Interbane wrote:Instead of hating Jews they hate Muslims. Fear mongering and evil.

The "props" change but all in all, the premise remains the same. And what bothers us over here is that there is money from the middle class to back these ideas. Scary.

@Stahrwe: concerning the present German political situation: Merkel is a member of the German Christian Democratic party (love the contradiction of terms in the party's name) which I am sure you have heard is in the middle of a crisis. The membership of this party has never been as low as it is today, Merkel is highly unpopular and the Arabic and Turkish members of parlaiment are also very concerned about her statements, as is just about everyone else. Her statement that "multikulti" is not working has resulted in badly needed professionals (especially engineers, scientists, etc) from countries such as India (Asia in general) and Africa not wanting to immigrate for fear of being slighted and not accepted.
The difference here, Stahrwe, is that Merkel and her fellow politicians who concur with her, do not enjoy the backing of a middle class (and certainly not a majority) or religion, in spite of the party's name (Germany has experienced a boom in people activiely oficially leaving churches and organized religion). Indeed, the majority is extremely unhappy about these comments and the sensitivity of the German public, resulting from the past, tends to lean to more tolerance than in most countries.

seespotrun2008 wrote:

Since we know that doesn't happen, you then suggest nothing be done about it?

What do you suggest we do about it Starwhe - since you do not like the idea of government intervention. The stockholders are not beholden to the American people, only themselves. Thom Hartman says that "we are the government." I agree completely. We choose the country that we want and we choose the people who represent us. Therefore, the people who represent us are responsible to us. Stockholders are not. This is why I think it is beneficial that the government, the government that represents the people of the US, is who should regulate businesses.

People who live like kings should pay more to the system that made it possible.

I agree.

In the case of both the government and corporations it is apathy that is the problem. The citizenry is too complacement to be involved in government and many times the stockholders are not active in the running of companies. If you own stock in a company you have a voice in how it is run. Afterall you are a part owner.

oblivion wrote:

Interbane wrote:Instead of hating Jews they hate Muslims. Fear mongering and evil.

The "props" change but all in all, the premise remains the same. And what bothers us over here is that there is money from the middle class to back these ideas. Scary.

@Stahrwe: concerning the present German political situation: Merkel is a member of the German Christian Democratic party (love the contradiction of terms in the party's name) which I am sure you have heard is in the middle of a crisis. The membership of this party has never been as low as it is today, Merkel is highly unpopular and the Arabic and Turkish members of parlaiment are also very concerned about her statements, as is just about everyone else. Her statement that "multikulti" is not working has resulted in badly needed professionals (especially engineers, scientists, etc) from countries such as India (Asia in general) and Africa not wanting to immigrate for fear of being slighted and not accepted.
The difference here, Stahrwe, is that Merkel and her fellow politicians who concur with her, do not enjoy the backing of a middle class (and certainly not a majority) or religion, in spite of the party's name (Germany has experienced a boom in people activiely oficially leaving churches and organized religion). Indeed, the majority is extremely unhappy about these comments and the sensitivity of the German public, resulting from the past, tends to lean to more tolerance than in most countries.

So she is imagining the problem along with those imagining the same problem in France, and England. Perhaps you have your head in the sand.

In the case of both the government and corporations it is apathy that is the problem. The citizenry is too complacement to be involved in government and many times the stockholders are not active in the running of companies. If you own stock in a company you have a voice in how it is run. Afterall you are a part owner.

Hmmmm. Interesting point. Is your argument that if the stockholders were more involved that there would be less corruption in corporations?

That still does not address my point that stockholders do not answer to the American people. They only answer to themselves. Since the American people are supposed to be the ones running the country, not the corporations, I still think that the government should be involved. Because as I said, in the words of Thom Hartman "we are the government". I think that it is always important for us to remember that the politicians that we elect represent us. Which means that the government is only as good as we make it. I know that it is complicated and that a lot of politicians lie to us but it is our job then to find out the truth. The press was always supposed to be on our side, now oftentimes it seems that it is a sounding board for people in the government who want to manipulate us.

