Do Corporations Now Own Us Congress Representative
StormLiong
Join Date: 2002-12-27 Member: 11569Members
Join Date: 2002-12-27 Member: 11569Members
<div class="IPBDescription">educate me!</div> I don't live in the US so forgive me if I don't know much. But from what I have read in the media, it seems that big companies are really running the US politics.
Take for example the Municipal Wireless initiative started by the Philadelphia City Council which prompted Verizon to get Congress to pass a bill to now make it that no city council can seup free wireless net unless they get permission. Or take for example the current issues with media protection such as the latest news on the broadcast flag.
It just seems that nowadays the common people in the US can't get their voices heard through their congress representatives because these representatives must listen to their corporate sponsors or lose their funding next election.
Edit: forgive me abou the gramatical errors in the topic title <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Take for example the Municipal Wireless initiative started by the Philadelphia City Council which prompted Verizon to get Congress to pass a bill to now make it that no city council can seup free wireless net unless they get permission. Or take for example the current issues with media protection such as the latest news on the broadcast flag.
It just seems that nowadays the common people in the US can't get their voices heard through their congress representatives because these representatives must listen to their corporate sponsors or lose their funding next election.
Edit: forgive me abou the gramatical errors in the topic title <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
Although I would place some of the blame on the media, they are supposed to be helping the people by informing them of certain bills and laws that they should pay attention to. Instead the media can barely find time for the conflict in Afghanistan let alone pieces of legislation. But who can blame them when all <i>anyone</i> wants to hear about is the latest celebrity trial or 2-3 hours of "liberal yells at conservative, conservative yells at liberal, both quote daily talking points on silly issues, viewers remain entertained and uninformed".
I guess it boils down to the fact that you can't fight what you don't know.
I really admire two Senators for being brave enough to introduce campaign finance legislation, even though it isn't as effective as it should be:
<a href='http://mccain.senate.gov/' target='_blank'>http://mccain.senate.gov/</a>
<a href='http://feingold.senate.gov/' target='_blank'>http://feingold.senate.gov/</a>
Not to mention some of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance reforms were just flat out unconstitutional. (restrictions on 3rd party free speech in the lead-time to an election).
So, if that is true, then the problem isn't that large corporations are donating money to candidates. The problem is that the candidates mistakenly think that they need the financial support of the large corporations in order to take office.
I don't think that campaign finance reform is good or constitutional. However, I think that it is a sign of a very good thing. It's a sign that candidates realize that they don't need to be beholden to large corporations in order to guarantee electoral victory.
The Political Machines in the cities (the most infamous being Tammany Hall, of course) lobbied and some would say "exploited" the common person to gain political office and patronage. It was almost considered an integral part of city politics, even a tradition. One of the Tammany Bosses called it "honest graft".
Big Business still has a lot of sway, and the average voter is still relatively uneducated and uninformed. But you have to remember that Big Business is comprised of The People. It's not all black and white as you would have it seem. There are dozens of factors that determine which group can influence which piece of legislation, but it all ultimately comes down to The People, the large, collective pool from which both Government and Big Business are derived from. The problem is, when you say, "The People", they aren't unified. Not by a long shot. It's not a case of us versus them.
<a href='http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1115875117245970.xml' target='_blank'>http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/b...75117245970.xml</a>
IMO, it's really a problem with the people, and the media are just reacting to our behaviors in order to keep our attention. If you saw a news report about some miniscule piece of legislation that wouldn't affect you at all personally (but would indeed affect businesses), would you pay much attention? How about the second, third, hundreth time? Because there are that many bills and proposed bills of this nature that the public just doesn't hear about, and more importantly doens't <u>want</u> to hear about. The media just knows better at this point than to try to force such stories onto us.
Vietnam, the Gulf, Pro-choice, the list goes on and on. News channels get massive ratings and they get the most ratings when deeply politicised events are happening. To suggest that people don't have an appetite for political news rather ignores the millions of websites, blogs, channels and newspapers devoted to it.
But, that's by the by, we're talking about the ownership of politicians by private organisations.
Here's a couple of questions to ask yourself. Give an honest answer.
Who is promoting the war on drugs?
