Have Republicans flip-flopped on "Trickle Down"?

[PredFan]

I don't believe the Right is flip flopping on income equality ... it just takes them 3 or 4 decades to figure out they are wrong about something.

~snick~

When have they ever said they are wrong on it? The OP can't seem to answer, maybe you can. Who in the GOP is complaining about income inequality?

The Republicans who voted for Obama and who are going to vote for Trump.

Do YOU even have a clue what you are babbling about? Trump voters are complaining about income inequality? Is that what you are trying to say?

 

[Siete]

Remember when Democrats brought up the fact that the top 1% weren't being taxed fairly? Republicans would say you are just jealous. That those are the "job CREATORS" and the "Producers"?

Their entire plan was that if you get enough money to the "job CREATORS" they will create jobs.

Well, now the corporations are making money hand over fist. The income gap is enormous.

And Republicans are now complaining about the income gap? But I thought that was the plan?

Who is complaining about the income gap?

The only time I hear it mentioned by Republicans is when we point out that it got larger under Obama, despite his claim that it's a bad thing.

it got larger because of population growth wouldn't have anything to do with it would it?

 

[Indeependent]

Remember when Democrats brought up the fact that the top 1% weren't being taxed fairly? Republicans would say you are just jealous. That those are the "job CREATORS" and the "Producers"?

Their entire plan was that if you get enough money to the "job CREATORS" they will create jobs.

Well, now the corporations are making money hand over fist. The income gap is enormous.

And Republicans are now complaining about the income gap? But I thought that was the plan?

Which GOP are you talking about? The Establishment GOP who are beholden to crony corporatists and Big Government? Or the Conservative base of the GOP?

And why do you continue to yammer about the "top 1%" in relation to income taxes? We don't tax wealth in America, we tax earned incomes. Those who are paying the taxes on the top 1% of earned income are not "the wealthiest 1%" Two different things.

Corporations don't pay income tax. They pay corporate taxes. You can raise the income tax rates to 100% and it doesn't bother corporations at all. The top income earners in America are mostly small business entrepreneurs. They create about 80% of the jobs in America and when you raise their taxes it hurts their ability to create new jobs. The ones who capitalize on this are the corporations who don't have to pay the income tax.

Leftists don't understand numbers, math, money, or economics.

And Republican DO!
Are you a sit-down comic?

Well, considering we have to school you retards on it constantly, yes.

Please school me on the wonders of GW...
Really...I'll read your explanation.

 

[Boss]

boss,

You really believe that a person lets say making 80k a year wouldnt accept a job paying 200k a year BECAUSE they would be in a higher tax bracket?

LMAO. Boss, you are that stupid but the rest of us working folks are not.

Bos says; NONONO dont offer me that high paying job, my taxes will go up.

You are ignorant dude.

Well... I personally know someone who was making $750k per year in salary. When the top marginal rates were raised after the Bush Tax cuts, his company restructured his package. He now makes $150k per year in salary but they pay for virtually every living expense he has, housing, food, clothing, cars, etc. It's not salary, he doesn't have to report it as income. To the company, it's a tax deductible expense.

I know another guy who owns his own company. He was paying himself a yearly salary of $300k, now he pays himself $150k and the rest goes back into his business. He doesn't NEED the money, it's not as important to him as avoiding the taxes. He had rather reinvest the money back into his business than claim it as personal income. And these are not just isolated incidents or trivial anecdotes, it's happening all across America with virtually everyone who falls in that highest tax bracket.

That is why, when the top marginal rate was 91%, virtually no one claimed that much personal income... it was foolish. You have to realize something here... Wealthy people don't need to earn incomes. They are already wealthy. You and I need to earn incomes to pay our bills, we don't have billions of dollars in securities and shelters. Trying to punish the wealthy by raising their income taxes is like trying to punish a hippie by taxing baths. It just doesn't work.

 

[PredFan]

Remember when Democrats brought up the fact that the top 1% weren't being taxed fairly? Republicans would say you are just jealous. That those are the "job CREATORS" and the "Producers"?

Their entire plan was that if you get enough money to the "job CREATORS" they will create jobs.

Well, now the corporations are making money hand over fist. The income gap is enormous.

And Republicans are now complaining about the income gap? But I thought that was the plan?

Who is complaining about the income gap?

The only time I hear it mentioned by Republicans is when we point out that it got larger under Obama, despite his claim that it's a bad thing.

it got larger because of population growth wouldn't have anything to do with it would it?

I don't know, I'm not an economist nor am I one of those who makes that claim. I'm simply asking for any one of you left wing nutters to actually tell me who in the GOP has complained about income inequality.

