Another anti-corporate rant

pdx39

Really Experienced
Joined
Dec 5, 2001
Posts
256
This is my 200th post here and I'm using it to write about how I see corporate influence corrupting the democratic process.

The same corporations that pay reduced tax rates are using some of this extra money to fund the elections of both major parties. Corporations may have most of the same rights as human beings do, but they don't have the right to vote. This does not stop them from spending millions of dollars trying to influence your vote every election, or from spending millions more after the election on lobbyists in an attempt to get our public servants to introduce and pass legislation that benefits them.

Most of the time the money these corporations contribute to candidates is spent on slinging mud at their opponent instead of talking about real issues. No wonder with all the mud they sling at each other that both Democrats and Republicans combined are so uninspiring that they can't get out even half of the vote most of the time.

If all the people who are so dissatisfied that they don't bother to vote were to register and support a third party, they would be the ones in charge. I believe in public financing of our elections with free airtime for all ballot-qualified candidates.

These same corporations that receive reduced tax rates and fund our elections are getting the politicians not only to maintain these unfair tax rates, to also give them millions of dollars in corporate welfare the likes of which you and I will never see after financing their campaigns. This problem crosses party lines and has been corrupting the Democratic process for decades.

Suppose that one of us wrote a letter and sent it to politicians throughout the United States saying “Hi, I'm thinking about moving to your area, but I want to know what it is worth to you to have me come and support your local economy. Things that will encourage me to come include free land and exemption from paying property taxes. I also want the roads and utilities built and hooked up for free, reduced or no local taxes, relaxed regulations on your zoning and pollution laws, and while you're at it,why don't you throw in a freeway ramp or two to sweeten the deal.”

If you or I sent out a letter like that, we would never get a response, but the corporations do and once they move in, it's just the start of their codependency. The politicians in Oregon's Washington County voted to give out $200,000,000 in corporate welfare not to draw a corporation in, but to get the INTEL Corporation to agree not to move off the billion dollars of free land they already got for the next 5 years.

No wonder that there is not enough money for our school system. This money could be better spent on education and public works projects that would benefit everyone instead of enriching the portfolios of a small handful of already super rich CEOs. This cycle of corporations funding our elections, paying reduced tax rates and getting billions in corporate welfare is at the root of most of the domestic problems facing the United States today.

This cycle has to be broken if you are ever going to see major improvements in such issues as living wages, environmental protection, Universal Health Care, adequate school funding, and just about every other issue that is important to the progressive movement in our country. Public financing of our elections and the elimination of corporate welfare subsides are some of the solutions that I see to help end this cycle of corruption.
 
Rule #18 in the real world:

Businesses don't pay taxes. People pay taxes. Consumers. Us.
 
miles said:
Rule #18 in the real world:

Businesses don't pay taxes. People pay taxes. Consumers. Us.

As some one once said "Only the little people pay taxes."
 
What if, instead of Politicians using commercials to try and "sell" themselves to the American public like a car, a new product, or beer.. What if we had candidates interviewed by non-biased journalists who'd done their research and asked real questions about what the politicians stood for, what they planned to do, really?
 
I agree with everything you say.

Corporations don't recognise national boundaries. They operate on a global basis that can make or break a country. And not only third world countries either.

The UK is home to 10-15 of the top 100 corporations in the world. A legacy which Maggie Thatcher left behind. 90% of the UK's exports are through these corporations. Which means if even one of them wants to move its base to another country, the impact on our Trade Balance would be massive.

And so they are given concession after concession to keep them where they are.

At the moment Europe has found a way of dealing with the Corporations which satisfies both parties. A little known fact about the European Union is that it provides a neutral ground for Corporations and National Governments to hammer out any deal. But even that measure of protection isn't enough. If there wasn't enough in it for them the Corporations would up sticks and move their operations elsewhere leaving behind pan-European unemployment on a huge scale.

I agree that they should be stopped. But how?

If laws are brought in to restrict their business practices they would simply move. It's a very dangerous situation and one over which Governments have no control.



:(
 
I"m going to disagree with you a whole lot here, so bear with me. :)

Corporations have been major political players ever since there have been corporations. That's not new news, and it's not their fault that they take every advantage to make sure they get favorable legislations. They're in business to make as much money as they can, and that's what they're going to do. Limiting their ability to donate to political cause and to lobby for legislation puts a huge dent in our democracy and is patently unconstitutional. They represent reall human beings who have the real right to participate in the democratic process.

