The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[imaplanner]

Perhaps also to be known as the neverending imaplanner vs. TexanOkie thread (if he bites). If you don't like political discussions then mind your own business.

I'll start by asking a question based on TexOkie's recent post in random thoughts

Well, there's something you don't see/hear everyday - Democrats (i.e. Congress) going after Toyota and other foreign carmakers operating in the US (essentially drilling home the current safety problems through open, televised hearings and bringing up lack of union representation in their US manufacturing centers), and Rush Limbaugh defending them. 20 years (and significant ownership in GM on the part of Congress) changes a lot, doesn't it?

Do you really think that the democrats are going after Toyota because of the government's stake in GM? Personally- I think that there has been some pressure from consumer groups to investigate- because the scope of the recall is substantial and the fact that brakes are faulty on millions of cars on the road is a legitimate public safety concern. As far as Rush defending Toyota- I don't really see that as anything other than Rush disagreeing with EVRYTHING that the democrats do.

I'm also curious to have somebody explain to me what the current republican party stands for. What ideas do they have for helping the country get back on track, what ideas do they have to fix the economy, and how would they go about fixing health care (assuming that they believe health care needs to be fixed).

[TexanOkie]

I'm afraid this is going to be a short-lived thread, at least on this particular topic, because I agree with you 100% on everything you posted about the Toyota hearings and Rush's defense. In other words, no, I don't agree with the parenthetical rationale I provided for the Toyota hearings, and I think Rush just has the oppozutics on this one.

As to your last paragraph, I've gone into GOP proposals on important current issues in other threads (especially the SOTU thread), and I'm not particularly inclined to repeat something that's already been said. Either that, or you're going to have a do a lot better job baiting me into a discussion...

However, this thread does provide a great place for general political observations, which I'm sure will lead to discussion, and as a place for the mods to transfer political topics in other non-political threads that get heated, thereby allowing them to continue without hijacking the original thread.

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Yup, each annoying subject should stand on its own and be hashed over like the ground of the Somme!

[imaplanner]

As to your last paragraph, I've gone into GOP proposals on important current issues in other threads (especially the SOTU thread), and I'm not particularly inclined to repeat something that's already been said. Either that, or you're going to have a do a lot better job baiting me into a discussion...

.

Well lets talk health care.

2. Health Care - The House GOP has offered numerous amendments, bills, and also an entire alternative bill to the Pelosi bill that the House leadership has refused to open for debate. If this bill is not "realistic", how do you manage to draw the conclusion that the sweeping policy bill offered up by the Democratic leadership is? <http://republicans.waysandmeans.hous...bility_Act.pdf>

The cbo analysis shows that the GOP alternative bill would do very little to reduce the number of uninsured, would save the federal government less money than the democratic proposal, and would actually increase premiums for some people.

I agree the dem bill sucks- but the repub bill seems even worse. Do you support the GOP alternative? I don't support the democratic health bill. But I think that it is better than the republican one and I really wish that the two parties would stop being such a$$hats and work together. I see republican obstruction as the principal reason why that is not happening.

4. Budget/Deficit - And, once again, the GOP has proposed numerous actions to reduce the deficit and debt, including reducing spending (both discretionary AND entitlement), increased tax incentives and tax cuts (much deeper than Obama's proposal, including key tax suspensions), and saved vital spending in the same categories Obama mentioned in the SOTU. They even proposed an alternate budget with these policies. <http://www.gop.gov/download?folder=b...gop-budget.pdf>

Here are some good discussions on the republican budget

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020501840.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr..._budget_p.html

I think its important to note that while it is great for reducing the deficit, its pretty extreme. It seems it would have some drastically negative impacts on certain segments of the population. Other republicans are backing away from this proposed budget and I think its fair to say that if the republicans were in charge they would not support this budget (it would be political suicide to do so). So its not a realistic budget- and certainly not something that I think you could point to to argue that the republicans have legitimate ideas on how to solve the economic crisis.

[Hink]

If you would have asked my a year maybe two ago, I would have had a much different opinion on Healthcare than I do today. I find it amazing that both parties have messed this up so badly.

I blame the R's for really doing nothing. For making sure that NOTHING gets done. And for making doing something so darn political.

I blame the D's for putting up a bill that people don't want. I still don't know if I believe in Universal Healthcare, but what I have been shown does not prove that it will work. I think that if the D's would have actually had the discussion (note that I didn't say trap...ugh) that they are going to have on the 25th with the R's in the beginning, none of this political B.S. would have happened. The R's would have no right to say that they weren't listened to.