 

[Boss]

The problem is that with corporations claiming personhood and individual rights, there is no check on these collective institutions with greater power, similar to govt, vs. individuals.

Corporations did not claim personhood. That is a liberal left-wing meme which you apparently bought into. Back during the 2008 elections, a company produced a video about then-candidate Hillary Clinton. The FEC declared the company had violated CFR laws which were new and unchallenged in court... the company sued and their case went before SCOTUS. The Supreme Court ruled the company was within it's 1st Amendment rights to free political speech to release and sell the video. This nullified that aspect of CFR as unconstitutional. Prior to CFR there wouldn't have been a case and it wouldn't have been an issue.

Corporations are comprised of people and people retain their constitutional rights without regard for the group they belong to. It's unconstitutional to deny them rights on the basis of their group. Corporations are not humanless lumbering entities operating of their own volition... they are groups of people who have the same constitutional rights as everyone else.

Fucking horsehit.

Where in the COtUS does it address that corporations have the same rights as citizens ie people?

Point that out to me.

Dear Wilbur Right and Boss
Do you mind stepping out and taking this into the Bullring:
I'd like to see it settled how can Corporations be given equal rights WITHOUT CHECK
compared to individual citizens, when Corporations can just disband under one name,
then reincorporate under another entity name and continue doing the same abuses without check
after they are caught. What individual has the right to change names, expunge their past record of abuses, and continue under a new persona? Even if you declare bankruptcy that is on your credit under your name. You can't go grab another ID and start over as a new person. But Corporations can.
Boss do you want to address that?

EX1: MAXXAM corporation and the Headwaters Forest
What individuals can mow down whole sectors of endangered redwood, rainforest and river ecosystems,
while "individuals" who try to petition have to face (A) board and bureaucratic rules for addressing this "corporation" in charge, a whole team of people all blaming "the board" instead of individual accountability; where even the SHAREHOLDERS complaining could not influence "the board" without massive lawsuits the "average individual CANNOT AFFORD" (B) a corporate entity with a million times more money, influence and ability to hire lawyers to defend their interests that is NOT EQUAL to a "single human being" or three or a whole union of workers trying to save sustainable logging jobs that were lost.

Boss the fact that taxpayers spent est. 1.6 BILLION dollars bailing out junk bonds that MAXXAM corporation used to seize pristine wilderness for gutting, before it went under and ran off with the profits it bled out,
doesn't that tell you that corporations have UNEQUAL power that "individual citizens" cannot check and balance without some CONSTITUTIONAL CHECKS on the collective authority, influence and resources?

EX2: This happened in Houston: a "nonprofit" was caught in a conflict of interest with the City Mayor who gave them a 3.4 million dollar grant from taxpayer's money; the AG received complaints and confirmed the conflict so the head of the nonprofit stepped down, but this "nonprofit" continued anyway, paying their board high salaries, and doing the same abusive seizure and destruction of nation history instead of building houses as under the contract. the nonprofit even CHANGED the contract from 350 houses to 150 and the same Mayor approved letting them keep the same money. Went they went bankrupt, the property got laundered over to some other "nonprofit" run by the city. So with the historic houses destroyed by a "private nonprofit that didn't have to follow federal laws" now the city can take over the land devoid of the houses that would have incurred federal preservation laws they didn't want to follow. Money and property laundering abusing nonprofit corps.

Boss can you honestly tell me that any individual is going to have equal legal protection from what a corporation like MAXXAM can do or has done?

Do you remember the international lawsuits by CORPORATIONS claiming the individual right to pollute water systems with hazardous substances in order to conduct business under the free trade acts or "their business would otherwise be harmed by the ban of certain toxins."

Wilbur Right I am coming at this from the viewpoint that Corporations can do more UNCHECKED damage to individuals than a single individual. Collective power requires some collective check, like the Bill of Rights is used to check government. I am arguing that Corporations have something MORE than just the individual rights combined, but COLLECTIVE influence that becomes an entity on its own that none of the individual members can check by themselves.

Boss keeps arguing about CU and the campaign financing which is just one issue and not what I am worried about. I am worried about mass destruction and mass pollution by Corporate entities that can just dissolve and go bankrupt and nobody has to answer for the damages.

Boss and Wilbur Right can we address this? here or in the Bullring?

Look... I am not here to argue on behalf of Corporations and what they do or don't do. I will say this... the REASON Corporations exist is Liability. It is so an individual doesn't have to risk everything he/she owns in order to engage in capitalism and commerce.

We have plenty of anti-trust laws. Corporations are expected to operate within the laws. If they don't, there is not a law we can pass to outlaw all corruption... I wish we could, but we can't. Some people are going to break the law, some corporations are going to break the law. It's inevitable. All you can hope to do is punish law breakers more severely and hope that will deter them.

