Nope. Not Torture.

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3069127
Have you ever considered that the industry, corporation or company represents a portion of the constituency?

No, they are not. The owners "may" be part of the constituency but the corporations do not elect our representatives and outr representatives are supposed to be acting in the best interest of the citizens.
There is a case for keeping business healthy for the sake of the citizens but when corporations have the might to install or uninstall our representatives then the system becomes broken.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3069232
really

... again, i cant believe someone would think this way let alone admit it... so they are fighting for the company to do well which means my stock will go up... great!!! with a ration of 1000:1 (their stock versus mine) who does this truly help... thats right, the rich... you have to have money to make money... the more money you have the more you can make... and how do they get this money??? by screwing over the little guy... so i have less, they have more and the cycle continues... but i should allow them to control government, they will increase the price of my one share of stock....
You should read a book on how capitalism works. You don't seem to grasp the fact that when companies do good and grow it provides the government with more tax revenue.
Don't the people who save and invest their time and savings to create a company deserve a better life than those who are just tagging along for the ride? My family certainly isn't rich or even close to it. We have made due with modest cars and a smaller house so we had money enough to invest in the stock market. So rather than driving a shiny new car every couple years and taking extravagant vacations we invest, and risk our excess income. As we speak I am several grand down for the day thank you very much. In any case don't I deserve the profits I earn by making wise use of my money? That is no different than if I actually owned the company.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3069293
No, they are not. The owners "may" be part of the constituency but the corporations do not elect our representatives and outr representatives are supposed to be acting in the best interest of the citizens.
There is a case for keeping business healthy for the sake of the citizens but when corporations have the might to install or uninstall our representatives then the system becomes broken.
Correct but the corporations are not the evil, it is the government. I think that is the fact that is lost on most liberals. If the politicians refused the bribes bribery wouldn't be an issue.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3069298
Correct but the corporations are not the evil, it is the government. I think that is the fact that is lost on most liberals. If the politicians refused the bribes bribery wouldn't be an issue.

Yes, we are in agreement. Corporations are not evil. They are created for the sole purpose of making money and increasing wealth. They also are not employment agencies.
Our government isn't evil either. It's just growing for the sole purpose of growing government. It needs to be downsized, severly.
When a politician votes a certain way because of a campaign contribution or the promise of a contribution from a corporation then in my humble opinion they have accepted a bribe. This is why I have the confusing attitude of encouraging lobbiests while at the same time wanting corporate lobbiests to be outlawed.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3069303
Yes, we are in agreement. Corporations are not evil. They are created for the sole purpose of making money and increasing wealth. They also are not employment agencies.
Our government isn't evil either. It's just growing for the sole purpose of growing government. It needs to be downsized, severly.
When a politician votes a certain way because of a campaign contribution or the promise of a contribution from a corporation then in my humble opinion they have accepted a bribe. This is why I have the confusing attitude of encouraging lobbiests while at the same time wanting corporate lobbiests to be outlawed.
Yeah but then again corporate lobbyists wouldn't be an issue if we had honest politicians. If a company has a legitimate need shouldn't they be able to lobby the government.
My personal preference is to change campaign finance laws so a politician cannot accept donations from any person that can't cast a vote for them. Perfect as a system as you can create.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3069293
