Bat shit crazy Elizabeth is at it again, now she wants to take over companies.

[Markle]

You can always count on looney Liz to come up with something ignorant

So true, she, Bernie Sanders, Maxine Waters and a number of others.

Several years back, Bernie Sanders was pointing enthusiastically to the great success of Venezuela.

In an open hearing, Maxine Waters openly threatened oil CEO's with, in her worlds "Socializing" their companies. Realizing what she had said out loud she tried to gather up the words and "swallow" them. She looked the perfect fool.

 

[Dragonlady]

The corporations wouldn’t even exist if not for the government which authorized the incorporation and established the laws under which they function in the first place. Corporations are the creation of government and as such the government has every right to set the rules and laws which govern them.

Corporations are the biggest users of government infrastructure and services in the country.

In order for corporations to be successful, they require an educated work force, a stable and secure government, and protection for intellectual property and inventions. All of which are provided by government.

Wrong again Dragonlady. The government has limits on what they can do to a corporation, or you, because of our Constitution.

Corporations pay huge taxes in their respective communities in property taxes. Each of their employees, paid by the company, pay property taxes as well and they also pay sales taxes.

Corporations have no protections in your constitution. There is no mention of rights for corporations anywhere.

“Government of the people, by the people and for the people”.

Corporations are legal entities which protect their owners from financial ruin in the event of business failure, by limiting their losses to their investment in the business. In this way, the owners assets and capital held outside the business cannot be seized by business creditors in the event of a default of its obligations by the corporation.

 

[Papageorgio]

The corporations wouldn’t even exist if not for the government which authorized the incorporation and established the laws under which they function in the first place. Corporations are the creation of government and as such the government has every right to set the rules and laws which govern them.

Corporations are the biggest users of government infrastructure and services in the country.

In order for corporations to be successful, they require an educated work force, a stable and secure government, and protection for intellectual property and inventions. All of which are provided by government.

Wrong again Dragonlady. The government has limits on what they can do to a corporation, or you, because of our Constitution.

Corporations pay huge taxes in their respective communities in property taxes. Each of their employees, paid by the company, pay property taxes as well and they also pay sales taxes.

Corporations have no protections in your constitution. There is no mention of rights for corporations anywhere.

“Government of the people, by the people and for the people”.

Corporations are legal entities which protect their owners from financial ruin in the event of business failure, by limiting their losses to their investment in the business. In this way, the owners assets and capital held outside the business cannot be seized by business creditors in the event of a default of its obligations by the corporation.

Not entirely true, they have more risk as many times cases are made that penetrate the corporation owners, depends on attorneys and judges.

 

[Dragonlady]

Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me.

This could drive many companies out of business and leave workers holding the bag.

What a load of shit.

Works in Germany and they had a record surplus last year while the Trumpets are over the moon at borrowing 1 trillion...

Germany didn't have a minimum wage law til 2015 and your point being?


.

What if we made a minimum Wage law for the big corporations like the ones targeted in the OPs bill. They are making over a billion a year, they can afford it. This way the small businesses aren’t negatively impacted. Fair compromise?

The small business would be negatively impacted, unless the small businesses paid the same wage as the billion dollar companies they won’t get the same quality workers. Fair compromise would keep keeping the status quo. This would bill would favor the Democratic Party by stipulating that big corps can’t donate unless stakeholders approve at 75%. Why doesn’t she purpose forcing unions to do the same? Because she know there would be no money going to the Democratic Party. The employee doesn’t share the same risk as the employer. Then over the years we will watch the amount drop all the way down to companies grossing over 250,000.

It is a dangerous idea that would give government more control of a business.

It does nothing of the kind. There is no government involvement in the Boards. The employees pick their board members. The government is not involved. The government’s only role here is in establishing the rules.

I wouldnt restrict it to billion dollars companies either. I would require it of all public companies. Management of publicly traded companies is too important to be left in the hands of business school graduates.

 

[Dragonlady]

The corporations wouldn’t even exist if not for the government which authorized the incorporation and established the laws under which they function in the first place. Corporations are the creation of government and as such the government has every right to set the rules and laws which govern them.

