Quote from: hfishjr81 on August 15, 2012, 09:13:38 PM
I disagree. Money decides who stays in government. The incest then "trickles down".

So we the government gives out money in various poverty programs, it's simply buying the votes of the poor?

Quote from: mdgiles on August 16, 2012, 06:28:48 AM
So we the government gives out money in various poverty programs, it's simply buying the votes of the poor?

hahahah why didn't I think of that???

Quote from: mdgiles on August 16, 2012, 06:28:48 AM
So we the government gives out money in various poverty programs, it's simply buying the votes of the poor?

We're giving money to the poor and the rich. That doesn't take away from the fact that Our government is bought by those that are now legally allowed to pad the individual reps pocket.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on August 16, 2012, 03:06:39 PM

We're giving money to the poor and the rich. That doesn't take away from the fact that Our government is bought by those that are now legally allowed to pad the individual reps pocket.

Which is why we have to vote for Romney.....................he's already rich. No reason to take payoffs.

People like Obama and Harry Reid, used their positions within politics to become rich. Republicans have done the same...................we need to get rid of all of them.

Quote from: Solar on August 16, 2012, 05:21:31 AM
if you lived in a town where the police force was extorting money from the people of the town, who is to blame, the police, or those paying to stay out of trouble?

Politics is no different

Politics is different because the politicians are elected by the people who vote them in, which requires money for big campaigning, that's were big business buys your rep.

The police force in a town are not voted into their job.


However, both in your scenario are just as bad as the other, the people bribing the police and the police taking the bribe.

Quote from: kramarat on August 16, 2012, 03:12:45 PM
Which is why we have to vote for Romney.....................he's already rich. No reason to take payoffs.

Maybe no reason, but he's still taking them


http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286



Goldman Sachs   $636,080
JPMorgan Chase & Co   $502,874
Morgan Stanley   $476,300
Bank of America   $465,850
Credit Suisse Group   $421,310
Citigroup Inc   $345,265
Barclays   $322,400
Kirkland & Ellis   $295,042
Wells Fargo   $276,700
Deloitte LLP   $250,510
PricewaterhouseCoopers   $246,700
UBS AG   $240,000
HIG Capital   $219,495
Blackstone Group   $213,800
Bain Capital   $164,000
Elliott Management   $162,825
General Electric   $150,000
Marriott International   $137,827
Bain & Co   $137,300
Ernst & Young   $134,425




I think there's even some up there that we bailed out.. So, based on that, I guess we're now having to bail Romney out too, even though he's "rich"

Quote from: hfishjr81 on August 16, 2012, 03:06:39 PM

We're giving money to the poor and the rich. That doesn't take away from the fact that Our government is bought by those that are now legally allowed to pad the individual reps pocket.

That's because the politicians are stealing it from the earners, and giving it to who they (politicians in government) deem collusion-worthy, and won't prosecute.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on August 16, 2012, 03:22:40 PM


Maybe no reason, but he's still taking them


http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286



Goldman Sachs   $636,080
JPMorgan Chase & Co   $502,874
Morgan Stanley   $476,300
Bank of America   $465,850
Credit Suisse Group   $421,310
Citigroup Inc   $345,265
Barclays   $322,400
Kirkland & Ellis   $295,042
Wells Fargo   $276,700
Deloitte LLP   $250,510
PricewaterhouseCoopers   $246,700
UBS AG   $240,000
HIG Capital   $219,495
Blackstone Group   $213,800
Bain Capital   $164,000
Elliott Management   $162,825
General Electric   $150,000
Marriott International   $137,827
Bain & Co   $137,300
Ernst & Young   $134,425




I think there's even some up there that we bailed out.. So, based on that, I guess we're now having to bail Romney out too, even though he's "rich"

The same top contributors are contributing to both campaigns. Romney will owe them nothing...................Obama is incapable of making millions, without his political position. I'll go with Romney. Without politics, Obama goes back to being a nobody..............and he knows it.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on August 16, 2012, 03:17:22 PM


Politics is different because the politicians are elected by the people who vote them in, which requires money for big campaigning, that's were big business buys your rep.

