Supreme Court ruling on money and free speech by HKCavalier

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

OK.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 25, 2010 7:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Depends on the law. I'd see Signym's laws prohibiting Capitalism, requiring everyone to be in a co-op/commune or whatever, and setting wages for all members of a co-op the same, as social engineering on a par with (actually far beyond) alcohol and drug prohibition, Blue Laws, laws against consensual sex between adults, gun control, etc. SignyM is trying to legislate changes to personal ethics and morality.

Geezer, I've been answering you straightforwardly despite your blitzkrieg of misrepresentation, disinformation, and out-and-out lies. From now on, I'm going to do the same to you, you shit-dipped prick.

So, let's discuss YOUR preferred society, Geezer.

The one in which lazy schlubs reward themselves with billions of dollars for doing nothing other than having money, and letting the weak starve on the streets... to be rescued by "personal charity"- which, you say doesn't exist.

So, in your world, people are inherently greedy, selfless cooperation doesn't exist, greedy people will find a way... and yet, corporations are nice, and personal charity is a sufficient safety net??? How does that work, Geezer? Do you have an explanation?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 25, 2010 10:04 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, we already live in YOUR utopia, of "lazy schlubs" who reward themselves billions of dollars in bonuses, dividends and stock options at the end of the year for... what, exactly? If you're so dead set against rewarding do-nothings, how do you justify THAT?

Generally they get dividends, etc. for meeting production or profitability goals set in their contracts, and apparently the folks who write the contracts feel justified in doing so. Also, I'd bet most of these 'lazy schlubs' spend way more hours working, and work harder during them, than you do.

Quote:
So, since there are SO MANY out there, how about coming up with a couple dozen examples of these selfless corporations...

Well, aside from the thousands of Non-Profit Corporations, from the Sierra Club to the NAACP...

For-Profit Corporations can still make a profit and yet act ethically.

Here's one ranking of the top ethical coprorations in 2009
http://ethisphere.com/wme2009/

Here's another that shows the top ethicl companys by business sector, but you need Java to use it.
http://www.covalence.ch/index.php/ethicalquote/

You can even find socially conscious investment funds (per Wiki, 1 in 9 investment dollars in in such a fund). For example:
http://www.parnassus.com/?gclid=CL7e5dmpwJ8CFRYeDQodVnjUIA

BTW, you still, after...I think it's four requests now, haven't answered my question.

What's the motivation for the dedicated, innovative worker (who believes he should benefit more from his work than the average or below-average worker) if, no matter how he excels, he can't get any more compensation than they do?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 25, 2010 10:10 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, in your world, people are inherently greedy, selfless cooperation doesn't exist, greedy people will find a way... and yet, corporations are nice, and personal charity is a sufficient safety net??? How does that work, Geezer? Do you have an explanation?

And you complain about me putting words in your mouth?

BTW, Up to five requests now. Still haven't answered my question.

What's the motivation for the dedicated, innovative worker (who believes he should benefit more from his work than the average or below-average worker) if, no matter how he excels, he can't get any more compensation than they do?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 25, 2010 10:42 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And you complain about me putting words in your mouth?

Yes, I have. Constantly, because it's something you've done repeatedly to me over the past... years, by now. And I said I would do the same to you from now on, since you haven't had the decency to argue honestly. This is just the beginning. Not so nice when the shoe's on the other foot, is it, you shit-dipped prick?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 25, 2010 11:48 AM

Quote:
What's the motivation for the dedicated, innovative worker (who believes he should benefit more from his work than the average or below-average worker) if, no matter how he excels, he can't get any more compensation than they do?

Okay, so here's where the part of the discussion I was having before about profits and rewards enters in.

The idea I believe being presented here is that people require a reward to work, and that your preferred system is to have this reward be money.

Basically, people who aren't subsistence farmers work because work gets them money, which they can then use to pay to feed and shelter themselves. As a baseline. And of course, as I conceded already, that baseline really is not very comfortable. Or even possibly very secure. So by working harder, people will then earn more money, which they can use to buy luxuries and make themselves secure. Do I have this right?

The obvious argument against this is that people need to eat, eating is an incentive all by itself outside of money. Many of the poor who try to be honest but have bad paying jobs are going to run into the problem that paying for food and paying for shelter will leave pretty much no money left over for them as a reward for their work. The reason this is a problem, within the frame of this argument, is that I think you agreed with me that ideally, food and shelter would be some kind of humane baseline for existence. In this case, money is no reward, therefore, I can't call it an incentive. I propose, for this reason, that these people are wasting their time, and that their work is busywork.

