Senate Republicans chooses Wall Street OVER taxpayers

[Bfgrn]

*cough* Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac *cough*

Have you ever wondered why the FRELL these two entities are exempt from the bill when taxpayers are on the hook for unlimited $Billions to cover the losses from bad loans that Congress mandated they buy?

Keep filling your little pea with right wing propaganda, just don't try to cross the street without adult supervision...

SPLAT!!!

 

[boedicca]

Typical moonbat.

We've funnelled $145B recently into bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac whose executives are largely Democrat Patronage Cronies. Why is this an acceptable use of taxpayer money?

 

[rdean]

Meanwhile the Demo-Libs block a bill that would stop funneling an endless stream of cash to Fannie and Freddie:

Congress.org - : Key Votes

So, nanner-nanner-boo-boo

Question who received the second highest amount of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie while a Senator? O****

Obama received hardly any money from the "company" Freddie/Fannie. Employees held fundraisers, gathered donations and bundled the money together as a contribution to Obama from "Freddie/Fannie", NOT the company, but from the employees. We did the same thing where I work. The "company" itself actually gave to McCain. This has been completely documented and gone over ad nauseum. I'm surprised anyone on the right would be make something out of nothing.

Obama, Barack--S--IL--D--$126,349--$6,000--$120,349

Update: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Lawmakers - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets

Name--senator--democrat--total money--money from PAC--money from individuals.

That's right, Obama received $120,349 from "INDIVDUALS" but only 6 grand from the company. Look at what others received from the company. Obama was near the bottom.

White wingers always trying to make something from nothing. It's because they have so much baggage.

 

[Toro]

Meanwhile the Demo-Libs block a bill that would stop funneling an endless stream of cash to Fannie and Freddie:

Congress.org - : Key Votes

So, nanner-nanner-boo-boo

McCain-Shelby-Gregg Amendment to S. 3217 Would Hurt, Not Help the Fragile Housing Market

Sens. McCain, Shelby, and Gregg have proposed an amendment to the Wall Street reform bill that would radically reshape Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, severing all federal involvement with these mortgage securitization government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) within 24 months. The McCain amendment is reckless, poorly thought out, and poses significant risk to housing markets that have only recently begun to stabilize, threatening the broader economy.

Major reforms of the housing finance system are clearly necessary, as we can’t go back to the system of the past, and the status quo of GSEs under federal conservatorship is untenable. But such changes must be thoughtful and deliberate. In the near term, we must ensure that any changes affecting the federal role in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not jeopardize the fragile economic recovery, and over the long term, we must be careful in structuring the housing finance system in a way that guarantees continued mortgage liquidity with minimal economic disruptions.

The McCain amendment falls short in several respects:

* It poses significant risk to the economic recovery
* It fails to ensure that sufficient mortgage credit will be available in the future
* It neglects to replace the public purposes served by the GSEs

McCain-Shelby-Gregg Amendment to S. 3217 Would Hurt, Not Help the Fragile Housing Market

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator McCain should stick to HIS solution to fix our economy; eliminate earmarks...

The pea brain party supported by the pea brain coalition...DUD and Cali gal...

Many on the Right on spending are intellectually dishonest or unknowing. The intellectually dishonest are the politicians who say they are going to balance the budget and cut taxes, saying that they are going to cut "waste" to meet their promises. The unknowing are almost everyone else who believes them. Some might call those people "gullible" but I would rather be more charitable. Very few on the Right say that we are going to have to dramatically slash spending, and most of the unknowing don't want their spending cut, just someone else's.

I commend those on the Right who argue that we have to dramatically cut spending and are willing to have their spending cut. Those people are intellectually honest. However, most people don't want to hear this and don't want to make the sacrifice.

The politicians who say that they are going to cut taxes and balance the budget while not demanding sacrifices from people directly are dishonest liars, and are doing a tremendous disservice to the country. The only way this is going to be solved is if a lot of spending is cut, borne by everyone, not "waste".

 

[martybegan]

Nice try...but you fail.

There is a very good reason to dehumanize corporations. They are NOT human.

They are not mortal. They don't share that same aspirations as you and I. They are not fragile biological creatures that can be poisoned, harmed or killed. They don't want democracy, they don't want free markets. Corporations exist for one sole purpose...profit.

