Cons/repubs: are there any issues you have with corporate America?

[Billy000]

Do you at all believe it to be corrupt? Certain aspects with it? Are there any specific corporations you believe to be corrupt and harmful? Which ones?

What issues do you have with certain corporations' business practices? Monsanto for example.

Do you believe in at least the idea of government regulations in business practices? Provided the regulation reach is limited? What purpose do you believe regulations should serve specifically? Where do you draw the line?

In short, how much power should corporations have?

 

[rdean]

Tax cuts and business subsidies make jobs. Safety regulations cost jobs. That's all they think they need to know.

 

[Dot Com]

even business leaders are starting to wonder about their unholy alliance w/ the party that has the tea party minority willing to crash the market/their interests.

 

[Billy000]

even business leaders are starting to wonder about their unholy alliance w/ the party that has the tea party minority willing to crash the market/their interests.

The republican party is in the midst of a civil war.

 

[emilynghiem]

Do you at all believe it to be corrupt? Certain aspects with it? Are there any specific corporations you believe to be corrupt and harmful? Which ones?

What issues do you have with certain corporations' business practices? Monsanto for example.

Do you believe in at least the idea of government regulations in business practices? Provided the regulation reach is limited? What purpose do you believe regulations should serve specifically? Where do you draw the line?

Hi Billy: I can answer as a Constitutionalist who is more liberal/progressive/prochoice. My conservative/Republican friends agree with me, and all think I am with the wrong party, ie Democrats. But I believe in equal inclusion, so I believe this can be accomplished from any position or party, and would especially hold Democrats to this standard who claim diversity.

1. what is ultimately corrupt is imposing a law against the consent of others while expecting them to pay for it, instead of taking that responsibility for one's own views.

that is like signing someone's name to a contract, expecting them to pay on it under penalty of law, while not paying for it when you were the ones passing it and pushing it.

so regardless of the content of the bill, no matter how good it is, with all the best solutions, it should be freely signed and enforced by consent of those expected to pay for it.

all it would take is ACKNOWLEDGING this, and the rest could be corrected from there

2. as for govt regulating businesses or any large collective entity; for the same reasons we enforce the Bill of Rights to protect individuals from abuses of govt as a collective entity with greater resources and influence and authority than a single person, the same protections should be enforced for ANY large group whether a nonprofit, business and in particular political parties that have become bullying machines, also the media. Any group should be required to redress grievances instead of colluding to silence the opposition.

if in the process of licensing businesses nonprofits or religious organizations to operate within a state, these entities were required to set up and follow some procedure for redressing grievances and protecting due process by resolving conflicts by consensus, then we could eliminate the need for excess regulations of each individual industry and field.

most issues could be resolved by people petitioning and answering objections directly.
and only cases that really involve national or federal level would become govt responsibility

3. as for solutions to ACA the first thing would be to remove the overregulated restrictions on exemptions that are abused or discriminating on the basis of religion or political favor.

open up the exemptions where anyone or any group can set up their own chioces for health care provided they neither impose policies or costs on others of other approaches. And make people and parties pay for their own programs, not impose on dissenters who believe in other approaches.

ex: a. reforming the criminal justice system, charging restitution for crimes back to the wrongdoers to pay back the public and u se those funds for education housing health care.
b. allowing charities to provide free spiritual healing to reduce costs of disease, treatment, and also crimes caused by mental and criminal sickness these methods have been shown to cure. in exchange for being exempted where they can build clinics and centers to serve all people, thus reducing the cost and burden on the public
c. rewarding citizens and businesses with taxbreaks for investing in medical education and internships, home health business co-ops, etc to serve Vets and the elderly poor or disabled
d. addressing past waste and abuse of taxpayer money by creating commissioned jobs for legal teams and law schools to assess damages and collect on behalf of taxpayers,
and use those resources and restitution paid back to taxpayers to fund training jobs and services in education, housing and health care. {NOTE: the corrupt spending by abusing military contracts
could easily pay for health care for more people without adding taxes or incurring future debts to taxpayers, but would cash in on getting past debts and damages paid back. If people don't have the money to pay back, then credits can be issued to pay for the labor to do the work that should have been paid for with that same tax money. And over time, by investing in work study programs and schools to provide services on a sustainable basis, the money made or saved can be applied back to pay off the debt tracked per project or case brought by taxpayers against govt or corporate abuses.}

In short, these ideas address the CAUSE and COST of health care, not just manipulating insurance to try to pay the costs 'after the fact.' And instead of adding more cost to what taxpayers have already paid and are still paying now, why not go after the money owed to taxpayers from past misspending, abuse and waste. and use that to pay for costs instead of charging more and more with no accountability.

