• It's easy to sign up and post! Register with a working email address (we won't give it to others, or spam you), or through Facebook, Twitter, or a Microsoft ID. Google and LinkedIn coming soon. 🙂

The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

mgk920

Cyburbian
Messages
4,200
Likes
1
Points
20
#21
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?

:-c

Mike
 
Messages
6,675
Likes
0
Points
22
#22
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?

:-c

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?
 
Messages
2,904
Likes
0
Points
10
#23
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.
 
Messages
6,675
Likes
0
Points
22
#24
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

Cyburbian
Messages
3,968
Likes
0
Points
0
#25
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.
 
Messages
2,904
Likes
0
Points
10
#27
There's a series of articles on the National Review's website today about whether or not our country is ungovernable due to government structural problems (http://article.nationalreview.com/425416/ungovernable-nonsense/charles-krauthammer?page=1, http://article.nationalreview.com/425445/pick-an-excuse-any-excuse/jonah-goldberg?page=1, and http://article.nationalreview.com/425485/blame-obama-not-the-system/rich-lowry). I think they were written to respond to recent columns by Paul Krugman in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/opinion/08krugman.html), Jonathan Chait in The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/america-ungovernable), and Michael Cohen in Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/232451). This whole topic plays in well with the majority consensus of the posts in this thread and others by left-leaning Cyburbians about "Republican obstructionism".
 

wahday

Cyburbian
Messages
3,968
Likes
0
Points
0
#28
Here is another story about "broken government" form the Atlantic Monthly. Its long, but rather good. The initial question is whether American society is on the brink of collapse and the author's conclusion is that, not only is this a question/feeling people have always had, but that we are really ok. There is a problem afoot though, he says, and its government dysfunction. I'm not sure the conclusion absolves the Republicans from their current role in it all, but it implicated the Democrats as well.

From the conclusion:

I started out this process uncertain; I ended up convinced. America the society is in fine shape! America the polity most certainly is not. Over the past half century, both parties have helped cause this predicament—Democrats by unintentionally giving governmental efforts a bad name in the 1960s and ’70s, Republicans by deliberately doing so from the Reagan era onward. At the moment, Republicans are objectively the more nihilistic, equating public anger with the sentiment that “their” America has been taken away and defining both political and substantive success as stopping the administration’s plans. As a partisan tactic, this could make sense; for the country, it’s one more sign of dysfunction, and of the near-impossibility of addressing problems that require truly public efforts to solve.
 
Messages
6,675
Likes
0
Points
22
#30
Here is a good read (IMO) about the extreme hypocrisy of the right as of late. It examines the 2003 medicare part D entitlement expansion and statement/actions of current republican leaders then and now.
 

Bear Up North

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
9,327
Likes
0
Points
0
#31
John Mellencamp is being touted as a candidate for what will be an open Senate seat from the state of Indiana. Interesting. Small town guy. Loves farmers. Popular entertainer. Might be a tough opponent for any "Tea Party" candidate.

Think about the number of celebrity-types that have been elected to office. Here are a few.....

Ronald Ray-Gunz
Jesse Ventura
That dude from Love Boat
Sonny Bono
Al Franken

As always, complimentary vid.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOfkpu6749w

Bear
 

Hink

OH....IO
Moderator
Messages
13,847
Likes
9
Points
29
#32
I think it is funny that drudgereport and other conservative blogs are going crazy that Scott Brown voted for the Jobs Bill. If you think for a minute, he is voting for his constituency and not for his party. Why would you get mad at him for that? Isn't that his job? Those who felt that his election was a win for the R's are the one's who are trying to widen the crater between parties. He was elected because he was the better candidate. I am glad to see that he isn't bending like other newly elected officials.

I think I could like this guy. Good for you Scott Brown.
 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Staff member
Messages
24,467
Likes
10
Points
40
#33
If you think for a minute, he is voting for his constituency and not for his party. Why would you get mad at him for that?
A legislator can either vote in accord with his conscience, his party, or his constituency. All of these are a correct basis....and an incorrect basis. A Democratic politician in Berkeley, CA or a Republican politician in Bismark, ND have it easy as all three are probably synonymous. Folks holding public office in less politically homogenous places have a tougher job.
 

fringe

Cyburbian
Messages
622
Likes
0
Points
0
#34
"...Think about the number of celebrity-types that have been elected to office. Here are a few....."

Don't forget St. Ronald of Reagan.
 
Messages
9,917
Likes
7
Points
25
#36
For all the state's rights people......

Gov. Mitch Daniels: States must tighten their belts even more
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who ran the US government’s budget office for George W. Bush, says all 50 states will need to permanently tighten their belts – and, thus, do less for citizens.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels expects that the 50 states will need to permanently tighten their belts.


By Dave Cook Staff writer / February 23, 2010

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who ran the US government’s budget office for George W. Bush, expects that the 50 states will need to permanently tighten their belts and do less for their citizens.

Because of the economic contraction, the Republican governor foresees “a long-term contraction in the scope of what states are doing,” he said at a Monitor-sponsored breakfast for reporters on Tuesday.

New report on state revenues
The recession without doubt has left states in financial trouble, as tax collections have fallen. (The Monitor writes about states facing the severest problems here.) State tax revenues declined 4.1 percent nationwide during the final three months of 2009, according to a new report by the Rockefeller Institute of Government.

