Hello:

SHOULD your congressman represent you, or the corporate interests in your district?

I ask, because our right winged friends think that ALL a business has to do to make money, is provide a good product at a good price... If that's so, then why would a businessman need representation as an individual, AND as a corporation?? Doesn't that give him TWO voices? Besides that, since all a business needs is a marketplace to compete in, what favors could a business person possibly get from his congressman??

Towards that end, does a corporation have the same rights as YOU, an individual?? Does the corporation have free speech rights? If that's so, why do the owners have free speech rights as individuals, AND free speech rights as a corporation?? Doesn't that give them TWO voices, one much more powerful than the other?

If corporations can give political donations, and you own, lets say, 25 of 'em, doesn't that give you 25 times the political clout as everybody else??

Does any of the stuff above bother you?

excon

I ask, because our right winged friends think that ALL a business has to do to make money, is provide a good product at a good price... If that's so, then why would he need representation as an individual, AND as a corporation??? That's a VERY good point. If the business' product or service is what the market wants then the business should not need the help of the government.

Ex what you have is a system of government which was put together in the days when there were few corporations and economic power was exercised by individuals. The abuse of the systems today wasn't envisaged two hundred years ago and the political systems of two hundred years ago are in need of serious revision today. In my opinion corporations (artificial persons with a protected status) should be banned from making political contributions and the size of political contributions made by individuals should be limited. Some societies who formulated their political systems later than your own instituted more checks and balances into the system because they had the benefit of some hindsight.

Government's place is to provide services which cannot be provided otherwise because of the scale of the undertaking; i.e. Military, Law, Education, Public Inferstructure, and to regulate the activities of individuals and corporations

Ex what you have is a system of government which was put together in the days when there were few corporations and economic power was exercised by individuals. The abuse of the systems today wasn't envisaged two hundred years ago and the political systems of two hundred years ago are in need of serious revision today. Hello clete:

Very cogent answer. Tomorrow morning is going to be fun. Well, for you, it'll be tomorrow night.

excon

Hello clete:

Very cogent answer. Tomorrow morning is gonna be fun. Well, for you, it'll be tomorrow night.

excon

Or even Wednesday. Excuse my ignorance, Ex, but what Earth shattering event happens tomorrow?

what Earth shattering event happens tomorrow?Hello again, clete:

The wingers wake up, and I can get to arguing. It's no fun when you guys agree with me.

excon

The congressperson should not be accepting any money that will influence how they vote on or make laws. If this were true then lobby money would be a wasted efffort. The contrary is true. Corporations, unions, trial layers, NRA et al all know that most congress people are out primarily for themselves, and not really for their constituents. So they accept the money for their campaigns to stay in power. They use taxpayor money for their own personal earmarks so their district benefits,they look good to their constituents and they stay in power.

They [ lobby money and the politicians ] are in the same bed. The only way to break that cycle is for the citizenry to know how their government is acting; use that knowledge and on a regular basis vote out those who are not producing results. This is regardless of where on the political spectrum you lie.


G&P

Hello in:

That was a very interesting answer to a question I did NOT ask.. Can you answer the one I did?

excon

If corporations can give political donations, and you own, lets say, 25 of 'em, doesn't that give you 25 times the political clout as everybody else??


Hmm, let's ask George Soros.

I hold my Congressional Representative to account ;not the corporation. More often than not the reason the corporation tries to influence Congress is because Congress over regulates . If Congress weren't over regulating ;often well beyond their Constitutional mandate ,then the problem of corporate money would not be an issue.

Let's move this logic beyond corporations . I have freedom of speech and a right to petition Congress on my behalf. Do I have more influence if I pool my resources with other like minded citizens in an association ? Of course ! Would you deny ;oh let's say NORML the right to petition ;lobby , give campaign donations ? I doubt it.
Or as Ron Paul's followers say :



Be careful what you ask for. If Corporations are not allowed Constitutional rights that protect individuals from government control then you'll see authentic and thorough socialism or fascism as all corporaitons will be controlled by the government and there will be nothing anyone can do about it. Please don't let these leftist/socialist anti-corporation ideas infiltrate the true free-market capitalist movement. Because if you're against corporation freedom, then you're actually a socialist. EITHER YOU BELIEVE IN FREE MARKET CAPITALISM AS DR. PAUL DOES WHERE CORPORATIONS HAVE THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT CONTROL, OR YOU BELIEVE THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO FORCIBLY CONTROL/REGULATE CORPORATIONS, SUCH AS FOR "THE PUBLIC GOOD," aka SOCIALISM. Which is it?

Why shouldn't a corporation have the right of Free Speech and Press? | Ron Paul 2012 | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/111505)

I believe the question being asked here is not how the government controls corporations but how the corporations control government, which leads to votes and decisions made to favour the corporation not the citizens. Ex, you can correct me if I'm wrong.

I think we understand the question, NK. It doesn't bother me that businesses have a voice, I believe that's essential. It does bother me that so many politicians are willing to accept and pass out favors and like Chris Dodd, get away with it. My point in my previous post is that this is always implied as the GOP is beholden only to corporate interests while giving a pass to the left.

Billionaire George Soros has tried his damnedest to be a puppet master over elections and the Democrats are so intertwined with unions, "community organizers," Planned Parenthood etc. it's impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins. So if we want to discuss politicians being unduly influenced by entities let's lay it all on the table.

This is where this will lead. Obama doesn't like FOX . If FOX doesn't have the right to the same free speech afforded individuals then it would be lawful for the Obots to prohibit FOX from criticizing Obama.

I don't think this is a GOP/DEM thing, it definitely applies to all politicians. The practice of accepting those "donations" doesn't seem to serve the interests of the constituents. Anyway ex is explaining himself well in the other thread, I'll leave it with him.

Hello again,

You're correct, of course, NK. That's the idea...

But, I wrote a whole thing on it, and it gave me pause... As I wrote, I asked myself a few questions...

Do people have the right to associate with other like minded people, and have that association speak collectively for them?? I'd have to say yes.

Can people speak with their money? I'd have to say yes.

Does that mean that people with money have a bigger voice than people without? It goes without saying that they DO, but it flies in the face of "equal protection under the law", which is what the Fourteenth Amendment is about.

I suggest, however, that there are SOME provisions that we've carved out from the Constitution, otherwise corporations would be allowed to VOTE?

Plus, if a corporation is a "person", then when a corporation gets convicted of a crime, why doesn't anybody go to jail??

