Register to reply

US To Convene a Constitutional Convention

Share this thread:
Drakkith
#19
Jul14-11, 07:55 AM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,837
Quote Quote by Dotini View Post
If corporate interests influence government through corruptions made possible by wide open spending, then that delivers government into the hands of corporations. This is one of several definitions of fascism, and is, or was, too authoritarian for most Americans.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve
Umm, that didn't answer anything I asked.
SixNein
#20
Jul14-11, 08:43 AM
PF Gold
SixNein's Avatar
P: 194
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
I don't quite understand the "Corporate Entity" thing or whatever. If I own a business, and want to donate 10 million dollars to someone fund, that is my choice. How is that any different from a Corporation? Don't the people in charge have the right to use their money the way they want to?



Perhaps I don't know the details, so forgive me and educate me if I am wrong. Aren't the corporations controlled by the owners, or major shareholders, or whoever? Whenever the company has profit, isn't it they who are in direct control over it? As long as dividends and employees are paid, what is the problem with those people using their money?
A shareholder has limited ownership of a company, and he or she does not manage the company. In addition, he or she may not be aware of the political activities of the company.
WhoWee
#21
Jul14-11, 09:21 AM
P: 1,123
Only taxpayers - that is people who pay federal income taxes - should be allowed to vote. Parents don't allow the children to make major spending decisions - do they?
daveb
#22
Jul14-11, 09:46 AM
P: 925
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
Only taxpayers - that is people who pay federal income taxes - should be allowed to vote. Parents don't allow the children to make major spending decisions - do they?
The problem with this is that it leads to a plutocracy in several respects. First, it eliminates certain people from voting who earn little money due to religious (Jesuit priests and Buddhist monks, e.g.) or personal choice (Peace Corps volunteers).

Second, when coupled with the elimination of minimum wage laws (which you have seemed to support and which is an official platform of the libertarian party), or the ability of companies such as McDonalds to hire 20 people at 10 hours per week instead of 5 people at 40 hours per week (and even then they still might not make enough to exceed the poverty level) it means companies control who does and doesn;'t vote (to an extent).
WhoWee
#23
Jul14-11, 09:48 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by daveb View Post
The problem with this is that it leads to a plutocracy in several respects. First, it eliminates certain people from voting who earn little money due to religious (Jesuit priests and Buddhist monks, e.g.) or personal choice (Peace Corps volunteers).

Second, when coupled with the elimination of minimum wage laws (which you have seemed to support and which is an official platform of the libertarian party), or the ability of companies such as McDonalds to hire 20 people at 10 hours per week instead of 5 people at 40 hours per week (and even then they still might not make enough to exceed the poverty level) it means companies control who does and doesn;'t vote (to an extent).
What it does is eliminate persons who receive tax dollars from influencing how many dollars they receive - that is more than fair (IMO).
daveb
#24
Jul14-11, 09:52 AM
P: 925
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
What it does is eliminate persons who receive tax dollars from influencing how many dollars they receive - that is more than fair (IMO).


Please don't tell me you ARE advocating a plutocracy?!?!
WhoWee
#25
Jul14-11, 09:56 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by daveb View Post


Please don't tell me you ARE advocating a plutocracy?!?!
Are you suggesting alien invasion (too many bugeyes IMO)

Is that a strawman you're posing?
daveb
#26
Jul14-11, 10:12 AM
P: 925
No, I stated, in response to your advocacy of only allowing those who pay federal taxes to vote, that it could lead to a plutocracy. Your response to that was that it eliminates (I assume you mean from the voting rosters) persons who receive tax dollars from influencong how many dollars they receive. So I asked if you were advocating plutocracy? How is that an argument in any form (let alone a strawman)?

You do realize that corporations receive tax dollars (in the form of subsidies and tax breaks)? Does this mean corporations should not be allowed to vote, as Om-Cheeto quoted M. Youn as saying? Or should they not receive subsidies or tax breaks of any kind?
WhoWee
#27
Jul14-11, 10:21 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by daveb View Post
No, I stated, in response to your advocacy of only allowing those who pay federal taxes to vote, that it could lead to a plutocracy. Your response to that was that it eliminates (I assume you mean from the voting rosters) persons who receive tax dollars from influencong how many dollars they receive. So I asked if you were advocating plutocracy? How is that an argument in any form (let alone a strawman)?

