Ty Webb;929746 wrote:Yes.....no corporation has rights guaranteed to them in the Constitution....only the people working for them.

Why in the world do you think you always see the statement "The following comments do not reflect the personal feelings of So and So INC.?

So I guess you have a unique take on the contract clause of the Constitution.

Manhattan Buckeye;929752 wrote:So I guess you have a unique take on the contract clause of the Constitution.

The one that says that no payment of debt can be accepted that isn't silver or gold coin? Ya that one seems the most relevant to the problems of 2011.

Mooney44Cards;929755 wrote:The one that says that no payment of debt can be accepted that isn't silver or gold coin? Ya that one seems the most relevant to the problems of 2011.

Again your posts do you no favors.

It has more to do with that if:

1) I choose to enter into a contract in my person, MB....or

rather, I start an LLC with my friend, San Francisco Buckeye and

2) We decide to enter into a similar contract.

The states are unable to prohibit (2) from happening.

majorspark;929678 wrote:Because corporations are groups of people that have a right to lobby their representative.

True. A Constitutional right in fact.

Lobbying is not the problem.

False. Lobbying is a major problem.

Why do you think we spend 1.1 trillion on all defense appropriations? Defending our freedoms? Nope. Pork barrel spending ....pushed forward by lobbyists. Do you like paying $200 a month for a RX? Thank your local pharmaceutical lobbyist. Like spending 72K for your kid's college education? Give a hug to the education lobbies.

You want unfetterd capitalism whereby fair competition is the norm? Amend the Constitution to ban lobbyists.

BigYtownRed;929709 wrote:If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. The problem with the OWSers is lack of intestinal fortitude to go get a job. Sorry that you went to law school, engineering school, your major was in education or basket weaving & you can't find a job in your desired field. A degree (diploma) only shows that you have an ability to learn it is not a guarantee for a job in your field. So you flip burgers, work at the movie house or do lawnscaping for a couple of years, boo hoo!

The other day I was thinking of my immediate family, brother, sister, myself & two cousins plus all of our sibling's (brother & sister inlaws). 24 people total & there are a couple that aren't employed because they choose to be stay at home moms. Union carpenters, engineer, doctor, industrial designers, teachers, utility employee, computer tech, secretary, therapist, etc. We all contribute to society because our parents (& grandparents) taught us as Americans it was our job to pull our own weight & not be a burden on our neighbor.

These marches are an indication of lack of proper upbringing & lack of love for your fellow man. How can a bunch of hippies that love to smoke dope (not all OWSers) want the freedom to live life & no one bother them but then turn insist that a rich guy give him money or just some job pulled out of thin air? Leave the rich guy alone & let him live his life the way he chooses...... ......HYPOCITES!

We all have the freedom & privilege to make money then take the risks involved to start our own business, invest money & become rich but few of us have the stones to attempt it. That is why most of us collect a paycheck. In 27 years of employment I have never worked for a poor person. Was laid off once for three months & was ashamed to collect unemployment. I couldn't wait to find new work no matter what it was. These people should be setting up camp in front of the WH instead of Wall St. The TARP money was paid back with interest. Wall St kept up their end of the bargin.

All I see is a bunch of slackers. If they want ideas they should buy things made in the USA only. Sorry that won't work out for them because they spent the last 15 years buying Chinese goods. Maybe they should pressure Washington to reduce the highest corporate tax rate in the world (35%) so those free rich guys that should be able to make money however they see fit can afford to do business over here..... Hypocrites is what I see!

You're really missing the reality that exists when there is persistently high unemployment. Even if every single person who desires to be employed at the Wall Street Protests suddenly found themselves willing and able to work minimum wage retail jobs or shovel gravel there is not enough employment to go around! There is a surplus of labor with downward pressure on wages, no inflation and expanding real debt burdens which will further depress the demand for goods and services.

