| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/09/2011 04:38:31 PM · #376 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Actually, there exists only one entity operating under true "free market" conditions -- the illegal drug trade -- and you see how much social responsibility that engenders in its "corporate" participants ... |
That's a good way to think about it. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 04:41:47 PM · #377 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I don't get to write my own loopholes into the tax code, corporations do.
People don't want a "free market". I'll bet you don't either, if you knew what it really meant. |
That's not a "Free market" - that's government corruption. |
That's corporate/industry lobby in action for you. |
It's a flaw in our system of elections and governance, not in the free market. If we disallowed our representatives from benefiting in any way from their elected positions, during and long after their term, and maybe we either disallow corporate or all private campaign funding or make a law that prevents representatives from voting on any bill that would benefit a donor, family member, etc. Yeah, this type of thing would be complicated to implement, but the relationship between our representatives and corporate interests (and other special interests) should be the area of focus for reforms, IMO. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 04:43:31 PM · #378 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
It's a flaw in our system of elections and governance, not in the free market. If we disallowed our representatives from benefiting in any way from their elected positions, during and long after their term, and maybe we either disallow corporate or all private campaign funding or make a law that prevents representatives from voting on any bill that would benefit a donor, family member, etc. Yeah, this type of thing would be complicated to implement, but the relationship between our representatives and corporate interests (and other special interests) should be the area of focus for reforms, IMO. |
thank you for conveying what i have been unable to.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2011 04:49:47 PM · #379 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I don't get to write my own loopholes into the tax code, corporations do.
People don't want a "free market". I'll bet you don't either, if you knew what it really meant. |
That's not a "Free market" - that's government corruption. |
That's corporate/industry lobby in action for you. |
Right, but the politicians are the ones letting it happen. Correction, we are letting it happen since we elect these bums in the first place and continue to do so. It would be nice if we could start by eliminating all campaign contributions, PACs and 527s from the equation and only allow politicians to draw from the election fund that is already available. Obama had agreed to that before he went back on his word with McCain. Obama like everyone else learned quickly to adapt to the Washington game.
ETA: And once they get in office... What Art said.
Message edited by author 2011-11-09 16:52:05. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 04:53:07 PM · #380 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I don't get to write my own loopholes into the tax code, corporations do.
People don't want a "free market". I'll bet you don't either, if you knew what it really meant. |
That's not a "Free market" - that's government corruption. |
That's corporate/industry lobby in action for you. |
It's a flaw in our system of elections and governance, not in the free market. If we disallowed our representatives from benefiting in any way from their elected positions, during and long after their term, and maybe we either disallow corporate or all private campaign funding or make a law that prevents representatives from voting on any bill that would benefit a donor, family member, etc. Yeah, this type of thing would be complicated to implement, but the relationship between our representatives and corporate interests (and other special interests) should be the area of focus for reforms, IMO. |
So you want legislators to legislate against their own personal benefit? Isn't that just what the OWS protest is demanding -- that the Congress put aside its personal self-interest and enact laws which treat the voters at least as well as their funders? To enact "just and reasonable" controls so that corporations can earn a profit without impoverishing one out of every six Americans (current rate)? |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 05:07:33 PM · #381 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I don't get to write my own loopholes into the tax code, corporations do.
People don't want a "free market". I'll bet you don't either, if you knew what it really meant. |
That's not a "Free market" - that's government corruption. |
That's corporate/industry lobby in action for you. |
It's a flaw in our system of elections and governance, not in the free market. If we disallowed our representatives from benefiting in any way from their elected positions, during and long after their term, and maybe we either disallow corporate or all private campaign funding or make a law that prevents representatives from voting on any bill that would benefit a donor, family member, etc. Yeah, this type of thing would be complicated to implement, but the relationship between our representatives and corporate interests (and other special interests) should be the area of focus for reforms, IMO. |
A free market is an unregulated market, which is bad for everyone. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 05:08:23 PM · #382 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I don't get to write my own loopholes into the tax code, corporations do.