THOSE exception have been carved out, and Clete is right. We need to carve out new rules for today.

excon

Every single person, regardless of wealth, has ONE vote, so unless there is outright direct paying for votes or other voter fraud, what good would it do to make more rules. The rules should apply to those governing and to every citizen, whether that is Walmart or Acorn or Exxon or the AFL/CIO. But we know the current rules are not followed, always enforced or just bypassed.


G&P

I think maybe The Goracle has a bigger voice than the rest of us, he's poised to become the first "green" billionaire (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html).


Last year Mr Gore's venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.

The move means that venture capital company Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

$560 million in government grants just happened to go to utilities this company The Goracle invested in has contracts with. Add his cap and trade investments and it's no wonder he's positioned himself as the green guru. Now do you really think he has our best interests in mind?

It's the old saw of "Money talks and Bulls*it walks". And big corporate has a LOT more money than any one person has - even multiplied by several million people ten times over.

It's never what the people want or what is good for them, blah, blah, blah. It's what Big Pharma wants. It's what Big Insura wants. It's what Big Corporation wants. It's NEVER what the "little folks" want or need for that matter. They don't count period. The only thing that the "little folks" have to offer up is their hard earned money carefully sifted out of their wallet under the guise of "insurance premiums", "prescriptions that cost too much", "overpriced automobiles", "overpriced homes", "overpriced doctors", blah, blah, blah.

It's the old saw of "Money talks and Bulls*it walks". And big corporate has a LOT more money than any one person has - even multiplied by several million people ten times over.

It's never what the people want or what is good for them, blah, blah, blah. It's what Big Pharma wants. It's what Big Insura wants. It's what Big Corporation wants. It's NEVER what the "little folks" want or need for that matter. They don't count period. The only thing that the "little folks" have to offer up is their hard earned money carefully sifted out of their wallet under the guise of "insurance premiums", "prescriptions that cost too much", "overpriced automobiles", "overpriced homes", "overpriced doctors", blah, blah, blah.

Now you know that the only way to prevent what you speak of is to completely change the system of government. That has been tried in certain parts of the world and it appears they couldn't make it work. China is an interesting experiement at the moment but the little people have no voice there either. What you need are honest politicians who are allowed to follow their own conscience, a seeming contradiction not only to the party system of government but to human nature, perhaps the implementation of citizen initiated referendums as used in Switzerland might give the people the voice they are denied

Now you know that the only way to prevent what you speak of is to completely change the system of government. That has been tried in certain parts of the world and it appears they couldn't make it work. China is an interesting experiement at the moment but the little people have no voice there either. What you need are honest politicians who are allowed to follow their own conscience, a seeming contradiction not only to the party system of government but to human nature, perhaps the implementation of citizen initiated referendums as used in Switzerland might give the people the voice they are denied

I'm going to make some of you angry here.

I want to focus on your "honest politicians" and add honest CEO's, honest business owners, etc.

What makes anyone honest?

Fear of punishment?

Nope!

People are either honest or not based on who they ARE on the inside. Every man is a law unto himself, he is his own policeman.

Decades ago, you could find business owners and corporation heads that actually had some degree of concern for those that worked for them. There was a strong Christian influence in this country, at least stronger than now, and it was this inner character that kept owners from fleecing their employees and customers.

Politicians often went to church to hear what the pulpit had to say about issues before they voted.

Those days are long gone. Now we live with the consequences of a culture deprived of any moral compass.

Success is defined by the amount of material wealth one can amass, not whether a person is honest and fair.

Christian principle demands that we treat others as we would like to be treated.

That means that a Christian politician will vote based on the best interests of all his constituents, not just the ones that contribute the most to his campaign.

That means that a Christian CEO will not grab millions every year while doing everything possible to keep the employees working for minimum wages.

The answer to all this is a real Christian revival, one that affects the culture around it.

There! I told you I would make some of you angry!

The answer to all this is a real Christian revival, one that affects the culture around it.

There! I told you I would make some of you angry!

Couldn't agree with you more but where can you find two honest men to agree it is necessary.

Success is defined by the amount of material wealth one can amass, not whether a person is honest and fair. THAT is the problem in the US for christians and non-christians alike -greed runs your lives. Once you fix that the rest will follow. It matters not whether one reads the bible or goes to church, those that do are no better than those that don't.

THAT is the problem in the US for christians and non-christians alike -greed runs your lives. Once you fix that the rest will follow. It matters not whether one reads the bible or goes to church, those that do are no better than those that don't.

Speak for yourself for a change.

Speak for yourself for a change.What does even mean? :confused:

That's a VERY good point. If the business' product or service is what the market wants then the business should not need the help of the government.

Which is exactly what I have been saying.

Government should not be involved in the running of businesses. Let the business succeed or fail on its own. If their product is a good one offered at a good price, it will be successful. If it is not, it will fail. The company shouldn't need government help to succeed.

We are in agreement on this point.

So... the question becomes, why do so many people want government to intervene?

Elliot

No the question was: why do you allow so much money to funnel from corporations into the pockets of the people who vote for laws that affect those same corporations?

No the question was: why do you allow so much money to funnel from corporations into the pockets of the people who vote for laws that affect those same corporations?

No the real question is why do we allow anyone to have the power to vote for laws that affect corporations? Especially since the Constitution prohibits it in the first place.

Eliminate that power, and the funneling of the money will stop. And the free market will open back up. Two birds, one stone.

What does even mean? :confused:

What it means is that you said that Americans are mostly controlled by greed. It is a very sweeping statement, and a very judgemental one as well. I don't deny that it applies very well to me. But it doesn't apply to everyone. Speech was telling you to stop painting America with such a broad brush. I agree with his sentiment.

What it means is that you said that Americans are mostly controlled by greed. It is a very sweeping statement, and a very judgemental one as well. I don't deny that it applies very well to me. But it doesn't apply to everyone. Speech was telling you to stop painting America with such a broad brush. I agree with his sentiment.Nah, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. In the same way that some people believe that establishing their brand of religion on everyone would make a better world, that's a load of hooey In my opinion.

But what I didn't understand was "speak for yourself". I did speak for myself. I don't represent any group.

What does even mean? :confused:

Do the words have some different meaning in Canadian English? You said, "THAT is the problem in the US for christians and non-christians alike -greed runs your lives."

I said speak for yourself for a change. Figure it out.

Do the words have some different meaning in Canadian English? You said, "THAT is the problem in the US for christians and non-christians alike -greed runs your lives."

I said speak for yourself for a change. Figure it out.Read above. You must have missed it Jean-Guy.

