| Author |
 Topic  |
|
giddyup99
Penny Pincher Member
USA
154 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2010 : 20:37:35
|
I see no problem with what he said.
What argument/point are you trying to make cptindy? |
Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want. |
 |
|
|
cptindy
Penny Hoarding Member
572 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2010 : 08:05:49
|
I can respect that let me elaborate,
In my "opinion" corporations are allowed a global shield that offers the ability to skirt any implications other than profit. Our constitution is Americas moral code to conducting life and business in a free world without oppression. Operations of said companies have not created a value to our country in fact it has done the complete opposite in that billions of dollars are siphoned away with no true value returned to the people. They are able to set up tax free operations over seas yet reap the reward of a government contract. Then claim allegiance with some politician and finance their agenda for more government contracts. This said allegiance is then manipulated to the benefit of a corporate profit and not for any peoples of this Republic.
The particular statement was that corporations "have to create real value to acquire money and power". This from my perspective is not the case. What I see is an arrangement with a slim margin of politicians at the "prospect" of future rewards (albeit PAC's) to these politicians for their governmental vote to follow their wishes in a greed scenario.
The corporation is all about profit this statement I agree with. The politician or elected official is to have the best wishes of its constituency to look after. When a corporation is allowed to be part of that process (with its essence being profit) the greed takes over and the voters wishes "used and manipulated" only to the benefit of said "profit". "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".
The corporation has no soul in that it does not and will not have a belief in anything other than its bottom line. With that said they always and will have the ability to change direction or belief as it relates to the "profit". Therefor I cannot align myself with any entity that can change ideology like the wind blows. Just ask some folks in the middle east how quickly the tide can turn when it comes to dealing with a "corporation". Did we not fund and arm O*a*a against the Russians covertly? (Among many others we now appose)(Yes corporation money allowed the ready cash to do such) When Governments and Corporations mingle for a common cause the bottom line is "profit".
Side note: The American Red Cross as it may ask for relief for Haitians is in no way obligated to give the proceeds and I mean all to the cause. Look it up!
My point is the Corporation once entangled with Government does not need to create value to succeed in this environment it merely needs favor.
I hope this helps illustrate my "opinion".
|
"It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting"
" The average man doesn't want to be free. He wants to be safe."
H.L. Mencken
http://silver-news-today.com/ |
|
|
|
giddyup99
Penny Pincher Member
USA
154 Posts |
 Posted - 01/31/2010 : 10:35:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by cptindy
I can respect that let me elaborate,
In my "opinion" corporations are allowed a global shield that offers the ability to skirt any implications other than profit. Our constitution is Americas moral code to conducting life and business in a free world without oppression. Operations of said companies have not created a value to our country in fact it has done the complete opposite in that billions of dollars are siphoned away with no true value returned to the people. They are able to set up tax free operations over seas yet reap the reward of a government contract. Then claim allegiance with some politician and finance their agenda for more government contracts. This said allegiance is then manipulated to the benefit of a corporate profit and not for any peoples of this Republic.
The particular statement was that corporations "have to create real value to acquire money and power". This from my perspective is not the case. What I see is an arrangement with a slim margin of politicians at the "prospect" of future rewards (albeit PAC's) to these politicians for their governmental vote to follow their wishes in a greed scenario.
The corporation is all about profit this statement I agree with. The politician or elected official is to have the best wishes of its constituency to look after. When a corporation is allowed to be part of that process (with its essence being profit) the greed takes over and the voters wishes "used and manipulated" only to the benefit of said "profit". "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".
The corporation has no soul in that it does not and will not have a belief in anything other than its bottom line. With that said they always and will have the ability to change direction or belief as it relates to the "profit". Therefor I cannot align myself with any entity that can change ideology like the wind blows. Just ask some folks in the middle east how quickly the tide can turn when it comes to dealing with a "corporation". Did we not fund and arm O*a*a against the Russians covertly? (Among many others we now appose)(Yes corporation money allowed the ready cash to do such) When Governments and Corporations mingle for a common cause the bottom line is "profit".
Side note: The American Red Cross as it may ask for relief for Haitians is in no way obligated to give the proceeds and I mean all to the cause. Look it up!
My point is the Corporation once entangled with Government does not need to create value to succeed in this environment it merely needs favor.
I hope this helps illustrate my "opinion".
Why not just reform the tax code making it more lucrative for businesses to keep their money here? Get rid of punitive taxation policies and businesses would have no motivation to shelter their money.
I think you might believe that these corporations are "hiding" money illegally offshore. This does happen, but quite rarely, and the money involved; relatively speaking is small. Now, there are multinational corporations who deliberately conduct operations within countries with low tax rates. They are still paying taxes; both foreign and domestic on this money, just not at the rate our government would like to take from them.