When I was looking into Sharon Angle I found a clip from an interview that they did with her on fox news. She will not go on anything but conservative news or radio stations. She said it is because she wants the press to portray her as she wants to be portrayed or ask the questions that she wants to answer. I'm sorry. I thought that the press' job was to find out the truth, to ask politicians the tough questions. She answers to us. That remark by her is unacceptable and it is amazing to me that we are allowing politicians to get away with that. To say straight out that she is manipulating us and she obviously sees nothing wrong with that. Very disturbing.

seespotrun2008 wrote:

In the case of both the government and corporations it is apathy that is the problem. The citizenry is too complacement to be involved in government and many times the stockholders are not active in the running of companies. If you own stock in a company you have a voice in how it is run. Afterall you are a part owner.

Hmmmm. Interesting point. Is your argument that if the stockholders were more involved that there would be less corruption in corporations?

That still does not address my point that stockholders do not answer to the American people. They only answer to themselves. Since the American people are supposed to be the ones running the country, not the corporations, I still think that the government should be involved. Because as I said, in the words of Thom Hartman "we are the government". I think that it is always important for us to remember that the politicians that we elect represent us. Which means that the government is only as good as we make it. I know that it is complicated and that a lot of politicians lie to us but it is our job then to find out the truth. The press was always supposed to be on our side, now oftentimes it seems that it is a sounding board for people in the government who want to manipulate us.

When I was looking into Sharon Angle I found a clip from an interview that they did with her on fox news. She will not go on anything but conservative news or radio stations. She said it is because she wants the press to portray her as she wants to be portrayed or ask the questions that she wants to answer. I'm sorry. I thought that the press' job was to find out the truth, to ask politicians the tough questions. She answers to us. That remark by her is unacceptable and it is amazing to me that we are allowing politicians to get away with that. To say straight out that she is manipulating us and she obviously sees nothing wrong with that. Very disturbing.

Pension programs in the US are being replaced by employer payments into 401K programs. These 401K programs invest in stocks and bonds. The investments in stocks make those who participate in 401K programs indirect stockholders. So if you work full time you probably are a stockholder. Now, 401K programs do not generally bestow proxy priveleges but I certainly envision a movement to band such indirect stockholders together to demand more accountability by the corporations they are invested in. With the internet that is certainly possible, it is just waiting for a clever individual savy with social media to start the process.

BTW, Harry Reid has said so horrendous things, including that the Ware in Iraq was lost.

All of this "corporations are people" stuff is a bunch of nonsense. Corporations exist SOLEY at the mercy of statute. The ruling that gave "freedom of speech" to corporations is absolute nonsense. For instance, the restrictions on not for profit corporations create a distinct and separate class of "people" that does not have the same rights and responsibilities as an S corp or basic corp. There is not "equal protection clause" that applies to making those distinctions. Why? Because corporations are not people. Corporations in fact have no responsibility to anyone but their shareholders. Shareholders have very little to do with the decisions the corporations make. It is HIGHLY unlikely that most shareholders of major corporations know what political donations the corporations make. What policies they back. And which ones they are dedicated to defeating.

If we allow ourselves to belief the ridiculous premise that corporations are in fact people, then why is it that ther is no restriction on political donations for corporations when individuals have no such restrictions? THAT is a violation of the equal protection clause. Or would be if corporations and people were equal under the recent decision. In essence, the Court created another class of citizen. Corporations according to this Court are more valuable than actual people and are to be treated with more regard for their concerns.

stahrwe wrote: In the case of both the government and corporations it is apathy that is the problem. The citizenry is too complacement to be involved in government and many times the stockholders are not active in the running of companies. If you own stock in a company you have a voice in how it is run. Afterall you are a part owner.