But that aside, let's look at profits in the sense of someone who already has those baselines, and will have money left over for luxuries. At the same time, let's look at businesses and even human research.

If you make a profit off of something, a good or a service, then by definition, you are charging more for the item/service than you are for the effort or materials it took to produce what you are selling.

Say you have employees manufacturing something for you, or harvesting the raw materials for you. This has some pretty obvious economic results on the growth of the employer, compared to the growth of the employees. Money accumulates upwards.

And up to the point where that means simply that the employer is being rewarded for their idea, or in the sense that they are giving their employees a share of their profits, that could be okay. And if someone wants to take their reward, and have a 10 million dollar home, well, that's their prerogative.

But what happens if compared to the rest of the process or marketing the good, someone contributes little but is overpaid? What if some people within the company, who say that they're in charge, and likely have no original ownership of the idea/product/service beyond what is owned by the company as a collective, what if they form a board, and decide to cut into profits giving themselves larger and larger wages? Is there a point where you can consider that they are cutting into the wages of the workers, either pay cuts or lay-offs, and is there a point when that is no longer fair to the worker?

What about when profits drives everything, and cutting corners for a healthy bottom line is okay? What about when companies organize, like health insurance, to lobby for changes that force people to buy their product, and set whatever prices they want because demand becomes limitless? What about cooked books, or stock inflation on Wall Street, or bad lending practices?

Socially and individually, I see profits as more of a detriment than a reward.

So to answer your question. If there is no reward for one worker with what you see as a "harder job" to work his job compared to another worker with an easier job, what is that worker's incentive to work that job?

My answer is, maybe money and profits aren't that worthwhile a reward. BUT, creativity, integrity, and honesty, and liking your job, maybe those are infinitely more rewarding and infinitely less potentially detrimental than profit.

And if the job just plain sucks and everyone thinks so, thinks it's not worth what perks there are but it still needs to get done, maybe they can use some kind of rotation system.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 25, 2010 12:49 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, I have. Constantly, because it's something you've done repeatedly to me over the past... years, by now.

Okay. If you say so.

BTW, for the sixth time:

What's the motivation for the dedicated, innovative worker (who believes he should benefit more from his work than the average or below-average worker) if, no matter how he excels, he can't get any more compensation than they do?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 25, 2010 1:19 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
My answer is, maybe money and profits aren't that worthwhile a reward. BUT, creativity, integrity, and honesty, and liking your job, maybe those are infinitely more rewarding and infinitely less potentially detrimental than profit.

For some people, that may be true. They take pride in their work for work's sake. A lot of such people self-select to work in a cooperative or communal economic unit, because they can get the intangible rewards of approval and thanks from like-minded individuals.

Some people (most people, I'd guess) want to be rewarded tangibly for their hard work, creativity, and dedication. They want a better house, better schools for their kids, luxuries above basic survival. They want recreation and travel. They want a new bass boat, or a Klimt painting, or a big TV with a sound system, or a Tiffany double old-fashioned glass to drink their scotch and soda from, good scotch to drink, etc.

If you force these folks into co-ops, and then tell them that no matter how hard they work, and no matter how beneficial they are to the group, they'll never get any more than the least efficient, what's their motivation to work hard?

----

As noted above, this was tried, about 90 years ago, in the Soviet Union. The government forced everyone into the communist system, and reenforced their decrees with unremitting propaganda and draconian measures against anyone considered to be even thinking of not cooperating fully. Tens of millions were outright killed or shipped off to die in work camps for deviating from doctrine, or just being denounced as having non-revolutionary thoughts.

The result was factories that made such poor products that the only way to sell them was at gunpoint to the smaller Soviet republics. Collective farms that couldn't feed the people. The only things made even close to properly were military supplies, because the government directly ran those plants and design houses, and were much more diligent in eradicating poor designers or managers of defense plants than they were of those making civilian products.

If it didn't work in a country where the government could, and did, enforce complance from the barrel of a gun, what chance here?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 25, 2010 1:23 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, I have. Constantly, because it's something you've done repeatedly to me over the past... years, by now.

Okay. If you say so.

