Answering Jeff's questions:



No question, that part of conservative "thought" (I use the term loosely) as far as social policy is concerned comes from the pioneering spirit. The problem is that this is an outmoded way of thinking, now that the country has been settled for over a century.

And really, the divide goes farther than how much people want the government to aid people, it's the actual role of government. Conservatives think government is inherently abusive or inept, basically that we'd be better off without leadership. Liberals believe in forward thinking leadership. Conservatives believe that cutting taxes at the top will cause money to trickle down to the middle class, in the face of the reality that this has been tried and failed. Liberals on the other hand realize that a prosperous middle class causes money to flow up!

More than that, conservatives tend to be much more hawkish. They tend to favor business over consumers - in fact in such varied places as Israel and England the battle is between the labor and conservative parties. Historically conservatives have been slow to adopt change, for example the civil rights battle was a liberal movement. You don't hear very many liberals claiming that global warming isn't real. It goes on and on.

In short, conservatives are on the wrong side of every single issue.



That's the rhetoric, yes, but it's more of an argument against pure socialism. Realistic social democratic ideas such as setting a higher minimum wage (that's my solution to illegal immigration, by the way) don't enable people to get away without contributing, they just build up the middle class.

There are always going to be differences between countries, but for example Norway is an example of a prosperous country with very high taxes, socialized medicine, etc. etc. Or for example Germany. They're faring a whole lot better in this recession without the unemployment, due to their safety net.

To put it simplistically, it's the difference between "me" and "we." That's why I find it so hard to understand how nice people can be so generous personally yet still be conservative politically.

1- That's what needs to be repealed. Corporations should not be covered by the bill of rights.
It was never the intention of that document to provide rights to a business convention/entity that didn't even exist in it's present form at that time.

The Supreme court proclamation was wrong/corrupt in 1886 and it's wrong now.

Knife, you claim that those rights are "one of the things that make them (corporations)possible".
I disagree. I believe it's one of the things that allows them to exist in their current state, but I'm also convinced that the current state of a corporate economy, and the need for ever greater consumption to fuel it's growth, are nothing more than a pyramid scheme that will bankrupt us all.



2- That's a no-brainer but it's only good advice after the fact.
Until the political colors of a corporation are revealed by a track record of sponsorship there's no way to make much more than a semi-educated guess.


It seems that when America holds up a mirror it estimates it's self worth by how many dollar signs it sees in the reflection. That's perhaps why so many are willing to put a for profit business on the same plane as a human being when it comes rights. As a culture we continue to confuse material accumulation with wealth.

As Steve Earle said, "Capitalism is an OK form of commerce, it just makes a lousy religion."

So I'm lying right-wing freak and political gay.

Anybody else?


Btw, just in case you've missed my point earlier... have another go

I didn't say you were lying, Josef, just politically gay. You say you're in the center and not an ideologue, but it's hard to take that seriously when you're wearing those pink assless chaps and nipple rings.

And I for one am perfectly able to tolerate rational views of others, but ridiculous ones don't deserve entertaining. The entire Republican has only ridiculous ideas.

Corporations aren't "covered by the Bill of Rights."

As I said, corporations enjoy SOME of the protections of natural persons - and they have to, just to make them work. This is a concept and practice that has existed since WAAAY before 1886 (indeed, nothing happened in the Supreme Court in 1886, to change that).

Corporations should be able to own property (and this includes the provisions attendant to ownership, such as the right to protect that property). They should be able to be sued and held liable for their actions. They should be subject to taxation, etc., etc.

These are all rights and protections that are afforded corporations, as they are afforded individuals, that make having corporations even possible.

That having been said, corporations can't vote, can't claim things like age discrimination, can't demand to be educated, etc., etc.

These are all rights and protections under the Bill of Rights (or interpretations of it) that are afforded ONLY to natural persons - and NOT to corporations - that serve to distinguish corporations from natural persons.

I don't know why you think Corporations are "covered by the Bill of Rights." That's just not the case.

You can have your views on whether corporations are good or bad but, I think that debate - and your position on it - should come from a truly informed basis, not one that is based on the old wive's tale that "Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific applied the Bill of Rights to Corporations."



This is just a massive cop-out.

Please show me a publicly traded corporation that hasn't revealed it's track record of sponsorship of certain political candidates, causes or parties.

