MyRandomName: It's like liberals refuse to learn what corporate personhood actually represents. Take 10 minutes, read some literature, and understand why corporations need some of the abilities an individual has.

I think the operative word there is "some". Corporations are legal entities allowed to exist by the laws we create. Thus, we have every right to limit their rights under the law. Corporations do not have "human" rights or "free speech" rights or any other rights unless we give grant them under the law. And we've gone way too far in giving them rights they don't deserve.

riverwalk barfly: ..."we want the rights of individuals without the responsibilities that come with those rights"

which is why I will believe corporations are people when they execute one in Texas.

s2s2s2: johnnyrocket: I suspect Romney will self destruct in the general.

If he gets the nom, I believe his destruction will be what the GOP have in mind. They are just plain tired of him.

In my view, Romney has an issue that could really hurt him in the general election: his tax returns. He refuses to release them because it will lay bare what everyone already knows, that he is a member of the super rich with a net worth in the hundreds of millions, an annual income in the tens of millions, and he pays federal income tax that as a percentage is lower than most of the middle class, probably somewhere in the 10%-15% range.

The longer he waits to disclose this the more it will become a "What is he hiding?" story line like they tried to make with Obama's birth certificate, only this time it's real. His reaction to the anger that this kind of inequality tends to instill in people is to say "Y'all are just jealous!" Good way to win people over.

MyRandomName: It's like liberals refuse to learn what corporate personhood actually represents. Take 10 minutes, read some literature, and understand why corporations need some of the abilities an individual has.

Wow, you disproved your own argument! Congratulations!

MyRandomName: It's like liberals refuse to learn what corporate personhood actually represents. Take 10 minutes, read some literature, and understand why corporations need some of the abilities an individual has.

I don't care how much abilities a corporation has. What corporations need is the same RESPONSIBILITY to use the abilities peacefully that the rest of us have. I'll be all for giving corporations full personhood as long we get to execute the murderous ones.

Write in 'One Man/One Vote' Constitutional Convention 9-17-2013 on your presidential ballot.

Corporations/states/institutions/parties can suck it.

More like an assassin, unless Mittens was just destroying companies for the hell of it.

Colbert just trolled the shiat out of George Stephanopoulos on ABC This Week.

George: Let be get serious here for a second....
Stephen: Good luck with that.

lol

Lenny_da_Hog: Jerseysteve22: Colbert just trolled the shiat out of George Stephanopoulos on ABC This Week.

Linkie (new window)

Thanks for the link! You can hear the crew on set cracking up at a couple of points in the interview.

I also loved Colbert's "Do you really get your questions from Facebook?" comment.

furiousxgeorge: Colbert just trolled the shiat out of George Stephanopoulos on ABC This Week.

George: Let be get serious here for a second....
Stephen: Good luck with that.

lol

That whole interview was perhaps the most beautiful thing I've seen on television in quite a while.

I was laughing the whole time.

Never mind Corporate personhood, I'm not sure about Romney personhood.

r1chard3: Never mind Corporate personhood, I'm not sure about Romney personhood.

I think we should require a Turning Test if you want to run for President.

Dwight_Yeast: r1chard3: Never mind Corporate personhood, I'm not sure about Romney personhood.

I think we should require a Turning Test if you want to run for President.

Well, if nothing else, that'd knock Trump and Perry out of the running.

Dwight_Yeast: r1chard3: Never mind Corporate personhood, I'm not sure about Romney personhood.

I think we should require a Turning Test if you want to run for President.

Insert requisite snarky comment about your typo here.

GeneralJim: AW rule book says: You made it all about ME, so you're an insta-loser, too. So sorry. Here's a copy of our home game.

Your enemies confounded! All who address you are insta-losers!

You're not an attention whore, but you view the world through the AW rule book!

And if everyone ignores you, then you must be so right that anyone who disagrees can't think of anything to say, and everyone else is nodding their head in agreement.

Thank the gods you only use your awesome powers to troll fark.

Bucky Katt: GeneralJim: Well played, Subby, well played... Although, what the HELL is logic doing in a political post?

does the green font make your post more logical?

It makes it invisible if you highlight him in green-3

CaesarSneezy: Remember that conservatism almost always boils down to emotional identity politics.

And we didn't pass the New Deal, Medicare/Medicaid, and many current initiatives through pushing people's emotional identity politic's buttons? Try again, buttmunch. Emotion trumps reason on a bipartisan basis because the people are stupid and can best be manipulated on that basis.

TheBigJerk: You know, there is a strong argument Mitt Romney *is* a sociopath. His story about the dog, the way he constantly tries and fails to act like "regular people" and the uncanny valley effect of his :folksy stories."