No the real question is why do we allow anyone to have the power to vote for laws that affect corporations? Especially since the Constitution prohibits it in the first place.Hello again, Elliot:

Boy, THAT'S just wrong.

Corporations don't just happen. They're creations of the STATE. People ASK the state if they can BE a corporation because there are benefits attached. In exchange for those benefits, a corporation agrees to be regulated.

Now, if some group of businessmen DIDN'T want the benefits and subsidies that come with corporatehood, they could certainly CHOOSE to operate as a partnership, or an association, or some entity that DOESN'T get benefits. Then, they wouldn't BE subject to corporate laws... But, there's a tradeoff, if they want government largess.

That's as it should be, too. The above, by the way, is pretty damn Constitutional.

excon

Read above. You must have missed it Jean-Guy.

No, I saw it after I posted. My point remains, speak for yourself for a change.

No, I saw it after I posted. My point remains, speak for yourself for a change.I did! I spoke for myself and no one else!

I did! I spoke for myself and no one else!

Your remark was insulting, overly broad, arrogant and hackneyed. I guess that's the best you can do...

So thin-skinned. Sorry I wasn't politically-correct for you. That's not how I roll. :)
Now go tell galveston how arrogant his "religion for all" post was. LOL!

NK, what you said was entirely PC, that's exactly how you roll.

Oh OK. Cheers then.

In my opinion corporations (artificial persons with a protected status) should be banned from making political contributions and the size of political contributions made by individuals should be limited. Some societies who formulated their political systems later than your own instituted more checks and balances into the system because they had the benefit of some hindsight.


I agree. Much of this debate is related to the question of corporate personhood, which is a controversial issue in the United states, stemming from a court decision at the end of the 19th century.

For example, Wikipedia states:

Proponents of corporate personhood believe that corporations, as representatives of their shareholders, were intended by the founders and framers to enjoy many, if not all, of the same rights as natural persons, for example, the right against self-incrimination, right to privacy and the right to lobby the government.

Corporate personhood debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate)

asking from your own source you should see that the issue predates any recent court decision. Corporations have had the status of an individual since the time of the founding of the nation ;and in fact is a part of common law.

I don't understand the issue here.

The legal meaning of a 'person' is a subject/citizen of legal rights and duties.It is better that a corporation has people status otherwise it would be above the law. In the common law tradition, only a person could sue or be sued. When corporations got the status of people they too could be sued and held accountable for its debts.
But since it has all the liabilities that a person has ,it also has the rights of a person ;and that includes it's 1st amendment rights to petition it's government .

Who said recent? The 19th century ended in 1900.

How old are you, anyway?

Hello again, Elliot:

Boy, THAT'S just wrong.

Corporations don't just happen. They're creations of the STATE. People ASK the state if they can BE a corporation because there are benefits attached. In exchange for those benefits, a corporation agrees to be regulated.

That's where you are wrong.

Corporations only need "permission" to exist because government said so. Corporations, partnerships, LLC's etc. are only creations of the government because the government decided to take the power of regulation upon themselves, usurping the powers of the Constitution. Before the government got involved (primarily via tax law used to regulate corporate entities) there were only COMPANIES and INDIVIDUALS. And you didn't need permission to create them. Individuals, businesses and partners have been selling and bartering since the beginning of time. The Talmud tells stories of sea-faring traders and partnerships that bought and sold stuff going back as far as the last century BC. The existence of companies that buy and sell is NOT the creation of the government. You are just so tied into the idea of government control of the economy that you cannot imagine a time when government wasn't involved in such activities.


Now, if some group of businessmen DIDN'T want the benefits and subsidies that come with corporatehood, they could certainly CHOOSE to operate as a partnership, or an association, or some entity that DOESN'T get benefits. Then, they wouldn't BE subject to corporate laws... But, there's a tradeoff, if they want government largess.

So... you are saying that there is a difference between corporations, partnerships, LLCs, PLLCs etc.

There is only a difference between them BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT SAID THAT THERE IS. In reality, a two-man operation that calls itself a partnership operates no differently from a 1,000-man operation that calls itself a corporation, or a 15-man operation that calls itself an LLC. Any difference is artificial and created by the government, not a product of the marketplace.


That's as it should be, too. The above, by the way, is pretty damn Constitutional.

Excon

Really?

You are saying that taxing different business entities differently and with differrent rules is Constitutional? So much for Article 1, Section 9 and the 16th Amendment.

Elliot

There are several individuals who have committed crimes, and have paid there debt to society. But, are not welcomed back into society with out a back being turned, and a wicked eye lash being batted. The practice of conviction without rehabilitation has become ludicrous. Thus, my journey and endeavor begins. I am writing to you knowingly that you share such interest, and that you do care. So my question, in which I will direct to you, first is.

How does a person with a felony find employment after he/she has completed their sentence? This is a question that has yet to be answered. This is a question that many politicians turn a blind eye, and/or choose to ignore. Has man taken to contrary that he is not God? And, “those that judge shall be judged.” Our Judicial system was built on (or so I have read) that which is written on our very American currency (In God We Trust).
I believe that every one deserves to be given a opportunity to redeem their character. Thus, this is the law of the very one that we bend our knees to, and bow our heads. The one we tell our children to respect But, as adults tend to disrespect. Convictions are painful enough to deal with, and incarceration is inevitable in most cases concerning poor folks. Our justice system has a double edge sword, in that if you lack financial means you will fail, and if you are financially successful retaining a hi-profiled attorney will set you free. The even more harsh reality is that you are released with said payment to society, and no where to go. But, back to the same community where you were subject to poverty and crime is the only mean for your next meal. So where does it leave mankind in the wake of this said correction system? I’ve learned that the system is designed for you to fail. Statistically several convicted felons will return to prison, due to the lack of resources.

All being said, I am in the process of an endeavor to amend the laws of the so called rehabilitation process. If someone can not be rehabilitated... Then why incarcerate? Why have a judicial system? Why not go back to the days of court yard justice (hangings, guillotine, stoning, etc... ) This system we have has to change. If one can not find employment after conviction, then what is left? The only thing one has is to continue a life of criminal mischief, which would lead to recidivism. Thus, you have your judicial revolving door. Repulsive/heinous crimes are an exception to the rule (child molestation, rapist, repulsive murders’, etc.). If you are a constant repeat offender, then obviously you have not earned your membership back into this so call civil society. But a person who makes a one time mistake should not be an out cast for the duration of his/her life. Please join me in the endeavor to amend the employment after conviction laws. Convicted felons need a chance to redeem their character with out being a cast away for life…. Further, I will be persistent in my endeavor, and continue to contact you until I receive your support; and have this law amended.

