etc
-
And? Why are you only looking at one side of the equation? with the growth in the power of govt, many corps seek the equivalent of "protection money" from these parasitic pols who also have the power to regulate and shut them down at the whim of nearly anything.
You want to empower people like holder, napolitano, et all even more? Yeah, that will work out well.
The problem is the tax code and tax system to where pols are able to reward and punish citizens and businesses.
We need to take away that power from these ravenous leeches in the govt.
Funny too how you brought up Exxon. funny fucking shit. They make 10% on a gallon of gas and people like yourself scream and stamp your feet like a baby while the govt takes many times that much in taxes and did absolutely nothing to bring the gasoline to market.
But oh "BIG OIL" is who I should get angry at. ::) ::)
Yeah whatever - grow up.
Funny I never have seen you say the same things about teachers' unions, AFSME, CSEA, AFL, etc
There are plenty of things wrong with our system right now. Just because i don't rail on every one of them doesn't mean anything you are suggesting.
So sorry, 33333 i don't have the time to post 62,000 times. ::)
Our system if fucked up beyond all reason right now. Too many lobbyists, too many special interest groups, too many ear marks, too much pork, too many government agencies etc..
And allowing corporations unlimited campaign funding only moves farther away from what our founding fathers envisioned.
-
Yes i agree with you, but you are blaming the symptom, not the problem.
The problem is the power and authority of the govt to pick winners and losers via regulation, taxes, etc.
We need to scrap the entire IRS tax code, repeal the income tax altogether and move to a flat sales tax.
-
Yes i agree with you, but you are blaming the symptom, not the problem.
The problem is the power and authority of the govt to pick winners and losers via regulation, taxes, etc.
We need to scrap the entire IRS tax code, repeal the income tax altogether and move to a flat sales tax.
I don't know that it is the best answer, but its got to be better then what we have now.
The only thing i see is our middle class and small business getting the short end. whether that's too much government or too much power from large corporations i don't know. I think its both
-
I don't know that it is the best answer, but its got to be better then what we have now.
The only thing i see is our middle class and small business getting the short end. whether that's too much government or too much power from large corporations i don't know. I think its both
Here is the thing - you can set the tax rate at whatever you want, however, if there are enough carve outs, deductions, breaks, etc, it wont matter at all.
It would be far better for GE to pay a 100% of a 5% corporate tax rate, than it is for them to pay 0% of a 35% tax rate.
Govt would end up with a shit load more money and you take out the lobbysits, scams, etc.
-
let's face it, hugo and Oz...
If OBAMA had said the exact same thing, 33 wouldn't be on here defending the idea.
He'd be calling Obama a tool of big interest, big business.
Since Romney (whom 33 voted for in 2008) said it, 33 feels the need to defend it.
-
let's face it, hugo and Oz...
If OBAMA had said the exact same thing, 33 wouldn't be on here defending the idea.
He'd be calling Obama a tool of big interest, big business.
Since Romney (whom 33 voted for in 2008) said it, 33 feels the need to defend it.
Hey idiot - I am defending the proper statement of existing law for the last 2 hundred years.
-
Of course corporations are comprised of people. If "People" want to contribute to a particular campaign they are free to do so. People can band together and can start a PAC if they want. However a corporation is not an individual person and not recognized by our constitution as a person. A corporation's CEO or BoD should not (but does now) have the right to fund campaigns with corporation's (this group of people as you have defined) money the way they see fit.
True.Funny I never have seen you say the same things about teachers' unions, AFSME, CSEA, AFL, etc
Also true. Why not a peep about unions? The dues the members pay go to fund candidates that share the Union bosses views, if no one complains that organized labor can take political contributions from its members and donate it to candidates why can't a corporation?
I don't like the fact that either can do it, by the way, but unions have been doing this shit forever.
-
-
Of course corporations are comprised of people. If "People" want to contribute to a particular campaign they are free to do so. People can band together and can start a PAC if they want. However a corporation is not an individual person and not recognized by our constitution as a person. A corporation's CEO or BoD should not (but does now) have the right to fund campaigns with corporation's (this group of people as you have defined) money the way they see fit.
i think you're missing the point. physically corporations are not people. however, corporations are built by people living in a free market where they are allowed to invest money in whichever corporation they desire or not. corporations also are beholden to those same people. if the shareholders don't like something a particular corporation is doing (funding a particular political party) they absolutely do have a say, it's called getting rid of their stock and investing in another corporation.