If the D's would just pick what they wanted to reform...insurance or coverage... they would do much better. If they want to provide a better insurance system in the U.S. then they could use some of the R's ideas in terms of Tort Reform, Individual Health Savings Accounts, etc. to create a package of items that will help create better insurance policies and help people keep lower rates. If they wanted to assure that EVERY American is covered, then they need to look at ways to create incentives to make people want to be covered, like charging for Emergency Room visits, or having a list of Costs for procedures. You want to go to the Hospital for a runny nose it will cost you $25. You go to your PCP and it is free.

I think that there needs to be much more accountability for people in the system.

The D's messed up the process and the R's are just being whiny, cry-babies. R's can't even support Healthcare now, because if they did, another R would doesn't would win the primary over them. You can't even support things that traditional R's support unless it is Conservative MAXXXX.


ps. Thank you IP, as I have stated before, I want a place to vent Political junk. Nice work.

[Whose Yur Planner]

You should read what Evan Bayh said after he announced he was going to retire. He retired eventhough he was a shoo in for reelection. The problems are multiple. As Bayh said, it's a permanent campaign now. Considering a senators term is 6 years-that means they are campaigning the whole time. Further, they are making decisions based on how it will affect their campaign, not what's good for the County.

Our system as devolved into a bread and circuses approach to governing. It's a sick form of entertainment that's constantly covered by the media. There are too many people benefitting from this media circus.

[TexanOkie]

Republican obstructionism and politicizing, eh?

Explain this: Senate Axes Bipartisan Jobs Bill

My favorite quote:

"Our side isn't sure that the Republicans are real interested in developing good policy and to move forward together,' said Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del. 'Instead, they are more inclined to play rope-a-dope again. My own view is, let's test them."

Okay, so the Democrats complain that Republicans are being nothing but obstructionists and aren't willing to work out a compromise, but when GOP and Democratic lawmakers actually create a compromise bill that had widespread bipartisan support, the Dems say it's not enough and want to get more of their agenda passed at the expense of bipartisanship. And then they mask their action by condescendingly saying the GOP isn't "interested in developing good policy" and moving "forward together", as if their political ideology has a monopoly on good policy, and that compromise to them actually means the GOP surrendering to their will.

[mgk920]

You should read what Evan Bayh said after he announced he was going to retire. He retired eventhough he was a shoo in for reelection. The problems are multiple. As Bayh said, it's a permanent campaign now. Considering a senators term is 6 years-that means they are campaigning the whole time. Further, they are making decisions based on how it will affect their campaign, not what's good for the County.

Our system as devolved into a bread and circuses approach to governing. It's a sick form of entertainment that's constantly covered by the media. There are too many people benefitting from this media circus.

On that subject, I'm growing angrier at the states that are constantly advancing the dates of their presidential primary elections and cauci, to the point of them becoming absurd. What is so sacrosanct about Iowa and New Hampshire being first out of the box that they are now almost a FULL YEAR before the general election? We now have the general election candidates set in MID WINTER - and a *LOT* can happen between then and November!

Back in 1968, LBJ dropped out of the race for re-election in LATE MARCH, about the time that he had his clock cleaned out in the Wisconsin primary. Now our state's primaries (both parties) are useless.



Mike

[imaplanner]

Republican obstructionism and politicizing, eh?

Explain this: Senate Axes Bipartisan Jobs Bill

My favorite quote:

"Our side isn't sure that the Republicans are real interested in developing good policy and to move forward together,' said Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del. 'Instead, they are more inclined to play rope-a-dope again. My own view is, let's test them."

Okay, so the Democrats complain that Republicans are being nothing but obstructionists and aren't willing to work out a compromise, but when GOP and Democratic lawmakers actually create a compromise bill that had widespread bipartisan support, the Dems say it's not enough and want to get more of their agenda passed at the expense of bipartisanship. And then they mask their action by condescendingly saying the GOP isn't "interested in developing good policy" and moving "forward together", as if their political ideology has a monopoly on good policy, and that compromise to them actually means the GOP surrendering to their will.

Well what I have heard is that the negotiations in comittee led to ridiculous add ons that would have had absolutely nothing to do with job creation - the article you reference even lists giveaways to catfish farmers as one provision. The add-ons were made in order to get the republicans to support the bill- but that the democrats got wind that the republicans were going to vote en mass against it - claiming that it would do little for job creation. Pretty much just what they did with the first stimulus. What Reid is talking about now is a smaller bill that focuses more on tax cuts- why would the republicans be against that?

