Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

One Cause For Our Anger; Corporate Welfare

page: 3
51
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


I don't like the idea of a seperation between corporations and government.

Because not only does it seperate the corporations from influencing government, it also seperates the government from regulating the corporations.

Again, it comes down to ideological dis-agreements...I think we all realize there is a problem with corporations influencing government...we just disagree on the solution.

My personal opinion is that I would rather have strict regulations in place, on both corporations and politicians.




posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


the only way to fix things that are wrong with the world economy is simple and requires 3 things to be done

1st and foremost increase politicians wages 500% (yes give those greedy ### more money)
why? because this would do away with corporate bribery (donations)
and this is how..
at the moment corporations are donating to the party that is going to tax them the least and make them the most money (they normally all donate to the same one assuring landslide pole victory for the politician/party that will make them the most money)
the donations will be then spent on large scale advertising on tv, newspapers and radio (majority of voters are easily swayed with a simple 60 second tv ad)
take america for example they have like a debate between presidential hopefuls
often the one with the best teeth and catchiest responses will prevail sadly
and that's not all there is main stream media (often these outlets will back the candidate/party that their owner will make/save a fortune on)
for example in the uk the sun/news of the world owned by rupert murdoch changed the party they backed (labour) for the first time in years and chose to back another (conservatives) possibly because they had chose to go easy on Rupert Murdoch's company taxes... (more than likely because they had substantial donations from them)

2nd if we stop any donations of any kind from anyone outside the political party itself
(make politicians pay for there own campaign trail and donate to their own party out of their own wages!)
this would uncloud the govorment's judgement and possibly make them less corrupt when it comes to the taxation of the big company's and its citizens (instead of who pays them the most to keep them in office it will be who votes for them most to keep them in office

3 FORCE BY LAW newspapers,television networks and radio stations and other media outlets TO BE IMPARTIAL on their stance on politics rather than show phony online polls (that lead sheep like voters off the cliff with the rest of the herd) or slander campaigns that defame the opposition AND give all partys/candidates equal airtime (not like what we see with herman caine and ron paul in the states) you know what i mean..

but im afraid these will never EVER happen.... EVER
the people in power could never give power back to everyday people
i guess only way we could get these things done is STAND UP AND FIGHT
if only there was a way i could hijack all the TV stations and tell people to NOT PAY TAXES or VOTE IN A JOKE GOVERMENT that would show those big shots we mean buisiness



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Okay, post sans perceived insult:

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


If I meant it was THE only cause for anger, I would have used "The" to lead off with.

reply to post by nenothtu
 


I don't see how raising awareness is bad, especially if it causes more than one random person here or there to express intolerance of this level of corruption using your means, letters, calls etc...
edit on 4-11-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by jibeho
 


I don't like the idea of a seperation between corporations and government.

Because not only does it seperate the corporations from influencing government, it also seperates the government from regulating the corporations.

Again, it comes down to ideological dis-agreements...I think we all realize there is a problem with corporations influencing government...we just disagree on the solution.

My personal opinion is that I would rather have strict regulations in place, on both corporations and politicians.


I see your point and its certainly a pickle of a situation. Perhaps we start with term limits, campaign finance overhaul, a shake up of the lobbying structure etc. Work on the government first and remove the career politicians who have profited from their efforts. Time to take the idea of royal romance, wealth, absolute power and comfort out of serving your country in Congress for life. Perhaps then, all else will fall into line.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


I'm a big fan of term limits...I can't see any reason why everyone, regardless of political leaning, can't get behind this one idea.

I don't want it as part of a bundled list of demands...just this one issue...and push it until it's done.


Another idea I like, and I'm not sure if I have even heard anyone else talk about it, is along with term limits having a ban on any incumbant being able to run for re-election while serving. So if the term limit is two, you can serve two terms...but you can't run for re-election while your serving...you would have to at least take one cycle off. That way you don't have to worry about how your votes are going to affect the current upcoming election.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Could you and OutKast take a look at this post www.abovetopsecret.com...

