It's a bit early for Obama to be a "lame duck President," but clearly that's his situation now.

He's failing to lead. His most recent appointees (Hagel and Kerry) seem to bumble along. The current "solution" to the WMD situatiion in Syria seems to have been a Kerry brainfart which has put Vladimir Putin in charge of American foreign policy.

He seems insular, seems to want to go on his own without interfacing with Congress, even members of his own party.

He seems lost. I almost wonder if he's starting to talk to the paintings of past Presidents, seeking their advice much as Nixon is alleged to have done.

I'm starting to wish the choice had been between Hillary Clinton and John McCain/Mitt Romney. I can't see her in the situation Obama is in.

I was proud that we elected a black President, and in no way will I vote for a Republican for President without a fundamental transformation of their philosophy, but I must say I'm depressed.

Anyone else with me?

Tags: John, McCain, Mitt, Obama, President, Romney

Views: 1122

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Okay, then, explain what you meant. It sure seems that you implied that the corporations somehow influenced, maneuvered, or caused the Supreme Court to favor Citizen's United. I got that idea from "Corporate lobbyists control the government with money," and with the Supreme Court being part of the government and all,.

So, did they or didn't they influence the Supreme Court with money? And if they didn't, what  were you attempting to say?

I didn't say that Corporate Lobbyists control SC. I said that the influence that Corporate Lobbyists have on the government has become easier to manipulate because of things like Citizen United.

You need to understand what Citizen United vs FEC is in order to understand my point

What is Citizens United?

During the 2008 election, a conservative non-profit organization named "Citizens United" produced Hillary: The Movie, a documentary critical of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton. Because of the political nature of the movie and the fact that Citizens United intended to purchase airtime on a video on-demand service on cable television, the movie was deemed an "electioneering communication" by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and was therefore subject to the rules governing the production of political ads, including limitations on who may fund them. Citizens United sued in federal court to overturn the decision, lost and appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held two hearings on the case and its ruling ultimately went far beyond what the plaintiffs had sought. The 5-4 decision permits corporations, unions and other special interests to spend as much as they like to advocate the election or defeat of political candidates. Laws that bar those interests from contributing directly to candidates remain in place but the ruling lifted controls on political giving that had been in place for decade

Why does this matter?

Corporations already wield tremendous influence in our political system by virtue of the billions of dollars they spend on campaign contributions and lobbying every year, even in a system with limits on political giving. In 2009, the health care industry spent more than $263 million on lobbyists. Since the Supreme Court ruled that any limitation on corporate contributions – which were in place since 1907 when Congress passed the Tillman Act – are unconstitutional, corporations and unions have begun to crowd out the general public and will start to become the principal source of money for any candidate who hopes to win a seat in Congress.

- See more at: http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=5435601#...

The Citizen United Decision and Why it Matters

 

In a nutshell, the high court’s 5-4 decision said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.

The decision did not affect contributions. It is still illegal for companies and labor unions to give money directly to candidates for federal office. The court said that because these funds were not being spent in coordination with a campaign, they “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

So if the decision was about spending, why has so much been written about contributions? Like seven and eight-figure donations from people like casino magnate and billionaire Sheldon Adelson who, with his family, has given about $40 million to so-called “super PACs,” formed in the wake of the decision?

Now look at Speechnow.org vs FEC

For that, we need to look at another court case — SpeechNow.org v. FEC. The lower-court case used the Citizens United case as precedent when it said that limits on contributions to groups that make independent expenditures are unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court kept limits on disclosure in place, and super PACs are required to report regularly on who their donors are. The same can’t be said for “social welfare” groups and some other nonprofits, like business leagues.

These groups can function the same way as super PACs, so long as election activity is not their primary activity. But unlike the super PACs, nonprofits do not report who funds them. That’s disturbing to those who favor transparency in elections. An attempt by Congress to pass a law requiring disclosure was blocked by Republican lawmakers.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/18/11527/citizens-united-dec...

It's about the influence of government through money and how easier it has become for Corporation to do the influencing.

But I know all that. I haven't been asleep for 20 years like Rip van Winkle.You just use the word "government" as though it doesn't include the Supreme Court, and that looseness broadened the implication of your accusation of corruption.

U, you laugh uninformed.

SCOTUS' Citizens United decision resulted from a thirty-year-long effort by Lewis Powell, a corporate attorney appointed to the Court by President Nixon.

Powell and his corporate backers started a campaign to give the First Amendment rights of natural persons to paper persons (corporations). He succeeded when later Republican presidents appointed enough conservatives to give his view a majority.

If you want to become informed -- your education in philosophy requires that you be informed, doesn't it? -- you might find the story in Wikipedia. I found it several years ago in a law journal.

