Who's really in charge here?

[DamnYankee]

Is it the people that we have elected?

Or is the corporations who own most of them?

Input please.

You have it backwards.

Gubmint charters corporation and extends to them special tax breaks and limited liability protections.

The corporations owe their servitude to those from whom they derive their benefits.

Quite frankly, I fail to see the difference, since those we elect are so entagled with those who hold the purse strings that grease the wheels. God forbid the wheel-greasing were done by the people! Referendums work for state governments on the duly appointed voting day, but let's not have any of that for the mighty Capitol Hill.

 

[Oddball]

Corporations don't hold the purse strings any more than Tessio and Clemenza hold the purse strings of Don Vito. Corporations aren't buying gubmint, they're giving their masters protection money.

In fact, the biggest multi-national corporation of them all is known as "District of Columbia", codified in a little known law, 16 Stat 419.

ECONOMICROT

 

[DamnYankee]

Corporations don't hold the purse strings any more than Tessio and Clemenza hold the purse strings of Don Vito. Corporations aren't buying gubmint, they're giving their masters protection money.

In fact, the biggest multi-national corporation of them all is known as "District of Columbia", codified in a little known law, 16 Stat 419.

ECONOMICROT

Didn't bother reading the entire contribution. The opening paragraphs did wonders for making your case for ya.

I never claimed to be a constitutional expert and I can't actually verify the information contained in the video below, but I did find it to be very thought-provoking and it helped to tie some of the loose ends together - i.e. how we went about changing from a "Government of the people for the people" to the mode in which we operate today (a govt supporting corporate and special interest groups).

I mean: Have you ever wondered why it takes HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS to become a front-running presidential contender? It's absolutely insane! How can anyone without tremendous financial backing stand a chance? He can't and it's rigged that way for a reason! Those who do have the financial backing, regardless of any good intentions, are OWNED by their financial backers by the time they are "elected" to office and "we the people" don't stand a chance with presidential priorities - until a crisis emerges anyway..

 

[JBeukema]

Corporations don't hold the purse strings any more than Tessio and Clemenza hold the purse strings of Don Vito. Corporations aren't buying gubmint, they're giving their masters protection money.

In fact, the biggest multi-national corporation of them all is known as "District of Columbia", codified in a little known law, 16 Stat 419.

ECONOMICROT

 

[Oddball]

Didn't bother reading the entire contribution. The opening paragraphs did wonders for making your case for ya.

I never claimed to be a constitutional expert and I can't actually verify the information contained in the video below, but I did find it to be very thought-provoking and it helped to tie some of the loose ends together - i.e. how we went about changing from a "Government of the people for the people" to the mode in which we operate today (a govt supporting corporate and special interest groups).

I mean: Have you ever wondered why it takes HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS to become a front-running presidential contender? It's absolutely insane! How can anyone without tremendous financial backing stand a chance? He can't and it's rigged that way for a reason! Those who do have the financial backing, regardless of any good intentions, are OWNED by their financial backers by the time they are "elected" to office and "we the people" don't stand a chance with presidential priorities - until a crisis emerges anyway..

It costs that much because they're paying tribute to their masters.

You do, of course, know that most big corporations fund both parties and their candidates, don't you??

 

[DamnYankee]

Didn't bother reading the entire contribution. The opening paragraphs did wonders for making your case for ya.

I never claimed to be a constitutional expert and I can't actually verify the information contained in the video below, but I did find it to be very thought-provoking and it helped to tie some of the loose ends together - i.e. how we went about changing from a "Government of the people for the people" to the mode in which we operate today (a govt supporting corporate and special interest groups).

I mean: Have you ever wondered why it takes HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS to become a front-running presidential contender? It's absolutely insane! How can anyone without tremendous financial backing stand a chance? He can't and it's rigged that way for a reason! Those who do have the financial backing, regardless of any good intentions, are OWNED by their financial backers by the time they are "elected" to office and "we the people" don't stand a chance with presidential priorities - until a crisis emerges anyway..

It costs that much because they're paying tribute to their masters.

You do, of course, know that most big corporations fund both parties and their candidates, don't you??

No shit? I didn't know that.... Dayum.... Here I was thinkin' that the Dems had a monopoly on that. Oh wait.... That was THIS election. The Reps had a monopoly LAST time.... Monopoly is an interesting game ain't it? One roll of the dice, and BAM!

 

[editec]

No simple answer to that question, really.

Power doesn't stay in one place forever.

But I think we can all agree that those with serious dough have far more power than those who don't, right?