View Single Post
Old 10-25-2011, 10:43 AM   #415
saden1
MVP
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 46
Posts: 10,069
Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
I have faith that an open and transparent free market that reacts to the general tenets of supply and demand and risk/reward on investments is the best form of economic system and is consistent with democratic/republican government (small d, small r).
What use is having faith in a system if process it operates under is plagued by inequities and thievery for which there's no precaution taken or repercussion for the perpetrators? Saying it's the best system there is or could be is selling yourself short. From too big to fail, to we have a national emergency, to we didn't heed the warnings, to laws in the books that someone paid for that say you can leverage your business 30-1 to insane pension policies. It's all there because someone paid for it. If that's the best system I am all for it so long as I am getting paid. If I am losing I'd like to see and participate in some taring and feathering.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
Also, I disagree with those who think corporations should not be allowed to contribute to campaigns. Again, corporations as legal "persons" should be just a funnel for the will of the investors. If they have gathered the resources to lobby for their position, they should be allowed to do so - just as I am free to lobby against and to work with others to create a larger impact.
There are legal definitions and then there are abstract definitions and concrete reality. My impression is people are persons, not a collection of people that make decisions on behalf of all the people they employ or all their shareholders. Lobbying is fine so long as it doesn't lead to pay-for-play and quid-pro-quo. Ultimately, the "person" with the most money wins and in this game you're as poor as they come. You're practically an invisible homeless person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
One of my problem with the "Occupy" movement is that, unlike the the Tea Party, the occupy movement is not actually organizing change it's just pouting about the problem. The Tea Party group - regardless of what you think of their message - organized, worked within the system, and elected numerous people who they believed would effect change. They were effective in that many politicians reflecting the "status quo" were defeated despite being backed by "the machine" (as it were). The Occupy folks have a clear and simple way to effect corporate change - buy in. Buy stocks and organize voting blocks within the corporations. It's hard, it's a lot of work, it would involve many setbacks, but there is a way for them to effectively change the structure. There is also, of course, the Tea Party route - identify an agenda, find individuals who support that agenda to run against machine politicians, and work like hell to elect those individuals -- or you can just sit in your own stench and whine. I am sure that will be effective too.
I think they're just getting started...let the engine warm-up before you go on your drive-by.
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
 
Page generated in 0.46406 seconds with 10 queries