Michael Moore’s $2M hypocrite house: film director lives like the 1% he condemns

[JustinW]

Who isn't somewhat hypocritical in one way or another? I don't care a rats a-- about the guy, his movies or philosophy. But if I had his money I'd live where ever the hell I wanted to. Moore wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Too true. I don't agree with him or his message. I think he has stated some truths, but like everyone says, the best lies have a little truth to them. But all in all, he did find a nerve to strike and turned it into a money making venture, which entitles him to do whatever he wants with the money he makes. Color me paranoid, but I just wish he will still be around to feel the repricussions that his "movement" will result in, but that is probably asking too much.

[Phi for All]

Color me paranoid, but I just wish he will still be around to feel the repricussions that his "movement" will result in, but that is probably asking too much.

Why do you assume the repercussions will be negative (an assumption from tone)? I fail to see how people, as in We, the People, holding their political leadership accountable and addressing the problems caused by manipulations and un-American, deceptive tactics used by corporations will end up being anything but positive. You have admitted in several threads of this type that we have problems in this country that the politicians are unable or unwilling to fix. Who else is going to do it? Rush Limbaugh?

[jryan]

Well, to sum up my position, Moore isn't being hypocritical unless it can be proved that he's abusing the corporate/political system the way the antagonists in his documentaries are. People who want to make it seem like he's waging class warfare are either supporting and/or propagating a huge strawman argument against the progressive movement and Moore in particular.

 

 

He doesn't hire union labor, for starters. The house is an easy target, but it's really fleshed out by the fact that behind the scenes Moore is just as capitalist as the next guy, hiring cheaper labor and suing partners over royalties while living the good life.

 

I don't fault Moore for doing what he is doing, but he is a giant hypocrite that doesn't actually seem to believe what he says.

[iNow]

Isn't the attack on Moore also little more than a big distraction from the core issues we're facing and challenges we must address? Isn't it a bit of a red herring? It's not like the problems we're facing with corruption and cronyism and lack of progress suddenly evaporate if we focus for a while on how a documentary film maker has lots of money and isn't liked by the politically right-leaning members of our society. However... it does cause those problems to evaporate from our focus and attention, and voila! Nothing gets done to make our country better and improve the lives of our fellow citizens.

 

Illuminate an obvious problem.

Propaganda machine attacks the person who pointed to problem and shown some light on it.

Populace gets side-tracked and distracted battling to determine if they should shoot the messenger.

Everybody and their grandmother winds up ignoring the problem.

The problem remains unaddressed and exploited.

Someone else points to the obvious problem.

That messenger gets attacked by their ideological opponents.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Problems grow and grow and grow and we all suffer. Yay us!

[Phi for All]

He doesn't hire union labor, for starters. The house is an easy target, but it's really fleshed out by the fact that behind the scenes Moore is just as capitalist as the next guy, hiring cheaper labor and suing partners over royalties while living the good life.

I consider his not hiring union labor to be hypocritical. I don't know how movie budgets work; does the studio set the budget or does MM? Either way there is hypocrisy there on someone's part. It's the only thing in this whole thread about hypocrisy that even IS hypocritical.

 

Suing his partners over royalties is just business though. It sounds like he audited the Weinsteins and discovered they were holding out on him. I laughed at how your article made the Weinsteins seem like old ladies on a fixed income that Moore was kicking to the curb. If you were being screwed out of almost $2M, would any amount of money already in your pocket make you think that was OK?

[JustinW]

Phi,

 

Why do you assume the repercussions will be negative (an assumption from tone)? I fail to see how people, as in We, the People, holding their political leadership accountable and addressing the problems caused by manipulations and un-American, deceptive tactics used by corporations will end up being anything but positive. You have admitted in several threads of this type that we have problems in this country that the politicians are unable or unwilling to fix.

Because the movement that he assosiates himself with want a fundamental change in our structure. To put a label on it "Marxist Socialism". That would have a negative effect on the nation as a whole.

