Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[Toddsterpatriot]

About 50% of the stock market and private equity companies would be affected by her re-regulation, by break up, by some of, one of her many very big, ambitious proposals, and I think it’s not just that there are individual policies that one can disagree with, and there are many

The broader philosophy underpinning it has two elements: one is that she has an enormous faith in government and government regulation, and as we all know, government regulation has its downsides, and we may be in a situation where we need different kind of regulation of some industries, but she is driven by a faith in government

She’s really a democratic socialist in some ways, and she wants to fundamentally change the role of an American company, how an American company is governed, what it’s supposed to do, in ways that I think at least would be disastrous for the American economy

she says she’s a capitalist, but she’s not a capitalist

I think you could make an argument that her plans and policies are far more extreme than Bernie Sanders’ in terms of its impact on the American economy

Some progressives would argue Warren is not going far enough to roll back capitalist corruption:

What Elizabeth Warren Is Quietly Telling Democratic Insiders

"As Ms. Warren steadily rises in the polls she is working diligently to protect her left flank, lining up with progressives on nearly every issue and trying to defuse potential attacks from supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. 'I’m with Bernie,' she responds when asked about what is perhaps the most contentious issue of the primary race: 'Medicare for all.'

"Yet publicly, and even more in private, she is signaling to party leaders that, far from wanting to stage a 'political revolution' in the fashion of Mr. Sanders, she wants to revive the beleaguered Democratic National Committee and help recapture the Senate while retaining the House in 2020."

Some progressives would argue Warren is not going far enough to roll back capitalist corruption:

The government is going to fix capitalist corruption......Hilarious!!!

 

[Andylusion]

I've been poor most of my life. I have never found it 'hard to stay legal'. If you want to buy something you don't have money for.... Wendy's is hiring. Work. Earn money, and buy what you want.

Sure. Wendy's is hiring. But if you want to go into business for yourself, you better have a bankroll and a lawyer. Not because business requires it - because government does.

The system is, in fact, rigged to push people into dependency, into demoralizing dead-end jobs. People who fight that, by exercising genuine entrepreneurial creativity, face the blunt force of the law. Ask Erik Garner. Ask anyone who's tried to start a business without a fat bankroll.

The irony here, of course, is that the kind of state controlled economy georgephillip longs for is exactly what paints people into such corners. It's what makes criminals out of people who just want to work for a living.

And yes non-violent crime sometimes end up in prison, I get that. But you can't tell me, that the majority of people in prison, are not there because they committed a crime. And if they committed a crime, then that is why they are in prison.

I can tell you that there are far too many laws putting people in prison for ridiculous reasons. There are real victims in the progressives' "great society".

So what is the point?

The point is that harumphing that people in prison put themselves there is, often, complete bullshit.

What? Eric Garner, the criminal, who was violating the law?

People start businesses without fat bank rolls all the time. Happens every day. I can think of dozens of examples, just off the top of my head. 1-800-GOT-JUNK, was started by a high school student working fast food... saved up $900, and bought a used pickup truck. That's how the multinational, $300 Million a year business started.... $900 pickup truck.

I can think of dozens of examples. I'm meeting my parents for lunch tomorrow at a restaurant called Louie's Fusion Grill.
Louie's Grill - 4453 Cemetery Rd., Hilliard, OH, 43026

Louie, was just a guy that worked as a cook for another restaurant, and opened his own store. He started with practically nothing, and now runs his own restaurant. He's planning to open another store, elsewhere in the city.

Warren Buffet famously was working as a paper-boy, and saved up money from his paper route, to purchase pinball machines, and put them in local businesses. It was one of his first successful business ventures.

With all due respect.... most businesses are started with little funding. Most. Not all. Obviously Google was started with investors in silicon valley. But most companies today, started with barely anything.

 

[daveman]

You claim capitalists are greedy...but you and other socialists think you're entitled to what you didn't earn.

YOU'RE greedy, George. This is undeniable.

You claim capitalists are greedy...but you and other socialists think you're entitled to what you didn't earn.

YOU'RE greedy, George. This is undeniable

The greed of capitalism produces waste through externalities that require costly, public corrective measures and regulation. Capitalists get rich from clean, clean coal, for example, while externalizing health and air quality onto the greater society. Capitalism also concentrates power and wealth within a small segment of society who don't use available technology and resources for their maximum potential in the interest of the public, but rather concentrating wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.