No, they are not. The owners "may" be part of the constituency but the corporations do not elect our representatives and outr representatives are supposed to be acting in the best interest of the citizens.
What is the difference, between the owners of a corporation and the corporation? Voters sit on Corporate boards, voters own companies, voters are directly effected by decision made that effect these companies.
A company doing well, is good for the people working for that company.
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3069293
There is a case for keeping business healthy for the sake of the citizens but when corporations have the might to install or uninstall our representatives then the system becomes broken.
I don't think they have that power. There is no way some big business types said ok we are going to put the guy who made his career vilifying business in office. (Unless they are idiots which isn't really out of the question...)
My only point is this, when we say we need to get corporate lobbyist out, or not allow business or industry face time in our government. We are disenfranchising a portion of the constituency. Remember that government by the people, for the people. We shouldn't remove people from the process simply because of their social or economic standing.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3069351
What is the difference, between the owners of a corporation and the corporation? Voters sit on Corporate boards, voters own companies, voters are directly effected by decision made that effect these companies.
A company doing well, is good for the people working for that company.
I don't think they have that power. There is no way some big business types said ok we are going to put the guy who made his career vilifying business in office. (Unless they are idiots which isn't really out of the question...)
My only point is this, when we say we need to get corporate lobbyist out, or not allow business or industry face time in our government. We are disenfranchising a portion of the constituency. Remember that government by the people, for the people. We shouldn't remove people from the process simply because of their social or economic standing.
Corporations ≠ People
So you think it's fine for the banking industry to lobby congress to change the bankruptcy laws to favor the banks irregardless of the effect on the voting public?
Do you think it's OK for a government union to load up a politicians campaign coffer to the point where it insures a win for the same politician that will be negotiating the union contract?
From my perspective it isn't about removing "people from the process simply because of their social or economic standing", it's about equal representation for every citizen.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3069351
What is the difference, between the owners of a corporation and the corporation? Voters sit on Corporate boards, voters own companies, voters are directly effected by decision made that effect these companies.
A company doing well, is good for the people working for that company.
I don't think they have that power. There is no way some big business types said ok we are going to put the guy who made his career vilifying business in office. (Unless they are idiots which isn't really out of the question...)
My only point is this, when we say we need to get corporate lobbyist out, or not allow business or industry face time in our government. We are disenfranchising a portion of the constituency. Remember that government by the people, for the people. We shouldn't remove people from the process simply because of their social or economic standing.
How is getting rid of corporate lobbyists disenfranchising any constituency? The members of the House and Senate are supposed to be THE people who represent their constituencies. Lobbyists have become a sub-group of 'representatives' for a specific group of individuals (big money corporations). They use large sums of money to 'persuade' voting members of Congress to do what THEY want, not what the majority of people want. I could care less what their social or economic status is. They have no business whatsoever to be able to sway a representative that I voted for, to have them vote for what THEY want. That element needs to be removed completely from the equation.
The Congress is no longer represented by Joe Citizen. There's not a 'normal everday' person in this country that can run for office unless they have at least $1 million from 'somebody' to back their campaign. People who run for congressional seats know that if they can spend a mil or two to get in, they'll make twice that is lifetime pensions, perks, and 'kickbacks' from Big Business.