People don't want a "free market". I'll bet you don't either, if you knew what it really meant. |
That's not a "Free market" - that's government corruption. |
That's corporate/industry lobby in action for you. |
Right, but the politicians are the ones letting it happen. Correction, we are letting it happen since we elect these bums in the first place and continue to do so. It would be nice if we could start by eliminating all campaign contributions, PACs and 527s from the equation and only allow politicians to draw from the election fund that is already available. Obama had agreed to that before he went back on his word with McCain. Obama like everyone else learned quickly to adapt to the Washington game.
ETA: And once they get in office... What Art said. |
And the corporations are the ones doing it.
Message edited by author 2011-11-09 17:08:32. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 05:08:56 PM · #383 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So you want legislators to legislate against their own personal benefit? Isn't that just what the OWS protest is demanding -- that the Congress put aside its personal self-interest and enact laws which treat the voters at least as well as their funders? To enact "just and reasonable" controls so that corporations can earn a profit without impoverishing one out of every six Americans (current rate)? |
Very hard to tell what they are demanding, but if that is it, then yes, I'm down with that. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 05:13:30 PM · #384 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
And the corporations are the ones doing it. |
If the government created a grant/law/loophole that said "Dan Selvidge shall receive $1m per year from taxpayer funds" should we blame you if you take it? If you say yes, then let's go down the list of beneficiaries of government subsidies & regulations and chastise all of them who partake. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 05:14:56 PM · #385 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
..half of them in the middle of the night while most of the protesters were asleep. |
It sounds like a cozy clutch of a half dozen tents all quiet at 2AM. That's not quite what I've heard with drums being beaten at all hours, people losing their virginity, etc. ;)
|
Wow doc, you made me feel like I was living in the middle ages with that statement. You were serious about the virginity thing? LOL ROFLMAO Just wow!
I can't read any more....
Message edited by author 2011-11-09 17:15:23. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 05:17:13 PM · #386 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
And the corporations are the ones doing it. |
If the government created a grant/law/loophole that said "Dan Selvidge shall receive $1m per year from taxpayer funds" should we blame you if you take it? If you say yes, then let's go down the list of beneficiaries of government subsidies & regulations and chastise all of them who partake. |
if Dan Selvidge payed the government to make that law then yes. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 05:21:02 PM · #387 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
And the corporations are the ones doing it. |
If the government created a grant/law/loophole that said "Dan Selvidge shall receive $1m per year from taxpayer funds" should we blame you if you take it? If you say yes, then let's go down the list of beneficiaries of government subsidies & regulations and chastise all of them who partake. |
If the government did it on their own, no.
If I donated $100K to the campaign funds of 5 key congressmen or the PAC/527 of their choice and then it passed, then yes. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 05:30:21 PM · #388 |
Well, the Supreme Court has now made it much more difficult, if not impossible, for states and the federal government to regulate the role of money in elections. So the first order of business should be a Constitutional amendment to overturn their Citizens United decision which says that money or campaign contributions equals free speech and therefore cannot be limited.
Message edited by author 2011-11-09 17:31:34. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 05:32:37 PM · #389 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
And the corporations are the ones doing it. |
If the government created a grant/law/loophole that said "Dan Selvidge shall receive $1m per year from taxpayer funds" should we blame you if you take it? If you say yes, then let's go down the list of beneficiaries of government subsidies & regulations and chastise all of them who partake. |
If the government did it on their own, no.
If I donated $100K to the campaign funds of 5 key congressmen or the PAC/527 of their choice and then it passed, then yes. |
Have you never donated to a campaign to elect someone that you thought would vote for your best interests?
Even with reforms like these, there are always ways around them. Campaign finance reform always has loopholes or ways to obfuscate the flow of money.
How about term limits? GeneralE mentioned they have not been good for California, but I didn't quite get the case he was making. Seems to me that the most powerful politicians are the ones who have been there for a long time and that power is a magnet for lobbyists and probably hard to resist the corruptive influences, even if you started out with the best intentions.
