Democratic Senators whom you like today... will be voting... in favor of telecom amnesty

[Truth2Tell]

I always hate to rain on the victory parades around here because my flame suit is heavy and uncomfortable. But on the matter of telecom immunity in the soon-to-be-new FISA bill I think a dose of reality is called for. Today's proceedings were a form of victory to be sure, but the prospects for the rest of the week and/or month don't look particularly bright.

As usual Glenn Greenwald is a voice for sanity when it comes to eager over-assessment of the Congressional Dems. His last update (IV) to his Salon blog today helps us to understand where this all may be heading.

...

In essence, the reason Senate Democrats were able to successfully filibuster today is not because they oppose the Cheney/Rockefeller Senate Intelligence Committee bill. It's not because they stood firm against telecom immunity or warrantless eavesdropping. Quite the contrary, more than enough Senate Democrats were and still are prepared to vote for that bill in order to ensure passage (as they demonstrated on Thursday when 12 of them, in essence, voted for that bill).

The only reason Democrats were able to hold their caucus together today to filibuster is because The Senators were offended that their inalienable Senatorial Right to vote on amendments was deprived by the GOP's premature Cloture Motion. The one (and only) "principle" that can really inspire many of these Senators to take a stand is the protection of their Senatorial prerogatives. Many of them don't actually have any beliefs other than that.

Reward lawbreaking with immunity? Fine. Give the President new warrantless eavesdropping powers? No problem. Abolish habeas corpus and legalize torture? Sure. Deprive a Senator of the Right to vote on an amendment before cloture? Unacceptable!

Senate Democrats today took a stand for their procedural rights, not against telecom immunity or warrantless eavesdropping. After all, many of the Senate Democrats who voted to filibuster this bill were more than ready last week to vote for that bill, and they will vote for it again soon enough. Moreover, while they were upset that they were denied the right to vote on these amendments, many of them intend to vote against those very same amendments and will ensure that most, if not all of them, fail, so that the bill arrives at the White House in a form acceptable to the Leader.

As indicated, it's preferable for several reasons that the Cloture Motion failed today -- and one can still praise Senate Democrats for refusing to capitulate fully (at least yet) -- but it isn't the case that Senate Democrats collectively took a stand here for anything more substantive than their own institutional customs. Many of the Democratic Senators whom you like today for voting against cloture will be voting soon enough in favor of telecom amnesty and for warrantless eavesdropping. The House is the real hope for stopping these measures.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/28/fisa_debate/index.html

"At least yet." That's the crux. Call me pessimist but my faith in these folks is a tad low. I can't imagine why.

[John Q. Citizen]

1. Thanks for posting this. It's good to have an idea of what going on.

[water]

2. I haven't read much about this...

... will possible lawsuits result in anything other than higher consumer prices? Any arrests?

[wtmusic]

3. A lawsuit (civil action) wouldn't result in an arrest (criminal prosecution)

but with a new administration and a new AG there is the possibility charges could be filed.

Hallelujah.

[water]

4. If there can't be arrests, wouldn't the only result be higher prices for consumers, then? What's...

...the point?

[wtmusic]

6. Telcos' prices are still regulated

especially where a monopoly exists, as in local landline service. If there is a settlement it could be applied as a rate reduction. And don't forget Qwest Communications and some smaller providers didn't go along for the ride. They stand to reap big benefits.

[Truth2Tell]

7. Civil and/or criminal proceedings

are our only hope of ever learning the full extent of the administration's criminal wiretapping efforts against us. That's one point.

Another point would be accountability to the rule of law, assuming you care about such things. I know I couldn't go to the Senate and ask them to grant me retroactive immunity for crimes I've committed in the past. So why should large corporations be able to do that?

Higher prices for consumers is a Bush administration talking point.

[water]

10. I'm all for the rule of law, but when the WRONG PEOPLE ARE PUNISHED...

...that's when I find it difficult to see the point, other than granting politicians some camera-time.