To conclude I have sited a few celebrity felony convictions to support my purpose/reason. Question? Should we stop buying Martha Stewart products because she is now a convicted felon? Should Don King be ousted because he committed a violent criminal act? Is he allowed to attend the same functions that our president attends? Are convicted felons human beings? When answering these questions, think of those who don’t have the celebrity status. All their asking for is an opportunity to rightfully reclaim their purpose in our so called civil society, and to have their claim without prejudice. My final question: Will you join me in restoring equal opportunity, and resurrecting the quote? “In God We Trust.”


Please contact me at [email protected].





I have attached some web site with interest and concerns for your review:

Text of President Bush's 2004 State of the Union Address
Jan. 20, 2004
Courtesy FDCH E-Media
“In the past, we've worked together to bring mentors to the children of prisoners and provide treatment for the addicted and help for the homeless. Tonight I ask you to consider another group of Americans in need of help.
This year, some 600,000 inmates will be released from prison back into society. We know from long experience that if they can't find work or a home or help, they are much more likely to commit crime and return to prison.
So tonight, I propose a four-year, $300 million Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative to expand job training and placement services, to provide transitional housing and to help newly released prisoners get mentoring, including from faith-based groups.
(APPLAUSE)
America is the land of second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life.” President Bush's 2004 State of the Union Address | Jan. 20, 2004 (washingtonpost.com) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/bushtext_012004.html)

There are several individuals who have committed crimes, and have paid there debt to society. But, are not welcomed back into society with out a back being turned, and a wicked eye lash being batted. The practice of conviction without rehabilitation has become ludicrous. Thus, my journey and endeavor begins. I am writing to you knowingly that you share such interest, and that you do care. So my question, in which I will direct to you, first is.

How does a person with a felony find employment after he/she has completed their sentence? This is a question that has yet to be answered. This is a question that many politicians turn a blind eye, and/or choose to ignore. Has man taken to contrary that he is not God? And, “those that judge shall be judged.” Our Judicial system was built on (or so I have read) that which is written on our very American currency (In God We Trust).
I believe that every one deserves to be given a opportunity to redeem their character. Thus, this is the law of the very one that we bend our knees to, and bow our heads. The one we tell our children to respect But, as adults tend to disrespect. Convictions are painful enough to deal with, and incarceration is inevitable in most cases concerning poor folks. Our justice system has a double edge sword, in that if you lack financial means you will fail, and if you are financially successful retaining a hi-profiled attorney will set you free. The even more harsh reality is that you are released with said payment to society, and no where to go. But, back to the same community where you were subject to poverty and crime is the only mean for your next meal. So where does it leave mankind in the wake of this said correction system? I’ve learned that the system is designed for you to fail. Statistically several convicted felons will return to prison, due to the lack of resources.

All being said, I am in the process of an endeavor to amend the laws of the so called rehabilitation process. If someone can not be rehabilitated... Then why incarcerate? Why have a judicial system? Why not go back to the days of court yard justice (hangings, guillotine, stoning, etc...) This system we have has to change. If one can not find employment after conviction, then what is left? The only thing one has is to continue a life of criminal mischief, which would lead to recidivism. Thus, you have your judicial revolving door. Repulsive/heinous crimes are an exception to the rule (child molestation, rapist, repulsive murders’, etc.). If you are a constant repeat offender, then obviously you have not earned your membership back into this so call civil society. But a person who makes a one time mistake should not be an out cast for the duration of his/her life. Please join me in the endeavor to amend the employment after conviction laws. Convicted felons need a chance to redeem their character with out being a cast away for life…. Further, I will be persistent in my endeavor, and continue to contact you until I receive your support; and have this law amended.

To conclude I have sited a few celebrity felony convictions to support my purpose/reason. Question? Should we stop buying Martha Stewart products because she is now a convicted felon? Should Don King be ousted because he committed a violent criminal act? Is he allowed to attend the same functions that our president attends? Are convicted felons human beings? When answering these questions, think of those who don’t have the celebrity status. All their asking for is an opportunity to rightfully reclaim their purpose in our so called civil society, and to have their claim without prejudice. My final question: Will you join me in restoring equal opportunity, and resurrecting the quote? “In God We Trust.”


Please contact me at [email protected].





I have attached some web site with interest and concerns for your review:

Text of President Bush's 2004 State of the Union Address
Jan. 20, 2004
Courtesy FDCH E-Media
“In the past, we've worked together to bring mentors to the children of prisoners and provide treatment for the addicted and help for the homeless. Tonight I ask you to consider another group of Americans in need of help.
This year, some 600,000 inmates will be released from prison back into society. We know from long experience that if they can't find work or a home or help, they are much more likely to commit crime and return to prison.
So tonight, I propose a four-year, $300 million Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative to expand job training and placement services, to provide transitional housing and to help newly released prisoners get mentoring, including from faith-based groups.
(APPLAUSE)
America is the land of second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life.” President Bush's 2004 State of the Union Address | Jan. 20, 2004 (washingtonpost.com) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/bushtext_012004.html)

Leaving aside that this post has no connection whatsoever to the OP or the conversation taking place, here is my opinion.

The United States is currently undergoing a recession. We have 10.2% official unemployment. The real unemployment number, which includes those who have stopped looking for jobs due to frustration and those who are working only part time instead of the full time jobs they really need, is 17.5% nationwide.

There are few enough jobs to be had right now. If it comes to a choice between giving one of those few jobs to a law-abiding citizen or a convicted felon, I choose the law-abiding citizen. And I don't feel the least bit guilty about it.

Is it a "punishment" to give jobs to those without criminal records before those with criminal records? I don't think so. I think it is merely a consequence of the actions of the criminal. It is just the natural effect of his past actions, and he has to live with it.

If one sticks ones hand into a fire, he gets burned. Getting burned isn't a punishment, it is simply a consequence of the action of putting your hand in a fire. And the person putting his hand in the fire has to live with that consequence.

Similarly, if one commits a crime, he has to live with the consequences of that action... separate from any punishments he may have had to endure. Difficulty in finding a job is one of those consequences.

As for your Martha Stewart/Don King argument, I find it interesting, but not very convincing. Nobody is arguing that sombody should boycott either Martha Stewart or Don King. Nor does anybody employ either one of them... they run their own businesses, and have "employment" because they built their own companies. If a convicted felon wishes to open his or her own business, more power to them. But I don't have to give that person a job when I have a perfectly good non-criminal of equal skill to give it to.

