721 replies to this topic

[Unrequited Lust]

Liberals aren't about big government these days.

That's the problem right there. How do you think you are going to get and enforce all of the things you listed below?

• a thriving economy- Liberals want public sector jobs and to protect union jobs
  
• a national debt that's getting paid off- More Spending? Obama only cut NASA's budget.
  
• a fair tax system- I'll give you that one, it is a mess
  
• a political system that's rid of money- Not going to happen w/o huge gov't overtones and still not going to happen because politicians are crooks and easily bought off. (on both sides btw!)
  
• end of these wars-- World peace? Never going to happen. End of wars? Possibly...
  
• cheaper energy-- government subsidies?

>Build demand, help economy
>You could literally run a budget surplus for the next ten years if you extended medicare to all and ended non-negotiable drug prices
>Sure
>You're making no sense. The goal is to end corporate donations. And you say the result will end up in them being "bought off"? How the hell did you make that connection? They're crooks precisely because of corporate influence.
>Yup
>This is inevitable technological progress. But might I remind you that the research and development of many technological innovations you use, including cell phones and the internet, were heavily subsidized.

[Caiman]

Still surprised to see Herman Cain leading many polls for the Republican nomination. He’s really come out of nowhere over the last few months hasn’t he. Could he really bag it?

[jjf3]

I think this video may hurt his chances "just a bit"-- (sarcasm). No, meaning a lot!!!!



He looks like a greedy person who doesn't care about the people in this ad! Like haha Fooled you all.

Edit: But as I understand it doing a little research about this ad. It's for negative publicity. And costed nothing to make. Now everyone is talking more and more about Herman Cain!

Hasn't he already received more media coverage than McCain ever dreamed of?

[jjf3]

You're making no sense. The goal is to end corporate donations. And you say the result will end up in them being "bought off"? How the hell did you make that connection? They're crooks precisely because of corporate influence.

No, they go into politics for precisely this reason. Maybe a handful of people want to help society, but a lot of politicians want to argue, bend laws etc... I think politicians would be crooks regardless of money or corporate influence. They are the ultimate alphas males. Which is probably why Bachmann was asked the question about being subordinate to her husband. But I am just saying here that unless you destroy and kill all the rich people. You will NEVER end corporate influence and the influence of the rich. That's not how our current system works.

This is inevitable technological progress. But might I remind you that the research and development of many technological innovations you use, including cell phones and the internet, were heavily subsidized.

I think the energy industry has gotten way more Government subsides than anything else. Because people want the world to convert so bad and perhaps too fast. But your right it will happen, eventually.

[Unrequited Lust]

You're making no sense. The goal is to end corporate donations. And you say the result will end up in them being "bought off"? How the hell did you make that connection? They're crooks precisely because of corporate influence.

No, they go into politics for precisely this reason. Maybe a handful of people want to help society, but a lot of politicians want to argue, bend laws etc... I think politicians would be crooks regardless of money or corporate influence. They are the ultimate alphas males. Which is probably why Bachmann was asked the question about being subordinate to her husband. But I am just saying here that unless you destroy and kill all the rich people. You will NEVER end corporate influence and the influence of the rich. That's not how our current system works.

I will never understand how your thought process works. I will make this very simple for you:

1. Our current system says corporations can donate to politicians.
2. Because of this, politicians do what corporations say.
3. This is the only reason politicians do what corporations say; there is no other reason.
4. If you prevent corporations from donating to politicians by making it explicitly illegal (you know, like every other industrialized nation), then by definition politicians will no longer do what corporations say.
5. It is no longer our current system. It is a new system.

If you want any existent proof then look at any other industrialized nation and see how much corporate welfare is going on there.

[jjf3]

It depends on your definition of corporate welfare. All eliminating corporate welfare will do, is increase backroom deals and illegal negotiations. In effect making politics even more corrupt. Who will control the corporate welfare? The corrupt government? Ha!

Corruption and politics goes hand in hand. The current system wouldn't exist today without corporate welfare because the federal reserve is a corporate entity NOT a government institution and it has more power than Washington itself. We should have a corporate welfare cap (meaning companies can only influence so much) but even then, I am not sure how that law would be enforced. Do you see the problem? How they are both as powerful as each other? Well, the financial sector may have a bit more power, but one couldn't exist without the other.

Let me repeat, the VERY rich. Who are also the ones who set up our current system, who influence government, and "rig" elections (if you will), will NOT be effected by any law or new system "the people" create. They will always have money, unless some sort of catastrophe comes and wipes out the majority of the population

This is also why we could never have a communist utopia because the very rich would set it up!!