You talk about "influence" but you haven't qualified that. What do you mean? Do they donate money to candidates? Sure! Is there a "quid-pro-quo"? Well... that's a flagrant violation of the law and if you have evidence of it you can put people in prison for it. Corporations may HOPE their donation creates some kind of favoritism in terms of laws or policies but there is not anything they can absolutely depend upon. The other day, someone was arguing that Big Money from corporations influences elections... do they use mind control or alien superpowers? How do they influence YOUR vote? They don't influence MINE! We are supposed to elect individuals who have high moral character and can't be bought off. If we're not electing those type of people, the problem is not the system it is US!

On your proposal of the bull ring, I am really not interested. I don't have the time and there is nothing I can't say here just as well.

 

[Siete]

Remember when Democrats brought up the fact that the top 1% weren't being taxed fairly? Republicans would say you are just jealous. That those are the "job CREATORS" and the "Producers"?

Their entire plan was that if you get enough money to the "job CREATORS" they will create jobs.

Well, now the corporations are making money hand over fist. The income gap is enormous.

And Republicans are now complaining about the income gap? But I thought that was the plan?

Who is complaining about the income gap?

The only time I hear it mentioned by Republicans is when we point out that it got larger under Obama, despite his claim that it's a bad thing.

it got larger because of population growth wouldn't have anything to do with it would it?

I don't know, I'm not an economist nor am I one of those who makes that claim. I'm simply asking for any one of you left wing nutters to actually tell me who in the GOP has complained about income inequality.

Even some of the more conservative contenders for the White House are talking about income inequality. Libertarian Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) reacted to last month's State of the Union speech by declaring, "Income inequality has worsened under this administration." And Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a tea party-aligned stalwart, blasted those who have "gotten fat and happy" in the last six years under Obama.
"We're facing right now a divided America when it comes to the economy. It is true that the top 1% are doing great under Barack Obama. Today, the top 1% earn a higher share of our national income than any year since 1928," Cruz told Fox News after the president's speech.

 

[emilynghiem]

The corporate entity doesn't have citizen rights and no one has ever claimed that.

Boss Corporations have sued against bans on chemical pollution because of their rights to do business.
So they have GREATER legal resources and financial influence than single individuals,
but not proportional responsibility in how those resources are used.

EX: BP can use its collective resources to destroy environment and species in the Gulf.
But then negotiate with feds over taxes paid to get a cap on the penalties paid.
Where they are not responsible for cleaning up the damage, only for paying that cap set by govt
in exchange for paying so much in taxes to govt. The damage may take generations to clean up,
but BP is limited to just what the govt said the corporation has to pay financially.
This isn't protecting individuals equally whose lives livelihood and environment are affected by BP.

 

[emilynghiem]

The problem is that with corporations claiming personhood and individual rights, there is no check on these collective institutions with greater power, similar to govt, vs. individuals.

Corporations did not claim personhood. That is a liberal left-wing meme which you apparently bought into. Back during the 2008 elections, a company produced a video about then-candidate Hillary Clinton. The FEC declared the company had violated CFR laws which were new and unchallenged in court... the company sued and their case went before SCOTUS. The Supreme Court ruled the company was within it's 1st Amendment rights to free political speech to release and sell the video. This nullified that aspect of CFR as unconstitutional. Prior to CFR there wouldn't have been a case and it wouldn't have been an issue.

Corporations are comprised of people and people retain their constitutional rights without regard for the group they belong to. It's unconstitutional to deny them rights on the basis of their group. Corporations are not humanless lumbering entities operating of their own volition... they are groups of people who have the same constitutional rights as everyone else.

Fucking horsehit.

Where in the COtUS does it address that corporations have the same rights as citizens ie people?

Point that out to me.

Dear Wilbur Right and Boss
Do you mind stepping out and taking this into the Bullring:
I'd like to see it settled how can Corporations be given equal rights WITHOUT CHECK
compared to individual citizens, when Corporations can just disband under one name,
then reincorporate under another entity name and continue doing the same abuses without check
after they are caught. What individual has the right to change names, expunge their past record of abuses, and continue under a new persona? Even if you declare bankruptcy that is on your credit under your name. You can't go grab another ID and start over as a new person. But Corporations can.
Boss do you want to address that?

EX1: MAXXAM corporation and the Headwaters Forest
What individuals can mow down whole sectors of endangered redwood, rainforest and river ecosystems,
while "individuals" who try to petition have to face (A) board and bureaucratic rules for addressing this "corporation" in charge, a whole team of people all blaming "the board" instead of individual accountability; where even the SHAREHOLDERS complaining could not influence "the board" without massive lawsuits the "average individual CANNOT AFFORD" (B) a corporate entity with a million times more money, influence and ability to hire lawyers to defend their interests that is NOT EQUAL to a "single human being" or three or a whole union of workers trying to save sustainable logging jobs that were lost.