BTW, for the sixth time:

What's the motivation for the dedicated, innovative worker (who believes he should benefit more from his work than the average or below-average worker) if, no matter how he excels, he can't get any more compensation than they do?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Things I like to get

extra paid time off, if I can get the same production in 32 hours compared to 40... why the hell not

promotion to a better job

access to more training

better hours, or the ability to set my own hours

trying to be general, some benefits can be job specific

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 25, 2010 1:24 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Damn, Geezer...

Right on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 25, 2010 1:31 PM

Did Sig or I say force?

I think the argument that is being made here is that co-ops could be a good alternative style system in some communities.

Like I've said before, this system is unstable and I think it could come crashing down at any time. So, when it does, why don't people who want to reestablish this system do that OVER THERE, and people who want to try something new, they do that in a different OVER THERE, and neither group overlaps, and can be content to do whatever system they want.

Also, I think you'll find that the idea of a co-op tends to be more along Anarchist lines then centrally governed Communist lines, so the analogy you gave isn't really a good one. The main problem with what the Soviets did is 1) they did it by force, 2) tried to involve too many people too soon to force a transition from agraral to industrial, and 3) got the balance of agraral to industrial wrong so they couldn't feed people.

Really, the better way to do it is to start off small, with a small consenting participating group. You begin establishing the community, and at the same time establishing the baseline. Once the baseline is established and everyone is fed and sheltered, THEN you can start looking into bigger production means. And because people have more time than basic subsistence, you can start branching out into other realms, such as the arts and research.

I think we can also safely say outright that anything someone makes in the sense of a hobby belongs to them, as are certain trades/purchases/ whatever that a person may make with whatever rewards they receive on top of their baseline also belong to them, and may not be distributed equally among the population. However, I do anticipate both a different definition of personal possessions and ideas about sharing and borrowing that will arise. If the community trusts each other, then things likely will be naturally, freely shared in good nature - though the community will recognize an original "owner" of the item, the item probably will become more communally owned than any sense of ownership we have in our current system.

The important thing is the baseline. Welfare is a good crack at it, but the system I'm proposing (and Sig might be too, unless she differs in opinion on me here) addresses the baseline issue better because to be established it must be built from the ground up, seeing to all member's needs first.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 25, 2010 1:59 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Some people (most people, I'd guess) want to be rewarded tangibly for their hard work, creativity, and dedication. They want a better house, better schools for their kids, luxuries above basic survival. They want recreation and travel. They want a new bass boat, or a Klimt painting, or a big TV with a sound system, or a Tiffany double old-fashioned glass to drink their scotch and soda from, good scotch to drink, etc.

Sounds to me like the kind of mentality OUR SOCIETY has created: "Things will make you happier". I'm not sure that would hold for "most" people if our society didn't create those desires, which propagate competition, propaganzises the workers, and has in my opinion brought about an UNHEALTHY society.

To answer your question for ME:

Quote:
What's the motivation for the dedicated, innovative worker (who believes he should benefit more from his work than the average or below-average worker) if, no matter how he excels, he can't get any more compensation than they do?

You presume from this that every worker believes he should benefit more from his work than the average or below-average worker; I reject that aspect.

Taking that out, I would respond: The challenge of the work and satisfaction doing it well brings; recognition for my accomplishments; the friendship of co-workers; respect for working hard; a good enough living to provide for me and my family to live decently; the self-respect of knowing I do a good job.

I worked as one of two desktop publishers. The other woman hated her job, complained incessantly, took every "sick" day she could--including a month off for "depression" disability; I did my job better and increased my knowledge to the point where people snuk ME the work, rather than put it in the box and chance her picking it up. She'd been there longer than I; I didn't give a shit that she made more money.

I also worked with a bunch of people as word processors. We had two lazy people (one of whom actually left the office to give nail treatments to people in other parts of the buiding surreptitiously). These two people also took a couple of months off for "depression" disability, despite everyone knowing and they admitting to us that it was faked. The rest of us got along well, enjoyed each others' company, cooperated and collaborated, learned from one another and taught one another, were proud of our work, and nobody bitched about the fact that one of the lazy ones was supposedly our "supervisor", so made more than the rest of us. My husband worked there (different shift), and when we got a Mac in a merger, we and one other self-taught on the Macs, started the "desktop publishing" aspect of the job, and did all the desktop publishing from then on. We didn't get paid extra for it, we WANTED to do it and found it challenging and fulfilling. One of the illustrations I did hangs in the Corps of Engineers office in Hawaii. That made me proud of my work.