Corporations are externalizing machines that are constantly figuring out ways to get somebody else to pay their costs of production. One of the best ways to do that is through pollution. Pollution is inefficiency. It undermines and dismantles a true free market and allows a corporation to drastically reduces the REAL costs of their product and pass those inefficiencies (costs) on to you and me. It costs We the people about 4 trillion dollars per year to absorb THEIR costs, through workplace injuries, medical care required by the failure of unsafe products, health costs from pollution, hazy skies, injured consumers, and impoverished workers in the United States and elsewhere.

If you really want a country that our founding father's envisioned, and if you want to understand their view of corporations and the role of government to control and regulate corporations; educate yourself...

The History of Corporations in the United States

The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
-William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention

You didnt answer my statement. You just went into the standard CORPORTATIONS EVIL OOGA BOOGA rant.

If there is a better model of doing business I'd like to hear it.

'standard CORPORTATIONS EVIL OOGA BOOGA rant'???

Is there a better model than crony capitalism, corporate welfare and corporate socialism? Yea, how about a REAL free market? In a real free market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.

I guess you didn't read how our founding father's viewed corporations and the role of government to control and regulate them?

I thought you said you're not a sucker?

First of all our founding fathers could not envision a modern corportation due to the revolution in communications that allowed it to come into existance. Thier version of a corporation was limited to horse speed information transfer.

I did read the diatribe, and it is an unsourced opinion piece. The page also links to democratic underground making it related to all sorts of kookery.

I stand by my ooga booga comment.

Your version of a "free market" also does not make any sense. How does man A making widget B supposed to enrich a whole community? Hes trying to sell a widget?

To me your main beef is corportations allow certian people greater access to the levers of power. How is that different from a person owning thier own large buisiness or a partnership having greater access due to the size of thier wealth? Or actors having greater power and exposure? Unions have greater political access and are in many ways similar to corportations with members replaced by shareholders.

Why do i have a feeling you animosity can be boiled down to "I dont like people with more stuff than me?"

EDIT: ALERT! The page also links to 9/11 truth stuff. Didn't see that the first time. makes the site offically nutball.

 

[jreeves]

Meanwhile the Demo-Libs block a bill that would stop funneling an endless stream of cash to Fannie and Freddie:

Congress.org - : Key Votes

So, nanner-nanner-boo-boo

Question who received the second highest amount of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie while a Senator? O****

Obama received hardly any money from the "company" Freddie/Fannie. Employees held fundraisers, gathered donations and bundled the money together as a contribution to Obama from "Freddie/Fannie", NOT the company, but from the employees. We did the same thing where I work. The "company" itself actually gave to McCain. This has been completely documented and gone over ad nauseum. I'm surprised anyone on the right would be make something out of nothing.

Obama, Barack--S--IL--D--$126,349--$6,000--$120,349

Update: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Lawmakers - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets

Name--senator--democrat--total money--money from PAC--money from individuals.

That's right, Obama received $120,349 from "INDIVDUALS" but only 6 grand from the company. Look at what others received from the company. Obama was near the bottom.

White wingers always trying to make something from nothing. It's because they have so much baggage.

You're a moron too, if you think fundraisers and campaign bundlers aren't connected to the company. For instance...

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Democrats - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets
The federal government recently announced that it will come to the rescue of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two embattled mortgage buyers that for years have pursued a lobbying strategy to get lawmakers on their side. Both companies have poured money into lobbying and campaign contributions to federal candidates, parties and committees as a general tactic, but they've also directed those contributions strategically. In the 2006 election cycle, Fannie Mae was giving 53 percent of its total $1.3 million in contributions to Republicans, who controlled Congress at that time. This cycle, with Democrats in control, they've reversed course, giving the party 56 percent of their total $1.1 million in contributions. Similarly, Freddie Mac has given 53 percent of its $555,700 in contributions to Democrats this cycle, compared to the 44 percent it gave during 2006.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have also strategically given more contributions to lawmakers currently sitting on committees that primarily regulate their industry. Fifteen of the 25 lawmakers who have received the most from the two companies combined since the 1990 election sit on either the House Financial Services Committee; the Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee; or the Senate Finance Committee. The others have seats on the powerful Appropriations or Ways & Means committees, are members of the congressional leadership or have run for president. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate banking committee, has received the most from Fannie and Freddie's PACs and employees ($133,900 since 1989). Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) has received $65,500. Kanjorski chairs the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs.



