[ennui2]

Are you saying that there are not people in the UN that think we should have one world government? Or that socialists are not always talking about income redistribution and fairness and is not the news full of Muslims kidnapping young girls and beheading their brothers? I don't know how giving corporations more power would defend us from any of these but find it amusing that we are debating the issue on computers furnished to us by corporations.

Are you trying to bait me into debating tinfoil Alex Jones or Glenn Beck theories? I'm not going to play along. I am not anti-corporation but I am against mega-corporations that try to buy elections (like the Koch brothers are gearing up to do for 2016) or the oil/gas companies that blanket the cable news commercial blocks or sidebar ads on National Geographic about how fracking is so wonderful.

[ennui2]

My main income today is from a retirement account that is heavily invested in stocks so to argue against corporate profits would be self defeating.

Then consider where the wealth in those stocks originate. I made most of my nestegg from the sale of Myspace to Rupert Murdoch and I feel a lot of that is basically "blood money" by virtue of the propaganda he's spewed via Fox News. Of course, since you're a conservative, you wouldn't view that as a problem the way I do. But just because I personally benefitted from this doesn't mean I'm incapable of following the house that Jack built a few steps to realize that I'm basically feeding at the trough of a self-destructive system.

So when you say "self-defeating" what you're ultimately doing is suggesting people live selfish lives (which is basically the core of current conservative thought anyway, the Ayn Rand principle). I have a big problem with that on ethical/moral grounds.

As to Hilliary's Russian "gifts" I do think they are more treasonous .

I suspect your outrage begins and ends with the D- next to her name. The second a scandal of equal weight rises up against a republican candidate you'll be shrugging it off. This one-sided double-standard outrage is, of course, how outlets like Fox news operate.

[vtsnowedin]

So when you say "self-defeating" what you're ultimately doing is suggesting people live selfish lives (which is basically the core of current conservative thought anyway, the Ayn Rand principle).

If you plant a garden and keep it weeded you expect to get a crop. If you go to work you expect to get paid and if you buy stock you expect the company to make a profit and either pay you a dividend or increase the value of your stock. I don't see those reasonable expectations of gain as selfish. Wanting an unreasonable return based on your investment or effort is selfishness and there are plenty of selfish people but it does not apply to everyone.

[vtsnowedin]

As to Hilliary's Russian "gifts" I do think they are more treasonous .

I suspect your outrage begins and ends with the D- next to her name. The second a scandal of equal weight rises up against a republican candidate you'll be shrugging it off. This one-sided double-standard outrage is, of course, how outlets like Fox news operate.

I am not outraged about Hillary. She is a pathetic slimy little crook that is not suitable as president of the United States and will never get a vote from me but I'm not emotional about it, just practical.
As to one sided double standards one need only look as far as MSNBC to see the counter balance to Fox News.

[Pops]

Isn't this always the way it goes, straight to the bottom line, your baby is ugly, ad hom, party line blather and any actual discussion goes by the way.

I'm not anti-corps or anti-capital, just pro-citizen. Most conservatives believe the government should spend lots on the military because everyone is out to get us, the funny thing is that worry stops at the border. US businesses should have little to no regulation, because ..., well, it isn't clear to me why. Because they are American?

That is the thing, increasingly their income and I'd guess their "loyalties" aren't with America.

Since 1996 the share of the worldwide income of U.S. multinational companies (MNCs)
that is declared abroad has increased significantly. This development has received a great deal of
attention in the tax press (Sullivan, 2008), and is also reflected in the rather expansive estimates
of the revenue that the United States would gain if it adopted formula apportionment (Avi-Yonah
and Clausing, 2007).
Data from a linked sample of 754 large nonfinancial U.S.-based MNCs obtained from the
Treasury corporate income tax files indicate that the share of aggregate pre-tax worldwide
income earned abroad increased from 37.1 percent in 1996 to 51.1 percent in 2004.1

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... b-2012.pdf

[Ibon]

That is the thing, increasingly their income and I'd guess their "loyalties" aren't with America.

Since 1996 the share of the worldwide income of U.S. multinational companies (MNCs)
that is declared abroad has increased significantly. This development has received a great deal of
attention in the tax press (Sullivan, 2008), and is also reflected in the rather expansive estimates
of the revenue that the United States would gain if it adopted formula apportionment (Avi-Yonah
and Clausing, 2007).
Data from a linked sample of 754 large nonfinancial U.S.-based MNCs obtained from the
Treasury corporate income tax files indicate that the share of aggregate pre-tax worldwide
income earned abroad increased from 37.1 percent in 1996 to 51.1 percent in 2004.1

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... b-2012.pdf

Someone awhile back mentioned that the loyalties of the upper echelons of MNC's are their counterparts overseas and not with their own citizens. Global capitalism has enabled loyalties to jump national boundaries. This is increasingly a global two class system.

Isn't this always the way it goes, straight to the bottom line, your baby is ugly, ad hom, party line blather and any actual discussion goes by the way.

