<!--quoteo(post=1749518:date=Jan 28 2010, 04:49 AM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Jan 28 2010, 04:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749518"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Bleh, anyone who says they <b>know</b> why this recession happened is full of it. An economy is too complex a system to understand so fully. Not even House could do it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's none of House's job to explain these issues to the public. You don't need a "full" understanding to realise something as simple as trying to make money off money is a parasitic behaviour to any economy.
I think it is sad that knowing that the amount of money spent on a campaign has an effect on the people past a certain awareness point.
Once a campaign has spent enough money that people know their cadidate's platform and goals in office the rest of the money is just grandstanding. The problem lies in how ignorant the voting public is that they continue to vote for the same preowned candidates. The only reason that campaign funding is so important is that it is costly to mislead the people into thinking you are working for their best interests while stating your opposition to that best interest.
Despite the problem being the public on the campaign spending portion, the real problem is that corporations are considered people. for free speech. They are corporations, a way for people to fund and run a business in a way that reduces the effects of business failure, <i>they are not people</i>. The Supreme Court's decision is based on Robert's being a true 'activist judge'.
<!--quoteo(post=1749552:date=Jan 28 2010, 06:32 AM:name=snooggums)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snooggums @ Jan 28 2010, 06:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749552"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Once a campaign has spent enough money that people know their cadidate's platform and goals in office the rest of the money is just grandstanding. The problem lies in how ignorant the voting public is that they continue to vote for the same preowned candidates. The only reason that campaign funding is so important is that it is costly to mislead the people into thinking you are working for their best interests while stating your opposition to that best interest.
Despite the problem being the public on the campaign spending portion, the real problem is that corporations are considered people. for free speech. They are corporations, a way for people to fund and run a business in a way that reduces the effects of business failure, <i>they are not people</i>. The Supreme Court's decision is based on Robert's being a true 'activist judge'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I agree that the average American is stupid and doesn't pay enough attention to policy and platforms to properly sift through all the 30second sound bites for campaigns. Obviously we should educate those poor idiots.
However, I'm afraid that no one on the Supreme Court shares your opinion that corporations are not people. Please bring me a quote from their dissents that states that they are not people. Now, we can argue all day about on a philosophical point if they are people or not, but the big wigs apparently think a certain way.
<!--quoteo(post=1749587:date=Jan 28 2010, 09:30 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Jan 28 2010, 09:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749587"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Obviously we should educate those poor idiots.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well... "We"... I think the US government has abundantly shown it's total disinterest in education. Frankly, why would they? Ignorant sheep a lot easier to herd into doing whatever you want.
<!--quoteo(post=1749587:date=Jan 28 2010, 12:30 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Jan 28 2010, 12:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749587"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, I agree that the average American is stupid and doesn't pay enough attention to policy and platforms to properly sift through all the 30second sound bites for campaigns. Obviously we should educate those poor idiots.
However, I'm afraid that no one on the Supreme Court shares your opinion that corporations are not people. Please bring me a quote from their dissents that states that they are not people. Now, we can argue all day about on a philosophical point if they are people or not, but the big wigs apparently think a certain way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some quick background for those that aren't aware (just a well written version): <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're thinking: By what tortured reasoning did the Supreme Court decide that corporations were protected by the 14th Amendment, which everyone knows was enacted to protect the rights of real people? Answer: Apparently it didn't decide. As revealed by our friend bex--and detailed by Thom Hartmann in Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights (2002)--the whole thing began as a courtroom comment by a judge, which was elevated to the status of legal precedent by an overreaching court reporter.
Here's what happened. Santa Clara County in California was trying to levy a property tax against the Southern Pacific Railroad. The railroad gave numerous reasons why it shouldn't have to pay, one of which rested on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause: the railroad was being held to a different standard than human taxpayers.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published "headnotes." (Davis had already had a long career in public service, and at one point was president of the board of directors for the Newburgh & New York Railroad Company.) In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment--which would ordinarily never see print--in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Additionally, the dissents on the most recent case indicate that the case wasn't even about the status of corporations as people, that the majority on the Supreme Court applied that relevance.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1749518:date=Jan 27 2010, 08:49 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Jan 27 2010, 08:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749518"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Bleh, anyone who says they <b>know</b> why this recession happened is full of it. An economy is too complex a system to understand so fully. Not even House could do it.