The police force in a town are not voted into their job.


However, both in your scenario are just as bad as the other, the people bribing the police and the police taking the bribe.

I said nothing about people bribing the police, I said Police extorting money from the citizens, in the exact same manner as politicians do to business.
Think EPA and coal power plants., or anything the EPA does, and what does business get forced into doing?
Paying Dims to keep the EPA at bay, which is a classic form of extortion by the left.

How often do you see the right creating laws specifically designed to kill an industry?
Answer is, Never, only the left creates special circumstances that make doing business costly.

Those contributions go to his campaign fund, and that is watched very closely for abuse.  If I was convinced that corporations are evil (and I think any entity can be evil dependent on who is in charge) and that the goal of a corporation was stacking the deck through government entitlements, then don't look at campaign contributions, look to the lobbyists. 
Most of the companies you listed are way too small to make any impact on government, and they contribute to both parties.  It's companies like Monsanto, or the cottongrowers association, even the NRA, these are the lobbyist groups that help shape and regulate corporate legislation. 

You have a what came first argument going on here, is government to blame because they take money, trips, and gifts from lobbyists in exchange for a vote, or is the entity that pays the lobbyists to blame for using them?  Is it much different from a pharmaceutical salesperson visiting a doctor to drum up sales? 

Lobbyists believe what they are selling is right, government has the choice to listen or not.  Just because the car salesman tries to sell you his most expensive car first doesn't make him evil, it makes him an optimist.  Will lobbyists continue to try to buy votes, yup.  Will they fail sometimes because we can't afford what they are selling, yup. 

Quote from: Solar on August 16, 2012, 05:47:54 PM
I said nothing about people bribing the police, I said Police extorting money from the citizens, in the exact same manner as politicians do to business.

Then its not like it at all. Corporations are buying reps in order to make it "to" office. You can easily say that businesses are extorting the representative for big contributions/reelection. 

Quote from: Solar on August 16, 2012, 05:47:54 PM
Think EPA and coal power plants., or anything the EPA does, and what does business get forced into doing?
Paying Dims to keep the EPA at bay, which is a classic form of extortion by the left.

Im not going to say government doesn't do harm as well though, thats the point Im trying to make though, they're both just as bad as the other. The corrupt reps, and big business that buys them.

Quote from: Solar on August 16, 2012, 05:47:54 PM
How often do you see the right creating laws specifically designed to kill an industry?
Answer is, Never, only the left creates special circumstances that make doing business costly.

There are many reasons doing business has became more costly under the left, like controlling pollution etc. True, the right doesn't seem to want to regulate much at all, but we need some regulation on businesses. I agree, however, that some things are way out around though.

Quote from: JustKari on August 16, 2012, 05:56:52 PM
Just because the car salesman tries to sell you his most expensive car first doesn't make him evil, it makes him an optimist.  Will lobbyists continue to try to buy votes, yup.  Will they fail sometimes because we can't afford what they are selling, yup.

The problem is the car salesman up selling to people who cant afford, but being allowed to, within current financial institutions abilities, acquire a loan at maybe a higher rate, above the payment the consumer can afford. Who is to blame here? The financial institution for loaning the money, or the salesman? Maybe the consumer?
Well, IMO, all the above are guilty.   However, when the financial institution is the only one to really be "bailed out" when the bubble created by these transactions bursts, well, that makes them look a bit worse. It's as if they did nothing to facilitate the troubles at hand, and we, the workers/consumers, are forced to eat all the cost. 



Thanks for the thought provoking post, Kari.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on August 16, 2012, 06:51:32 PM

Im not going to say government doesn't do harm as well though, thats the point Im trying to make though, they're both just as bad as the other. The corrupt reps, and big business that buys them.

And your solution is to give the corrupt Congresscritters even more power than they already possess.