Corporations, desite their legal entity status are made up of citizens. They act on the behalf of those citizens. Now, what is generally grating is that those citizens are rich and we're not. So we try to bring them down. That's just a silly way of doing things.

The problem here is not that corporations have too great an influence on politics, but that individual voters have abdicated their influence. The answer is not to limit corporations, but to be more active in the process ourselves. Politicians survive only on elections, and if we vote out the people we feel aren't doing their job to represent all of us, then they'll get the message. It may not happen in one or two election cycles, but it will happen. Politics is a slow-moving beast, but it does move.

And as for the things you say you want (Universal health care, living wages, etc), of course corporations are going to oppose them, because they, in the end, will be paying for all of them. Then again, so will I, both directly through vastly increased taxes and loss of personal freedom, and indirectly, through the loss of a truly free-maket economy.
 
Hey pdx

when you're sitting on Ralf Nader's knee with his hand up your back.... moving your mouth........... does it hurt????

BTW.... if you don't want INTEL with all those high paying jobs up in your part of the country, just send them on down to Texas... we'll treat them right.

And I'm just wondering about all this "free" airtime you're going to use for the candidates to campaigne. What the hell is "free" airtime????..... For every minute a candidate's comercial is playing on the tube, the station is giving up revenue from advertising..... that's not free or fair.

Why can't you and Ralf Nader understand that the reason almost noone votes for them has nothing to do with the amount of airtime they don't get.... it's because their (and your) proposed policies are so screwed up......

Oh yeah.... you don't want those nasty old poluting, greedy corporations to be able to support political candidates..... but I'll bet you don't mind labor unions or environmental rights groups or consumer advocate groups supporting candidates..... hey... guess what.... they can't cast a single vote either....

You want public funding of campaigns..... sure... the public is ME... those of us who pay taxes really need another multi-billion dollar government program to pay for.....

pdx... when you graduate from whatever school you are going to right now.... and get a real job (probably working for some greedy corporation) .... take a look at your first paystub.... see how much the government is taking out already.... and then come back and post your rant.....

sorry for being so snotty.....
 
Re: Re: Hey pdx

lavender said:


LMAO!

This must be Texan's new way of avoiding argument after he's told someone to go to hell and then come back and talk with him. This is too rich, just too fucking rich!

hahaha..... go to hell lavy......don't give away my new tactic....

but seriously lavender.. we need to get together and talk sometime......

sorry for telling you to go to hell....:p
 
JazzManJim:

Corporations are made up of citizens. Nice piece of rhetoric. But do you really think the Corporations would bear that in mind when their bottom lines start taking a slide?

Texan: Your mockery of pdx39, Ralph Nader and anything to do with the protection of the population, reminds me, once again why I detest the Right. They and the Corporations go hand in glove.

:(
 
pp

If it weren't for those nasty corporations, you wouldn't have the luxury of posting here right now.

Damn Microsoft. Evil, evil bastards. Steal from the poor and give to the rich.

If you detest "the Right" so much you should certainly not be using their products.
 
Re: JazzManJim:

p_p_man said:
Corporations are made up of citizens. Nice piece of rhetoric. But do you really think the Corporations would bear that in mind when their bottom lines start taking a slide?

They do. Consistently. That's why they do everything in their power to rpeserve their bottom line, because they're acting in the interests of the citizens who own them. You may not like it. That's fine. You run your business differently when you get one.

See, the thing you're missing in your quest to be as purely leftist as possible is that corporations are neither wholly Republican nor Democrat. They're on the side of the people who own them - 100 percent. They act to preserve their bottom line, and that's their entire focus.

You want corporations to act altruistically? They do. Their giving to charities is unparalleled in any point in the world's history. But their altruism has a limit. If they start bleeding money, they're going to take steps to stop that, using every means at their disposal.

Do you want corporations to look after the "little people" more? Do you want corporations to be more conscious of the environment? Want them to be more socially aware? Make it worth their while financially and just see how quickly they respond. That's just the way it is, the way it's always been, and the way it'll always be.
 
Re: Hey pdx

Texan said:


BTW.... if you don't want INTEL with all those high paying jobs up in your part of the country, just send them on down to Texas... we'll treat them right.

And I'm just wondering about all this "free" airtime you're going to use for the candidates to campaigne. What the hell is "free" airtime????..... For every minute a candidate's comercial is playing on the tube, the station is giving up revenue from advertising..... that's not free or fair.

Oh yeah.... you don't want those nasty old poluting, greedy corporations to be able to support political candidates..... but I'll bet you don't mind labor unions or environmental rights groups or consumer advocate groups supporting candidates..... hey... guess what.... they can't cast a single vote either....

