Corporations are not people. Money is not speech.

[3WC]

maxx, since you don't believe in hell, I guess you don't have to worry about going there.

Now, try believing there's no such things as world poverty or man's inhumanity to man. Thanks in advance.

Few if anyone on here seem to understand the real nature of corporations. They are persons, a legal fiction recognized throughout most of the world. Actually, corporations are people - they are their shareholders - millions of Americans who own corporations, directly or through their unions, pension funds, mutual funds and so forth. Corporations, to the extent they participate more fully in the election process as a result of the Su. Ct. decision [[highly unlikely) will do so by reflecting the best interests of their shareholders. Unions will be able to do the same things. [[By the way, the vast majority of corporations in this country are small businesses.)

Unions have far more influence in politics than do corporations. Proof? Look at how f'ed up this country is today; both unions and major corporations are to blame but unions much more so.

[ghettopalmetto]

Unions have far more influence in politics than do corporations. Proof? Look at how f'ed up this country is today; both unions and major corporations are to blame but unions much more so.

Your "proof" is "because I say so"? That's pretty fucked up itself, don't you think?

Our country is fucked up because we think we can speak in vague generalities, offer no rationale for our thinking or evidence to support it, and that everyone is entitled to an opinion on everything no matter how unlearned or unqualified to speak to the topic. We're running on over 300 million pre-ordained opinions, where facts don't mean shit anymore. THAT's why our country is fucked up.

Now, let's look at the link that Rb336 posted, and honestly tell me people like Hurd need us working stiffs to subsidize continued tax cuts for them. I'm not going to come out in full force against all corporations in general [[there are some good, honest ones out there), but I'm not going to sit here and worship money in the mere hope that someone throws some my way.

[Jimaz]

Corporations are not people. Money is not speech.

How much more simply can it be stated? Is that statement not simple common sense? Attempting to claim that an outright lie is only a metaphor is a revealingly weak attempt to excuse thievery.

3WC, I hope you enjoy Hell because that's exactly where you're steering your ship.

Thou shalt not lie.

[3WC]

ghetto...: I don't know that I spoke in vague generalities but you do make a valid point. I don't claim to be an expert but I had a good corporate law background. I was 2nd in command in a publicly held corporation and have owned and do now own and operate a few small corporations.

I share your view that publicly held corporate officials are way overpaid. How does that hurt you unless you're a shareholder in those corporations? If you are, and you're not getting a good return, sell your shares, or, commence a shareholder movement to cut officers' compensation.

You don't want to "subsidize ...tax cuts" for people like Hurd [[who apparently did a good job for H-P, making the shareholders a lot of money in the process, and was only paid what he was contractually entitled.) Unless you are a H-P shareholder, what do you care? BTW, he paid 35+% fed axes and 10% CA state taxes on that bonus. You don't subsidize anybody unless you are in the top 5% of all taxpayers who pay well over 40% of all federal taxes paid in this country. We in the higher tax brackets "subsidize" the huge percentage of Americans who pay no or little taxes. You're welcome if you're in that group. [[I've been working for money since I was 9 years old, and that's a lot of years. I've worked jobs such as household goods mover, truck driver, construction, and other manual labor jobs to educate myself. I have taken extraordinary risks and have made more good decisions than bad ones [lots of both.] I still run 4 small companies with a few million annually in revenues, and in most years- not all by a long shot - high profits. I pay an extraordinary amount of money in taxes. My estate will pay yet more taxes on money I've already paid taxes on. If the Bush tax cuts are left in place I'll still pay an extraordinary amount of money in taxes. That Socialist in Washington will probably tax me higher, though. F... 'em. I'll sell out and quit and avoid every dime in taxes in the process that I can.) However, I believe that we are all our brother's keeper and I have no qualms about doing my part to help those who through no fault of their own cannot take care of themselves. However, I am sick of supporting the deadbeats and illegal aliens who feed at the publlc trough. You want to impose more taxes on the rich, the job creators? Be careful what you wish for.

[3WC]

Jimez: Don't lecture me.

I hope you enjoy wallowing in ignorance because that's where your ship has already landed.

You wouldn't know what's common sense if it bit you in the ass.

Thou shall not be stupid.

[Jimaz]

Jimez: Don't lecture me.

I hope you enjoy wallowing in ignorance because that's where your ship has already landed.

You wouldn't know what's common sense if it bit you in the ass.

Thou shall not be stupid.

You're way too late to this party, 3WC. And you're name calling. You'll be dealing with me later if you're lucky. Corporations are not people. Money is not speech, despite what the voices in your head may be telling you.

And I'll happily lecture your ass into the ground if you're foolish enough to give me that chance.

You have more to lose than I.

[Jimaz]

FreeSpeechForPeople.org

Corporations are not people. Money is not speech.

[Jimaz]

This is what a genuine grassroots rally looks like: MAKING A MOVEMENT.

This has not been endorsed by the Koch brothers.

