- Jeffco ballot issue lets schools off the hook
- Objections cited to Dougco Ballot Issue 1B
- Prostitution should be a legal activity
- A suspect switch
- Wasteful searches
- A higher law
- 100 percent unsafe
- A DIFFERING VIEW/Denver bond measures should pass as a package
- Ongoing war funding is killing U.S. troops
- Paul Campos & Mitt Romney
Aggressive corporate takeovers
Mr. Bush claims to be concerned with our democratic principles, the common people, and the environment, but for every cent this administration ( in collusion with large corporations ) has invested in America, it has taken out a dollar. Put bluntly, this president is a more immediate and serious threat to the American way of life than any and all of the enemies upon whom he would war.
Unbelievably, our Congress - principally the Republicans - continues to accept this deal for the American people - and the Democrats are too chicken-hearted to do ( or even say ) anything about it. No offenses have been more deserving of impeachment than the ( numerous ) offenses of this president. Apparently, taking care of business is not as important for the parasites in either party than being reelected in 2008.
This letter has not been edited.
Exactly right, except I don't think the Dems are quiet out of fear but because they, too, are part of the same system. Check out this site: http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/
Kiefer you are full of hot air and a crubaby whiner. BTW what are these "numerous" offenses? Just as I thought, another windbag liberal.
Posted by on October 23, 2007 03:43 PMKiefer you are full of hot air and a crybaby whiner. BTW what are these "numerous" offenses? Just as I thought, another windbag liberal.
Posted by on October 23, 2007 03:47 PMNothing more than factless, baseless, and outright nuttery of the left. They'd rather have the federal government they endlessly bash and denounce running things. Social Security, Medicare, IRS, the list is endless of bloated bureaucratic waste, abuse and fraud, they - the left - want "running" things.
Posted by on October 23, 2007 04:16 PM"...the list is endless of bloated bureaucratic waste, abuse and fraud..."
Yeah, because GM is doing SO well.
Posted by Mac on October 23, 2007 04:54 PMUnder Bush & Co the corporation is king - and are allowed to sodomize the US to their heart's content. Profit is the only yardstick: Epitomized by that pink piece of puff pastry, Dick Cheney & his war-profiteering Halliburton cartel.
Posted by Joe Nacchio on October 23, 2007 05:11 PMAhhhhhh the meek shall inherit the earth.........to the depth of six feet >:))
Posted by GEO on October 23, 2007 05:50 PMHow can corporations take our money unless we willingly give it to them? If you feel you are a slave to corporations, perhaps you are really just a slave to your desires.
Posted by John II on October 23, 2007 06:31 PMKeifer: If Bush isn't the epitome of evil, what, praytell, IS the definition?
By my reckoning, he is evil incarnate.
Posted by Sheila on October 23, 2007 06:54 PMSome take the bible
For what it's worth
When it says that the meek
Shall inherit the Earth
Well, I heard that some sheik
Has bought New Jersey last week
'N you suckers ain't gettin' nothin'
Is Hare Rama really wrong?
If you wander around
With a napkin on
With a bell on a stick
An' your hair is all gone...
The meek shall inherit nothing.
You say yer life's a bum deal
'N yer up against the wall...
Well, people, you ain't even got no
Deal at all
'Cause what they do
In Washington
They just takes care
of NUMBER ONE
An' NUMBER ONE ain't YOU
You ain't even NUMBER TWO
Those Jesus Freaks
Well, they're friendly but
The shit they believe
Has got their minds all shut-up
An' they don't even care
When the church takes a cut
Ain't it bleak when you got so much nothin'
So whaddya do?
Eat that pork
Eat that ham
Laugh till ya choke
On Billy Graham
Moses, Aaron 'n Abraham...
They're all a waste of time
'N it's yer ass that's on the line
IT'S YER ASS THAT'S ON THE LINE
Do what you wanna
Do what you will
Just don't mess up
Your neighbor's thrill
'N when you pay the bill
Kindly leave a little tip
And help the next poor sucker
On his one way trip. . .
Some take the Bible...Some Take the Bible.
And the meek shall inherit nothing.
Posted by Frank Zappa on October 23, 2007 07:27 PMYou're right, J2 about being Americans being slaves to desires, but the point of the corporation is to make it extremely difficult to give our money to any other entity, even to meet our NEEDS.
Posted by Mac on October 23, 2007 08:07 PMMac, the point of a corporation is to profit from our desires; nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by John II on October 23, 2007 11:38 PMand talk about forecd take overs jus tlisten to the progressive liberal socialist who want government to run health care. oh wait that is ok as you freeloaders think you are getting somethig for nothing. you are correct in getting nothing for free.