That's the problem with our legal system. People go after "EVIL CORPORATIONS" with the goal of siphoning as many dollars as possible out of them, without realizing that in reality, the people that get punished are customers and people's retirement accounts, not the people actually doing the wrong thing.

[Truth2Tell]

11. Nobody is trying to "siphon dollars" out of anyone

here. The lawsuits against the telecoms are about learning the truth. And if they BROKE THE LAW, they are, by definition, not the "wrong people." Everyone involved is one of the right people to be held to account.

Not all the telecoms went along with this unconstitutional crime spree - some chose to object, because they knew it was against the law.

[water]

12. Corporations aren't living, concious entities. They don't do things...

...people in corporations do things. Clearly, someone high-up needs to be punished.

If that result is not likely to happen from lawsuits, then it's a waste of tax money and the cost incurred for each company will be passed on to shareholders and customers.

No one wins, really.

[Truth2Tell]

13. corporations enjoy many of the same legal rights as individuals.

Furthermore they have no moral or ethical compass other than the imperative to turn a profit. If they are not held "collectively" accountable when they violate laws or standards of civilized conduct then they will operate with impunity, as they frequently do.

Only the "owners" of corporations can ultimately influence their behavior. Therefore only when the consequences of accountability are passed along to the "owners" will corporations be motivated to act in legally and morally accountable ways.

Either that or we could eliminate the legal principle of "corporate person-hood." That would work too.

[water]

14. Yeah, the legal principle is nuts... but that doesn't change the wrong people being punushed.

Personally, I doubt any high-ups in the company would do something this stupid without some form of government intervention. I could be wrong, but it wouldn't surprise me if members of the Bush administration offered/threatened them with something.

Anyone directly involved in this decision should be punished, and no one else.

Just because corporations are treated like individuals doesn't magically mean they really are.

[Truth2Tell]

18. If the telecom execs were bribed or threatened

they could certainly use that in their defense. They are perfectly entitled to "flip" on the government agents who brought them into this criminal conspiracy. But we never get that far if we simply grant them retroactive immunity. And we never LEARN anything about what was done - which is the top priority of this entire exercise.

Giving the telecoms immunity effectively stonewalls the domestic wiretapping investigation. The slim chance that this could cost AT&T shareholders or customers a few dollars is absolutely no reason to acquiesce in the trampling of our constitutional rights.

I can't believe I'm having this discussion on DU.

[water]

19. Again, what will be gained?

OK, individuals' retirement accounts take a beating. Already-struggling customers have to cough up more money. The lawsuit adds to an already-bloated budget.

And...? We discover that they acted in the wrong? So what? Don't we already know they did? Honestly, what will actually be gained from this??

[Truth2Tell]

20. individuals' retirement accounts take a beating ?

Are you channeling Karl Rove? This conversation has become absurd.

[water]

21. No, I'm channeling practicality.

It's like there is pent-up anger, and it just has to be directed somewhere.

I'm not against having a lawsuit! I'm simply asking what positive could come from this?

[Truth2Tell]

23. Nevermind.

300 posts in 10 days. Wow. Nice goin'.

[orleans]

25. i know! pretty fucking hysterical, isn't it? n/t

[water]

27. I apologize for not having a knee-jerk reaction, but I prefer positives to negatives.

If the right people (company executives and those in the Bush administration that initiated the talks) were going to be the ones being punished, then I'm all for it.

It seems the wrong people will be punished (shareholders and consumers) instead.

[orleans]

15. so you're willing to get fucked over as long as your phone bill doesn't go up?

not me. why wouldn't you want this brought to light? you're mentioning tax dollars on court cases? so you're willing to sell off our rights to privacy for peanuts?

well, go ahead. enjoy.

i want these motherfu*kers held accountable. i want the truth out--and the world to know what has been done to us in this country under this fucking republika regime.

but..go ahead and enjoy it for now--enjoy the fact that it's all being tossed in a goddamn data base from that little at&t room (with the red door i believe)--enjoy the fact that they know who you're talking to on your telephone, that they know who you communicate with on your computer, they know the emails you get, from who and every fucking web page you look at--even the little naughty ones. (and if that really doesn't bother people i think they might as well just out themselves right now--tell the world who they are, where they live, and all of their personal information...i mean, if they have nothing to hide then why be anonymous about anything? right?)