Nobody said it better than George Carlin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXcNU4f0bqA

[ennui2]

if you buy stock you expect the company to make a profit and either pay you a dividend or increase the value of your stock. I don't see those reasonable expectations of gain as selfish.

To invest in a stock purely based on its upside potential and not concern yourself with the business practices of the companies inside that portfolio is selfish. This is why there's a move afoot among universities to divest (token measure it may be). Putting blinders on and only thinking in terms of profit and loss is all part of the problem. The profit and loss comes out of an ecologically extractive system. I'm not necessarily saying we all have to live like no-impact-man but I am not going to put my money into Exxon or Koch industries and then just shrug my shoulders and say "Hey, it's just an investment."

[ennui2]

I am not outraged about Hillary. She is a pathetic slimy little crook that is not suitable as president of the United States and will never get a vote from me but I'm not emotional about it, just practical.

Thou dost protest too much. You've bought into the angry-white-male "Team-America vs. the pinkos" ethos of Fox News hook line and sinker. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a duck.

BTW, while we're at it, how did you feel about Mitt Romney and his 47% comment? Sure, it's old news, but if you want to be fair and balanced (so to speak) then prove that the GOP really cares about anything else but the moneyed class.

[vtsnowedin]

BTW, while we're at it, how did you feel about Mitt Romney and his 47% comment? Sure, it's old news, but if you want to be fair and balanced (so to speak) then prove that the GOP really cares about anything else but the moneyed class.

A very impolitic thing to say. Accurate, but he should have left it unsaid. I have never cared for the guy, just a stuffed shirt that was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
It is impossible for me to prove to you that your personnel bias is wrong. It is after all your personnel bias and doesn't rely on facts or the lack thereof.

[vtsnowedin]

Before you go off about wealthy Republicans being just for the rich be aware that the congress is pretty evenly split when it comes to wealth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/us/po ... .html?_r=0
Even Berni Sanders who has been in public office sense 1981 has amassed a net worth of $500,000. Not bad on a Mayor's or Congressman's salary.

[Pops]

Of course there are rich liberals LOL, it isn't about money.
It is about individualism vs collectivism, You're with us or against us vs We're all in this together.

I built that vs Pay it forward.

Some people would give you the shirt off their back and some would begrudge the least least helping hand. That will not change, ever, and it has nothing to do with Christianity or atheism or R or D, it is just people.

The point I was trying to make is pretending the people who run big business are not subject to the same frailties as regular mortals is silly. Put billions at their fingertips to do as they like without regulation means simply that they will do as they like, except with a billion times greater effect.

[kiwichick]

@ cid y

thanks for that background cid.


and it certainly meshes with my understanding of the US since WW2

I loved the officer in "Good Morning Vietnam" describing Nixon as (was it ?) "the meanest son of bitch; and I count him as a close personal friend"..... or something like that

(jump in if you have the exact quote)

Robin Williams...... tortured genius, miss him heaps

[ennui2]

Before you go off about wealthy Republicans being just for the rich be aware that the congress is pretty evenly split when it comes to wealth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/us/po ... .html?_r=0
Even Berni Sanders who has been in public office sense 1981 has amassed a net worth of $500,000. Not bad on a Mayor's or Congressman's salary.

Personal wealth and their voting records are two totally different things. How successful do you think someone on foodstamps will be running a campaign for senate or the house? Did you support Citizen's United? Would you like to see campaign finance reform (ala McCain)? Would you like to see term limits? I'd very much like to take more of the money out of politics and open the playing field up to non-millionaires and non-Koch-brothers-funded candidates.

[Pops]

Yeah, there are rich liberals, here is an example I just received:

Dear MoveOn member,
It's Ben and Jerry—the co-founders of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream—and we need your help.

We want to pay our fair share of taxes, but Republicans in Congress are trying to pass an unnecessary tax giveaway to America's wealthiest citizens. We don't want, need, or deserve this tax cut—which is why we're asking you to sign our petition to Senate Democrats that states:

If Senate and House Republicans have their way, they will eliminate the estate tax, which affects only the wealthiest 0.2% of taxpayers. Repealing the estate tax would hurt our economy and be fundamentally unfair. Senate Democrats: Stand with us—and stay united against the repeal.
Sign Ben & Jerry's petition

Here's the truth: We don't need this stupid tax cut.

As we recently wrote in an op-ed in USA Today, we're wealthy thanks to the good fortune of our efforts—but also because of many other societal factors that contributed to our wealth.1 The estate tax is one of the ways that the wealthy pay forward so the next generation has the opportunities we had.

The estate tax, which the U.S. has had for more than a century, currently affects Americans with estates worth at least $5.4 million, or $10.8 million for a couple—only 1 out of every 500 taxpayers.2 And yet, it's been a target of right-wing lawmakers, working on behalf of their wealthy donors.

Click here to sign our petition calling on Senate Democrats to stand united and stop this Republican giveaway to the superrich.