Posted by on October 24, 2007 08:22 AMJohn II,
I don't have a problem with that, in it's simplest form. I want a pair of shoes, I tell the corporation I want shoes, they sell me shoes and make a profit. Cool.
I have only a rudimentary economic education, but I seem to recall that the point of the corporation is to MAXIMIZE the profit made from our desires.
Again, not a bad thing, per se. Make a better shoe, convince me I should give ABC Corp my money rather than XYZ Corp.
What it has become, however, is a free-for-all where anything goes in the pursuit of that profit. Lying, cheating, monopolies, bullying competition, buying politicians for unfair advantage.
Another thing that bothers me is that corporations have the same rights as we human citizens do.
Oops, hit "post" too soon.
Of course, not every corporation does illegal, unethical, or immoral things. It's just that when MAXIMUM profit is the goal, and when the system is set up to reward bad behavior, and there is very little accountability, it is far too easy for corruption to take over.
Posted by Mac on October 24, 2007 08:41 AMCorporate corruption is also helped out when you have an asswipe like Bush pimping for them all day long.
Posted by on October 24, 2007 11:01 AM"...the list is endless of bloated bureaucratic waste, abuse and fraud..."
Yeah, because GM is doing SO well.
Your money only goes to GM when you buy their products, jack ass.
And if they can't run a profitable business they'll go under.
Posted by on October 24, 2007 11:45 AMKiefer sounds like an overpaid and downsized computer programmer who lost his job to Vishnu Sidhu in India.
Get over it Kiefer, globalization is here to stay and so are hostile takeovers. Get yourself retraiined and re-educated for something useful at your local community college.
As for hostile takeovers, they are as American as apple pie and as old as the hills. The result is either an immediate price premium for the stock or a more efficient corporation that can eventually pay us shareholders (owners) a bigger dividend. And I just love capital gains and big dividends! Free market capitalism made me rich.
Posted by Hank on October 24, 2007 12:22 PMMac said:
"What it has become, however, is a free-for-all where anything goes in the pursuit of that profit. Lying, cheating, monopolies, bullying competition, buying politicians for unfair advantage."
A free-for-all? I don't think so, Mac.
As for the other stuff you mentioned, it's no more prevalent than any other forms of human interaction. Which monopolies are you referring to? This is the most competitive marketplace in the world. Who lied to you? By "bullying", do you mean competing? What human rights do corporations have?
Again, to use your shoe purchase analogy, if you don't desire a shoe that someone else made, you empower the maker. If you feel so strongly that the corporate world is a "free-for-all" of lying, cheating and monopolies, abstain from doing business with them. Live by the work of your own hands. It will be a rougher life, but at least you'll know you are beholden to no one.
Posted by John II on October 24, 2007 01:39 PMcorrection: I meant to say "you don't empower the maker"
Posted by John II on October 24, 2007 01:48 PMAh, corporate totaltarian socialism. I'm glad the "smart" people know what's best for us peons. Let them make the decisions.
The Great White Horse eats the oats we bought and, if we're lucky, we get the scraps from his droppings.
Posted by Stan B on October 24, 2007 02:41 PMStan B,
Do you think your last post made any sense to anyone other than yourself?
Posted by John II on October 24, 2007 02:57 PM"Your money only goes to GM when you buy their products, jack ass. And if they can't run a profitable business they'll go under."
Duh. That was the point.
Hmmmm, lets see, who owns corporations.... people. Hundred, thousands, millions of people own corporations. I am part owner in a few and own a couple outright. If they don't make a profit, then I would be upset and possibly dump ownership in favor of something else.
As to the consumer side. I want a product. There is a company that makes the product at the price level I want and the quality that I desire. My utils are fulfilled as I want that item more than the cash I have. now, if Company B comes by and has the same item for less $, I'm gonna buy that one.
Corporations have no power over you to force you to buy anything. Truthfully, the only Monopoly that can force you to do anything is the US Government. But, to a lib, that Monopoly is just okey dokey.
So, Corporations just have the control that you grant them over you, but the same libs who whine about corporations are just fine having the .gov running their lives through actual coercion.
Posted by Dravur on October 24, 2007 03:22 PMJ2,
In 1886, in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the U.S. Constitution affords to any person. It hasn't been reversed yet, only expanded on.
Mac,
Therefore what? Why are you worried about this?
Posted by John II on October 24, 2007 03:42 PMOkay, gosh - you got me. Corporations don't force anyone to buy their stuff.
Still, who makes a tractor, or an automobile, or medication that I can buy that is not a corporation? Please direct mebfore the snow flies.
Also, I don't believe I ever used the word forced.
Some people didn't read my "part II" where I qualified that I only dislike dishonest corporations, and the way the system is set up now, who is going to stop dishonest corporations? Certainly not the consumer or the shareholders (if they are paid). And with proper PR and advertising, how does one even know if a company is doing wrong?