I was hoping for some feedback, but so far the OWS supporters haven't offered any. But neither have the non supporters, lol. It would be great to hear what you guys think.
edit on 4-11-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Good find! S&F

THIS is why our country is failing! It's not because some people stay at home and collect unemployment, some collect welfare, others are disabled and collecting disability...

Corporations destroyed this country from within and they will continue to do so if allowed. If corporations were forced to pay what they owe, even only from now on, forget about the way they raped USA for the last 20 years, I think this country may get a chance to shine again.

The thing is though, and this is so disheartening, is that I see little chance for a change. Yes, I may cancel my Verizon account and go to another cell carrier - but why? It's the same crap, same story, same loopholes for another corporation. It's the same way I've been boycotting BP since the spill... I don't go to Am/Pm, ARCO, anything that is BP, but then I turn around and go to Shell! It makes no difference, it's the same kind of a crooked corporation as all others that exist.


The only thing that remotely makes some difference is taking your money out of mainstream banks, which I have done (left USBank after 20 years when they tried to impose $9/mo to my checking account to stay "competitive"), and gone to local credit union.

Apart from that, how do you punish these companies for what they do, knowing you'll just bring your business to another crook if you leave this one?


Khar



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ClydeFrog42
reply to post by nenothtu
 


You speak as if you have some sort of solution to our problems? Please, if you have a better idea, we would all love to hear it.

Unfortunately, protesting and striking are basically the only tools at our disposal to express our dissatisfaction. What are YOU doing to make your voice heard, beyond criticizing the protestors from behind your keyboard and cramming doritoes down your face?

There is a PROBLEM, the problem has everything to do with MONEY, and all the money passes through, and is generated by, WALLSTREET.



You know, my solutions to the problems are already posted all over ATS. Do your homework before you spew.

After a rant like that whose sole purpose was to attempt to belittle me with false accusations, I'm not going to do it for you.

You obviously wouldn't be able to comprehend it any way, so why should I go to that effort - AGAIN?

I'll give my solutions to people who can hear them above their own dull roars.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Why not simply create rules against "soft money?" Political donations -- by anyone except individuals -- should be treated as felony bribery, and prosecuted accordingly.

As it stands now, a quick glance at opensecrets.org for example will illuminate the source of the problem quickly: Both sides of our fake system run on money spent by the same law firms and corporations.

Eliminate soft money and make politicians accountable to the people they represent, instead. The wise corporation is represented by the people who work for it, after all.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74

reply to post by nenothtu
 


I don't see how raising awareness is bad, especially if it causes more than one random person here or there to express intolerance of this level of corruption using your means, letters, calls etc...
edit on 4-11-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)


Because this method of "raising awareness" directs that awareness at the wrong target, one which is impotent to enact legislation to repair the mess.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Why not simply create rules against "soft money?" Political donations -- by anyone except individuals -- should be treated as felony bribery, and prosecuted accordingly.

As it stands now, a quick glance at opensecrets.org for example will illuminate the source of the problem quickly: Both sides of our fake system run on money spent by the same law firms and corporations.

Eliminate soft money and make politicians accountable to the people they represent, instead. The wise corporation is represented by the people who work for it, after all.



I'm all for that - as far as it goes. I would prefer to see ALL political donations outlawed. No one, big or small, individual or corporate, should be able to buy influence in politics.

ETA: I can recall when I was a teenager seeing the politicians buying votes on the court house steps, sometimes for as little as a drink of liquor. My dear old dad always stressed to me at such times that a man who will sell his vote doesn't deserve one. Now what we have is the politicians selling THEIR votes on this or that bit of legislation.

They don't deserve THEIR votes, either, and that ability to vote on legislative matters should be taken away from them, every time one is caught doing so. BOTH parties to that transaction, the buyer AND the seller, should be subject to precisely the same sanctions. What you want those sanctions to be is up to you.