You do realize that corporations receive tax dollars (in the form of subsidies and tax breaks)? Does this mean corporations should not be allowed to vote, as Om-Cheeto quoted M. Youn as saying? Or should they not receive subsidies or tax breaks of any kind?
Another strawman - this time corporate tax breaks? What exactly is a "tax break" - do you mean the $40+Billion tax credit GM received as part of the union bailout - or are we talking about GE not paying any taxes last year?

Welfare recipients should not be allowed to decide how much they will receive - is that clear enough?
daveb
#28
Jul14-11, 10:31 AM
P: 925
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
Another strawman - this time corporate tax breaks?
Nice evasion (and strawman I would also say, by not answering my question and instead accusing me of using two strawman).

Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
What exactly is a "tax break" - do you mean the $40+Billion tax credit GM received as part of the union bailout - or are we talking about GE not paying any taxes last year?
Both are tax breaks - I was against the bailouts and I am against the GE tax breaks.

Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
Welfare recipients should not be allowed to decide how much they will receive - is that clear enough?
Yes, and I agree with this as well. Now that I've answered all of your questions directed at me, how about answering my single one. Are you advocating something (i.e., allowing only those who pay taxes to vote) that could potentially lead to a plutocracy? If not, please say so. If you think it wouldn't lead to a plutocracy, please tell me how it would not.
WhoWee
#29
Jul14-11, 10:40 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by daveb View Post
Nice evasion (and strawman I would also say, by not answering my question and instead accusing me of using two strawman).


Both are tax breaks - I was against the bailouts and I am against the GE tax breaks.


Yes, and I agree with this as well. Now that I've answered all of your questions directed at me, how about answering my single one. Are you advocating something (i.e., allowing only those who pay taxes to vote) that could potentially lead to a plutocracy? If not, please say so. If you think it wouldn't lead to a plutocracy, please tell me how it would not.
Isn't Plutocracy governance by the wealthy? I'm in favor of governance by the tax payers. Now, if only the wealthy will be paying taxes in the future - then I guess under those very strict circumstances - you got me?
daveb
#30
Jul14-11, 10:54 AM
P: 925
Ah! Now I understnd the dissonance between us!

Plutocracy is not strictly a governance by the wealthy. It can also be "a controlling class of the wealthy" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plutocracy
or "a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plutocracy

No, I don't think such a move (about voting rights) would allow only the wealthy to control government. But I do believe they definitely would be able to exercise more power and influence simply by virtue of their wealth (OK the wealthy are able to do that now anyway, despite the fact that those who pay no taxes are able to vote).
daveb
#31
Jul14-11, 10:59 AM
P: 925
By the way, how would you solve the disparity about priests, monks, Peace Corps volunteers, etc. not being able to vote by your system? Would exceptions be made for these folks?
mege
#32
Jul14-11, 11:06 AM
P: 193
Quote Quote by Dotini View Post
If corporate interests influence government through corruptions made possible by wide open spending, then that delivers government into the hands of corporations. This is one of several definitions of fascism, and is, or was, too authoritarian for most Americans.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve
I always thought it was the other way around - Facism was the government exerting control over the corporations for nationalistic purposes?
WhoWee
#33
Jul14-11, 11:13 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by daveb View Post
Ah! Now I understnd the dissonance between us!

Plutocracy is not strictly a governance by the wealthy. It can also be "a controlling class of the wealthy" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plutocracy
or "a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plutocracy

No, I don't think such a move (about voting rights) would allow only the wealthy to control government. But I do believe they definitely would be able to exercise more power and influence simply by virtue of their wealth (OK the wealthy are able to do that now anyway, despite the fact that those who pay no taxes are able to vote).
Under your definition - I think we're already there and (Democrats) posture to use the "poor" and "labor" to maintain power. Conservative Republicans are easy targets because they want to limit spending and reduce Government and benefits (except when they acted like Democrats a few years ago) - the Left would say they're not very cool.

