You should only vote if you can distinguish Obama from Romney

Discussion in 'Election Forums' started by VoteForTheDucks, Oct 28, 2012.

  1. georgephillip
    Offline

    georgephillip Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    26,449
    Thanks Received:
    1,266
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Ratings:
    +2,049
    If government is the means by which state policy is enforced, as well as the mechanism for determining actual state policy, what other institution currently in existence has the power to regulate corporate influence over our money?
     
  2. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    22,382
    Thanks Received:
    2,173
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,643
    I think we should first look at what institutions are currently supporting corporate dominance and adjust them as necessary. The frustrating thing about the usual 'regulatory' approach is that it often succeeds in expanding these very same institutions - further securing the dominant positions of corporations with the clout to control the process.
     
  3. toomuchtime_
    Offline

    toomuchtime_ Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    8,926
    Thanks Received:
    1,271
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +4,764
    The math does work whether you want to recognize it or not. Romney has explained exactly how it works, but it is understandable that after four years of Obama's defeatist can't do administration, you may find it hard to believe. Romney will balance the books with caps on tax deductions, across the board 5% cuts on non security discretionary spending and by raising the rate of growth of real GDP from Obama's anemic 1.65% to 4%, and I explained above some of the ways in which he will do this. There is nothing wrong with the math, it's just that Obama has taught his supporters to love failure so much that they are frightened by the possibility of success.
     
  4. candycorn
    Offline

    candycorn Alis volat propriis

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    40,025
    Thanks Received:
    4,810
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +13,427
    If it did, you'd illustrate it instead of taking personal swipes.

    Ahh, so he is going to raise taxes by getting rid of deductions?

    Anyway, these things have figures....show me numbers if you say the math works.

    Basically you said it would happen with zero proof of any of it. Here is a reality check; weakening labor will result in less take home pay. That has always been the case...unless you think that the business owners just created the weekend out of the goodness of their heart, the minimum wage, and the 40 hour work week.

    Since you've shown none of it, I have to assume there is.

    Again, if you could make the math work, you'd have it in front of me at this point. You have a homework assignment....have it on my desk sometime today.
     
  5. georgephillip
    Offline

    georgephillip Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    26,449
    Thanks Received:
    1,266
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Ratings:
    +2,049
    The usual regulatory approach seems restricted to corporate capture of the regulatory agencies.
    This works to the economic advantage of about 10% of the US population:
    The "investor class" that funds the election campaigns of Republicans AND Democrats.
    Maybe what we need is wall of separation between private wealth and public policy?
    If so, don't wait for Democrats OR Republicans to start that fight.
     
  6. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    22,382
    Thanks Received:
    2,173
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,643
    Absolutely. This is what I've been advocating for ages. The 'catch' is that, to be effective, it needs to be a two-way street. If you want to keep financial interests from manipulating government, you have to keep government from manipulating financial interests. And THAT's a power Congress is exceedingly reluctant to let go of.
     
  7. georgephillip
    Offline

    georgephillip Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    26,449
    Thanks Received:
    1,266
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Ratings:
    +2,049
    Assuming congress let go of that power, what other " democratic" institution is available to regulate financial interests?
     
  8. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    22,382
    Thanks Received:
    2,173
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,643
    The police? I'm not sure what you're getting at, other than circling back around to your original question, which I've already addressed. Wealth exercises power via the institution of government, not in spite of it.

    You seem to be starting with the assumption that someone needs to be in charge of telling us who we can trade with and under what circumstances. I don't think that is necessary to protect our rights. As long as we are free not to do business with people or corporations we don't like, and as long as wealthy interests are prevented from manipulating government policy to their ends, all we need are ordinary criminal laws against assault, theft, fraud and the like.
     
  9. georgephillip
    Offline

    georgephillip Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    26,449
    Thanks Received:
    1,266
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Ratings:
    +2,049
    Do you agree:

    “'We have to grasp, as Marx and Adam Smith did, that corporations are not concerned with the common good.'

    "'They exploit, pollute, impoverish, repress, kill, and lie to make money.'

    "'They throw poor people out of homes, let the uninsured die, wage useless wars for profit, poison and pollute the ecosystem, slash social assistance programs, gut public education, trash the global economy, plunder the U.S. Treasury and crush all popular movements that seek justice for working men and women. They worship money and power.'
    ― Chris Hedges, The Death of the Liberal Class'"

    The Death of the Liberal Class Quotes By Chris Hedges

    Marx was clear about capitalism becoming a revolutionary force after it emasculates government.
    Are you saying individuals will have more economic/political freedom with less government regulation of corporate power?
     
  10. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    22,382
    Thanks Received:
    2,173
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,643
    Yes.

    Some do and will. And last I checked, depending on your interpretation of vague terms like 'impoverish', these things are illegal under ordinary law. No one, corporate 'citizen' or otherwise, should be free to harm others under the law. But, that's not really what we're talking about with 'regulation', is it?

    Nah.. .this one goes off the rails. Corporations don't (yet) have the power to 'throw' people out of their homes, wage war or commit any of the other crimes grievances cited in the quote. Government does.

    What exactly do you mean by 'regulation'? Because that's the rub. I think we should re-address the entire structure of corporate charter - from limited liability to corporate personhood.

    But the 'more regulation' fans aren't pushing for that. They want to create authoritarian agencies that regulate markets, that tell us who we can buy from and how we must do it. These regulatory regimes inhibit the freedoms of consumers more than they 'reign in' corporate power. And they are invariably manipulated by the dominate players for their own benefit.

    I really do think we need to have a strong government to protect our rights - to monitor and punish corporations (and individuals) who lie, cheat, steal etc... But the regulatory state, in general, isn't about protecting our rights. It's about mandating conformity, conformity to standards that often (usually) have nothing to do with protecting freedom and everything to do with commandeering society toward someone's vision of the 'good life'.
     

Share This Page