Pete Sessions (R-TEX) on Meet The Press

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Mags, a question for you - I do respect your contributions and demeanor. What do you think of the recent Supreme Court ruling on unlimited corporate funding of the election process? Do you think corporations should be protected (as some justices suggested) as individuals, with individual rights? This issue really bothers me a lot, and I don't see many people defending it all that much. You might be able to help me consider the other side. I just don't get this one - at all - and think it could be a terrible thing for our electoral process, and the average citizen, whose rights the corporations are being likened to in this case.
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
48
Mags, a question for you - I do respect your contributions and demeanor. What do you think of the recent Supreme Court ruling on unlimited corporate funding of the election process? Do you think corporations should be protected (as some justices suggested) as individuals, with individual rights? This issue really bothers me a lot, and I don't see many people defending it all that much. You might be able to help me consider the other side. I just don't get this one - at all - and think it could be a terrible thing for our electoral process, and the average citizen, whose rights the corporations are being likened to in this case.

Hey Chad:

I guess the way I see this issue, IF unions can donate (whcih I think they can, but I could be wrong), then I think corporations should be able to also.

If unions cannot donate, then corporations should not be able to either.

If I remember right (and I could be wrong) but unions played a large role in O's campaign finance last election. Then corporations should be able to also. I don't see much difference - they are both made up of individuals, whose "rights" are being affected by the leadership of the corporation/union.

I think any campaign contribution should be individual only - no "aggregated contributions" - no political actions committees, no ACORN, no union contributions, no corporations.

And individual contributions should have a limit - a per household limit. It should be rather low, not to influence the elected.

But what do I know? I like corporations and dislike unions (which used to have a social purpose but not anymore)
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I agree with you, and I think the take on unions having this role is a good point. I would agree that is a one sided situation, if so, and should be looked at. If that's the case, and I think it is, too. I don't think opening it up more is the best idea, but it would be considered fair in some ways.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
I think you mean "God Given" talents....

Yes, you are right, it's like comparing a CEO to the guy who cuts the grass - quite a difference in education and background....

It's usually those who are most jealous, and those who lack the understanding of the talents these guys possess and how hard it is to get to these positions, that complain the most.

What i was saying is that Lebron is basically one of a kind in his field. A bill gates kind of "one". Now there are millions of CEO bankers that could be replaced by other bankers or regular people with some schooling. You are not gonna replace Lebron with another guy who has the same talents. You can't teach a guy to have size, strength, and quickness.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Jim Hightower:

Deficit hawks are on the fly in Washington, madly screeching that America can no longer afford... well, the American people.

Having slashed taxes for the wealthiest one-percent of our society, having lavished gabillions of dollars on unnecessary wars that enrich politically-connected government contractors, having laid out trillions of dollars to bail out Wall Street's casino banksters who crashed our real economy � Washington's brave fighters for extending more of our nation's wealth to the already-rich have suddenly turned into born-again budget whackers.

Are they cutting back on any of the above elites, you ask? What a joker you are! No, no � it's regular folks who must pay the price for the decade of excess that these politicos lavished on the rich.

In recent weeks, for example, Republican senators have repeatedly blocked an extension of jobless benefits for America's hardest-hit families. They've also denied aid that would keep states and cities from firing hundreds of thousands of teachers, police officers, and other essential public employees, "Can't afford it," bellow these newly-minted spendthrifts, even as their failure to act is intentionally increasing unemployment and economic-pain across our land.

Governors are also running the same sort of budget scams on their people. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, for example, recently dealt with his state's deficit by slashing spending for public health, higher education, the elderly and the disabled. He then vetoed an income tax on Minnesota's richest people, declaring that this effort to balance the budget and share the pain was "nonsensical." Likewise, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is terminating state workers while vetoing a tax hike on millionaires, calling the wealth tax "irresponsible."

So, students, the lesson here is that public spending is only sensible if it goes to the moneyed elites, and budget cuts are only good when applied to the rest of us.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
One thing I will say, in comparing unions to corporations, is that unions IN THEORY are organized to support the individual and worker's rights, and not any corporate interest or business. Therefore, in some ways I do think they would have more right to donate politically than individually profit driven corporations that have to keep their shareholders as their first priority, and make as much money as they can. In actuality, this is probably not the case with current unions, who are unrealistic and are at times self-serving to the management of the union, whose reps make money off of the members. Gray area, for sure, but I absolutely do not see why corporations should have the same rights as individual citizens, when it comes to donating money and affecting campaigns and issues. Corporations have MUCH more money than individuals, and have a vested interest in one sided legislation to benefit a very select few citizens.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Looks like right wing radio and the neocons did a great job of dirtying up unions. Even guys that lean left blame them for all the pain in the world. Maybe u might want to give up all ur benefits u have received thru ur lifetime because without unions none of you would have any. Good god those awful unions that created the middle class which is under attack in America. The unions did more for working people in this country than any other organization by far. Sure there are some bad ones. There is bad in every segment of our society but to paint them as the big bad boogy man is foolish. There are bad cops but more good ones. Bad Ceo's but some good ones also. I find it hilarious that the neocon thinkers applaud scabs for crossing picket lines when out of the other side of their mouth they tell people to go get a job instead of collecting unemployment like there are a lot of them out there. it is okay for these scabs to steal a job another guy had and is fighting to keep? Why, when there are all these other jobs out there that could be had by people that are unemployeed :142smilie Priceless. Here is a thought for some of the left leaners who trash unions. Who hates them the most? It really isn't that hard to figure out. The same shitbags who got us bog down in two wars that are killing us finacially that is who. The same shitbags who love one sided trade deals which would be the real reason we are where we are today. Those lovely trade deals. Why would any union give a cent to one of these snake oil Republicans who do nothing but try to destroy American familiy wages?
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
48
Corporations have MUCH more money than individuals, and have a vested interest in one sided legislation to benefit a very select few citizens.

Chad - this is exactly true of unions also. Unions are more political than organizational these days.

Unions, by working for a select few employees, have caused a lot of companies to choose to move work overseas, due to higher than market driven wages and benefits. In addition, by driving these higher wages, etc, it has reduced the profitability of the various companies, which has reduced wealth for a large portion of the population (as many of these large companies are in people's investment portfolios today via a mutual fund).

Unions had a very good social purpose years ago. We are now in the informational age now - it is much tougher for a US company to take advantage of employees with substandard working conditions, etc. Employment should be free will - the employee can leave at any time for another job, and the employer can fire an employee at any time for any reason. Instead unions foster poor performance, as "layoffs" are based on seniority, not performance. Yes, the poor performers love this system, but high performers should hate it. This system is most evident in education.

Bottom line - not only should unions not be able to contribute today, due to the political nature of the unions and the damage they do to our economic system, but I think they should be eliminated entirely.

But my views are biased - I tend to take a capitaliistic view of the world, not a socialistic one.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top