But the establishment of LLC (limited liability corporations) is key to small business. If the business owner was the only party responsible for liabilities in its operation, we'd have less businesses because the cost of a single failure would be catastrophic to the owners life. Think of a medical hardware company whose product misdiagnosed patients because of a software bug resulting in the death of even one patient. This is an entirely practical scenario, and anyone who would say it's unacceptable has obviously never worked long enough in software to know that mistakes will happen and sometimes they are of this magnitude. It's not entirely the owner's fault, but a lawsuit about this could easily bankrupt him for life. UNLESS he has an LLC to hid behind. A corporation that is basically sued into oblivion, losing any assets it has, but leaving the people behind it intact.
Some would call this an abuse of power, but I think it's a recognition of human error and an attempt to compensate for it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I have no problem with the concept of limited liability for an owner.
That doesn't explain why corporations are people. It may be the basis on which the idea was built but it doesn't logically follow in my thinking that full citizenship is necessary or even desirable. What benefits does it provide to society over simply allowing limited liability for an owner? Why are all these loopholes desirable for law?
Just stumbled upon a quote I think would be relevant.
<!--QuoteBegin- + Benito Mussolini, Italian Dictator, credited as creator or Fascism--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ( @ Benito Mussolini, Italian Dictator, credited as creator or Fascism)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1749518:date=Jan 27 2010, 08:49 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Jan 27 2010, 08:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749518"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But the establishment of LLC (limited liability corporations) is key to small business. If the business owner was the only party responsible for liabilities in its operation, we'd have less businesses because the cost of a single failure would be catastrophic to the owners life. Think of a medical hardware company whose product misdiagnosed patients because of a software bug resulting in the death of even one patient. This is an entirely practical scenario, and anyone who would say it's unacceptable has obviously never worked long enough in software to know that mistakes will happen and sometimes they are of this magnitude. It's not entirely the owner's fault, but a lawsuit about this could easily bankrupt him for life. UNLESS he has an LLC to hid behind. A corporation that is basically sued into oblivion, losing any assets it has, but leaving the people behind it intact.
Some would call this an abuse of power, but I think it's a recognition of human error and an attempt to compensate for it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I haven't read the whole thread but this post seems irrelevant to the conversation.
<!--quoteo(post=1751923:date=Feb 8 2010, 04:16 PM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Feb 8 2010, 04:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1751923"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I haven't read the whole thread but this post seems irrelevant to the conversation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You sure? He knew the definition of an LLC. He seems pretty smart, probably Harvard.
<!--quoteo(post=1751939:date=Feb 8 2010, 06:35 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Feb 8 2010, 06:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1751939"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You sure? He knew the definition of an LLC. He seems pretty smart, probably Harvard.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know Bush is a Harvard grad, right?
In any case, the point of my post was to show how and why corporations are already granted some of the rights we associate with people, how corporations are effectively non-person fall guys, and to underline again how America has been founded on business interests from the beginning.
<!--quoteo(post=1752013:date=Feb 9 2010, 07:26 AM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Feb 9 2010, 07:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752013"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You know Bush is a Harvard grad, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Bush went to Yale.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1752053:date=Feb 9 2010, 11:35 AM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Feb 9 2010, 11:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752053"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Blah, you're right. Yale's the one with Skull and Bones, isn't it? Guess we proved a few points about intelligence, though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Isn't Al Gore supposed to be a part of that too?
Comments
It's none of House's job to explain these issues to the public. You don't need a "full" understanding to realise something as simple as trying to make money off money is a parasitic behaviour to any economy.
Once a campaign has spent enough money that people know their cadidate's platform and goals in office the rest of the money is just grandstanding. The problem lies in how ignorant the voting public is that they continue to vote for the same preowned candidates. The only reason that campaign funding is so important is that it is costly to mislead the people into thinking you are working for their best interests while stating your opposition to that best interest.
Despite the problem being the public on the campaign spending portion, the real problem is that corporations are considered people. for free speech. They are corporations, a way for people to fund and run a business in a way that reduces the effects of business failure, <i>they are not people</i>. The Supreme Court's decision is based on Robert's being a true 'activist judge'.