George, when has government ever solved any of the problems you claim it can solve?

eorge, when has government ever solved any of the problems you claim it can solve?

Social Security solved the problem of senior poverty in the US, and state, local, and federal governments greatly improved air quality in the LA basis over the past fifty years. When have capitalists ever cleaned up any of their externalities without government mandate?

Social Security is exactly the kind of Ponzi scheme you've been screeching about.

But consistency is not your strong suit, is it?

Social Security is exactly the kind of Ponzi scheme you've been screeching about.

But consistency is not your strong suit, is it?

"GOP Candidate Rick Perry caused a relative firestorm in recent weeks by referring to Social Security as a Ponzi Scheme. This has caused a number of rebuttals – one I’m particularly fond of – being a visual person – is this one at MotherJones.

"While that graphic makes a number of good points – and it may reasonably demonstrate that Gov. Perry’s statement that 'Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme' is false as-stated at face-value – it doesn’t really acknowledge that there are some striking similarities between the two – let’s explore..."

Eschewing Obfuscation » Social Security and Ponzi Schemes

Ridiculous. It's a Ponzi scheme. Period.

 

[daveman]

So she's lying/deceiving the DSA?

Well, it's not like deceiving Democratic Socialists takes a lot of effort.

 

[Andylusion]

About 50% of the stock market and private equity companies would be affected by her re-regulation, by break up, by some of, one of her many very big, ambitious proposals, and I think it’s not just that there are individual policies that one can disagree with, and there are many

The broader philosophy underpinning it has two elements: one is that she has an enormous faith in government and government regulation, and as we all know, government regulation has its downsides, and we may be in a situation where we need different kind of regulation of some industries, but she is driven by a faith in government

She’s really a democratic socialist in some ways, and she wants to fundamentally change the role of an American company, how an American company is governed, what it’s supposed to do, in ways that I think at least would be disastrous for the American economy

she says she’s a capitalist, but she’s not a capitalist

I think you could make an argument that her plans and policies are far more extreme than Bernie Sanders’ in terms of its impact on the American economy

About 50% of the stock market and private equity companies would be affected by her re-regulation, by break up, by some of, one of her many very big, ambitious proposals, and I think it’s not just that there are individual policies that one can disagree with, and there are many

Do you see a problem with this example of a Warren proposal?

Elizabeth Warren attacks the private equity industry with new regulation proposals

"Warren wants to make private equity firms responsible for debts and pension obligations of companies they buy."

Well, that's a nice thought.... but it's just going to cause more companies to go bankrupt.

So you do understand that the vast vast majority of the time, the whole reasons that private equity firms buy up other companies, is because those companies are in dire straights, and likely on their way to being liquidated.

And typically, although not always... the whole reason they are on the verge of liquidation, is many times because of debt and pension obligations.

The only reason a capital investment firm is willing to invest capital.... is because they believe they can turn the company around.

If you force them to take on the debts and pension obligations, then they are not likely to turn the company around.

If they are not likely to turn the company around, then they won't buy out the failing company

If a failing company cannot find a buyer.... it closes.

Then EVERYONE loses their jobs.

So if you are ok with more people unemployed, and more companies closed... ok go for it.
And also remember that when a company closes (which your new policy will promote), then that means less competition in the market, and the competitor will be able to charge higher prices for goods and services. So your policy will not only harm the newly unemployed, but also the rest of society as a whole.

See one of the problems with you people on the left, is that you never look at the long term effects of your policies.

You look at the short term, which is you don't like what X company does. But there is a reason why X company is doing what they do. When you choose to not consider why such and such people do what they do, the result is end up having long term negative effects.

 

[georgephillip]

Those of us lucky enough to be born into this country without the benefit of rich parents are still confronted with some significant peril to personal liberty:

United States incarceration rate - Wikipedia

"In September 2013, the incarceration rate of the United States of America was the highest in the world at 716 per 100,000 of the national population. While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners."

I've been in the lower class my entire life. Up till 2016, the most money I've ever made in a given year was $20,000 or less, since I was in college.

Never been incarcerated. Likely because I don't violate the law. Have I been pulled over by police? Sure. And I said things like "yes sir", and followed their every command.

If you get put in prison... it's because you deserved to be in prison. Not because you are poor. Being poor is not a crime, and I have seen a video of a police officer asking for a tax return before being arrested, yet.