Is it:
a) The people
b) The politicians
c) The combined alcohol and tobacco lobby
When a politician retires, does he:
a) Claim social security
b) Quietly join the board of a company which has benefited significantly by his actions in office.
When 1 million people (the largest demonstration ever in the UK's history) turn out to protest against Britain's commitment to a war and the war happens anyway, then we're left with no other alternative than the realisation that politicians are not influenced by <b>our</b> desires.
In what way is that related to businesses purchasing congressional (or parliamentary) votes? The Iraq war was not a debate between businesses who stood to profit and voters who stood to be fleeced--it was a debate between voters who thought we should remove Saddam, and voters who thought we shouldn't. And in your case, there was the third influence of the US government, which was going to go ahead anyway, but really wanted Britain's support in the matter. Not that no country can ever oppose the will of the US--but we are a fairly big influence on other country's politics.
Edit: The demonstrations against the war only seem big compared to most because of apathy. On most issues, ~80% of the public just goes, "eh, whatever", leaving only a small number to actually fight it out. So the winning side might win by something like 12% - 8%, and thats a big margin. When something deeply divisive comes about that people really care about, it might be more like 40% - 30%--and all of a sudden, the losing side <i>looks</i> like its bigger than most winning sides, and you get situations like your million-man protest--but they're still the losing side.
1) Corporations don't just control politicians.
2) You only get to vote once every five years in the UK. I guess it's a weekly thing elsewhere.
3) The UK's system works on party politics. A fact accessible to anyone who wishes to comment on politics and has access to the largest database in the history of mankind. Obviously this isn't important unless actual knowledge of the subject matter is felt necessary.
4) The UK isn't a republic. See point 3. Republics are what you get when rich people with land create a political system. Plantation owners, for example. In the UK we have a "Constitutional Monarchy", which is a result of compromise between the crown and the people.
Corporations aren't "the people" any more than Kings or a tiny cluster of Mullah's are "the people". They are comprised of a handful of individuals who have massive social and financial power that is largely inherited.
In what way is that related to businesses purchasing congressional (or parliamentary) votes? The Iraq war was not a debate between businesses who stood to profit and voters who stood to be fleeced--it was a debate between voters who thought we should remove Saddam, and voters who thought we shouldn't. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oil.
The trouble is that when it comes to Iraq, the Tories are at least as enthusiastic as New Labour. Anyone who wanted to protest vote would have to throw it away to the Lib Dems.
Spare you what crap? how about spare us knee jerk reactions....?
HALIBURTON.
when the cheif of the army core of engineers asks for federal protection after she blows the whistle on the greased deals going on I tend to believe her.
when haliburton gets every contract without bidding I tend to think something is **** up.
Case in point, NASA. Most cost inefficient rockets in the world, highly expensive, and functional.
Prob the same case with Haliburton.
And enough with the conspiracy theories? Jebus, it's rediculous.
And Grendel, why am I not surprised when the UK gets it's largest activism when it comes to something like the first war the UK has been in since.... the Korean war? Seriously when is the last time the UK actually sent a moderate force to any country? Of course it's gonna be controversial...
Also people tend to forget what makes <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>BIG</span> Businesses <b>big</b>:
It's probably the 7000-10,000 workers under the belt that does the trick. Now that's significant voting power right there.
Case in point, NASA. Most cost inefficient rockets in the world, highly expensive, and functional.
Prob the same case with Haliburton.
And enough with the conspiracy theories? Jebus, it's rediculous. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Halliburton did get a no-bid contract.
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/01/cheney.halliburton/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/01/...ey.halliburton/</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A Democratic senator Tuesday called for a congressional investigation into whether Vice President **** Cheney had a role in awarding a no-bid contract in Iraq to his old company, the oil-services giant Halliburton.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In addition, Halliburton overcharged the US. They made us pay $2.27/gallon, while another supplier only made us pay $1.18/gallon.
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3312015.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3312015.stm</a>
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/11/sprj.irq.halliburton/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/11/...rq.halliburton/</a>
NASA awards contracts through bidding. They don't award no-bid contracts.