 

Sure we have problems. The amount of hollering overpowers the substance of our problems to a point that that substance is ridiculed or shrugged off by a majority. The fact is that even though we do have corruption, it pales in comparison to most of the nations that are close to our size. So this social/progressive movement doesn't fit in to the contrast of the movement's call for necessity. If we could fix our problems while maintaining our origional platform, I seen no need in changing our whole structure. It's hard to sing koombaya in the middle of a bar fight.

 

Who else is going to do it? Rush Limbaugh?

Not unless he can make some money at it. Rush bores me too bad. I'd rather listen to Mark Levin call someone an idiot and toss him off the air. Other than him doing that I only have boredome to fight when listening to talk shows.

 

 

iNow,

Isn't the attack on Moore also little more than a big distraction from the core issues we're facing and challenges we must address? Isn't it a bit of a red herring? It's not like the problems we're facing with corruption and cronyism and lack of progress suddenly evaporate if we focus for a while on how a documentary film maker has lots of money and isn't liked by the politically right-leaning members of our society. However... it does cause those problems to evaporate from our focus and attention, and voila! Nothing gets done to make our country better and improve the lives of our fellow citizens.

I don't think nothing's getting done because we're bad mouthing Moore. I think nothing is getting done because the shouting to get something done is outdistancing the problem. Like I told Phi above, corruption in America pales in comparison to nations that are close to our size. The more outrageous people get, the more they'll be subjugated to shrugs and the roll of the ol' eyes. Moore just compounds the problem by feeding into the hysteria and ideological movement that a majority of Americans are against.

 

That messenger gets attacked by their ideological opponents.

Bolded says it all. He supports and shouts for an ideology that a majority do not.

 

 

 

I consider his not hiring union labor to be hypocritical. I don't know how movie budgets work; does the studio set the budget or does MM? Either way there is hypocrisy there on someone's part. It's the only thing in this whole thread about hypocrisy that even IS hypocritical.

I agree with this. If you're looking at the substance of his work and not the agenda behind it then it makes sense that that is the only thing hypocritical. But the whole share the wealth ideology makes him hypocritical.

 

Suing his partners over royalties is just business though. It sounds like he audited the Weinsteins and discovered they were holding out on him. I laughed at how your article made the Weinsteins seem like old ladies on a fixed income that Moore was kicking to the curb. If you were being screwed out of almost $2M, would any amount of money already in your pocket make you think that was OK?

He was well within his rights and can choose who ever he wants to share his wealth with. That is until the restructuring takes place. Then he better open an acount in the caymans to keep the new founded government from spreading it for him, "for the good of the people".

 

Hey, kind of fits my signature below doesn't it?

[Phi for All]

Because the movement that he assosiates himself with want a fundamental change in our structure. To put a label on it "Marxist Socialism". That would have a negative effect on the nation as a whole.

You're being misled. The progressive movement has nothing to do with Marxist Socialism. This is right wing propaganda meant to straw man the real goal, which is to rein in the corporate influence on our democracy and take things like health insurance out of the hands of profiteers. We've discussed this many times and it pains me to have to go back over old ground. Are you really going to make me look up your responses to health insurance for profit?

 

Sure we have problems. The amount of hollering overpowers the substance of our problems to a point that that substance is ridiculed or shrugged off by a majority. The fact is that even though we do have corruption, it pales in comparison to most of the nations that are close to our size. So this social/progressive movement doesn't fit in to the contrast of the movement's call for necessity. If we could fix our problems while maintaining our origional platform, I seen no need in changing our whole structure. It's hard to sing koombaya in the middle of a bar fight.

I think you simply don't want our corruption to be worse than other nations our size, but I'm afraid we're the frontrunners in that respect. It costs us twice as much to do things when, due to our size and affluence, we should be paying less. Did you ever see the breakdown on what Bush's no-bid Iraq War contract with Halliburton cost us? You'd think a single company doing EVERYTHING would be able to lower costs as opposed to multiple companies each doing a portion of the work, wouldn't you? We paid almost double in every instance, from craft services to oil well firefighting.

 

Other countries may have corruption as well, but the US does it through channels and gets We, the People to sign off on the graft via patriotism, buried bill provisions and spun media stories.