Also educate yourself about bundlers....
Campaign finance in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Another consequence of the limitation upon personal contributions from any one individual ($2400 for each election, with a total of $4800 for a primary and general election as of 2009[citation needed]) is that campaigns seek out "bundlers," people who can gather contributions from many individuals in an organization or community, and present the sum to the campaign. Campaigns often recognize these bundlers with honorary titles and, in some cases, exclusive events featuring the candidate.

Bundling has always existed in various forms, but has become more important with the enactment of limits on contributions at the federal level and in most states in the 1970s.[3] EMILY's List, for example, was involved in early bundling-like activities. Bundlers grew in importance again after the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 prohibited soft money contributions to political parties.[4]

Bundling became organized in a more structured way in the 2000s, spearheaded by the "Bush Pioneers" for George W. Bush's 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns. One infamous former "bundler" was Democratic Party supporter and apparel manufacturer Norman Hsu, who achieved a prominent role as one of Hillary Rodham Clinton's "HillRaisers" for her 2008 presidential campaign.[4] Hsu was then found to be a fugitive from an early 1990s fraud charge; in such cases, campaigns usually return or donate to charity the contributions that the person in question gave, but are left with the thorny question of whether to return all the other contributions that bundler gave. In some cases, including Hsu's, bundlers are suspected of having donated their own money under others' names (to circumvent the individual contribution limit) or of having coerced employees or others to make contributions with their own money, both of which are illegal. But most bundlers operate legally and help to reduce the time and cost of fundraising for the candidates and their campaigns.

During the 2008 campaign the six leading primary candidates (three Democratic, three Republican) had listed a total of nearly two thousand bundlers.[4]


Also,

A PAC is limited to a maximum contribution of $5,000 to a candidate committee per election.


So therefore for a company such as Freddie or Fannie to be able to circumvent the max amount allowed they would need bundlers.....

 

[jeffrockit]

Meanwhile the Demo-Libs block a bill that would stop funneling an endless stream of cash to Fannie and Freddie:

Congress.org - : Key Votes

So, nanner-nanner-boo-boo

McCain-Shelby-Gregg Amendment to S. 3217 Would Hurt, Not Help the Fragile Housing Market

Sens. McCain, Shelby, and Gregg have proposed an amendment to the Wall Street reform bill that would radically reshape Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, severing all federal involvement with these mortgage securitization government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) within 24 months. The McCain amendment is reckless, poorly thought out, and poses significant risk to housing markets that have only recently begun to stabilize, threatening the broader economy.

Major reforms of the housing finance system are clearly necessary, as we can’t go back to the system of the past, and the status quo of GSEs under federal conservatorship is untenable. But such changes must be thoughtful and deliberate. In the near term, we must ensure that any changes affecting the federal role in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not jeopardize the fragile economic recovery, and over the long term, we must be careful in structuring the housing finance system in a way that guarantees continued mortgage liquidity with minimal economic disruptions.

The McCain amendment falls short in several respects:

* It poses significant risk to the economic recovery
* It fails to ensure that sufficient mortgage credit will be available in the future
* It neglects to replace the public purposes served by the GSEs

McCain-Shelby-Gregg Amendment to S. 3217 Would Hurt, Not Help the Fragile Housing Market

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator McCain should stick to HIS solution to fix our economy; eliminate earmarks...

The pea brain party supported by the pea brain coalition...DUD and Cali gal...

Only white wingers on this blog are still blaming the economic collapse on Freddie/Fannie.

All the economists, both left and right, blame it on Wall Street and deregulation.

Obviously, USMB bloggers know something no one else does. What other possible explanation could there be?

The problem with F & F is not the blame game. It's the fact that they were also bailed out and their CEO received bonuses but they are not held to the same kind of scrutiny as the banks or wall street companies. Why do they get a pass, should be the question.