I do not believe that this is something that should be legislated away. I believe that the employer should be allowed to choose who works for him without the government interfering in that choice. Otherwise that employer really isn't in control of his own business, is he.

Sorry, but I do not find this to be a compelling cause.

Elliot

The Supreme Court ruled on this issue yesterday. The majority opinion was that corporate speech is a 1st amendment guarantee.

Justice Stevens in his dissent took the opinion of the OP that corporations should have reduced 1st amendment rights.

The majority said that if that were the case then the government would also have the right to abridge freedom of the press since most news organizations are organized as corportations. This is particluarily true of the dinosaurs (in all their forms of communication,magazine ,newspaper,broadcast etc)
As an example;the GE conglomerate is the owner of NBC and it's cable affiliates . The fact that Congress grants them exemptions from restrictions in no way protects their rights because Congress could just as easily take their 1st amendent rights away as the system stood.

It is not sufficient to say that the 1st amendment protects the rights of freedom of the press either because there is nothing that says who is qualified for the protection . Is the press an industry ? Am I not the press if I write op-ed at AMHD or some other social network ? In the days of the founders the press was anyone who could write a pamphlet or leaflet ,and stand on the corner distributing it. Any person or group of people who collectively group their resources for advocacy and persuasion not only enjoys freedom of speech;but also the freedom of the press.

The court yesterday confirmed that right. The ill-advised McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance laws can now be deposited in the trash heap of history.

Nader's group is calling for changing the first amendment (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Outraged-by-Citizens-United-decision-Public-Citizen-calls-for-amendment-to-limit-freedom-of-speech--82266337.html#ixzz0dM4L1TxB) in light of this decision:


"Public Citizen will aggressively work in support of a constitutional amendment specifying that for-profit corporations are not entitled to First Amendment protections, except for freedom of the press. We do not lightly call for a constitutional amendment. But today’s decision so imperils our democratic well-being, and so severely distorts the rightful purpose of the First Amendment, that a constitutional corrective is demanded.

"We are formulating language for possible amendments, asking members of the public to sign a petition to affirm their support for the idea of constitutional change, and planning to convene leading thinkers in the areas of constitutional law and corporate accountability to begin a series of in-depth conversations about winning a constitutional amendment."

Would that apply to Public Citizen? Schmucky Schumer is upset and plans on offerinf some legislation or holding hearings or some nonsense. He said, "The Supreme Court just predetermined the winners of next November's elections."

Not sure why he's upset though, of the top 50 industries giving to congressman last year Schumer is listed 11 times (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php). Dingy Harry takes the top 2 spots and there are only 6 Republicans on the list.

Whenever Chucky reacts so virulently against something I know it is the right call. The President is calling on Congress to pass more unconstitutional laws as a response.

This is from SCOTUS blog :




President Obama ordered his aides on Thursday “to get to work immediately with Congress” to develop “a forceful response” to the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case. In a statement, the President denounced the decision, saying it “has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.” It was obvious, therefore, that he was interested in working with Congress to overturn the decision, or at least to narrow it significantly.
Unless he has in mind an amendment to the Constitution, however, it is most unclear at this point whether the lawmakers could do anything — or much of anything — to cut down on “special interest money” in American politics. This was a constitutional decision, laying down (essentially for the first time), a sweeping free-speech right in politics for “special interest” bodies of all types with the concept of “speech” clearly embracing spending money to influence election outcomes. If individuals have considerable freedom to express themselves politically, corporations, labor unions, and other “special interest” entities now do, too.

SCOTUSblog Analysis: A new law to offset Citizens United? (http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/01/analysis-a-new-law-to-offset-citizens-united/)

"One perhaps frivolous suggestion already making the rounds of political conversation is to require legislators to wear NASCAR-style uniforms, emblazoned with the logos of their corporate “sponsors.”

I can see it now, Dems taking to the streets this year decrying corporate influence in politics while thanking all of their corporate sponsors. "I'd like to thank Bank of America, Pfizer, United Healthcare, AIG, JP Morgan Chase, GE and the National Association of Realtors for sponsoring this SEIU Chevrolet campaign."

Personally I think it is about time that individuals (corporations) are able to do the same thing that big unions have done for the Dems for years. Except the Unions have taken the money paid to them in the form of protection, er dues and given it to the political party that they wanted. Without the input from members. The likes of Chuckie Schumer are going nuts. Over what the Supreme court said a couple of days ago. But then again he may be a non entity by years end. So who cares what he says.

I had forgotten that the schmuckster was also up for reelection this year. Everyone here is focused on the Gillibrand seat. Hmmmm... not sure that there are that many Republicans in NY to field major candidate slots for 2 Senate seats and a Governorship now that Rudi ruled himself out of contention.

Jimmy Kimmel captured the fallout from this ruling, much like I predicted :)

JkWmONZm8gU

The President took the controversy to levels rarely seen in this country during his SOTU address . I can only think of a handful of examples where the Executive has openly clashed with SCOTUS over a ruling . Andrew Jackson clashed with Chief Justice John Marshal over the Worcester v. Georgia decision where he famously stated "the decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate." (he never actually challenged Marshal to enforce the ruling himself .That is an oft stated misquote that I have used in the past because it has become part of the legend .Since Georgia ultimately complied with the ruling there was no Constitutional crisis about the Executive of the United States needing to enforce it.).

Another famous instant was during the Roosevelt Adm. His initial decisions to deal with the depression was ruled unconstitutional. The President openly took on the court ;and threatened to pack the court with justices that would do his bidding . He ultimately backed off .But it can be argued that the implied intimidation shaped future court decisions.

And that brings us to Obama's pointed and incorrect public critique of SCOTUS' Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission ruling . To my recollection there has never been a case where the President disrespectfully called out the court during a SOTU address ,where the justices ,(not required to attend ), were subject to the jeering of Congressional back bencher hyenas (especially by the schmuckster Sen. Chuck Schumer).For the most part the Justices sat there stoically ;the one exception was Justice Alito silently mouthing the words "not true" . This has been treated as if it was Alito that did an outragous breach of protocol.

What makes it worse is that the substance of the President's critique is fundamentally false and irrelevant to the decision. It was 100% demagogery.
Substantly he accused the court of "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections".
While it is true that the court correctly reversed a trend to limit the 1st amendment rights of corporations ;it is patently untrue that, (as is stated in the Justice Steven's dissent) ,that "the ruling afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans."