Corporations are the biggest users of government infrastructure and services in the country.

In order for corporations to be successful, they require an educated work force, a stable and secure government, and protection for intellectual property and inventions. All of which are provided by government.

Wrong again Dragonlady. The government has limits on what they can do to a corporation, or you, because of our Constitution.

Corporations pay huge taxes in their respective communities in property taxes. Each of their employees, paid by the company, pay property taxes as well and they also pay sales taxes.

Corporations have no protections in your constitution. There is no mention of rights for corporations anywhere.

“Government of the people, by the people and for the people”.

Corporations are legal entities which protect their owners from financial ruin in the event of business failure, by limiting their losses to their investment in the business. In this way, the owners assets and capital held outside the business cannot be seized by business creditors in the event of a default of its obligations by the corporation.

Not entirely true, they have more risk as many times cases are made that penetrate the corporation owners, depends on attorneys and judges.

No it depends on what the owners sign.

As a banker, I want the shareholders to sign a joint and several personal guarantee for the full amount of the loans, collaterally secured by a mortgage over their personal residence, together with independent legal advice for the spouse of the owner. That’s in addition to whatever collateral the corporation provides.

This is why bankers get paid when things go bad, and everyone else gets screwed. By the time the bankers are done, there’s nothing left.

Absent a personal guarantee or some other personal commitment there really isn’t much creditors can do. The only legal way of piercing the limited liability protection is in the event of fraud of fiscal malfeasance, or in the event the owners used shareholder loans to purchase personal assets.

Shareholder loans are a popular way for business owners to make large personal purchases and write off the interest. But such loans are assets of the corporation. In the event things go south, the owner will be required to pay that loan back to the company and the funds used to settle its debts.

 

[Markle]

Not true. The middle class is definitely shrinking, but people are falling out of the middle class into the working class than are joining ranks of the wealthy.

America’s middle class is shrinking. So who’s leaving it?

Wrong again.

Here is the link. Go to the Table H-2 and select "All Races" There you will have proof that what I say is the truth. Historical Income Tables: Households

 

[there4eyeM]

The grotesquely powerful oil companies should be taken over by society. They have entirely too much economic and political power for the good of republican government.

 

[martybegan]

And that responsibility is to their shareholders. They should be subordinate to the government as regulators, but not responsible to it.

And asking them to be legally bound to all "stakeholders" would leave them unable to react to anything without risk of lawsuits.

I agree. I don’t think anything that encourages or enables unnecessary lawsuits is a good thing but I like accountability and things that stand up for workers rights, especially with the large corporations.

Workers already have plenty of rights. All this would do would make the workers and stockholders even more at odds.

Stockholders are the owners of the company, they are the ones who take the risks, and the company has a fiduciary responsibility to return on their investment.

Generally speaking I agree. When a company is making over a billion a year they take in a greater responsibilities than the smaller fish, IMO

Not government's job to get that involved in how they run their company.

I agree, but billion dollar companies play a different game than all the others. They deserve more oversight

Making everyone part of the company's operating structure is not oversight, it's socialism.

 

[iceberg]

And as spidey says... with great power comes great responsibility.

Sounds good, the government should go first.

That’s how it’s structured, genius. That’s why we have elections

The government can't get their own shit straight and you want this idiot Warren to have more power over corporations? No thanks. Buh-bye.

Did I ever say that I wanted Warren to have more power over corporations? Care to show where I said that? Try thinking a little more before you post.

You support the legislation and have spent the entire thread defending it.

Therefore, you get a government issued horse sized vibrator without the batteries.

I don’t have a position on the legislation yet, I just heard about it. I’ve spent the thread asking questions and challenging those of you who are overemotionally reacting.

from what i see about it, i simply don't like the gov telling people how they have to pay people, where it must come from and the like. our gov has zero history of being able to run a business so they need to stop telling people how to do it. i understand oversight and keeping companies from doing illegal things, but to me that's where it ends.