 

[Oddball]

The problem with F & F is not the blame game. It's the fact that they were also bailed out and their CEO received bonuses but they are not held to the same kind of scrutiny as the banks or wall street companies. Why do they get a pass, should be the question.

Their CEOs and select board members also used the same illegal accounting gimmicks that caused the crash and burn of Enron, yet got away Scot free.

But those crooks carry that (D) by their names, so don't expect them to be held to account for their malfeasance, from either congress or rdunce.

 

[Full-Auto]

Look at the white wingers defending Wall Street and the rape of the American economy.

congress refuses to outlaw insider trading for lawmakers: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance


LOL Cluless you have become

 

[Barb]

I love rhetoric like this. So if wall street people arent americans what the hell are they?

The guy that mugs you at an ATM is also more than likely an American.

Depends on the neighborhood.

My point was that anti-corpratists try to remove any trace of people being part of the structures they hate. They ignore the people that run the company, work for it, and are invested in it.

Or I missed something and corporations are run by robots, or terminators, or something like that.

Marty, the people within the structure are not working for their own individual or community interests except through paychecks received and (arguably) the taxes they pay upon those paychecks.
The corporation is a legal construct, and the people who work for corporation serve that master, the legal construct is built and functions to serve one thing, and that is the bottom line above all and anything else. Within the legality of corporate agreements as they are now written, the legally constructed entity has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to do one thing, and that one thing is to maximize profit by limiting liability and overhead. This is why corporations should run under state (and national, where appropriate) charters that limit their ability to avoid responsibility for their actions, set limits on what they can damage, how they can treat their workers, and regulations on how they can operate in order to make sure that what they do, at the very least, does not damage the fabric of a decent society. But...instead the people paid to represent them acquired for them "personhood" status, and these legal constructs that neither die or suffer as humans do, nor are bound by any other biological need that humans are, can now access the best "justice" money can buy as well as politicians who write laws to make sure that "justice" is not pestering them overmuch (in any other than a symbolic way, if that) to begin with.
Does that answer your question?

 

[Barb]

You didnt answer my statement. You just went into the standard CORPORTATIONS EVIL OOGA BOOGA rant.

If there is a better model of doing business I'd like to hear it.

'standard CORPORTATIONS EVIL OOGA BOOGA rant'???

Is there a better model than crony capitalism, corporate welfare and corporate socialism? Yea, how about a REAL free market? In a real free market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.

I guess you didn't read how our founding father's viewed corporations and the role of government to control and regulate them?

I thought you said you're not a sucker?

First of all our founding fathers could not envision a modern corportation due to the revolution in communications that allowed it to come into existance. Thier version of a corporation was limited to horse speed information transfer.

I did read the diatribe, and it is an unsourced opinion piece. The page also links to democratic underground making it related to all sorts of kookery.

I stand by my ooga booga comment.

Your version of a "free market" also does not make any sense. How does man A making widget B supposed to enrich a whole community? Hes trying to sell a widget?

To me your main beef is corportations allow certian people greater access to the levers of power. How is that different from a person owning thier own large buisiness or a partnership having greater access due to the size of thier wealth? Or actors having greater power and exposure? Unions have greater political access and are in many ways similar to corportations with members replaced by shareholders.

Why do i have a feeling you animosity can be boiled down to "I dont like people with more stuff than me?"

EDIT: ALERT! The page also links to 9/11 truth stuff. Didn't see that the first time. makes the site offically nutball.

The difference is that unions are supported by and represent the interests of the the workers, who are members of the community they work within.

 

[martybegan]

The guy that mugs you at an ATM is also more than likely an American.

Depends on the neighborhood.

My point was that anti-corpratists try to remove any trace of people being part of the structures they hate. They ignore the people that run the company, work for it, and are invested in it.

Or I missed something and corporations are run by robots, or terminators, or something like that.