[oladub]

freespeech for people.com is promoting the following Constitutional amendment.

Amendment XXVIII
Section 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, the First Amendment shall not be construed to limit the authority of Congress and the States to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity of any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation.
Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.


We are not a 'free democracy' whatever that is. We are a Constitutional republic. According to the 10th Amendment. States can already "define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity of any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity" because the Constitution neither specifically delegates those powers to the federal government nor denies theme to states. It was a court that declared corporations were legal individuals, not elected representatives or the Constitution. A problem with the recent Supreme Court ruling was that it placed settled law about corporations being legal individuals above what the Constitution actually says.

[ghettopalmetto]

You don't want to "subsidize ...tax cuts" for people like Hurd [[who apparently did a good job for H-P, making the shareholders a lot of money in the process, and was only paid what he was contractually entitled.) Unless you are a H-P shareholder, what do you care? BTW, he paid 35+% fed axes and 10% CA state taxes on that bonus. You don't subsidize anybody unless you are in the top 5% of all taxpayers who pay well over 40% of all federal taxes paid in this country. We in the higher tax brackets "subsidize" the huge percentage of Americans who pay no or little taxes. You're welcome if you're in that group. [[I've been working for money since I was 9 years old, and that's a lot of years. I've worked jobs such as household goods mover, truck driver, construction, and other manual labor jobs to educate myself. I have taken extraordinary risks and have made more good decisions than bad ones [lots of both.] I still run 4 small companies with a few million annually in revenues, and in most years- not all by a long shot - high profits. I pay an extraordinary amount of money in taxes. My estate will pay yet more taxes on money I've already paid taxes on. If the Bush tax cuts are left in place I'll still pay an extraordinary amount of money in taxes. That Socialist in Washington will probably tax me higher, though. F... 'em. I'll sell out and quit and avoid every dime in taxes in the process that I can.) However, I believe that we are all our brother's keeper and I have no qualms about doing my part to help those who through no fault of their own cannot take care of themselves. However, I am sick of supporting the deadbeats and illegal aliens who feed at the publlc trough. You want to impose more taxes on the rich, the job creators? Be careful what you wish for.

Well, let's take a look at numbers, shall we? Previous to Bush's 2001 tax cuts [[which were going to jump-start the economy), the top marginal income tax rate was 39.6%. As you stated, it is now 35%. Apply this difference to Mr. Hurd's compensation in 2009, and you have a public subsidy of $1.1 million to Mr. Hurd alone. All for the benefit of letting him CUT 6,400 jobs, which seems to contradict your statement.

Let's be frank. The vast majority of us do not work for people in the top income-tax bracket. The vast majority of small business owners are not in the top income-tax bracket.

How many jobs did Mr. Hurd create after his tax cut? What about Paris Hilton--how many jobs is she creating?

The report, from the Institute of Policy Studies, found that the 50 layoff leaders received $12 million on average in 2009, compared with an average compensation of $8.5 million for chief executives of companies in Standard & Poor's 500. Each of the 50 companies examined in the report laid off at least 3,000 workers between November 2008 and April 2010.

That, to me, says that we're foolish to continue doing what you propose--it DOES NOT WORK. It's a nice theory and all, but only an idiot can look at these numbers and still think that cutting the taxes of millionaires is going to lead to job creation. In fact, those statistics seem to suggest that corporate titans are willing to throw us peons into the fire just to boost their own personal bottom line. Let's get this straight--our economy needs to work for ALL of us, not just corporate shareholders. If you don't want to participate in the economy, that's your own business, but the majority of us want to work, feed our families, and receive a certain level of government services. It's irresponsible to forego those opportunities just so a few dozen CEOs can fatten their Swiss bank accounts.

Your implication that it is the top 2% of income earners who create jobs is utter unsubstantiated bullshit. Most jobs are created by regular, hard-working, middle-class folks who need opportunity preserved for them, so they might start and continue to operate their businesses. Giving money away to millionaires hasn't worked for 30 years, and there is nothing to indicate that it's going to start working now.

[3WC]

jimaz: "You have more to lose than I." Jeez, I SURE hope SO. [[Uh oh, I SEEM to be picking up YOUR bad habits.)

Oladub: The proposed Amendment you cited wouldn't survive a challenge in Detroit's 36th District Court. It's vague and in effect constitutes a bill of attainder. What it should do is delete Section 2 and add the following provision to Section 1: ...... provided, however, no such restriction shall apply to any corporation or other legal entity which owns or operates a newspaper, radio or TV station or network, or any book publisher or media entity."

The NYT, Fox News and 100s of other media corporations spend countless millions espousing their own brands of political persuasion and opinion.

Ghetto, you're next when I have time.

[Detroitej72]

You don't want to "subsidize ...tax cuts" for people like Hurd [[who apparently did a good job for H-P, making the shareholders a lot of money in the process, and was only paid what he was contractually entitled.) .