[Unrequited Lust]

It depends on your definition of corporate welfare. All eliminating corporate welfare will do, is increase backroom deals and illegal negotiations. In effect making politics even more corrupt. Who will control the corporate welfare? The corrupt government? Ha!

Corruption and politics goes hand in hand. The current system wouldn't exist today without corporate welfare because the federal reserve is a corporate entity NOT a government institution and it has more power than Washington itself. We should have a corporate welfare cap (meaning companies can only influence so much) but even then, I am not sure how that law would be enforced. Do you see the problem? How they are both as powerful as each other? Well, the financial sector may have a bit more power, but one couldn't exist without the other.

Let me repeat, the VERY rich. Who are also the ones who set up our current system, who influence government, and "rig" elections (if you will), will NOT be effected by any law or new system "the people" create. They will always have money, unless some sort of catastrophe comes and wipes out the majority of the population

This is also why we could never have a communist utopia because the very rich would set it up!!

You are so spectacularly out of touch with reality that it's scary. You have so little grasp of the world around you so you fill in the void with your fantasies that you indiscriminately accept as fact.

The government is corrupt BECAUSE of corporate influence. We do not live in a pre-revolution French absolute monarchy or aristocracy. We live in a democracy. Meaning it is under the people. With today's social media, we know more about the government's actions than ever.

The Federal Reserve is not a corporate entity. Granted it was started by richer than sin industrialists (Morgan and Rockefeller) and it has bailed out companies, it still remains a government agency. An agency stupidly not subject to transparency, but an agency nonetheless.

And "We should have a corporate welfare cap (meaning companies can only influence so much) but even then, I am not sure how that law would be enforced. Do you see the problem? How they are both as powerful as each other? Well, the financial sector may have a bit more power, but one couldn't exist without the other" is quite possibly one of the most profoundly stupid and mind boggling things you've ever said. Congratulations, you just paraphrased the definition of fascism:

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."
-Mussolini

Corporations are necessary but you're really okay with legislation that panders to them because you think it's inevitable? Are you completely out of your fucking mind? Jesus Christ you are seriously like arguing with a chatbot. Understand this, for God's sake, put in a little effort and use your brain and stop making up your own facts:

Here's a syllogism:
1. Corporate influence in government is due to legislation.
2. Repeal this legislation and enact legislation to prohibit it.
3. Therefore there will be no corporate influence.

By denying this you are bypassing logic. It's like saying 2 + 2 = 5. What the fuck do you think legislation does? You know what happens when you enact legislation? It fucking happens! You want an example? Any piece of legislation in the past 234 years since the ratification of the Constitution!

How will corporations not be affected by laws? I mean what can you possibly base this off of? Do you really think that if a law prohibits them from donating to politicians, they'll keep doing it? You don't think there will be an legal action or public outrage? I reiterate: Are you completely out of your fucking mind?

Jesus fucking Christ jjf3. Your delusion is mind boggling. Stop making up your own facts.

[jjf3]

Something people fail to understand is that the government is controlled by the rich and special interest parties. It is so corrupt it is not even funny! Our system is a deeply entangled web that ONE piece of legislation cannot fix by itself. It's not as simple as passing a few laws. We need to work at this problem for about twenty or so years in order for corporations to not have any influence whatsoever. (if this is possible)

We already have laws banning corporate influence. Nominees are already bound by law to release every single penny they receive from everybody! This has been going on since the early 1900s and before. I don't know why people are getting so upset about it now. Maybe more people are starting to care.

Alan Greenspan has said that the Fed answers to no one and not even congress. It is an independent entity not part of the government. When has the Federal Reserve worked directly for the people? it doesn't. It answers to the banks, the rich, and the top companies! I don't know why people are sooo against getting rid of the Federal Reserve. It is the largest corporation in the US. It has twisted its image so it appears to be a government agency. We can do without it, and the majority of the problems start with it! It has made the free market not free anymore. Our founding fathers were totally against it and they would be ashamed at where this country has gone.

OWS a global movement of Millions, hasn't gotten anything done in almost two months! How much power do you think the people truly have? Very little. Tea Party got massive power once they got some good strong investments.

I'm not defending corporations in politics. But you just can't have one without the other. Apparently France has eliminated corporate influence but it is ruled by a HUGE government and one of the most corrupt in the modern world. Comparable to ours.

And you can get your message across without cursing, calling me names and a chatbot thank you.