 

I agree with this. If you're looking at the substance of his work and not the agenda behind it then it makes sense that that is the only thing hypocritical. But the whole share the wealth ideology makes him hypocritical.

Again, this "share the wealth" crap is propaganda, same as "class warfare". What the progressive movement wants is for the wealthy to share in our tax burdens, and pay their fair amount towards the superstructure we all use. If the wealthy pay more, well, their companies use more resources and create more wear and tear on the roads. Capital gains, where much of the wealthy's wealth comes from, is taxed at a lesser rate than your income. That's just wrong.

[JustinW]

Phi,

 

I think you simply don't want our corruption to be worse than other nations our size, but I'm afraid we're the frontrunners in that respect. It costs us twice as much to do things when, due to our size and affluence, we should be paying less. Did you ever see the breakdown on what Bush's no-bid Iraq War contract with Halliburton cost us? You'd think a single company doing EVERYTHING would be able to lower costs as opposed to multiple companies each doing a portion of the work, wouldn't you? We paid almost double in every instance, from craft services to oil well firefighting.

 

 

No body wants their country's corruption to be as bad as others. Here is where we rank with the rest of the world: http://chartsbin.com/view/nz2

And that last part of what I have quoted above seems suspiciously like what the government has always done. I think the hollering about corporate corruption has gotten you off track with how our problems stack up when compared to the rest of the world.

 

 

Other countries may have corruption as well, but the US does it through channels and gets We, the People to sign off on the graft via patriotism, buried bill provisions and spun media stories.

All the more reason we should let the government make ALL of our decisions so we at least have someone besides ourselves to blame. Apparently We as a whole are incompetent in matters of making our own decisions in life. Let's go ahead and shout out for an ideological change that was the key in allowing dictators to gain so much control over people. That sounds like heck of a thing to champion in the shouting arena of today. At least we will know that if we can get all of the country to suffer under a tyranical torment then more than likely those nasty corporations will finally get what they deserve. I don't know why I felt the need for a sarcastic paragraph, but there it is.

 

 

Again, this "share the wealth" crap is propaganda

Like this "evil corporation", "evil rich people", "health care for all", "koombaya" crap isn't. Eye of the beholder I guess.

 

 

Are you really going to make me look up your responses to health insurance for profit?

Go ahead, but I don't ever recall agreeing that everyone should be ENTITLED to healthcare or free healthcare or whatever it is those wierd ass activists chant in the streets and shout at anyone who even remotely looks like they're listening. Propoganda works both ways I tell ya. All that shouting is going to do is drive away anyone who will listen, especially once all the intrecate little fallacies start building up to discredit such a movement. Legitimate problems will be swept under the rug because of a false premiss that "rich people bad"- "middle class better"-"let's make them rich bastards pay" ideology can't stand up to the plate without a dictator to lead it.

 

Not to mention the fact that the creation of crisis is how to get things done under such a political ideology isn't it? The more you stir people up and pander on their hype and hysteria the more an activist can get done. Am I wrong?

 

Entitlements and restrictions for "our own good" will be the downfall of this nation. Not corruption and greed.

[Phi for All]

No body wants their country's corruption to be as bad as others. Here is where we rank with the rest of the world: http://chartsbin.com/view/nz2

And that last part of what I have quoted above seems suspiciously like what the government has always done. I think the hollering about corporate corruption has gotten you off track with how our problems stack up when compared to the rest of the world.

Your chart is for perception of corruption. I'd like to know how they rate those perceptions. Their parameters are probably for things like officials taking bribes rather than politicians working corporate-favorable legislation into bills. Corruption perception may not include lobbyists working within the legal parameters established by corrupt politicians.

 

All the more reason we should let the government make ALL of our decisions so we at least have someone besides ourselves to blame. Apparently We as a whole are incompetent in matters of making our own decisions in life. Let's go ahead and shout out for an ideological change that was the key in allowing dictators to gain so much control over people. That sounds like heck of a thing to champion in the shouting arena of today. At least we will know that if we can get all of the country to suffer under a tyranical torment then more than likely those nasty corporations will finally get what they deserve. I don't know why I felt the need for a sarcastic paragraph, but there it is.