 

[reefraff]

Lobbyists are not the problem. It's the politicians. Tom Delay had it right when he said transparency is the solution. Make politicians disclose all their personal assets before they take office and every year thereafter and for the 10 years after they leave office. Make companies do the same for all lobbying expenses. Problem solved except how many of you are going to vote to decrease your salary and benefits?
Not allowing industry to lobby the federal government is a horrible idea. Also who gets to chose which corporations get to lobby? The American Cancer Society and AARP are Corporations, do they get to lobby?.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3069376
Corporations ≠ People
So you think it's fine for the banking industry to lobby congress to change the bankruptcy laws to favor the banks irregardless of the effect on the voting public?
Do you think it's OK for a government union to load up a politicians campaign coffer to the point where it insures a win for the same politician that will be negotiating the union contract?
From my perspective it isn't about removing "people from the process simply because of their social or economic standing", it's about equal representation for every citizen.
I'm simply pointing out behind those big corporations there are Americans that would benefit. I'm not saying the end result is right or wrong. I'm simply pointing out that if domestic company X goes and greases the wheels to get what they are trying to get. That domestically employed person y is going to benefit. And by saying we need to get rid of corporate lobbyists, you are disenfranchising that employee, that executive and those stockholders from the political process.
Do you agree that government can and does limit ordestroy business through regulations, taxes and legislation?
Do you not agree that a failing or failed company can have a negative effect a local economy (Michigan)?
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3069378
How is getting rid of corporate lobbyists disenfranchising any constituency? The members of the House and Senate are supposed to be THE people who represent their constituencies. Lobbyists have become a sub-group of 'representatives' for a specific group of individuals (big money corporations). They use large sums of money to 'persuade' voting members of Congress to do what THEY want, not what the majority of people want. I could care less what their social or economic status is. They have no business whatsoever to be able to sway a representative that I voted for, to have them vote for what THEY want. That element needs to be removed completely from the equation.
The Congress is no longer represented by Joe Citizen. There's not a 'normal everday' person in this country that can run for office unless they have at least $1 million from 'somebody' to back their campaign. People who run for congressional seats know that if they can spend a mil or two to get in, they'll make twice that is lifetime pensions, perks, and 'kickbacks' from Big Business.
Are you against non-profit lobbyist organisations doing the same thing?
Go back and read some of my previous posts as to why it is a form of disenfranchisement.
You say you own a business, should we shut you out since you own your business? If you were to lobby in support of something that would benifit your business?
Look I'm not saying that there isn't corruption going on in government. I'm not saying that there is a little too much back scratching going on between interest groups and congress men and this President. I do think corporate lobbyist get a bad rap, when there are a lot of non-profit groups that are equally as corrupt. However this is a representative form of government. Any legislation is going to have winners and losers. But saying that we need to shut out the corporate lobby, because they aren't representative of at least a portion of the constituency is a flawed argument. You can't compartmentalize between a corporation, and the people who run it. The Americans who own the stock. And the Americans who work for the business.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3069412
I'm simply pointing out behind those big corporations there are Americans that would benefit. I'm not saying the end result is right or wrong. I'm simply pointing out that if domestic company X goes and greases the wheels to get what they are trying to get. That domestically employed person y is going to benefit. And by saying we need to get rid of corporate lobbyists, you are disenfranchising that employee, that executive and those stockholders from the political process.
Do you agree that government can and does limit ordestroy business through regulations, taxes and legislation?
Do you not agree that a failing or failed company can have a negative effect a local economy (Michigan)?
Are you against non-profit lobbyist organisations doing the same thing?
Go back and read some of my previous posts as to why it is a form of disenfranchisement.
You say you own a business, should we shut you out since you own your business? If you were to lobby in support of something that would benifit your business?
Look I'm not saying that there isn't corruption going on in government. I'm not saying that there is a little too much back scratching going on between interest groups and congress men and this President. I do think corporate lobbyist get a bad rap, when there are a lot of non-profit groups that are equally as corrupt. However this is a representative form of government. Any legislation is going to have winners and losers. But saying that we need to shut out the corporate lobby, because they aren't representative of at least a portion of the constituency is a flawed argument. You can't compartmentalize between a corporation, and the people who run it. The Americans who own the stock. And the Americans who work for the business.
I'm saying representation should be strictly for we the PEOPLE, not we the AARP, NRA, Big 2 1/2, Tobacco Industry, Oil and Energy Industry, etc. No business, mine or otherwise, should get preferential treatment from the Federal Government. Some very good legislation has been killed by these corporations because some senator wouldn't pass the bill as a whole unless 'his/her' part was added (which was done for the business that is greasing his/her palm). I lose my representation because my Congressperson gives more preference to the corporations who scratch his/her back over the people who voted him/her in. So unless I work or am affiliated with some of these big businesses who have these powerful lobbyists essentially telling Congress how to vote, I don't get a say anymore? Or are the people who do have the benefit of working for one of these lobbyist corporations, have 'two votes', since they have one as a normal citizen, and one as an employee?

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3069412
I'm simply pointing out behind those big corporations there are Americans that would benefit.
...and Japanese, Chinese, Saudi Arabians, etc. Should they have a major say on what laws are passed and where your taxes go? It was a British Bank that changed U.S. bankruptcy laws, I had a difficult time with that one. I thought our representatives threw us under the bus to the benefit of a lot of foreign nationals.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3069440
I'm saying representation should be strictly for we the PEOPLE, not we the AARP, NRA, Big 2 1/2, Tobacco Industry, Oil and Energy Industry, etc. No business, mine or otherwise, should get preferential treatment from the Federal Government. Some very good legislation has been killed by these corporations because some senator wouldn't pass the bill as a whole unless 'his/her' part was added (which was done for the business that is greasing his/her palm). I lose my representation because my Congressperson gives more preference to the corporations who scratch his/her back over the people who voted him/her in. So unless I work or am affiliated with some of these big businesses who have these powerful lobbyists essentially telling Congress how to vote, I don't get a say anymore?
All I'm saying is, that when we start saying we have to get rid of the corporate lobby (and I never hear about special interest groups mentioned) that in doing that, you'll disenfranchise a portion of the electorate that does benefit from that lobby.
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3069440
Or are the people who do have the benefit of working for one of these lobbyist corporations, have 'two votes', since they have one as a normal citizen, and one as an employee?
Wait I thought all every day joes are shut out...

