Lets elect moderates that aim to keep America number 1#

[Derideo_Te]

DBlack: "Wow... there's so much to choose from. Discrimatory tax policy is a biggie (targeted tax incentives, exemptions, rebates, etc...). The entirety of the ACA. Most government intervention in the economy falls under this category (outside of maintaining property rights and basic rules for transparent transactions.)"

Starting a new subthread since that one is becoming cumbersome to navigate.

Let's begin with discriminatory tax policy. It exists for both individuals and corporations. As an individual you get dependents and mortgage exemptions. Corporations are entitled to write off the costs of doing business against income. I could make the argument that the individual tax exemptions are less legitimate than the corporate overhead exemptions. Both essentially allow for a reduction in tax liability under certain circumstances. The primary basis for allowing these exemptions is to promote something that is "beneficial" to the economy from the perspective of the government. Home ownership promotes stability and allowing overhead deductions promotes incentives for corporations to provide jobs for the people living in those homes.

On the other hand we have the negative tax incentives that are obviously targeted to benefit a special privileged subsector of the tax base. Dividend income taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income is obviously a violation of equal protection. Another aspect that is a violation is the bailout of corporations that were "too big to fail". Perhaps the worst of this was the failure to hold accountable the Wall Street corporations that knowingly packaged up "junk" mortgages and sold them off under false pretenses.

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry, but corporations couldn't exist without limited liability. If every stock holder was criminally liable for the actions of the directors, then millions of people would have to go to prison. Such a proposition is absurd.

Bah.. strawman. I didn't propose anything so extreme. Don't you think there's some middle ground between mass imprisonment and zero accountability?

Your claim that corporations are not accountable is complete bullshit. For one thing, they can be sued, and they often are for millions of dollars. For another, corporate employees are individually accountable for any crimes they commit. If a corporations commits a crime it means individual employees of the corporation committed criminal acts.

Then there's always the reality that corporations caught engaging in nefarious activity often suffer crippling financial losses. I know that from personal experience.

If you don't want to hold the stock holders accountable, then exactly what is your "middle ground?"

 

[bripat9643]

It happens on a daily basis that corporations go bankrupt or are shut down. Some of the more prominent examples being Arthur Anderson and Lehman Bros.

No ones rights are violated when a corporation can't make enough money to pay its bills. That's totally the fault of the corporation. However, when government shuts down a profitable corporation, it is stealing money from American citizens. It violates their 5th Amendment rights.

Corporations are NOT people and do NOT have the same rights as people. They are merely legal constructs for the purposes of conducting business. They have no inherent Constitutional rights like people do.

Since they belong to people and those people have constitutional rights, you government have to treat corporations the same as people. Government can't abolish a corporation without violation the 5th Amendment rights of the people who own it. And it violates the 1st amendment rights of the people who own it if it prevents the corporation from lobbying the government. Many corporations are formed specifically for the purpose of lobbying the government.

Those who want to strip corporations of their 1st Amendment rights simply hate capitalism and want government to be free to act without having to answer to anyone.

Please explain exactly which aspect of the 5th amendment is allegedly being violated?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No ones rights are violated when a corporation can't make enough money to pay its bills. That's totally the fault of the corporation. However, when government shuts down a profitable corporation, it is stealing money from American citizens. It violates their 5th Amendment rights.



Since they belong to people and those people have constitutional rights, you government have to treat corporations the same as people. Government can't abolish a corporation without violation the 5th Amendment rights of the people who own it. And it violates the 1st amendment rights of the people who own it if it prevents the corporation from lobbying the government. Many corporations are formed specifically for the purpose of lobbying the government.

Those who want to strip corporations of their 1st Amendment rights simply hate capitalism and want government to be free to act without having to answer to anyone.

Please explain exactly which aspect of the 5th amendment is allegedly being violated?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Are you claiming that Arthur Anderson was not in criminal violation of the law??

 

[dblack]

DBlack: "Wow... there's so much to choose from. Discrimatory tax policy is a biggie (targeted tax incentives, exemptions, rebates, etc...). The entirety of the ACA. Most government intervention in the economy falls under this category (outside of maintaining property rights and basic rules for transparent transactions.)"