The government most certainly does not have unlimited funds. If it did, then we wouldn't have had a $412.6 billion deficit last year. Every dime that the government spends is a dime that it got from taxing Americans. It's our money that they're spending.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And Grendel, why am I not surprised when the UK gets it's largest activism when it comes to something like the first war the UK has been in since.... the Korean war? Seriously when is the last time the UK actually sent a moderate force to any country? Of course it's gonna be controversial...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The most recent war that the UK has been involved is the <a href='http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War&e=747' target='_blank'>Falklands War</a>. The UK citizenry is probably **** because their army was sent in to a country that posed no threat them them and because the entire justification for the war turned out to be false. If a war is justified, then the citizenry won't complain. In fact, I'd say that one of the things that is required for a war to be justified would be that a majority of the population agrees with the war.
Next time, before you post, find some facts.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also people tend to forget what makes <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>BIG</span> Businesses <b>big</b>:
It's probably the 7000-10,000 workers under the belt that does the trick. Now that's significant voting power right there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no idea what you mean by this. Are you saying that business control who their employees vote for?
if it walks like a duck, and talks like a dirty buckpassing ****, then guess what?
Case in point, NASA. Most cost inefficient rockets in the world, highly expensive, and functional.
Prob the same case with Haliburton.
And enough with the conspiracy theories? Jebus, it's rediculous.
And Grendel, why am I not surprised when the UK gets it's largest activism when it comes to something like the first war the UK has been in since.... the Korean war? Seriously when is the last time the UK actually sent a moderate force to any country? Of course it's gonna be controversial...
Also people tend to forget what makes <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>BIG</span> Businesses <b>big</b>:
It's probably the 7000-10,000 workers under the belt that does the trick. Now that's significant voting power right there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? You mean apart from The Falklands War? Or Kosovo? Or holding America's hand in the Gulf? (Twice, since apparently not enough money was made from re-building Kuwait.)
Would it be too much trouble to actually check in on reality before posting? Of the examples I've just cited, at least one of them occured whilst you were sufficiently old enough to watch TV.
I can forgive people for ignoring facts, research and overwhelming sociological evidence for things because they don't fit their ideological education, but at the very least you could try reading a history book.
As for corporations voting power...
<!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And guess who gets to fail economics 101?
The price of oil has gone up. The availability of oil has gone down.
Yeah. I bet the major oil distribution companies are absolutely gutted. They must be crying blood. I know I would be if the value of my product had rocketed and one of my biggest competitors was effectively out of business for the next few years.
I can just imagine the looks of horror on the board of Directors of Shell now...
Director 1: Guys! You'll never believe what happened! The invasion of one of the world's largest oil producing countries has driven the price of oil up!
Director 2: Wow! I never saw that coming. Weird how these things happen isn't it? Surely that's a disaster! Doesn't that mean a microscopic proportion of the additional $20m in share options I make this year (due to the increased value of oil) is going to be eaten up in fuel charges and electricity bills?
Director 1: Yes. Terrible isn't it? Let's invade the Gulf of Mexico next.
Admittedly, your theory is at least theoretically possible (since we <i>didn't</i> take their oil, thus crushing the other theory). However, it requires even more conspiracy theory and strained credulity--if that was true, why did we go to such lengths to secure the Iraqi oil fields early on? Remember the last time we invaded, Saddam started torching oil fields, burning vast quantities of saleable oil, and we fully expected him to pull the same trick again. If we just wanted to halt their oil exports, we could have just <i>let</i> him do that.
Also, the US imports vastly more oil than it produces--suggesting that the president would <i>want</i> to raise the price of oil is attributing a new level of conspiracy to him, beyond any I've seen so far. Higher oil prices are a drag on the entire economy, even if the president personally won't care much about the higher cost of filling his car. The political pressure to lower the cost of oil is enormous. Undertaking a highly divisive war for the purpose of hurting a major economic indicator would be incredibly stupid for anyone trying to get reelected.
I'm sure you don't like George Bush. But you don't have to make outlandish accusations against his motives. Whether or not you agree with his policy decisions, he makes them based on personal rather than political reasons far more often than most politicians.
Why would it be better to burn it? what makes more sense, letting him burn it or securing and controlling it from the get go?
also read the Project for the New American Century
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_t...merican_Century</a>
and the rising price of oil bodes well for everyone who has any invested interests in the oil market, mainly all of our friends at the white house.