Our society has pushed competition to the point where many of the people you list have been brainwshed into thinking a higher position, more expendable income, more "things" is what they're SUPPOSED to want, and nothing else.

Byte, most of what you said, and especially the post about your argument with your dad: Marvelous.

Mike, add to your list "With God on our side", among so many others!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 25, 2010 2:05 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, let's discuss YOUR preferred society, Geezer.

That's easy. It's one where you don't get to arrogate unto yourself the power to overturn the economic system and to require everyone to fit into your conception of what's 'right'.

That would do me fine.

BTW, I'll be out of town until Weds. P.M.

See you then.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 25, 2010 2:30 PM

Quote:
That's easy. It's one where you don't get to arrogate unto yourself the power to overturn the economic system and to require everyone to fit into your conception of what's 'right'.

That would do me fine.

That's definitely not what I'm proposing. That's what that whole "you can do your thing over here and we'll do our thing over there" that I was talking about was.

I don't know if Sig wants to create government mandates for having such a system, but I advocate individual choice to opt out of what we have.

Really, the widespread nature of the current system creates forced compliance with the system for people who DON'T want to be a part of it. I plan to cut off from this system as soon as I can afford it, but really, I shouldn't have to PLAY THE GAME to get out. That makes it not quite a choice anymore.

But then, when someone wants the status quo, it's likely they're not going to see or understand how intrusive it can seem to those that don't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 25, 2010 3:34 PM

FREMDFIRMA

So Geezers idea of utopia is the society in the movie Equilibrium ?

Damn, man that's pretty sad...

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 26, 2010 6:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
What's the motivation for the dedicated, innovative worker (who believes he should benefit more from his work than the average or below-average worker) if, no matter how he excels, he can't get any more compensation than they do?

Because s/he wants to.

Believe it or not, people have a psychological need to work, to produce, to learn, and to innovate. Its in our genes. It give us a sense of control over our environment, and that zing! of dopamine when we discover something new. Have you ever heard of the Skunk Works? Sure you have! It wasn't motivated by money!

In YOUR world, the only thing people work for is money, and everyone who isn't a money-grubbing greedy bastard is a lazy schlub. YOUR world: A world of alienated workers who have no sense of control over their working lives, or their product, who mindlessly and resentfully put in their time, chained to the assembly line or cubicle. But in reality, there are three things that motivate work, and- past the point of security -money ISN'T one of them.

And for these who desire a greater sense of control, there'a always management. Because yes, indeed, there ARE managers in co-ops (managment is as much of a job as accounting or production). Not everyone want to be a manager, but the job is open for those who do.

Quote:
Yes, I have. Constantly, because {putting words in people's mouths is} something you've done repeatedly to me over the past... years, by now.-Signy
Okay. If you say so.-Geezer

yes, I say so, and I HAVE been saying so for years... everyone knows that, and you're just pounding the point home that you're a weasly liar. So thanks for that, ya shit-dipped moron!

BTW- you haven't answered MY question:

Quote:
Geezer, we already live in YOUR utopia, of "lazy schlubs" who reward themselves billions of dollars in bonuses, dividends and stock options at the end of the year for... what, exactly? If you're so dead set against rewarding do-nothings, how do you justify THAT? (I'm gonna hound you on this one until you either answer or leave, bc you're a pretty famous black pot.)

ALSO

Quote:
It's one where you don't get to arrogate unto yourself the power to overturn the economic system and to require everyone to fit into your conception of what's 'right'.

But everyone has to fit into YOUR concept of what's right? Which, in your case, means unbridled corporatism? Screwing Jane and John Middleclass to the floor? Drowning out the voice of real Americans with pay-to-play? Rich schlubs getting richer because they play golf with Congresspeople? Captains of finance risking everyone's retirement on Ponzi schemes and then extorting our tax $$ to bail them out? Poor people sharing what little they have in charity so the rich can remain uber-wealthy???

Oh, goody. Just what we all want! HOORAY FOR GEEZER'S WORLD!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 26, 2010 7:40 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
A world of alienated workers who have no sense of control over their working lives, or their product, who mindlessly and resentfully put in their time, chained to the assembly line or cubicle.

Gee, Sig, I think that subculture already exists in THIS world...sounds like a lot of what I saw in the corporate world...and there, the attitude WAS exactly like Geezers! Huh; he's got his utopia right here, maybe that's where he belongs? Doesn't it follow that, given that subculture and his mentality, he'd rise right to the top?