1) make sure they're not endangering the environment
2) make sure they're following proper laws we have, paying taxes and the like
3) go away

if an employee doesn't like what they're doing at a company or isn't making enough, find something else. the very nature of "make businesses more accountable to their employees" is frankly none of the governments business.

"That charter would obligate company directors to consider the interest of all stakeholders, like employees and those in the community where the company is based, and not just those who own the stock. While charters, which define the obligations and structure of American companies, are done at the state level, Warren’s bill brings it to the federal level."

this is for companies with $1bil+ in revenue so smaller companies are not affected. that doesn't change my stance. i simply *do not* want more gov oversight of how *we* conduct our business. it's like they ran out of constructive things to do so they attack "mythical evil" vs. doing something worth while like fix our educational system. provide job training for jobs we see coming and in demand. fix our electrical grid and so forth. while maybe these are being done, they're not talked about enough in my opinion while all the STOP THE GREEDY BASTARDS gets the headlines.

“Let’s change the compensation structure for the CEOs to say that the CEOs will not be permitted to juice the [stock] price, and then once they juice the price, make a quick sale, make a bazillion dollars, and keep emphasizing the incentives,” she said in the interview, part of which aired on “Power Lunch. ”

ok - bazillion dollars? now she's not even being realistic but pumping up the emo-talk so she can get people riled up. she has zero clue what the numbers are so can't even talk realistically about her own proposal.

the gov never gives back power and has been taking quite a bit of it since 9/11 and at this point, the reasons needed during that time have long since faded. we need to stop doing the faux security checks at airports and simply move onto biometric IDs for people.

anyway - i digress. but things like forcing businesses to have employees on the board of directors - that is bullshit. not to say the employees shouldn't be vocal about their company, they should. but in my experience when top brass comes to the office and has even a simple town hall employee meeting, you've always got the employees who ask the stupidest of shit because they don't or can't see the big picture so they start whining about dirty bathrooms or old monitors.

things that at best they need to see their local manager about.

while the answer may be as simple as "well then don't put that employee there" the stance is the same. i am not and will be hard pressed to be in favor of our wasteful gov who is after their own self interests from their own constituents to stay in office. the business is of course after their own self interests and profit; with profit as their reason to be. taking care of their employees, good stewardship in the community and acting in good faith should be up to the business. but as i can't and shouldn't be able to tell people how to behave, the gov has zero business telling companies/corporations how to conduct their business.

so from what i've seen from the bill, it comes across as typical:

Corp Evil; Gov Saves Little Man. Now tell constituents they did something for them but she can't say what cause her economic benefit talk is around "bazillion" dollars, of which is made up to make corps look bad.

 

[iceberg]

Companies making over a Billion in revenue a year carry tremendous power. And as spidey says... with great power comes great responsibility.

And as spidey says... with great power comes great responsibility.

Sounds good, the government should go first.

That’s how it’s structured, genius. That’s why we have elections

The government can't get their own shit straight and you want this idiot Warren to have more power over corporations? No thanks. Buh-bye.

Did I ever say that I wanted Warren to have more power over corporations? Care to show where I said that? Try thinking a little more before you post.

So you're against Warren's moronic plan?
Excellent!

it sounds more like he's here to talk about it, pros and / or cons and debate whether or not it has merits. so far from what i see, he's right. most people are bashing warren and getting their shots in w/o even listening to or talking about the issue itself. many of these people also get mad when liberals simply slam trump and not talk about the issue.

seems to be a human trait, not left or right.

 

[kaz]

What a dumb ***** ... They are losing on RTW, they lost with citizens united so now they are trying to find another way in.



Elizabeth Warren's New Bill Aims to Reinvent U.S. Capitalism


U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren has a plan to rewrite the rules for large U.S. businesses--and it's a provocative one.

The Democratic Senator from Massachusetts is introducing a new bill on Wednesday that would require corporate executives "to consider the interests of all major stakeholders in company decisions--not only shareholders," Warren wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal. The Accountable Capitalism Act would require companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue--including Facebook, Google, and Amazon--to comply with a federal charter that looks out for workers' interests. Currently, U.S. businesses secure corporation charters from states, not on the federal level.