Five straight quarters of year-over-year decline set a record, the Institute said, with both income-tax and sales-tax revenue falling during the entire five-quarter period.

When a recovery comes, Governor Daniels says, “states cannot expect the sort of rapid snap back in revenues that had been the case in the past.” The reason, he argues, is that in the past Americans “spent more than they took in. They borrowed on their credit card, against the paper value of their house – things they won’t be able to do or won’t do going forward.” As a result, he says, “consumption is going to be at permanently lower levels.”

States to feel consumers' caution
Greater consumer caution on spending will mean less tax revenue for states. “States get most of their most of their money, the largest piece I should say, from sales taxes,” Daniels says.

As a result, the expected economic recovery will not solve states’ budgetary woes. “Yes, revenues will start to rise again, let's hope, but they will not get back on the trend line as they had in previous recessions,” he says.

“For states," Daniels wrote in a recent op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, “the real world is about to arrive.”


The Feds get involved because of this sort of thing.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Moderator
Messages
13,847
Likes
9
Points
29
#37
The Feds get involved because of this sort of thing.

I foresee this being the entry point to discussion about our tax code. If they are not bringing in enough taxes from people and we have actually changed the way we operate with money, the fed is going to have to reevaluate how we are taxed.

I am all for lower taxes, etc., etc. but in the end the government will get their taxes. Live in Florida and pay NO INCOME taxes... but get taxed out the a$$ for property taxes... the same can be said for many places. If the government isn't getting the taxes they need, they will find a way to get it done.

I think in this time of people hating government, raising taxes is going to be a tough pill to swallow for a lot of people. Maybe it will be a starting point to relook at how we tax, what we tax, and the system that facilitates this. Fair Tax anyone?
 
Messages
6,675
Likes
0
Points
22
#38
I foresee this being the entry point to discussion about our tax code. If they are not bringing in enough taxes from people and we have actually changed the way we operate with money, the fed is going to have to reevaluate how we are taxed.

I am all for lower taxes, etc., etc. but in the end the government will get their taxes. Live in Florida and pay NO INCOME taxes... but get taxed out the a$$ for property taxes... the same can be said for many places. If the government isn't getting the taxes they need, they will find a way to get it done.

I think in this time of people hating government, raising taxes is going to be a tough pill to swallow for a lot of people. Maybe it will be a starting point to relook at how we tax, what we tax, and the system that facilitates this. Fair Tax anyone?
A fair tax would be horribly regressive. The problem is not so much with our tax system- but primarily with the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Here is a nice pretty graph that clearly shows where the problem really started.

http://www.heritage.org/research/fe...ding-growing-faster-than-federal-revenue.aspx
 

mgk920

Cyburbian
Messages
4,200
Likes
1
Points
20
#39
A fair tax would be horribly regressive. The problem is not so much with our tax system- but primarily with the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Here is a nice pretty graph that clearly shows where the problem really started.

http://www.heritage.org/research/fe...ding-growing-faster-than-federal-revenue.aspx
I *HATE* the terms 'progressive' and 'regressive' in regards to taxation - they do nothing but play into the class-envy line of politics. (BTW, for you religious types, 'envy' is one of the cardinal sins of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ox nor (donkey) nor any other thing".)

One of the biggest problems with highly 'progressive' tax schemes (besides their very real disincentives for people to succeed) is that they are unreliable sources of revenue to the extreme - if the 'filthy rich' are not earning anything (or are - gasp :-c - losing money), they are *NOT* paying any high-rate income taxes - and this current recession has been HAMMERING the upper classes. If you will note, most states and the feds are now seeing fairly steep drops in tax revenues with the steepest percentage drops being in the jurisdictions with the most 'progressive' rate charts.

I also *HATE* the complexity and intrusiveness of the Internal Revenue Code - I can't make heads or tails out of most of it, to the point that my eyes simply start to glass over whenever I start pondering it and when I start getting ready to fill out the forms.

BTW, as I have read it, the 'Fairtax' proposal totally ignores income and does not tax spending up to the poverty level (flat rate on spending above the poverty level) - so it *does* have a level of that 'progressivity' that many desire. And the BIG reason why many pols don't like it is because the income tax gives them near total control over average peoples' lives by rewarding and punishing their pet causes, while the Fairtax would eliminate all of that.

Mike
 
Messages
3,872
Likes
0
Points
0
#40
I foresee this being the entry point to discussion about our tax code. If they are not bringing in enough taxes from people and we have actually changed the way we operate with money, the fed is going to have to reevaluate how we are taxed.

I am all for lower taxes, etc., etc. but in the end the government will get their taxes. Live in Florida and pay NO INCOME taxes... but get taxed out the a$$ for property taxes... the same can be said for many places. If the government isn't getting the taxes they need, they will find a way to get it done.

I think in this time of people hating government, raising taxes is going to be a tough pill to swallow for a lot of people. Maybe it will be a starting point to relook at how we tax, what we tax, and the system that facilitates this. Fair Tax anyone?
Agree that governments will get what they needs in terms of taxes, and then some. The problem is that they'll never stop taxing because of the need to support all the inefficient/wasteful programs and services that are politically impossible to cut. Look at NY and CA, pretty much two states that are on the brink of failure because of the inability to cut spending, largely due to a lack of political will but also due to structural problems like labor agreements and in CA's case the stupid referendum system.
 
Top