Boss the fact that taxpayers spent est. 1.6 BILLION dollars bailing out junk bonds that MAXXAM corporation used to seize pristine wilderness for gutting, before it went under and ran off with the profits it bled out,
doesn't that tell you that corporations have UNEQUAL power that "individual citizens" cannot check and balance without some CONSTITUTIONAL CHECKS on the collective authority, influence and resources?

EX2: This happened in Houston: a "nonprofit" was caught in a conflict of interest with the City Mayor who gave them a 3.4 million dollar grant from taxpayer's money; the AG received complaints and confirmed the conflict so the head of the nonprofit stepped down, but this "nonprofit" continued anyway, paying their board high salaries, and doing the same abusive seizure and destruction of nation history instead of building houses as under the contract. the nonprofit even CHANGED the contract from 350 houses to 150 and the same Mayor approved letting them keep the same money. Went they went bankrupt, the property got laundered over to some other "nonprofit" run by the city. So with the historic houses destroyed by a "private nonprofit that didn't have to follow federal laws" now the city can take over the land devoid of the houses that would have incurred federal preservation laws they didn't want to follow. Money and property laundering abusing nonprofit corps.

Boss can you honestly tell me that any individual is going to have equal legal protection from what a corporation like MAXXAM can do or has done?

Do you remember the international lawsuits by CORPORATIONS claiming the individual right to pollute water systems with hazardous substances in order to conduct business under the free trade acts or "their business would otherwise be harmed by the ban of certain toxins."

Wilbur Right I am coming at this from the viewpoint that Corporations can do more UNCHECKED damage to individuals than a single individual. Collective power requires some collective check, like the Bill of Rights is used to check government. I am arguing that Corporations have something MORE than just the individual rights combined, but COLLECTIVE influence that becomes an entity on its own that none of the individual members can check by themselves.

Boss keeps arguing about CU and the campaign financing which is just one issue and not what I am worried about. I am worried about mass destruction and mass pollution by Corporate entities that can just dissolve and go bankrupt and nobody has to answer for the damages.

Boss and Wilbur Right can we address this? here or in the Bullring?

Look... I am not here to argue on behalf of Corporations and what they do or don't do. I will say this... the REASON Corporations exist is Liability. It is so an individual doesn't have to risk everything he/she owns in order to engage in capitalism and commerce.

We have plenty of anti-trust laws. Corporations are expected to operate within the laws. If they don't, there is not a law we can pass to outlaw all corruption... I wish we could, but we can't. Some people are going to break the law, some corporations are going to break the law. It's inevitable. All you can hope to do is punish law breakers more severely and hope that will deter them.

You talk about "influence" but you haven't qualified that. What do you mean? Do they donate money to candidates? Sure! Is there a "quid-pro-quo"? Well... that's a flagrant violation of the law and if you have evidence of it you can put people in prison for it. Corporations may HOPE their donation creates some kind of favoritism in terms of laws or policies but there is not anything they can absolutely depend upon. The other day, someone was arguing that Big Money from corporations influences elections... do they use mind control or alien superpowers? How do they influence YOUR vote? They don't influence MINE! We are supposed to elect individuals who have high moral character and can't be bought off. If we're not electing those type of people, the problem is not the system it is US!

On your proposal of the bull ring, I am really not interested. I don't have the time and there is nothing I can't say here just as well.

Boss RE: influence
A. SEE BP case where the corporation can cut a deal with feds to cap the penalties they pay, regardless how much time, work and cost it takes to really clean up the damages and restore the Gulf environment
B. SEE MAXXAM case where the corporation went bankrupt and never repaid taxpayers an est 1.6 billion to bail out the failed junk bonds MAXXAM used to buy out land and destroy redwood rainforest without fixing the damage that is also left to the "individuals" to assess, clean up and restore before endangered species die out
C. SEE ACA mandates where "corporate insurance" interests got the President to retain the individual mandates while individual citizens required to pay it had NO SAY in this bill and how the terms were written

Boss can you really look at ACA and tell me corporations didn't have greater influence than "individuals"?

Here is a list for the really radical anti-globalist movement. I don't go this far, but look at their grievances:
D. The 14 Worst Corporate Evildoers | International Labor Rights Forum

Dear Boss ANY Collective institution gets abused and corrupted by its imbalanced power structure
A. churches like Catholics LDS Jehovah's Witnesses because collective authority trumps individuals
B. government gets abused this way. power concentrated in the hands of the few.
C. legal and judicial power gets abused this way. the bars and the campaign funding, all the professionals will protect their interests and won't go against something that threatens them.