I'm not saying that Bush is satan, but the "coincidences" are a little too much for me to stomach at this point, and frankly you should be scared as an american citizen that radicals like this can spin and lie and get away with it.
hell, look at the judicial nominies conflict right now. conservatives (who control both branches of congress) are currently trying to destroy the constitution by trying to amend it with only a 51% majority vote, historically its been 66.6% but this could change our country forever. the 66% is distinctly to keep parties in check, and they want to completely aboish that rule.
hitler was elected by popular vote as well, and little by little, chip by chip things started erroding. corporations played a substantial role in the rise of nazi germany and they would do it again if they could make a profit on the deal.
Thus proving that you merely swallow what the liberal media feeds you, with no fact checking.
--No one is trying to amend the constitution. The Republicans are proposing a change to the Senate Floor Rules. The Constitution grants the Senate the right to dictate its own floor rules.
--It is not 66.6%, and as far as I know never has been. The current rule states that you need 60% support to break a filibuster. Far from "abolishing" that rule, the proposed change simply states that, solely for puposes of confirming presidential nominees, 51% support can bring a nominee up for an actual vote.
--The current incarnation of the filibuster rule allows a 41% minority in the Senate to prevent the Senate from ever holding votes on important issues, if they suspect that they will lose those votes. The end result is that the Senate sits around and does nothing.
Heh. Liberal media.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->--The current incarnation of the filibuster rule allows a 41% minority in the Senate to prevent the Senate from ever holding votes on important issues, if they suspect that they will lose those votes. The end result is that the Senate sits around and does nothing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That may be how it might work theoretically, but that's not how it works in practice. The Senate doesn't sit around and do nothing. Filibusters are important, because they give the minority party at least a little power. The filibuster is rarely used, only when the minority party feels very strongly about something.
(to avoid going too far off topic)
Well, that depends on what they want it for. If, as has been suggested by the most common conspiracy theorists, we wanted to take their oil for ourselves, then yes it makes more sense to capture the oil fields than to burn them. If, as suggested by Grendel, we are there primarily to prevent them from selling oil to anyone at all, why not let it burn? It's easier than relying on terrorist attacks on the oil infrastructure (which I'm sure Grendel believes were all actually carried out by US Special Forces in disguise).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->also read the Project for the New American Century
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_t...merican_Century</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note that Bush is not on the member list for PNAC. Also note that PNACs stated reasons for disliking Saddam are all about military dominance, not oil prices.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and the rising price of oil bodes well for everyone who has any invested interests in the oil market, mainly all of our friends at the white house.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The rising price of oil also bodes ill for anyone seeking reelection. Bush has already won the election, but he didn't know that would happen when he invaded Iraq. Raising the price of oil is a good way to turn voters against you, and getting reelected is the number 1 priority of nearly all Presidents (especially those motivated primarily by greed, which you obviously think is true of Bush even though I don't).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not saying that Bush is satan, but the "coincidences" are a little too much for me to stomach at this point, and frankly you should be scared as an american citizen that radicals like this can spin and lie and get away with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whats the line between a "conspiratorial coincidence" and an "I told you so"? And are you referring to Bush as that radical? In no way is he a radical, nor does he lie. (Every politician spins, so don't even bring that up).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->hitler was elected by popular vote as well, and little by little, chip by chip things started erroding. corporations played a substantial role in the rise of nazi germany and they would do it again if they could make a profit on the deal.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So now Bush is Hitler? Do you have any evidence for that, or is the fact that they were both Democratically elected enough for you? I would point out that after being elected, Hitler declared himself absolute ruler---while Bush is about to peacefully leave office at the end of his second term.
Bush nominated 229 judges in his first term. The Senate confirmed 204. 10 have been blocked, I believe other 15 are still in the confirmation process.
So, only about 4% of Bush's nominees were blocked. 89% of the time, Bush has been allowed to appoint the judges that he wanted. That implies that only the most extreme and objectionable nominees get blocked.
<!--QuoteBegin-US Constitution+ Article II, Section 2--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (US Constitution @ Article II, Section 2)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and <b>he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:</b> but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In this case, the filibuster is an important check upon the power of the executive branch and the power of the majority party. In fact, I think it's now even more important that the rights of the minority party are preserved, because the majority party controls all three branches of the federal government.
Go and take a degree that involves critical analysis already.