If you are in prison.... the cause is in the mirror.

If you are in prison.... the cause is in the mirror.

What explains the racial disparity in US prisons?

Jim Crow or redlining?

Or.... people that commit violence crimes end up prison?

People who commit non-violent crimes end up in prison too. And that's the problem. The regulatory state might seem invisible to people with a regular income. It's just an expense of life that they write off. But when you're dead broke, it's damned hard to stay legal. The system pushes the poor into state dependency by regulating away their right to look out for themselves.

I've been poor most of my life. I have never found it 'hard to stay legal'. If you want to buy something you don't have money for.... Wendy's is hiring. Work. Earn money, and buy what you want.

And yes non-violent crime sometimes end up in prison, I get that. But you can't tell me, that the majority of people in prison, are not there because they committed a crime. And if they committed a crime, then that is why they are in prison.

So what is the point?

And yes non-violent crime sometimes end up in prison, I get that. But you can't tell me, that the majority of people in prison, are not there because they committed a crime. And if they committed a crime, then that is why they are in prison.

Many are in prison because they could not afford adequate legal representation. If you have a white skin, it is probably difficult for you to grasp the fact black and brown-skinned males (in particular) are often arrested with little or no evidence of any crime being committed.

They are then subjected to additional specious charges any competent defense attorney would easily defeat; however, public defenders don't have the same resources as prosecutors whose careers are measured solely by their "conviction" rate.

Defendants take a plea bargain only because they would rather serve five or six years in prison instead of fifteen to twenty years they would face if they went to trial on all charges leveled against them.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The only reason a capital investment firm is willing to invest capital.... is because they believe they can turn the company around.

Yeah, and you're not chock full of shit!

 

[georgephillip]

I've been poor most of my life. I have never found it 'hard to stay legal'. If you want to buy something you don't have money for.... Wendy's is hiring. Work. Earn money, and buy what you want.

Sure. Wendy's is hiring. But if you want to go into business for yourself, you better have a bankroll and a lawyer. Not because business requires it - because government does.

The system is, in fact, rigged to push people into dependency, into demoralizing dead-end jobs. People who fight that, by exercising genuine entrepreneurial creativity, face the blunt force of the law. Ask Erik Garner. Ask anyone who's tried to start a business without a fat bankroll.

The irony here, of course, is that the kind of state controlled economy georgephillip longs for is exactly what paints people into such corners. It's what makes criminals out of people who just want to work for a living.

And yes non-violent crime sometimes end up in prison, I get that. But you can't tell me, that the majority of people in prison, are not there because they committed a crime. And if they committed a crime, then that is why they are in prison.

I can tell you that there are far too many laws putting people in prison for ridiculous reasons. There are real victims in the progressives' "great society".

So what is the point?

The point is that harumphing that people in prison put themselves there is, often, complete bullshit.

The irony here, of course, is that the kind of state controlled economy georgephillip longs for is exactly what paints people into such corners. It's what makes criminals out of people who just want to work for a living.

Which forces control the state?
The forces of Sacred Capitalism?

The Sacred Story of Capitalism, Retold - Evonomics

"When we speak about this unspoken narrative of capitalism, we can give up pretending that moral and economic values are opposed or somehow separated.

"We can say clearly, for example, that the financial crisis of 2007-8 was not just a failure of markets, but a failure of morality — for what else can you honestly call it when predatory banks escape justice as ordinary people suffer?

"We can question who is doing the sacrificing, and for whose good the system is working.

"We can also see how the strategic deployment of sacred values and ritual can be used to conceal harmful activities.

"In Silicon Valley, executives instill eastern values like mindfulness and meditation into workplaces in a way that covers up the exploitation of employees and consumers that many companies are built around."

Those of us who have lived and breathed global capitalism since birth are like a fish analyzing water when we try to examine its narrative

The greed of capitalism produces waste through externalities that require costly, public corrective measures and regulation. Capitalists get rich from clean, clean coal, for example, while externalizing health and air quality onto the greater society. Capitalism also concentrates power and wealth within a small segment of society who don't use available technology and resources for their maximum potential in the interest of the public, but rather concentrating wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.

George, when has government ever solved any of the problems you claim it can solve?

eorge, when has government ever solved any of the problems you claim it can solve?