There you go...problem solved.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 26, 2010 2:30 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Oooh - Just had a bit of an idea. It's not earth-shattering, but it might at least make a bit of headway in a fucked situation. While Representative Grayson is authoring all these new bills, let's add one to the mix:

If you, as a corporation, want to give money to any political campaign in this country, you must be HEADQUARTERED here in the United States. Not in the Cayman Islands, not in the one house in the Caymans where more than 15,000 corporations have their "headquarters" so they can avoid the U.S. corporate taxes. You have to actually have your headquarters for your corporation located at a physical address here in the U.S.

Hey, if they're willing to do it, and they're subject to the corporate taxes we never get to collect otherwise, they'll have considerably less money to spend on buying politicians, and they'll actually HAVE an active interest in American politics.

Just a thought.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 26, 2010 2:33 PM

Mmm. Still a problem. We might get tax money (assuming they're not hiding billions in Swiss banks, which they are), but they still benefit fair more to make this an even trade.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 26, 2010 3:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Mmm. Still a problem. We might get tax money (assuming they're not hiding billions in Swiss banks, which they are), but they still benefit fair more to make this an even trade.

Oh, it's not an even trade. It's a "chip" - just one more instance of chipping away at them. Remember, a bunch of tiny solutions that each solve a *little* of the problem, versus one large solution that solves the whole damn thing (but which isn't very likely to occur).

I doubt we'll end the influence of Big Money Inc. any time soon, but we can chip away at them, bit by bit, piece by piece. And ideally, without them ever quite seeing what we're doing until it's too late.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 26, 2010 3:07 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

BTW - I like this.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 26, 2010 3:43 PM

HKCAVALIER

Well that, of course, speaks to this whole madness that corporations are "persons." Well, if they're persons, are they U.S. citizens??? That would seem to be of significant importance to some when it comes to represative government. It would be hilarious if corporations had to prove citizenship to contribute.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 26, 2010 3:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Well that, of course, speaks to this whole madness that corporations are "persons." Well, if they're persons, are they U.S. citizens??? That would seem to be of significant importance to some when it comes to represative government. It would be hilarious if corporations had to prove citizenship to contribute.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

Now you see where I'm going with this... :)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 4:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Mike, that's a brilliant idea.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 4:44 AM

I'm sure someone will find problems with it, or shoot it full of holes.

Thing is, it came about from thinking on John Yoo and "The Torture Memos"; the Bush Administration took the position that ONLY American citizens are really entitled to due process and human rights, and everybody else in the world can go suck eggs.

So, by logical extension of that logic, by saying, "Okay, if that's the game you want to play, and the door you want to open, let's walk ALL THE WAY through it," we get here. But keep going; it gets better. I can't say more; it would be telling... ;)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 5:04 AM

JAYNEZTOWN

Ok Who changed the thread title

' Frak these Corporate Frakkers because after 6 years of watching BSG, Craprica and smoking chamalla Moore's liberalism has infected my brain'

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
BTW - it seems to me if we can sift through thousands of people to come up with one winner on American Idol, we can sift through thousands of candidates to come up with the top twenty or so who will actually run on competing platforms.

.

what a fine idea

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 5:11 AM

That's pretty useful... But even WITH added taxes, Corporations are still going to have plenty of money to throw at politicians. And I'm not even sure that saying "You're not headquartered in America, so you're not American, so free speech doesn't apply" will stop media outlets from accepting money to show whatever commercials foreign business wants. Because American media outlets are just as global, just as corporate.

The only way to stop it is if corporatism collapses completely. Or at least that's the only way I can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 5:16 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

It's a good idea Mike, don't want to diminish it, but it seems after the fact. I'm sure we'd all agree that reversing this opinion is the preferred, best option. And I have finally heard someone (Obermann?) make mention of that little International influence DETAIL.
The notion that this is Free Speech is ludicrous, what a slap in our faces, total disrespect for us as citizens and thinking people to support this with a straight face. Does my nephew's Boy Scout troop get to express their Free Speech then? Or is it only because of the Corps are People cludge that makes it possible? Why even argue legalities when they can make up whatever they want? If a Corp is a Person, can we draft them and send them to Afghanistan?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 5:48 AM

YOU changed the thread title, JaynezTown, and it was pretty obvious for anyone who knows how to look. Especially because I saw your post before it was edited.