IMO - welfare should be a safety net - not a way of life. Also, nameless and faceless corporate influence should be kept in check. I consider myself an unrepresented angry independent - a small business owner and I'm not alone. We pay taxes and are steamrolled by administrative actions and legislation - like Obamacare. Ever increasing energy costs can not be passed on to consumers - yet the ideologues continue to discuss cap and trade (tax) and forced unionization (as if the current minimum wage didn't hurt enough small businesses).

President Obama was correct about one thing - he is forcing change - unfortunately for him he's speeding up the inevitable reversal of the welfare state mentality - again IMO.
mege
#34
Jul14-11, 11:16 AM
P: 193
Quote Quote by daveb View Post
By the way, how would you solve the disparity about priests, monks, Peace Corps volunteers, etc. not being able to vote by your system? Would exceptions be made for these folks?
Wouldn't their virtue be their own reward? :p Why do they need to vote?!

Seriously though, I think WhoWee's real point is that individuals leeching from the system shouldn't have a say in how much they benefit. There's already precident when dealing with felons. They become wards of the state, don't contribute, and yet tax dollars go towards 30-40k/year for them. If someone cannot manage themselves to exit poverty, then why should they have a say in the government?

I don't know if I agree with this principle or not, but I see some of the principles behind it: esspecially where there is potential for some to be writing their own check.
daveb
#35
Jul14-11, 11:27 AM
P: 925
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
Under your definition - I think we're already there and (Democrats) posture to use the "poor" and "labor" to maintain power. Conservative Republicans are easy targets because they want to limit spending and reduce Government and benefits (except when they acted like Democrats a few years ago) - the Left would say they're not very cool..
No disagreement there. I think it's despicable of some democrats to do this. Some republicans do it about democrat policy. I prefer reasoned debate. Demonizing helps no one.

Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
IMO - welfare should be a safety net - not a way of life. Also, nameless and faceless corporate influence should be kept in check. I consider myself an unrepresented angry independent - a small business owner and I'm not alone. We pay taxes and are steamrolled by administrative actions and legislation - like Obamacare. Ever increasing energy costs can not be passed on to consumers - yet the ideologues continue to discuss cap and trade (tax) and forced unionization (as if the current minimum wage didn't hurt enough small businesses).

President Obama was correct about one thing - he is forcing change - unfortunately for him he's speeding up the inevitable reversal of the welfare state mentality - again IMO.
I would agree with most of this as well, except Obamacare, which (although I support) it's a sort of "cross my fingers and god I hope this works" type of support. While I agree businesses are getting steamrolled by it, I am of the opinion that something needs to be done, and no one else has proposed measures that (to my mind) have any hope of working.

Of course, I have a stake in Obamacare, since I have a girlfriend and another friend, both who have medical conditions that prevent them from getting any medical coverage, and even if they could, it wouldn't be affordable.
mege
#36
Jul14-11, 11:41 AM
P: 193
Quote Quote by daveb View Post
No disagreement there. I think it's despicable of some democrats to do this. Some republicans do it about democrat policy. I prefer reasoned debate. Demonizing helps no one.



I would agree with most of this as well, except Obamacare, which (although I support) it's a sort of "cross my fingers and god I hope this works" type of support. While I agree businesses are getting steamrolled by it, I am of the opinion that something needs to be done, and no one else has proposed measures that (to my mind) have any hope of working.

Of course, I have a stake in Obamacare, since I have a girlfriend and another friend, both who have medical conditions that prevent them from getting any medical coverage, and even if they could, it wouldn't be affordable.
My favorite anti-ACA quote comes from Sen. Clinton during the 2008 campaigns: "Mandating that everyone buy health insurance to fix the health care system is like mandating that everyone buy a house to stop homelessness. It just doesn't work."

Mandating that everyone buy into a broken system doesn't solve anything, let alone the liberty consequences :/


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Convention for npn and pnp bjt Electrical Engineering 0
Was the peaceful assembly constitutional? Current Events 29
Uh oh... Proposed Constitutional Amendment Current Events 31
Iraq will be the only Constitutional Democracy in the middle east? Current Events 19