EX: when my own godmother went after one of the big dogs in law, nobody would dare back her up. They feared it was professional and political suicide. So they sit back and wait for someone else to take on that battle and win. Then they step in AFTERWARDS when it's safe and they weren't the ones fighting the battle. They don't want to be the bad guy who blows the whistle.

Boss as smart and experienced, and knowledgeable as you are. Surely you know that abuses are going on because COLLECTIVE power gets out of control and silences the small guy. That's just the nature of humans running in packs and having to bully each other down to be a member of the winning pack. You know this.

What makes you think it doesn't apply to corporations?
What magical set up in corporations makes humans behave and not let greed and selfish self interest operate as normal?

Boss if people are selfish as individuals and bully each other and don't play fair.
what makes you think "forming a corporation" is suddenly going to make a pack of individuals
turn into saints, be perfect, and play fair?

If you have saints to begin with, sure, maybe a corporation of saints would play fair.
But a pack of developers looking to destroy a historic community, as in my neighborhood,
what kind of damage do you think a whole board and group of people can do
as opposed to a single person?

If guns are good for defense but they can be abused,
what about a whole ARSENAL of guns? Doesn't that pose MORE of a threat than a single gun?

What makes you think corporations can't be abused?
Beyond what "single individuals" can control or check?
Look at the records, it seems it happens all the time, with UNEQUAL check
since corporations can pull greater legal resources in courts than individuals can.

Boss have you ever been to federal courts?
The big corporate lawfirms PUSH their cases to federal where they can WIN
and AVOID state courts where people stand a chance at defending themselves.

Don't tell me you don't know this. Maybe I've studied legal and judicial abuse long enough
to know how the game is played. Sorry to bear bad news, but it favors corporations.
Sorry Boss to pop your bubble, my friends who are lifelong activists and know the prison police and courts, know to fight in state court and avoid federal where the corporations rule.

 

[Boss]

The corporate entity doesn't have citizen rights and no one has ever claimed that.

Boss Corporations have sued against bans on chemical pollution because of their rights to do business.
So they have GREATER legal resources and financial influence than single individuals,
but not proportional responsibility in how those resources are used.

EX: BP can use its collective resources to destroy environment and species in the Gulf.
But then negotiate with feds over taxes paid to get a cap on the penalties paid.
Where they are not responsible for cleaning up the damage, only for paying that cap set by govt
in exchange for paying so much in taxes to govt. The damage may take generations to clean up,
but BP is limited to just what the govt said the corporation has to pay financially.
This isn't protecting individuals equally whose lives livelihood and environment are affected by BP.

Several issues here. BP is not an American company. The oil spill was an accident which they were held liable for. Yes, they negotiated over the amount of liability, if they hadn't the environmentalists would have bankrupted them. They paid out billions of dollars for clean up efforts and are still paying.

What exactly are you proposing we do besides outlawing corporations?

 

[Boss]

Boss can you really look at ACA and tell me corporations didn't have greater influence than "individuals"?

Dear.... Corporations did not vote for a President who ran on the promise of ACA, nor did they cast votes in Congress for a 2,000-page bill that no one read.

 

[emilynghiem]

The corporate entity doesn't have citizen rights and no one has ever claimed that.

Boss Corporations have sued against bans on chemical pollution because of their rights to do business.
So they have GREATER legal resources and financial influence than single individuals,
but not proportional responsibility in how those resources are used.

EX: BP can use its collective resources to destroy environment and species in the Gulf.
But then negotiate with feds over taxes paid to get a cap on the penalties paid.
Where they are not responsible for cleaning up the damage, only for paying that cap set by govt
in exchange for paying so much in taxes to govt. The damage may take generations to clean up,
but BP is limited to just what the govt said the corporation has to pay financially.
This isn't protecting individuals equally whose lives livelihood and environment are affected by BP.

Several issues here. BP is not an American company. The oil spill was an accident which they were held liable for. Yes, they negotiated over the amount of liability, if they hadn't the environmentalists would have bankrupted them. They paid out billions of dollars for clean up efforts and are still paying.

What exactly are you proposing we do besides outlawing corporations?

Dear Boss I propose that on the state level where corporations get licensed to operate
there are some "general rules" agreed to within charters similar to the Bill of Rights enforced for govt.

Something that ensures the corporations agree to enforce "equal protection of the laws"
and have a way of due process to redress grievances,
and/or the state/people have a process to issue complaints of violations and resolve them directly
with that corporation AS EQUALS, PEOPLE TO PEOPLE conflict resolution by mediation and consensus,
to AVOID overloading the courts where bigger corporate interests can crush individuals by outbullying.