One of the biggest changes that the bill proposes is for employees to elect at least 40 percent of board directors. The bill also seeks to impose limits on when executives can sell company shares. Directors and officers would have to hold shares for five years before
selling them, or in the case of a company stock buyback, three years. Warren's bill also takes aim at political contributions by requiring approval for all political expenditures from at least 75 percent of shareholders.




.

Strong economic growth is the enemy of the Democrat party. People don't need government and it takes away Democrat's ability to peddle blaming other people for their voter's problems

 

[kaz]

Ummm . How is any of that “taking over companies”?

It's an end run. by making them take into account stakeholders, you basically say they have to listen to anyone or face lawsuits.

She means “employees” ok!! Is that so hard to understand ?

Of course you evil cons don’t give a crap about the working man that’s the backbone of the company . “Hey, let’s close this plant and put 1000 people out of work ! The shareholder will get a 10% dividend bump!”

Marxist rhetoric

 

[Papageorgio]

Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me.

This could drive many companies out of business and leave workers holding the bag.

What a load of shit.

Works in Germany and they had a record surplus last year while the Trumpets are over the moon at borrowing 1 trillion...

Germany didn't have a minimum wage law til 2015 and your point being?


.

What if we made a minimum Wage law for the big corporations like the ones targeted in the OPs bill. They are making over a billion a year, they can afford it. This way the small businesses aren’t negatively impacted. Fair compromise?

The small business would be negatively impacted, unless the small businesses paid the same wage as the billion dollar companies they won’t get the same quality workers. Fair compromise would keep keeping the status quo. This would bill would favor the Democratic Party by stipulating that big corps can’t donate unless stakeholders approve at 75%. Why doesn’t she purpose forcing unions to do the same? Because she know there would be no money going to the Democratic Party. The employee doesn’t share the same risk as the employer. Then over the years we will watch the amount drop all the way down to companies grossing over 250,000.

It is a dangerous idea that would give government more control of a business.

It does nothing of the kind. There is no government involvement in the Boards. The employees pick their board members. The government is not involved. The government’s only role here is in establishing the rules.

I wouldnt restrict it to billion dollars companies either. I would require it of all public companies. Management of publicly traded companies is too important to be left in the hands of business school graduates.

Bingo! Because it wouldn’t happen unless the government makes the rule. There are companies that are employee controlled, that is their choice.im good with that.

The law would be bad policy as you already said, you would apply it to all publicly traded companies, you are already on the slippery slope. Then what is the next step? There is always a next step, the current policies are not hurting the people or the economy. You are also using the employees as a way to restrict campaign money flowing to one political party by creating more than even the Congress’ two thirds, and Warren did this by design.

Would this law disband unions because if employees have a voting share there is no need for a union and they should be disbanded and if not should they not follow the 75% rule since they are also owned by the employees?

There are so many Constitutional hurdles that the law would be shut down inside a year.

 

[Slade3200]

Cross that bridge when we get there. Right now this bill is for the big dogs and has nothing to do with smaller companies. Why don’t you just talk about that?

The slippery slope arguments get real old

There is not a snowballs chance that it will get any further than this thread.

Which government program and oversight and diminished over time?

Well Wall Street and financial regulations/oversight were slashed in the 80s under Reagan and through the 90s under Clinton... we saw what that led too

 

[Papageorgio]

The corporations wouldn’t even exist if not for the government which authorized the incorporation and established the laws under which they function in the first place. Corporations are the creation of government and as such the government has every right to set the rules and laws which govern them.

Corporations are the biggest users of government infrastructure and services in the country.

In order for corporations to be successful, they require an educated work force, a stable and secure government, and protection for intellectual property and inventions. All of which are provided by government.

Wrong again Dragonlady. The government has limits on what they can do to a corporation, or you, because of our Constitution.

Corporations pay huge taxes in their respective communities in property taxes. Each of their employees, paid by the company, pay property taxes as well and they also pay sales taxes.

Corporations have no protections in your constitution. There is no mention of rights for corporations anywhere.

“Government of the people, by the people and for the people”.