Despite the problem being the public on the campaign spending portion, the real problem is that corporations are considered people. for free speech. They are corporations, a way for people to fund and run a business in a way that reduces the effects of business failure, <i>they are not people</i>. The Supreme Court's decision is based on Robert's being a true 'activist judge'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I agree that the average American is stupid and doesn't pay enough attention to policy and platforms to properly sift through all the 30second sound bites for campaigns. Obviously we should educate those poor idiots.
However, I'm afraid that no one on the Supreme Court shares your opinion that corporations are not people. Please bring me a quote from their dissents that states that they are not people. Now, we can argue all day about on a philosophical point if they are people or not, but the big wigs apparently think a certain way.
Well... "We"... I think the US government has abundantly shown it's total disinterest in education. Frankly, why would they? Ignorant sheep a lot easier to herd into doing whatever you want.
However, I'm afraid that no one on the Supreme Court shares your opinion that corporations are not people. Please bring me a quote from their dissents that states that they are not people. Now, we can argue all day about on a philosophical point if they are people or not, but the big wigs apparently think a certain way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some quick background for those that aren't aware (just a well written version):
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're thinking: By what tortured reasoning did the Supreme Court decide that corporations were protected by the 14th Amendment, which everyone knows was enacted to protect the rights of real people? Answer: Apparently it didn't decide. As revealed by our friend bex--and detailed by Thom Hartmann in Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights (2002)--the whole thing began as a courtroom comment by a judge, which was elevated to the status of legal precedent by an overreaching court reporter.
Here's what happened. Santa Clara County in California was trying to levy a property tax against the Southern Pacific Railroad. The railroad gave numerous reasons why it shouldn't have to pay, one of which rested on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause: the railroad was being held to a different standard than human taxpayers.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published "headnotes." (Davis had already had a long career in public service, and at one point was president of the board of directors for the Newburgh & New York Railroad Company.) In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment--which would ordinarily never see print--in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From: <a href="http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person" target="_blank">http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2...idered-a-person</a>
Additionally, the dissents on the most recent case indicate that the case wasn't even about the status of corporations as people, that the majority on the Supreme Court applied that relevance.
But the establishment of LLC (limited liability corporations) is key to small business. If the business owner was the only party responsible for liabilities in its operation, we'd have less businesses because the cost of a single failure would be catastrophic to the owners life. Think of a medical hardware company whose product misdiagnosed patients because of a software bug resulting in the death of even one patient. This is an entirely practical scenario, and anyone who would say it's unacceptable has obviously never worked long enough in software to know that mistakes will happen and sometimes they are of this magnitude. It's not entirely the owner's fault, but a lawsuit about this could easily bankrupt him for life. UNLESS he has an LLC to hid behind. A corporation that is basically sued into oblivion, losing any assets it has, but leaving the people behind it intact.
Some would call this an abuse of power, but I think it's a recognition of human error and an attempt to compensate for it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no problem with the concept of limited liability for an owner.
That doesn't explain why corporations are people. It may be the basis on which the idea was built but it doesn't logically follow in my thinking that full citizenship is necessary or even desirable. What benefits does it provide to society over simply allowing limited liability for an owner? Why are all these loopholes desirable for law?
<!--QuoteBegin- + Benito Mussolini, Italian Dictator, credited as creator or Fascism--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ( @ Benito Mussolini, Italian Dictator, credited as creator or Fascism)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some would call this an abuse of power, but I think it's a recognition of human error and an attempt to compensate for it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I haven't read the whole thread but this post seems irrelevant to the conversation.
You sure? He knew the definition of an LLC. He seems pretty smart, probably Harvard.
You know Bush is a Harvard grad, right?
In any case, the point of my post was to show how and why corporations are already granted some of the rights we associate with people, how corporations are effectively non-person fall guys, and to underline again how America has been founded on business interests from the beginning.
Bush went to Yale.
Blah, you're right. Yale's the one with Skull and Bones, isn't it? Guess we proved a few points about intelligence, though.
Isn't Al Gore supposed to be a part of that too?