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3069487
...and Japanese, Chinese, Saudi Arabians, etc. Should they have a major say on what laws are passed and where your taxes go? It was a British Bank that changed U.S. bankruptcy laws, I had a difficult time with that one. I thought our representatives threw us under the bus to the benefit of a lot of foreign nationals.
So not one American lender lobbied for that legislation, and not one american lender is going to benefit from that legislation?
I'm assuming you're talking about the bankruptcy bill from a couple of years ago...
I work for a company that is owned by the zee Germans. They employee about 300 people in the United States. And are planning on growing to around 1000 (even in the "recession") within 2 years. They contract domestic manufacturers to make multi-million dollar pieces of equipment. 90% or so of the employees earn above the average per capita salary in the USA. The whole operation is managed and run in the USA by mainly Americans. Technically it is a German Company. But most of the income stays in the USA and is reinvested in the USA to grow this business. To pay American employees, to contract out American manufacturers.
If my company decided it needed to lobby for say opening up more leases so that it could drill for oil. who would that be benefiting? The Germans, or the Americans actually working on the project...

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3069270
You've been complaining about how lousy your pay is as a stocker at a walmart.
Your position isn't expendable, but you are. Hence your "low" wage. But if you're making 8-10 dollars an hour putting cans of spaghettios on a shelf you're being paid quite well for what you're doing?
Where in the world does this concept that every job in America should pay enough to support you, a new car payment, a fishtank, a cell phone, an apartment, and whatever else you spend your money on?
Do you really think that?
Think about it, 45-50% of Americans own stock. 45-50% of Americans aren't rediculously rich. A company lobbying for itself is helping their share holders. How much clearer can I make it.
.
your first statement shows again that you dont read, or think about, what you are arguing... i have said where i work, and its not wal mart... the reason i talk about this place is because of what it does to its workers... they are becoming a monopoly in many places, which allows them to pay their employees crap and NO ONE can do ANYTHING about it... people need jobs -->wal mart is the main employer in a lot of places--> they pay crap and no one can do anything about it... your argument here is that these people would be without jobs if it wasn't for wal mart... NO NO NO... where there is demand there is supply... if people in the town need the stuff wal mart is selling several store can open to supply those goods (therefore employing those people)... you need competition in a society... "big box" stores are running this into the ground... you have a handful of retailers that control a huge portion of the market (this is important because, as mentioned before, retail is what we have in this country)... you were talking about the viability of companies earlier and that the government should leave businesses alone not subsidize the ones that cant make it... this is fine and makes since in a capitalist society IN THEORY... but what this allows is monopolies... which, in turn, makes the class differences worse....
so think about it... you are advocating for monopolies, which allows for only a very small few at the top to control all the money in the country... and give a little to the lower 99%... if it wasnt for the government "giving" money to the countries that aren't viable... its as if you havent thought through your argument...
i dont disagree with your stocks argument but i think it is coldhearted to say the least... yes, maybe 45-50% of people own stock... but they own less that 50% of the stock... again, the more money you have the more you can make... i think this is a moot point because the minor difference the stock prices make in an average persons life doesnt justify companies paying their employees crap to raise stock prices... the VERY FEW employees at the bottom at the pay scale that own stock would benefit much more by receiving more for their work...

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3069287
If you think you are under taxed consider you state and federal income taxes, excise taxes on gasoline, motor oils, tires, sporting equipment etc. which are taxes you never see on a receipt but pay just the same. No go pull out your phone, cell phone, gas, water and cable bills. Pay particular attention to your utility bills. Not only do you pay a lot of taxes but on those utility bills you will find you pay a lot of taxes and fees specifically to subsidize the "poor" already,
You don't seriously think even you most fervent run of the mil right winger is arguing against doing anything for the poor do you? They are just fed up subsidizing the life styles of people who made bad choices in life.
I think it was in this thread I posted that there is a statistic for the percentage of people living in poverty that own cell phones. That is absurd. Can't pay rent of buy enough food but by god I do got me a nice phone.
I am all for workfare. Little or no cash payments and the people receiving assistance will either be required to be in job training or performing community service until they find a job and will punch a time clock doing either.
i dont completely disagree with this post... i am arguing for the people that have jobs... people that work full time and are still under the poverty line... and think about what you said above... if jobs paid over the poverty line and there was a reason to work versus sitting at home and receiving a check dont you think more people would work???
i dont support the following view but think about it this way... wouldn't it be better to sit at home, hang out with friends and family, etc instead of going to a job you hate??? and you would be living about the same life style...
i think anyone receiving welfare that is able to work needs to have a job... maybe it is cleaning up the highway or something pointless like that but they need to work for the money they are receiving...