What do you think? Starbucks wants to buy Fair Trade Certified coffee and give the millions and millions of dollars they give to charity every year? NO. They do it because they know that their stockholders demand this of them. They need to bend to the will of the stockholders or they will pay the price in profits. That is the upside of a free market. WE THE PEOPLE can choose how we spend our money and if a corporation is not acting in a way you see fit, you have the choice not to invest. It's become popular with liberals to demonize all corporations in any way possible and portray them as "evil". But the truth is that although there is abuse and some corporate CEO's are cheating their investors and the American people, there is still a lot of positives they bring to the table; jobs, charity, tax revenue, etc. To deny that is silly. And to pick and choose which groups of people you want donating to what is just plain unfair. To echo what the above poster said, do you share the same animosity towards unions who give political contributions?
-
i think you're missing the point. physically corporations are not people. however, corporations are built by people living in a free market where they are allowed to invest money in whichever corporation they desire or not. corporations also are beholden to those same people. if the shareholders don't like something a particular corporation is doing (funding a particular political party) they absolutely do have a say, it's called getting rid of their stock and investing in another corporation.
What do you think? Starbucks wants to buy Fair Trade Certified coffee and give the millions and millions of dollars they give to charity every year? NO. They do it because they know that their stockholders demand this of them. They need to bend to the will of the stockholders or they will pay the price in profits. That is the upside of a free market. WE THE PEOPLE can choose how we spend our money and if a corporation is not acting in a way you see fit, you have the choice not to invest. It's become popular with liberals to demonize all corporations in any way possible and portray them as "evil". But the truth is that although there is abuse and some corporate CEO's are cheating their investors and the American people, there is still a lot of positives they bring to the table; jobs, charity, tax revenue, etc. To deny that is silly. And to pick and choose which groups of people you want donating to what is just plain unfair. To echo what the above poster said, do you share the same animosity towards unions who give political contributions?
I don't think Unions have the same amount of money. Are there Unions who post 1+ billion a year in profits?
I am not against large corporations. They employ 75% of the workforce. I am however, for small business. When large corporations are allowed to fund campaigns they gain the ability to buy government. That is not in the best interest of the people of our country.
Obviously stock holders can sell their stock if they don't like who the company is backing, but why would they? They didn't buy stock because of the companies political stance. They bought it to make money. Allowing corporation to fully fund candidates tips the scales of a "fair" election skewing it favor of corporations and NOT people.
-
I don't think Unions have the same amount of money. Are there Unions who post 1+ billion a year in profits?
I am not against large corporations. They employ 75% of the workforce. I am however, for small business. When large corporations are allowed to fund campaigns they gain the ability to buy government. That is not in the best interest of the people of our country.
Obviously stock holders can sell their stock if they don't like who the company is backing, but why would they? They didn't buy stock because of the companies political stance. They bought it to make money. Allowing corporation to fully fund candidates tips the scales of a "fair" election skewing it favor of corporations and NOT people.
Unions bankroll many many many campaigns. Whether its the AFT, AFSME, AFL, CSEA, et al - they have a huge sway in many places.
Just look at Wisconsin. The Unions used 35 Million TAX DOLLARS in that recall nonsense.
-
He goofs a date but this is good:
-
Unions bankroll many many many campaigns. Whether its the AFT, AFSME, AFL, CSEA, et al - they have a huge sway in many places.
Just look at Wisconsin. The Unions used 35 Million TAX DOLLARS in that recall nonsense.
But the comparison is a farce. Unions are a problem in America, but they do not have near the money GE, Sachs, Exxon etc do.
-
But the comparison is a farce. Unions are a problem in America, but they do not have near the money GE, Sachs, Exxon etc do.
Oh fucking please!
In many states like Cali, New york, Illinois, the public sector unions bankrolls politicians who keep fucking the taxpayer in favor of the the public workers and unsustainable reckless spending.
They have MILLIONS AND MILLIONS at their discretion OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS!
-
Oh fucking please!
In many states like Cali, New york, Illinois, the public sector unions bankrolls politicians who keep fucking the taxpayer in favor of the the public workers and unsustainable reckless spending.
They have MILLIONS AND MILLIONS at their discretion OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS!
Did you misunderstand me?
I am not denying UNions have power and configure to campaigns. I am saying to compare them to. The amount of money corporations will have to contribute is a farce.
-
Did you misunderstand me?
I am not denying UNions have power and configure to campaigns. I am saying to compare them to. The amount of money corporations will have to contribute is a farce.
No I dont compare them. Union money is far worse since they are using TAXPAYER DOLLARS to rip off the taxpayer himself and continue rweckless and unsustainable spending we can't afford.
Most corp. donations are to get tax breaks and breaks on certain regs, but at least they are using their own money.
-
No I dont compare them. Union money is far worse since they are using TAXPAYER DOLLARS to rip off the taxpayer himself and continue rweckless and unsustainable spending we can't afford.