You want public funding of campaigns..... sure... the public is ME... those of us who pay taxes really need another multi-billion dollar government program to pay for.....

pdx... when you graduate from whatever school you are going to right now.... and get a real job (probably working for some greedy corporation) .... take a look at your first paystub.... see how much the government is taking out already.... and then come back and post your rant.....

sorry for being so snotty.....

Perhaps Intel could take over some of Enron's old office space.

This free airtime would be given over the public airvaves that are supposed to be owned by the people. Broadcasters make millions of dollars off the public airvaves without paying any royalties back to the people. They can afford to give free airtime to ballot qualified candidates. The telecommunications bill that Clinton signed gave the entire digital spectrum of the public airways worth $67 billion dollars away for free to the broadcasters.

Corporations give money at a rate of about 20 to 1 over Unions. I support removing all of these contributions and creating a level playing field.

The cost of public financing of elections is more than worth it if it removes even a fifth of the corporate welfare subsidies currently doled out in return.

Your get a job line is akin to portraying African-Americans by wearing blackface make-up and eating chicken. I have a full time living wage job, and pay thousands of dollars in taxes (More than Microsoft pays actually) each year, just like you do. However, I still care about the well being of others.

Lastly, don't worry about the snotty part. I've come to expect it.
 
The above post

It was by me. Surprised it went up as unregistered.
 
Re: Re: JazzManJim:

lavender said:
It has nothing to do with which political party supports them more...

But it does!

A free market which Margaret Thatcher introduced into the UK the last tome round gave the Corporations the opportunity to invest heavily in the UK.

I still remember what she said at the time [not verbatim] "I want to make the United Kingdom the cheapest labour force in Europe so that large companies will be attracted to this country and make their investments here".

For a time it worked. But then the corporations began putting the screws on, Ford Motors being one of them, and now the National Government is reduced to the role of a small town Treasury Department. And any dealings with the Corporations are carried out through the European Union.

Look at the airlines after the Twin Towers. It gave them a fantastic opportunity to use the terrorism as an excuse to cut back on costs. Nobody really believes their sudden decline in profits was due to bin Laden. They had been heading downhill for some time.

In a Socialist sense that would never have happened. Only the Right can hock their own country's future...


:)
 
miles said:
Rule #18 in the real world:

Businesses don't pay taxes. People pay taxes. Consumers. Us.


Businesses don't pay taxes. Shareholders do. Us.
 
Re: Re: Hey pdx

Unregistered said:


Perhaps Intel could take over some of Enron's old office space.

This free airtime would be given over the public airvaves that are supposed to be owned by the people. Broadcasters make millions of dollars off the public airvaves without paying any royalties back to the people. They can afford to give free airtime to ballot qualified candidates. The telecommunications bill that Clinton signed gave the entire digital spectrum of the public airways worth $67 billion dollars away for free to the broadcasters.

Corporations give money at a rate of about 20 to 1 over Unions. I support removing all of these contributions and creating a level playing field.

The cost of public financing of elections is more than worth it if it removes even a fifth of the corporate welfare subsidies currently doled out in return.

Your get a job line is akin to portraying African-Americans by wearing blackface make-up and eating chicken. I have a full time living wage job, and pay thousands of dollars in taxes (More than Microsoft pays actually) each year, just like you do. However, I still care about the well being of others.

Lastly, don't worry about the snotty part. I've come to expect it.

The Enron line is a good one... I'll have to remember that. But I live here. When Enron went under, it wasn't some rich guy that got hurt, it was my neighbors and friends. I suppose that taxing them to death first would have made the company stay in business longer.

I guess the government could have auctioned off the broadcast frequencies. It would have raised a lot of money, as you point out. The result would have been higher prices for advertising which would have been paid by other greedy companies that would have, of course, raised the price of their products to pay for the advertising. Who is it that pays for those products????

I don't know what the ratio is between corporate and union political contributions. Even your ratio doesn't surprise me because most union political advertising isn't done by contributing to candidates. Most union advertising is done through "soft money" ads placed directly by the unions. Nothing you can do to "level the playing field" will ever stop those ads. They are protected by the first amendment rights of free speech. Many of us will argue (along with the U.S. Supreme Court) that political contributions are also protected by the first amendment.

The term "corporate welfare" is a Nader buzzword. Of course I associate what you say with Ralph Nader. What Nader calls corporate welfare, many of us call "economic stimulus". When business does well, individuals do well. When government punishes business, individuals suffer. You can have your opinions about economics, I'll have mine.