[TexanOkie]

Well what I have heard is that the negotiations in comittee led to ridiculous add ons that would have had absolutely nothing to do with job creation - the article you reference even lists giveaways to catfish farmers as one provision. The add-ons were made in order to get the republicans to support the bill- but that the democrats got wind that the republicans were going to vote en mass against it - claiming that it would do little for job creation. Pretty much just what they did with the first stimulus. What Reid is talking about now is a smaller bill that focuses more on tax cuts- why would the republicans be against that?

I don't know why Republicans would be against that or even that that are, as I'm not familiar with the latest bill you referenced. I will say that questioning why the GOP would be against tax cuts is almost as bad as questing why Democrats would be against a tax hike. It plays on stereotypes that may or may not be true, as it depends on what/how the tax cut/hike is being proposed, although I will admit GOP/tax cuts bit does have a bit more bite than the converse statement I mentioned about Dems/tax hikes.

Frankly, I'm probably with Duke about this whole thread, in that I'm not big on finding arguments just to argue, even if I do enjoy argument as an academic discipline. It has to be topical and I have to be moved to either make a point or (more often) dispute a point or assumption someone else made.

[Whose Yur Planner]

I don't know why Republicans would be against that or even that that are, as I'm not familiar with the latest bill you referenced. I will say that questioning why the GOP would be against tax cuts is almost as bad as questing why Democrats would be against a tax hike. It plays on stereotypes that may or may not be true, as it depends on what/how the tax cut/hike is being proposed, although I will admit GOP/tax cuts bit does have a bit more bite than the converse statement I mentioned about Dems/tax hikes.

Frankly, I'm probably with Duke about this whole thread, in that I'm not big on finding arguments just to argue, even if I do enjoy argument as an academic discipline. It has to be topical and I have to be moved to either make a point or (more often) dispute a point or assumption someone else made.

Not neccesarily, there is room for both generalized discussion and topics that are the issue du jour. Further, as Bayh pointed out, there can be interlocking ideas. Bayh hung 'em up for several reasons that are interlocking. The issue of the never-ending campaign, the pressure for constant fund raising, the ideolgical gridlock which is paralyzing the Senate, the need to overhaul the rules of the Senate. You can parse these ideas separately or discuss them as a whole. I voted for Bayh when I lived in Indiana and respected both him and his father. In fact, his father spoke to us when I was at Hoosier's Boy State. His absence will be keenly felt.

Paul Krugman wrote this for the New York Times on February 5th. It's an excellent piece that most people probably missed.

February 5, 2010, 10:44 am The Senate Becomes A Polish Joke
So, here’s the news from the Senate. Martha Johnson was nominated to head the General Services Administration, and was confirmed by a nearly unanimous vote — but only after having had her nomination held hostage for nine months by Senator Kit Bond, who wanted more pork for Kansas City. And now Senator Richard Shelby has placed a hold on — are you seated — all, all, Obama administration nominees, until he gets some pork for Alabama.

What’s going on? The Senate has rules based on the idea that it was a chamber of gentlemen who would find ways to work together. But now, 41 Senators belong to a party that has no interest in a working government, no desire to work with the majority in good faith.

There’s a precedent for all this. In effect, we’ve now become 17th-century Poland:

… with the rise of power held by Polish magnates, the unanimity principle was reinforced with the institution of the nobility’s right of liberum veto (Latin for “I freely forbid”). If the envoys were unable to reach a unanimous decision within six weeks (the time limit of a single session), deliberations were declared null and void. From the mid-17th century onward, any objection to a Sejm resolution — by either an envoy or a senator — automatically caused the rejection of other, previously approved resolutions. This was because all resolutions passed by a given session of the Sejm formed a whole resolution, and, as such, was published as the annual constitution of the Sejm, e.g., Anno Domini 1667. In the 16th century, no single person or small group dared to hold up proceedings, but, from the second half of the 17th century, the liberum veto was used to virtually paralyze the Sejm, and brought the Commonwealth to the brink of collapse.

“Brink of collapse”: get used to that concept.

[imaplanner]

I don't know why Republicans would be against that or even that that are, as I'm not familiar with the latest bill you referenced. I will say that questioning why the GOP would be against tax cuts is almost as bad as questing why Democrats would be against a tax hike. It plays on stereotypes that may or may not be true, as it depends on what/how the tax cut/hike is being proposed, although I will admit GOP/tax cuts bit does have a bit more bite than the converse statement I mentioned about Dems/tax hikes.

