The Party of Jobs ......

[TropicCat]

Originally Posted by erps

...Where I'm from, that's called trespass at the very least. Trespassing is not a protected right.

Who said it was a right? A red herring which addressed not one single point in my post.

As an aside.. your comment is an over simplification of what was later clarified.

From the NY Post.."...So far, the (Trinity) church has been very supportive of the anti-Wall Street movement. “Our position, to date, has been to be very welcoming. They had the general assembly meeting here last Friday in one of our spaces.” In fact, the church has also allowed the protesters to use a community center it owns. The center offers free Internet access and bathrooms..."

Apparently a misunderstanding with one of the movement's stanch supporters.

[erps]

Originally Posted by TropicCat

Who said it was a right? A red herring which addressed not one single point in my post.

my point directly addresses this point in your post:

But When REAL People Without Money Assemble to Express Their Dissatisfaction with the Political [System], They’re Treated as Public Nuisances and Evicted.

They weren't evicted for expressing their views, they were evicted for being a public nuisance. One can express their views without harming or interfering with the rights of the surrounding community. They chose not to.

The term public nuisance covers a wide variety of minor crimes that threaten the health, morals, safety, comfort, convenience, or welfare of a community
Public Nuisance legal definition of Public Nuisance. Public Nuisance synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

[danjarch]

Originally Posted by CapnBilll

Or eliminate corperations altogether. In fact the corporation is simply an imaginary artifact of the government.

It was created as a system of control, to allow a few hidden men to control the production of thousands of workers with no liability, or accountablility. Why do people incorporate instead of forming a regular sole proprietership? Two reasons, tax laws favor corporations, and a partnership or proprietership holds the president of the company liable for the companies actions.

Your completely wrong. Corporations exist for average Joe's like you. So you have a little extra cash and the 2% the bank is offering isn't very appealing. You know this guy who's been talking about starting his own restaurant and has found four other guys willing to pony up 10k, plus he's willing to mortgage his house and put in 50k. For 10k you can own 10% of the restaurant, which you can sell later for more money but will get 10% of the profit as long as you hold on to your share.

Sounds great, your in, the guy then uses the 100k as collateral for a 400k loan that will get everything going. For a couple of years everything is great but then things start to go bad. The guy to save money lowers the amount of insurance the restaurant carries and starts buying meats from a questionable vendor. Next thing you know a number of people get sick and sue. the total damages come to a couple million more then the restaurant is insured for.

This is when your going to find out that your a complete idiot for investing with out incorporating. You would be liable for potentially all the damages. Oh but you only own 10% you say. Doesn't matter, under joint and several those with claims can go after whoever can pay. No limit. By-by house. By-by boat.

Seriously, if General Motors wasn't incorporated then the millions of share holders, including the pensioners, nonprofit organizations, and average joe's like you would have been liable for all those bonds, vendors and retired workers that hadn't been paid.

In a company the workers and the owner directly benefit, and suffer from their actions. In a corporation a group of shareholders, (banks, mutual fund managers), control and directly benefit from the actions of the corporation with no liability or vested interest in the corporation, it's workers, or the society it resides in.

The system of a few large corporations, (oligarchy), working for and in partnership with the government is defined by Fascism, (we fought a war to end that in europe). Now we have it here.

Your also wrong here, there are thousands upon thousands of corporations in America. The majority neither work for or with the government. As well, corporations are punished by the current tax law and regulations. That's why the majority of new companies start out as LLC, LLP, or S-corps. And don't even think about going public unless your worth north of a hundred million. The paper work required to go and stay public( So you can be traded by average investors) is way to expensive for small companies any more.

Why would a CEO volunteer to end his job, close all factories, fire all workers, and essentialy destroy everything he worked for in his whole life?

Yet it happens daily, as a coalition of bankers buyout a controlling interest in the corporations shares, and close down factories that cost billions to build firing all of the workers, all the while showing a profit.

Again your misrepresenting what usually goes on in these cases. It more a matter of the existing management and share holders having let thing go to pot and the company has lost a lot of it's value. But the business could be good again and has some assets that have value. You just have to go in and do things that aren't fun.

Yet they in turn are just acting in their best interest, as thier shareholders in turn are foreign governments that want to eliminate factories that compete with them, or even a multinational corperation owned by a foreign bank that wants more business in their country.

You have corporations that can circumvent donations limits to congressmen by counting the number of workers, and donating on their behalf to get laws passed that benefit the corperation, not the worker in whose names the corporation donated.

In turn the congressman passes laws the codify and benefit the specifically corporation that pays to keep him in office.

None of this would be possible if the laws allowing incorperation did not exist.

Sure there's a lot of shady thing going on but that's nothing new. The laws allowing for incorporation are just like any and given time, crooks will find ways to abuse them. But it's not the rich they protect, the rich can hire plenty of lawyers to make sure they won't be held liable. It's guys like you and me that need the protection if we're going to invest in companies.

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Not my fault you didn't qualify just what regulations you were speaking of politicians removing.

But entirely you fault for assuming that I meant more than I said. I recall someone bearing a close resemblance to yourself recently criticising others for assuming that your support for lower regulation meant removing all of them...

[PBzeer]

Well, ya see, that's just it, I didn't assume what you meant, I took it as what you wrote. You're too experienced a wiggler, for me to do otherwise.

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Well, ya see, that's just it, I didn't assume what you meant, I took it as what you wrote. You're too experienced a wiggler, for me to do otherwise.

Really? Then your response makes no sense.

No hassles, you know better now - the holes you believed to be in the statement were not to be filled in the way you decided them to be. Just as your belief in "lower regulation on business" doesn't mean "lowest possible regulations on business" (a valid interpretation, but one you criticised people for assuming from the former description).

[TropicCat]

Originally Posted by danjarch

Sure there's a lot of shady thing going on but that's nothing new. The laws allowing for incorporation are just like any and given time, crooks will find ways to abuse them. But it's not the rich they protect, the rich can hire plenty of lawyers to make sure they won't be held liable. It's guys like you and me that need the protection if we're going to invest in companies.

Yet our current mess was brought on because consciousless corporations offered financial products which no one would ever buy...until they rigged the system to show they were AAA rated bonds. The same quality as a US savings bond. Laws were already on the books, yet those Regulators were no where to be found.

To keep my point focused, I just need to say "Bernie Madoff". Regulators where handed evidence of his crimes for a decade, but simply didn't act.

So, Conservatives cry over regulation, when in fact there was no regulation where it mattered. It became evident that, the government defacto deregulation policy was in fact the real problem. The exact opposite of what the conservative history rewrite is saying.

Hopefully you all watched the CBS 60 minutes expose of middle class Americans elected to Congress and exiting 10 years later as multimillionaires courtesy of Congress's insider trading exemption. And we wonder why our economy fell apart.....

[WouldaShoulda]

Originally Posted by TropicCat

So, Conservatives cry over regulation, when in fact there was no regulation where it mattered. It became evident that, the government defacto deregulation policy was in fact the real problem. The exact opposite of what the conservative history rewrite is saying.

Conservatives cry over the same ineffective regulation you do.

Where we differ is in the solutions.

More, bad, regulatory practices are not the answer.

Fewer, effective and ENFORCED regulation is the answer AND it has the benefit of costing less.

[PBzeer]

Hopefully you all watched the CBS 60 minutes expose of middle class Americans elected to Congress and exiting 10 years later as multimillionaires courtesy of Congress's insider trading exemption. And we wonder why our economy fell apart.....

Hmmm, wonder just who it was that put the issue into public discourse?