None of you mentioned corporate lobbying, but I guess y'all think that's a good thing, too.
Dravur, I too own a corporation and am in the process of putting together another, larger one. That's exactly how I learned these things.
Other than that, this is a day long conversation and I don't have a day to spare.
Posted by Mac on October 24, 2007 03:42 PMMac,
"Still, who makes a tractor, or an automobile, or medication that I can buy that is not a corporation?"
So, you switched from shoes to tractors; the point remains: your desires empower corporations.
You say you don't like dishonest corporations; me too. Who is going to stop them? Consumers, shareholders, and the law. I'm much more worried about murderers, burglars, rapists, car-jackers and thieves than I am about whether or not Coca-Cola plays nice with Pepsi-Cola.
Corporate lobbying does not bother me. There are many different interest groups trying to influence politicians. They are free to do so.
Posted by John II on October 24, 2007 04:03 PMWhat about the Bush tax breaks for Big Oil? Why them? Remember the secret Cheney energy meetings with big oil?
You know, the meetings where we, the citizens are not allowed to know who was there?
Corporations own the Bush administration.
Posted by rick on October 24, 2007 07:02 PMJ2,
Yes. You.
Posted by Stan B on October 24, 2007 07:41 PMis there any liberal socialsit progressive out here who actually owns and runs a business? if there is I would love to hear how you stay in business if you dont want to make a profit.
I guess it is really fun to bash a corporation and sound so tough about them making a profit, and one other thing they do is create jobs for morons like you to work at and pay taxes to give chcks to the rest of you progressives who have your hand out to receive something for nothing other than you blieve you should have what the other guy has
7:51,
I own my own business. I want to know why some businesses get preferential treatment.
I want MY tax breaks.
Oh right, the bushies were not in the Architecture business. They were in oil.
Posted by rick on October 24, 2007 08:20 PMrick,
Do you design homes and buildings? If so, you do get a tax break. There are tax breaks for homeowners and buildings that directly affect everyone in the architecture business. You're welcome.
Posted by John II on October 24, 2007 09:07 PM" would love to hear how you stay in business if you dont want to make a profit"
There is a big difference between making a profit and hiring illegals so you can make a HUGE profit.
Posted by on October 24, 2007 09:32 PMYes, I'm subsidized by the taxpayer. Prove that I gat tax breaks.
Posted by rick on October 24, 2007 09:39 PMI have my own business and I am delighted to make a profit...but not an obscene profit. Major corporations spend billions every tear to get laws written that give them taxpayer money to make them even richer. The RMN recently ran an article about a rich guy who still wants more. Does he need to make anymore? No. He just wants to be one of the super-rich. He bragged about it! It's a vicious game to win status by denying others a fair share of the profit. The commoner is being cheated so someone else can play a game they made up (and have the power to change) for their own selfish, greedy benefit.
Posted by Stan B on October 25, 2007 10:12 AMChas, I see that you don't bother to provide any numbers for the assumptions you make. What exactly is the numerical difference between a "profit" and an "obscene profit"? Do you even have an answer? Who is the authority in charge of deciding when enough is enough? You? You make a statement with strong undertones of derision directed at someone who wants to maintain their ambition beyond one, a few, or many successes rather than resting on their laurels. Do you even know why? I guess you think Pasteur should have stopped doing scientific research after his work on chirality, that work was plenty to gain him historical recognition, what an a-hole, wanting to be super-rich in ideas like vaccination and germ theory rather than allowing others a fair share of these valuable ideas. How exactly is the commoner being "cheated"? Because they choose to make small gains and then ride the coattails of those successes rather than save the property of their efforts for bigger successes? I love this gem "someone else can play a game they made up (and have the power to change) for their own selfish, greedy benefit." So are you saying that these evil corporate devils made up the "game" of life? Or are you trying to say that prior to incorporation, life was fair and everyone got their "fair share"? What is a "fair share" and who defines it? Can you answer even one of the several questions I'm posting without resorting to an "attack the messenger" strategy?
Posted by drew on October 25, 2007 10:49 AMI expect that honest people will know when to share and the greed mongers won't. I'm not responsible for their conscience. If they wish to be greedy and play the "game of life" like they own the world, it's up to them. When I see the thousands of starving people on the planet the "game of life" seems silly and selfish.
Posted by Stan B on October 25, 2007 12:44 PMStan,
Greed has done more good for this world than any charity or government program. A man is entitled to work for all the money he can gather or he's also entitled to be whiny, envious, twit like yourself.
Posted by John II on October 26, 2007 09:54 AMStan,
Have you ever read the book Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy?
