I Just Challenged My Teabagger Neighbor To Find...

[rsmith6621]

......the word CORPORATION-s in the CONSTITUTION of the USA. I told him when he finds it then I will continue to discuss politics with him...he always brings up how big business should have equal VOICE in politics with the citizens..


I also asked him to sing the song "This Land is Your Land" and tell me if he hears the name of one corporation in that song.

I gave him 24 hours....

[Galraedia]

1. Should China Have a Voice to?

Big business send our jobs overseas. That's like saying China should have a voice in our government.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. What happens when he loses?

Because he WILL lose.

Good one.

[Hugabear]

3. Ask him how come the Bush tax cuts didn't create a lot of new jobs

If tax cuts create jobs, then how come we were in the midst of a recession and rising unemployment when he left office?

[w4rma]

4. How totally stupid does someone have to be to hand over power to an entity that wants to rob you

blind. And why are so many people stupid?

[pa28]

5. I'm guessing he'll settle on the "corporations are people" argument.

Don't even waste your time on this guy. He's lost.

[holdencaufield]

6. Tenth Amendment

of the US Constitution says...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Since corporations are most heavily regulated at a state level -- every corporation has home state of incorporation -- that is where the power to incorporate comes from. That being said, the "Commerce Clause" of the Constitution gives the federal government a large amount of control over corporations that trade inter-state or internationally.

The song -- "This Land is Your Land" was written by Woody Guthrie in 1940 probably wouldn't mention any corporations (at least not in a complimentary way) because it has at least one verse that denounces the entire idea of private property. So, I'm guessing, Mr. Guthrie probably wasn't all that supportive of the corporate system.

[Bandit]

9. Many many many corporations are NOT Incorporated in the USA

They are from the Cayman Islands or some such. Like Exxon or GE or most Big Corporations and they pay zero Corporate taxes in the USA.

[holdencaufield]

11. New Jersey

The articles of incorporation for Exxon Mobil show it the state of incorporation as New Jersey -- want the address? And, in fact, Exxon Mobil, in its 2009 annual report to the SEC, recorded a larger income tax expense than any other U.S. company that year, some $17.6 billion, or 47% of pretax earnings.

That being said, most very large companies have several different legally incorporated entities abroad as well. Some are in high tax countries that the company desires to operate in, some are in low-tax countries. Most very large companies will defer overseas losses against taxes in higher countries as a way of hedging the tax burden And yes, there are tax implications -- good and bad -- for doing so. But, that is the way the laws are written. Companies would have to be insane not to take advantage of the laws.

I will be the first one to say that I believe everyone should pay their fair share, but in fact, the benefits of large companies go well beyond their tax liabilities -- many large corporations provide tens of thousands of jobs and pay billions in salaries to regular working families.

[A HERETIC I AM]

15. GE is incorporated in New York, NOT the Cayman Islands.

And as the poster above pointed out, Exxon is incorporated in New Jersey.


"Many many many corporations are NOT Incorporated in the USA"

And many many MANY corporations ARE incorporated in the USA.

Most of the names in the S & P 500 are incorporated in the US and ALL of the 30 DOW companies are as well.

Many DU'rs like to think most corporations are incorporated in the Caymans or some other tax haven. It isn't the case with most American corporations or even "many many many".

In fact, many many many are incorporated in Delaware.

[spooky3]

12. The OP is not questioning the legitimacy of existing as incorporated but

rather, whether the founders anticipated and desired for corporations to participate actively in the political process, e.g., whether they are entitled to rights as "persons", a la Citizens United.

Many people at DU and elsewhere would disagree with your assertions that corps. are "heavily regulated" and that the benefits they provide to persons outweigh their costs. You may want to be prepared to present considerable evidence.

Enjoy your stay.

[Mira]

7. I like the way you think K&R

[Blue Owl]

8. and where's the Declaration of Corporate Dependance?

:kick:

[Xithras]

10. Businesses already do, and always did, have a voice.

Businesses are owned and run by people. Those people get to vote. They have a voice.

[spooky3]

13. if you are equating them to "those people", then they are getting two "voices."

Everyone has a vote as a citizen. To give business owners an additional vote as a business, an entity separate from the person, you are giving them two bites on the apple.

More to the point, the concern the OP and many others have is the influence of corporate $$$$, not the literal voice of people who may lead corporations. The founders expressed explicit concern about the rights of individuals, not of large organizations such as governments or corporations. When entities contribute many $$$ to candidates - directly or indirectly, e.g., in the form of advertising that may be misleading that represents their interests, or attacks a particular candidate, they have the potential to corrupt the process, and studies have shown that this money is associated with voting patterns, such that candidates must pander to these interests rather than act in the best interest of the people the Constitution was designed to protect, or risk losing elections. This is why the Citizens United case (among others), another of the 5-4 decisions made by the right wing of the Supreme Ct., has been so vocally criticized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

In the words of now retired Justice Stevens, writing the dissent: "At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."

[Ninten12]

14. No Matter Where You Go, It's Sad

From the right and the left, in so many quarters the obsession is with materialism. There is an unwavering lust for money and the "things" that it can purchase. Hence the admiration of all things kkkorporate.

I saw it while growing up in public housing. Too many were not channeling their progressive political leanings into action because they were too busy (and still are) lusting after the car, the jewelry, etc.

The same goes for the trailer park or the emaculate suburban enclave... Look at where it's gotten us!