Just because Enron was bad, and Enron was a corporation, does not mean that all corporations are bad.
With that said, I don't see why a corporation should be concerned to bringing "value" or worth to any persons beyond the shareholders, employees, local communities, and the company itself. If they aren't able to do this, they don't get to be in business any longer. They don't exist for the greater good of society as a whole. Some would argue neither does our government any longer.
Our representatives are selected to voice the peoples wishes. Specific people, not the world or even entire countries. Regionally we all have different needs and wants that will never perfectly align with our neighbors. Consensus is sought for what will do the most good for the most amount of people (ideally). This occurs at the expense of others, sometimes even the majority.
This should not really be a discussion of whether a company creates value, which they obviously do, but rather if they should be able to collectively support publicly a candidate for office. I say yes.
I do see how some could view it as a "fox in the hen house" sort of situation, however.
|
Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want. |
|
|
|
cptindy
Penny Hoarding Member
572 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2010 : 12:05:21
|
I don't believe I stated that a company should or should not bring value only that some do not in response to an excerpted statement.
I also never stated that corporations were all bad only that co-mingling with government will mislead people.
I am in agreement that a corporation is about one thing profits and yes shareholders.It is that which makes me concerned about promoting a political prospect.
Yes you are putting a "fox in the hen house" with its profits and shareholders the only true benefactors.
To be on discussion my "opinion" is NO! Absolutely Not a Good Idea! Based on my previous statement!
I would be interested to know how you feel that allowing such practice somehow benefits "We the people"?
|
"It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting"
" The average man doesn't want to be free. He wants to be safe."
H.L. Mencken
http://silver-news-today.com/ |
|
|
|
giddyup99
Penny Pincher Member
USA
154 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2010 : 17:14:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by cptindy
I don't believe I stated that a company should or should not bring value only that some do not in response to an excerpted statement.
I also never stated that corporations were all bad only that co-mingling with government will mislead people.
I am in agreement that a corporation is about one thing profits and yes shareholders.It is that which makes me concerned about promoting a political prospect.
Yes you are putting a "fox in the hen house" with its profits and shareholders the only true benefactors.
To be on discussion my "opinion" is NO! Absolutely Not a Good Idea! Based on my previous statement!
I would be interested to know how you feel that allowing such practice somehow benefits "We the people"?
Incorrect. The business, shareholders, employees, subsidiary companies, manufacturers, shippers, etc. Even local municipalities benefit from higher tax revenue for schools, roads, and other needs.
You make it seem as if a business has no "skin in the game". They do, and the businesses are made up of people that do depend on fair taxation and regulation to exist. |
Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want. |
|
|
|
thogey
1000+ Penny Miser Member
USA
1617 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2010 : 21:29:21
|
| I'm a "member CEO,CFO" of a corporation. My business is composed of four people. We are just people who work hard and have opinions. At what point do we become evil and undeserving of the priviledge of contributing to the political process. I feel as if we do have skin in the game. |
Come to the new and improved realcent: http://realcent.org
|
|
|
|
theo
Penny Hoarding Member
USA
588 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2010 : 22:34:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by cptindy
Just curious!!!
Theo
"I think we agree that there is a serious problem when corporations and governments co-mingle, I just think that most oppression comes from unfettered government power. Corporations, at least, have to create real value to acquire money and power".
How much real value did Enron create? Or say Haliburton? How about the Federal Reserve? I must be confused as to true value.
I mean no disrespect here and am only trying to understand some folks perception.
Enron: Not a lot since their entire business model was scam and they broke more laws than I can name. However, justice was served since its most of its officers went to prison. I doubt that ACORN will ever see that type of justice.
Haliburton: They are an oil services company that I believe is almost soley responsible for building Iraq's oil infrastructure. They've done a lot of work in this country as well. I think the press made too much of the "no bid" contracts. If Cheney wasn't their former CEO you would never have heard of them.
The Federal Reserve: Although technically it maybe a corporation, in reality it is a banking cartel that is controlled by the government which probably violates the Sherman Anti-trust Act and the Clayton Act not to mention the Constitution. Not the best example.
As for examples of corporations creating value, how about those which make everything you eat, drive and wear. The fact that a corporation seeks to advance its self-interest in the form of profit, in my mind, makes it very controllable and accountable. Even the most powerful corporations are no more than six months from bankruptcy should they displease their customers.