Corporations are legal entities which protect their owners from financial ruin in the event of business failure, by limiting their losses to their investment in the business. In this way, the owners assets and capital held outside the business cannot be seized by business creditors in the event of a default of its obligations by the corporation.

Not entirely true, they have more risk as many times cases are made that penetrate the corporation owners, depends on attorneys and judges.

No it depends on what the owners sign.

As a banker, I want the shareholders to sign a joint and several personal guarantee for the full amount of the loans, collaterally secured by a mortgage over their personal residence, together with independent legal advice for the spouse of the owner. That’s in addition to whatever collateral the corporation provides.

This is why bankers get paid when things go bad, and everyone else gets screwed. By the time the bankers are done, there’s nothing left.

Absent a personal guarantee or some other personal commitment there really isn’t much creditors can do. The only legal way of piercing the limited liability protection is in the event of fraud of fiscal malfeasance, or in the event the owners used shareholder loans to purchase personal assets.

Shareholder loans are a popular way for business owners to make large personal purchases and write off the interest. But such loans are assets of the corporation. In the event things go south, the owner will be required to pay that loan back to the company and the funds used to settle its debts.

No it depends on how the corporation can be tied to an owner, there are many cases where the owners have been held liable, the corporation does help allieviate some but not all risks. However if your company owes millions and you go under, the owners are still on the hook, that is the way it flows. I had a good friend go under and he was on the hook for the company debt.

 

[Slade3200]

I agree. I don’t think anything that encourages or enables unnecessary lawsuits is a good thing but I like accountability and things that stand up for workers rights, especially with the large corporations.

Workers already have plenty of rights. All this would do would make the workers and stockholders even more at odds.

Stockholders are the owners of the company, they are the ones who take the risks, and the company has a fiduciary responsibility to return on their investment.

Generally speaking I agree. When a company is making over a billion a year they take in a greater responsibilities than the smaller fish, IMO

Not government's job to get that involved in how they run their company.

I agree, but billion dollar companies play a different game than all the others. They deserve more oversight

Making everyone part of the company's operating structure is not oversight, it's socialism.

Making the government in control of the companies operating structure is socialism. Making everyone part of a companies operating structure is closer to a democracy.

 

[martybegan]

Workers already have plenty of rights. All this would do would make the workers and stockholders even more at odds.

Stockholders are the owners of the company, they are the ones who take the risks, and the company has a fiduciary responsibility to return on their investment.

Generally speaking I agree. When a company is making over a billion a year they take in a greater responsibilities than the smaller fish, IMO

Not government's job to get that involved in how they run their company.

I agree, but billion dollar companies play a different game than all the others. They deserve more oversight

Making everyone part of the company's operating structure is not oversight, it's socialism.

Making the government in control of the companies operating structure is socialism. Making everyone part of a companies operating structure is closer to a democracy.

No, its socialism because in the end the government is going to be the one calling the shots as the "stakeholder" with the most power and the claim of representing "the people"

 

[iceberg]

Workers already have plenty of rights. All this would do would make the workers and stockholders even more at odds.

Stockholders are the owners of the company, they are the ones who take the risks, and the company has a fiduciary responsibility to return on their investment.

Generally speaking I agree. When a company is making over a billion a year they take in a greater responsibilities than the smaller fish, IMO

Not government's job to get that involved in how they run their company.

I agree, but billion dollar companies play a different game than all the others. They deserve more oversight

Making everyone part of the company's operating structure is not oversight, it's socialism.

Making the government in control of the companies operating structure is socialism. Making everyone part of a companies operating structure is closer to a democracy.

except in this case the gov is forcing the issue and getting involved in private business to tell them how to run it. at best, gray area.

 

[Votto]

This sounds like something the new democrat socialists would do.

Well Bernie and Crazy eyes need to stop running about saying they are socialists when they are not openly advocating that the government should take over all industry.

They either support it and are lying about not supporting it or they are lying that they are real socialists.

Either way they are dishonest.

 

[Maxdeath]

When this takes effect you can bet your last dollar the next bill will be complete government ownership of any companies or corporations still left in the country.