Marty, the people within the structure are not working for their own individual or community interests except through paychecks received and (arguably) the taxes they pay upon those paychecks.
The corporation is a legal construct, and the people who work for corporation serve that master, the legal construct is built and functions to serve one thing, and that is the bottom line above all and anything else. Within the legality of corporate agreements as they are now written, the legally constructed entity has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to do one thing, and that one thing is to maximize profit by limiting liability and overhead. This is why corporations should run under state (and national, where appropriate) charters that limit their ability to avoid responsibility for their actions, set limits on what they can damage, how they can treat their workers, and regulations on how they can operate in order to make sure that what they do, at the very least, does not damage the fabric of a decent society. But...instead the people paid to represent them acquired for them "personhood" status, and these legal constructs that neither die or suffer as humans do, nor are bound by any other biological need that humans are, can now access the best "justice" money can buy as well as politicians who write laws to make sure that "justice" is not pestering them overmuch (in any other than a symbolic way, if that) to begin with.
Does that answer your question?

So what you want is a business model that creates a situation where anyone who runs or has a share in a business is at the whims of a whole series of goverment entitites who can basically destroy thier organization if the mood so strikes them? Who would want to run a businsess under this model?

Corportations CAN be regulated, CAN be held accountable via the courts. What you want is people to assume the risk of creating a good or service and have the goverment able to crush them and take away all of thier work if the mood so strikes.

Again, as with the other poster, your real problem seems to be with hirearchy in general and with people who have more stuff than you and more influence. The corporation is just a convinent boogey man.

Also corporations are not true people, never were. that is a talking point. They CANNOT vote, They CAN own property, They CAN be sued/sue. They CAN be criminally charged. They are a device to allow for shareholder ownership of a buisiness entity, and to limit liablity for said shareholders.

Finally all the regulatory issues you listed, how they treat workers etc are enforced already. Your issue is that they arent strict enough by your standards.

 

[martybegan]

'standard CORPORTATIONS EVIL OOGA BOOGA rant'???

Is there a better model than crony capitalism, corporate welfare and corporate socialism? Yea, how about a REAL free market? In a real free market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.

I guess you didn't read how our founding father's viewed corporations and the role of government to control and regulate them?

I thought you said you're not a sucker?

First of all our founding fathers could not envision a modern corportation due to the revolution in communications that allowed it to come into existance. Thier version of a corporation was limited to horse speed information transfer.

I did read the diatribe, and it is an unsourced opinion piece. The page also links to democratic underground making it related to all sorts of kookery.

I stand by my ooga booga comment.

Your version of a "free market" also does not make any sense. How does man A making widget B supposed to enrich a whole community? Hes trying to sell a widget?

To me your main beef is corportations allow certian people greater access to the levers of power. How is that different from a person owning thier own large buisiness or a partnership having greater access due to the size of thier wealth? Or actors having greater power and exposure? Unions have greater political access and are in many ways similar to corportations with members replaced by shareholders.

Why do i have a feeling you animosity can be boiled down to "I dont like people with more stuff than me?"

EDIT: ALERT! The page also links to 9/11 truth stuff. Didn't see that the first time. makes the site offically nutball.

The difference is that unions are supported by and represent the interests of the the workers, who are members of the community they work within.

And shareholders are more than likey members of the community too, albeit indirectly. Who owns alot of these shares? Pension funds, 401k's etc. Again it boils down to people you dont like and have more stuff than you do.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Are the Democrat base all stupid?

Yes.

moar improtant, all the Democrat base are belong to us.

 

[Barb]

First of all our founding fathers could not envision a modern corportation due to the revolution in communications that allowed it to come into existance. Thier version of a corporation was limited to horse speed information transfer.

I did read the diatribe, and it is an unsourced opinion piece. The page also links to democratic underground making it related to all sorts of kookery.

I stand by my ooga booga comment.

Your version of a "free market" also does not make any sense. How does man A making widget B supposed to enrich a whole community? Hes trying to sell a widget?

To me your main beef is corportations allow certian people greater access to the levers of power. How is that different from a person owning thier own large buisiness or a partnership having greater access due to the size of thier wealth? Or actors having greater power and exposure? Unions have greater political access and are in many ways similar to corportations with members replaced by shareholders.

Why do i have a feeling you animosity can be boiled down to "I dont like people with more stuff than me?"

EDIT: ALERT! The page also links to 9/11 truth stuff. Didn't see that the first time. makes the site offically nutball.

The difference is that unions are supported by and represent the interests of the the workers, who are members of the community they work within.