Social Security solved the problem of senior poverty in the US, and state, local, and federal governments greatly improved air quality in the LA basin over the past fifty years. When have capitalists ever cleaned up any of their externalities without government mandate?

Actually it's happened many times.

However, one lie.... Social Security did not solve the problem of seniors living in poverty. Again... right now...> NOW < ... the *AVERAGE* social security check is barely $1300 a month.

You can earn more at Wendy's.

And further, Seniors living in poverty, was not a big problem before Social Security. There was no demand for social security, before the 1930s. That's all mythology.

However, one lie.... Social Security did not solve the problem of seniors living in poverty. Again... right now...> NOW < ... the *AVERAGE* social security check is barely $1300 a month.

You can earn more at Wendy's.

How many hours would a senior have to work at Wendy's to net $1300??

How many seniors are capable of being on their feet for that many hours five days a week?

Why should they have to?

40 hours a week. You'll make $1440 a month, minus taxes.

Again... you seemed to have missed a key word. "AVERAGE".... $1300 isn't how much everyone gets. It's the AVERAGE. Meaning 50% of people living on Social Security, get a much lower amount of money, than $1300. I've met people who only collected $900 a month. And there are those who get less than that a month.

40 hours a week. You'll make $1440 a month, minus taxes.

Again... you seemed to have missed a key word. "AVERAGE".... $1300 isn't how much everyone gets. It's the AVERAGE. Meaning 50% of people living on Social Security, get a much lower amount of money, than $1300. I've met people who only collected $900 a month. And there are those who get less than that a month.

You didn't answer why a senior after working for 40-50 years, should be required to stand on her feet for forty hours a week after retiring? Perhaps when you are a little older and wiser, you will understand?

 

[georgephillip]

About 50% of the stock market and private equity companies would be affected by her re-regulation, by break up, by some of, one of her many very big, ambitious proposals, and I think it’s not just that there are individual policies that one can disagree with, and there are many

The broader philosophy underpinning it has two elements: one is that she has an enormous faith in government and government regulation, and as we all know, government regulation has its downsides, and we may be in a situation where we need different kind of regulation of some industries, but she is driven by a faith in government

She’s really a democratic socialist in some ways, and she wants to fundamentally change the role of an American company, how an American company is governed, what it’s supposed to do, in ways that I think at least would be disastrous for the American economy

she says she’s a capitalist, but she’s not a capitalist

I think you could make an argument that her plans and policies are far more extreme than Bernie Sanders’ in terms of its impact on the American economy

About 50% of the stock market and private equity companies would be affected by her re-regulation, by break up, by some of, one of her many very big, ambitious proposals, and I think it’s not just that there are individual policies that one can disagree with, and there are many

Do you see a problem with this example of a Warren proposal?

Elizabeth Warren attacks the private equity industry with new regulation proposals

"Warren wants to make private equity firms responsible for debts and pension obligations of companies they buy."

yes, it goes too far. she should not be president, and you should not be her VP

yes, it goes too far. she should not be president, and you should not be her VP

And for AG?

 

[georgephillip]

About 50% of the stock market and private equity companies would be affected by her re-regulation, by break up, by some of, one of her many very big, ambitious proposals, and I think it’s not just that there are individual policies that one can disagree with, and there are many

The broader philosophy underpinning it has two elements: one is that she has an enormous faith in government and government regulation, and as we all know, government regulation has its downsides, and we may be in a situation where we need different kind of regulation of some industries, but she is driven by a faith in government

She’s really a democratic socialist in some ways, and she wants to fundamentally change the role of an American company, how an American company is governed, what it’s supposed to do, in ways that I think at least would be disastrous for the American economy

she says she’s a capitalist, but she’s not a capitalist

I think you could make an argument that her plans and policies are far more extreme than Bernie Sanders’ in terms of its impact on the American economy

Some progressives would argue Warren is not going far enough to roll back capitalist corruption:

What Elizabeth Warren Is Quietly Telling Democratic Insiders

"As Ms. Warren steadily rises in the polls she is working diligently to protect her left flank, lining up with progressives on nearly every issue and trying to defuse potential attacks from supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. 'I’m with Bernie,' she responds when asked about what is perhaps the most contentious issue of the primary race: 'Medicare for all.'