Sitting around and saying "Suck it up and take any job you can!" makes no sense when unemployment has been > 8% for almost half a decade. College educated women are prostituting themselves for heaven's sake...many of them to wall street employees. What a bountiful land of of opportunity? That's one way to get a trickle down eh?

Do you know any banks giving out capital credit for these hippies to start a business venture? What are they going to secure it with, their intangible human capital paid for with debt they already can't pay back? Whether you think it's because there's not enough demand for goods and services or because of uncertainty over domestic political gridlock as exemplified by the debt ceiling debate, there is little hope that we will be anywhere near capable of employing all the people who desire to work any time soon.

But that's it, people would rather be wandering around the streets than have a job. Maybe some people, but those people don't get jobs when there's 3% unemployment. You say yourself that when you were unemployed you couldn't wait to take any job. Why not suppose that most of the people out there who are unemployed, many for much longer than you, don't share those same sentiments?

Perhaps you'll say, "because they're commies!" Even if we accept that they're just "leftist miscreants" who start clamoring for their big government solutions, they wouldn't be out there wandering in the streets if they were actually being employed. Nothing shuts up a marxist faster than a chance to earn a decent living taking part in the fruits of capitalism.

BoatShoes;929683 wrote:This is nonsense. the FDIC-plus-regulations-plus-lender of last resort system kept us free of banking crises for 50 years after the Great Depression; it was only when we once again began venturing into the intoxicating vice of financial deregulation when eroded that system and bad stuff started happening again. You must have skipped over Adam Smith on you way to Hayek who compared the need for bank regulation to the need for fire codes in urban buildings. There's always the threat of regulatory capture but we know (but which you refuse to accept) from past experience that letting banks fail whether it's because Hank Paulson wants to make an example out of one or because the FED is constrained by the Gold Standard has disastrous consequences.

And here's the quote from smith if you're interested.

"Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respect a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as or the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed."

Good answer. This is a rare case where I disagree with C Buck and the pro libertarians. I feast on reading libertarian websites....but they speak with forked tongue on the issue of non policing of the major corporations. Libertarians believe that the corporatacry will behave themselves without being policed...nonsense. Libertarians see no reason to have Anti Trust regulations. More nonsense.

I also have a huge problem with libertarians that chastise the so called power elite....whenever the power elite is by definition the end game for pure Austrian School economics.

I love Ron Paul, and will vote for him again....inspite of his misunderstanding of how unfettered capitalism will denigrate into a proletariat/bourgeousie state...given time.

And Boat...you are one of the very few here that has researched what Adam Smith really stood for.

BigYtownRed;929709 wrote:If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. The problem with the OWSers is lack of intestinal fortitude to go get a job. Sorry that you went to law school, engineering school, your major was in education or basket weaving & you can't find a job in your desired field. A degree (diploma) only shows that you have an ability to learn it is not a guarantee for a job in your field. So you flip burgers, work at the movie house or do lawnscaping for a couple of years, boo hoo!

The other day I was thinking of my immediate family, brother, sister, myself & two cousins plus all of our sibling's (brother & sister inlaws). 24 people total & there are a couple that aren't employed because they choose to be stay at home moms. Union carpenters, engineer, doctor, industrial designers, teachers, utility employee, computer tech, secretary, therapist, etc. We all contribute to society because our parents (& grandparents) taught us as Americans it was our job to pull our own weight & not be a burden on our neighbor.

These marches are an indication of lack of proper upbringing & lack of love for your fellow man. How can a bunch of hippies that love to smoke dope (not all OWSers) want the freedom to live life & no one bother them but then turn insist that a rich guy give him money or just some job pulled out of thin air? Leave the rich guy alone & let him live his life the way he chooses...... ......HYPOCITES!

We all have the freedom & privilege to make money then take the risks involved to start our own business, invest money & become rich but few of us have the stones to attempt it. That is why most of us collect a paycheck. In 27 years of employment I have never worked for a poor person. Was laid off once for three months & was ashamed to collect unemployment. I couldn't wait to find new work no matter what it was. These people should be setting up camp in front of the WH instead of Wall St. The TARP money was paid back with interest. Wall St kept up their end of the bargin.