If a corporation's quest for profit invalidates any rights it has to political speech, then maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote; because, after all, you do work for money. What does that say about your allegences?
|
Edited by - theo on 01/31/2010 22:38:15 |
|
|
|
cptindy
Penny Hoarding Member
572 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2010 : 07:28:39
|
Somehow my words are being misconstrued here. Also I would like to clarify that I am not opposed to business or the formation of a business as a corporate entity.I have agreed that a corporation is a business and like wise worships the bottom line as its principle is to make profits.Do corporations provide value? Yes! Absolutely!
The point that seems to fall mute upon some ears here is that any corporation just as you witness in everyday politics can woo you with there allegiance or shoulder up to you and gladly accept your contributions.But then depending upon its growth and ambition either spend that money on exactly what it told you it would or the complete opposite and any number of other scenarios. Just because they say it does not mean it will happen and is their goal.It is a spider web of tales to grow the beast into what every business desires "more".
Let's start with the Presidential office. When looking in retrospect it makes me concerned when I notice that those that achieve this position also raised and spent the most money. It becomes clear to me that when you have the ability to be on every channel every paper every source of media your odds become increasingly great that you will be victorious. By allowing absolute control of all facets of media by way of the dollar you are in fact ingraining this (message) into the populace. Whether your words are true or not. Slogans and political rhetoric become a theme that honestly solve nothing. Instead of a candidate that has to work at delivering sound assessments and a political perspective you have a neat little "Mtv type model" with empty words and hollow meaning.
In this case what I believe is you have found an area that needs to draw a line.Just as an alcoholic cannot have just one drink. Once the bottle is open in this case it is the bond between corporations and government there is no turning back. Its appetite for growth will consume at whatever cost.
Sure you have corporation to thank for the wondrous foundation of the economy. Yes they provide all the things you all have stated. I am in no way making claim that a business in whatever firm needs to be wiped out and should be chastised for existing.I am merely saying that when you cross the line (which quite honestly has already been done) you open yourself up to be disappointed. this disappointment will come when the bamboozling politicians and their change as the wind blows mentality decide it is not in their best interest to honor their agreement with you.
Why put ourselves into a precarious position when there are other options to voice your desires? Why allow the most remote possibility that something could go awry?
It is not a question whether a corporation should have a political voice. Everyone should be entitled to have an opinion. It is the conjoining of the two that concerns me. What is being created here is an Orwellian environment,if you thought political ads were everywhere before watch what happens now. To ad some humor "All restaurants are Taco bell"!
I do find it interesting that one can easily slide in the claim that if a living breathing human being with ancestors that have lived and died can vote why not an entity? Heck, why not just have a computer model do all the heavy thinking? What's the difference? I am sure it can scour far more information than any one human. Surely it will have the best interest of its constituent.
I completely respect business and the men and women with their creative minds and entrepreneurial spirit that have made this country great. Without them we would still be burning candles to light our homes. That is not my argument at all. It is the manipulation that takes place behind closed doors that we should all be concerned about.
I have things to attend to and will continue later today.
So to recap my "opinion":
1.Business is good as are corporations they provide jobs and revenue to keep or nation and people moving forward in a global environment.
2.Lines need to be drawn to thwart possible manipulation that leads to wasted dollars on frivolous enterprises.
|
"It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting"
" The average man doesn't want to be free. He wants to be safe."
H.L. Mencken
http://silver-news-today.com/ |
|
|
|
Kurr
1000+ Penny Miser Member
2906 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2010 : 09:33:31
|
I was with you Cpt. till the last part.
You speak eloquently, and it is apparent you and many others are much more articulate than a hillbilly like me, I shall try anyway.
quote:
I completely respect business and the men and women with their creative minds and entrepreneurial spirit that have made this country great. Without them we would still be burning candles to light our homes.
I agree, hard working men and women, when we were free. Now corporate interest make us to be liscensed to pour a glass of water for someone. We are taxed to death while the corporations with political influence have loopholes written into the tax laws to preserve their wealth to bribe/invest polititions to work against the natural borns for the benefit of the legally created.
quote:
1.Business is good as are corporations they provide jobs and revenue to keep or nation and people moving forward in a global environment.
I do not need a "job". I need to be able to use my intellect, upon my resources, unfettered and unhampered, and free to contract with whomever I choose to trade my "products" or "labor" in the best way I see fit for me and my household. I do not see corporations preserving or reclaiming this for me.
Now for Thogey. Congratz on having your business. You say you have four members of your corporation. I have no issue there. You 4 people get 4 voices individually. But why does the legal construct get a voice. You have a 5th voice that is now unhampered by the same regulations that sets limits for individuals. By what rational can you say that the 5th voice in your group of 4 humans is right and fair to all?
See I can sit down with you and change your mind. Theoretically. Can I reason with a corp? Change it's mind? No, because it has no mind. Only the People whom work for the corporation.