Do tell us how everyone's right to swing their arm does NOT in fact end at anyone's nose, as you have so aptly demonstrated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 6:32 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I'm sure we'd all agree that reversing this opinion is the preferred, best option."

Reversing opinions is hardly ever done. It took over a century to reverse the 'slave as property needs to be returned to lawful owner' decision.

Oh, and will we EVER get a reversal of that illegal ruling by the Supremes that gave Bush his first term ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 6:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, supposedly Geezer is back today... I'm waiting for him to start sawing on that old tune...

It ain't so bad,
It's been done before.
You should be used to
Getting fucked by now.

Human nature,
Being what it is,
Means never hope for
Anything better.

Go back to sleep,
Let the tanks roll.
Let the big corps,
Stay in control.

And besides,
They're really sweet.
So share your crumbs
And don't eat.

So go back to sleep,
Let the tanks roll.
You should be used
To getting fucked by now

Sorry not very good, very much off the cuff! I'll do better next time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 7:15 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
If you, as a corporation, want to give money to any political campaign in this country, you must be HEADQUARTERED here in the United States.

Nice thought, Mike, but it doesn’t look like it will fly. There’s already a movement to do just that; from what I heard, if they pass such a law, it will be challenged, go to the Supreme Court, and guess what will happen there?

I had a thought, which of course will go nowhere. If corporations are “persons”, and the people who make UP corporations are “persons”, isn’t that some kind of double something? Like if a corporation donates to a campaign, and individuals WITHIN that corporation also donate to the same campaign, how can that be legal? I’m sure they’ll find a way around it or double-speak around it, but it occurred to me to wonder.

All in all, I think this is a disasterous travesty and yet another example of the power of one branch of government which can't really be undone by either of the others. Pffft.

Had another thought. Think they might be smarter than we give them credit for? Consider this:

Remember how the anti-abortion crowd was unsuccessful in defeating Roe v. Wade, then found myriad little ways to get around it, to make abortion harder and harder to obtain through working with states, harrassing abortion doctors...killing 'em if necessary?

And remember the "permanent Republican majority" they dreamed of, which fell through in this last election? What if they're trying different tactics, again "little" ways to get it. This ruling means for the most part corporations will support Republican candidates, as they share a lot of the same ideology. The filibuster means they can stop any Democratic majority in their tracks. Ergo, possibly "permanent Republican majorty"? Just a thought...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 8:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
YOU changed the thread title, JaynezTown, and it was pretty obvious for anyone who knows how to look. Especially because I saw your post before it was edited.

Do tell us how everyone's right to swing their arm does NOT in fact end at anyone's nose, as you have so aptly demonstrated.

Yup, it's VERY easy to see who's changing thread titles, which makes it really laughable to try to claim innocence by posting things like "Who changed the thread title?" in a post in which JaynezTown CLEARLY changed the title.

Like I said, laughable, but only because it's so sad he doesn't realize how closely he's being watched. ;)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 8:22 AM

Quote:

All in all, I think this is a disasterous travesty and yet another example of the power of one branch of government which can't really be undone by either of the others. Pffft.

Which is a prime example of why you DON'T want to get rid of the filibuster rule. It exists as a CHECK, an extreme measure to be taken in extreme circumstances. The fact that it's being used so willy-nilly (and it's NOT actually being used; it's just being THREATENED, which is a whole different kettle of fish) isn't a reason to get rid of it altogether.

Remember, one day the Republicans WILL be back in power. Do you want to do away with one of the only checks on that power that our Conresspeople still have? We've already lost - or ceded away - the power to declare war and/or fund same, we've lost any semblance of oversight when it comes to the intel goons, we've done away with so much oversight over businesses (and this will absolutely get WORSE in the wake of this atrocious ruling); why give away even MORE of the tiny bit of power the Congress still holds over its own majority?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 8:26 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Remember, one day the Republicans WILL be back in power. Do you want to do away with one of the only checks on that power that our Conresspeople still have?"

Which is why I said - either get rid of it or have the democrats play the same game. Though I think if they were smart, they should ALSO threaten 'the nuclear option' at this time.

B/c sure as hell, when their turn comes around, republicans WILL threaten it (again) should the democrats want to filibuster.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 8:37 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

You're missing what I've been saying once again, Mike; I believe the Republican's current use of the filibuster might well lead to both parties using it the same way, and I don't want EITHER party to do so.