All I see is a bunch of slackers. If they want ideas they should buy things made in the USA only. Sorry that won't work out for them because they spent the last 15 years buying Chinese goods. Maybe they should pressure Washington to reduce the highest corporate tax rate in the world (35%) so those free rich guys that should be able to make money however they see fit can afford to do business over here..... Hypocrites is what I see!

You have a preconceived notion of these people to say the least. Sure, there are some that fit the bill that you have described. But the intelligent ones that are there have solid reason and purpose.

Our country's standard of living is wayyy down over the past few decades....and is getting worse. Globalization has been very good for a very few, but horrible for American macro-economics. Our poverty rate has just hit a record high. Unemployment touches out at 17%. Corporate America not only condones sweat shop labor and worker rights abuses in china, they demand it. You say that the bankers paid back their "loan". And how did they do that in such a crap economy? They did it through collusion in setting higher spreads of their lending rates versus savings rate....thus stealing from the most law abiding, conservative, saving Americans. That's how.

The Wall Street protesters situation always brings out the right and the left, spewing their favorite radio hosts talking points. People don't research the opposing side....they live in their own little bubbly partisan hack world....and they have absolutely no ability to research and arbitrate the reasons for why people do what they do.

Here's an article that explains the real rationale behind these protesters. Inspite of what you say, the collective thinking far transcends the left wing point of view.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-..._b_998771.html

Another feces covered, pot smoking hippie...

BoatShoes;929683 wrote:This is nonsense. the FDIC-plus-regulations-plus-lender of last resort system kept us free of banking crises for 50 years after the Great Depression; it was only when we once again began venturing into the intoxicating vice of financial deregulation when eroded that system and bad stuff started happening again. You must have skipped over Adam Smith on you way to Hayek who compared the need for bank regulation to the need for fire codes in urban buildings. There's always the threat of regulatory capture but we know (but which you refuse to accept) from past experience that letting banks fail whether it's because Hank Paulson wants to make an example out of one or because the FED is constrained by the Gold Standard has disastrous consequences.

It depends on your definition of banking crises. No we haven't had runs on the banks like the 1930s until this ordeal. That doesn't mean we haven't had crises. Many people believe a 98% loss in the value of the dollar since the advent of the Federal Reserve as a crisis. The government has been bailing out banks and corporations since Reagan was in office. Those aren't bank panics, but the affects are at least as tragic to our economy. And the idea that letting banks fail has disastrous consequences is laughable. Consequences like the dreaded deflation, right? Where that wealth inequality they are protesting swings back the other way away from the rich.

BoatShoes;929683 wrote: And here's the quote from smith if you're interested.

"Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respect a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as or the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed."

Adam Smith is no doubt a critical figure in the history of economics, but no one man is the end-all-be-all. Still, while I haven't read Wealth of Nations in it's entirety, the regulations he talks about don't seem to be anything like the one's you are pushing for. Here is the first part of the quote you posted:

"To restrain private people, it may be said, from receiving in payment the promissory notes of a banker, for any sum whether great or small, when they themselves are willing to receive them; or, to restrain a banker from issuing such notes, when all his neighbours are willing to accept of them, is a manifest violation of that natural liberty which it is the proper business of law, not to infringe, but to support."

Restraining the ability of the bank to pay in paper is something the law should be able to regulate. Sounds like trying to restrict the supply of paper money. If you look elsewhere, you will see that is exactly what he advocates:

"If bankers are restrained from issuing any circulating bank notes, or notes payable to the bearer, for less than a certain sum; and if they are subjected to the obligation of an immediate and unconditional payment of such bank notes as soon as presented, their trade may, with safety to the public, be rendered in all other respects perfectly free. The late multiplication of banking companies in both parts of the united kingdom, an event by which many people have been much alarmed, instead of diminishing, increases the security of the public. It obliges all of them to be more circumspect in their conduct, and, by not extending their currency beyond its due proportion to their cash, to guard themselves against those malicious runs, which the rivalship of so many competitors is always ready to bring upon them. It restrains the circulation of each particular company within a narrower circle, and reduces their circulating notes to a smaller number. By dividing the whole circulation into a greater number of parts, the failure of any one company, an accident which, in the course of things, must sometimes happen, becomes of less consequence to the public. This free competition, too, obliges all bankers to be more liberal in their dealings with their customers, lest their rivals should carry them away. In general, if any branch of trade, or any division of labour, be advantageous to the public, the freer and more general the competition, it will always be the more so."