Starting a new subthread since that one is becoming cumbersome to navigate.

Let's begin with discriminatory tax policy. It exists for both individuals and corporations. As an individual you get dependents and mortgage exemptions. Corporations are entitled to write off the costs of doing business against income. I could make the argument that the individual tax exemptions are less legitimate than the corporate overhead exemptions. Both essentially allow for a reduction in tax liability under certain circumstances. The primary basis for allowing these exemptions is to promote something that is "beneficial" to the economy from the perspective of the government. Home ownership promotes stability and allowing overhead deductions promotes incentives for corporations to provide jobs for the people living in those homes.

On the other hand we have the negative tax incentives that are obviously targeted to benefit a special privileged subsector of the tax base. Dividend income taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income is obviously a violation of equal protection. Another aspect that is a violation is the bailout of corporations that were "too big to fail". Perhaps the worst of this was the failure to hold accountable the Wall Street corporations that knowingly packaged up "junk" mortgages and sold them off under false pretenses.

Yep. The bolded portion is the culprit. The 'wall of separation' I think we need would seek to prevent government from manipulating the economy in this way, regardless of who benefits.

 

[bripat9643]

Please explain exactly which aspect of the 5th amendment is allegedly being violated?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Are you claiming that Arthur Anderson was not in criminal violation of the law??

Where did I say anything resembling that idiocy?

 

[Derideo_Te]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Are you claiming that Arthur Anderson was not in criminal violation of the law??

Where did I say anything resembling that idiocy?

Right here;

Since they belong to people and those people have constitutional rights, you government have to treat corporations the same as people. Government can't abolish a corporation without violation the 5th Amendment rights of the people who own it. And it violates the 1st amendment rights of the people who own it if it prevents the corporation from lobbying the government. Many corporations are formed specifically for the purpose of lobbying the government.

Those who want to strip corporations of their 1st Amendment rights simply hate capitalism and want government to be free to act without having to answer to anyone.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Why would anyone want to abolish a corporation? Some of them give millions of jobs and tons of innovation that's good for our society.

The corporation is the main difference between western free society and places like Cuba.

I do believe in rights and fair pay as I said earlier. Why do so many people want to kill the engine of our economy????

 

[dblack]

Why would anyone want to abolish a corporation? Some of them give millions of jobs and tons of innovation that's good for our society.

The corporation is the main difference between western free society and places like Cuba.

I do believe in rights and fair pay as I said earlier. Why do so many people want to kill the engine of our economy????

Because economic performance isn't the only thing that matters.

 

[bripat9643]

Are you claiming that Arthur Anderson was not in criminal violation of the law??

Where did I say anything resembling that idiocy?

Right here;

Since they belong to people and those people have constitutional rights, you government have to treat corporations the same as people. Government can't abolish a corporation without violation the 5th Amendment rights of the people who own it. And it violates the 1st amendment rights of the people who own it if it prevents the corporation from lobbying the government. Many corporations are formed specifically for the purpose of lobbying the government.

Those who want to strip corporations of their 1st Amendment rights simply hate capitalism and want government to be free to act without having to answer to anyone.

The government didn't abolish Arthur Anderson, dipstick. They declared bankruptcy.

 

[bayoubill]

FDR and the country as a whole would beg to differ.

How would FDR "beg to differ"? There were freaking soup lines throughout the US and Americans were dying of starvation along Rt. 66 on the way to the promised land of Ca. while FDR was pretending the CCC were doing something useful. WW2 and General Motors and the steel industry brought the economy around not FDR's infrastructure.

Those soup lies were created from right wing greed by those idiots Coolidge and Hoover. FDR put america to work which pulled the nation out of the great depression, created the interstate highway system, the hoover dam, and other icons that are still used to this day.

ummm... it's painfully obvious that you're a fuckin' lib sheeple motherfucker...

but I'm gonna call you down on only one of your misstatements...

it was Eisenhower who called for the creation of the Interstate Highway system...