[water]

17. Read my response to Truth2Tell

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2784600&mesg_id=2784750

If you still disagree, what will lawsuits gain? Keep in mind that those "motherfu*kers" won't be held accountable.

[orleans]

22. they won't be held accountable if the fuckhead gets his way, that's for sure

and bush won't be held accountable if he gets his way either.

and keep in mind, i believe without republikas holding us back--they WILL be held accountable because i am from a country where justice can prevail. (it just doesn't prevail under republika rule)

[Greyhound]

24. Let me guess, we need to eliminate corporate taxes all together.

Please tell me I'm wrong and that this was just a miscommunication...

[orleans]

26. and don't forget about your "individual retirement accounts"

and the possibility that we might have to pay five cents more on a phone bill...oh, and because of all the court cases our federal tax, state, local, property taxes they will all have to be increased. FOR WHAT? a little truth, justice and the american way?? to hold our government and corporations accountable??

come on, is that really worth it?


:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[water]

28. If there would be truth, justice, and the american way I'd be all for it!!

I'm simply asking (an action that shouldn't be attacked so quickly) if any real, substantive positives will come from this?

Or will it be the usual where the executives and government officials get a verbal slap on the wrist while everyone else pays?

THINK about it, don't just give a knee-jerk anti-corporate response.

[VP505]

36. They won't be able

to get any "real substantive positives" unless these law suite's go foreword. That is going to be the only way to find out exactly WHAT team Bu$h/Cheney have been doing and who they have been spying on.

[orleans]

38. oh please!

[water]

29. Compared to Europe, our corporate taxes are very high and complicated.

They end up hurting United States' competitiveness. Europe recognizes that corporate taxes end up harming employees, shareholders, and consumers.

[Zodiak]

30. Not in reality

In reality, all of that complexity you describe is loopholes which allow most of our corporations (over 90%) to pay less that 5% in taxes. So even if the rate is high (30%), all of the loopholes allow corps to write their tax burden off completely or near-completely.

Many of our top corporations paid 0% tax last year, some were paid by our government instead of paying taxes. See also, the oil industry subsidies....or the airline industry.

So the EFFECTIVE tax rate for corporations is less in this country than Europe.

Only a puke would come in here with these cheesebag, overly simplistic talking points in defense of corporations. We are smart enough to look past these stupid platitudes. Many of us actually think we live in a corporatocracy and have a good argument to back it up.

Here's another one for you.....during Bush's tenure, individuals far surpassed corporations in total dollars paid in taxes. That hasn't happened since the great depression. Did it make us more competitive?

[water]

31. You make an excellent point, which happened to be mine as well!

Our tax structure encourages businesses to plant their toes overseas and pay Euro-corporate taxes! Corporations that stay in this country end up with a tremendous competitive disadvantage, both domestically and world-wide. That doesn't help anybody.

Republicans are too quick to defend corporations in an effort to seem "pro-business". Corporate executives are able to make shareholders and customers pay for their wrong-doings (due to the legal nature of corporations), and the fact that Republicans defend that is totally insane. Just because an entity is a business doesn't mean that entity is good.

On the other hand, Democrats are too quick to attack corporations in an effort to seem "anti-business". You have to realize that corporations aren't alive, they don't think, and they don't pay taxes. Customers and shareholders pay taxes. Punishing "corporations" really punished "people".

In reality, knee-jerk reactions from both sides are dumb.

Think about it: why does Europe have lower corporate taxes?