And shareholders are more than likey members of the community too, albeit indirectly. Who owns alot of these shares? Pension funds, 401k's etc. Again it boils down to people you dont like and have more stuff than you do.

Albeit indirectly?
You
are
officially
a moron.

 

[martybegan]

The difference is that unions are supported by and represent the interests of the the workers, who are members of the community they work within.

And shareholders are more than likey members of the community too, albeit indirectly. Who owns alot of these shares? Pension funds, 401k's etc. Again it boils down to people you dont like and have more stuff than you do.

Albeit indirectly?
You
are
officially
a moron.

Im an Engineer, not an english major. What i mean is that they dont directly own the shares, but thier pensions and 401k's do.

But go ahead and attack my lack of spelling prowness and not the content of my post.

 

[Gunny]

Senate Republicans blocked Democrats from voting on three amendments Tuesday that are strongly opposed by Wall Street.

Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top-ranking Republican on the Banking Committee, rose to object to a vote on one of the most talked-about amendments, cosponsored by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). Levin-Merkley would ban commercial banks from trading for their own benefit with taxpayer-backed money.

Shelby also objected to an amendment from Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) that would rein in predatory practices of payday lenders and one from Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) that would have banned naked credit default swaps, which were at the heart of the financial crisis.

Wall Street lobbyists, and consequently Senator McConnell and the Republicans, want to kill the Merkley-Levin amendment by attrition because they're afraid of losing a vote.

If this isn't a sign of the Republicans having the backs of the big banks on Wall Street over the American people, I don't know what is."

Whole article...

---------------------
Related articles...

Senate GOP Blocks Financial Reform Amendment - Roll Call

Stengthened Senate Liberals Fighting Lobbyists, GOP on Financial Reform - Working In These Times

You mean he chooses free enterprise over diapering your ass?

 

[Bfgrn]

You didnt answer my statement. You just went into the standard CORPORTATIONS EVIL OOGA BOOGA rant.

If there is a better model of doing business I'd like to hear it.

'standard CORPORTATIONS EVIL OOGA BOOGA rant'???

Is there a better model than crony capitalism, corporate welfare and corporate socialism? Yea, how about a REAL free market? In a real free market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.

I guess you didn't read how our founding father's viewed corporations and the role of government to control and regulate them?

I thought you said you're not a sucker?

First of all our founding fathers could not envision a modern corportation due to the revolution in communications that allowed it to come into existance. Thier version of a corporation was limited to horse speed information transfer.

I did read the diatribe, and it is an unsourced opinion piece. The page also links to democratic underground making it related to all sorts of kookery.

I stand by my ooga booga comment.

Your version of a "free market" also does not make any sense. How does man A making widget B supposed to enrich a whole community? Hes trying to sell a widget?

To me your main beef is corportations allow certian people greater access to the levers of power. How is that different from a person owning thier own large buisiness or a partnership having greater access due to the size of thier wealth? Or actors having greater power and exposure? Unions have greater political access and are in many ways similar to corportations with members replaced by shareholders.

Why do i have a feeling you animosity can be boiled down to "I dont like people with more stuff than me?"

EDIT: ALERT! The page also links to 9/11 truth stuff. Didn't see that the first time. makes the site offically nutball.

Now THIS is ' OOGA BOOGA', 'kookery' and totally irrelevant.

First of all our founding fathers could not envision a modern corportation due to the revolution in communications that allowed it to come into existance. Thier version of a corporation was limited to horse speed information transfer.

The so called 'unsourced opinion piece' is an excerpt from a BOOK. You are welcome to produce any 'piece' that shows our founding fathers believed corporations could do harm to We the People and not be held personally accountable or not have their charter terminated.

-------------------------------------
A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.

So the Constitution's authors left control of corporations to state legislatures (10th Amendment), where they would get the closest supervision by the people. Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when.

Corporations could not own stock in other corporations

They were prohibited from any part of the political process.

Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and most charters only lasted for 10 or 15 years.

But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good, such a building a road, canal, or bridge.

And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

Abolish Corporate Personhood
----------------------------------------

If man A is manufacturing a 'widget', his cost of manufacturing must internalize the cost of any harm to that community the manufacturing process creates. Man A should not be able to externalize those costs. When he externalizes those costs, he makes himself richer while making the community poorer.

