Corporations Will Choose Leaders Now

[Guest jth_3s]

While I don't necessarily believe that our corporations should have that much sway, I do believe in the First Amendment as much as I believe in the Second. The way we spend our money is the ultimate way we, as citizens, express ourselves.

Corporations also have those same rights of free speech because they're run by, worked at, and patronized by our citizens. So, will there be more spending? Absolutely. Will it always be pretty? Absolutely not. Is it absolutely necessary for a free society? Yes.

I agree a corporations free speech should not be infringed, but these corporations are using our money they took from us through bailouts, subsidies, special tax breaks, and other corporate welfare.

[tntnixon]

I agree a corporations free speech should not be infringed, but these corporations are using our money they took from us through bailouts, subsidies, special tax breaks, and other corporate welfare.

You know, I absolutely think that the TARP funds and other "bailouts" are truely appalling. However, I've also been listening to the "people" bitch about how we only "bail out" large companies, ever since. Guess what, we "bail out" the citizens of the US with over half of the entire federal budget on an annual basis. This far eclipses any corporate bailouts that have occurred. Combine this with the fact that our corporations pay a disproportionally large amount of our tax dollars and you'll understand that we didn't really bail them out, we just gave them back some of their own money. Whereas, the citizens that recieve entitlement funds, never contributed to the funds at all.

My question to you is : Do you think citizens that have taken entitlement funds should have their freedom of speech stripped from them? If so, what other rights would you like them to be denied of?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't have a problem with government doing what the constitution allows, but everything else is already an infringement of our rights. Companies that were deemed

too big to fail, should be left to rot, just like an individual, when he makes the wrong

decision. Society shouldn't be allowed to bail out every individual or company.

Why didn't Lehman Brothers get bailed out, too? And it's funny how Ford appears to

be doing fine without the bailout. The problem is the government interfering with everything in everyone's lives. Gasoline with ethanol. Sounds great until you realize

the subsidy behind it. Education system. What's in those history books, this year?

The airbags in your car. Government required. I know that's a stretch for some(I do

wear my seat belt), but it doesn't make you a better driver. Personal accountability

has always done tenfold what a government program didn't.

Pre-K programs, whatever. I'm sorry for their being lousy parents, but why is that my

fault?

My wife and I stayed broke keeping our kids in a private school. We read to our kids

and tried to teach them right from wrong. Even if it was offered we wouldn't have

taken a damned dime, and we still paid for someone's child to go to public school.

Whatever money is given to the government, there is always less given back because it's "their money".

Government is the problem, like Reagan said.

[tntnixon]

I don't have a problem with government doing what the constitution allows, but everything else is already an infringement of our rights. Companies that were deemed

too big to fail, should be left to rot, just like an individual, when he makes the wrong

decision. Society shouldn't be allowed to bail out every individual or company.

Why didn't Lehman Brothers get bailed out, too? And it's funny how Ford appears to

be doing fine without the bailout. The problem is the government interfering with everything in everyone's lives. Gasoline with ethanol. Sounds great until you realize

the subsidy behind it. Education system. What's in those history books, this year?

The airbags in your car. Government required. I know that's a stretch for some(I do

wear my seat belt), but it doesn't make you a better driver. Personal accountability

has always done tenfold what a government program didn't.

Pre-K programs, whatever. I'm sorry for their being lousy parents, but why is that my

fault?

My wife and I stayed broke keeping our kids in a private school. We read to our kids

and tried to teach them right from wrong. Even if it was offered we wouldn't have

taken a damned dime, and we still paid for someone's child to go to public school.

Whatever money is given to the government, there is always less given back because it's "their money".

Government is the problem, like Reagan said.

+1000

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The ONLY thing that influences me in an election, is the candidate. No amount of money spent will make me vote for someone/something I dont like.