The stockholders who have the greatest influence on corporations are the large institutional investors who are mainly interested in maximizing their share price, since they own most of the stock. Individual stockholders, even working together, can't control things. Boycotts are more likely to have an impact, but they rarely succeed since it's difficult to organize and sustain a sufficiently large boycott.

In terms of the government, apathy is a problem. Many Americans don't vote, and very few Americans do anything political besides vote. Still, something else bothers more than apathy: the large fraction of voters who support Republicans. The percentage of votes that are for Democratic candidates matters to me a lot more than then percentage of citizens who vote.

I agree that there should be a balance. No one benefits in the long run when businesses are abusive or when businesses are abused.

Someone mentioned somewhere about how companies from France are coming to the US, since regulation is too strict in France. I didn't give it much thought, until a couple days later. When a government regulates it's companies too much, they go overseas, foreign labor and such. Something smells fishy with apologizing for this. Before I go any further, I certainly agree that too much regulation is bad. I've been hesitant to start a new business due to EPA requirements.

But here is what smells fishy. If regulation is enacted to protect the common citizen from abuse by a corporation, how is it moral for that corporation to go overseas and take advantage of other people without such protection? When we have minimum wages, as a simplistic example, it is to ensure people aren't paid a pittance while the big fish at the top of the corporate food chain rake in all the profit. So to increase revenue, these companies go overseas and hire people for far less than minimum wage, which only takes the injustice somewhere else.

The businesses in the US are currently very under-regulated. I see abuse nonstop everywhere I look, and watch in frustration as select few people grow wealthy from the combined overdraft fees of millions of Americans. Or E. Coli outbreaks that kill people, yet the FDA is unable to shut down the food plants. Or unregulated offshore drilling.

Perhaps those oil companies will do business in Mexico instead of the US if we regulate them too much. But what the hell does that solve? We would still have unsafe oil rigs in the Gulf! It's like telling your child they aren't allowed to do cocaine when they live under your roof, so they move out and do cocaine elsewhere. The problem isn't that regulation would drive corporations overseas, the problem is that corporations want maximum profit, even if it means at the expense of the American people.

Perhaps some politicians have already thought of this and penalize such behavior in some manner. I'm not sure how it could be done without damaging the economy here in the US. But then, think of it like this. If the economy is weaker in the US as a result of regulation, yet also results in a more equal distribution of wealth, it could very well be a positive net sum to the vast majority of Americans. The rich would no longer be as rich, perhaps the middle class would come back, and we would no longer have the toxic injustices that we see everyday. In all honesty, this still seems to be a poor trade-off. But we should remain focused on the true root of the problem, rather than treating merely the symptoms. Under-regulation allows injustices to be done on a massive scale.

By the way, I licensed my business a couple months ago.

Hi, I'm a tea partier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnUfPQVOqpw

watch it.

geo wrote:

phillies4evr wrote:
if you would listen closely to what Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have to say, at least in my eyes, they know exactly what they are saying and doing. This country is falling apart under the Obama regime. Admit it! Something needs to be done and soon! Read what the tea party is all about. If you want a better America, remember all the people in the White House that are screwing things up and that there has to be a change somewhere!

This is certainly the canard that's going around. Many folks seem to be blaming our economic woes on Obama, though the economic collapse clearly occurred under Bush's watch.

I agree that the healthcare bill was passed at a most inopportune time and that the fewer things left to government control the better (including American automakers). But let's be realistic here. Obama came into office during a fairly dramatic downturn that was probably many years in the making. To say the Tea Party is going to fix everything seems rather simplistic to me. Though if you're getting your news from Glenn Beck, simplistic is what you're going to get.

\

well, I voted today and the only thing I have to say is the TEA PARTY RULES'!!!!!!!!!!! I. got a Rasmussen report this morning that said according to them, and they are rarely wrong, the Republicans are going to blow this election out of the water! At the end of the night tonight.......... the Democrats will probably have the last laugh!