Frankly, I'm probably with Duke about this whole thread, in that I'm not big on finding arguments just to argue, even if I do enjoy argument as an academic discipline. It has to be topical and I have to be moved to either make a point or (more often) dispute a point or assumption someone else made.

I agree with everything you said here.

I don't know that I want to argue just to argue, and perhaps I need to tone down some of my rhetoric about the republican party in general (if I can). I guess what interests me the most at the moment is trying to find some realistic policy positions/proposals that the republican party actually has at the moment (not necessarily congressional republicans- because like I said before I DO believe they are just being obstructionists). The reason this interests me is that the democrats are proving once again that they can not do anything right - and even when they do they do it badly. I'm honesty inclined as of late to vote against the democrats in future elections, but I just can't bring myself to vote for any republicans because I can't find anything they say as of late that I agree with.

Further- the principal reason why I created the thread was to have a place to talk general on and off-topic politcs without getting threads closed or getting negative remarks from other cyburbians. Perhaps general discussions aren't what this thread needs and maybe once more "political news" that is worth discussion comes up it can be posted in here for discussion.

[TexanOkie]

I guess what interests me the most at the moment is trying to find some realistic policy positions/proposals that the republican party actually has at the moment (not necessarily congressional republicans- because like I said before I DO believe they are just being obstructionists).

I don't understand how the GOP can offer policy positions or proposals at the current time other than through it's Congressional members - they're the only ones in a position where they can do so. And it has been through members of Congress that most of the policy proposals I've mentioned have come about. Now, I'll admit there's a lack of strong leadership within the Republican party right now, but also - I think the way the GOP, as an organization in and of itself (chairman, committees, etc), functions might also be different than the way the DNC operates. The RNC is not a think tank (no jokes, please, you all know what I mean here). It is instead an campaign machine. Only once leadership has been established does it craft an official platform. In periods where there is not strong leadership (i.e. no election and no GOP president), policy proposals fall to it's Congressional delegation. This only exaggerates the current leadership issues, since the GOP has no control over Congress except to say "no".

In other words, if you want to hear policy proposals from the GOP, but do not want to hear policy proposals from the GOP Congressional delegation, that's just not the way it works. You should be looking to the Congressional delegation, because it most likely will be from those ranks and from those proposals from those ranks that the next leadership, presidential candidates, and platform positions will come.

On one more thing, you noted that you don't deem the proposals I listed as "realistic". Well, that may be, politically. But you're missing the main point - getting some debate started. It's examined well in this Feb. 3 Ross Douthat blog post from the New York Times: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/201...-ryans-moment/.

[imaplanner]

Not neccesarily, there is room for both generalized discussion and topics that are the issue du jour. Further, as Bayh pointed out, there can be interlocking ideas. Bayh hung 'em up for several reasons that are interlocking. The issue of the never-ending campaign, the pressure for constant fund raising, the ideolgical gridlock which is paralyzing the Senate, the need to overhaul the rules of the Senate. You can parse these ideas separately or discuss them as a whole. I voted for Bayh when I lived in Indiana and respected both him and his father. In fact, his father spoke to us when I was at Hoosier's Boy State. His absence will be keenly felt.

Paul Krugman wrote this for the New York Times on February 5th. It's an excellent piece that most people probably missed.

February 5, 2010, 10:44 am The Senate Becomes A Polish Joke
So, here’s the news from the Senate. Martha Johnson was nominated to head the General Services Administration, and was confirmed by a nearly unanimous vote — but only after having had her nomination held hostage for nine months by Senator Kit Bond, who wanted more pork for Kansas City. And now Senator Richard Shelby has placed a hold on — are you seated — all, all, Obama administration nominees, until he gets some pork for Alabama.

What’s going on? The Senate has rules based on the idea that it was a chamber of gentlemen who would find ways to work together. But now, 41 Senators belong to a party that has no interest in a working government, no desire to work with the majority in good faith.

.

Shelby placed the hold because he wanted the military contract to be given to a foreign company (EADS) over an American Company (Boeing). What a wonderful American

I don't understand how the GOP can offer policy positions or proposals at the current time other than through it's Congressional members - they're the only ones in a position where they can do so. And it has been through members of Congress that most of the policy proposals I've mentioned have come about. Now, I'll admit there's a lack of strong leadership within the Republican party right now, but also - I think the way the GOP, as an organization in and of itself (chairman, committees, etc), functions might also be different than the way the DNC operates. The RNC is not a think tank (no jokes, please, you all know what I mean here). It is instead an campaign machine. Only once leadership has been established does it craft an official platform. In periods where there is not strong leadership (i.e. no election and no GOP president), policy proposals fall to it's Congressional delegation. This only exaggerates the current leadership issues, since the GOP has no control over Congress except to say "no".