"Yet publicly, and even more in private, she is signaling to party leaders that, far from wanting to stage a 'political revolution' in the fashion of Mr. Sanders, she wants to revive the beleaguered Democratic National Committee and help recapture the Senate while retaining the House in 2020."

Some progressives would argue Warren is not going far enough to roll back capitalist corruption:

The government is going to fix capitalist corruption......Hilarious!!!

 

[georgephillip]

About 50% of the stock market and private equity companies would be affected by her re-regulation, by break up, by some of, one of her many very big, ambitious proposals, and I think it’s not just that there are individual policies that one can disagree with, and there are many

The broader philosophy underpinning it has two elements: one is that she has an enormous faith in government and government regulation, and as we all know, government regulation has its downsides, and we may be in a situation where we need different kind of regulation of some industries, but she is driven by a faith in government

She’s really a democratic socialist in some ways, and she wants to fundamentally change the role of an American company, how an American company is governed, what it’s supposed to do, in ways that I think at least would be disastrous for the American economy

she says she’s a capitalist, but she’s not a capitalist

I think you could make an argument that her plans and policies are far more extreme than Bernie Sanders’ in terms of its impact on the American economy

About 50% of the stock market and private equity companies would be affected by her re-regulation, by break up, by some of, one of her many very big, ambitious proposals, and I think it’s not just that there are individual policies that one can disagree with, and there are many

Do you see a problem with this example of a Warren proposal?

Elizabeth Warren attacks the private equity industry with new regulation proposals

"Warren wants to make private equity firms responsible for debts and pension obligations of companies they buy."

Well, that's a nice thought.... but it's just going to cause more companies to go bankrupt.

So you do understand that the vast vast majority of the time, the whole reasons that private equity firms buy up other companies, is because those companies are in dire straights, and likely on their way to being liquidated.

And typically, although not always... the whole reason they are on the verge of liquidation, is many times because of debt and pension obligations.

The only reason a capital investment firm is willing to invest capital.... is because they believe they can turn the company around.

If you force them to take on the debts and pension obligations, then they are not likely to turn the company around.

If they are not likely to turn the company around, then they won't buy out the failing company

If a failing company cannot find a buyer.... it closes.

Then EVERYONE loses their jobs.

So if you are ok with more people unemployed, and more companies closed... ok go for it.
And also remember that when a company closes (which your new policy will promote), then that means less competition in the market, and the competitor will be able to charge higher prices for goods and services. So your policy will not only harm the newly unemployed, but also the rest of society as a whole.

See one of the problems with you people on the left, is that you never look at the long term effects of your policies.

You look at the short term, which is you don't like what X company does. But there is a reason why X company is doing what they do. When you choose to not consider why such and such people do what they do, the result is end up having long term negative effects.

he only reason a capital investment firm is willing to invest capital.... is because they believe they can turn the company around.

There are other reasons why "vulture capitalists" invest in struggling companies:

Asset Stripping

"What Is Asset Stripping?

"Asset stripping is the process of buying an undervalued company with the intent of selling off its assets to generate a profit for shareholders.

"The individual assets of the company, such as its equipment, real estate, brands, or intellectual property, may be more valuable than the company as a whole due to such factors as poor management or poor economic conditions.

"The result of asset stripping is often a dividend payment for investors and either a less-viable company or bankruptcy."

Generating shareholder profits by reneging on wage and pension compensation commitments to the workers who created the asset value in the first place is a prime example of wealth redistribution.

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

And yes non-violent crime sometimes end up in prison, I get that. But you can't tell me, that the majority of people in prison, are not there because they committed a crime. And if they committed a crime, then that is why they are in prison.

Many are in prison because they could not afford adequate legal representation. If you have a white skin, it is probably difficult for you to grasp the fact black and brown-skinned males (in particular) are often arrested with little or no evidence of any crime being committed.

(Speaking to what I made bold) Is this your opinion or do you have factual evidence to support this claim.

They are then subjected to additional specious charges any competent defense attorney would easily defeat; however, public defenders don't have the same resources as prosecutors whose careers are measured solely by their "conviction" rate.

Again, supposition on your part or factual evidence to support the claim. As to the rest of the statement - I agree that public defenders don't have the same resources. That is a fault of the broken criminal justice system. The public defender's office should be on a par with the district attorney's office.

Defendants take a plea bargain only because they would rather serve five or six years in prison instead of fifteen to twenty years they would face if they went to trial on all charges leveled against them.