Let's get real. Anyone who invests in a corporation should do 3-1/2 minutes worth of homework on that corporation, to find out EXACTLY what the corporations does, what it's general philosophies and policies are, and even who and what agendas it supports. These are not secrets. It's easy to find out.


It seems that when Americans don't like the choices they've made, voluntarily, they all too often look to government to provide "protection" against their own, ill-advised and mis-informed choices or behaviors.

Took a %100 mortgage on that risky real estate because you "thought" it would all be OK when (IF?) it appreciated?

No problem. The government will "protect" you.

Can't or won't control what your kid is watching on TV or eating?

You don't actually have to be a pro-active parent. The government will set up agencies to "protect" you from having to do that job.

It goes on and on...

People who invest in corporations ought to be held accountable to actually KNOW a little something about the corporation they DECIDED to invest in. There is absolutely NO REASON to set up an after-the-fact "protection" of the people who blindly invested in some corporation that supports policies that they subsequently decide they don't agree with.

Indeed, Reich's suggestion amounts to a completely neutered version of what is SUPPOSED to happen. Corporations that support unpopular policies or agendas are SUPPOSED to have their investors simply take their ENTIRE investment out of the company.

Give me some small percentage of my dividend back that is supposed to reflect how much I disagree with the party or candidate you supported?

What?!?!

As an investor, if a company I hold does ANYTHING I don't agree with, they simply don't get to do it with ANY of my money, any more.

Those shares = "sold." Entirely.

Period.

In 1886 in the summary for the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite observed that the Court would not consider the question “whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbade a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the Constitution, applied to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does”

This set precedence for the "person-hood" of corporations in the U.S. and is germane to the recent ruling which protects corporations freedom of speech under the 1st amendment of the Bill of Rights.



Knife, for your edification here's the 14th amendment-
Pay close attention to the first section.
Do you honestly believe it's intent was to cover a corporate business entity?


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.



As to my second statement being "a massive cop out" that may be your opinion but nothing more.
The mortgage comment and what follows is at best a straw man argument.

The Issue

With all due respect, you've got a few years to go before you'll be able to teach me much about Constitutional Law.

I'm well aware of the Santa Clara decision, and what it did - and more importantly DIDN'T - say.



Point #1 - Chief Justices do NOT provide "summaries" of the Court's decisions. This is part of the "old wive's tale" I told you you've been duped into believing.



Point #2 - This did NOT set a "precedent" (not "precedence" BTW), for several reasons. a) As I already explained, the "person-hood" of a corporation was a concept and a legal application (i.e precedence) that existed LOOOONG before 1886. Both int he United States and elsewhere, and b) a note in the summary section of a U.S. Report is not, never was and never will be "law" or any type of "legal precedent."



Point #3 - Despite the fact that - again, as I've already explained - Corporations enjoy SOME of the rights and protections of natural persons, this does NOT mean they are "covered by the Bill of Rights" as you claimed, earlier.

Thanks for the attempt to "educate" me on this point but I hope it is becoming clear to you I understand it, and have studied it, far deeper than you have.



Your initial comment was that people could NOT find out what political agendas publicly traded corporations supported. That this information needed to be learned, over time and could not be known before they invested.

So, to be a bit more blunt about it (since you've decided to sidestep the issue with that rude little quip):

Your initial assertion is completely unsupported by the plain and widely-known regulations regarding corporate and political disclosures.

That's not "my opinion." That's a fact.



I'm not sure you know what a "straw man argument" is.

Is it your contention that there has not been a government subsidization of over-leveraged mortgages, that I referred to? Or, are you just trying anything you can to side-step that direct fact, as well?

OK a quick note and I'm done.

Say or believe what you'd like, for now I stand by the well documented fact that the 1886 decision was a pivotal point in legally assigning "person-hood" to corporations.
As of yet I've seen nothing to dispute that fact and you have provided nothing but your opinion to the contrary.

My straw man comment was directed at your comments about Mortgages, TV and raising children which I considered far off point and saw no need to respond to.

Sorry if you believe my opinions of your views are "rude little quips". I'm sure you'll get over it.

And how the frick are you going to avoid putting money in corporations whose politics you abhor. Where is your pension fund invested? Your mutual funds?

But that's all a side show. The real issue is that the SCROTUS just handed the disgusting right a huge victory, and that's what this is all about.

Conservatives suck.