Most corp. donations are to get tax breaks and breaks on certain regs, but at least they are using their own money.
There aree plenty of problems in our system. Unions using tax payer money is one of them.
But that's not what we ar talking about here. We are talking about corporations funding campaigns.
-
I don't think Unions have the same amount of money. Are there Unions who post 1+ billion a year in profits?
I am not against large corporations. They employ 75% of the workforce. I am however, for small business. When large corporations are allowed to fund campaigns they gain the ability to buy government. That is not in the best interest of the people of our country.
Obviously stock holders can sell their stock if they don't like who the company is backing, but why would they? They didn't buy stock because of the companies political stance. They bought it to make money. Allowing corporation to fully fund candidates tips the scales of a "fair" election skewing it favor of corporations and NOT people.
does no one else have a problem with this statement?
-
does no one else have a problem with this statement?
I stopped trying to reason with ozmo on this as he is like a mule with blinders on.
The fact that he cant see or equate union money with corporate and other money says all i need to know.
-
bigger than Romney's willingness to say this...
is the fact he didn't have the mental maturity to STOP and THINK before making such a statement and getting into a pointing match at some doofus in the crowd.
You don't see Bachmann getting angry and yelling at people. Her answers are generally under control and very good - she handled a lot of tough Qs well the last 2 weeks. very graceful. Romney lookin rattled.
-
I stopped trying to reason with ozmo on this as he is like a mule with blinders on.
The fact that he cant see or equate union money with corporate and other money says all i need to know.
How does Union even compare to Corporate money? ::) How much more can a Union donate compared to a company? ::)
And frankly i would not be opposed to limiting all money except personal donations.
-
does no one else have a problem with this statement?
Do you own stock?
Did you buy it to make money?
-
he is like a mule with blinders on.
LOL, you're the last person who should say this. You're as stubborn as they come. You constantly pick only one item from someone's points ignoring everything else they said and if it still goes bad for you, you'll change the subject asap...
What a laugh you saying this to someone else knowing full well the way you debate here.
-
How does Union even compare to Corporate money? ::) How much more can a Union donate compared to a company? ::)
And frankly i would not be opposed to limiting all money except personal donations.
Clueless. F'g clueless.
Unions spend tens of millions of dollars every election cycle electing pols who screw over the taxpayer and support unsustainable spending. You dont see that?
Geez dude - WTF? Especially being from Cali and seeing what the public unions get away with and why your state is in collapse. Damn. Really sad.
-
Clueless. F'g clueless.
Unions spend tens of millions of dollars every election cycle electing pols who screw over the taxpayer and support unsustainable spending. You dont see that?
Geez dude - WTF? Especially being from Cali and seeing what the public unions get away with and why your state is in collapse. Damn. Really sad.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
SHOW ME HOW UNIONS HAVE MORE MONEY TO SPEND THAN THE COMPANIES AND CORPORATIONS.
otherwise quit your stupid arguments.
-
While techincally true, he really flubbed that.
so predictable
-
so predictable
Yeah - attacking someone for a proper statement as opposed to an emotially irrelevent rant like you libtards are so fond of. i'm no fan of mitt, but what he said here was 100% truth.
The fact is that romney was legally, factually, historically, and economically accurate in this.
-
Yeah - attacking someone for a proper statement as opposed to an emotially irrelevent rant like you libtards are so fond of. i'm no fan of mitt, but what he said here was 100% truth.
The fact is that romney was legally, factually, historically, and economically accurate in this.
::)
so what? and the sun is going to rise tomorrow. And the deficit is still growing.
anything else you would like to add?
-
Yeah - attacking someone for a proper statement as opposed to an emotially irrelevent rant like you libtards are so fond of. i'm no fan of mitt, but what he said here was 100% truth.
The fact is that romney was legally, factually, historically, and economically accurate in this.
i never said he wasnt. Corps used 14th amendment i think.. artificial person-hood.. some shit like that.
But dude you know what you did..you are really fucked in the head
-
Yeah - you, along with option FAIL, and the others, are morons for attacking romney on this since you have not an ounce of legal, historical, or factual understanding behind why he said he said.
What he said is 100% accurate.
If you dont like it, take it up with 200 years of legal precedent and tel me how it works out.
-
Yeah - you, along with option FAIL, and the others, are morons for attacking romney on this since you have not an ounce of legal, historical, or factual understanding behind why he said he said.
What he said is 100% accurate.
If you dont like it, take it up with 200 years of legal precedent and tel me how it works out.
When did i attack Romney on this???
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
I've been attacking the fact of unlimited campaign donations by corporations.