Congress has shrunk the estate tax in recent years—and now the Senate and House, in advisory votes largely along party lines, have voted to repeal it entirely.3 The votes are only advisory, for now, but when the Republicans press this issue again, Senate Democrats will need to be ready to beat back the repeal and block this latest Republican giveaway to the superrich.

We know this may not be as fun as helping us choose names for ice cream flavors—but it's critical to send a message that Congress shouldn't be working on behalf of only the wealthiest Americans but should get back to the people's business. Wages have been stagnant for decades.4 Young people are carrying around anvils on their backs called student debt.5 Our public infrastructure is falling apart.6

Good grief, Congress. With all this going on, are you really going to give another tax break to those of us who need it least?

Sign our petition—tell Senate Democrats to stand united and ensure that Republicans don't give multimillionaires and billionaires even more tax breaks.

Thanks for all you do.

–Ben and Jerry

[onlooker]

Highly interesting thread created as in encompasses most of what we talk about here. I prefer to look at the dynamic in the interactions between the elites-authority and the masses. Why? Because it seems to me that throughout history the elites in power have overridden the interest of the general populace and their wishes. Well fast forward to the present age ie. WWII to present and we have countless examples of people feeling disenfranchised and powerless. The masses have been distracted in this modern age with consumerism so what will happen when that whole model ceases to be viable. I have no illusions of us navigating this great disruption benignly. I believe conflict can and will occur as it is already. I believe rich countries will coerce and force their advantages to materialize so that they can remain somewhat afloat in the future. The future seems terribly ominous with forces arrayed to lay low humanity. Mother nature appears poised to reduce our huge overpopulation. So I hope without much conviction that these Earth shaking developments will not reduce humanity to barbarism in a Mad Max scenario. Having said all that I am not sure the time-table for all this. If I were to guess the really bad stuff should begin to manifest in about 20 years. My solace is I lack fear of the Grim Reaper, I may die soon anyway. Besides, I am weary of this world and it's problems.

[Cid_Yama]

They have, for the last several decades, redirected the blame onto the poor. Like the poor have any power to affect policy whatsoever.

But oh, it's those worthless, lazy, welfare cheating, dirty, smelly, disgusting poor who are responsible for it all. Especially the non-white ones. So when you finally get angry, you know who to take it out on. The ones who have bore the brunt of the misery throughout. Typical blame the most victimized.

It just makes me sick. Especially the gullibility of the working class who actually believe that horse crap.

They should be lock and loading and heading for the Hamptons or the wealthy enclaves in Connecticut, but instead they will be doing drive by shootings in Detroit.

You won't see them driving though town with their guns and pickups in Ozaukee County, Wisconsin, or Gross Pointe Woods or Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. Or the counties surrounding the San Francisco Bay area in California. Or the many other obscure places the wealthy hang out.

No, The wealthy have already assured where the anger will be directed, and it won't be at them. No, the giant leech sitting on top of America and sucking her dry won't even be recognized.

Sure, not all wealthy are responsible, me for instance. Don't get me wrong. But people tend to believe what is most advantageous for them, and the upper crust see it as their right to harvest the wealth in the most efficient (devastating) way.

They do not see (some would say refuse to see) the connection between what they do, and the misery it creates.

Trust me, they are people just like you, and their mythos assures them they are good and decent people. Regardless of the horrors they inflict.

There are many little old ladies who collect porcelain and invest in Exxon-Mobil because it gives a good return. Not your typical Simon Legree.

But there ARE Simon Legrees out there that DO know what they are doing.

[ennui2]

Actually, the poor (poor whites) have been part of the GOPs biggest voting block, even though it's against their best interests.

[vtsnowedin]

Before you go off about wealthy Republicans being just for the rich be aware that the congress is pretty evenly split when it comes to wealth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/us/po ... .html?_r=0
Even Berni Sanders who has been in public office sense 1981 has amassed a net worth of $500,000. Not bad on a Mayor's or Congressman's salary.

Personal wealth and their voting records are two totally different things. How successful do you think someone on foodstamps will be running a campaign for senate or the house? Did you support Citizen's United? Would you like to see campaign finance reform (ala McCain)? Would you like to see term limits? I'd very much like to take more of the money out of politics and open the playing field up to non-millionaires and non-Koch-brothers-funded candidates.

I think citizen's united was a correct decision in that limiting spending is limiting free speech. I also think all donations should be required to be in public ,both who it is from and where and how it was spent. That way the voters would know whose pocket their Congressman and Senator's were in. I'm not in favor of term limits but would like to see voters turn out scallywags more often. Bernie's fundraising this week shows that the internet can be used to raise money for non millionaires if you have a popular message and a good public reputation.
You will never get the money out of politics as there is so much at stake in the hands of the government bureaucracy. ( 3.8 to 4.1 trillion$ in 2016.)

[Pops]

I think citizen's united was a correct decision in that limiting spending is limiting free speech.... You will never get the money out of politics as there is so much at stake...

Your logic is a little convoluted.
If "you'll never get money out of politics" then it follows that money must corrupt the process

Yet your opinion is to allow unlimited money, because...

free speech?