Why the United States is Fucked

[Johnfromokc]

 

[All Else Failed]

For a guy who denys watching, reading and listening to conservobot media, you sure have the propaganda down Koolaid man.

Are you joking? Both parties trumpet democracy as their sacred cow. Republicans would never say what I just said.

 

[Stone]

Pure democracy is indeed tyranny, not just a precursor. It's tyranny of the majority. That's why we balance that with our Constitution. Well, we tried to balance it, and it worked for awhile. Now we have tyranny of the oligarchy. Corporatocracy.

I'm sure that last comment ( Corporatocracy ) pleased those on the left and there is, indeed, much to it. But that's not the clear picture.
Added to that is the labor movement ( particularly public sector unions ) that also vie for control in our society.
http://www.economist.com/node/17851305

A government based on democracy would be better described as chaos...... as polarized 'mobs' vie for control....imo.
The mob that dominates is the tyranny. Major corporations have, indeed, had an upper hand lately, but they aren't the only 'game in town'.

 

[Accountable]

I'm sure that last comment ( Corporatocracy ) pleased those on the left and there is, indeed, much to it.

That "O" is a joke between John and me. It's not about Obama. Obama is nothing more than a corporate employee, just like Bush, Gingrich, Romney, & Santorum. You'll be hard-pressed to find any real partisanship in me.

But that's not the clear picture.
Added to that is the labor movement ( particularly public sector unions ) that also vie for control in our society.
http://www.economist.com/node/17851305

Unions are corporations, too. I draw no distinction. They all want the same thing from gov't:

• legislative protection from competition
• insulation from risk
• subsidies

and they all pay for it the same way.

A government based on democracy would be better described as chaos...... as polarized 'mobs' vie for control....imo.
The mob that dominates is the tyranny. Major corporations have, indeed, had an upper hand lately, but they aren't the only 'game in town'.

What other 'games' are there, or are you referring only to unions?

 

[Johnfromokc]

Unions are corporations, too. I draw no distinction. They all want the same thing from gov't:

• legislative protection from competition
• insulation from risk
• subsidies

and they all pay for it the same way.

Disagree. There is a huge difference between a union whose function is to negotiate wages and working conditions for its members and a corporation whose purpose is to enrich its principals.

Corporations out earn unions more than 500 to 1. To back that up, go the USBLS and look at union dues collected. Then look to the S&P 500 corporations income reports. Hell, the smaller companies in NASDAQ out earn all unions combined.

Sorry, but labor unions are not the "Big Labor" boogey man corpratocracy claims them to be.

Since you brought it up - Can you provide evidence and examples to support any union that receives government subsidies?

 

[Stone]

...............


What other 'games' are there, or are you referring only to unions?

I make a distinction between the concepts of corporations and unions and since I used the singular of 'game'...I am referring to labor in that post.

 

[Accountable]

Disagree. There is a huge difference between a union whose function is to negotiate wages and working conditions for its members and a corporation whose purpose is to enrich its principals.

Members own the unions. Legally, unions are set up nearly identical to corporations if I'm not mistaken. So, both corporate entities (same with different names, just like repubs & dems) serve to benefit their owners. You can argue tactics & effectiveness if you wish; I don't see the relevance. What is relevant is that they both lobby the gov't to do the three things I mentioned.

Can you provide evidence and examples to support any union that receives government subsidies?

I'd say that legislating a mandate to join a union if you wish to work is one hell of a subsidy. Guaranteed income thanks to the government.

I make a distinction between the concepts of corporations and unions and since I used the singular of 'game'...I am referring to labor in that post.

I'd just like for us all to take a moment to commemorate the occasion of John & Stone agreeing. The Maya only mentioned this once or twice on their calendar.

 

[Stone]

Members own the unions. Legally, unions are set up nearly identical to corporations if I'm not mistaken. So, both corporate entities (same with different names, just like repubs & dems) serve to benefit their owners. You can argue tactics & effectiveness if you wish; I don't see the relevance. What is relevant is that they both lobby the gov't to do the three things I mentioned.

I'd say that legislating a mandate to join a union if you wish to work is one hell of a subsidy. Guaranteed income thanks to the government.