There's an interesting conversation between the characters that reminds me of your feelings regarding capitalism. Levin sounds like you.
Please forgive the long post. But, do read this excerpt from the book:
**********
Malthus was a well-known capitalist, who had made his money by
speculation in railway shares. Stepan Arkadyevitch described
what grouse moors this Malthus had bought in the Tver province,
and how they were preserved, and of the carriages and dogcarts in
which the shooting party had been driven, and the luncheon
pavilion that had been rigged up at the marsh.
"I don't understand you," said Levin, sitting up in the hay; "how
is it such people don't disgust you? I can understand a lunch
with Lafitte is all very pleasant, but don't you dislike just
that very sumptuousness? All these people, just like our spirit
monopolists in old days, get their money in a way that gains them
the contempt of everyone. They don't care for their contempt,
and then they use their dishonest gains to buy off the contempt
they have deserved."
"Perfectly true!" chimed in Vassenka Veslovsky. "Perfectly!
Oblonsky, of course, goes out of _bonhomie_, but other people say:
'Well, Oblonsky stays with them.'..."
"Not a bit of it." Levin could hear that Oblonsky was smiling as
he spoke. "I simply don't consider him more dishonest than any
other wealthy merchant or nobleman. They've all made their money
alike--by their work and their intelligence."
"Oh, by what work? Do you call it work to get hold of
concessions and speculate with them?"
"Of course it's work. Work in this sense, that if it were not
for him and others like him, there would have been no railways."
"But that's not work, like the work of a peasant or a learned
profession."
"Granted, but it's work in the sense that his activity produces a
result--the railways. But of course you think the railways
useless."
"No, that's another question; I am prepared to admit that
they're useful. But all profit that is out of proportion to the
labor expended is dishonest."
"But who is to define what is proportionate?"
"Making profit by dishonest means, by trickery," said Levin,
conscious that he could not draw a distinct line between honesty
and dishonesty. "Such as banking, for instance," he went on.
"It's an evil--the amassing of huge fortunes without labor, just
the same thing as with the spirit monopolies, it's only the form
that's changed. _Le roi est mort, vive le roi_. No sooner were
the spirit monopolies abolished than the railways came up, and
banking companies; that, too, is profit without work."
"Yes, that may all be very true and clever.... Lie down, Krak!"
Stepan Arkadyevitch called to his dog, who was scratching and
turning over all the hay. He was obviously convinced of the
correctness of his position, and so talked serenely and without
haste. "But you have not drawn the line between honest and
dishonest work. That I receive a bigger salary than my chief
clerk, though he knows more about the work than I do--that's
dishonest, I suppose?"
"I can't say."
"Well, but I can tell you: your receiving some five thousand,
let's say, for your work on the land, while our host, the peasant
here, however hard he works, can never get more than fifty
roubles, is just as dishonest as my earning more than my chief
clerk, and Malthus getting more than a station-master. No, quite
the contrary; I see that society takes up a sort of antagonistic
attitude to these people, which is utterly baseless, and I fancy
there's envy at the bottom of it...."
"No, that's unfair," said Veslovsky; "how could envy come in?
There is something not nice about that sort of business."
"You say," Levin went on, "that it's unjust for me to receive
five thousand, while the peasant has fifty; that's true. It is
unfair, and I feel it, but..."
"It really is. Why is it we spend our time riding, drinking,
shooting, doing nothing, while they are forever at work?" said
Vassenka Veslovsky, obviously for the first time in his life
reflecting on the question, and consequently considering it with
perfect sincerity.
"Yes, you feel it, but you don't give him your property," said
Stepan Arkadyevitch, intentionally, as it seemed, provoking
Levin.
There had arisen of late something like a secret antagonism
between the two brothers-in-law; as though, since they had
married sisters, a kind of rivalry had sprung up between them as
to which was ordering his life best, and now this hostility
showed itself in the conversation, as it began to take a personal
note.
"I don't give it away, because no one demands that from me, and
if I wanted to, I could not give it away," answered Levin, "and
have no one to give it to."
"Give it to this peasant, he would not refuse it."
"Yes, but how am I to give it up? Am I to go to him and make a
deed of conveyance?"
"I don't know; but if you are convinced that you have no
right..."
"I'm not at all convinced. On the contrary, I feel I have no
right to give it up, that I have duties both to the land and to
my family."
"No, excuse me, but if you consider this inequality is unjust,
why is it you don't act accordingly?..."
"Well, I do act negatively on that idea, so far as not trying to
increase the difference of position existing between him and me."
"No, excuse me, that's a paradox."
"Yes, there's something of a sophistry about that," Veslovsky
agreed. "Ah! our host; so you're not asleep yet?" he said to the
peasant who came into the barn, opening the creaking door. "How
is it you're not asleep?"