A legal construct has no Natural Rights as Man does. A corp was created by man and has legal rights. I do not believe that legal rights have more value than natural rights. A natural born man is limited by law on the amount he can spend to share his voice mind and opinion with others on this, while the legal constructs are not mow limited in such away thanks to this ruling.
What if you have 100 employees. What if 90% are libertarians. The remaining 10% are republicans or democrats who happen to be the executives. The corporation donates 10 million to the republican and 10 million to the democrats so it is covered and sure to get favor no matter which of the major 2 parties win.
How does this help the 90 libertarian minimum wage employees that effectively now do not have equal representation in the election process?
Like I said, I am just an uneducated hillbilly, so please, help me understand this. |
The silver [is] mine, and the gold [is] mine, saith the LORD of hosts. Hag 2:8 [/b]
He created it. He controls it. He gave it to us for His use. Why did we turn from sound scriptural currency that PROTECTS us?
KJV Bible w/ Strong's Concordance: http://www.blueletterbible.org/
The book of The Hundreds: http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/boh/bookOfTheHundreds_v4.1.pdf
The Two Republics: http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/docs/THE_TWO_REPUBLICS.pdf
Good reading: http://ecclesia.org/truth/government.html
A number of people are educated beyond, sometimes way beyond, their intelligence. - Tenbears
|
|
|
|
theo
Penny Hoarding Member
USA
588 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2010 : 12:40:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kurr
See I can sit down with you and change your mind. Theoretically. Can I reason with a corp? Change it's mind? No, because it has no mind. Only the People whom work for the corporation.
Of course you can. Corporations (or the people who run them) change their minds everyday. Corporations routinely change their products and policies based on feedback they get from their stakeholders (customers, shareholders, employees etc) because it is in their best interests to do so. In other words they act like individual people.
quote:
What if you have 100 employees. What if 90% are libertarians. The remaining 10% are republicans or democrats who happen to be the executives. The corporation donates 10 million to the republican and 10 million to the democrats so it is covered and sure to get favor no matter which of the major 2 parties win.
How does this help the 90 libertarian minimum wage employees that effectively now do not have equal representation in the election process?
A corporation is run by its board of directors who represent the shareholders (or true owners). Any authority management has comes from this body. Employees (managers included) are merely people who rent out their time and skills in exchange for a paycheck. For the most part, employees can't tell a corporation what to do any more than your mechanic can tell you how to drive your car.
quote:
Now for Thogey. Congratz on having your business. You say you have four members of your corporation. I have no issue there. You 4 people get 4 voices individually. But why does the legal construct get a voice. You have a 5th voice that is now unhampered by the same regulations that sets limits for individuals. By what rational can you say that the 5th voice in your group of 4 humans is right and fair to all?
Doesn't the freedom of assembly in the first amendment give groups a right to speak with one voice when they choose? If you deny them that "5th voice" aren't you violating that right whether the group happens to be Exxon Mobile or the Mayberry P.T.A.? |
|
|
|
thogey
1000+ Penny Miser Member
USA
1617 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2010 : 13:18:21
|
Kurr,
Please don't excuse yourself for being a hillbilly. Surley most here, like myself, enjoy your posts and respect your point of view.
Now let's rumble.
What do you mean by "legal costruct gives my corporation a 5th voice that is unhampered by the same regulations that set limits for individuals?"
In your example, the 90 minimun wage Libertarians still have a vote, don't they?
(By the way, for the record, a new guy laborer in my business starts a 10 per hour, 1st day. If they can drive and have a clean record it's 12 per hour to start, even if they're Libertarian)
Anyone can form a corporation. I'm a sole member with three employees.
I just created a corporate veil to separate my assets, from the business, to protect myself and my family from some money grubbing low life lawyer.
Being a corp is a pain in the butt, all the extra insurance and bookeeping and stuff.
My question is, as stated above. At what point do we become evil and undeserving of contributing to the political process?
Trust me. We're tiny, noone here has to worry about our contribution to the political process.
Except for contributing to our discussions. I wouldn't give one red cent, not even a zinc, to a republican or a democrat. Because in my opinion, as politicians go, republicans are criminals and democrats are panty-waist liberals.
The four of us have one vote each. My empolyee's wouldn't get off their asses to vote if they were paid to.
Honest question though, why is this ruling so bothersome to people? Any group of people can pool resources to buy ad's etc. Even the Libertarians. Anyone who votes a certain way because of a poster they see or some stupid ad on TV shouldn't be voting anyway. There lies the real problem.
I gotta get back to work.