I'd just like for us all to take a moment to commemorate the occasion of John & Stone agreeing. The Maya only mentioned this once or twice on their calendar.

So, both corporate entities.......serve to benefit their owners.

Union members pay to belong.....called 'union dues'.

Legally, unions are set up nearly identical to corporations if I'm not mistaken.

Please show an example.

So, both corporate entities..........serve to benefit their owners.

Logical fallacy......union members don't own their unions as property.

You can argue tactics & effectiveness if you wish; I don't see the relevance.

Objectives could also be argued, but your denial of reality is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that they both lobby the gov't to do the three things I mentioned.

• legislative protection from competition
• insulation from risk
• subsidies

The same could be said of socialist activity in manufacturing, but that doesn't make socialism a corporation.

I'd say that legislating a mandate to join a union if you wish to work is one hell of a subsidy. Guaranteed income thanks to the government.

Again, you don't understand the intended function. One purpose is to negotiate a wage. Others, benefits and safety. Your argument actually projects the government subsidizing corporations for the benefit of Unions.
GM could be viewed in that manner from their recent bailout.
But it's an exception, not a standard.

I'd just like for us all to take a moment to commemorate the occasion of John & Stone agreeing.

 

[Accountable]

Union members pay to belong.....called 'union dues'.

Same result for the purposes of influencing gov't.

Please show an example.

As I said, "if I'm not mistaken." I did have a chance to do a little research, though. A labor union is a 501(c)(5) corporation and is exempt from federal taxes (yet another subsidy).
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/ch04.html

Objectives could also be argued.

Only if the argument is why they seek legislative protection from competition, insulation from risk, and subsidies; not whether they seek them.

The same could be said of socialist activity in manufacturing, but that doesn't make socialism a corporation.

We're not talking about socialism, we're talking about labor unions.

Again, you don't understand the intended function. One purpose is to negotiate a wage. Others, benefits and safety. Your argument actually projects the government subsidizing corporations for the benefit of Unions.

I'm not arguing the function, only showing their similarity in manipulating gov't to seek legislative protection from competition, insulation from risk, and subsidies.

 

[Stone]

Same result for the purposes of influencing gov't.


As I said, "if I'm not mistaken." I did have a chance to do a little research, though. A labor union is a 501(c)(5) corporation and is exempt from federal taxes (yet another subsidy).
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/ch04.html

Only if the argument is why they seek legislative protection from competition, insulation from risk, and subsidies; not whether they seek them.

We're not talking about socialism, we're talking about labor unions.

I'm not arguing the function, only showing their similarity in manipulating gov't to seek legislative protection from competition, insulation from risk, and subsidies.

Same result for the purposes of influencing gov't.

Indeed.
But you are arguing that unions are corporations. They aren't.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/ch04.html

Please point out where on that web page, organizations listed, specifically, are corporations.


I did find this:
excerpt:

Labor Organizations

A labor organization is an association of workers who have combined to protect and promote the interests of the members by bargaining collectively with their employers to secure better working conditions.
To show that your organization has the purpose of a labor organization, you should include in the articles of organization or accompanying statements (submitted with your exemption application) information establishing that the organization is organized to better the conditions of workers, improve the grade of their products, and develop a higher degree of efficiency in their respective occupations. In addition, no net earnings of the organization can inure to the benefit of any member.
Composition of membership. While a labor organization generally is composed of employees or representatives of the employees (in the form of collective bargaining agents) and similar employee groups, evidence that an organization's membership consists mainly of workers does not in itself indicate an exempt purpose. You must show in your application that your organization has the purposes described in the preceding paragraph. These purposes can be accomplished by a single labor organization acting alone or by several organizations acting together through a separate organization.

It does not support your claim that unions are corporations.

Only if the argument is why they seek legislative protection from competition, insulation from risk, and subsidies; not whether they seek them.

I'm not following your logic.

We're not talking about socialism, we're talking about labor unions.

And I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument that unions are corporations.
I've taken your criteria of a corporation and shown how it's misapplied, how it can be misapplied..

I'm not arguing the function

If you are going to make comparisons, you are obliged to compare function.
What you are attempting to compare are results and derive function from similarities.
Unions are not corporations...... but unions and corporations are both organizations.......one comprised of members, the other comprised of owners ( physical ownership )

only showing their similarity in manipulating gov't to seek legislative protection from competition, insulation from risk, and subsidies.