I wholeheartliy agree with the SCOTUS ruling. Our Constitution allows for much we dont like, but is needed to maintain the freedoms we enjoy for all. This bill was in fact, a MUCH needed win for the Democrat party, and liberals in general. It proved to me the McCain is not,and never has or will be, a conservative. One of the first groups to oppose and sue over this was the NRA. The SCOTUS ruling is a definate win for freedom of speech, and removes an un-constitution barrier that favored libs and left wingers. Just watch ole Chucky Boy Schumer nearly cry as he bitches about the ruling. Hell, if nothing else.....it was worth it just for that.

Second that!

If more people came out of there holes long enough to find out what is

going on politically , an informed electorate could keep this country on the right path. I remember watching Chucky during the Clinton terms. He's always funny and sickening simultaneously. The same with Barney Fwank

and wanting to get rid of the filibuster, even though he tries to resemble

a congressman.

[Guest Straight Shooter]

Hey 6.8 AR... I love your post about sending your kids to private school despite the cost. And the airbags/seatbelt comment too. We think alike sir!

Im LIVING PROOF, TWICE OVER, that seatbelts CAN kill. Yes,I know that theyve saved a ton of lives,no dispute. BUT..Im grown dammit, and I know what I want/dont want to do. I can show you pics of two wrecks Ive been in, that I woulda died had I been wearing a belt, period. This was confirmed by not only state and local officers who worked the scenes, but by any/everyone who saw the vehicles afterward. Anyway, trying to tell me to wear a belt..well alls Ill say is NAH. But BIG BROTHER thinks he knows best, and they want to micro-manage every minute of our/my life.

I SAYS IT AINT HAPPENIN,BRO. Good for you, 6.8 AR.

[sigmtnman]

Insurance companies have much to do why we have mandatory seatbelt laws.

Hey AR, can't you see James , Wesley , Cuffy and Mr. Thompson sitting around a dark room negotiating favors and which banks would be forced by the fdic to sell themselves?

[E4 No More]

You know, I absolutely think that the TARP funds and other "bailouts" are truely appalling. However, I've also been listening to the "people" bitch about how we only "bail out" large companies, ever since. Guess what, we "bail out" the citizens of the US with over half of the entire federal budget on an annual basis. This far eclipses any corporate bailouts that have occurred. Combine this with the fact that our corporations pay a disproportionally large amount of our tax dollars and you'll understand that we didn't really bail them out, we just gave them back some of their own money. Whereas, the citizens that recieve entitlement funds, never contributed to the funds at all.

My question to you is : Do you think citizens that have taken entitlement funds should have their freedom of speech stripped from them? If so, what other rights would you like them to be denied of?

Umm, corporations do not pay any tax. Tax is baked into the price for the goods or services that you pay to receive.

[tntnixon]

Umm, corporations do not pay any tax. Tax is baked into the price for the goods or services that you pay to receive.

What planet are you living on? I can't believe you just said that.

TaxProf Blog: U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Is 2nd Highest in Industrialized World

[Rightwinger]

Both are true. A corporation will set a profit point they have to make after all costs to produce and market their product. This will include their taxes as a part of that cost. Taxes go up, product price goes up. Taxes are still paid but are accounted for by the price consumers pay for product. You don't stay in business long by keeping prices steady as costs/taxes go up. That's why lowering taxes always helps as market forces will then drive prices down to remain competitive. More spending occurs and you get more tax or the same tax revenue from the increased sales.

[tntnixon]

Both are true. A corporation will set a profit point they have to make after all costs to produce and market their product. This will include their taxes as a part of that cost. Taxes go up, product price goes up. Taxes are still paid but are accounted for by the price consumers pay for product. You don't stay in business long by keeping prices steady as costs/taxes go up. That's why lowering taxes always helps as market forces will then drive prices down to remain competitive. More spending occurs and you get more tax or the same tax revenue from the increased sales.

Exactly. The converse is also true. As the corporate tax rates go up, prices go up and profits plummet because people have a certain price point in mind for all non-essential goods.