So in essence he supports regulation to outlaw fractional reserve banking, which I am not opposed to. Anarcho-capitalists don't see the need for this to be law, they feel that insolvent banks that can't redeem their notes in money just be liquidated, and that is enough incentive. I can see that, but I don't go quite as far as they do, and if the government wanted to ban fractional reserve banking I wouldn't oppose it. I didn't see anything where he advocates picking and choosing specific types of financial instruments to regulate, as though that is going to have some great effect.

My comment wasn't even about the general need for regulation in banking, but how regulation wouldn't have solved the problem in this case. When you have access to all the cheap credit you want and you will be bailed out when you fall on your face, you are going to do stupid things. If we would have kept the Depression era regulations in place, we would have a crisis right now that looks different because that credit would have gone into a different bubble, but we would still have a crisis. Artificially low interest rates and inflationary monetary policy causes a crisis somewhere, every single time.

Footwedge;929772 wrote:Good answer. This is a rare case where I disagree with C Buck and the pro libertarians. I feast on reading libertarian websites....but they speak with forked tongue on the issue of non policing of the major corporations. Libertarians believe that the corporatacry will behave themselves without being policed...nonsense. Libertarians see no reason to have Anti Trust regulations. More nonsense.

I also have a huge problem with libertarians that chastise the so called power elite....whenever the power elite is by definition the end game for pure Austrian School economics.

I love Ron Paul, and will vote for him again....inspite of his misunderstanding of how unfettered capitalism will denigrate into a proletariat/bourgeousie state...given time.

And Boat...you are one of the very few here that has researched what Adam Smith really stood for.

The one and only aspect that I don't agree with the Austrian school is their handling of anti-trust regulation. I believe you have to have some way of ensuring you don't have monopolies running the show.

The Austrians do make a compelling argument though. If you look through our history, a monopoly has yet to naturally pop up in the market without the government getting involved subsidizing or giving them special privileges or contracts. If we restrain the government then it takes care of the vast majority of anti-trust regulation we need. It also eliminates the need to worry about lobbyists. If the government can't help them, they have no reason to lobby for benefits or subsidies or tax breaks.

Cleveland Buck;929795 wrote:The one and only aspect that I don't agree with the Austrian school is their handling of anti-trust regulation. I believe you have to have some way of ensuring you don't have monopolies running the show.

The Austrians do make a compelling argument though. If you look through our history, a monopoly has yet to naturally pop up in the market without the government getting involved subsidizing or giving them special privileges or contracts. If we restrain the government then it takes care of the vast majority of anti-trust regulation we need. It also eliminates the need to worry about lobbyists. If the government can't help them, they have no reason to lobby for benefits or subsidies or tax breaks.

Well said, and far more succinctly that I would have.

Regarding anti-trust laws, or a lack thereof, it's not a belief that big biz will just play nicely together in the sandbox that validates it as a position (at least in theory). It's the belief that the ills of a monopoly breed competition. Naturally, the chess game ensues, with the big business trying to go low enough for long enough to drive the little guy out of business, but the problem will remain that if that is successful, and prices go back up, another competitor pops back up. The reality is that more than one at a time would likely be showing up as well.

An industry whose players continue to arouse discontentment among consumers will always be a breeding ground for competition.

I'd be curious if such a model has been proven to not work in the Austrian model, as I've certainly never heard of anything of the sort.