The states and voters would have to set this up through the legislative process.
One friend of mine wrote up a Civilian Review Board bill that was last sponsored by a State Rep Garnet Coleman. This was for government oversight.

I would expand on that model and ask for a similar grievance process for
any collective organization complained of as abusing its power collective to harm or oppress individuals.
Religious, educational, nonprofit, business, political, not just govt but any collective group invoking complaints of abuse so these can be investigated and any reports resolved.

NOT playing the court game where corporations have been able to hire federal lawyers to push it to the top and out of the hands of state courts where people could have had equal voice.

We need something that saves taxpayer money by resolving conflicts BEFORE they escalate to lawsuits.
And that addresses abuses by ANY collective group abusing corporate structure to oppress individuals.

AT the very least, I would promote or require Constitutional education, training and access to assistance
for individuals, and if nobody can agree how to check corporations,
at least citizens can be educated enough to know what a violation is, and quit patronizing corporations that violate equal protections of the laws. We could do it by free market which is how it is being done now.
But Boss if you look at the environmental destruction going on in the meantime, the damage will already be done while the people are still petitioning to boycott unethical companies and try to stop them via free market.

Instead of making the mistake of trying to get govt to "micromanage" every type of regulation on each case,
which is infinite and unenforceable by the same reasons corporations already bypass and play the court game,
why not teach and enforce a standard of Constitutional principles and ethics for ALL people including corporations. Why not teach people how to mediate conflicts and redress grievances directly.

The corporations with good records of this will retain their charters.
Any corporations with bad records of resisting or censoring complaints of abuse instead of correcting these,
could face revocation. But we need a system to track which corporations are ethically resolving issues and which are skirting them to destroy environment or communities for profit and deny responsibility for damages.

 

[emilynghiem]

Boss can you really look at ACA and tell me corporations didn't have greater influence than "individuals"?

Dear.... Corporations did not vote for a President who ran on the promise of ACA, nor did they cast votes in Congress for a 2,000-page bill that no one read.

Dear Boss they didn't need to. They got a bill passed that included the individual mandates, forcing all citizens to buy insurance. The President couldn't remove that individual mandate because he made a promise to the insurance companies to keep it in. So he listened to the insurance companies, gave them trillions of dollars they asked for, but won't listen to individual citizens saying NO to these terms and charging us the fines if we don't comply.

 

[Siete]

Boss can you really look at ACA and tell me corporations didn't have greater influence than "individuals"?

Dear.... Corporations did not vote for a President who ran on the promise of ACA, nor did they cast votes in Congress for a 2,000-page bill that no one read.

Durr Boss ... corporations throughout the medical industry fully supported the ACA... take insurance corporations for instance.

 

[Boss]

The corporate entity doesn't have citizen rights and no one has ever claimed that.

Boss Corporations have sued against bans on chemical pollution because of their rights to do business.
So they have GREATER legal resources and financial influence than single individuals,
but not proportional responsibility in how those resources are used.

EX: BP can use its collective resources to destroy environment and species in the Gulf.
But then negotiate with feds over taxes paid to get a cap on the penalties paid.
Where they are not responsible for cleaning up the damage, only for paying that cap set by govt
in exchange for paying so much in taxes to govt. The damage may take generations to clean up,
but BP is limited to just what the govt said the corporation has to pay financially.
This isn't protecting individuals equally whose lives livelihood and environment are affected by BP.

Several issues here. BP is not an American company. The oil spill was an accident which they were held liable for. Yes, they negotiated over the amount of liability, if they hadn't the environmentalists would have bankrupted them. They paid out billions of dollars for clean up efforts and are still paying.

What exactly are you proposing we do besides outlawing corporations?

Dear Boss I propose that on the state level where corporations get licensed to operate
there are some "general rules" agreed to within charters similar to the Bill of Rights enforced for govt.

Something that ensures the corporations agree to enforce "equal protection of the laws"
and have a way of due process to redress grievances,
and/or the state/people have a process to issue complaints of violations and resolve them directly
with that corporation AS EQUALS, PEOPLE TO PEOPLE conflict resolution by mediation and consensus,
to AVOID overloading the courts where bigger corporate interests can crush individuals by outbullying.

The states and voters would have to set this up through the legislative process.
One friend of mine wrote up a Civilian Review Board bill that was last sponsored by a State Rep Garnet Coleman. This was for government oversight.

I would expand on that model and ask for a similar grievance process for
any collective organization complained of as abusing its power collective to harm or oppress individuals.
Religious, educational, nonprofit, business, political, not just govt but any collective group invoking complaints of abuse so these can be investigated and any reports resolved.