[Zodiak]

32. Because they do not have loopholes so everyone pays the sticker price

The corporations who have globalized are the ones that are bleeding this country dry...they lobbied for it and got it handed to them on a silver platter.

Here are relevent quotes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34787-2004May17.html

Over the past 50 years, the share of tax revenue coming to the federal government from business has collapsed, causing Warren Buffett to declare that "if class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning." In fiscal 2003 corporate taxes represented just 7.4 percent of federal revenue, down from 32 percent in 1952. The 2003 figure was especially low because of depressed corporate profits, but other measures paint a similar picture of a declining contribution. Corporate taxes as a percentage of our gross domestic product dropped to 1.2 percent in 2003, compared with as high as 6 percent in the early 1950s.

"Some argue that the United States taxes business more heavily than do other nations, creating a different competitive disadvantage: a global one. But apart from the tax havens, with their exceptionally low rates, those statistics are at best ambiguous. What seems clear is that multinational companies that have worked hard to game the system have garnered a special edge. Thus, fixing the U.S. corporate tax system would be particularly helpful for domestic and other corporations that pay closer to the sticker rate of 35 percent. Those businesses are competing in the U.S. market at a disadvantage against companies paying much lower rates. The playing field needs leveling."

[water]

33. Yes, and their sticker price is lower! Exactly how it should be here.

If we only closed the loopholes, our economy would tank. We need to close loopholes and slash the marginal rate.

[Truth2Tell]

34. American corporations aren't moving to Europe.

They are moving to the Cayman Islands and various other tax havens.

When you say "Democrats are too quick to attack corporations..." are you suggesting that you are not a Democrat? Is that why you are here pressing Republican talking points? Did you know this is a Democratic message board? Do you live under a bridge?

[water]

35. I'm voting for Obama, though as a libertarian I traditionally I haven't voted.

I say "Democrats" because many other Democrats are too quick to attack corporations. And while our corporations aren't "moving" to Europe, they are taking advantage of their taxes. Lowering the marginal tax rate would solve that.

[Zodiak]

37. LOL.

Libertarian...that's all I need to know.

No taxes are like a damn religion to these clueless nudniks.

The only way your plan would work is to lower the tax rate below the Cayman Islands, and our treasury gets robbed of what little the corporations still pay, and the People will have to shoulder an even heavier tax burden to make up for it. Real smart.

Or are you going to go on about how the only function of government is to enforce contracts and protect the borders? Nevermind that no one will get an education, the roads will not be maintained, and you will have to pay for everything that can have a price affixed to it. Total anarchy with the iron boot of unfettered capitalism. That sounds like hell to me.

Corporations have gained too much influence over both of our parties and they now write legislation for themselves and pay the politicians to vote for it. There is no more voice of the People when the corporate largesse gets threatened. They have more power over this country now than any other time in history. Under the thumb of corporations, people have no right to privacy, no power, no healthcare, no right to redress of grievances, no ability to organize, and a smaller relative wage than since the Robber Baron period, and you admonish us for getting pissed at corporations and wanting them to pay their fair share?

You think they run off to Europe? Where they have to give 6 weeks vacation and deal with unions?

Who do you think put together the legislation that allows a corporation to leave to the Cayman islands and pay shit into our tax system? Oh yeah, the politicians that they pay for. You don't naively believe that NAFTA was written out fo the goodness of the politicans' hearts, do you?

You are living in a dream world if you think that Ayn Rand crap flies around here. I may agree with you on social issues, but a Libertarian's anarchistic economic philosophy is not rooted in reality. It ignores the need for infrastructure, the commons, etc. that are the very hallmarks of what made us a "Society" in the first place and not a bunch of cavemen.

[water]

39. Chill out. :)

The only way your plan would work is to lower the tax rate below the Cayman Islands, and our treasury gets robbed of what little the corporations still pay, and the People will have to shoulder an even heavier tax burden to make up for it. Real smart.

You're making some foolish assumptions.