You aren't arguing function, only how they function?
hmmmm.
If you mean unions abuse their power, I agree.

But they aren't corporations.

 

[Accountable]

semantics. The result is the same.

 

[Stone]

semantics. The result is the same.

Semantics ( the meanings of words ) are always relevant, but your interpretations seem more like sophistry.
Unions and corporations are not the same even though they share a trait.

 

[Accountable]

Semantics ( the meanings of words ) are always relevant, but your interpretations seem more like sophistry.
Unions and corporations are not the same even though they share a trait.

It is only that trait that is relevant to this discussion. I'm glad we agree that they both seek legislative protection from competition, insulation from risk, and subsidies.

 

[banned]

This is why America is what it is ……
A private equity firm buys a other firm and stuffs down there throat a big loan borrowed by the bank.
Than that firm uses that debt/loan to give itself and PE firm partners a special bonus so they only have to pay 15 % tax but in the reality this was an income and supposed to be in a higher tax bracket.
Buying firms and blowing them up on purpose is a form of capitalism what I call creative destruction and it is ridiculous that this happens and subsidized by IRS.
This is also a good example how Mr Romney got his fortune build and became rich.
UGLY…..

Ps:"We need a tax system that takes very good care of people who just really aren't as well adapted to the market system, and to capitalism, but are nevertheless just as good citizens, and are doing things that are of use in society,"

 

[Accountable]

I agree that capital gains and any other income should all be considered the same for tax purposes.

 

[banned]

I agree that capital gains and any other income should all be considered the same for tax purposes.

Thas not really what I said....I said we need a tax system what takes good care of people....

I also spoke once with someone who lost his job because of the bankruptcy of his firm taken over by Romney that way.
Not a pretty picture for America to look forward to in the future if this charletan of the banking and business industry becomes your president.

 

[Stone]

This is why America is what it is ……
A private equity firm buys a other firm and stuffs down there throat a big loan borrowed by the bank.
Than that firm uses that debt/loan to give itself and PE firm partners a special bonus so they only have to pay 15 % tax but in the reality this was an income and supposed to be in a higher tax bracket.
Buying firms and blowing them up on purpose is a form of capitalism what I call creative destruction and it is ridiculous that this happens and subsidized by IRS.
This is also a good example how Mr Romney got his fortune build and became rich.
UGLY…..

Ps:"We need a tax system that takes very good care of people who just really aren't as well adapted to the market system, and to capitalism, but are nevertheless just as good citizens, and are doing things that are of use in society,"

This is why America is what it is ……

hmmm...another one sided and obviously biased view of economics in the US.
It's one reason and it is a large influence, but not the only one.
Not only has business been culpable, so has labor and much of the US citizenry ( as you have posted elsewhere )....and you even tried to blame the public's credit issues on me.

We need a tax system that takes very good care of people who just really aren't as well adapted to the market system

So, have you gone from a tax position that's 'fair and just' for all to an obvious 'spread the wealth' socialist position by way of taxation?
Or was it always your position and you moved to the US looking for better opportunities because there might be more wealth here to be shared than where you came from?

but are nevertheless just as good citizens, and are doing things that are of use in society,

You are the first person I've ever debated with that's tried to spin living in poverty as productive.
What's productive about poverty?

 

[Stone]

I agree that capital gains and any other income should all be considered the same for tax purposes.

How about the issue of double taxation as profits generated by a corporation are taxed at both the corporate and corporate owner level?

 

[Stone]

It is only that trait that is relevant to this discussion. I'm glad we agree that they both seek legislative protection from competition, insulation from risk, and subsidies.

sigh!
I think both have undue influence on government......but since they do function differently, their goals don't match and certainly don't compare as readily as you keep trying to project.

 

[Accountable]

How about the issue of double taxation as profits generated by a corporation are taxed at both the corporate and corporate owner level?

I don't think property should be taxed, only the owners. The problem with that is that corps have been allowed to so complicate and entangle themselves as to make it nearly impossible to do. There are many, many ways to simplify the tax system. I don't think our corporatocracy have the slightest interest in any of them.