Now THAT is a specious argument. You know I advocate government control only where profit motivations are in direct conflict with the interests represented. I don't know where you get off claiming that's an ideological change. I'm closer to being an Eisenhower Republican than I am an ultra-liberal Democrat like Michael Moore. Eisenhower warned us about trusting the military industrial complex.

 

I'm not going to go back and rehash everything we've discussed before. I never said corporations are evil or rich people are bad and you damn well know it, yet you keep misrepresenting what I've said. I'm going to let Ike say it for me, because he predicted our current fate. From his farewell speech to the American people in 1961:

 

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

 

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

 

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

 

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

 

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

[iNow]

I believe that there's even more to the problem than that. You fine gentleman might enjoy this watch: http://billmoyers.com/segment/jacob-hacker-paul-pierson-on-engineered-inequality/

[JustinW]

</body>Phi,

 

Your chart is for perception of corruption. I'd like to know how they rate those perceptions. Their parameters are probably for things like officials taking bribes rather than politicians working corporate-favorable legislation into bills. Corruption perception may not include lobbyists working within the legal parameters established by corrupt politicians.

 

And perception doesn't reflect reality? Bad policy, though bad enough, is not corruption.

This is what you said:

I think you simply don't want our corruption to be worse than other nations our size, but I'm afraid we're the frontrunners in that respect.

The frontrunners in bad policy maybe. But not corruption.

 

 

Now THAT is a specious argument. You know I advocate government control only where profit motivations are in direct conflict with the interests represented. I don't know where you get off claiming that's an ideological change. I'm closer to being an Eisenhower Republican than I am an ultra-liberal Democrat like Michael Moore. Eisenhower warned us about trusting the military industrial complex.

Sorry Phi, didn't mean you personally. That was more of a rant towards the ideological movement that wants this change for our own good. And THAT movement isn't only conscerned about conflicts of interest.

 

 

I never said corporations are evil or rich people are bad and you damn well know it, yet you keep misrepresenting what I've said.

You have never said it outright. But to hear you tell it, sometimes I wonder. Maybe I just had a misperception from the overall content of you're arguements. When someone's arguements tend to lean towards a certain topic, then it starts to look like a pattern.

 

from the link provided by iNow,

The struggle of ordinary people for a decent living, for security, is as old as the republic, but it's taken on a new and urgent edge. Instead of shared prosperity our political system has now produced a winner-take-all economy.

Does anything seem wrong with this statement? Shared prosperity? That whole thing is a crock. It may have some truths mixed in with it, but so do the best lies.Just another cheerleading for the "spread the wealth" activists. They even went as far as saying "well hollywood saw it coming". If I have to rely on people like saun penn to predict future events I might as well give up the ghost now. I'm exasperated

Edited March 7, 2012 by JustinW

[Phi for All]

Does anything seem wrong with this statement? Shared prosperity? That whole thing is a crock. It may have some truths mixed in with it, but so do the best lies.Just another cheerleading for the "spread the wealth" activists. They even went as far as saying "well hollywood saw it coming". If I have to rely on people like saun penn to predict future events I might as well give up the ghost now. I'm exasperated

Dude, you accuse me of leaning and following a pattern, then you make a statement like this. "Shared prosperity" does NOT mean "spread the wealth" or "rob from the rich to give to the poor". Shared prosperity means fair taxation, using our numbers to make sure the least of us is cared for, and working hard so we can consume the goods and services we all generate to stimulate a healthy economy. Shared prosperity does NOT mean tilt everything in favor of a few, scrape workers benefits to the bone for a little more profit and avoid paying your fair share to help maintain our national infrastructure.

 

It's fair business practices and integrity in lawmaking. It's actually believing that your people are what make your business great instead of just posting it on the corporate website while you lay off another thousand people at Christmas. Shared prosperity, where we make a wage that lets us be involved in our own economy and political structure instead of working two or three jobs to make ends meet while your kids wonder when you'll have enough energy to play with them.

