Mr Liberty
Hater of Socialism
Hell no.
hard money lender?
I am a Real Estate Investor. I use hard money lenders a lot. Without them I couldn't have bought this many properties.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hell no.
hard money lender?
"Required" by whom? If I sign a contract to have a house built and I require it to have three bedrooms, does that mean the contractor isn't building it voluntarily? According to your definition of the term, no contractual arrangement is voluntary.First, it is not entirely voluntary. For example, some pension funds are required by law to invest in stocks. But working someplace is also voluntary, is it not? Nobody forces
you to choose a livelihood. Most jobs are non-union. You can find a job that is non-union.
Working for someone is voluntary. Joining a union normally isn't. No one forces a business owner to locate in Guido's "territory" either. Does that mean paying him protection money is "voluntary?" You continue failing to explain the distinction between a union and an extortion racket. That's because you can't. There is no distinction other than the fact that one is legalized and the other isn't.
Second, whenever you buy stock, you are buying a piece of the company. That is a "donation" to a company which confers the owner of the stock certain rights. When companies issue equity, money is given to the company by the shareholder. If one then buys stock in the stock market, all that is doing is transferring share ownership. Shareholder A gave money to the company for stock. Shareholder B then bought that stock from Shareholder A. That now becomes Shareholder B's money that was originally given to the company by Shareholder A.
Wrong. Your mortgage payment isn't a "donation" to the bank. It's the price of buying your house. You purchase stock. You don't "donate" money to a corporation.
You keep trying to claim an equivalence between things that aren't equivalent. You're posting propaganda. Anyone with a brain can see what an obvious con it is.
Yeah, good argument. "Propaganda." This coming from someone who is arguing that there is no difference between a union and an extortion racket. No extreme ideological bias there!
I put "donation" in quotation marks because it wasn't meant to be literal. "Anyone with a brain" should have been able to figure that out.
When I buy stock in a company, I have a claim on the funds of the corporation. That is my money in the company.
So I was reading this thread
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161862-florida-leads-the-way.html
And I was reading this passage in the link in the OP
OK
So why not give shareholders the same rights as union members? A lot of shareholders do not approve of their money being used for political purposes yet they have no say in how their money is spent. Why not pass a law which requires corporations to ask permission from shareholders to use their funds to promote political causes and political lobbying? Why not give shareholders more say in how their money is spent, and allow people to continue acting as a shareholder even if they don't agree with the company's political activities?
Why would Republicans be opposed to this? I mean, if they are so worried about individual's monies be used in a manner in which the individual disagrees, why would they not apply consistent standards between businesses and unions? Or is this all just a thinly-veiled political attack on an opponent?
WOw are you ignorant.
Corporations are banned from giving money to political candidates, period. Have been since the 1950s
I don't see anywhere in his post where he said they can
So I was reading this thread
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161862-florida-leads-the-way.html
And I was reading this passage in the link in the OP
Republicans say the intent of the bill is to empower union members by giving them more say in how their dues are spent, and to allow them to continue participating in a union even if they dont agree with the unions political activity.
OK
So why not give shareholders the same rights as union members? A lot of shareholders do not approve of their money being used for political purposes yet they have no say in how their money is spent. Why not pass a law which requires corporations to ask permission from shareholders to use their funds to promote political causes and political lobbying? Why not give shareholders more say in how their money is spent, and allow people to continue acting as a shareholder even if they don't agree with the company's political activities?
Why would Republicans be opposed to this? I mean, if they are so worried about individual's monies be used in a manner in which the individual disagrees, why would they not apply consistent standards between businesses and unions? Or is this all just a thinly-veiled political attack on an opponent?
The law defines the operation of pension funds to be run in prudent manner, which requires diversification, which means that almost every pension fund in America is invested in stocks by law. Many pension funds run by states are required by law either directly or indirectly to invest in stocks.
De-certify the union then.
I'm not making a pro- or anti-union argument. I am saying that shareholders and union members should have the same rights regarding how their funds are used for political purposes. If you give union members the right to have a say over how their funds are used, you should give those same rights to shareholders. Full stop.
Then the arrangement is not totally voluntary. The government is interfering. How does that support your case?
Furthermore, the rules on state pension fund are set by the state. That's the same as complaining that the terms of your mortgage are set by your bank. Who else should determine them?
Shareholders do not make "contributions" to an uninvited third party. There are no "funds" involved. The purchase price of a share of stock is not a "contribution" to the corporation any more than your mortgage or car payment is a "contribution" to a bank. The terms of your house purchase are spelled out in your mortgage agreement, and the terms of your stock purchase are spelled out on your stock certificate.
Unions are thugs. A union is a third party that uses force to insert itself into the middle of a contractual arrangement and compel the participants to give it a piece of the action. That's the definition of extortion, pure and simple.
This is utter nonsense.
Shareholders vote on Boards of Directors to whom the CEO reports. If they don't trust them to make decisions regarding the company's various expenditures and initiatives, then they should vote out the board members and replace them with people that they do trust.
This is utter nonsense.
Shareholders vote on Boards of Directors to whom the CEO reports. If they don't trust them to make decisions regarding the company's various expenditures and initiatives, then they should vote out the board members and replace them with people that they do trust.
Union members can do the same with union leaders.
This is utter nonsense.
Shareholders vote on Boards of Directors to whom the CEO reports. If they don't trust them to make decisions regarding the company's various expenditures and initiatives, then they should vote out the board members and replace them with people that they do trust.
Union members can do the same with union leaders.
True, but shareholders can sell their share and buy another stock if they don't win the election and union members have to actually find a new job probably in a different field.
And many of them get stock as part of a compensation package. And lately..compensation packages have nothing to do with performance.
And union wages are based on performance?
Not sure what you are getting at here. It probably depends on the job. I've never been in a Union..so I am not really sure how that goes. Where I work you are given performance reviews.
Union members can do the same with union leaders.
True, but shareholders can sell their share and buy another stock if they don't win the election and union members have to actually find a new job probably in a different field.
If I have the opportunity to invest with Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Sergei Bryn early but I sell my stock, who loses more, me or the guy who has to look for another job?
A corporation cannot vote nor be inicarcerated for crimes so they deserve no individual rights.
and many do not even qualify for citizenship, ie born in the USA.
WOw are you ignorant.
Corporations are banned from giving money to political candidates, period. Have been since the 1950s
I don't see anywhere in his post where he said they can
That would pretty much make this whole thread irrelevant. Which it is.
Corporations cannot make political donations. Period. The whole discussion is moot.
A corporation cannot vote nor be inicarcerated for crimes so they deserve no individual rights.
and many do not even qualify for citizenship, ie born in the USA.
And they shouldn't pay taxes either
True, but shareholders can sell their share and buy another stock if they don't win the election and union members have to actually find a new job probably in a different field.
If I have the opportunity to invest with Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Sergei Bryn early but I sell my stock, who loses more, me or the guy who has to look for another job?
Investments are made ex-ante, not ex-post. So you could have in that case sold another stock and bought a stock with Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Sergei Bryn.
And you don't understand "choice" do you? I didn't say shareholders have to sell it, I said they have the....wait for it....choice.
Choice means they can but they don't have to. It's up to them. But with Unions, they aren't just choosing to leave the union, they have to change jobs and likely careers. You seriously don't see the difference?
A corporation cannot vote nor be inicarcerated for crimes so they deserve no individual rights.
and many do not even qualify for citizenship, ie born in the USA.
And they shouldn't pay taxes either