Election Year Debate

[HeyYou]

I will believe a corporation deserves the same rights as an individual when Texas executes one.

 

Corporations don't need to vote, they just buy the politicians. Better than having votes.

 

The campaign contributors have more control over who runs, and who wins, than the voters.

 

The Supreme court made a terrible mistake with Citizens United. Even now, there are challenges to that ruling, tough I really don't expect any of them to make any headway. It was too popular a decision for the corporations, and the politicians, and makes way too much money available for campaigns, and pocket lining, to be overturned.

 

A corporation is a business entity. That's it. It should NOT have the same rights, if not more... than the average citizen.

[Ghogiel]

I don't understand what capping lobbyist 'contributions' has to do with free speech. Money isn't speech, If a corporation has anything to say and wants something heard> write a letter to your congress representative. (which will never happen because corporations don't have hands to pick up a pen..)

 

I find it absurd to equate free speech with what is in effect the ability to buy govt officials. It promotes plutocracy, the more money you spend the greater influence you have over politicians is not the same as asking for their grievances being heard in congress, they can do that with the rest of the 'people' just fine. Being heard in congress is not the same as buying it.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Ghogiel

[Aurielius]

I really don't like Mitt Romney. So much that I'm probably not even gonna waste the gas driving out of my way to go and vote. Mitt Romney is just a copy/paste basic, tote the party line Republican. The way I see it is if Obama does get re-elected, and he does run this country even deeper into the ground, then people are going to be so pissed off at the government by that point that they may look to someone else for answers. I really dislike the 2 party system in general. As some have already pointed out, Obama's foreign policy is basically the same as Bush's and I agree. Also Obama's economic policy isn't much different than Bush's, except Obama wasted even more money. I'm gonna say this straight up, I got no faith in this country anymore, or the people voting, or the people elected to run it.

Vote not ......then b*tch not. It's your call what to do with your rights, but one thought to mull over...you are making others who do more valuable in the final tally.

[HeyYou]

I really don't like Mitt Romney. So much that I'm probably not even gonna waste the gas driving out of my way to go and vote. Mitt Romney is just a copy/paste basic, tote the party line Republican. The way I see it is if Obama does get re-elected, and he does run this country even deeper into the ground, then people are going to be so pissed off at the government by that point that they may look to someone else for answers. I really dislike the 2 party system in general. As some have already pointed out, Obama's foreign policy is basically the same as Bush's and I agree. Also Obama's economic policy isn't much different than Bush's, except Obama wasted even more money. I'm gonna say this straight up, I got no faith in this country anymore, or the people voting, or the people elected to run it.

Vote not ......then b*tch not. It's your call what to do with your rights, but one thought to mull over...you are making others who do more valuable in the final tally.

 

When given a choice between two terrible candidates, which do you choose? Neither one even remotely represents himself to be aligned with what I think should happen. In all reality, there isn't that much difference between them. Obama continued a fair few republican policies, which I disagreed with when Bush was president. I voted for Obama so that those policies would NOT be continued. Sure fooled me huh?

 

Granted, I do NOT care for the direction the republican party wants to take this country. Their seemingly firm belief that trickle down economics is the answer to our economic woes, flies in the face of reality, where those same policies have done NOTHING good for the economy in the past. Why should we believe that it will be any different this time? Are we really that stupid? (I would like to think not, but, given the american voting publics track record....... well.... let's just say it doesn't inspire confidence.....)

 

And, in typical politician fashion, during an election cycle, it's all about the economy, and all their grand ideas for solving americans troubles. Funny how all that goes out the window the day after the election... then it's back to business as usual, and the screwing of the average american. We have a lower standard of living, fewer rights, more intrusions into our daily lives at the hands of government than we did even back when Bush was in office. This is a trend I see continuing all in the name of "the war on terror". Ok, lemme ask ya this: If the terrorist stated goal is to destroy our way of life, why is it, we are letting our government do it to us, in the name of fighting the same goal?

 

I really wish the american public would wake up, smell the coffee, and get control of the country back from the bought and paid for politicos that run the dog and pony show now. I am not holding my breath on that though. It is going to take some MAJOR catastrophe before the american public actually deigns to get off their collective duff, and DO something.

[Arthmoor]

Corporations can't vote.

Made my entire point right here, thanks. If they can't vote, then they shouldn't be getting taxed either because that effectively means they have no real representation.

 

So stop begrudging them the one avenue they actually DO have legally unless you're willing to back up your stance in a consistent manner. Either stop taxing them, or give them proper representation.

[myrmaad]

Corporations can't vote.

Made my entire point right here, thanks. If they can't vote, then they shouldn't be getting taxed either because that effectively means they have no real representation.

 

So stop begrudging them the one avenue they actually DO have legally unless you're willing to back up your stance in a consistent manner. Either stop taxing them, or give them proper representation.