Which will, of course, make it more, and more desirable for "corporations" to try and "buy" those same Congresscritters - to protect their own hides and to get Congress to pass laws to put their competition out of business, among other things.

Out of all of the Evil Corporations in this country, can you name one that I HAVE to do business with, if I don't want to? Can you name one that will take money from me without my consent?

Now, compare that with the IRS...

You said earlier, that Corporations have no soul. Well, junior, neither does the government. It can take want it wants, anytime it wants, from whomever it wants at the point of a gun.

-Dr Watt

Quote from: hfishjr81 on August 16, 2012, 07:04:36 PM

The problem is the car salesman up selling to people who cant afford, but being allowed to, within current financial institutions abilities, acquire a loan at maybe a higher rate, above the payment the consumer can afford. Who is to blame here? The financial institution for loaning the money, or the salesman? Maybe the consumer?
Well, IMO, all the above are guilty.   However, when the financial institution is the only one to really be "bailed out" when the bubble created by these transactions bursts, well, that makes them look a bit worse. It's as if they did nothing to facilitate the troubles at hand, and we, the workers/consumers, are forced to eat all the cost. 



Thanks for the thought provoking post, Kari.

You just proved my point, it was the left that forced Fannie and Freddie to lend money to individuals that in no way were able to repay a loan, buy a home they should never have had in the first place.
Prior to the govt getting involved, the private loan institutions were doing fine, it was when idiots like Barney franks meddled in the private sector, did the economy go south, Bush tried hard to get the Dims to change the laws to keep the lending institutions solvent, he and others warned them that the bubble was going to pop, but the leftists wouldn't listen, or simply didn't care.

The rest is history, but history is proof the Govt never fixes anything, it only complicates it and picks winners and losers out of the mix, and in the end everyone loses.
Leave the private sector to find equilibrium, it always will, all Govt should be doing is setting rules to work within, not dictating how they do business on a social scale.

Quote from: Solar on August 17, 2012, 04:56:06 AM
You just proved my point, it was the left that forced Fannie and Freddie to lend money to individuals that in no way were able to repay a loan, buy a home they should never have had in the first place.
Prior to the govt getting involved, the private loan institutions were doing fine, it was when idiots like Barney franks meddled in the private sector, did the economy go south, Bush tried hard to get the Dims to change the laws to keep the lending institutions solvent, he and others warned them that the bubble was going to pop, but the leftists wouldn't listen, or simply didn't care.

The rest is history, but history is proof the Govt never fixes anything, it only complicates it and picks winners and losers out of the mix, and in the end everyone loses.
Leave the private sector to find equilibrium, it always will, all Govt should be doing is setting rules to work within, not dictating how they do business on a social scale.

It's yet another case of government not knowing when to stop.
Originally, they stepped in and told lending institutions that they couldn't discriminate against people because of skin color or ethnicity. That was an example of government doing the right thing. People that hold down jobs, have a good credit rating, and have the money for a down payment, tend to be responsible citizens, and shouldn't be kept out of certain neighborhoods based on anything else. It was happening, and it shouldn't have.

Then the government went on, to say that people couldn't be discriminated against because of economic status, and that everyone had a right to own a home. Hello no DOC loans. The lending institutions were forced to loan people money, with no proof of income, no job history, regardless of credit score, etc.

It wasn't just the disadvantaged that took advantage of these new fast and loose rules. It was also speculators that were grabbing up these loans, and buying up properties all over the place. Again, no documentation was needed to secure these loans. I know a guy that used them to buy investment property.

This created a building and real estate bonanza that was going on from coast to coast. It was a feeding frenzy. It artificially drove up the price of land, houses, condos...............as well as the price building materials, labor, and everything else associated with it.

The problem was, that from the beginning, there was never any real money to back any of this up. The banks knew it, and that's when these things started getting bundled and sold off. Eventually, everyone knew they were worthless, and they could no longer be sold. Hello economic collapse.

It's the reason that things are still a mess today. And the entire thing can be laid directly at the feet of our well intentioned government.

Which is why the founders knew that their power must be limited.