Edited for spelling and grammer corrections. |
Come to the new and improved realcent: http://realcent.org
|
Edited by - thogey on 02/01/2010 13:35:13 |
|
|
|
Kurr
1000+ Penny Miser Member
2906 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2010 : 14:16:04
|
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
People. It does say people. Corporations are not people. Corporations are persons.
Let's look to the difference. First the word people, because it says congress hsal make no law abridging the freedom of "the people"...
From wikipedia:
quote:
The English noun people has two distinct fields of application:
* as a singular noun, a group of humans, either with unspecified traits, or specific characteristics (e.g. the people of Spain or the people of the Plains).
* as an irregular plural noun, people is the suppletive plural of person. However, the word persons is sometimes used in place of people, especially when it would be ambiguous with its collective sense (e.g. missing persons instead of people). It can collectively refer to all humans or it can be used to identify a certain ethnic or religious group. For example, "people of color" is a phrase used in North America to describe non-whites.[1]
And from an online legal dictionary:
quote:
The aggregate of the individuals who comprise a state or a nation.
In a more restricted sense, as generally used in Constitutional Law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or a nation who are invested with political power for political purposes (the qualified voters).
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
and
quote:
people n. the government in a criminal prosecution, as in People v. Capone. Such a case may also be captioned State v. Davis or in federal prosecutions, United States v. Miller.
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
That seems to me that if the founders said people they meant humans or groups of humans acting in their natural capacity.
Now lets look at persons. These legal construct seem to get their "rights" under the 14th amendment.
quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So the fisrt part makes clear the intent that "persons" born or naturalized in the United States, if subject to the juristiction, are citizens. So persons. what is a person?
From wikipedia
quote:
A person is a legal concept both permitting rights to and imposing duties on one by law. In the fields of law, philosophy, medicine, and others, the term has specialised context-specific meanings.
In many jurisdictions, for example, a corporation is considered a legal person with standing to sue or be sued in court. In philosophy and medicine, person may mean only humans who are capable of certain kinds of thought.[1][2] This could also extend to late fetuses and neonates, dependent on what level of thought is required.
So human, flesh and blood, is nowhere in the definition of "person" except when pertaining to philosophy or medicine.
And from the law dictionary:
quote:
In general usage, a human being; by statute, however, the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcy, or receivers.
A corporation is a "person" for purposes of the constitutional guarantees of equal protection of laws and Due Process of Law.
Foreign governments otherwise eligible to sue in United States courts are "persons" entitled to institute a suit for treble damages for alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 12 et seq.).
Illegitimate children are "persons" within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The phrase interested person refers to heirs, devisees, children, spouses, creditors, beneficiaries, and any others having a property right in, or a claim against, a trust estate or the estate of a decedent, ward, or protected person. It also refers to personal representatives and to fiduciaries.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Again it not what you think when used in legal terms. A person is not a flesh and blood man nor is people (human) a collection of "persons" in legal terms.
The non human legal entities do not have those rights. They have: quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
but were not granted rights. Congress cannot grant rights. They can only grant equal protection under the law as those that do have natural rights, as expressed in the original documents.
So to talk of first amendment rights to corporations to me is unconstitutional and I go back to my original thought. They need horsewhipped. It was an unconstitutional decision.
|
The silver [is] mine, and the gold [is] mine, saith the LORD of hosts. Hag 2:8 [/b]
He created it. He controls it. He gave it to us for His use. Why did we turn from sound scriptural currency that PROTECTS us?
KJV Bible w/ Strong's Concordance: http://www.blueletterbible.org/
The book of The Hundreds: http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/boh/bookOfTheHundreds_v4.1.pdf
The Two Republics: http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/docs/THE_TWO_REPUBLICS.pdf
Good reading: http://ecclesia.org/truth/government.html
A number of people are educated beyond, sometimes way beyond, their intelligence. - Tenbears
|
|
|
|
Kurr
1000+ Penny Miser Member
2906 Posts |
|
|
Kurr
1000+ Penny Miser Member
2906 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2010 : 14:48:01
|
I live in a town of a few thousand over many miles. Rural. We have a very large corp. that want to put in one of them BIG hog farms. The people of the county is against it. It was defeated once, or perhaps temporarily. What's to stop them from donating millions and millions more than the people could to do all the things they do in elections, pr firms, tv time, paid supporters, the works and get people into positions, and on councils that would then declare or find a "legal" way to subvert the will of the people.
Now in this town of a few thousand located in what I believe to be one of the "poorest" counties of my state, we also have a biomass incinerator trying to be put in that is vehemently opposed. What chance is there for the voice of the people to be heard against the noise, and outright cash outlay ability of not only one of the largest pork producing corporations, but the energy sector as well?