[Unrequited Lust]

Something people fail to understand is that the government is controlled by the rich and special interest parties. It is so corrupt it is not even funny! Our system is a deeply entangled web that ONE piece of legislation cannot fix by itself. It's not as simple as passing a few laws. We need to work at this problem for about twenty or so years in order for corporations to not have any influence whatsoever. (if this is possible)

We already have laws banning corporate influence. Nominees are already bound by law to release every single penny they receive from everybody! This has been going on since the early 1900s and before. I don't know why people are getting so upset about it now. Maybe more people are starting to care.

Alan Greenspan has said that the Fed answers to no one and not even congress. It is an independent entity not part of the government. I don't know why people are sooo against getting rid of the Federal Reserve. It is the largest corporation in the US. It has twisted its image so it appears to be a government agency. We can do without it, and the majority of the problems start with it! It has made the free market not free anymore. Our founding fathers were totally against it and they would be ashamed at where this country has gone.

OWS a global movement of Millions, hasn't gotten anything done in almost two months! How much power do you think the people truly have? Very little. Tea Party got massive power once they got some good strong investments.

I'm not defending corporations in politics. But you just can't have one without the other. Apparently France has eliminated corporate influence but it is ruled by a HUGE government and one of the most corrupt in the modern world. Comparable to ours.

My God. I wonder if you're hopeless.

First of all, you have as much knowledge about history as you do about anything else. In other words, you just said something that is completely and utterly false. Alexander Hamilton established the First Bank of the United States. Madison established the Second Bank of the United States after the first one expired under him. After Andrew Jackson abolished the second one Van Buren inherited the presidency. The result was one of the worst financial crises in the history of this country called the Panic of 1837 and Van Buren unavoidably lost the reelection. Read a fucking book and stop making up your own facts.

Second, I'm frankly flabbergasted at how you can even say this: "Something people fail to understand is that the government is controlled by the rich and special interest parties." Yes, that is true. But you fail and refuse to address the argument and continue with your fatalistic and demonstrably false claim that corporate influence and governments are inseparable.

Also citation needed on corruption in France. Then again I can't ever remember you cite any of your asinine assertions.

I'm done arguing with you on this subject until you address the argument. Address the argument and back up your claims with evidence or I won't even bother to respond. Because at this point I'm seriously questioning your reading comprehension, I'll lay it out for you:

The argument: "Corporate welfare can be ended with legislation that restricts corporations from donating to politicians' campaigns thus ending most corruption and establishing a government by the people and not by corporations. This can be demonstrated by looking at any other country that does do this, like Norway, Denmark, or Finland."

Your argument: "Corporations and government will forever be one of the same. Nothing you can do can ever break them apart."

Notice how you don't address anything that I said. Your job: explain exactly how corporate influence would continue when making corporate donations illegal and provide evidence to back up your claims. Do this because I've just been reiterating myself over and over again in a futile attempt to make you understand my argument. I don't know how to be more clear. The argument's not even complicated.

[jjf3]

Ron Paul, "The Fed negates the very foundation of a free market by artificially manipulating the price and supply of money — the lifeblood of the economy. In a free market, interest rates, like the price of any other consumer good, are decentralized and set by the market. The only legitimate, Constitutional role of government in monetary policy is to protect the integrity of the monetary unit and defend against counterfeiters."

Why do you think Ron Paul has never been nominated? He doesn't get his campaign $$ from corporations. if it were the case, he would be number one right now!

Your making the argument more complicated than it needs to be. It's not possible in America's consumer economy, global, and special interests to achieve what you are hoping for. Complete separation of politics and lobbying ended with the creation of the Federal Reserve. Corporate influence will NEVER end in the US. Maybe we can put a stop to it during elections. But companies have the chance to bend the President, and his policies for four years! That's why there is so much flip-flopping in politics.

The way I see it is we do live in a corporatacy. The entire modern Consumer world does. And all of your claims about European countries getting rid of corporate influence are just completely false. The reason the European Union was formed was to protect certain companies that are now Multinational European Corporations! The European Union was formed so international barriers could be eliminated and trade or selling and buying for easy transactions between the countries would be as simple as between American States

http://en.wikipedia....man_declaration

Every single major Political Initiative has been funded or has been help grown by corporations! It's the sole reason America is a world power, or any country for the matter.

[KingstonDon]

Ron Paul, "The Fed negates the very foundation of a free market by artificially manipulating the price and supply of money — the lifeblood of the economy. In a free market, interest rates, like the price of any other consumer good, are decentralized and set by the market. The only legitimate, Constitutional role of government in monetary policy is to protect the integrity of the monetary unit and defend against counterfeiters."