That's because he is a Mormon...not a sociopath. Just thought I'd clarify for you, lol

I realize this is the wrong place for any intelligent discussions on corporate governance, "ethics", or discussing the implication of the Citizen's United decision...anyway

Mitt Romney ran Bain Capital, a private equity investment outfit. They take equity stakes in prospective high-risk, high-return environments where they a frequently coming alongside troubled or nascent companies and provide them with expensive financing (as in coughing up significant equity stakes) and consulting advice (which is admittedly sometimes massively over-billed particular if the company is tanking). They also did quite a bit of M&A work which can sometimes leave people with a bad taste in their mouth due to downsizing, off-shoring, and generally eliminated redundancies giving this type of work the nickname"Murders and Executions". Yes, some companies failed under their watch, some restructured to stop the hemorrhaging at least, and some other became wildly successful. If you have a beef with that basis of operation, then you are likely one of those American's who believes a corporation exists to give people jobs, not to make a profit. Unfortunately, they don't...

Also, in reference to Citizen's United, I realize the ideas of corporate personhood, superPACs, and alike are pretty repulsive. However, if you take a few steps back from vitriol and rhetoric on this issue, ask yourself, why do the money and politics matter so much in the end? Mostly because people are stupid, lazy, and gullible when choosing their candidates (idiots watching millions of dollars of political ads, etc.) and wrongheadedly thinking that giving government institutions and regulators more power and privilege will protect us...it just keeps making it worse since the corporatist licks their chops every time because it just makes their job easier to buy influence instead of compete. I would bet quite a bit that anyone who reads this post will write back with some quip about the solution being publicly financed elections...which is a supremely stupid idea given what has been laid out here.

Amagi: However, if you take a few steps back from vitriol and rhetoric on this issue, ask yourself, why do the money and politics matter so much in the end? Mostly because people are stupid, lazy, and gullible when choosing their candidates (idiots watching millions of dollars of political ads, etc.) and wrongheadedly thinking that giving government institutions and regulators more power and privilege will protect us...it just keeps making it worse since the corporatist licks their chops every time because it just makes their job easier to buy influence instead of compete.

Whereas giving government and regulators less power makes it easier for corporations to take advantage of us.

It's a Catch-22. And you'd be naive to think that would not be the case.

Dwight_Yeast: I think we should require a Turning Test if you want to run for President.

That's not fair -- the animatronic Abe Lincoln at Disneyland is more qualified than any of the current GOP presidential contenders.

or Obama and Mr. Solyendra for embezzlement and fraud.

Nemo's Brother: or Obama and Mr. Solyendra for embezzlement and fraud.

Still milking that cow for what it's worth eh?

As an accountant, it's amazing to me how many people are capitalizing on the misinterperetation of Romney's words. In one very important respect, and one especially that dems would love, corporations are treated in the same way as people.

Amagi: Also, in reference to Citizen's United, I realize the ideas of corporate personhood, superPACs, and alike are pretty repulsive. However, if you take a few steps back from vitriol and rhetoric on this issue, ask yourself, why do the money and politics matter so much in the end? Mostly because people are stupid, lazy, and gullible when choosing their candidates (idiots watching millions of dollars of political ads, etc.) and wrongheadedly thinking that giving government institutions and regulators more power and privilege will protect us...it just keeps making it worse since the corporatist licks their chops every time because it just makes their job easier to buy influence instead of compete. I would bet quite a bit that anyone who reads this post will write back with some quip about the solution being publicly financed elections...which is a supremely stupid idea given what has been laid out here.

Have you ever wondered why the very wealthiest individuals and largest corporations spend so much money lobbying Congress? The Americans Jobs Creation Act allowed corporations to bring back $312 billion in overseas profits while spending about $14 million lobbying Congress. That's a 22000% return on investment: for every dollar spent lobbying, they made back $220 in tax benefits. There is absolutely no return on investment anywhere else in the world that can make you that kind of money. The knowledge that they can make that much money by donating to the election campaigns of Congressional candidates is why they do it. Think about what happens when a friend gives you a gift. You're grateful, and most of the time, you want to show them that you're friends as well by giving them a gift back. That's what campaign contributions are: a gift to Congressmen and candidates that will leave the receiver mentally indebted and willing to scratch their back. Combine that with the facts that almost 90% of elections are won by the candidate who spends the most money in their election and that two SCOTUS decisions, Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. FEC, have made it possible for individuals and corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money, and you have all the ingredients for an arms race more out of control than the Cold War. The worst part is that the kind of money necessary to pay for a campaign has been pushed out of reach of anyone who isn't already rich or willing to make friends with a lot of rich people and big corporations.

I'm not necessarily saying public financing is an answer, but frankly speaking, the current system of financing election campaigns is infinitely worse.

Ricardo Klement: What's wrong with green text? It's rather pleasant. We should all post in green.

There's nothing wrong with green text.

GeneralJim, on the other hand, is a douche.

KanedaJD: As an accountant, it's amazing to me how many people are capitalizing on the misinterperetation of Romney's words. In one very important respect, and one especially that dems would love, corporations are treated in the same way as people.

I'd be interested in your particular take if you would indulge us...in all seriousness.

Amagi: KanedaJD: As an accountant, it's amazing to me how many people are capitalizing on the misinterperetation of Romney's words. In one very important respect, and one especially that dems would love, corporations are treated in the same way as people.