In other words, if you want to hear policy proposals from the GOP, but do not want to hear policy proposals from the GOP Congressional delegation, that's just not the way it works. You should be looking to the Congressional delegation, because it most likely will be from those ranks and from those proposals from those ranks that the next leadership, presidential candidates, and platform positions will come.

Ok. I tried. Forget it. Perhaps when the republican leadership comes up with something actually worth discussing we can discuss it.

[mgk920]

Ok. I tried. Forget it. Perhaps when the republican leadership comes up with something actually worth discussing we can discuss it.

Alright, what is something that they could come up with that will be worth discussing?



Mike

[wahday]

The RNC is not a think tank (no jokes, please, you all know what I mean here). It is instead an campaign machine. Only once leadership has been established does it craft an official platform.

And I think that is it in a nutshell. This is a huge problem not just for the party, but for the entire nation. Too much focus is being put on jockeying for being "not-Obama" and the next election than on actually finding a stance or set of proposals/ideas/strategies to move us toward some corrective path. These are dire times that require concrete responses- responses that can be measured and adjusted, scrapped or built on to get us back on track.

The result of this short-sided behavior, in my mind, is that the opposition to the Democrats and the administration remains vague, ever-shifting and ill-defined. And I think this is somewhat deliberate because those who are conservative and feel upset by all the crap that is falling around us (and I won't dwell on how I think we got here to begin with) generally tend to "fill in the gaps" on what direction things should go in. I think this vaguery is also what fuels things like the Tea Partiers. If these folks had to get down to brass tacks, I suspect they might find less agreement than when they speak in general terms - smaller government, lower or no taxes, etc. Once one has to consider the implications of such things (what proposals would actually look like) the devil crops up in the details. It should not be about the next election right now - it should be about doing what needs to be done. But I fear that is asking too much.

Again, I feel we are in very very serious times, but the children up on the hill can't seem to stop squabbling long enough to respond responsibly to it. And while I feel there is obstructionist posturing on both sides of the isle, it is my opinion that the Republicans are the worse culprits right now. And this is precisely because they are not putting forth substantial proposals from the conservative side. They just care about the next election and the scoreboard.

And so, the reason I say the nation suffers is because, in an ideal situation, we should be able to lay out all the best ideas (that is, approaches, concepts and strategies that have some kind of proven track record), look at the problems at hand, and develop a way forward. And again, the way forward should be devoid of partisanship - various approaches should have some sort of quantifiable measurement tool attached to them to see if they are actually providing the results that are desired and, if so, they are kept. If not, try something else.

But we seem so far from achieving anything like this. It really pains me, but I feel more and more like our governmental structure is broken.

[Hink]

I have and will continue to voice my displeasure in the Tea Party people. Other than the fact that most of them don't know what they are talking about (Tea Party because of the Boston Tea Party... really?), how to have civil political discourse, or ability to compromise their values for the greater good, I am worried about what it is doing to our political system.

I think many people have this belief that it is Obama. That his policies are really going to end this nation. All we need is Sarah Palin or some other UBER Conservative and all will be right again, we will be safe, and good will prevail. The problem is that no matter if we get a R or a D in the White House we are killing the ability of our legislature to get things done. Remember the girl who thought that once Obama got in office she wasn't going to have to pay for gas anymore? The same will be for these Tea people. Things aren't going to just get better because some of their policies will get a more favorable light.

The problem that we have now is the ability of misinformation or fear mongering by both sides to muddy the waters. They can do it in seconds now. We can kill a debate in seconds by throwing out lies, big or small, to try and scare the other side. The Dems do it by saying how the R's don't care about the poor. The R's do it by saying the Dems are un-American or looking to socialize our country. To me, this type of rhetoric and disingenuous "news" is what is killing our country.

I can guarantee that in 2012 if a R or D runs on fiscal conservative principles, with socially moderate or liberal leaning they will win. Stay on the topics of fiscal responsibility, lowering of the debt, and restructuring social security and medi-care/caid. This will get you moderate conservatives and blue dog dems. Work to help create equity in the Gay community in terms of marriage rights and spousal rights under the law. This will get you the gay community and moderate social liberals. Look at our baseline standards of living and work to create streamlined programs to keep it moving up. You will get the poor and under-utilized. The independents will be the key to 2012... moderation is key.