[JustinW]

The "Shared prosperity" in the context of the show implies that there are those taking the chance of prosperity from others. Where is that happening? Maybe you could shed some light on opportunities that have been purposely blocked by the top 1%. Why don't you give some examples that couldn't be construde as " the name of the game".

 

Shared prosperity, where we make a wage that lets us be involved in our own economy and political structure instead of working two or three jobs to make ends meet while your kids wonder when you'll have enough energy to play with them.

We already set a wage. It is just that "some people" keep purposely driving inflation and the wage can't keep up do to all the red tape. There are other reasons as well, but to say that this world will ever be fair or that we should have an agenda towards such a goal isn't copasetic.

 

 

It's fair business practices and integrity in lawmaking

Here we go with that "fair" stuff again. Speaking of patterns.

 

Integrity is a matter of opinion, though in mine I believe you're on to something.

 

 

Also, to me, if you want everyone to pay their "fair share" it would be reasonably simple. Set up a flat income tax without exemptions. Sounds pretty hard doesn't it? I wonder who will fight something like that in congress, and also who will start the yelling first.

[Phi for All]

The "Shared prosperity" in the context of the show implies that there are those taking the chance of prosperity from others. Where is that happening? Maybe you could shed some light on opportunities that have been purposely blocked by the top 1%. Why don't you give some examples that couldn't be construde as " the name of the game".

Wages and benefits have been stifled over the years while profits have been increased. It's been a gradual process that has avoided open revolt. It's not just inflation that has caused most families to require two incomes. Are you saying you don't think it's suspicious that so many people are hurting at the middle while the top is doing better than ever? Our economy is like a tube of toothpaste; the bottom is sealed, the middle has been squeezed, and the stuff we need is just gushing out at the top.

 

We already set a wage. It is just that "some people" keep purposely driving inflation and the wage can't keep up do to all the red tape. There are other reasons as well, but to say that this world will ever be fair or that we should have an agenda towards such a goal isn't copasetic.

 

 

Here we go with that "fair" stuff again. Speaking of patterns.

Again, when I say fair, I don't mean evenly distributed. I mean having a level playing field and applying the laws even-handedly. I mean NOT stacking the deck against small businesses by using no-bid contracts, or buying political favors with your campaign contributions to skew things in your favor. I mean NOT robbing the pension funds of your hard-working employees, or sending their jobs overseas so you can make more profit.

 

Integrity is a matter of opinion, though in mine I believe you're on to something.

It's a shame integrity has to be so alien.

 

 

Also, to me, if you want everyone to pay their "fair share" it would be reasonably simple. Set up a flat income tax without exemptions. Sounds pretty hard doesn't it? I wonder who will fight something like that in congress, and also who will start the yelling first.

The IRS is a perfect example of something that the vast majority of We, the People see as needing fixing, yet it continues to get worse, so someone out there is making sure it stays broken for a reason. I once heard (a while back) that if we had a flat 12% tax with no exemptions or credits, we'd have all the money we need to run the country, and a completely level playing field with regard to taxes. I don't know if that still holds true, but it sure would be interesting to hear the arguments against it.

[JustinW]

Wages and benefits have been stifled over the years while profits have been increased.

How have they been purposefully stifled?

 

 

It's not just inflation that has caused most families to require two incomes.

I specifically stated that inflation wasn't the only cause. I'm quite sure there are many other reasons. And when considered at a cumulative level should corollate wage rates not matching up to current standards of living.

 

Again, when I say fair, I don't mean evenly distributed.

Okay, fair enough. (no pun intended)

 

 

I mean having a level playing field and applying the laws even-handedly.

Are there laws that don't apply to everybody? And what do you mean by "level playing field"? This could get awfully close to fair distribution.

 

 

 

I mean NOT stacking the deck against small businesses by using no-bid contracts, or buying political favors with your campaign contributions to skew things in your favor.

 

It seems that I recall this happening with unions, companies like GE, and community organizations like ACORN during the last election if I'm not mistaken. Of course I never heard an uproar over that one.

 

 

 

or sending their jobs overseas so you can make more profit.

Completely within their rights and fits within the free market business principle. If this nation wants to do something about that, they should not make policies that drive companies into this sort of practice.

