We are the greatest...

How do you justify a corporation beoing able to pay a CEO, and others, millions in bonuses while they import legal, and illegal, aliens for their cheap labor to replace American workers who are then unemployed?


Or when they're taking billions of dollars borrowed from China by the government, while at the same time paying lobbyists millions and contributing more millions to campaign chests in order to keep their control over the government and keep the cash flowing their way.

What a system, huh?
 
Werbung:
Or when they're taking billions of dollars borrowed from China by the government, while at the same time paying lobbyists millions and contributing more millions to campaign chests in order to keep their control over the government and keep the cash flowing their way.

What a system, huh?

One of the biggest problems with those who have accepted the corporatist mentality is convincing them that it is socialism. They will accept that form of socialism while condemning all other forms.

And they will swear up and down they are capitalists.
 
We were the greatest, now we are not although I can see no other greater. What has happened is that we are becoming the same as all other nations with the United States becoming the equivalent of the other nations rather then the leader of the Free World.

Take the issue of "dissent". While we still have the right to dissent it has been watered down to the point where the People have become irrelevant. The People have opposed such measures as NAFTA, and GATT/WTO; the healthcare bill; the bail out of corporations, and banks, and now the unions, yet they were passed. The People oppose amnesty for illegals, yet it appears we will once again go down that road without any serious attempt to secure the border the recent decision to place the National Guard on the border notwithstanding. The government realizes that they have to do something, so, as a sop to the People they make a show of this which is only 1200 soldiers which is less then one per mile.

Then we have the rulings by the USSC which favor the corporation, and extend their influence, and power, over that of the People. In the Kelo decision the corproate entity was given the "right" to use the power of the government to take away your land for the "public good" rather then the "public use" as expressed in the Constitution.

Then there was the Citizen United case where Scalia, one who I usually agree with, declared:

"Despite the corporation-hating quotations the dissent has dredged up, it is far from clear that by the end of the 18th century corporations were despised. If so, how came there to be so many of them? The dissent’s statement that there were few business corporations during the eighteenth century—“only a few hundred during all of the 18th century”—is misleading. Post, at 35, n. 53. There were approximately 335 charters issued to business corporations in the United States by the end of the 18th century. 2 See 2 J. Davis,"

The Founders, especially Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and Jackson, deeply opposed the power of the corporate world. Basically only Hamilton supported it. The Constitutions of the first 19 States deeply limited the activities of the corporation. So, for Scalia to make a comment such as above is totally disengenuous, and, simply because of the wealth that corporations contol, gave that entity a greater voice then the People. Scalia's comment that "the dissent's statement that there were few business corporations during the 18th. century", only a few hundred, is then supported by the very authority he cites which says there were 335, yet he says they were wrong.

Then there is the issue of generosity. The Government has always been very free with the Peoples money often in total disreagrd for the Peoples wishes. Why do we as a nation give aid to the countries enemies such as Hamas in Palestine, the Taliban in Afghanistan, or North Korea?

On the private level, the richest people in the country give on an average less then 1% of their income to charities. On the other hand, the poorest give 7 to 10% of their income, and when it comes to volunteer work it is most often those in the bottom 20% of the income structure that give of their time. And Conservatives who attend church give far more then the Liberal.

Anyway, that is my opinion, and unless the People rise up, and take back what has been taken from them, or suppressed, the United States will become just another country in a global society.

Great post Trap. I agree with all of it.

The raise of huge corporations is a problem and the Founders warned against it. But, like the growth of a centralized government, foreign entanglements, and deficit spending with unsustainable national debt (all things the Founders found abhorrent and warned against), our current political leadership ignores the profound warnings of the Founders. Their arrogance and ignorance is beyond belief.

I would add that Big Government wants big corporations. The corporations provide vast amounts of campaign dollars and corruption money needed to feed Big Government.

Big Government and big corporations are working together to screw the American people. And, with their allies in the media, you can count on the politicians NOT doing what the American people want.

We are a socialist nation now. We are no longer a nation of laws that abides by the Constitution. We are a nation ruled by the whims of the elites.
 
One of the biggest problems with those who have accepted the corporatist mentality is convincing them that it is socialism. They will accept that form of socialism while condemning all other forms.

And they will swear up and down they are capitalists.

It's a kind of reverse socialism. Instead of the government running industry, the industry is running the government to their benefit.
 
What do you call wealth gained by the use of force through the government, and encouraged by the corporations?

Think Kelo.

So all wealth in this country was created through the use of eminent domain? I don't think that is the case.

How do you justify a corporation beoing able to pay a CEO, and others, millions in bonuses while they import legal, and illegal, aliens for their cheap labor to replace American workers who are then unemployed?