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3069294
You should read a book on how capitalism works. You don't seem to grasp the fact that when companies do good and grow it provides the government with more tax revenue.
Don't the people who save and invest their time and savings to create a company deserve a better life than those who are just tagging along for the ride? My family certainly isn't rich or even close to it. We have made due with modest cars and a smaller house so we had money enough to invest in the stock market. So rather than driving a shiny new car every couple years and taking extravagant vacations we invest, and risk our excess income. As we speak I am several grand down for the day thank you very much. In any case don't I deserve the profits I earn by making wise use of my money? That is no different than if I actually owned the company.
if you are talking about playing the stock market you deserve nothing... paper shuffling and bead counting produces nothing and is whats wrong with this country...

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3069501
So not one American lender lobbied for that legislation, and not one american lender is going to benefit from that legislation?
I'm assuming you're talking about the bankruptcy bill from a couple of years ago...
I work for a company that is owned by the zee Germans. They employee about 300 people in the United States. And are planning on growing to around 1000 (even in the "recession") within 2 years. They contract domestic manufacturers to make multi-million dollar pieces of equipment. 90% or so of the employees earn above the average per capita salary in the USA. The whole operation is managed and run in the USA by mainly Americans. Technically it is a German Company. But most of the income stays in the USA and is reinvested in the USA to grow this business. To pay American employees, to contract out American manufacturers.
If my company decided it needed to lobby for say opening up more leases so that it could drill for oil. who would that be benefiting? The Germans, or the Americans actually working on the project...
this is the problem with outsourcing... you spelled it out here... it is great, in this case, for the US because the money is coming here and staying here by your argument... but lets turn this around to the companies that outsource jobs from the US to mexico, china, etc... the money goes there and stays there....
your argument about lobbyists sounds like you are giving them my vote... they are my representatives since i work for that company and they are doing what is best for the company??? isn't this the point of voting??? by getting rid of the lobbyists wouldn't some of the issues the lobbyists lobby for become part of the campaign for the true representatives and allow the lower portion of this country to decide for themselves??? sure we can vote some one in for one reason or another but is doesn't matter (D or R) if that person is going to vote for the bills they are paid to vote for... companies should not be allowed to donate money to political campaigns, regardless of what this means... you say this is supporting the person that will do what helps their company, i dont see this as true since a lot of companies donate to both parties... they are buying votes and this should not be allowed...

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3069501
So not one American lender lobbied for that legislation, and not one american lender is going to benefit from that legislation?
It was spearheaded by foreign companies. It could have been the best bill ever drafted by congress, I detest the way foreign entities had access to our politicians.
If my company decided it needed to lobby for say opening up more leases so that it could drill for oil. who would that be benefiting? The Germans, or the Americans actually working on the project...
You state a single case. I can state two cases where someone went over Niagara Falls, unprotected, unharmed. So, it must be safe.
Open your eyes. You are promoting the takeover of the U.S. government by the highest bidder (China? Saudi Arabia?)
I hear you complain about jobs being shipped overseas. Our representatives aren't lifting a finger to mitigate that for the American worker. Why is that you suppose? Who benefits from relocating jobs to India and China? Do you benefit? I'm not benefitting from it. Do you think Tata benefits from Hillary sending high paid IT jobs to India? I know Hillary benefitted from it from the big contributions to her campaign but the unemployed IT professionals I know didn't benefit.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3069498
All I'm saying is, that when we start saying we have to get rid of the corporate lobby (and I never hear about special interest groups mentioned) that in doing that, you'll disenfranchise a portion of the electorate that does benefit from that lobby.
Wait I thought all every day joes are shut out...
The Federal Govt. shouldn't be able to benefit only a PART of the people in this country. Congressional legislation is for ALL US citizens. You and I live in Texas. What benefit do I get if Phillip Morris gets money to support their crops or some irrigation lake in South Carolina, or whatever state they grow their tobacco? Just because I MIGHT drive through the state once every 20 years? You want to provide benefits for a portion of the electorate? Let the lobbyists and special interests groups do it there. That's what the STATE govt. is for.
For the record, special interest groups are no better than lobbyists. I actually consider them the same.