Paul Begala derp post: How Republicans Screwed The Pooch

This isn't about Obama as a Republican. This is about the change from "deficits don't matter" to "hold the debt ceiling hostage to get spending cuts"
 
I think the liable party should be the one who authorized or committed the infraction. Be it the board of directors, or the CEO. I believe a corporation neeRAB to be able to engage in contracts because boarRAB of directors change, ownership of corporations change, but the contracts need to endure.

For instance If Samsung and Sony create a partnership for a new T.V technology whereby sony guarantees the rights to samsung of a certain technology for a fee, if the board of directors of sony changes, does that nullify the contract? Under your prescription, it would.

This would create a terrible situation for business because now, isntead of partnerships being dependent on the strength of the corporation (lasting as long as stated in the contract or as long as the corporations exist), partnerships and contracts are dependent upon the specific market actions of a handful of people, or even a single person, as well as their health.. That is too fragile a foundation for business and is the purpose of a corporation in the first place. Endurance.
 
So basically you can't focus on more than one aspect of a post at a time and you blame me for your lack of comprehension and retention. Good one
 
SounRAB like that in this forum you can't find an example of perceived government encroachment. Is that correct?

Thanks for the well wishing by the way - judging from the last election cycle and current polling, 2012 will be a pretty good year.
 
Agreed. Profits can be dealt with as the corporation pleases, including bonuses to executives, which will be taxed accordingly. I'd also love for it to be illegal for corporations to invest in speculative finance or put a high percentage of its cash into bank accounts, but this idea isn't fully formed in my head.
 
Oh, you misunderstand... I know about corporate personhood... What i was asking was what do YOU mean by corporate personhood. What are the things that YOU would like to see removed.. Certainly you believe corporations have the right to enter into binding contracts.
 
Tea Party put its own idiocy on display well enough these past few weeks. Their support has plummeted. Even Republican voters are finally waking up to their bullshit





The Tea Party

Spending cuts have been a priority for the Tea Party, but this debate may have cost the
movement in public opinion – including among Republicans. The percentage that views the
movement favorably has dropped six points to 20%, while unfavorable views jumped 11 points since April to 40% - the highest recorded. Among Republicans the drop is steeper: favorable views of the Tea Party dropped 18 points since April to 41% today.

Opinion of the Tea Party
. . . . . . . . . .All Americans . . . Republicans
. . . . . . . . . . .Now 4/2011 . . . .Now 4/2011
Favorable . . . . 20% 26% . . . . . .41% 59%
Not favorable . .40 29 . . . . . . . . . .19 10
Don’t know . . . .39 43 . . . . . . . . . . 39 31





The percentage that thinks the Tea Party has too much influence on the Republican Party has
also risen. Now 43% say so, up from 27% in April and the highest it has been since the
question was first asked in 2010. Among Republicans, it has risen from just 9% in April to 22% now.

Influence of the Tea Party on the Republican Party
. . . . . . . . . .All Americans . . . Republicans
. . . . . . . . . . .Now 4/2011 . . . .Now 4/2011
Too much . . . . .43% 27% . . . . . 22% 9%
Too little . . . . . .17 18 . . . . . . . . 26 23
Right amount . . .24 32 . . . . . . . . 41 53






Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as supporters of the Tea Party has dropped to 18%. This nuraber was at 31% right after the 2010 midterm elections.

Are You a Tea Party Supporter?
. . . . .Now . . . 7/2011 . . . 4/2011 . . . 11/2010 . . . 4/2010
Yes . . 18% . . . . .22% . . . . .24% . . . . . 31% . . . . . 18%
No . . 73 . . . . . . 68 . . . . . . 66 . . . . . . . 58 . . . . . . . 62
 
neither of those things would do either of these things.... But keep thinking about it, maybe you'll come up with a good solution, god knows most people cant be bothered to put their mind to the task.
 
well my idea was that preventing corporations from sitting on a huge lump of cash or investing in the non-productive paper economy would encourage production and expansion which would be a sort of "supply side" economics, but i really don't know, its just a thought
 
I think that when the corporation acts with its best capacity to maximize profits, then we are all better off for it. If it finRAB that large cash sums are important, like apple for instance, then we shouldn't interfere.
 
haha..well as it is now a lot of corporations, including ones in the financial sector have laid off employees in order to cut their wage costs, and of course this pays dividenRAB to stock holders and executives, many of which will never spend the extra money or invest it productively. I realize this is speculation on my part but I'm just saying the premise "what's good for one man (or in this case the corporation as a man) is good for all" is a fallacy.
 
Well, i think that's a simplification that disguises the economic reality which for many is counterintuitive. Economics is not zero sum, one person doesn't need to lose for another person to gain.
 
Doesn't need to, but often does. One neeRAB to look no farther than our current state of affairs, where many corporations have recovered their profits amid increased joblessness and poverty
 
Back
Top