CultureCitizen
Silver Member
- Jun 1, 2013
- 1,932
- 140
- 95
- Thread starter
- #141
Specifically, what relaxed rules are you referring too?
In this case , any rules that openly promote corruption and make it untraceable.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Specifically, what relaxed rules are you referring too?
So , you seem to be comfortably at ease with the fact that banks can once again " roll the dice in the derivatives gambling with taxpayer guaranteed deposits."
Specifically, what relaxed rules are you referring too?
In this case , any rules that openly promote corruption and make it untraceable.
Hi Boss,Citizens United was a case brought as a direct result of CFR. The ruling was not, as the left describes, "making corporations people." Corporations are already people-- Is there any corporation not comprised of people? The ruling upholds the freedom of speech provisions in the 1st Amendment as well as provisions of the 13th and 14th. We simply are not allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of what "group" they belong to... a "corporation" is such a group and does deserve Constitutional protection as such. SCOTUS was right, CFR was wrong.
I don't have a list, but Goldman Sachs would be part of it.
Well, Goldman Sachs wasn't a bank before the crisis and they weren't going to fail because of derivatives. So you're 0 for 2.
So , they made a pack of subprime ( knowing it would default ) , disclosed that information to a customer , and let him bet against it, and told other investors none of it. WTF?
Made a pack of subprime? What does that mean? How could they know it would default?
If they did know, why give the winner to a client, they could have kept it all themselves.
Yes, they created synthetic derivatives. You know there are 2 sides to a derivative, right?
Of course , they turned into a bank exactly at the begining of the crisis. Quite conveninent wasn't it ?
How could they know ? Don't be naive, because they knew what was inside them of course.
Oh, and they also made profits from it :
"The e-mails, Levin said, "show that, in fact, Goldman made a lot of money by betting against the mortgage market" and contradict the firm's claim that it was merely buying and selling securities for clients."
"A third exhibit released by the panel describes the impact of a wipeout of a Long Beach Mortgage Securities Corp. security by saying the "bad news" of the loss costs the firm $2.5 million, but the "good news" is that "we own protection" against the loss. "We make $5mm," meaning $5 million, the e-mail said."
Goldman knew it profited from mortgage crisis - Apr. 24 2010
Hi Boss,Citizens United was a case brought as a direct result of CFR. The ruling was not, as the left describes, "making corporations people." Corporations are already people-- Is there any corporation not comprised of people? The ruling upholds the freedom of speech provisions in the 1st Amendment as well as provisions of the 13th and 14th. We simply are not allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of what "group" they belong to... a "corporation" is such a group and does deserve Constitutional protection as such. SCOTUS was right, CFR was wrong.
Yes , of course , most people belong to an organization ( union , corporation , ngo ) . But these groups are not citizens.
I have no problem with individual donations from citizens, and such donations must have a very low ceiling. ( I've been toying with the daily minimum wage ).
Groups, groups are abstract. A person can pertain to more than one group which complicates matters more.
And I see foreign owned corporations as a risk for the whole system ( imagine China goes company shopping with its huge reserves)
I can accept $100 donation per year by individual citizens or no donations at all. Corporate and union donations are unacceptable for me ( its even worse for corps because of the revolving door).
Should campaign donations have a low ceiling ( e.g. the minimum wage of a day per election) ?
My position follows :
A) Greed is the engine that makes capitalism move.
B) Most of the elements in the system are fueled by greed.
Share your thoughts.
Hi Boss,Citizens United was a case brought as a direct result of CFR. The ruling was not, as the left describes, "making corporations people." Corporations are already people-- Is there any corporation not comprised of people? The ruling upholds the freedom of speech provisions in the 1st Amendment as well as provisions of the 13th and 14th. We simply are not allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of what "group" they belong to... a "corporation" is such a group and does deserve Constitutional protection as such. SCOTUS was right, CFR was wrong.
Yes , of course , most people belong to an organization ( union , corporation , ngo ) . But these groups are not citizens.
I have no problem with individual donations from citizens, and such donations must have a very low ceiling. ( I've been toying with the daily minimum wage ).
Groups, groups are abstract. A person can pertain to more than one group which complicates matters more.
And I see foreign owned corporations as a risk for the whole system ( imagine China goes company shopping with its huge reserves)
I can accept $100 donation per year by individual citizens or no donations at all. Corporate and union donations are unacceptable for me ( its even worse for corps because of the revolving door).
I don't quite get what you mean by "making something less important".You didn't answer my question... When have we ever made something less important by restricting it?
And I see foreign owned corporations as a risk for the whole system ( imagine China goes company shopping with its huge reserves)
Foreign contributions are already illegal.
Didn't stop Clinton from getting Chinese funds in 1996, or Obama more recently.
I don't quite get what you mean by "making something less important".You didn't answer my question... When have we ever made something less important by restricting it?
Regardless, some ammendments were made on the constitution, which arguably restricted free trade.
Slavery and human traffic was forbiden .
So a set of persons had to give up their rights so that a bigger group could aspire to equal rights.
To restrict what the corporation can do in terms of free speech is restricting the rights of all members of that group.
I can't agree with you in this statement.
And I see foreign owned corporations as a risk for the whole system ( imagine China goes company shopping with its huge reserves)
Foreign contributions are already illegal.
Didn't stop Clinton from getting Chinese funds in 1996, or Obama more recently.
¿? So you are supporting my argument or not ?
Yes , of course , the company is foreign owned, but what about the CEO and the members of the board ?
Even if the company can't donate they'll find a way to do it through a ngo or through the company's executives.
I don't quite get what you mean by "making something less important".
To restrict what the corporation can do in terms of free speech is restricting the rights of all members of that group.
I can't agree with you in this statement.
... don't know man. I am clueless about how he got impeached over a blowjob instead.Your argument to limit contributions to $100 is silly.
Clinton broke the campaign laws in 1996, why didn't he do time?
I mean besides being married to the drunk?
To restrict what the corporation can do in terms of free speech is restricting the rights of all members of that group.
I can't agree with you in this statement.
The SCOTUS and I can't agree with you.
... don't know man. I am clueless about how he got impeached over a blowjob instead.Your argument to limit contributions to $100 is silly.
Clinton broke the campaign laws in 1996, why didn't he do time?
I mean besides being married to the drunk?
and explain yourself , why do you consider the limit silly.
Well that's the issue here, isn't it? To make money less important of an influence on politicians. So when have we ever made anything less important by restricting it?
...about a blowjob...ah man , I wish he had just said. Yea, Monica, best bjob in my life... sory Hillary.He was impeached for lying under oath.
Lost his law license as well.
What a group does doesn't actually reflect the sum of what their members wish to achieve. This is specially true in a company where the power comes from the top of the organization.