 

The IRS is a perfect example of something that the vast majority of We, the People see as needing fixing, yet it continues to get worse, so someone out there is making sure it stays broken for a reason.

This could be said about alot of things that include both sides of the political ideolog.

 

I once heard (a while back) that if we had a flat 12% tax with no exemptions or credits, we'd have all the money we need to run the country, and a completely level playing field with regard to taxes. I don't know if that still holds true, but it sure would be interesting to hear the arguments against it.

I agree and thought it was a hell of an idea when I first heard it. I would even go as far as to up the anti in hopes of a surplus sometime in my future. At the rate we've been going over the past decade or more I don't see that happening even in my grandchildrens future.

 

 

 

Look, the bottom line is that business is business. And that's not likely to change unless dictated in an official sense, which would go against the grain of everything We stand for fundamentally. The best we can do is try to weed out those policies that present an "unlevel playing field" (if I understand your sense of the situation) and to put a flat tax on every single citizen based on general income to insure that everyone is putting in at a rate that they gain.

 

I have thought about what you call an unlevel playing field and have come to the conclusion that you mean: advantages that some can afford while others can't. If I'm incorrect please explain your take on it.

[Phi for All]

How have they been purposefully stifled?

Little by little, wages have been frozen, benefits cut and workers made too scared of layoffs to complain about it. As union are broken, the bar gets lowered more and more. This was going on long before our current recession. And while older workers are being laid off in favor of younger workers, the level of pay for new college graduates has been declining since 2001.

 

And all this when US corporations are wealthier than ever.

 

Are there laws that don't apply to everybody? And what do you mean by "level playing field"? This could get awfully close to fair distribution.

Appropriations bills get passed that favor one company over others, due to the efforts of that company's lobbyists. I don't know about you, but I don't want my taxes spent that way, especially when many of these companies are dodging taxes and employing fewer Americans in their American company. A level playing field means companies compete on their merit and market capabilities and not based on how many politicians they have in their deeper-than-ever pockets.

 

It seems that I recall this happening with unions, companies like GE, and community organizations like ACORN during the last election if I'm not mistaken. Of course I never heard an uproar over that one.

Firstly, only 13% of US workers belong to unions. Second, I'm against the whole concept of already successful companies lobbying for special favors from our government representatives. It's nothing more than legal graft to me.

 

Completely within their rights and fits within the free market business principle. If this nation wants to do something about that, they should not make policies that drive companies into this sort of practice.

And who controls the nation right now? Corporations. Why would they make policies that drive them anywhere but where they were already carefully planning to go?

 

I'm stunned that you're blaming "the nation" for driving companies to sacrifice their integrity.

 

This could be said about alot of things that include both sides of the political ideolog.

But it still remains true. Congress can fix plenty when they're motivated. Why don't they fix the infernal labyrinth that is our tax system?

 

Look, the bottom line is that business is business. And that's not likely to change unless dictated in an official sense, which would go against the grain of everything We stand for fundamentally.

Do you mean business at any cost? The founding fathers were so afraid of the powers of corporate charters that they regulated practically everything about them, from what they were allowed to sell, where they could sell it and even how long they could sell it. Over the years, corporations have always tried to get away with more and more, and we've always been able to rein them in again by strengthening the regs that get weakened. But now lobbying and PACs have become so good at what they do it's tipped the influence businesses have over our laws and appropriations. Is this really what YOU stand for fundamentally?

 

I have thought about what you call an unlevel playing field and have come to the conclusion that you mean: advantages that some can afford while others can't. If I'm incorrect please explain your take on it.

They're advantages NOBODY should have. Are you really OK with people being able to pay for special favors from our elected officials?

[rigney]

How have they been purposefully stifled?

 

 

 

I specifically stated that inflation wasn't the only cause. I'm quite sure there are many other reasons. And when considered at a cumulative level should corollate wage rates not matching up to current standards of living.

 

 

Okay, fair enough. (no pun intended)

 

 

 

Are there laws that don't apply to everybody? And what do you mean by "level playing field"? This could get awfully close to fair distribution.