Why would we have to lower the rate below the Cayman Islands? If we close loopholes and don't allow tax evasion like that, why is this the case? The reason taxes need to be lowered is to make our businesses more competitive domestically and globally. Plus, even if we didn't close the tax loopholes, we still wouldn't have to lower it that much. The higher taxes are, the more businesses there are that will feel compelled to leave, and the lower taxes are, the fewer businesses there are that will feel compelled to leave.

Most importantly, the "People" already do pay corporate taxes, so even eliminating them wouldn't change a thing. :)

Or are you going to go on about how the only function of government is to enforce contracts and protect the borders? Nevermind that no one will get an education, the roads will not be maintained, and you will have to pay for everything that can have a price affixed to it. Total anarchy with the iron boot of unfettered capitalism. That sounds like hell to me.

Assuming that everyone is too stupid to pay for education and roads without taxes is... odd, and pretty condescending. Are people too stupid to pay for food and TVs and clothing and books and magazines and cars and wood floors without you forcing them to? Oh wait, you mean people don't have to be lead around like sheep by you?

As with anything, if people can't afford something, they can turn to voluntary charity. But we "as a society" have no right choosing where to spend anyone's money more than we "as a society" have a right to choose whether a woman can have an abortion.

Oh, and by the way... just because something is tax-funded doesn't mean we don't pay for it. We do!

Corporations have gained too much influence over both of our parties and they now write legislation for themselves and pay the politicians to vote for it. There is no more voice of the People when the corporate largesse gets threatened. They have more power over this country now than any other time in history. Under the thumb of corporations, people have no right to privacy, no power, no healthcare, no right to redress of grievances, no ability to organize, and a smaller relative wage than since the Robber Baron period, and you admonish us for getting pissed at corporations and wanting them to pay their fair share?

Libertarians agree. In fact, the whole idea of libertarianism is that it won't matter how much corporations want to bribe politicians; the government will be severely limited in its powers. There would be no point.

And, for the last time, corporations don't pay taxes, people do. If people don't, who the heck does?

[Truth2Tell]

40. Dude,

The reason our corporate tax law is so full of loopholes is that corporations have become so powerful in America that they are writing the rules.

Libertarianism is great...

if you're a fucking moron, and if you want to create a vacuum of power into which the strong (ie corporations in America) can move and exploit, abuse and enslave the weak. If that's cool with you then sure, eliminate the power of the democratic state and replace it with social Darwinism. The powerful gain power and the weak (read: 99% of us) do as we are told. Personally, I'm not into that - so I'm going to oppose "libertarianism" that empowers the elite few to enslave the rest of us.

You can take your corporate ass kissing politics of exploitation and cram them up your ass.

[water]

41. Here's a better way of thinking about it.

Republicans, in general, want to write the laws so that corporations have a lot of power over individuals.
Democrats, in general, want to write the laws so that governments have a lot of power over individuals.
Libertarians, in general, want to write the laws so that each individuals have a lot of power over themselves.

Now, reread what I wrote above with that in mind.

If you actually have a disagreement with any of the points I made, then by all means let me know; I felt what I wrote was fairly uncontroversial.

[Truth2Tell]

42. In order that corporations do not

have a lot of power over individuals, the state must have power over both corporations and individuals. If you believe in representative democracy (in reality, not the phony one in America), then you shouldn't be concerned with state power, because state power is then a reflection of the wills of individuals in the community.

Libertarians, at least as I understand it, want to limit the ability of government to regulate businesses and individuals. When businesses and individuals (which as you have rightly pointed out are inseparable) are unregulated they abuse and exploit one another ruthlessly. This has been empirically proven and is the existing situation in the US and elsewhere.

No regulation = abuse. Just look around you. A government, by definition, has power over it's citizens. That power can be exercised for the good of the community or to the detriment of the community, but if it simply doesn't exist, abusive powers fill the void.