Will these corproations look out for the best interest of the people here, or their stockholders? What does a stockholder in India, or New York, or China, or California care about me, mine, my community, or the lasting effects of what their corporation does in my backyard, after all as you said they are shielded by the law.
By what right does a stockholder/holders somewhere other in the Republic, or in the Repulic somewhere than in an area of "interest" have to interject their opinions and money to influence my local town/county/state/national elections? But now they can, and many here seem to think that is it ok, it seems.
I am not against corporations. I am not against you.
What I am saying is I am against this ruling not for the harm it does in itself but for the harm it opens the way to be inflicted on grounds such as these. |
The silver [is] mine, and the gold [is] mine, saith the LORD of hosts. Hag 2:8 [/b]
He created it. He controls it. He gave it to us for His use. Why did we turn from sound scriptural currency that PROTECTS us?
KJV Bible w/ Strong's Concordance: http://www.blueletterbible.org/
The book of The Hundreds: http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/boh/bookOfTheHundreds_v4.1.pdf
The Two Republics: http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/docs/THE_TWO_REPUBLICS.pdf
Good reading: http://ecclesia.org/truth/government.html
A number of people are educated beyond, sometimes way beyond, their intelligence. - Tenbears
|
|
|
|
cptindy
Penny Hoarding Member
572 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2010 : 15:42:00
|
Let me say I appreciate the intelligent conversation we are having here.Kurr, your comments are welcomed and thanks for bringing in the constitution and how it clearly does not recognize corporations in the same way as a person.I agree this debate does help one to define his own ideals and possible recalibrate to a better understanding of his/her own position.
I have two quick questions!
Anyone,How do you post a quote from others on my own reply? I use the quick reply.Yes/No?
Kurr, Where did I lose you in my last post? |
"It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting"
" The average man doesn't want to be free. He wants to be safe."
H.L. Mencken
http://silver-news-today.com/ |
|
|
|
Kurr
1000+ Penny Miser Member
2906 Posts |
|
|
Kurr
1000+ Penny Miser Member
2906 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2010 : 16:44:25
|
quote:
1.Business is good as are corporations
Business nor corporation can be good. Nor evil. They are but things and do not posses morals conscience or souls. Kind of like a hammer or gun, they are but a tool.
quote:
they provide jobs and revenue
I always thought the natural free market of supply and demand, based upon man's Right of Agency given by the creator to freely contract was supposed to provide jobs and revenue.
quote:
to keep or nation and people moving forward in a global environment.
I am unclear as to the meaning here. Moving forward toward what way or towards what ends and in what regards to a global environment? Wasn't the republic to be free of entangling alliances? Doesn't it seem allowing corporations with global funding, capitol, basically "legal interest", to influence our electoral process, a bit more than entangling?
quote:
2.Lines need to be drawn to thwart possible manipulation that leads to wasted dollars on frivolous enterprises.
Is this about things like no-bid buddy contracts and such for overpriced non essential things (pork)?
|
The silver [is] mine, and the gold [is] mine, saith the LORD of hosts. Hag 2:8 [/b]
He created it. He controls it. He gave it to us for His use. Why did we turn from sound scriptural currency that PROTECTS us?
KJV Bible w/ Strong's Concordance: http://www.blueletterbible.org/
The book of The Hundreds: http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/boh/bookOfTheHundreds_v4.1.pdf
The Two Republics: http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/docs/THE_TWO_REPUBLICS.pdf
Good reading: http://ecclesia.org/truth/government.html
A number of people are educated beyond, sometimes way beyond, their intelligence. - Tenbears
|
Edited by - Kurr on 02/01/2010 16:46:34 |
|
|
|
cptindy
Penny Hoarding Member
572 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2010 : 17:17:40
|
Excellent statement! Kudos!
quote:
I do not need a "job". I need to be able to use my intellect, upon my resources, unfettered and unhampered, and free to contract with whomever I choose to trade my "products" or "labor" in the best way I see fit for me and my household. I do not see corporations preserving or reclaiming this for me.
This may be your unique situation as I personally can agree and follow to this day a very similar path. But for countless others careers and jobs are important,as well as the growth of our economy.Those careers and jobs can lead to well trained and experienced entrepreneurs.
quote:
Will these corporations look out for the best interest of the people here, or their stockholders? What does a stockholder in India, or New York, or China, or California care about me, mine, my community, or the lasting effects of what their corporation does in my backyard, after all as you said they are shielded by the law.
This is a precise example of why not to allow the co-mingling of corporations and government.From this point the corporation will attempt to "lobby" the local representative.If this fails it will use strong arm tactics to feed the ever hungry belly of the beast. By strong arm I mean make him an offer he can't refuse!
quote:
My question is, as stated above. At what point do we become evil and undeserving of contributing to the political process?