 

 

 

 

 

It seems that I recall this happening with unions, companies like GE, and community organizations like ACORN during the last election if I'm not mistaken. Of course I never heard an uproar over that one.

 

 

 

Completely within their rights and fits within the free market business principle. If this nation wants to do something about that, they should not make policies that drive companies into this sort of practice.

 

This could be said about alot of things that include both sides of the political ideolog.

 

I agree and thought it was a hell of an idea when I first heard it. I would even go as far as to up the anti in hopes of a surplus sometime in my future. At the rate we've been going over the past decade or more I don't see that happening even in my grandchildrens future.

 

 

 

Look, the bottom line is that business is business. And that's not likely to change unless dictated in an official sense, which would go against the grain of everything We stand for fundamentally. The best we can do is try to weed out those policies that present an "unlevel playing field" (if I understand your sense of the situation) and to put a flat tax on every single citizen based on general income to insure that everyone is putting in at a rate that they gain.

 

I have thought about what you call an unlevel playing field and have come to the conclusion that you mean: advantages that some can afford while others can't. If I'm incorrect please explain your take on it.

 

What the hell is a level playing field? When the ground has been dug below basement level, you're right; there will be no advantages. No one will own a damned thing, other than the gun, knife or pick handles used to protect their families and themselves.

[JustinW]

Appropriations bills get passed that favor one company over others, due to the efforts of that company's lobbyists. I don't know about you, but I don't want my taxes spent that way, especially when many of these companies are dodging taxes and employing fewer Americans in their American company. A level playing field means companies compete on their merit and market capabilities and not based on how many politicians they have in their deeper-than-ever pockets.

Sounds great, but there's one problem. I can't seem to find anything in the appropriation bills that directly reflect on a company's profit. Unless you are talking about a defense contract or something like that. I found where certain amounts are alotted to the states and districts to be used towards social security and the like. Most others deal with defense budgets that tack on stipulations for the use of that funding. Maybe I've missed something though.

 

I did however, find corruption and scandal wrapped in appropriations for some other countries. Messy, messy.

 

 

Firstly, only 13% of US workers belong to unions.

And how much money do they spend on political causes? How much stink do unions stir up when they want to? By saying "they're only 13% of the workers", is like saying "that don't hurt" when a train falls on you.

 

Second, I'm against the whole concept of already successful companies lobbying for special favors from our government representatives. It's nothing more than legal graft to me.

And you probably would not be surprised at how much actual illegal stuff goes on behind closed doors provided by lobbying. I fully agree with you on this issue.

 

 

 

And who controls the nation right now? Corporations.

You're going to have to get a little more specific before I'll believe that one.

 

I'm stunned that you're blaming "the nation" for driving companies to sacrifice their integrity.

Easy there, no need to have a heart attack. First of all, if a company sacrifices it's integrity I don't blame anyone but that company. That's one of most important things children can learn when their younger isn't it? That no one is responsible for their actions but themselves? And I may have worded that badly, but like I've said before, business is business. And companies will go where they can make the most profit. That's the nature of the beast. When we make policies that restrict that profit, companies will look somewhere else. You can say that they may be morally bankrupt when making these kinds of decisions, but you have to take into account why they are in business in the first place. It's to make money. National prosperity is just a by-product of them that provide those jobs and though it's important, it is still not the main goal or origional purpose of establishing those businesses. So I see nothing wrong with a company choosing to go where the profit is, at least from a business standpoint. From a national stability standpoint I think it ultimately falls on policy makers to encourage these business to stay. And I also agree this is a tricky thing to do without comprimising our ethics. Situations can arise that may lean towards pandering to companies and I would say that we can't do this either. But we also shouldn't create situations that we know will force companies to make the decision to leave. I think that most companies do not decide to leave on a whim. If a company leaves over seas, it's usually because the cost of staying GREATLY outways the cost of leaving. And ultimately I think we can come up with solutions to prevent alot of this.

 

 

 

But it still remains true. Congress can fix plenty when they're motivated. Why don't they fix the infernal labyrinth that is our tax system?

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure. I'll would have to hear some of the reasoning involved.