And that's on them, and normally recommended by their attorney after discovery. I know some damn fine attorney's who worked in the PD's office and learned quite a bit about how the gears grind on the defense side. Also, in the large number of the cases charges are dismissed as part of the deal, so offenders are spending less time in prison than they should be.

 

[JustAGuy1]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

I find it interesting how you Progressives NEED to use the Gov as an enforcement agency for your every little whim.

 

[georgephillip]

Are you sure you want to bring family into this discussion, Porky?

Sure. My parents were public school teachers. That's it.

They just bought a lake house on Lake Erie, using investment money from their careers as public school teachers.

That doesn't include their main house, that is worth $750K.

My parents taught me to save, and invest. That's why they are millionaires today.

What did your parents teach you? How to complain about the system that produces the most wealthy for the most people, more than any other country on Earth?

My parents taught me to save, and invest. That's why they are millionaires today.

What did your parents teach you? How to complain about the system that produces the most wealthy for the most people, more than any other country on Earth?

You and your hard-working family, along with all other Americans, are about 5% of global population. Your lifestyles and mine are paid for in places like Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen. Capitalism has murdered hundreds of millions of innocent human beings across the past five hundred years so that greedy, ignorant Americans can prosper. If that's something you celebrate, it's not hard to understand why you hold the political views you do.

You are an idiot now. If you really believe that, then you have condemned yourself with your own statement.

If you want to fix that, be my guest at moving to Venezuela, where no one is being forced to pay for the lifestyles of others... and they are dying of starvation.

If you want to fix that, be my guest at moving to Venezuela, where no one is being forced to pay for the lifestyles of others... and they are dying of starvation.

Starvation has come to countries like Venezuela, Iraq, and Honduras because of greedy, self-absorbed "patriots" like you who believe their level of consumption justifies starvation and worse elsewhere,

Moving won't change anything,

Only cowards offer that as a solution.

Impossible. All the greedy self-absorbed 'patriots' like me..... left Venezuela. All the greedy evil corporations, and the elite wealthy people.... left.

How is it that you try and blame the people who are no longer there, for the problems that are there? They all left. No one is being greedy in Venezuela, because all the people you claim were greedy are no longer in Venezuela.

Try again...

How is it that you try and blame the people who are no longer there, for the problems that are there? They all left. No one is being greedy in Venezuela, because all the people you claim were greedy are no longer in Venezuela.

Greedy people who have never set foot in Venezuela are responsible for what's happening there.

Trump’s Economic Sanctions Have Cost Venezuela About $6bn Since August 2017

 

[georgephillip]

Are you sure you want to bring family into this discussion, Porky?

Sure. My parents were public school teachers. That's it.

They just bought a lake house on Lake Erie, using investment money from their careers as public school teachers.

That doesn't include their main house, that is worth $750K.

My parents taught me to save, and invest. That's why they are millionaires today.

What did your parents teach you? How to complain about the system that produces the most wealthy for the most people, more than any other country on Earth?

My parents taught me to save, and invest. That's why they are millionaires today.

What did your parents teach you? How to complain about the system that produces the most wealthy for the most people, more than any other country on Earth?

You and your hard-working family, along with all other Americans, are about 5% of global population. Your lifestyles and mine are paid for in places like Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen. Capitalism has murdered hundreds of millions of innocent human beings across the past five hundred years so that greedy, ignorant Americans can prosper. If that's something you celebrate, it's not hard to understand why you hold the political views you do.

You are an idiot now. If you really believe that, then you have condemned yourself with your own statement.

If you want to fix that, be my guest at moving to Venezuela, where no one is being forced to pay for the lifestyles of others... and they are dying of starvation.

If you want to fix that, be my guest at moving to Venezuela, where no one is being forced to pay for the lifestyles of others... and they are dying of starvation.

Starvation has come to countries like Venezuela, Iraq, and Honduras because of greedy, self-absorbed "patriots" like you who believe their level of consumption justifies starvation and worse elsewhere,

Moving won't change anything,

Only cowards offer that as a solution.

/——-/ So your level of consumption causes starvation? You selfish pig.

——-/ So your level of consumption causes starvation? You selfish pig

Repent, Piggy.

 

[Richard-H]

How 'bout mandatory profit sharing?