Since you think that is fair, do you begrudge anyone in a union who is simply paid what they were contractually entitled? [[BTW, before you label me a liberal union slappy, you should know I am not much of a union supporter)

We in the higher tax brackets "subsidize" the huge percentage of Americans who pay no or little taxes.

As it should be. The middle class has been shouldering and subsidizing the elites for years. By this, I mean, the average working person can't afford the best accountants and lawyers to help steer them through all loopholes, tax shelters, and off-shore accounts.

That Socialist in Washington will probably tax me higher, though. F... 'em. I'll sell out and quit and avoid every dime in taxes in the process that I can.).

Socialist? Are you referring to our president? If you were a Bush man, you shouldn't have much to complain about with Obama, since he has pretty much steered the same coarse as his predecessor.

Sell out and avoid every dime in taxes? That sounds an awful lot like what I stated earlier about the elite's paying less in taxes. Thanks, you just proved my point.

However, I believe that we are all our brother's keeper and I have no qualms about doing my part to help those who through no fault of their own cannot take care of themselves.

That part we can both agree on.

However, I am sick of supporting the deadbeats and illegal aliens who feed at the publlc trough.

Those people whom you refer to are far fewer than you are lead to believe. The vast majority of folks on some sort of assistance are not deadbeats and illegals. They are people who have worked hard and have fallen on hard times, and many have felt the pinch of 30 years of out sourcing, and job cutting at the hands of folks like the above mentioned Hurd.

[fryar]

From my perspective, it is fundamentally problematic to grant political rights to corporations. I buy the argument made in that doc, The Corporation or some such, that if they are analogous to a human being, they are sociopaths, in that their decision-making process conspicuously undervalues the greater good.

[maxx]

Corporations are a great way to avoid personal responsibility.Pollute the air. Pollute the water. Let the taxpayers pay to clean'em up.

[ghettopalmetto]

Corporations are a great way to avoid personal responsibility.Pollute the air. Pollute the water. Let the taxpayers pay to clean'em up.

Socialize the losses, privatize the profits! It's how Wall Street has worked for decades, and look how *successful* those bankers are!

[3WC]

You'll all be glad that H-P's Hurd has bounced back quickly. According to the WSJ [[online) today, he will be named a very senior officer of Oracle. Even though he probably netted a little over $20 mil in H-P severance, the guy still has to get up and go to work every morning. It's called the "work ethic." That kind of devotion should be well rewarded don't you think?

[Detroitej72]

You'll all be glad that H-P's Hurd has bounced back quickly. According to the WSJ [[online) today, he will be named a very senior officer of Oracle. Even though he probably netted a little over $20 mil in H-P severance, the guy still has to get up and go to work every morning. It's called the "work ethic." That kind of devotion should be well rewarded don't you think?

Work ethic? Maybe greed ethic.

Do you really think he will get up at 5:00 AM, and put in a full 9 or 10 hours a day, 50-60-plus hours a week like the average working class stiff?

I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...

[3WC]

Well Detroitej72, it may be a difficult concept for you to understand or acknowledge, but guys like Hurd work 16 hours a day. Do you and people like you ever read anything but comic books?

[[By the way, my previous post was tongue-in-cheek.)

[gdogslim]

re:
Corporations are not people. Money is not speech.

true, corporations employ millions of people that support all the civil servant workers.
Money is a medium for transfering goods and services.
just as;
Unions are not people, union dues are not speech.
But unions take hundreds of millions of dues from workers and give it to democrats to influence votes that favor unions, laws contracts and stimulus handouts.

[ghettopalmetto]

re:
Corporations are not people. Money is not speech.

true, corporations employ millions of people that support all the civil servant workers.
Money is a medium for transfering goods and services.
just as;
Unions are not people, union dues are not speech.
But unions take hundreds of millions of dues from workers and give it to democrats to influence votes that favor unions, laws contracts and stimulus handouts.

If the Republican Party didn't do everything short of outlawing unions, they might get some of those campaign donations too, don'tcha think?

[barnesfoto]

The Teamsters endorsed Ray-Gun in the 1980's.

[Detroitej72]

The Teamsters endorsed Ray-Gun in the 1980's.

Under Jimmy Hoffa, the Teamsters endorsed Repubs most of the time because Hoffa hated the Kennedy brothers.

[3WC]

gdogslim, you make an excellent point.

In the 2008 election the Dems raised far more money and spent far more money than the Republicans. "Wall Street" crooks [[those bastards most of you hate so much) were among the biggest donors to the Dems.

But, you're at risk of confusing those people [[ghetto and detroitej72) with logic and the facts.

[barnesfoto]

Wall Street Crooks are often the biggest donors to either party..

Perhaps we need taxpayer funded elections?

[oldredfordette]

The Teamsters endorsed W as well, had him at their Detroit HQ in 1999, sullying it forever.

The unions need to stop spending my dues money on any political candidates. I'm 100% in favor of full campaign reform.