NOT playing the court game where corporations have been able to hire federal lawyers to push it to the top and out of the hands of state courts where people could have had equal voice.

We need something that saves taxpayer money by resolving conflicts BEFORE they escalate to lawsuits.
And that addresses abuses by ANY collective group abusing corporate structure to oppress individuals.

AT the very least, I would promote or require Constitutional education, training and access to assistance
for individuals, and if nobody can agree how to check corporations,
at least citizens can be educated enough to know what a violation is, and quit patronizing corporations that violate equal protections of the laws. We could do it by free market which is how it is being done now.
But Boss if you look at the environmental destruction going on in the meantime, the damage will already be done while the people are still petitioning to boycott unethical companies and try to stop them via free market.

Instead of making the mistake of trying to get govt to "micromanage" every type of regulation on each case,
which is infinite and unenforceable by the same reasons corporations already bypass and play the court game,
why not teach and enforce a standard of Constitutional principles and ethics for ALL people including corporations. Why not teach people how to mediate conflicts and redress grievances directly.

The corporations with good records of this will retain their charters.
Any corporations with bad records of resisting or censoring complaints of abuse instead of correcting these,
could face revocation. But we need a system to track which corporations are ethically resolving issues and which are skirting them to destroy environment or communities for profit and deny responsibility for damages.

There are currently over 72,000 regulations on the state and federal level regarding how businesses operate. Over the course of the past 8 years, an average of 2,000 regulations per year were passed at the Federal level, mostly targeting businesses and corporations. We have one of the two major political parties in America, dedicated to destroying free market capitalism and implementing European-style socialism. YOU are simply buying into rhetoric from the Socialists.

If you don't "GET IT" then I am sorry for you, I can't explain it any better. BP didn't go out there one day and say... Hey, let's release a bunch of oil into the ocean and destroy the environment because we're evil like that!

We already have mediation, you don't like mediation because you say it gives the corporations undue advantages over the individual. We already have laws regarding ethics. When white collar criminals are caught, they are convicted and sent to prison... unless they happen to be a female Democrat running for President.

 

[Siete]

The corporate entity doesn't have citizen rights and no one has ever claimed that.

Boss Corporations have sued against bans on chemical pollution because of their rights to do business.
So they have GREATER legal resources and financial influence than single individuals,
but not proportional responsibility in how those resources are used.

EX: BP can use its collective resources to destroy environment and species in the Gulf.
But then negotiate with feds over taxes paid to get a cap on the penalties paid.
Where they are not responsible for cleaning up the damage, only for paying that cap set by govt
in exchange for paying so much in taxes to govt. The damage may take generations to clean up,
but BP is limited to just what the govt said the corporation has to pay financially.
This isn't protecting individuals equally whose lives livelihood and environment are affected by BP.

Several issues here. BP is not an American company. The oil spill was an accident which they were held liable for. Yes, they negotiated over the amount of liability, if they hadn't the environmentalists would have bankrupted them. They paid out billions of dollars for clean up efforts and are still paying.

What exactly are you proposing we do besides outlawing corporations?

Dear Boss I propose that on the state level where corporations get licensed to operate
there are some "general rules" agreed to within charters similar to the Bill of Rights enforced for govt.

Something that ensures the corporations agree to enforce "equal protection of the laws"
and have a way of due process to redress grievances,
and/or the state/people have a process to issue complaints of violations and resolve them directly
with that corporation AS EQUALS, PEOPLE TO PEOPLE conflict resolution by mediation and consensus,
to AVOID overloading the courts where bigger corporate interests can crush individuals by outbullying.

The states and voters would have to set this up through the legislative process.
One friend of mine wrote up a Civilian Review Board bill that was last sponsored by a State Rep Garnet Coleman. This was for government oversight.

I would expand on that model and ask for a similar grievance process for
any collective organization complained of as abusing its power collective to harm or oppress individuals.
Religious, educational, nonprofit, business, political, not just govt but any collective group invoking complaints of abuse so these can be investigated and any reports resolved.

NOT playing the court game where corporations have been able to hire federal lawyers to push it to the top and out of the hands of state courts where people could have had equal voice.

We need something that saves taxpayer money by resolving conflicts BEFORE they escalate to lawsuits.
And that addresses abuses by ANY collective group abusing corporate structure to oppress individuals.

AT the very least, I would promote or require Constitutional education, training and access to assistance
for individuals, and if nobody can agree how to check corporations,
at least citizens can be educated enough to know what a violation is, and quit patronizing corporations that violate equal protections of the laws. We could do it by free market which is how it is being done now.
But Boss if you look at the environmental destruction going on in the meantime, the damage will already be done while the people are still petitioning to boycott unethical companies and try to stop them via free market.