Take for instance the Remington/Bushmaster ACR. While the price point is not affected by the corporate tax rate, per se, the manufacturers have priced it beyond what most consumers will consider an appropriate price point and their profits will likely suffer. Corporate taxes have the exact same effect.

[E4 No More]

What planet are you living on? I can't believe you just said that.

TaxProf Blog: U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Is 2nd Highest in Industrialized World

This one. Which one are you on? They do nothing but pass taxes to the consumer. Wake up!

[Smith]

This one. Which one are you on? They do nothing but pass taxes to the consumer. Wake up!

Your both saying the same thing from different ends. Yes their tax burden is passed on to us through pricing. so in essence it is not a tax on corporations/business but rather a backdoor way of taxing the American people. They know this.

Also I think one needs to clarify corporation before this argument can make sense. There are millions of 10 and fewer employee corporations, ala LLC.

[Guest mosinon]

Umm, corporations do not pay any tax. Tax is baked into the price for the goods or services that you pay to receive.

Yeah, that is the conventional wisdom. If the taxes or corps go up they corps raise the prices on the consumers. Thus, a corp tax is the same as a tax on consumers.

It seems logically sound and nearly inarguable but it just isn't true. People constantly oversimplify the market and view corporations as mindless automatons that produce X at cost Y.

That just isn't the way things happen. Corporations charge what the market will bear. Say company X can make a product for 10 bucks and the market will pay 400 dollars for the thing. The corporation doesn't charge $11. If they did they would be giving up $389 dollars of profit. Why would they do that? Of course, they wouldn't.

This is useless without examples. How much does a text message cost you? $20 bucks a month does the text message cost AT&T? Nothing. Turns out a text fits into the data that is transferred when the tower follows your phone.

So the text message costs AT&T nothing but you pay for it because you are willing to pay for it.

You can't blame AT&T, they are making some nice change there. But imaging that more taxes would automatically be passed on to the customer is ridiculous.

The argument works better with commodities. So you decide to sell rice. It costs you X and you desire profit Y. If your taxes go up you have to pass that cost on to the consumer, right?

Not so much. Your desire for profit Y is tempered by the amount you already have invested. Since the rice has already been grown and such you'll take a loss just to recoup some of your money. So, again, the cost isn't passed on to the consumer.

There is also the price point thing to consider. In this scenario people want to pay X for something. Sadly you have 20% taxes. So you can either sell an iPod that people will buy at $500 or sell an iPod that no one will buy for $600. Profit maximization dictates that you go for the $500 iPod.

Yeah, you can put so many taxes on a business it isn't worth doing business but it isn't as cut and dried as most people think. With an idealized market sure you'll get the lowest price possible and the tax will be built in but we don't live in a world of frictionless inclined planes and perfect markets.

[clarky07]

More money in campaigns always seems like a terrible idea. It makes things even harder for any third party to have a chance.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It's not up to the people to pay for any party's chance. It's up to the

people that want that party to succeed to pay for it. Having the government involved in the selection process corrupts the republican process. Not Republican, little "r". Our system doesn't

tend to work well with more than two opposing parties at a time.

When the time comes, another political attitude will prevail over

one of the two existing parties. It's just not time, yet. It sounds

good, but a lot of things sound good. What's wrong with forcing

change within one that's existing and make the candidates

conform to the constitutionality. Real change takes time and

effort, unless you like this "Hope and Change" we have now.

[Guest HexHead]

Just going back to the way it was before McCain-Feingold, which has only been in effect since 2002. Not like this decision is reinventing the wheel or anything.

[sigmtnman]

If corporate personhood didn't exist there would be no discussion about corporate free speech.

A corporation is not a person and does not have god given rights.

The Preamble to the constitution says;

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It does not say "We the Corporations" and it does not say, "We the people and corporations created under authority of the state."