these are just a few ideas. people should retain equal freedom to pursue the health care options of their choice which was never a duty ascribed to federal govt under the Constitution

if people wish to amend this to apply to health care it should be done openly and honestly using Constitutional rules people agree upon, not how it was done to circumvent consent.

in the meantime at the very least I would hold ACA supporters to pay for their own bill under their own requirements and quit imposing this on others who have other means of providing health care to more people with less bureaucracy or politics involved. to abuse the law and govt to impose such a biased law against consent of taxpayers is fraudulent. Where officials are basically falsely claiming to protect Constitutional duties, protect prochoice and equal inclusion while violating all those principles by imposing this bill as a fed mandate that penalizes opposing choices.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Let me grab my popcorn for this. I don't think I'll need more than a few kernels this should be ignored pretty quickly

 

[g5000]

I have described the corruption between Wall Street and Congress in great detail many times on this forum in the past. An R or a D after someone's name is not a reliable indicator of their fealty to the American public when it come to cooperating with the raping of Main Street by Wall Street.

I have listed specific frauds that have been perpetrated, and specific names who have committed those frauds.

None of them are in jail.

And the fraud continues. Openly, and on an astronomical and historical scale.

Congress has arranged a massive transfer of wealth from the pockets of the common man into the bank accounts of Wall Street oligarchs.

They are able to do this because the rubes don't understand how it is happening, nor do they understand it is happening to them.

It saddens me to see rubes defending the very people and institutions who are literally robbing them blind.

 

[eagle7_31]

Do you at all believe it to be corrupt? Certain aspects with it? Are there any specific corporations you believe to be corrupt and harmful? Which ones?

What issues do you have with certain corporations' business practices? Monsanto for example.

Do you believe in at least the idea of government regulations in business practices? Provided the regulation reach is limited? What purpose do you believe regulations should serve specifically? Where do you draw the line?

In short, how much power should corporations have?

NAFTA, GATT are helping drain jobs and protect poliical/corporate insiders. Regulations should only cover 3 areas, force, fraud and health. And John D. Rockefeller said it best "competiton is a sin'.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes, the collusion between corporations and the government. Bail outs from the governemnt, etc..

Which, as it turns out, is actually the governments fault, not corp. America. The governemnt has fostered and supported corporatism in America.

 

[emilynghiem]

even business leaders are starting to wonder about their unholy alliance w/ the party that has the tea party minority willing to crash the market/their interests.

The republican party is in the midst of a civil war.

By the time they can resolve that, hopefully everyone
will learn how to respect and include all views equally under the Constitution
instead of abusing the left and right wing parties as bulldogs to fight over territory.

That whole habit of barking and bullying down the opposition has got to be replaced
at some point with real problem solving that takes the best of all parties and ideas, and resolves conflicts and objections instead of denying problems and bulldozing over them.

People are asking about the roles of third parties, but what I see happening is organizing a network of representation by party, and training mediators to work out issues of dispute. And make recommendations or test out proposed solutions to advise legislatures and govt.

If we could learn to respect different political views the same way we accept diverse religious bodies, maybe we could stop this trend of trying to bully and dominate by majority rule and media campaigns. we would never allow religious groups to vote on policy to impose over all other beliefs, so why we let political groups do that is equally disastrous.

I could see a real revolution coming out of this once we realize what the lesson is we are meant to learn instead of bullying back and forth in a vicious cycle of denial and projection.

 

[g5000]

There are a variety of means by which the federal government creates an unnatural concentration of wealth and tilts the playing field in favor of entrenched and bloated business entities.

One means is by putting preemption clauses in federal legislation which overrides state laws. State laws which are designed to protect the American public are regularly preempted by Congress. I think you would be amazed how frequently this occurs. This is the biggest reason for why we need to repeal the 17th amendment.

Another means is by enacting Byzantine regulatory hurdles whose costs large established corporations can absorb, which newer and more efficient entries into the field cannot.

Conversely, it is easier for a business sector to capture a single federal regulator than it is to capture 50 state regulators. This way they can prey upon the public without fear of prosecution.

So in some ways, we need less regulation. In other ways, we need better regulation, and even, in some cases, more regulation.

 

[Avatar4321]

Of course there are some people in businesses that are corrupt. You know how to deal with them? Prosecute them and send them to jail if they broke the law. Otherwise, the market will crush them.

The free market is an amazing thing. It corrects itself. If people are acting badly in the market, there will be a downturn to fix it.

That's half the problem with our current society. Our government keeps trying to "bail out" the people making bad decisions so the decisions aren't being corrected.