Being a small business I can understand why you relate your corporation as you yourself with this comment. I assume what you have is an LLC. Not quite the same thing as a full corporation as requiring a minimum 3 parties to exist. Your reason for using a LLC is justified and makes perfect sense under the laws governing our nation. It is this anonymity provided by the corporate umbrella that separates the free thinking individual from its entity.
Yes, any one can get an ad on t.v. and ramble on about whatever cause they wish if they have the means.The problem with this ruling is that the funds get combined with other causes or projects and might just end up supporting things that align against your wishes or original intentions. Again it is the entanglement that is the problem.We already have this scenario and this ruling allows further ammunition or resources to use as it wishes.
Have you ever thought about all the money that is raised for campaigns. Where does the leftovers or unspent cash end up? Well now that unspent cash can be a whole lot bigger! Instead of $50 million its $500 million! (It actually becomes whatever number they wish it to be)What agenda will this source of funds be used for? It is a perpetual slippery slope that is rigged to allow these monies to go wherever the wind does blow.
Last but not least! Thanks Thogey for making this stimulating and interesting! I wish you well in your business!
quote:
Anyone who votes a certain way because of a poster they see or some stupid ad on TV shouldn't be voting anyway. There lies the real problem.
Wonderful observation and I agree wholeheartedly! Unfortunately our present circumstance dictates otherwise! So the reality is that these slogans and media campaigns do supersede any true honest individual running for office. For without the financial backing the proper representative is left by the side of the road. Probably humming his opponents commercial under his breath.
The simple path to follow is to not allow it in the first place. But those days are long gone and I have coins to stack. |
"It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting"
" The average man doesn't want to be free. He wants to be safe."
H.L. Mencken
http://silver-news-today.com/ |
|
|
|
redneck
1000+ Penny Miser Member
1273 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2010 : 18:03:59
|
quote:
thogey
Honest question though, why is this ruling so bothersome to people? Any group of people can pool resources to buy ad's etc.
Here's your answer.
You must be logged in to see this link.
Corporations are not people and money is not speech
By Supreet Minhas | Columbia Spectator | January 31, 2010
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned century-old restrictions on corporate spending in elections under the guise of protecting First Amendment free speech rights. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” This argument of the majority decision rests on the notions that corporations are covered by the same free speech protections as individual citizens and that campaign donations or financing are the same as speech.
Corporations, however, are inherently not the same as individuals and thus cannot have the same protections as individuals. There are a slew of laws that protect corporations and their interests in the arena for which they are by definition formed—namely the marketplace. The laws that govern corporations and the rights enjoyed by them are distinct from the laws and rights of individuals. A corporation, for example, can enter into contracts like an individual, but unlike an individual, a corporation’s members can be protected by limited liability so their personal assets are not at stake.
If a corporation, then, is a distinct legal entity governed by different laws than an individual is, corporations are not protected under the First Amendment in the same way that individuals are protected. Corporations, especially in their most powerful and wealthy incarnations, are exponentially more influential than most individuals in America. The restrictions on corporate spending in elections that were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court were meant to redress this power balance between average individuals and unduly influential businesses. Corporations already have a plethora of ways to influence politics, from political action committees to lobbyists on Capitol Hill. The framers of the Bill of Rights wanted to protect the voices of the trampled, not amplify the voices of the elite.
The other part of the Supreme Court’s premise for its decision is that the First Amendment free speech clause applies to campaign funding. While speech can be interpreted loosely as any form of expression, such an open, ambiguous definition would create a myriad of problems with all kinds of laws. An architect has a vision of a building: it is his art, his self expression, yet he cannot ignore local zoning laws that, for instance, restrict the height of his building. Should he sue the state for violation of his free speech, his right to expression? Equating money with speech also opens the door to sundry ludicrous claims by, for instance, an employer who objects to minimum wage laws since he’d like to express that his employees are only worth paying $3 an hour. There have to be restrictions on what constitutes speech to prevent a bastardization of the term and an overly liberal interpretation of the First Amendment.
A corporation already has the power to issue a statement in favor of a candidate or policy through its political action committees, and individual members of a business are welcome to contribute money as well. However, allowing a corporation to use its vast profits to directly finance the election or to remove a candidate compromises the democratic notion of a free and fair election. There are unseemly ties even now between politicians and various industries, but this new ruling would make such connections more robust and give them a veneer of legitimacy. A politician financed by a business would become completely beholden to its political agenda and not to the voters.
