Were fucking owned

were doomed to have corporations that reward shareholders and have the highest paying jobs in the country.
Ohh but the libtards all have liberal arts degrees and corps don't pay for those.
OK I got it.
 
Topspin said:
were doomed to have corporations that reward shareholders and have the highest paying jobs in the country.
Ohh but the libtards all have liberal arts degrees and corps don't pay for those.
OK I got it.
Click to expand...

WHo's we? All i see is corporations dehumanizing the citizens of their home nation and replacing them with foreign labor.

you think your treachery is enlightened, but really you're just an anti-american elitist assmunch.
 
Topspin said:
were doomed to have corporations that reward shareholders and have the highest paying jobs in the country.
Ohh but the libtards all have liberal arts degrees and corps don't pay for those.
OK I got it.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. Do you know how many pointy haired moron managers in corporate America have art history degrees?
 
Topspin said:
were doomed to have corporations that reward shareholders and have the highest paying jobs in the country.
Ohh but the libtards all have liberal arts degrees and corps don't pay for those.
OK I got it.
Click to expand...

No you don't get it. A govt that benefits corporate interests over interests of the people is a Corporatocracy, not a democratic republic.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's true but walk the hallways of those corporate HQ's and their littered with middle managers and salesman who have degrees in sociology and journalism.
Click to expand...

Well not in the oil industry, we are utterly dominated by engineers and few lawyers at the top.

I don't think many fortune 500 have majorities in those degrees at high levels
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/boggle......you have no clue how much unions contribute to campaigns, do you.....
Click to expand...

Sure unions contribute to campaigns, after today multi-national corporations can contribute billions to campaigns. Are you trying to say American unions have as much money as big pharm, big oil and on and on? Please...
 
All you neocons are talking stupid pretending unions have the same amount of money as corporations. That's just fucking stupid. Knock it off.
 
NigelTufnel said:
She talked about spending and you talked about influence. The two are not interchangeable.

Frankly, the idea that unions have the financial ability to spend as much as corporations in a completely unregulated spending environment is laughable. The only reason unions could keep pace with corporations in spending is the regulatory restrictions on what could be spent.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because the two are not intertwined when talking about politicians???

Give us all a break with your partisan bullshit. Unions represent about 10% of all employees in this country. Corporations on the whole spend about 5 times the amount of unions. If you are talking about total spending by all corporations vs. total dollars spent by unions, then no... the unions cannot spend as much. But when you look at dollars spent representative of the number of employees, unions spend just as much.

Side note... INFLUENCE is what the bribes (I mean lobbying efforts) and other spending buy.... whether it be money going directly to the corrupt politicians or aiding them via advertisements.
 
Superfreak said:
Yeah, because the two are not intertwined when talking about politicians???

Give us all a break with your partisan bullshit. Unions represent about 10% of all employees in this country. Corporations on the whole spend about 5 times the amount of unions. If you are talking about total spending by all corporations vs. total dollars spent by unions, then no... the unions cannot spend as much. But when you look at dollars spent representative of the number of employees, unions spend just as much.

Side note... INFLUENCE is what the bribes (I mean lobbying efforts) and other spending buy.... whether it be money going directly to the corrupt politicians or aiding them via advertisements.
Click to expand...


Money gains influence, but so do a lot of other things. Unions have other levers of influence that corporations simply do not have because shareholders are vastly different from union members.

And, assuming your numbers are correct, in a regulated environment corporations spend five times as much as unions. What do you think will happen in an unregulated environment where there are no spending limits?
 
It's a hair-splitting kind of debate. I'd be all for campaign finance reform that drastically reduces the influence of corporations, unions, PAC's, et al. I'd love to see limits on what campaigns can spend, and more free public access via TV & radio. The way things are currently is truly ridiculous...
 
Onceler said:
It's a hair-splitting kind of debate. I'd be all for campaign finance reform that drastically reduces the influence of corporations, unions, PAC's, et al. I'd love to see limits on what campaigns can spend, and more free public access via TV & radio. The way things are currently is truly ridiculous...
Click to expand...

I agree 100%.
 
NigelTufnel said:
This decision flows from the bullshit notion that corporations are "persons" and are therefore entitled to all constitutional protections afforded to persons. Corporations aren't people. They are legal constructs of the state and as such should be subject to whatever regulations the state wants to impose on them.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, almost. Only if it is applied to all organizations.

The employees of the corporation have rights, corporations don't. If the CEO, for instance, wanted to spend his own cash to make an ad there is nothing you could do to stop him, however the corporation isn't a person.

The same would be for Unions and other entities that are not a person.

Now, Nigel, what would you do with a group of individuals that wanted to pool their money? With a small contribution you can be part of an ad that will promote your candidate... What would this group be called? They couldn't incorporate or they wouldn't be allowed to spend money on ads...
 
NigelTufnel said:
Money gains influence, but so do a lot of other things. Unions have other levers of influence that corporations simply do not have because shareholders are vastly different from union members.

And, assuming your numbers are correct, in a regulated environment corporations spend five times as much as unions. What do you think will happen in an unregulated environment where there are no spending limits?
Click to expand...

Please elaborate on their other levers of influence.

If you think corporations that rely on profits to survive are just going to pump endless amounts of cash at politicians, I think you are wrong. Obviously there is no way to KNOW what will happen. This is just my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top