 

[georgephillip]

And yes non-violent crime sometimes end up in prison, I get that. But you can't tell me, that the majority of people in prison, are not there because they committed a crime. And if they committed a crime, then that is why they are in prison.

Many are in prison because they could not afford adequate legal representation. If you have a white skin, it is probably difficult for you to grasp the fact black and brown-skinned males (in particular) are often arrested with little or no evidence of any crime being committed.

(Speaking to what I made bold) Is this your opinion or do you have factual evidence to support this claim.

They are then subjected to additional specious charges any competent defense attorney would easily defeat; however, public defenders don't have the same resources as prosecutors whose careers are measured solely by their "conviction" rate.

Again, supposition on your part or factual evidence to support the claim. As to the rest of the statement - I agree that public defenders don't have the same resources. That is a fault of the broken criminal justice system. The public defender's office should be on a par with the district attorney's office.

Defendants take a plea bargain only because they would rather serve five or six years in prison instead of fifteen to twenty years they would face if they went to trial on all charges leveled against them.

And that's on them, and normally recommended by their attorney after discovery. I know some damn fine attorney's who worked in the PD's office and learned quite a bit about how the gears grind on the defense side. Also, in the large number of the cases charges are dismissed as part of the deal, so offenders are spending less time in prison than they should be.

(Speaking to what I made bold) Is this your opinion or do you have factual evidence to support this claim.

Petition Seeks to End Practice of Charge Stacking - Los Angeles Sentinel

"The practice of charge stacking is a simple and terribly effective method for prosecutors looking to win cases.

As broken down by Seeking Justice for the Innocent, the technique entails finding as many possible criminal counts to 'stack' against the defendant in order to strengthen the core case of the prosecution.

"This strategy is made wide open to prosecutors, because the main deterrent against stacking charges is the law of double jeopardy.

"In Blockburger v. United States, the Supreme Court said the government may separately try and punish the defendant for two crimes if each crime contains an element that the other does not."

 

[Richard-H]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

I find it interesting how you Progressives NEED to use the Gov as an enforcement agency for your every little whim.

Government "for the people and by the people" must really piss you off, huh?

 

[georgephillip]

And yes non-violent crime sometimes end up in prison, I get that. But you can't tell me, that the majority of people in prison, are not there because they committed a crime. And if they committed a crime, then that is why they are in prison.

Many are in prison because they could not afford adequate legal representation. If you have a white skin, it is probably difficult for you to grasp the fact black and brown-skinned males (in particular) are often arrested with little or no evidence of any crime being committed.

(Speaking to what I made bold) Is this your opinion or do you have factual evidence to support this claim.

They are then subjected to additional specious charges any competent defense attorney would easily defeat; however, public defenders don't have the same resources as prosecutors whose careers are measured solely by their "conviction" rate.

Again, supposition on your part or factual evidence to support the claim. As to the rest of the statement - I agree that public defenders don't have the same resources. That is a fault of the broken criminal justice system. The public defender's office should be on a par with the district attorney's office.

Defendants take a plea bargain only because they would rather serve five or six years in prison instead of fifteen to twenty years they would face if they went to trial on all charges leveled against them.

And that's on them, and normally recommended by their attorney after discovery. I know some damn fine attorney's who worked in the PD's office and learned quite a bit about how the gears grind on the defense side. Also, in the large number of the cases charges are dismissed as part of the deal, so offenders are spending less time in prison than they should be.

I agree that public defenders don't have the same resources. That is a fault of the broken criminal justice system. The public defender's office should be on a par with the district attorney's office.

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

Petition Seeks to End Practice of Charge Stacking - Los Angeles Sentinel

"The practice of charge stacking is a simple and terribly effective method for prosecutors looking to win cases.

As broken down by Seeking Justice for the Innocent, the technique entails finding as many possible criminal counts to 'stack' against the defendant in order to strengthen the core case of the prosecution.

"This strategy is made wide open to prosecutors, because the main deterrent against stacking charges is the law of double jeopardy.

"In Blockburger v. United States, the Supreme Court said the government may separately try and punish the defendant for two crimes if each crime contains an element that the other does not."

While charge stacking does occur, how is one to decide when it is happening against a defendant? Here's and example: A man is charged with 3 counts of sexual assault of a child by a person in position of authority from 3 separate instance of committing the act. he individual is also charged with felony child abuse.

Is this charge stacking? If so, what reasoning do you use to make the decision?