 

Corporations cannot die, and thus already have more power than a single human being. They also can amass limitless wealth compared to a single human being. Single human beings should not have to compete with corporations for basic rights and resources.

 

Furthermore, Corporations have human representation in the form of board members, owners, shareholders. Those human representatives can act and vote on the corporations behalf so giving a corporation even more power is like double dipping. Since they are legally excused from the liabilities a single human being would be accountable for, they certainly should be taxed.

 

Another thing, corporations have no soul, and I'm not being facetious. A corporation's one reason for existence is to create wealth. They do not have a conscience, even when their owners or shareholders might. The bottom line is always the bottom line no matter what is sacrificed.

[Mandamus]

I'm not going to get into the debate over corporations' rights, it is an important one but I do not have much to contribute. :P

 

I am not an American and don't follow the news on the US political scene, so I would like to ask this question to more informed people on this board: what are going to be the major themes of the presidential campaign this fall? Is it going to be jobs? Social issues? Immigration? Foreign policy?

 

Here in France I think the main theme is probably job creation and the debate on how to turn the national economy around (it's not been doing well these last few years). The other main theme is more subtle, and concerns immigration and multiculturalism.

Frankly I think many people believe that our country is on the decline and are very afraid about the future (I know I'm not very optimistic), that fear is also very present in the campaign. I wonder if the situation is similar in the United States.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Mandamus

[Arthmoor]

Those human representatives can act and vote on the corporations behalf so giving a corporation even more power is like double dipping.

This one statement goes right to the core of the issues I'm getting at. It sure seems to me that a lot of people have a solid grasp on the concept of double dipping. We don't allow corporations to vote because the people who run them get to do that themselves.

 

So can someone PLEASE explain to me why a corporation can be taxed? It's double dipping since the individual people working there have all been taxed already on the money they make.

 

Why are corporations legally able to sue? Why can they run their own bank accounts? Why do we allow corporations to file bankruptcy and then not hold the individuals on the board accountable when that happens?

 

They're already being treated by numerous aspects of the law as separate legal entities. I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to vote as their own legal entities because of that. It's either that or we stop treating them as legal entities at all - which means no more taxes, no more bankruptcy protection to shield the board, no more allowing a company to sue, etc.

[myrmaad]

Those human representatives can act and vote on the corporations behalf so giving a corporation even more power is like double dipping.

This one statement goes right to the core of the issues I'm getting at. It sure seems to me that a lot of people have a solid grasp on the concept of double dipping. We don't allow corporations to vote because the people who run them get to do that themselves.

 

So can someone PLEASE explain to me why a corporation can be taxed? It's double dipping since the individual people working there have all been taxed already on the money they make.

 

Why are corporations legally able to sue? Why can they run their own bank accounts? Why do we allow corporations to file bankruptcy and then not hold the individuals on the board accountable when that happens?

 

They're already being treated by numerous aspects of the law as separate legal entities. I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to vote as their own legal entities because of that. It's either that or we stop treating them as legal entities at all - which means no more taxes, no more bankruptcy protection to shield the board, no more allowing a company to sue, etc.

 

 

For all the whining and bellyaching they do, the current corporate tax rate, about 35 percent, is rife with loopholes and deductions, and while it's supposedly the highest rate in the world, funny how American companies pay less in taxes than in other countries. Many companies pay nothing at all in taxes.

 

Furthermore we are taxing the corporation for different reasons and things than we are taxing individuals for. Corporations use a lot more resources than individuals. Their trucks and planes use up our fuel, pollute our air, wear and tear on our roads, that don't build or maintain themselves, and they require infrastructure, and a workforce. They need to pay more than individuals for these and many more reasons I have thought about.

[Aurielius]

 

 

So can someone PLEASE explain to me why a corporation can be taxed? It's double dipping since the individual people working there have all been taxed already on the money they make.

Taxation of businesses goes all the way back to the issuing of Royal Charters, it has been the customary practice of funding the state by paying for the privilege of being able to conduct business. Being that we are based on English Constitutional formats and principles it is a relatively simple carry over of practice.

 

Why are corporations legally able to sue? Why can they run their own bank accounts? Why do we allow corporations to file bankruptcy and then not hold the individuals on the board accountable when that happens?

Just curious do you propose that corporations do not have the right for legal redress because they are corporations?

 

They're already being treated by numerous aspects of the law as separate legal entities. I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to vote as their own legal entities because of that. It's either that or we stop treating them as legal entities at all - which means no more taxes, no more bankruptcy protection to shield the board, no more allowing a company to sue, etc.

Just how many votes should a corporation have.... one..one hundred?...one thousand?...one per employee?

 

I am confused, on one hand you want to enfranchise non living entities, on the other you want restrict their access to legal redress and finally you contest the right to tax them. Are they people or not people in your estimation, because it seems that you are switching back and forth to the point in which I am no longer sure what your perception of them actually is...either they are fish or foul but not both.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Aurielius