Can you summarize exactly what reforms you would put in place if you were crowned king of the US? |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 05:38:00 PM · #390 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Well, the Supreme Court has now made it much more difficult, if not impossible, for states and the federal government to regulate the role of money in elections. So the first order of business should be a Constitutional amendment to overturn their Citizens United decision which says that money or campaign contributions equals free speech and therefore cannot be limited. |
Ok, so after that, what should the rules/limits be? Only private donations? only public funding? could a rich person use all their own personal wealth? no money from any special interest groups - environmentalists, social activists, etc?
Message edited by author 2011-11-09 17:38:18. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 06:00:26 PM · #391 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Well, the Supreme Court has now made it much more difficult, if not impossible, for states and the federal government to regulate the role of money in elections. So the first order of business should be a Constitutional amendment to overturn their Citizens United decision which says that money or campaign contributions equals free speech and therefore cannot be limited. |
Ok, so after that, what should the rules/limits be? Only private donations? only public funding? could a rich person use all their own personal wealth? no money from any special interest groups - environmentalists, social activists, etc? |
Good questions. I haven't given this a lot of thought, but I'd say certainly public funding of campaigns with perhaps limited personal contributions, and no special interest money of any kind. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 06:41:01 PM · #392 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
How about term limits? GeneralE mentioned they have not been good for California, but I didn't quite get the case he was making. |
Did I say that? Like everything, that policy has had some good and some negative influences. I also mentioned somewhere that elective office is the only government job where you don't have to pass a qualifications test, so that means it takes a legislator a while (like their first term) to get up to speed on all the issues, how the legislative process works (arcane rules abound), and to know their collegues az bit on a personal basis (happens less and less, especially across party lines). Sometimes, by the time a legislator is finally trained in their job they are termed-out of office, even if they are doing a good job and would be overwhelmingly re-elected if their constituents were given the option. It is a severe restriction on my freedom to vote for whomever I want, imposed by the voters of a previous era -- this is probably the most principled argument against term limits.
Another downside is that, rather than injecting an influx of new people into the process, most office-holders simply change the office for which they are running -- an Assembly member runs for the State Senate, a Senator runs for Lieutenant Governor, the Mayor runs for Assembly, etc.
Given the latter practice, I can't really think of too many good results from the imposition of term limits as practiced here so far. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 06:53:16 PM · #393 |
It's now a few dozen posts old, but Mike has it correct that a corporation has the legal responsibility to maximize shareholder value and the commonly held legal definition of this generally and specifically translates into "profits".
Right or wrong. Agree or disagree. That is the state of affairs. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 06:55:11 PM · #394 |
| Does everybody here on the OWS side NOT own stock or mutual funds of stocks in their IRAs? |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 06:57:02 PM · #395 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Does everybody here on the OWS side NOT own stock or mutual funds of stocks in their IRAs? |
who the hell has an ira i lost my house u think i have a retirement i spent that trying to keep my house, this is the real world i live in no insurance, no money in the bank, no house, i have a car and no job. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 06:57:09 PM · #396 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's now a few dozen posts old, but Mike has it correct that a corporation has the legal responsibility to maximize shareholder value and the commonly held legal definition of this generally and specifically translates into "profits".
Right or wrong. Agree or disagree. That is the state of affairs. |
He DID say its "only" responsibility, Doc. And yes, we know that's the state of affairs, but maybe it's time to effect some change in that?
R.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2011 06:57:16 PM · #397 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
If the government created a grant/law/loophole that said "Dan Selvidge shall receive $1m per year from taxpayer funds" should we blame you if you take it? If you say yes, then let's go down the list of beneficiaries of government subsidies & regulations and chastise all of them who partake. |
I agree. The Congress writes the laws. If our elected representatives allow these loopholes, their intended beneficiaries will certainly exploit them. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 06:59:44 PM · #398 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Does everybody here on the OWS side NOT own stock or mutual funds of stocks in their IRAs? |
No stock, no IRA. Cashed what I had in years ago, when I got sick. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 06:59:46 PM · #399 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Does everybody here on the OWS side NOT own stock or mutual funds of stocks in their IRAs? |
What are you SAYING? It sounds like you're saying "irresponsible corporate greed is OK because profit is a corporation's only responsibility, and anyway it's good my IRA"... You can't possibly believe that, can you?
R.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2011 07:15:18 PM · #400 |
|