That in fact was never an issue in the ruling . The ruling dealt specifically with 2 U.S.C. Section 441a
Which stated that all corporate political spending was illegal . That was the section that was struck down.
Section 2 U.S.C. 441e states that foreign corporations are prohibited,from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

The President being a former law professor must understand this distinction .

Absolutely right, Alito was absolutely right. What's funny is it was Kennedy who authored the opinion, does he really want to alienate the guy?

Dan Henniger of WSJ dug deeper into the ruling and found the debate over the nature of corporations in the body of the ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Specifically Scalia wrote a concurance to address Stevens minority opinions that trash corporations.


Their dispute, and especially Justice Stevens's view of corporations, reveals a lot about why Mr. Obama and liberalism's left wing went nuts. It isn't just corporate political advertising that's anathema. Corporations themselves are anathema.



Thomas Jefferson," he notes, "famously fretted that corporations would subvert the Republic." A citation quoted by the justice notes that "the word 'soulless' constantly recurs in debates over corporations"; and "corporations, it was feared, could concentrate the worst urges of whole groups of men."
But here's the public-philosophy belief that flows from this view: "The Framers thus took it as a given," in Justice Stevens's opinion, "that corporations could be comprehensively regulated (my emphasis) in the service of the public welfare."
In short, private corporations have not much, if anything, to do with the public good.
In his crack-back concurrence, Justice Scalia ridicules "the corporation-hating quotations the dissent has dredged up." He notes that most corporations back then had "state-granted monopoly privileges" (sort of like Fannie and Freddie today—columnist's footnote) and that modern corporations without these state privileges "would probably have been favored by most of our enterprising Founders—excluding, perhaps, Thomas Jefferson and others favoring perpetuation of an agrarian society."
He ends with a conservative belief: "To exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy."

Daniel Henninger: The Scalia v. Stevens Smackdown - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/wonder_land.html)

But the meat of the Scalia concurrence can be found in the paragraph before the one Henniger quotes .

The Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speakers, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals.

The Obots came in wanting to do all types of speech restrictions ;especially in their targeting of Fox and right wing talk radio. This decision puts a big monkey wrench in their plans.

The Obots came in wanting to do all types of speech restrictions ;especially in their targetting of Fox and right wing talk radio. This decision puts a big monkey wrench in their plans.

And don't forget their hate speech laws. The left has long championed speech restrictions, especially and probably most nefariously, on college campuses with unconstitutional speech codes, unfair and improper use and restrictions on student fees, and unfair burdens on conservative student groups. Fortunately, groups like FIRE (http://www.thefire.org/) have been making huge strides in restoring rights on college campuses.

Your buddy, that bulldog Henry Waxman, and the guy that sold his soul for Obamacare, Bart Stupak, have summoned execs from companies that have given bad publicity for Obamacare. Obviously this congress doesn't believe corporations have a right to free speech, instead it's time to investigate and intimidate (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Democrats-threaten-companies-hit-hard-by-health-care-bill-89347127.html) all who threaten their agenda.

Can bailout nation for ATT be far behind ?

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/tanning-tax-460456-3.html

But not for tanning salons .

Your buddy, that bulldog Henry Waxman, Obviously this congress doesn't believe corporations have a right to free speech, Hello again, Steve:

Old Henry and I agree. Corporations do NOT have free speech rights. Those are reserved for citizens. The Bill of Rights refers to PEOPLE, and PERSONS having such rights. It says NOTHING about corporations... '

It's like I've been saying to smoothy on another thread. The Constitution means what it says, and it says what it means. I'm a person. You're a person. We're BOTH people. WE have rights. Sears and Roebuck don't.

Get back to me when Sears and Roebuck can vote, and then I'll admit they have free speech rights.

excon

So let me get this straight . GE under the guise of a free press can use it's various media entities to have unfettered speech regarding electioneering ;but corportations that do not have the cover of a media entity are not granted equal protection.

I do not consider either you or I dummies needing government censoring protection from corporate speech .

To me it is the height of irony and hypocrisy that liberal groups like Democracy 21,Common Cause and ACLU dedicated to free speech exercise their free speech to advocate the restrictions of other groups rights to the same.

The founders new the people could be trusted to hear arguments about public issues and make up their own minds. Evidently the liberal is less trusting of the people.

So let me get this straight . GE under the guise of a free press can use it's various media entities to have unfettered speech regarding electioneering ;but corportations that do not have the cover of a media entity are not granted equal protection.Hello again, tom:

I don't believe corporations should own media. They USED to be companies unto themselves. I liked it that way.

The 800 lb gorilla lurking in the room, is the power of corporations these days. That was the debate about health care. It's the debate about financial reform. It's the debate about whether they have rights under the Constitution. It's the debate, frankly, about EVERYTHING...

The power of corporate America is stunning. That fact stands in the way of my libertarian leanings... I'm a believer in free enterprise... But, when free enterprise makes its profits by LOBBYING congress, instead of the old fashioned way, it OFFENDS the free market part of me. They're no better than any of the swill feeding at the public trough. Libertarians don't support the TAKEOVER (to borrow a phrase) of the free markets. That's what has happened, and I don't support it. If the trend continues, the corporations will BUY up ALL the media, and they'll be the only voice left. That's cool with you, huh? Well, not me, bub.

excon

When the media were entities themselves weren't most of them still corporations?

When congress passes laws that have dramatic effects on corporations, are they just supposed to shut up and take it? That seems to be the idea here, and not only are these Dems pi$$ed at those who are reporting on how Obamacare affects their business and employees, they're pi$$ed at insurance companies for pointing out the Dems own stupid mistakes, like forgetting to require them to cover children (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/health/policy/29health.html):


Congressional Democrats were furious when they learned that some insurers disagreed with their interpretation of the law.

It's an easily recognizable pattern here, ex, has been ever since Obama was elected - dissent suddenly became evil. Opposing Obama or his policies is unacceptable, so let's avoid debate and demonize anyone who dares to oppose (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html) regardless of the facts.

So then it isn't really about their right to free speech ;it's that they are effective in their use of that right in a way that offends your vision of free enterprise.

The same power they exercise is exercised by other corporate units like trade unions and advocacy groups of all kinds . Would you also argue that SEIU ,the AFT or the AFL-CIO should not have the right to petition and influence the government,. the Sierra Club , Homeowners Associations ,Consumer Organizations or the NAARP... the NAACP ?How about organizations that advocate for small "Main Street " business like the US Chamber of Commerce ?