I'd be interested in your particular take if you would indulge us...in all seriousness.

Ten bucks says it's the ability to sue a corporation.

Serious Black: Amagi: Also, in reference to Citizen's United, I realize the ideas of corporate personhood, superPACs, and alike are pretty repulsive. However, if you take a few steps back from vitriol and rhetoric on this issue, ask yourself, why do the money and politics matter so much in the end? Mostly because people are stupid, lazy, and gullible when choosing their candidates (idiots watching millions of dollars of political ads, etc.) and wrongheadedly thinking that giving government institutions and regulators more power and privilege will protect us...it just keeps making it worse since the corporatist licks their chops every time because it just makes their job easier to buy influence instead of compete. I would bet quite a bit that anyone who reads this post will write back with some quip about the solution being publicly financed elections...which is a supremely stupid idea given what has been laid out here.

Have you ever wondered why the very wealthiest individuals and largest corporations spend so much money lobbying Congress? The Americans Jobs Creation Act allowed corporations to bring back $312 billion in overseas profits while spending about $14 million lobbying Congress. That's a 22000% return on investment: for every dollar spent lobbying, they made back $220 in tax benefits. There is absolutely no return on investment anywhere else in the world that can make you that kind of money. The knowledge that they can make that much money by donating to the election campaigns of Congressional candidates is why they do it. Think about what happens when a friend gives you a gift. You're grateful, and most of the time, you want to show them that you're friends as well by giving them a gift back. That's what campaign contributions are: a gift to Congressmen and candidates that will leave the receiver mentally indebted and willing to scratch their back. Combine that with the facts that almost 90% of elections are won by the candidate who spends the most money in their elect ...

Great post, Serious Black. I have to say I am always very impressed by your thoughts on a variety of topics. I hope your take on my posting didn't lead you to believe that I was trivializing the role that money has on politics at all. Our current environment is completely toxic, no doubt. I just get very weary of people saying more government regulation and intervention are the answer. When the institutions built on the premise of protecting us from some baddies quit being commandeered by the exact same baddies to further enrich themselves, I will start paying attention.

Since we are on FARK, we always end up with quite a few "good government" suckers who think all this regulation that is getting passed at the moment, whether it be PPACA or Dodd Frank, was the Democrat's effort to protect from the big bad health insurance companies and banking system whose hand maidens are nearly exclusively Republicans. I expect these big sweeping pieces of legislation and regulation to benefit the biggest players at the expense of the small insurers and community banks, be incredibly expensive, and do next to nothing to crack down on many industry abuses (although, I believe substantial elements of healthcare reform were not in vain, but expanding coverage is politically much easier than ratcheting down costs which will need further efforts.). I anticipate much of this going about as well as Sarbanes-Oxley...incredibly expensive and very little enforcement at all (I think Value Line was the only instance I can think of)

My tact in limiting government is not to let the corporations run rough shot over us mere commoners by abolishing some important regulations (we all need to vet them for their utility in their roles) but to start removing the privileges given to corporatists and the political class for them to wield over us. Yes, this might be impossible at this point, but that is my take...basically let a lot if it burn and the vermin will be sent running. I brought up the publicly financed elections quip because I hear a lot of well meaning stupid people bring it up and would be a massive principle-agent blunder to give the politicians the ability to change their own rules over how entities--like say the competition from the other minority parties--can behave to try to enter into the political system. That is a complete can of worms.

Johnson:

riverwalk barfly: ..."we want the rights of individuals without the responsibilities that come with those rights"

which is why I will believe corporations are people when they execute one in Texas.

You make a good point. When corporations do damage, it is reasonable to make them repair that damage, or compensate those damaged if repairs cannot be made. If the damage is more than the book value of the corporation, the corporation should be liquidated (killed) and the assets divided amongst the damaged individuals.

This would have the effect of ensuring that careful individuals get elected as chairmen and CEOs of corporations. The LAST thing investors want is to be the owners of stock in a bankrupt corporation. Current policies encourage stupid risk-taking for large corporations, on the proven theory that if the stupid gamble pays off, then free money, and if not, then the taxpayers will bail them out. When it comes to various damages, liability is limited to a maximum daily fine. Screw that. Corporations NEED to die off for capitalism to work, or, at LEAST need to be ABLE to die.

Kumana Wanalaia:

Thank the gods you only use your awesome powers to troll fark.

You're welcome.

Ricardo Klement:

That's why Too Big To Fail is such nonsense. If a corporation gets so large that its collapse would have a disastrous effect on the economy, we're better off with a law that prevents it by breaking it up than bailing them out.

There really is no need for a law to break up a company that loses its butt through dumb mistakes -- bankruptcy law does that. But your uber-point, that the bailout was an acme of stupidity, is clearly true. The dumbest thing in ages. I think it is inherent in the process that if a company is "too big to fail," then it's too big to bail out.

But, then again, look at the roster of past Goldman Sachs execs, and top federal government executives. A HUGE number of names are on both lists.

Ricardo Klement:

That doesn't mean football is a giant conspiracy.

Football? How odd that you should mention football....