Instead of making the mistake of trying to get govt to "micromanage" every type of regulation on each case,
which is infinite and unenforceable by the same reasons corporations already bypass and play the court game,
why not teach and enforce a standard of Constitutional principles and ethics for ALL people including corporations. Why not teach people how to mediate conflicts and redress grievances directly.

The corporations with good records of this will retain their charters.
Any corporations with bad records of resisting or censoring complaints of abuse instead of correcting these,
could face revocation. But we need a system to track which corporations are ethically resolving issues and which are skirting them to destroy environment or communities for profit and deny responsibility for damages.

There are currently over 72,000 regulations on the state and federal level regarding how businesses operate. Over the course of the past 8 years, an average of 2,000 regulations per year were passed at the Federal level, mostly targeting businesses and corporations. We have one of the two major political parties in America, dedicated to destroying free market capitalism and implementing European-style socialism. YOU are simply buying into rhetoric from the Socialists.

If you don't "GET IT" then I am sorry for you, I can't explain it any better. BP didn't go out there one day and say... Hey, let's release a bunch of oil into the ocean and destroy the environment because we're evil like that!

We already have mediation, you don't like mediation because you say it gives the corporations undue advantages over the individual. We already have laws regarding ethics. When white collar criminals are caught, they are convicted and sent to prison... unless they happen to be a female Democrat running for President.

you do pretty good until you unzip your britches and your little partisan prick shows ...

 

[Boss]

Boss can you really look at ACA and tell me corporations didn't have greater influence than "individuals"?

Dear.... Corporations did not vote for a President who ran on the promise of ACA, nor did they cast votes in Congress for a 2,000-page bill that no one read.

Durr Boss ... corporations throughout the medical industry fully supported the ACA... take insurance corporations for instance.

Oh, no doubt... they WROTE most of it! But Democrats supported this, Nancy Pelosi rammed it through Congress and your elected representatives voted on it. The corporations didn't have a vote.

 

[Boss]

you do pretty good until you unzip your britches and your little partisan prick shows ...

• "Zone 2": Political Forum / Israel and Palestine Forum / Race Relations/Racism Forum / Religion & Ethics Forum / Environment Forum: Baiting and polarizing OP's (Opening Posts), and thread titles risk the thread either being moved or trashed. Keep it relevant, choose wisely. Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject, in addition to any flame. No trolling. No hit and run flames. No hijacking or derailing threads.

 

[PredFan]

Remember when Democrats brought up the fact that the top 1% weren't being taxed fairly? Republicans would say you are just jealous. That those are the "job CREATORS" and the "Producers"?

Their entire plan was that if you get enough money to the "job CREATORS" they will create jobs.

Well, now the corporations are making money hand over fist. The income gap is enormous.

And Republicans are now complaining about the income gap? But I thought that was the plan?

Who is complaining about the income gap?

The only time I hear it mentioned by Republicans is when we point out that it got larger under Obama, despite his claim that it's a bad thing.

it got larger because of population growth wouldn't have anything to do with it would it?

I don't know, I'm not an economist nor am I one of those who makes that claim. I'm simply asking for any one of you left wing nutters to actually tell me who in the GOP has complained about income inequality.

Even some of the more conservative contenders for the White House are talking about income inequality. Libertarian Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) reacted to last month's State of the Union speech by declaring, "Income inequality has worsened under this administration." And Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a tea party-aligned stalwart, blasted those who have "gotten fat and happy" in the last six years under Obama.
"We're facing right now a divided America when it comes to the economy. It is true that the top 1% are doing great under Barack Obama. Today, the top 1% earn a higher share of our national income than any year since 1928," Cruz told Fox News after the president's speech.

I already stated that the only thing I've heard is them telling how much it has risen under Obama. That isn't a change in the GOP's position on income inequality as the OP falsely claims.

 

[Boss]

Boss can you really look at ACA and tell me corporations didn't have greater influence than "individuals"?

Dear.... Corporations did not vote for a President who ran on the promise of ACA, nor did they cast votes in Congress for a 2,000-page bill that no one read.

Dear Boss they didn't need to. They got a bill passed that included the individual mandates, forcing all citizens to buy insurance. The President couldn't remove that individual mandate because he made a promise to the insurance companies to keep it in. So he listened to the insurance companies, gave them trillions of dollars they asked for, but won't listen to individual citizens saying NO to these terms and charging us the fines if we don't comply.

How did corporations get a bill passed? Mind control? Alien superpowers?

AGAIN... Corporations don't vote... they've never voted.