Ty Webb;928945 wrote:It's hard to understand the difference when there is NO difference

Mooney44Cards;929785 wrote:Another feces covered, pot smoking hippie...

This guy better not still currently be enlisted. If I remember correctly, being in uniform and even showing up at a protest of any kind is a violation of the UCMJ. Glory, can you confirm this? It has been nearly 10 years since I had to study the UCMJ.

dwccrew;929810 wrote:This guy better not still currently be enlisted. If I remember correctly, being in uniform and even showing up at a protest of any kind is a violation of the UCMJ. Glory, can you confirm this? It has been nearly 10 years since I had to study the UCMJ.

It is, indeed, a violation of the UCMJ. Definite invitation to an Article 15.

I Wear Pants;929672 wrote:Why do we even allow corporate lobbying?

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, for starters.

Ty Webb;929733 wrote:The corporate entities themselves do not....and if you think they do you are crazy,stupid,or both

Ok so what you are saying here is corporate entities should not be subject the same rights as their members. Just remember not all corporate entities are Exxon, GM, Wal-Mart, etc.. Not that it would matter. Are you ok with any of the following. I'll wait for you answer or anyone one from anyone else. I am quite interested how anyone would be ok with the following:

Just applying it to the bill of rights. Lets start with the 1st amendment. Corporate entities should not have first amendment rights. Part of which is the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. You are advocating corporations can't purchase ads to redress their grievances.

Next the 2nd amendment. Lets say a corporation that provides a security service purchases firearms in order to provide personal security to its customers. Those firearms are not the personal property of its individual employees, but of the corporate entity. Since you argue these corporate entities should not be subject to constitutional protection, you should find no problem with the federal government confiscating those firearms if they so desire.

3rd amendment. Without the protection of this amendment corporate entities can be forced to house and supply federal troops without their permission. You find no problem with this? Would it be ok for the federal government to force a corporate entity to house and supply federal troops?

4th amendment. Without the protection of this amendment the federal government could search and seize corporate property without warrant. Evidence could be gathered without warrant and suit brought against them in a court of law. The feds could use said evidence against the corporation at trial. After all these despicable corporations should not have the same rights as individuals.

5th amendment. Without the protection of this amendment corporate property could be taken without due process. Federal authorities could take corporate property for public use without just compensation. After all those corporate bastards need to be made to serve the public.

6th amendment. Is specifically in reguards to criminal prosecutions. This would imply that criminal accusations against a corporation would not require a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury in the State and district where the crime was committed. No need for the federal government to inform the corporation of the nature and cause of their accusations. No need to be confronted with the witnesses against said corporation. No need to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the corporations favor. Definitely no need to have the assistance of counsel for the corporations defense. Although no individual member of the corporation would be subject to abuses. The corporate entity could be put out of business because of them.

7th amendment. No right to a trial by jury for these corporate entities. We know they are nothing but evil profit mongers, who want dirty air and water. Lets put them before a congressional panel to answer for their for unjust practices. Without a trial by jury the federal government at its whim should be able to rule as they see fit. A federal judge will impose his punishment directly on them.

8th amendment. The federal government surely can impose excessive fines on these evil corporations. Exxon guilty of too large of a carbon footprint. Fine $40 billion. Federal power to fine them right out of business or right into their pocket

Again.....if you want so badly for them to have the same rights as individuals, why aren't they subject to the same laws? A lot of fraud was committed on Wall Street, no one was arrested.

I Wear Pants;929298 wrote:He campaigned on it and was easily elected. I'd say people wanted it.

Your position is not supported by most polls. Just because someone got elected doesn't mean that the majority of the country agreed/wants everything they campaigned on. I think we all know that a fair portion of his votes were "anyone but 'McBush'" votes. Just like many of the votes that get him out of office are going to be "anything but Obama" votes.

Mooney44Cards;929605 wrote:Look, I'm not going to defend everything they're asking for because, again, nobody will ever agree on everything. But Washington does need more power, but the power to protect its people. As it is, Washington cannot protect the people because they are paid off by the big corporations in what is essentially a legal bribe to protect the best interests of Wall Street to the detriment of average joes.