I would not use the term "control of the government" by the corporations, however the government and corporations share common interests. People still vote and bitch heavily at the government when they are unemployed or times are hard. So the government tries to stimulate our corporations to grow and to create jobs. Government and corporations often work together, yet the interests of the people still get trampled by the "Rockefellers" of the world.

We just had a topic stating the rich got richer even though there was a huge economic downturn? What does that fact tell us? Something stinks.

I had to read this twice, this is what David Rockefeller wrote in his 2002 memoirs:

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

He also wrote (1994):

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order."

The top 1% are a different species.

I would not use the term "control of the government" by the corporations, however the government and corporations share common interests

Robert, are you under the impression that we are not living under a form of Corporate Oligarchy also known as Crony Capitalism? Do you honestly think we can compete against Super PACs which are all controlled by the elite riches of highly successful corporations?

Here is a look at the 2012 top political donors for both Romney and Obama Campaign

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/19/meet-the-5-biggest-donor...

The "common interest" you talk about is heavily skewed in the favor of the corporations. Corporations do not care what is the best interest of the US, rather what is the best interest for themselves so they can make profits.

I would like you to read a book called "War is racket" by General Smedley Butler in 1935. Very short read and here is the actual book

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

Read chapter 2 and 3: "Who the makes the profits?" and "Who pays the bills?"

That was written in 1935. In 2013 everything is still the same except that the effects are now even more amplified and everything is happening at a much grander scale.

Adam, perhaps you should re-read my post and realize I am in agreement, but I am more focused on the real culprits, the top 1%. They literally make huge deals to change the global operating environment to favor themselves, regardless of the cost to societies. The very type of people in that list you provided.

The average small to large US corporations are of run and staffed by ethical, hard working people, who have a duty to legally pursue a profit. Corporations can not donate directly to politicians. As as these companies go, so does the US. Exactly what would you propose as an alternate system?

The industries that require the most regulation IMHO are energy, defense, and financial as they attract that top 1 percent, who are usually insane.

 

 

You are correct, Corporations cannot donate directly to politicians, rather they use Super PACs to get around it. There is nothing wrong with pursuing a profit. The problem becomes when you combine deception and human greed to attain those profits. 

They literally make huge deals to change the global operating environment to favor themselves, regardless of the cost to societies

That is exactly what needs to be fixed. It can only be fixed with regulation. Regulated capitalism. Like for example the Glass-Steagall Law which was put in to stop overzealous commercial banking involving in stock market investment. However that was repealed in the Clinton Administration and look at the mess we have now.

That is just one example of the situation. 

The top 1% are a different species.

All of them? Steve Jobs (Zeus rest his soul) Bill Gates? Jeff Bezos? Mark Zuckerberg? Wow, I did not know that. I mean Zuckerberg is annoying, but even he seems to be joining with Gates and Bezos in doing constructive things not necessarily intended to make our world a worse place.

My point is that so many of those who believe in a world run by major corporations are buying into the old "Robber Barons" and "Captains of Industry" view of the late 1800's and early 1900's, kept alive to this day by Communists and radical socialists and rebellious college kids.

We live in a different world today. Gates and Bezos and Zuckerberg are not running the show, though I'm sure they have lobbyists.because they have business interests, but I have a hard time seeing them as evil.

Being a "Different Species" does not mean "evil". It means they have their owns goals and interests they pursue regardless of what the agenda is. Something we all do but not with anywhere near the amount of resources as they do.

My point is that so many of those who believe in a world run by major corporations are buying into the old "Robber Barons" and "Captains of Industry" view of the late 1800's and early 1900's, kept alive to this day by Communists and radical socialists and rebellious college kids.

Your statement comes off as you who still like to cling on to ideas like "anarcho-capitalism" even the though the rich is getting richer and poor and middle class remains stagnant. That is if you really believe that those "who believe in a world run by major corporations are buying into the old "Robber Barons" and "Captains of Industry" view of the late 1800's and early 1900's,

The rest of us can see how unregulated capitalism is destroying the little guys since the major corporations and the "Robber Barons" are the only one who are benefiting from it.  

The rest of us can see how unregulated capitalism is destroying the little guys since the major corporations and the "Robber Barons" are the only one who are benefiting from it. 

Well, you have changed your tune. Did anyone else notice that?

You've gone from a theory of nasty evil bad guys—an altogether different species of human needing to be stamped out—to a theory based, basically, on inadequate regulation.

You know what your problem is?

You ASSUME stupid nonsense and then reply back on it with no credibility of it being remotely true.

I didn't "change" my tune. I was rectifying your incorrect assumption of what Robert meant.

RSS

Events

Services we love!

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service