It's morning in Wisconsin

[Scipio]

Actually, Democrats can legislate away corporations.  Corporations are creatures of state statutes.  If the Dems wanted to nuke the economy, they could do away with corporations quite easily.

[Valmy]

There are alot of special interests, particularly corps since they really have to do so to protect themselves, fund both parties.  Got to make sure whoever is in power has your back.

[Valmy]

Actually, Democrats can legislate away corporations.  Corporations are creatures of state statutes.  If the Dems wanted to nuke the economy, they could do away with corporations quite easily.

Only the ones with no international existence though right?  I mean the big corps have legal existence in, say, Canada as well right?

[CountDeMoney]

Bolded for you. An irrelevant point if no one actually wants to do that. And would, of course be odd, seeing as how many of us are employed by corporations.

Besides, corporations don't have to be anti-Dem. Didn't Obama have to deal with a minor kerfuffle as he received many campaign contributions from Wall Street interests?

What I am saying is, you've got one side that can utilize the power of legislation to eliminate the other side's national campaign finance organizations, while the other side has no equal means to do so.

[CountDeMoney]

Actually, Democrats can legislate away corporations.  Corporations are creatures of state statutes.  If the Dems wanted to nuke the economy, they could do away with corporations quite easily.

Can they legislate away Mssrs Koch and Karl Rove?

[Valmy]

No, he's right.  Public sector unions should be forbidden.  Just like in the USSR.

Well ok it doesn't really work if: a. everybody works in the public sector and/or b. there is no democratic process.  I mean utlimately the public sector Unions have to obey what the elected officials of the people decide.  If they decide the public interest means benefits have to decrease they cannot morally over-turn a democratic mandate with a strike.

[CountDeMoney]

There are alot of special interests, particularly corps since they really have to do so to protect themselves, fund both parties.  Got to make sure whoever is in power has your back.

Doesn't matter after Citizens United.

[Faeelin]

Well ok it doesn't really work if: a. everybody works in the public sector and/or b. there is no democratic process.  I mean utlimately the public sector Unions have to obey what the elected officials of the people decide.  If they decide the public interest means benefits have to decrease they cannot morally over-turn a democratic mandate with a strike.

Why not? Private sector workers can strike for greater benefits.

[garbon]

Bolded for you. An irrelevant point if no one actually wants to do that. And would, of course be odd, seeing as how many of us are employed by corporations.

Besides, corporations don't have to be anti-Dem. Didn't Obama have to deal with a minor kerfuffle as he received many campaign contributions from Wall Street interests?

What I am saying is, you've got one side that can utilize the power of legislation to eliminate the other side's national campaign finance organizations, while the other side has no equal means to do so.

Then it sounds like the Dems picked bad organizations to back.  Getting funding from organizations that are mostly unnecessary in this day and age sounds foolish. Why should we feel bad?

[Razgovory]

So a lot of what I'm seeing is that public sector employees shouldn't be paid very much because the sacred tax payer has to pay them.   Do I get that correct?

No.  They are saying that pay for public sector should be somewhat fixed to thge private sector.  Given the lack of opportunities for bonus', stock options, and promotion and advancement I think the pay has to be at least somewhat increased though.  I've seen a bunch of positions here go unfilled for over a year because nobody is willing to take the massive pay cut needed to work for a public university.

I imagine that won't be that popular.  If you fix state employee wages to that of the private sector in Missouri every state employee will get a huge pay increase.  You certainly won't be a balancing any budgets with that.

[Razgovory]

Bolded for you. An irrelevant point if no one actually wants to do that. And would, of course be odd, seeing as how many of us are employed by corporations.

Besides, corporations don't have to be anti-Dem. Didn't Obama have to deal with a minor kerfuffle as he received many campaign contributions from Wall Street interests?

What I am saying is, you've got one side that can utilize the power of legislation to eliminate the other side's national campaign finance organizations, while the other side has no equal means to do so.

Then it sounds like the Dems picked bad organizations to back.  Getting funding from organizations that are mostly unnecessary in this day and age sounds foolish. Why should we feel bad?

Democrats aren't in this business to make money.

[CountDeMoney]

Then it sounds like the Dems picked bad organizations to back.  Getting funding from organizations that are mostly unnecessary in this day and age sounds foolish. Why should we feel bad?

Getting funding from organizations are mostly unnecessary?  You mean, like Leo Linbeck's construction company in Houston funding GOP races in Ohio and Illinios?  Like that?

LOL, and there you go with the "we" again.  When it's all over and we have a one-party system, the Teabaggers will execute your homo minority ass.  I sincerely doubt they'll acknowledge that you've supported the billionaires and fundies all along, ghetto Jew cop.

[Valmy]

Why not? Private sector workers can strike for greater benefits.

And more power to them.  Though they are having a rough time of it these days, they need to globalize since the employers did but...wow that is a tall task with governments like China around...but I digress.

Private sector workers are striking against the owners and management of their employers...but the owners in the case of public sector employers is the people themselves and collective bargaining in this case allows a minority to dictate policy to a majority which is counter to democratic principles.  This is the same reason I hope someday we can change how elections are financed, in a way the Supreme Court will like better, to prevent politicians from being so beholden to special interests.  The way you support politicians is you vote for them, not send them cash, and the way you get the government to pay you more is get the population to vote in people who want to do that.

[Valmy]

Democrats aren't in this business to make money.

Well they do a great job of it.  Since when have the Democrats had troubles fund raising?  They seem to do alright.

[garbon]

Then it sounds like the Dems picked bad organizations to back.  Getting funding from organizations that are mostly unnecessary in this day and age sounds foolish. Why should we feel bad?

Getting funding from organizations are mostly unnecessary?  You mean, like Leo Linbeck's construction company in Houston funding GOP races in Ohio and Illinios?  Like that?

LOL, and there you go with the "we" again.  When it's all over and we have a one-party system, the Teabaggers will execute your homo minority ass.  I sincerely doubt they'll acknowledge that you've supported the billionaires and fundies all along, ghetto Jew cop.

Yes, unions are largely unnecessary as part of a historical trend.  I've no idea if construction companies fit that same model.

Unlike you, I don't fear that the formation of one party. Seems unlikely.