To get the ball rolling, every single politician in DC should be fired and cleaned out of office, both the good and the bad, and replaced with brand new people with the fear of God already installed, due to the housecleaning that got them there to begin with. ALL lobbyists, Unions, corporate, even to the NRA and the AARP should be sent packing. We don't need any of them there trying to skew votes that affect all.


edit on 2011/11/4 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
What about when the corperations played their part in occupying Iraq preventing you and me from spending uber prices on petrol, you all said no WMDs while forgetting the man was spared after using WMDs on his own people last time he started some crap.
Sounds to me this thread is advocating more police state. Give the president enough power to be an underrated king and maybe maybe the trickle down effect might be to your liking.

So when you hear about the Ghadaffi styled no fly zone over Iran youll know exactly who's fault it was. Yours and mine. Sorry I'm just scurd of all them troops comming home for the holidays.
Oh yeah btw Skeptic Overlord has a thread about when he was considering becoming a lobyist.

Corporations provide for america and take from those who wish to exploit it. Well you catch my drift
edit on 4-11-2011 by Xemplar because: Tired of being a prole



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I think the answer now is to support the corporation you've researched and like and boycott others. That's capitalism as the consumer we have power.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Xemplar
 


No, I really don't catch your drift. How is it ok in your mind that any corporation legally be allowed to pay 0 dollars in taxes while making billions in profits and in some cases getting million dollar tax rebates?



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Raising awareness on who is buying our government is bad? The buyers are the wrong target?

edit on 4-11-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I agreed with much of your post. I think both corporate and social welfare are drags, but corporate welfare should be ended immediately and social phased out at the national level while it is decentralized to the communities. Boycotting is the right way to go after companies with bad business practices, and if we had true free markets it would be easier for a business with better practices to overtake the bad companies or at least change the ways of the bad companies. But instead of occupying the evil, # it, ignore the evil and embrace the good. They only have power if we give them power, ignoring them strips them of their power.
edit on 4-11-2011 by exlibertateveritas because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Raising awareness on who is buying our government is bad? The buyers are the wrong target?

edit on 4-11-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)


Yes.

The buyers will keep right on buying as long as anyone is selling. No amount of kicking or screaming against it will stop them from buying the influence the politicians are selling. The weak link in that chain is the corrupt politicians, not Wall Street or the corporations. You have more control over the politicians than you do the corporations.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I agree for the most part but people have been asleep for a long time, I believe this (the protests) is a process, a step in the right direction. First we were in denial, now we're angry next is finding solutions and then we can fix it.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I think the point has already been made in the streets, and it's time to start education one on one, and making things move. Further street activity is going to lead to bad places, and in some cases is already doing so.

A decentralization of effort is a good thing, but these crowds are centralized in a number of locations. I think it would be a better strategy at this point to disband the crowds, and send the individual people in them out among the populace in order to get their voices heard one on one. As of late, those voices are being drowned out in a cacophany emanating from the protest centers, and no one is really hearing what is being said any more, due to too many things in too many directions being sent out. It's become a sort of sensory overload, which is also a step in brainwashing.

It's easier to convince people by talking to them than it is by yelling at them, or letting them watch you yell at some one else. Most people will recoil from that sort of activity. By getting out and circulating, delivering the message as you get to individuals, the effort is actually multiplied, because you are actually getting to them, rather than letting the media, the government, TPTB, or anyone else set the tone by "interpreting" for you.

You've got their attention already - it's time to make use of that.

That sort of effort will pay off in more ways than one. It further decentralizes the "movement", dispersing the crowd among the target audience, saying your piece face to face so that it can't be "interpreted", and it makes it harder to stop by taking out any individual crowd in bulk. In the beginning, the OWS claimed that this was a "decentralized" movement so that the head couldn't be taken off. Further decentralization will only enhance that, while at the same time spreading the message without large scale interference or interpretation being a possibility, thus increasing "awareness".



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


You're absolutely right, and I think the endgame for OWS is the creation of a third political party with enough organization and public support to get elected without the billions of campaign dollars that is currently required. With the internet and word of mouth, it would actually be possible to challenge the power structure. The real trick would be dodging or ignoring whatever crap the media would throw at prospective candidates.

Of course, if things got to that point, then we'd see if they'd just hand over the reigns of power peacefully. As soon as the people pose a real threat to the entrenched power, I wager you'll see a backlash.





new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join