[TexanOkie]

I can guarantee that in 2012 if a R or D runs on fiscal conservative principles, with socially moderate or liberal leaning they will win.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. The question is: will either party produce such a candidate? You think it'd be a no-brainer, but apparently both parties can't seem to act on a no-brainer. They don't understand the no-brainer. They can only echo no-brainer rhetoric.

[Hink]

Not often do I think that America is so right, but boy did I get a vote of confidence today...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137

Now the question is, what do we do about the Supreme Court messing this up so badly? Constitutional Amendment? If we go there, shouldn't we just clear up all the campaign issues? Individual Funding, PACs, Corporations, Lobbying groups, etc.

[imaplanner]

Not often do I think that America is so right, but boy did I get a vote of confidence today...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137

Now the question is, what do we do about the Supreme Court messing this up so badly? Constitutional Amendment? If we go there, shouldn't we just clear up all the campaign issues? Individual Funding, PACs, Corporations, Lobbying groups, etc.

But where do all the electeds fall on this? I think alot of them do not support changing the constitution to deal with this. God knows they don't seem to be too concerned with public opinion lately

[mgk920]

It would be dangerous *to the extreme* to go messing with the First Amendment in a knee-jerk reaction to that USSupreme Court decision - if that is done and the precedent is set, what then will there be to protect *YOU* if the political speech police winds would start blowing your way?



Mike

[imaplanner]

It would be dangerous *to the extreme* to go messing with the First Amendment in a knee-jerk reaction to that USSupreme Court decision - if that is done and the precedent is set, what then will there be to protect *YOU* if the political speech police winds would start blowing your way?



Mike

I don't think it necessarily needs to be a first amendment issue. Perhaps just something clarifying that corporations are not people and therefore not entitled to the same rights. I mean - corporations are instruments that the government allows to be created and given certain rights that people do not have. The government sets conditions by which LLC's can be created and specifically limits their liability.

Do you really believe that corporations should get to have their cake and eat it to? In otehr words, should they be allowed to have every right that a person has while having none of the responsibilities of a person?

[TexanOkie]

I don't think it necessarily needs to be a first amendment issue. Perhaps just something clarifying that corporations are not people and therefore not entitled to the same rights. I mean - corporations are instruments that the government allows to be created and given certain rights that people do not have. The government sets conditions by which LLC's can be created and specifically limits their liability.

Do you really believe that corporations should get to have their cake and eat it to? In otehr words, should they be allowed to have every right that a person has while having none of the responsibilities of a person?

How do they have none of the responsibilities of a person? Because the corporate legal structure differentiates a corporate entity's assets and liabilities from those of the people working for/owning said corporation? The corporation is still on the line for all of it's assets/liabilities, just like individual people are for their own. Are you ultimately suggesting a new legal business structure based solely on partnerships and private ownership? I'm not quite sure I understand.

[imaplanner]

How do they have none of the responsibilities of a person? Because the corporate legal structure differentiates a corporate entity's assets and liabilities from those of the people working for/owning said corporation? The corporation is still on the line for all of it's assets/liabilities, just like individual people are for their own. Are you ultimately suggesting a new legal business structure based solely on partnerships and private ownership? I'm not quite sure I understand.

Its not all about money. Limited liability means more they are limited in their liability for more than just financial assets. Perhaps the most obvious discrepancy in responsibilities is when it comes to harrassment and murder. How come if something that I do causes another human being to die I get charged with murder but the same doesn't happen when corporations do something that results in people dying?

[wahday]

I don't think it necessarily needs to be a first amendment issue. Perhaps just something clarifying that corporations are not people and therefore not entitled to the same rights. I mean - corporations are instruments that the government allows to be created and given certain rights that people do not have. The government sets conditions by which LLC's can be created and specifically limits their liability.

Do you really believe that corporations should get to have their cake and eat it to? In otehr words, should they be allowed to have every right that a person has while having none of the responsibilities of a person?

I think you are headed in the right direction, here, but I agree with others saying that the implications of changing this definition are far ranging and extend not just to curtailing the impact of corporations, but also in how they can be held accountable for misconduct. Its a big fat mess, legally speaking, but I think this status and how corporate law is applied is at the core of the Supreme Court decision.

Remember, for example, that non-profits are also corporations.

This is from the Wikipedia page on corporations:

Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state, and they may be responsible for human rights violations. Just as they are "born" into existence through its members obtaining a certificate of incorporation, they can "die" when they lose money into insolvency. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, such as fraud and manslaughter.