Why do you think Ron Paul has never been nominated? He doesn't get his campaign $$ from corporations. if it were the case, he would be number one right now!

Your making the argument more complicated than it needs to be. It's not possible in America's consumer economy, global, and special interests to achieve what you are hoping for. Complete separation of politics and lobbying ended with the creation of the Federal Reserve. Corporate influence will NEVER end in the US. Maybe we can put a stop to it during elections. But companies have the chance to bend the President, and his policies for four years! That's why there is so much flip-flopping in politics.

The way I see it is we do live in a corporatacy. The entire modern Consumer world does. And all of your claims about European countries getting rid of corporate influence are just completely false. The reason the European Union was formed was to protect certain companies that are now Multinational European Corporations! The European Union was formed so international barriers could be eliminated and trade or selling and buying for easy transactions between the countries would be as simple as between American States

http://en.wikipedia....man_declaration

Every single major Political Initiative has been funded or has been help grown by corporations! It's the sole reason America is a world power, or any country for the matter.

I feel I must answer to the blatant "know-it-all-ism" in this post.

Firstly, to answer to that Ron Paul quote. One of the reasons why many countries manipulate their currency is because they wish to protect (Incl. USA) their national industries by providing a de facto advantage in export when your currency is lower than that of the importer ( See: Yuan-manipulation). Otherwise when as a strong economy your currency is too high others won't import from you because of said cost. (See: Why Germany flourishes with the Euro) To let the Fed stop manipulating the dollar would absolutely devastate the American exports and expedite your economic decline in certain ways.

Secondly, "complete separation of politics and lobbying ended with the creation of the federal reserve?" . Did some history book dictate that when you found a central bank to help regulate and aid both currency and economy slightly you invite people to ask/bribe the government for earmarks or favoritism? I must have missed that class => explain your reasoning here please.

Third," And all of your claims about European countries getting rid of corporate influence are just completely false".This has been declared false by who now?
I'm not saying that a few countries haven't got any corrupt officials but to declare that "European countries haven't gotten rid of corporate influence" you must have some almighty source I haven't heard of, being a European resident myself. Personally, I don't visibly notice any impact of businesses/corporations on the policies in my tiny nation. I think they've done a great job regulating and controlling the negative side-effects of economic growth that Right-wing libertarians tend to forget about.
Growth is not and should not be the "holy grail" of a government, the objective to strife for. The objective should be growth with a nuance, that nuance being growth that is both sustainable and brings forth greater wellbeing/welfare and not expressly "Growth and prosperity".

Finally, I don't dispute the fact that the 1 market idea that reigns in the EU is good for businesses because that's what could bring Europe out of the devastation of The War and 60 years down the line both wellbeing and prosperity because businesses were allowed to grow without the burden of the cost that exchange rates can have on economies (Fully aware of some hick-ups recently + many other factors). Not to mention create a greater interdependence that would curtail the war ready behavior of the European states. (See: Franco-German enmity), (See: Anglo-Dutch wars), (See: Napoleonic era), (See: European nationalism late 19th century), just a few examples.

But the main thing is that over here neither political parties nor political figures have to be inherently funded by corporations or persons, so when or if there is a corrupt individual, it is just that, a corrupt individual. Not an entire party that feels it must aid in bringing the case of their lobbyist supporters forward in the spirit of "saving" the free market.

Take all my remarks with a grain of salt. My knowledge and understanding is not absolute but my knowledge of that prevents me from stating absolutes.

" Corporate influence will NEVER end in the US"

[jjf3]

It's funny arguing with Europeans how they think their own system is soo much better than the US where at most its only been as powerful as the US for the past 20 years. And is in as bad or worse condition than the US economy right now. Why do you think that is? Corrupt government took the place of corporations because the very rich set up the European Union. Europe is worse to fix than the US. There is corporate influence everywhere! CSR departments inside major companies. The Europeans think that Corporations should have social responsibilities where in reality, a company's main goal is to profit. I'm not so educated on the European Side of things, but I state again, you don't hear about the startup dot-com stories in Europe as you do with America. Businesses fuel growth and economic health not the government. This is why the Federal Reserve must go. It is a Financial institution that lobbies and controls the market alongside the government. We get rid of the Federal Reserve, we get rid of the majority of corporate influence on both the private and public sectors

There have been many instances where a corrupt individual, (who btw ruled the gov't) has the majority of the country's assets like Qaddafi in Libya. But there has never been a time where countries were afraid to trade with somebody because there businesses were doing too well. What type of anti-capitalism remark is that?

