It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A lot of the economic problems in this country can be laid at the feet of Big Business and them purchasing politicians.
There is a conflict of interest when Big Business has to large a presence in our government.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: jacobe001
A lot of the economic problems in this country can be laid at the feet of Big Business and them purchasing politicians.
There is a conflict of interest when Big Business has to large a presence in our government.
If you're fishing for an argument, you won't get it with those statements. I agree.
However, it is not a problem with business as much as a problem with politicians. If the politicians were not offering to accept thebribeslobby money, businesses wouldn't bebribinglobbying them. Of course, in today's political climate, politicians can simply add a letter next to their name and become untouchable...
We can survive without politicians... not so much without businesses to hire people.
TheRedneck
Where are these politicians coming from?
They are coming from the Large Corporations and Banks. The same ones that have enough money to bank roll their campaigns. The Poor nor Middle Class bank roll politicians.
originally posted by: jacobe001
Business Owners may complain the amount of taxes they pay, but they include those costs in the products and services they sell. They are not taking those costs out of their own bank accounts so everyone is paying for it.
Now with wage earners, they have no way of pushing those costs to other people.
It is another way that they have the upperhand again.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
"A lot of the economic problems in this country can be laid at the feet of Big Business and them purchasing politicians.
There is a conflict of interest when Big Business has to large a presence in our government."
If you're fishing for an argument, you won't get it with those statements. I agree.
However, it is not a problem with business as much as a problem with politicians.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: peskyhumans
What I do know - any company that does not have a employee profit sharing plan is the spawn of satan. Every business should share a percentage of it's profits with it's employees. It would fix stagnant wages and solve so many problems for people who are struggling to provide for themselves and their families.
I'm a big proponent of profit sharing. It's a great idea for some companies, but it doesn't work for others.
Consider a very small company: let's say they have two employees. That would mean that each employee would get 10% of the company profits. Now what would happen if the company decided to expand? Say they want to hire two more employees... that means each employee will then get 5% of the company profits. Now, if you were one of the original two employees, wouldn't that sound like a bad deal to you? Sure, maybe the company will make twice the profits, but maybe it won't... would you be willing to take that chance? Would you be tempted to actually sabotage the planned expansion to keep your 10%?
Consider a company with a high turnover rate (I drove for trucking companies that had turnover rates in excess of 300%... on average, they would have a new crew of drivers three times every year). Who gets the profit sharing? The workers there on the 1st of January? What would prevent the owners from picking their 'favorite' employees every December and just laying off the rest. They could always hire them back in February.
There's two instances where profit sharing doesn't work. For a low-turnover, large company it works great and I agree it is one of the best incentives to productivity a company can have, but I do not support any requirement for a company to engage in profit-sharing. There's too many instances where it doesn't work.
TheRedneck
Businesses can write of every single penny that goes toward the running of the business. From all transportation and transportation costs, to the toilet paper in the bathrooms.
An Independent Contractor can't.
What is needed is to simply eliminate that carve out, and declare all forms of organized commercial lobbying as illegal.
Individual people and groups will still be able to ask for meetings and talk with their Representatives to push agendas and such, but they must be Constituents, and absolutely zero 'quid pro quo' should be allowed.
I could see implementing such a law with some rules. Like you have to be employed at least X number of months to become a full fledged employee and receive your share.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: tanstaafl
What is needed is to simply eliminate that carve out, and declare all forms of organized commercial lobbying as illegal.
Individual people and groups will still be able to ask for meetings and talk with their Representatives to push agendas and such, but they must be Constituents, and absolutely zero 'quid pro quo' should be allowed.
Except where a member of a group or an individual person has some ownership in a business?
You just removed the right of every person with a 401k to talk to their representative.
On the other hand, you created a new industry. Poor people without a 401k or stock can be paid to talk to representatives by those who do own stock or have business interests. Nothing could go wrong with that now, could it?
You need to understand what a business is before you go trying to stifle them.
Businesses do not lobby politicians; business owners and those with stake in businesses do.
Everyone with any stock options, including those with 401ks, are technically business owners. Stock is partial ownership in a business.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: tanstaafl
Yes and no. My husband is part of an industry lobbying group. An important part of their function is to provide industry-side input and feedback on proposed regulation.
This is absolutely necessary.
Where did I say that? I said:
a) they must be actual Constituents, and
b) no quid pro quo (e.g., no cash/gifts/paid vacations/trips, etc etc etc...
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: tanstaafl
Where did I say that? I said:
a) they must be actual Constituents, and
b) no quid pro quo (e.g., no cash/gifts/paid vacations/trips, etc etc etc...
In that case, if I misinterpreted your meaning, then you are advocating for laws that already exist. It is already illegal to bribe a politician,
Show me the law that says it is illegal for a man or woman to be paid to lobby for someone else.
Show me the law that says it is illegal for a member of Congress to become a lobbyist for an indusry they had a hand in regulating.
Show me the law that says it is illegal for lobbyists to send members of Congress on trips.
Show me the law that says it is illegal for lobbyists to donate to a member of Congress, or help with fundraisers, etc etc ad nauseum.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: tanstaafl
"Show me the law that says it is illegal for a man or woman to be paid to lobby for someone else."
Such a law would be difficult to enforce, because it would be considered regulating an industry. If a group, say of myself and other involved individuals, wanted to send a message to their representatives, should it be illegal for us to designate one person to carry that message instead of all of us having to travel to Washington DC? And if not, then should it be illegal for the group to pay for the representative's time and expenses?
"Show me the law that says it is illegal for a member of Congress to become a lobbyist for an industry they had a hand in regulating."
Impossible to implement. Remember that even Congressmen are also citizens and after leaving office have the same rights as any other citizen in the United States.
Every single Congressman has had a hand in regulating every single industry, through taxation if nothing else. So you would be removing the right of a citizen of the United States to file a grievance with the government for redress of grievances, which is a violation of the Bill of Rights.
"Show me the law that says it is illegal for lobbyists to send members of Congress on trips."
That is actually illegal,
"Show me the law that says it is illegal for lobbyists to donate to a member of Congress, or help with fundraisers, etc etc ad nauseum."
Lobbyists are also citizens, and as such enjoy the same rights as all citizens.
What you are proposing is nothing short of removing the Constitutional rights of selected individuals based solely on their desire to exercise their rights. It is no different than a law that says that anyone who tries to buy a gun is considered a criminal-to-be and therefore forfeits the right to own a gun. Rights cannot be denied based on a desire to exercise them.
Of course not, and yes.
Not if there is a specific law forbidding them from engaging in certain, very specific, paid activity.
Not at all. I would be removing the privilege of a former Congress person from being paid by the very industry they were regulating to try to influence legislation.
No clue how you equate 'lobbying for a law that eliminates all liability for pharmaceutical companies with respect to damage from vaccines' with 'redress of grievances'.
Not in some cases.
These are not Rights. These are privileges.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How you come to that conclusion is beyond me... unless you are extremely confused about the differences between Rights and Privileges.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.