 

Do you mean business at any cost? The founding fathers were so afraid of the powers of corporate charters that they regulated practically everything about them, from what they were allowed to sell, where they could sell it and even how long they could sell it. Over the years, corporations have always tried to get away with more and more, and we've always been able to rein them in again by strengthening the regs that get weakened. But now lobbying and PACs have become so good at what they do it's tipped the influence businesses have over our laws and appropriations. Is this really what YOU stand for fundamentally?

The founding fathers were afraid of corruption and theivery. Corporations still have to file charters to exist. If they are found to be fraudulent or corrupt in their ways, then there should be no good reason why their charter shouldn't be revoked. You have a good point there, and maybe states should take a closer look at their charter laws if they think these companies are giving them the shaft. But I would think about what it is that they are actually doing. Are they doing things in a fraudulent manner? Are they stealing from the nation? Lobbying seems to be the only legitamate gripe that I've heard so far about the way that corporations do business. Also I have mixed feelings on the whole charter issue. On one hand it is sound practice to be able to do something about companies who cross legal lines. But on the other hand the stock that shareholders obtain can be looked at as private property and shouldn't be taken lightly when considering adjustment or absolution. It flies in the face of freedom once a governing body can decide whether you keep what's yours or not.

 

 

 

They're advantages NOBODY should have. Are you really OK with people being able to pay for special favors from our elected officials?

No, again I may have worded that wrong. There will always be advantages. And those who have the money will more than likely always be better equipped to obtain them. But I don't think our government should be the ones to provide them. I would also have to think long and hard about what kind of regulating happens also. Considering personal property and freedom to make sound business practice with the resources that are present. It is when someone creates an unnatural resource that I think ethics are comprimised and doors that lead to corruption are opened.

 

You've got me thinking about this a little bit more. What is it that corporations do besides lobbying that isn't condusive to good business practice? Other than lobbying. Are most people just angry about the amount of money they make? Isn't there anything specific that could justify such an uprising? Or is it just the fear of what might be if someone doesn't put them under the thumb?

 

rigney,

 

What the hell is a level playing field? When the ground has been dug below basement level, you're right; there will be no advantages. No one will own a damned thing, other than the gun, knife or pick handles used to protect their families and themselves.

Paranoid much? Why do say that?

[rigney]

May I ask what you meant by the following statement JustinW? Quote: Paranoid much? Why do say that?

Edited March 9, 2012 by rigney

[JustinW]

May I ask what you meant by the following statement JustinW? Quote: Paranoid much? Why do say that?

Hey, I asked first. I wasn't quite clear on exactly what you were talking about. Who's digging the basement, how, and why? How are people's possessions being taken? A knife or a pick would seem a little insufficient to protect against most things now a days. Why do you see that kind of need for protection coming on?

[rigney]

Hey, I asked first. I wasn't quite clear on exactly what you were talking about. Who's digging the basement, how, and why? How are people's possessions being taken? A knife or a pick would seem a little insufficient to protect against most things now a days. Why do you see that kind of need for protection coming on?

 

Do you believe it can't or won't happen? I'm just saying, when I only have a cardboard box to live in, I will likely share it with another down and outer, but sure as hell not with some jerk too damned lazy to find his own. Now, if that's paranoia, I'm him.

[JustinW]

Do you believe it can't or won't happen? I'm just saying, when I only have a cardboard box to live in, I will likely share it with another down and outer, but sure as hell not with some jerk too damned lazy to find his own. Now, if that's paranoia, I'm him.

You still haven't answered my questions. I can see what you think, but my curiousity was leaning more towards, why?

[rigney]

You still haven't answered my questions. I can see what you think, but my curiousity was leaning more towards, why?

 

Honestly; I have sympathy for the forlorn, destitute and mentally incompentent. I just can't feel it for some sorry assed lazy person.

[JustinW]

Honestly; I have sympathy for the forlorn, destitute and mentally incompentent. I just can't feel it for some sorry assed lazy person.

Okay...

[rigney]

Okay...

 

Why the curiosity? Edited March 10, 2012 by rigney