Every single one of these groups petition and perform advocacy for" the people" persons they represent.. Did the founders also ban the people from forming associations to influence the body politic ? What are political parties except another influence group that is also legally incorporated ?

When the media were entities themselves weren't most of them still corporations?Hello again, Steve:

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just going to pretend that corporate ownership of media isn't a problem? Or, is it only a problem when GE owns the media?

excon

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just gonna pretend that corporate ownership of media isn't a problem? Or, is it only a problem when GE owns the media?

Obtuse? I’m not the one avoiding the point of my last 2 posts. Obtuse? You mean the media didn’t actively press their interests and agenda before corporate ownership?

You mean the media didn't actively press their interests and agenda before corporate ownership?Hello again, Steve:

Let's try arguing about the same thing. That's a whole lot more fun, isn't it?

Before corporatist ownership of the media (that's a NEW word now, since we're having trouble with these distinctions), they DID, as you point out, actively press THEIR interests... But, the interests of a media FREE from CORPORATE interference, corresponds to MY interests as a citizen. Media that is owned by corporations that have agendas DIFFERENT than news gathering and reporting, DOESN'T correspond to MY interests.

Given your disdain for GE, we should be on the same page here. Unless, of course, you tell me that RIGHT WING ownership of the media is fine, but not those lefties... I'd understand if you did. Truly, I would.

excon

For my 2 cents corporate ownership of the press and the media is fine with me so long it is upfront. I do have problems with the content of the news divisions of the GE Corp . But I would not deny their right to either own the media ;or to use it to promote their interests .

I do have problems with the content of the news divisions of the GE Corp . But I would not deny their right to either own the media ;or to use it to promote their interests .Hello again, tom:

I have the same problems with FOX... But, it goes deeper than that. Corporations buy each other, and I'm sure you're fine with that... What happens if GE buys ALL the media?? Are you going to like it THEN?

Nope. The media should be FREE from corporate interference. That's good for YOU and it's good for ME. Of course, you don't see it that way.

excon

I'm sure there are antitrust rules that cover that contingency.
But this argument is so 20th century . There are so many alternatives for informantion gathering that I hardly need Fox ,GE ,Disney ,or the other conglomerates for information. In fact; I usually rely on various independent compilers on the web for that purpose.

The newspapers ,radio ,network news are all suffering audience decline because there are independent means to gather reported news and to filter it .

Let's try arguing about the same thing. That's a whole lot more fun, isn't it?

I would but you keep ignoring my point, which is the statists aren't interested in free speech, they aren't interested in debate. ANY dissent from their agenda will get you hauled in to the Capitol and intimidated as a corporation and branded a racist/terrorist/bigot if you're a concerned citizen.

That leads us back to your opening words, "SHOULD your congressman represent you...?"

What exactly do you mean by "represent you?"

I'm sure there are antitrust rules that cover that contingency.Hello again, tom:

I'm sure they'll have a packed Supreme Court to let them get away with it. No? That IS the result of corporatism...

excon

Last I checked most decisions of SCOTUS in the last 20+ years have been 5-4 one way or the other and one justice recognized as the so called "swing vote" .
If anyone has an opportunity to pack the court in the near future it is the Democrat "progressives " .

But like I said... your standard media empire is eroding rapidly . Example... Citadel broadcasting owned by Disney... one of the most popular venues for "right wing " talk radio filed for Chapt. 11. Air America is already smoked. Across the board the network media is a money loser and despite the skewed opinions here... cable news does NOT have a huge audience and are mostly entertainment rather than straight up news reporting .
The newspapers are all money losers .

So where is this concern about consolidation coming from ? The press is as free as it has ever been because there are citizen journalists out there shedding the light on what was once an elitist profession .

So where is this concern about consolidation coming from ? The press is as free as it has ever been because there are citizen journalists out there shedding the light on what was once an elitist profession .Hello again, tom:

You and I are discriminating consumers of news. We're not the problem. We seek out our sources... We're WELL informed... The problem is the lazy ones, and their susceptibility to corporate propaganda. That isn't good for ANYBODY. Wouldn't it be better for ALL of us, if ALL the media were free from corporate influence??

excon

No ,and I don't have such a patronizing attitude about the people either ;nor did the founders(and it is a fact that even the most ill-educated person in America today is better educated than the majority were in the colonial days) .

Perhaps you would prefer the early days of the country when the news was disseminated by politicians writing in pseudonym because they were the only ones with the capital to publish ?

I'll say it again ;never before in our history has the "press" been as free and open .

What will destroy a free press will be when these corporations take government bailout money because their news divisions are money losers . (this is seriously being proposed for the print news industry ) .

and their susceptibility to corporate propaganda.

You keep implying that "corporate" propaganda is the problem. As opposed to the ideological propaganda of the mainstream media? The same media that breathlessly reported on all nonexistent that tea party racism? The same media that is breathlessly reporting today on that "Christian" militia group? I guess we could rely on publicly funded media like NPR, eh?

Now back to my earlier question, what do you mean by should your Congressman "represent you?"

Now back to my earlier question, what do you mean by should your Congressman "represent you?"Hello again, Steve:

You don't distinguish between corporate interests and the citizens interests. I do. I see them as opposed to each other. You don't.

excon

Corporations in a district... ARE represented just as well as individuals are.

If you want jobs that aren't a 3 hour commute... they better represent the interests of that (or THOSE) business(es) too... or they WILL leave... happens all the time.

If they are any sort of politician... they will balance them. Or suffer the loss of tax revenue and jobs.

You don't distinguish between corporate interests and the citizens interests. I do. I see them as opposed to each other. You don't.

No, like tom I'm not so patronizing toward the American people. You seem to be under the impression that we can't distinguish between what's in our own interest and what's not, which takes us back to the question you keep dodging - what do you mean by your congressman representing you?

Corporations in a district....ARE represented just as well as individuals are.

If you want jobs that aren't a 3 hour commute....they better represent the interests of that (or THOSE) business(es) too....or they WILL leave...Hello again, smoothy:

You called me a socialist. Here's how I'm not, and your position IS...

In fact, I'm for FREE enterprise. I believe if people are left alone, they'll seek to better themselves, and in so doing, create the greatest economy ever created. That's what we did. That's what make capitalism great.

But, when I say FREE enterprise, I really mean FREE enterprise. That's what I meant, above, when I said "left alone". If business is "left alone" they'll compete in the market, and the BEST products and services will survive. SECOND best will go into the junk heap... That's capitalism personified.