Quote:
it's just being THREATENED, which is a whole different kettle of fish) isn't a reason to get rid of it altogether.

I quoted this somewhere else...the filibuster no longer LEGALLY requires the traditional type:

Quote:
The most widely cited enabler for the recent acceleration was a 1975 Senate rule change—one that, coming at a time when filibusters were on the rise, sought to reduce them by lowering the cloture requirement from 67 to 60 votes. But this fix (combined with a less widely cited earlier procedural change made in 1961) inadvertently increased the filibuster's use by ushering in the so-called "procedural" filibuster, a sort of filibuster-lite that allowed the minority to block legislation without a dissenting senator's having to speechify himself hoarse

As long as they can get away with the 'procedural filibuster', nobody's gonna go through the old kind, so that's a wsated suggestion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 5:57 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Because s/he wants to.

Okay. Now try reading the question before you answer it.

"What's the motivation for the dedicated, innovative worker (who believes he should benefit more from his work than the average or below-average worker) if, no matter how he excels, he can't get any more compensation than they do?"

Quote:
BTW- you haven't answered MY question:

But I did. On Monday the 25th at 15:04

"Generally they get dividends, etc. for meeting production or profitability goals set in their contracts, and apparently the folks who write the contracts feel justified in doing so."

Quote:
But everyone has to fit into YOUR concept of what's right? Which, in your case, means unbridled corporatism?

Nope, I've said several times, in this thread and in the past, that if folk want to form or belong to communes, co-ops, barter associations, trade guilds, or whatever, it's fine with me. Seems to me that you're the one who wants folks to fit your concept of what's right, economic system-wise.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 6:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
You're missing what I've been saying once again, Mike; I believe the Republican's current use of the filibuster might well lead to both parties using it the same way, and I don't want EITHER party to do so.

Quote:
it's just being THREATENED, which is a whole different kettle of fish) isn't a reason to get rid of it altogether.

I quoted this somewhere else...the filibuster no longer LEGALLY requires the traditional type:

Quote:
The most widely cited enabler for the recent acceleration was a 1975 Senate rule change—one that, coming at a time when filibusters were on the rise, sought to reduce them by lowering the cloture requirement from 67 to 60 votes. But this fix (combined with a less widely cited earlier procedural change made in 1961) inadvertently increased the filibuster's use by ushering in the so-called "procedural" filibuster, a sort of filibuster-lite that allowed the minority to block legislation without a dissenting senator's having to speechify himself hoarse

As long as they can get away with the 'procedural filibuster', nobody's gonna go through the old kind, so that's a wsated suggestion.

And I think you're misunderstanding ME, Niki. Just because it "no longer LEGALLY requires the traditional type" doesn't mean that it can NEVER legally require that traditional type. I was pointing out that the rules were changed in a simple procedural manner; they can likewise be changed BACK in just such a simple way. It's not a huge battle, it's simply "going back to a more conservative time". How could the "conservatives" on the Hill object to that? It's a return to the good old days! :)

And to get back to the matter at hand, there are MORE ideas for dealing with the SCOTUS ruling on Democracy, Inc.

1) The Supreme Court says we can't limit "free speech", even by corporations. But it doesn't say that we can't LIMIT the legal ability to "listen" to that speech by our lawmakers. And neither does the Constitution. In other words, we CAN legally make it illegal for lawmakers to ACCEPT that money, or limit FROM WHOM they can accept it.

That's one check on the unbridled greed and influence-selling that is the current form and practice of lawmaking.

2) We can legally enact a form of public "campaign matching" fund in this area. I'm not suggesting that if a corporation gives $20,000,000 to a senator, that WE the taxpayers must then give a like amount to his opponent. I'm saying that if you give a campaign donation, it goes into a "general fund" (like the money you give to the election fund on your tax return, if you do so), to be disbursed equally among all qualified candidates.

In essence, this limits the campaign donations because what you give your favored (or "bought") lawmaker, you also give his opponent in a campaign.

Again, none of these are blanket solutions, because I'm not a big believer in The One True Answer theory; they're all pieces of a larger picture, and they could all be used to HELP curb the influence of Big Money on Democracy, Inc.

Discuss among yourselves. If there's anything you find useful or promising, please forward it to your representatives, be they Democrat, Republican, Independent, Klingon, Cardassian, or what have you. Please do not forward them to Darth Vader, though. He needs no help abusing power. :)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 6:51 AM