It’s not only the independence of politicians that’s at stake, but also the independence of our judges, who are at the very least expected to be impartial. Many states still use elections to appoint judges, which leaves them vulnerable to the influence of political spending. In a recent speech at a law school conference, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor worried about the impact of corporate campaign funding in judicial elections, saying that “judicial campaigning makes last week’s decision in Citizens United an increasing problem for maintaining an independent judiciary.”
Two cornerstones of our democracy—free elections and an independent judiciary—are threatened by the Supreme Court’s activist and meddling decision. The case could have been decided much more narrowly in favor of Citizens United, but instead, the majority of the justices decided to expand the case to champion the rights of big money over the interest of the American people. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (D-PA) introduced the Fair Elections Now Act last March. It would prohibit contributions from political action committees and would match individual donations, limited to $100, on a 4:1 basis so that fundraising focuses on the people. Such a system has been in place in New York City since the 1988 Campaign Finance Act. The rest of the country is long overdue to follow. Never before has the fight for public financing been more necessary.
The author is a Columbia College junior majoring in political science. She is a prospective law student.
> |
|
|
|
Kurr
1000+ Penny Miser Member
2906 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2010 : 18:17:24
|
What I meant was that as Americans we live on one of the richest geographical area on earth. As little as 100 years ago we were the most educated and industrious people on earth.
It sounds well to speak of trained and experienced entrepreneurs, but the reality is that most people have no idea how to start a business. Those that want to cannot afford to due to excessive licensing, permits, fees, fines, taxes, enormity and complexity of the laws/bureaucracy facing them, etc etc. And if they do get a good thing going it is easily shut down due to the same forces if it becomes competitive or dis-advantageous.
Do corporations produce "economic growth"? What is "economic growth"?
quote:
Economic growth is a term used to indicate the increase of per capita gross domestic product (GDP) or other measure of aggregate income. It is often measured as the rate of change in GDP. Economic growth refers only to the quantity of goods and services produced; it says nothing about the way in which they are produced, or their distribution across members of the economy.
So it is more goods or services produced. It seems to me any individual, business, or corporation could fulfill that requirement with out corporations interjecting their money and influence into our electoral process.
If the corporations had not used their influence to cause legislatures to enact so many protectionist measures perhaps we would still have more good, inventive, entrepreneurs, free to discover and produce as themselves and the market (economic demand) saw fit, instead of a tightly controlled and regulated framework DESIGNED to herd people into those "good corporate careers" and "jobs".
I think the 800lb gorilla in the room is "corruption" plain and simple. We do not "need" corporations to give us "jobs". We need government to get out of the way. |
The silver [is] mine, and the gold [is] mine, saith the LORD of hosts. Hag 2:8 [/b]
He created it. He controls it. He gave it to us for His use. Why did we turn from sound scriptural currency that PROTECTS us?
KJV Bible w/ Strong's Concordance: http://www.blueletterbible.org/
The book of The Hundreds: http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/boh/bookOfTheHundreds_v4.1.pdf
The Two Republics: http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/docs/THE_TWO_REPUBLICS.pdf
Good reading: http://ecclesia.org/truth/government.html
A number of people are educated beyond, sometimes way beyond, their intelligence. - Tenbears
|
Edited by - Kurr on 02/01/2010 18:22:29 |
|
|
|
thogey
1000+ Penny Miser Member
USA
1617 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2010 : 18:27:51
|
Hey kurr,
Your second paragraph of the above post is spot on and that is the real crime. I know so many motivated and talanted people who are overwhelmed by the s**t you have to do to start a biz. Even before you service your first customer. The weight of all the paper and money it takes to move that paper really stifles good talent.
We also agree on the last statement. If not for dishonesty and corruption, this whole discussion would be unnecessary.
By the way, the homework you've done to support you positions is impressive. Thanks for the information.
This whole thing has been exhausting. I'm going to a coin collection, or a more frivolous thread.
See you guys there. |
Come to the new and improved realcent: http://realcent.org
|
|
|
|
Kurr
1000+ Penny Miser Member
2906 Posts |
|
|
cptindy
Penny Hoarding Member
572 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2010 : 19:52:31
|
Wow! Educational! I feel I may be to lenient in my thinking and appreciate the lesson.
Thanks ! Rather empowering! But it does not make me feel any better about the state of our union. |
"It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting"
" The average man doesn't want to be free. He wants to be safe."
H.L. Mencken
http://silver-news-today.com/ |
|
|
|
theo
Penny Hoarding Member
USA
588 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2010 : 21:13:44
|
| I've enjoyed sparring with you guys as well. I think its helpful to test your opinions against those with different points of view. Thanks!!! |
|
|
|
redneck
1000+ Penny Miser Member
1273 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Court decision opens floodgates for corporate cash
Forum Locked