Something created by the people does not have the authority to create it's own posterity.

[Guest Old goat]

it just levels the field a little.

[tntnixon]

If corporate personhood didn't exist there would be no discussion about corporate free speech.

A corporation is not a person and does not have god given rights.

The Preamble to the constitution says;

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It does not say "We the Corporations" and it does not say, "We the people and corporations created under authority of the state."

Something created by the people does not have the authority to create it's own posterity.

When people start talking about the evil corporations and how they're not "people", it shows a lack of knowledge of what a "corporation" is.

Corporations are people. They are the workers, the owners, the customers and the suppliers. There was a time and a place when Americans actually understood this. There was a time when business was respected by the people and the government and vice versa (if people want to talk about bailouts, J.P.Morgan bailed out the United States government not once but twice).

Unfortunately, starting with Woodrow Wilson, there has been an almost hundred year old smear campaign against business. This campaign has been so effective, that even some relatively conservative folks start to believe the propaganda.

This whole "screw business" mentality is exactly what has led us to a national income tax, inflation, and a large part of the current economic problems.

Our citizens have come to the conclusion that when everything doesn't go right in their lives, it must be someone elses fault. The easiest place to point one's finger is this faceless and nameless place called "big business. They gripe when the price of gas goes up and accuse the oil companies of profiteering. These same people expect they're 401k bottom line to keep going up, but blame the businesses they own a part of for screwing them. You simply can't have it both ways.

There is no secret cabal that sits around controlling our lives. We are business, even if we don't know it. We control our own lives for good or bad. We actually have a say so. The corporations that we are a part of, actually speak for us.

[sigmtnman]

You are mistaken what I am saying. I am for capitalism. I am pro business. But a corporation is not a natural person.

And whether you like it or not a multi national corporation does what is best for it's stock holders, without regard to it's country. If a corporation is a person, why can't it run for president or serve in the military?

[Mark@Sea]

The decision simply said that Congress may not regulate political speech. Sounds like a win to me.

[leroy]

I believe I heard that one of the unions gave the Obama campaign close to 60 million dollars. So why shouldn't the NRA, Microsoft, Kellogg's and any other company that can afford it create commercials etc in order to promote who they would like to see in the white house, senate, congress etc.

It is up to YOU and ME the AMERICAN people to do research and find out the real truth of the people we send to Washington.

P.S. I believe in ALL of the Constitution and the Amendments there to. Not just the ones that affect me on a personal level,

Friends, this is a great truth and worthy of thinking about. The Supreme Court just upheld EVERYONE'S right to free speech and private property with this one. Who is John McCain or any other polititian with an agenda to tell me, you, or a corporation how to spend their money or what they can say. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU EARN AND HOW YOU CHOOSE TO SPEND IT --- THAT IS THE BASIS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY EVERYWHERE! ---- Not some stinkin polititian or bureaucrat with an agenda. The Supreme Court got this one right. Remember this, if a polititian can pass a law to push a corporation (that you may not personally like) around and limit their freedoms; he can do you the same way.

Sorry to be preachy; but the Supreme Court is right. So is saintsfanbrian's great post!! Thanks for telling the truth!!

Kind regards,

LEROY

[sigmtnman]

I am sorry, but I don't think Italy (through Fiat owning Chrysler) should have free political speech in my country.

Just like I don't think a corporation ran by a Chinese national or a non US citizen should have the free political speech they will under this decision.

Edited January 24, 2010 by sigmtnman

[Mark@Sea]

Well, apparently you're okay with restricting free speech for americans, as long as those shifty foreigners don't get to say things.

I'm not.

Check your prejudice against the DOJ's position that it could ban articles, books, movies, etc. that involve political speech. Now hold this up against the first amendment.

The ironic thing about your position is that the suit was brought by the producers of a movie about Hillary Clinton. The Clintons took literally millions from Chinese sources.

I think you just checkmated yourself.