That is, unless SECOND best visits his congressmen to make sure he's "represented". Frankly, I don't know what a businessman NEEDS from congress, unless it's laws favorable to HIS business. But, what kind of laws could a businessman need that helps him compete? Seems to me, he doesn't need ANY. All he needs is an even playing field. To me, that idea canotes an ABSENCE of law. Nope. Your guy only needs laws if he's unable to compete the old fashioned way - by EARNING it.

So, he needs government help, or government subsidy's, or laws that favor his industry... I don't see that kind of corporate welfare any different than poor peoples welfare. You, of course, support government helping business, or to use your words, they will leave.

Nope. I'm a free marketeer. You want the government to intervene. That's positively LIBERAL.

excon

It's a chicken or eggs argument . Which came 1st ;government intervention in the market place requiring someone to petition the government on their behalf ;or was it the businessperson seeking an unwarranted advantage ?

I don't know how far back in history we should go ;however the history books I read as a child touted the government intervention of the so called evils of laissez-fare .

I don't know how far back in history we should go ;however the history books I read as a child touted the government intervention of the so called evils of laissez-fare .Hello again, tom:

If I were to put all the laws that CONSTRAIN business on ONE side of a teeter totter, and all the laws thatFAVOR business on the other, the laws that FAVOR business would far outweigh those CONSTRAINING it.

I don't know how far back we need to go either. But there was a time, during BOTH of our lifetimes, when the products or services won our business because they were the best there were. Now, I don't know if the products and services that pervade the marketplace are the BEST, or if the companies that provide them LOBBIED the hardest.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

You called me a socialist. Here's how I'm not, and your position IS....

In fact, I'm for FREE enterprise. I believe if people are left alone, they'll seek to better themselves, and in so doing, create the greatest economy ever created. That's what we did. That's what make capitalism great.

But, when I say FREE enterprise, I really mean FREE enterprise. That's what I meant, above, when I said "left alone". If business is "left alone" they'll compete in the market, and the BEST products and services will survive. SECOND best will go into the junk heap... That's capitalism personified.

That is, unless SECOND best visits his congressmen to make sure he's "represented". Frankly, I don't know what a businessman NEEDS from congress, unless it's laws favorable to HIS business. But, what kind of laws could a businessman need that helps him compete? Seems to me, he doesn't need ANY. All he needs is an even playing field. To me, that idea canotes an ABSENCE of law. Nope. Your guy only needs laws if he's unable to compete the old fashioned way - by EARNING it.

So, he needs government help, or government subsidy's, or laws that favor his industry... I don't see that kind of corporate welfare any different than poor peoples welfare. You, of course, support government helping business, or to use your words, they will leave.

Nope. I'm a free marketeer. You want the government to intervene. That's positively LIBERAL.

excon

So... you want corporations to be free from any regulation, law, ordinance or tax then?

Because reality is that is none of those are the case, or ever would be... and anyone or any business subjected to any of those should be represented by the elected official in that state or district.

Because those are your words... besides WHO should dictate what SHOULD apply to them? The local treehuggers, the local ludites, The CEO, the Unions, after all it has to be someone if they aren't allowed to be represented, as legal, taxpaying USA citizen or entity.

If I were to put all the laws that CONSTRAIN business on ONE side of a teeter totter, and all the laws thatFAVOR business on the other, the laws that FAVOR business would far outweigh those CONSTRAINING it.

Funny you should say that, the very companies that Waxman is hauling up before Congress for his latest inquisition were only following SEC regulations (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Sunday_Reflections/Progressives-can_t-get-past-the-Knowledge-Problem-89780997.html#ixzz0kFOXQCsQ) in revealing the markdowns related to Obamacare.


Hayek's insight into economics and regulation is often called "The Knowledge Problem," and it is a very powerful notion. But recent events suggest that it's not just the economy that regulators don't understand well enough -- it's also their own regulations.

This became apparent when various large businesses responded to the enactment of Obamacare by taking accounting steps to reflect tax changes brought about by the new health care legislation. The additional costs created by Obamacare, conveniently enough, weren't going to strike until later, after the November elections.

But both Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Securities and Exchange Commission regulations require companies to account for these changes as soon as they learn about them. As the Atlantic's Megan McArdle wrote:

"What AT&T, Caterpillar, et al did was appropriate. It's earnings season, and they offered guidance about , um, their earnings."So once Obamacare passed, massive corporate write-downs were inevitable.

They were also bad publicity for Obamacare, and they seem to have come as an unpleasant shock to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. who immediately scheduled congressional hearings for April 21, demanding that the chief executive officers of AT&T, John Deere, and Caterpillar, among others, come and explain themselves.

Obamacare was supposed to provide unicorns and rainbows: How can it possibly be hurting companies and killing jobs? Surely there's some sort of Republican conspiracy going on here!

More like a confederacy of dunces. Waxman and his colleagues in Congress can't possibly understand the health care market well enough to fix it. But what's more striking is that Waxman's outraged reaction revealed that they don't even understand their own area of responsibility - regulation -- well enough to predict the effect of changes in legislation.

In drafting the Obamacare bill they tried to time things for maximum political advantage, only to be tripped up by the complexities of the regulatory environment they had already created. It's like a second-order Knowledge Problem.

These corporations are damned if they do and damned if they don't thanks to a Congress that doesn't understand the rules they make. This wasn't a matter of corporate free speech, it was the necessity of following the constraints set by law. I hope they make Waxman look like a buffoon for calling them out for following the rules.

It appears freedom of speech has won a victory today thanks to a Texas Republican. Joe Barton addressed Waxman's dragging corporation execs in for an inquisition and Waxman subsequently canceled the hearings (http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/news/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=7792).

O0foQVNFVWQ

Precisely... Waxman had his head up his butt BECAUSE... HE penned the law that requires them to do EXACTLY what they were doing... that he was crying like a little girl about them doing.

Obviously the man is either senile or stupid that nobody would notice the law actually REQUIRES them to take writeoffs the moment a law changes that effects them... and being a public company... give public notice.

Still has shown he isn't man enough to issue a mia culpa explaining he had an episode of stupidity.

Hello again:

My last word on the subject:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/excon-albums-excon%27s+private+stash-picture532-politicians.jpg

excon

Hello again:

My last word on the subject:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/excon-albums-excon%27s+private+stash-picture532-politicians.jpg

excon

That picture does sum things up pretty well.

For once, ex, I think we're all in agreement.