I still don't understand why people waste energy attacking these people. No they are not perfect white God-fearing well dressed citizens, no not all of their ideas are good, no there is no clear "end-game" here. But shouldn't you be mocking the real problem, not the people who want to solve it....even if they have no idea how?

The last thing the government needs is more power.

Mooney44Cards;929785 wrote:Another feces covered, pot smoking hippie...

dwccrew;929810 wrote:This guy better not still currently be enlisted. If I remember correctly, being in uniform and even showing up at a protest of any kind is a violation of the UCMJ. Glory, can you confirm this? It has been nearly 10 years since I had to study the UCMJ.

couldnt be sure, but believer seems to know. it does appear he is wearing specialist rank without any unit crest on his beret(i thought the beret was discontinued recently?). so either he is straight out of basic as a specialist(although it looks like he has too many ribbons for that) and headed to the 2ID or is a soup sandwich. i would take the bet he is a soup sandwich.

Mooney44Cards;929884 wrote:Again.....if you want so badly for them to have the same rights as individuals, why aren't they subject to the same laws? A lot of fraud was committed on Wall Street, no one was arrested.

What laws are they not subject to? Be specific. There is a lot of fraud going by politicians in Washington too.

I am sure this raid by the feds is right up your alley.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903895904576542942027859286.html
Federal agents first raided Gibson factories in November 2009 and were back again Aug. 24, seizing guitars, wood and electronic records. Gene Nix, a wood product engineer at Gibson, was questioned by agents after the first raid and told he could face five years in jail.
"Can you imagine a federal agent saying, 'You're going to jail for five years' and what you do is sort wood in the factory?" said Mr. Juszkiewicz, recounting the incident. "I think that's way over the top." Gibson employees, he said, are being "treated like drug criminals."

Mooney44Cards;929884 wrote:Again.....if you want so badly for them to have the same rights as individuals, why aren't they subject to the same laws? A lot of fraud was committed on Wall Street, no one was arrested.

Just because the government doesn't enforce the law doesn't mean those laws aren't there. The government is just in bed with them. If you restrain the government's ability to grant them favors and force them to uphold the law then you solve the problem without violating anyone's rights.

Cleveland Buck;929925 wrote:Just because the government doesn't enforce the law doesn't mean those laws aren't there. The government is just in bed with them. If you restrain the government's ability to grant them favors and force them to uphold the law then you solve the problem without violating anyone's rights.

Exactly. Get rid of all the subsidies and tax credits to corporations. There is reason why millions are pouring into the parasite economy.

Writerbuckeye;929444 wrote:So are we supposed to take these protesters seriously...really?

When they disrupt and **** on cop cars, apparently smell to high heaven, and have demands that are some of the most ridiculous crap I've read in a long time -- but yet the media is DYING to give them credibility, and so are some of you.

This would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetically sad.

You know the media is dying to make this a positive story, yet nearly all the pictures I see are either hippies or naive college students, likely influenced by their hippie professors. A good number also seem to be what I would characterize as "professional" protestors, you know, people who need something to bitch about to give their life meaning.

Cleveland Buck;929925 wrote:Just because the government doesn't enforce the law doesn't mean those laws aren't there. The government is just in bed with them. If you restrain the government's ability to grant them favors and force them to uphold the law then you solve the problem without violating anyone's rights.

This is my opinion exactly. But just because a law isn't enforced doesn't mean its ok for you to break that law. Wall Street is the main culprit as they have not only broken the law over and over, they have basically paid politicians to not give a fuck.

You know the media is dying to make this a positive story, yet nearly all the pictures I see are either old people dreaming of an America that doesn't exist or gun-toting rednecks, likely influenced by their conservative talking heads. A good number also seem to be what I would characterize as "professional" protestors, you know, people who need something to bitch about to give their life meaning.

See what I did there?