Your "race card" comment was uncalled for and, in my opinion. over the line. I responded to your post with a little sarcasm because I felt it was warranted. I may be wrong, but I perceive you to be a young person who is idealistic and naive. There is nothing wrong with being young, idealistic or naive. The problem arises when someone with extreme views SHOUTS those views in a way that SEEMS to say anyone with opposing views is stupid or closed minded. My response to your post was based upon that impression.

p_p man perceives me to be pompous. He replies to my posts based upon his perception of me. I was replying to your post besed upon my perception of you.
 
Re: Re: Hey pdx

damn double post.....

deleted because the first post was too long already.
 
WriterDom said:



Businesses don't pay taxes. Shareholders do. Us.

A shareholder is taking a risk when buying stock and should not put money in to the system they cannot afford to lose.

There was a ballot measure here in Oregon in 2000 to allow an Enron owned local utility company to charge it's ratepayers $304 million for imaginary profits the trojan nuclear power plant would have generated if it had ran untill 2011, even though the plant was actually shut down in 1994 because it was built defectivly.

I helped to put this measure in front of the people after it was passed by our State legislature, and then worked to defeat it.

As a result, I helped to screw the shareholders of Enron and PGE out of $304,000,000. I don't regret it.

The shareholders are gambling when investing in stock and can't always be expected to come out ahead.
 
Reality. . .

This post may be lengthy, but there are a lot of points I want to make. Sorry that I won't be inserting the original quotes, but I haven't gotten that down yet.

There is a lot of anger all of the world towards corporations. Anger about the corporations that employ and pay so many people. Corporations that, in actuality, pay LOTS of taxes. Yes, they do receive tax breaks and incentives for building and investment. Yet, in the end, they do pay taxes. Furthermore, this is not unique because we give plenty of subsidies and welfare to farmers and ranchers for absolutely nothing at all. At least corporations receive them for producing, hiring and investing. Communities receive more from these companies than they give. The argument about INTEL getting so much money really isn't the whole story. The reason communities pay so much and do so much is because it is an investment for them. They receive lots of money through the taxes of the employees, the money that corporation spends and the other businesses that move in as a support structure.

On the converse, who sponsors most activities in a given community...corporations. I work for a fairly large Texas business and our name is on most t-shirts and attached to most advertisements that are related to community activities. We donate for disaster relief and give aid when we can. If one, including those in the U.K., don't want large corporations, then think of life without them. P_Pman even seemed to express regret about investment in the U.K. by these corporations. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. Investment increases the standard of living and is positive.

As for the Enron argument, that has nothing to do whatsoever to this discussion. That was shady dealings by one very large corporation. A mistake was missed by auditors on creative accounting and many people are suffering. Yet, it was not allowed to happen because of political connections or corrupt politicians. No one outside of Enron (maybe Arthur Anderson, though that hasn't been proven) knew of what was going on. Therefore, it is ridiculous to put that blame on financial contributions.

We can't eliminate private contributions all together in the U.S. because it would be a hindrance of rights. We also shouldn't eliminate corporate welfare because while the name may sound bad, the reality is that the money is a good investment. Someone who thinks that just spending money from the governmental level and having some sort of situation where the government tries to solve economic problems rather than stimulate the economy should think about Japan. It has been in economic problems for over a decade, even before the rest of Asia. It hasn't recovered despite heavy government spending.

Additionally, the idea of socialism in the economy, medicine or any other aspect of our life is equally proposterous. It doesn't work and only leads to poor quality of life and service be it medical or other.

This post was long, and I'm sorry, but I have spent years studying economics. More specifically as it relates to economic development and the former Soviet Union. I understand what happens when the government goes against business and gives negative incentives to growth and commerce.
 
once again

Unregistered said:


A shareholder is taking a risk when buying stock and should not put money in to the system they cannot afford to lose.

There was a ballot measure here in Oregon in 2000 to allow an Enron owned local utility company to charge it's ratepayers $304 million for imaginary profits the trojan nuclear power plant would have generated if it had ran untill 2011, even though the plant was actually shut down in 1994 because it was built defectivly.

I helped to put this measure in front of the people after it was passed by our State legislature, and then worked to defeat it.

As a result, I helped to screw the shareholders of Enron and PGE out of $304,000,000. I don't regret it.

The shareholders are gambling when investing in stock and can't always be expected to come out ahead.

It was by me.
 
Back
Top