Europeans are soo brainwashed in their big government system that they see no other way towards economic health. That is not how we do it here in America. That is not how it should be done in America. Europeans have been trying to set up the same system forever, in different extreme forms. Hitlers One World Government, USSR, and now the failing EU. America has remained steady and pretty much unchanged, unlike the European Countries. I say unchanged because our states haven't succeeded from the nation, our borders haven't changed. Our entire name hasn't changed. We are successful and powerful because of our companies and businessman. You name one political motive that was not influenced by corporations? Wars, plots, laws etc...

One cannot exist without the other.

[Unrequited Lust]

It's funny arguing with Europeans how they think their own system is soo much better than the US where at most its only been as powerful as the US for the past 20 years. And is in as bad or worse condition than the US economy right now. Why do you think that is? Corrupt government took the place of corporations because the very rich set up the European Union. Europe is worse to fix than the US. There is corporate influence everywhere! CSR departments inside major companies. The Europeans think that Corporations should have social responsibilities where in reality, a company's main goal is to profit. I'm not so educated on the European Side of things, but I state again, you don't hear about the startup dot-com stories in Europe as you do with America. Businesses fuel growth and economic health not the government. This is why the Federal Reserve must go. It is a Financial institution that lobbies and controls the market alongside the government. We get rid of the Federal Reserve, we get rid of the majority of corporate influence on both the private and public sectors

There have been many instances where a corrupt individual, (who btw ruled the gov't) has the majority of the country's assets like Qaddafi in Libya. But there has never been a time where countries were afraid to trade with somebody because there businesses were doing too well. What type of anti-capitalism remark is that?

Europeans are soo brainwashed in their big government system that they see no other way towards economic health. That is not how we do it here in America. That is not how it should be done in America. Europeans have been trying to set up the same system forever, in different extreme forms. Hitlers One World Government, USSR, and now the failing EU. America has remained steady and pretty much unchanged, unlike the European Countries. I say unchanged because our states haven't succeeded from the nation, our borders haven't changed. Our entire name hasn't changed. We are successful and powerful because of our companies and businessman. You name one political motive that was not influenced by corporations? Wars, plots, laws etc...

One cannot exist without the other.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Stop posting about things of which you have limited knowledge and maybe you'll garner some respect on this forum. You're willfully ignorant. Stop making up your own facts.

[jjf3]

Oh yeah? You just keep on saying I'm wrong. I don't see you disproving this. Go ahead name one major move in politics that was not influenced by Corporations. I am not talking about the little things like change handgun laws. I am talking about major laws and wars and things to that nature. The richest people influence everything and there is little anybody can do about it in short of becoming one those rich people or destroying the entire society.

[jjf3]

From Encyclopedia.com

If we had data on every government in every culture, we would probably find that lobbying in some form is an inevitable concomitant of government.

Lobbying occurs at all levels of government in the United States: city, county, and state as well as national. Research on state lobbying is scattered and uneven, while research on city and county lobbying is almost nonexistent. About three-fourths of the fifty states have a lobby-regulation or lobbyreporting law, but in most cases these laws are rather weakly enforced.

So in other words, it will be very hard to get lobbying out of politics.

[KingstonDon]

From Encyclopedia.com

If we had data on every government in every culture, we would probably find that lobbying in some form is an inevitable concomitant of government.

Lobbying occurs at all levels of government in the United States: city, county, and state as well as national. Research on state lobbying is scattered and uneven, while research on city and county lobbying is almost nonexistent. About three-fourths of the fifty states have a lobby-regulation or lobbyreporting law, but in most cases these laws are rather weakly enforced.

So in other words, it will be very hard to get lobbying out of politics.

I agree it would be very hard.
But that doesn't mean the effort shouldn't be done to reduce it to the bear minimum.
It is a similar situation with traffic casualties, we will and must always try to reduce them to the bear minimum, even in knowledge that It can't be eliminated.

[jjf3]

Yeah but Unrequited Lust seems to think that we can and must eliminate all corporate lobbying and then everything will be A-Ok. I really think this is not true and next to impossible to implement. But there are things we can do to get less influence, but we can't eliminate it.

[Unrequited Lust]

This is the most bizarre campaign ad I've ever seen (meaning it's automatically from Herman Cain):

[truthiness]

All I get from that video is that Herman Cain will blow smoke in my face...

But then, this guy has never been good at advertising...

[wjfox]

Check out the latest poll.