[water]

46. I don't disagree with you.

In order that corporations do not have a lot of power over individuals, the state must have power over both corporations and individuals. If you believe in representative democracy (in reality, not the phony one in America), then you shouldn't be concerned with state power, because state power is then a reflection of the wills of individuals in the community.

Libertarians don't have a problem with the state exerting power, I promise! We want the state to exert power in order to protect the freedoms of individuals, not to limit the freedom of individuals. In addition, the "wills in the community" are not necessarily good, are not necessarily fair, and are not necessarily friendly to freedom. In fact, government should be exerting force to limit the power of majorities over minorities.

Is it fair to democratically ban abortion, or is it a violation of women's rights? What about democratically enacting state-sponsored religion?

Libertarians, at least as I understand it, want to limit the ability of government to regulate businesses and individuals. When businesses and individuals (which as you have rightly pointed out are inseparable) are unregulated they abuse and exploit one another ruthlessly. This has been empirically proven and is the existing situation in the US and elsewhere.

Libertarians don't really want to limit the ability of government to regulate individuals and individuals' business activities, we want to limit when government exerts that force. It's an extremely important distinction.

No regulation = abuse. Just look around you. A government, by definition, has power over it's citizens. That power can be exercised for the good of the community or to the detriment of the community, but if it simply doesn't exist, abusive powers fill the void.

Again, there isn't a power-void; individuals hold power that the state would hold under leftist government. They hold the power to decide where they spend their money, for example, instead of the government.

You have to trust people to be able to control their own lives without you and other leftists (or rightists, for that matter) controlling it for them. The purpose of government is to prevent any individual (or individuals acting through an entity) to control others, and that includes individuals within the government.

[tkmorris]

44. What you wrote.........

Was nothing more than an over-simplified mind-fuck.

[water]

45. Anything specifically wrong?

[tkmorris]

43. WHAT?!? /credibility

"Compared to Europe, our corporate taxes are very high".

There are some types of bullshit you can get away with, because no one really knows any better. My friend, that wasn't that type of bullshit.

[water]

47. Name a European country that has higher corporate taxes.

[Greyhound]

48. Pull out a map of Europe, close your eyes, and point.

The advertised rate may be lower, but the actual taxes paid are much higher, as you already know.

[water]

49. That's such a silly argument!

European nations have lower corporate tax rates than the United States -- you admit that.

Now, let's say that they collect more in corporate taxes than the United States.

If that's the case, than we should emulate their system: cut the marginal rate and close the loopholes! I don't even see where you are coming from!

As an aside, businesses and individuals will often shift domestically within Europe to nations with lower and simpler taxes. Ireland is prospering right now because they have low income and corporate taxes. :)

[Greyhound]

50. Well, no shit. You've managed to completely miss the whole point (again).

The rates don't make any difference, they are irrelevant, they exist to give the illusion of substance that some fools can't see. All that matters is what they have to actually pay, and it is far less here.

[water]

51. You are either confused or trying to mislead...

What's wrong with emulating Europe's system, a system you admitted brings in more money?

Oh, and rates definitely matter... the higher the rate, the more leave, and vice-versa. Ultimately, the state of the economy and the tax revenue are what matter, but the rates certainly affect both of those. :)

I'll throw in a Did You Know:

Did you know that US corporations have to pay our corporate taxes on global profits!? You wonder why they leave? ;)

[wtmusic]

5. This is silly.

There was no risk to procedural rights today. The only possible risk was if Dems did filibuster and Repubs used the "nuke" option. That won't happen either. So his argument seems to be that Dems voted against cloture today as a matter of pride.

We all know that politicians have no pride.

[Truth2Tell]

8. They have ego though.

And of course we can all watch and see how this plays out. Feel free to bookmark this post and call me out if the Dems actually stop telecom immunity. I'll eat my mousepad and post the pic.

[wtmusic]

9. Hoo boy...that's what I call confidence

Call me skeptical but I'm not ready to swallow 36 sq. in. of neoprene :scared:

[orleans]

16. HEY! nobody here wants to see that picture!

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: