Wisconson – sign of more to come?

Login or register to post comments Last Post 53017 reads   312 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 211 through 220 (of 312 total)
  • Tue, Mar 01, 2011 - 09:20am

    #211

    xraymike79

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2008

    Posts: 804

    count placeholder

    rhare,     You would do

rhare,

     You would do well in the McCarthy era, sniffing out and exterminating socialists. At any rate, governments do tend to grow overly large, bureaucratic and sclerotic over time. And they are not compelled to work to save money. They are given a budget and must use all of it. A smaller more effective government, as I’ve stated before, would be preferable. However, wittling down government without wittling down the powers of corporations would be a mistake. Speaking of our founding fathers, they had a healthy fear of corporations and allowed them to form with strict limitations. If you read the aforementioned link about the history of corporations in America, I’m sure you would call our founding fathers socialists.

…Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.

The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company’s accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

hidden history of corporations in America.

Over time, the citizens lost control over their right to revoke a corporation’s charter:

Contests over charter were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation’s resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns. Political power began flowing to absentee owners, rather than community-rooted enterprises.

The industrial age forced a nation of farmers to become wage earners, and they became fearful of unemployment–a new fear that corporations quickly learned to exploit. Company towns arose. and blacklists of labor organizers and workers who spoke up for their rights became common. When workers began to organize, industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep them in line. They bought newspapers to paint businessmen as heroes and shape public opinion. Corporations bought state legislators, then announced legislators were corrupt and said that they used too much of the public’s resources to scrutinize every charter application and corporate operation.

Government spending during the Civil War brought these corporations fantastic wealth. Corporate executives paid “borers” to infest Congress and state capitals, bribing elected and appointed officials alike. They pried loose an avalanche of government financial largesse. During this time, legislators were persuaded to give corporations limited liability, decreased citizen authority over them, and extended durations of charters. Attempts were made to keep strong charter laws in place, but with the courts applying legal doctrines that made protection of corporations and corporate property the center of constitutional law, citizen sovereignty was undermined. As corporations grew stronger, government and the courts became easier prey. They freely reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and transformed common law doctrines.

One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.”

From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional “personhood.” Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these “rights,” corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law.

A United States Congressional committee concluded in 1941, “The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power….”

Many U.S.-based corporations are now transnational, but the corrupted charter remains the legal basis for their existence.

hidden history of corporations in America.

American citizens were at one time protected from corporate power and the corruption that their money brought to elections. Damn socialists!!!!!!!

  • Tue, Mar 01, 2011 - 03:26pm

    #212
    Carl Veritas

    Carl Veritas

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 23 2008

    Posts: 66

    count placeholder

    xraymike79,Wittling down

xraymike79,

Wittling down the powers of corporations.    It’s not in the constitution but here is stating the obvoius — a business large or small cannot survive if it’s customers are not pleased.       Tariffs,  Subsidies and Bail outs are apparatus of government that corrupt corporations use to protect them from competitors and shield them from consumer actions.    The banking industrys bail outs are the most visible of these.    Banks would do what customers want if they knew their survival depends on them, instead of the government.    This goes for all the corrupt corporations.

The first amendment to the U.S Constitution —-

The Bill Of Rights protects us not from some foreign invading army but from the Federal Government.    That includes natural rights of liberty and property.    Now why would the framers of the U.S. Constitution purposely limit the powers of the federal government over the people?    Liberty.

  • Tue, Mar 01, 2011 - 05:37pm

    #213

    xraymike79

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2008

    Posts: 804

    count placeholder

    Ralph Nader Paranoia over

Ralph Nader – Paranoia over U.S. Socialism driven by Corporate Propaganda “Fascism”

Nader believes that Theodore Dreiser put it very well many years ago, when he said that “the corporations are the government”.

  • Tue, Mar 01, 2011 - 06:58pm

    #214

    Poet

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 20 2009

    Posts: 977

    count placeholder

    Civility, Please…

Okay folks.

Let’s be nice to each other, okay? I hate seeing people I respect, reducing themselves to name-calling and insults. Thanks.

It’s alreaedy bad enough that things are so confusing in here with the ideological carpet-bombing.

Poet

  • Wed, Mar 02, 2011 - 04:06am

    #215

    dshields

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 25 2009

    Posts: 385

    count placeholder

    taxes

This is pretty simple.  I am surprised people around here are having trouble with this.  Even the repubs and dems are going to have to agree.  The revenue stream generated by taxes is not sufficient to support the costs of government.  This is happening at the federal level and at the state and local levels all over America.  So, politicians have to raise taxes a fair amount or cut spending.  The people feel that 50% taxation is excessive so that only leaves cutting.  Pick your method of cutting.  Pick the unions or departments or whatever.  The bottom line is the government has to be cut.  And, it will be cut.  It is like Ron Paul said about Obamacare.  They asked him if he thought it ought to be repealed.  He thought about it for a second and he said it does not make any difference.  He said it is self repealing.  He said since it simply can not be paid for it is self repealing.  Either we repeal it through some procedure or we wait a while and it repeals itself.  Either way it gets repealed.  I think he is probably right.  And this concept is much larger than Obamacare.  It applies to everything the government does.  So, I am really not to worried about it.  Government spending will be cut substantially.  It will either be cut through some organized process or it will be cut via collapse.  Either way it gets cut.  Since WW2 statism has grown the government at all levels far beyond where it was supposed to be.  Now it is going to be cut.  It really does not make any difference if you are a repub or a dem.  It is going to get cut just the same – whether you like it or not.

  • Wed, Mar 02, 2011 - 04:06am

    #216
    r

    r

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2008

    Posts: 44

    count placeholder

    sign of more to come?

First, sorry about bringing up fracking in a thread about the power struggle in Wisconsin between Democrats and Republicans over state unions.  Because I’m not an expert I don’t know how pools of fracking chemicals could affect the wooded northwest environment versus the southwest desert.  And only a Geologist expert in the rock formations and water tables could determine how safe fracking really is in the Northeast.  Sorry also for not believing anyone’s claim to be an expert here.

I think the arguments over state unions are ultimately arguments about power.  For example, the argument that state unions could potentially bankrupt the state, even though statistically state workers in both union and non-union states have the same pay and benefits (benefits are better than for private workers but public pay is less).

This could be the beginning of the end for Democrats.  First they lose a base of power. Next solutions of more government stimulus and boondogle alternative energy projects fail to bring results.  More privatization such as the sale of power stations in the Wisconsin bill will be popular.   Doesn’t this mean the end result is a one-party system?  Are you sure this is a good thing, considering the difficult decisions to be made?

  • Wed, Mar 02, 2011 - 04:33am

    #217

    dshields

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 25 2009

    Posts: 385

    count placeholder

    hydo-fracturing

[quote=r]

First, sorry about bringing up fracking in a thread about the power struggle in Wisconsin between Democrats and Republicans over state unions.  Because I’m not an expert I don’t know how pools of fracking chemicals could affect the wooded northwest environment versus the southwest desert.  And only a Geologist expert in the rock formations and water tables could determine how safe fracking really is in the Northeast.  Sorry also for not believing anyone’s claim to be an expert here.

I think the arguments over state unions are ultimately arguments about power.  For example, the argument that state unions could potentially bankrupt the state, even though statistically state workers in both union and non-union states have the same pay and benefits (benefits are better than for private workers but public pay is less).

This could be the beginning of the end for Democrats.  First they lose a base of power. Next solutions of more government stimulus and boondogle alternative energy projects fail to bring results.  More privatization such as the sale of power stations in the Wisconsin bill will be popular.   Doesn’t this mean the end result is a one-party system?  Are you sure this is a good thing, considering the difficult decisions to be made?

[/quote]

I would not claim to be an expert in this area but I was a mining engineer before I wandered off to wall street.  I have a news flash for you.  Hydro-fracturing rock formations is the least of our problems.  If you can not afford to drive to work then you have a much larger problem.  I am an environmentalist at heart – a tree hugger.  I live in the woods.  I have like 50 trees in my front yard.  However, if I can not afford to drive to work then it is extremely serious.  Today oil went up to 100 and gold up to 1420.  All commodities are surging.  This is a much larger threat to your life than hydro-fracturing rock formations.  I promise that surging commodities are going to get to you before hydro-fracturing does.

  • Wed, Mar 02, 2011 - 08:33am

    #218

    Poet

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 20 2009

    Posts: 977

    count placeholder

    Fox News Footage Of Violent Union Protestors In Wisconsin

Fox News Footage Of Violent Union Protesters In Wisconsin

Except, it’s WINTER in Wisconsin and there’s no palm trees in Madison…

Once again, Fox News deliberately uses the wrong footage. Like the time it showed people booing Ron Paul winning the CPAC 2011 straw poll – in actuality, people were cheering at the 2011 straw poll results. Or all the times they labeled an scandaled, outed gay, or philandering Republican lawmaker as “(D)” rather than “(R)”.

Poet

  • Wed, Mar 02, 2011 - 10:31am

    #219

    xraymike79

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2008

    Posts: 804

    count placeholder

    (No subject)

  • Wed, Mar 02, 2011 - 10:44am

    #220

    xraymike79

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2008

    Posts: 804

    count placeholder

    (No subject)

http://rt.com/usa/news/usa-nyc-war-walmart-jobs/

 

Viewing 10 posts - 211 through 220 (of 312 total)

Login or Register to post comments