I don't have to justify it... the market pays fair value for a CEO... you personally do not get to determine what that is.

Remember, back in the hay day of the American economy CEO's only received 20 to 30 times the salary of the average employee, not the 200 to 300 times that we see today even thought the salary of the average worker is stagnant, or declining.

So what? We limit CEO pay to that level and suddenly wages for everyone reverse?


Depends on who the relative is.

True.

However, would you be satisified when the American worker is earning the equivalent of a Chinese, or Mexican, worker? Maybe Americans should get used to living in a hovel too while the wealthy live like the King of Saudi Arabia. Is that to your liking?

I would be satisfied to let the market set wages yes.
 
So all wealth in this country was created through the use of eminent domain? I don't think that is the case.

I don't have to justify it... the market pays fair value for a CEO... you personally do not get to determine what that is.

So what? We limit CEO pay to that level and suddenly wages for everyone reverse?

True.

I would be satisfied to let the market set wages yes.

Excellent post BigRob... The only thing I would add is this... You get what you pay for and if our benevolent government, in it's infinite wisdom, limited CEO and Executive pay based on their concept of "fairness" relative to worker salaries, American business would crumble.

We are, after all, speaking of the same government that demanded the CEO of GM work for $1 a year... Yet some of the otherwise intelligent people around here actually believe it's the "big corporations" running government...
 
Excellent post BigRob... The only thing I would add is this... You get what you pay for and if our benevolent government, in it's infinite wisdom, limited CEO and Executive pay based on their concept of "fairness" relative to worker salaries, American business would crumble.

We are, after all, speaking of the same government that demanded the CEO of GM work for $1 a year... Yet some of the otherwise intelligent people around here actually believe it's the "big corporations" running government...

If the corporations hadn't been running the government, then GM would have been allowed to go the way of Studebaker, and those great, competent CEOs of AIG who took their multi million dollar bonuses for their great work of running their businesses into the ground out of money borrowed by the government would have been fired.
 
So all wealth in this country was created through the use of eminent domain? I don't think that is the case.

Don't think I was saying that. I used Kelo as an example of how government works in collusion with corporations, and to the benefit of the corporation over that of the individual.

I don't have to justify it... the market pays fair value for a CEO... you personally do not get to determine what that is.

Well, if you believe that then so be it. Kind of hard to support though when the market is in a slump, and bailouts are required for the business.


So what? We limit CEO pay to that level and suddenly wages for everyone reverse?

No, but the cost of goods produced certainly would.


I would be satisfied to let the market set wages yes.

If only that were true. You apparently support the same ideology that was present in the late 1800's, and early 1900's, or in the coal mines of the Appalachians. Sweat shops for the people, mansions for the corporate magnet.
 
Don't think I was saying that. I used Kelo as an example of how government works in collusion with corporations, and to the benefit of the corporation over that of the individual.

Government also has many examples of working in collusion with people to the detriment of corporations and big business.

Well, if you believe that then so be it. Kind of hard to support though when the market is in a slump, and bailouts are required for the business.

The market did not require a bailout, the market would have let failing companies fail. The individual required (demanded) a bailout, and of course a failing business would be all for it.

No, but the cost of goods produced certainly would.

Not really by any meaningful measure I would argue.

If only that were true. You apparently support the same ideology that was present in the late 1800's, and early 1900's, or in the coal mines of the Appalachians. Sweat shops for the people, mansions for the corporate magnet.

No one is entitled to have their every desire met by whatever job they have. Fact is leaders of companies have more important and demanding jobs than a coal miner (for example) and is going to be paid accordingly.
 
Werbung:
Government also has many examples of working in collusion with people to the detriment of corporations and big business.


I would be interested in seeing an example of that.


The market did not require a bailout, the market would have let failing companies fail. The individual required (demanded) a bailout, and of course a failing business would be all for it.

Not true. Those of the stock market were demanding action by the government as were the banks, etc. No individual in my sphere of life was demanding they be bailed out. In fact, the People were definitely against it.


Not really by any meaningful measure I would argue.

Just as an example, the CEO of Oracle has received 1.2 Billion dollars over his term as CEO which I believe is 14 years, or less. Then we have what the CFO, and others have received. Other CEO's have received 4 to 700 million dollars over even shorter terms as CEO's. You don't think that would have made a difference on the cost of the product?


No one is entitled to have their every desire met by whatever job they have. Fact is leaders of companies have more important and demanding jobs than a coal miner (for example) and is going to be paid accordingly.

Nothing is more important then ones life, and that is what many put up for their employer especially the coal miner, and others. Then too, the worker gives up his family life in many cases, and his time is not worth considering according to you.

They certainly deserve to be treated better then an Israeli slave.
 
Back
Top