Try and keep up 333333
-
Yeah - you, along with option FAIL, and the others, are morons for attacking romney on this since you have not an ounce of legal, historical, or factual understanding behind why he said he said.
What he said is 100% accurate.
If you dont like it, take it up with 200 years of legal precedent and tel me how it works out.
who the fuck attacked mitt on this.. i sure didnt.. so you can take that shit somewhere else. you bottom feeder lowlife scumbag
-
Basically what Romney is saying is that he'll bend over for any corporation that gives him money.
You might as well call him Obama jr.
Sounds like an attack no?
-
Sounds like an attack no?
If Romney advocates unlimited donations by corporations, YES i attacked him.
-
If Romney advocates unlimited donations by corporations, YES i attacked him.
What if he looks at it as he is supporting the 1st amendment as it is defined currently by the SCOTUS?
-
What if he looks at it as he is supporting the 1st amendment as it is defined currently by the SCOTUS?
Doesn't matter. the more and more i talk with people about this, the more i am for limiting all donations to private citizens.
-
Doesn't matter. the more and more i talk with people about this, the more i am for limiting all donations to private citizens.
That's fine but will either take a new SCOTUS opinion or action by congress that can withstand the scrutiny of the 1st amendment and upending 200 years of existing law.
-
What if he looks at it as he is supporting the 1st amendment as it is defined currently by the SCOTUS?
SCROTUMS
-
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
SHOW ME HOW UNIONS HAVE MORE MONEY TO SPEND THAN THE COMPANIES AND CORPORATIONS.
otherwise quit your stupid arguments.
i just googled and found this
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
-
i just googled and found this
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
according to this the unions are in fact THE heaviest hitters when it comes to political donations
-
according to this the unions are in fact THE heaviest hitters when it comes to political donations
also if you look at it. for the most part the corporations seem to give to both parties whereas the dems have the unions locked up. there are exceptions but generally this seems to be the case.
-
also if you look at it. for the most part the corporations seem to give to both parties whereas the dems have the unions locked up. there are exceptions but generally this seems to be the case.
sssshhhh . . . . . dont want to get the libs all up in arms on reality.
Wall Street gave 75% to obama last cycle, pass it on.
-
i just googled and found this
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Right now they are. Wait a few more years. The law isn't but a year or two old. And that study encompasses 1989 to 2010.
I wouldn't doubt that since 1989 Unions have donated the most. Like i said, limit them all.
-
Right now they are. Wait a few more years. The law isn't but a year or two old. And that study encompasses 1989 to 2010.
I wouldn't doubt that since 1989 Unions have donated the most. Like i said, limit them all.
OK. I thought you were saying that unions do not give as much in political donations as corporations.
-
But the comparison is a farce. Unions are a problem in America, but they do not have near the money GE, Sachs, Exxon etc do.
according to the link i just posted the labor unions are far ahead of both GE and Sachs with regards to political donations
-
according to the link i just posted the labor unions are far ahead of both GE and Sachs with regards to political donations
and Exxon is #73 on the list.
-
and Exxon is #73 on the list.
At least Exxon does something productive!
AFT, CSEA, AFSCME, et al do nothing but make things drastically worse for taxpayers.
-
according to the link i just posted the labor unions are far ahead of both GE and Sachs with regards to political donations
True, but the law is barely a 2 years old if that.
And that study is 1989 to 2010, 20 years of limited by law donations from corporations.
Let's see how it reads from 2010 to 2020.
-
OK. I thought you were saying that unions do not give as much in political donations as corporations.
What i am saying is, now that the law has changed, corporations have far more money to donate than unions.
-
What i am saying is, now that the law has changed, corporations have far more money to donate than unions.
And? At least they donate to both sides, the unions are overwhelmingly lopsided.
Where I live, the public employee parasite unions get the worst of the filth elected time and time again and fuck over the taxpayer.
To me, union money is way worse. Many corps are paying the equivalent of "leave me alone money", whereas the unions advocate for higher taxes for more spending.
-
And? At least they donate to both sides, the unions are overwhelmingly lopsided.
Where I live, the public employee parasite unions get the worst of the filth elected time and time again and fuck over the taxpayer.
To me, union money is way worse. Many corps are paying the equivalent of "leave me alone money", whereas the unions advocate for higher taxes for more spending.
Your arguments against Unions seem valid to me, although i haven't really researched the issues much. but this isn't about Unions although they are a factor in our problems. I think we will have even worse problems, less true representation in government because of this law.
-
Your arguments against Unions seem valid to me, although i haven't really researched the issues much. but this isn't about Unions although they are a factor in our problems. I think we will have even worse problems, less true representation in government because of this law.
It remains a double-edged sword though. You want to impinge on basic 1st amendment rights, so...
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
-