To me your main beef is corportations allow certian people greater access to the levers of power.

EXACTLY!!! You hit the nail on the head. Thank you for proving you're a sucker. Clearly YOU believe in a hierarchy; an aristocracy where wealth equals more power. THAT concept is destructive to a democratic society where every man is created equal. And it is the antithesis of the intent of our founding documents.

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

 

[martybegan]

'standard CORPORTATIONS EVIL OOGA BOOGA rant'???

Is there a better model than crony capitalism, corporate welfare and corporate socialism? Yea, how about a REAL free market? In a real free market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.

I guess you didn't read how our founding father's viewed corporations and the role of government to control and regulate them?

I thought you said you're not a sucker?

First of all our founding fathers could not envision a modern corportation due to the revolution in communications that allowed it to come into existance. Thier version of a corporation was limited to horse speed information transfer.

I did read the diatribe, and it is an unsourced opinion piece. The page also links to democratic underground making it related to all sorts of kookery.

I stand by my ooga booga comment.

Your version of a "free market" also does not make any sense. How does man A making widget B supposed to enrich a whole community? Hes trying to sell a widget?

To me your main beef is corportations allow certian people greater access to the levers of power. How is that different from a person owning thier own large buisiness or a partnership having greater access due to the size of thier wealth? Or actors having greater power and exposure? Unions have greater political access and are in many ways similar to corportations with members replaced by shareholders.

Why do i have a feeling you animosity can be boiled down to "I dont like people with more stuff than me?"

EDIT: ALERT! The page also links to 9/11 truth stuff. Didn't see that the first time. makes the site offically nutball.

Now THIS is ' OOGA BOOGA', 'kookery' and totally irrelevant.

First of all our founding fathers could not envision a modern corportation due to the revolution in communications that allowed it to come into existance. Thier version of a corporation was limited to horse speed information transfer.

The so called 'unsourced opinion piece' is an excerpt from a BOOK. You are welcome to produce any 'piece' that shows our founding fathers believed corporations could do harm to We the People and not be held personally accountable or not have their charter terminated.

-------------------------------------
A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.

So the Constitution's authors left control of corporations to state legislatures (10th Amendment), where they would get the closest supervision by the people. Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when.

Corporations could not own stock in other corporations

They were prohibited from any part of the political process.

Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and most charters only lasted for 10 or 15 years.

But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good, such a building a road, canal, or bridge.

And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

Abolish Corporate Personhood
----------------------------------------

If man A is manufacturing a 'widget', his cost of manufacturing must internalize the cost of any harm to that community the manufacturing process creates. Man A should not be able to externalize those costs. When he externalizes those costs, he makes himself richer while making the community poorer.

To me your main beef is corportations allow certian people greater access to the levers of power.

EXACTLY!!! You hit the nail on the head. Thank you for proving you're a sucker. Clearly YOU believe in a hierarchy; an aristocracy where wealth equals more power. THAT concept is destructive to a democratic society where every man is created equal. And it is the antithesis of the intent of our founding documents.

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

Im not a sucker, I'm a realist. There will always be an aristocracy of some sort. At least in our system it is partially based on merit. To think that 300 million people can have the same exact access to the levels of power is utopian. Actually it is far easier nowadays for everyone to have a voice via the internet.

Going the 10th amendment route is a dodge due to its catch all nature. It also conflicts with the commerce clause. Back then most trade was inside a state, with smaller portions relegated to trans state trade.

Your description of a corporation seems more to be like our version of the public authority, used to do work on public works projects.

I also find it interesting you would send these "charters" back to the states, who would in all likelyhood give them the same rights they have now. Also since most business crosses state lines now you would have a clusterfuck of rules and regs for the simple act of buying a toaster from Krupp.

I have an Idea, how about you describe the way you want businesses to produce a good or a service that follows the anti-corpratist ethos you hold so dear.

Also you can refrain from the name calling, it only weakens your argument. Also since the article contains no source sub or superscripts I can only assume the book is unreferenced too.

 

[Harry Dresden]

You're a moron too....

Rdean a moron?..........Jr....you are kidding right?.....i didnt think so....