Glen Beck and Ronald Reagan are Progressives

reply to post by endisnighe


We don't need to entice corporations here in order to support us. What we need is to look to the 1911 breakup of Standard Oil and follow that example. We need to begin breaking up these conglomerates (the US based ones only, of course), start revoking corporate charters and institute a strict cap on business size. Smaller businesses means more businesses. More business means more jobs. Another benefit? More jobs means more competition, keeping pricing in check. Of course, in my dream, the benefits of the worker co-op would be well known and there would be laws in place to protect workers who wish to turn their company into such a system.

If a corporation has the rights of a person, can we try them in a court of law as a person?

[edit on 25-2-2010 by Someone336]

reply to post by David9176


You must think that I work for other people mostly.

That may be where you have mistaken me for other people.

Where I am from, WE work for ourselves in the majority.

Look at where I grew up, on a family farm. A company headed by my father. Than I went to college and then worked for an airline, super computer company and then a construction company.

I saw that to be ones own master of ones own destiny is to run your own company.

David, from what I have seen in this forum, the vast majority here could be excellent business managers. All you need to see is a want or need and then fill it.

That is America. Not the huge companies that are the NEW paradigm. That is the problem. That is Europe, that is Russia, that is China. Here, you use to be able to start a company with minimal upstart funds. NOW, you have regulations that prevent the free enterprise of competition.

That will change. When the US goes off the cliff, which is just around the corner, people like me will excel.

I can see what you need and what I need. I will fill that void. It is my nature. It is also yours. You will do what is necessary to provide for your family or you will perish.

Originally posted by Someone336
reply to post by endisnighe

 

reply to post by endisnighe

 

We don't need to entice corporations here in order to support us. What we need is to look to the 1911 breakup of Standard Oil and follow that example. We need to begin breaking up these conglomerates (the US based ones only, of course), start revoking corporate charters and institute a strict cap on business size. Smaller businesses means more businesses. More business means more jobs. Another benefit? More jobs means more competition, keeping pricing in check. Of course, in my dream, the benefits of the worker co-op would be well known and there would be laws in place to protect workers who wish to turn their company into such a system.

If a corporation has the rights of a person, can we try them in a court of law as a person?

Sorry about not replying earlier, you must have posted at the same time as me and My ATS did not show your comment.

To your comment-

I have ALWAYS felt and said the move towards corporations was created to remove RESPONSIBILITY. I know it, you know it, everyone with a brain knows it. I created a LLC when I started one of my companies.

Corporations needed to be created to move to the next step in the evolvement of humanity. BUT, when we removed the RESPONSIBILITY of the heads of these corporations was a DETRIMENT to society.

I while running the several companies I ran, I made one frelling mistake in a concrete slab I poured. It JUST so happened to be my mother's neighbor. I to this day, will fix my mistake if I ever start a company again. THAT is what REAL people do, we do not hide behind the LAW.

As for the conglomerates, I am completely in agreement. You have to look at the problems involved in the Publicly Traded Companies. These are a major problem of today's Monopolies. They use the fact that the company is not really a Monopoly because it is owned by millions of stockholders.

When these laws were initially written, Multi-Nationals did not even exist. Intra-state rules were the norm. Removing sovereignty of differing countries has been the push over the last 30 years. Using labor/individuals against each other was stopped initially, but now we have different countries labor competing with each other.

As for trying them in a court of law, criminal you are talking about correct? I feel if a corporation can be proved to be the cause of a criminal offense, WHY NOT? But who are you going to find guilty? The persons that knew about it?

Originally posted by Digital_Reality
If "The conservative kinds" is what you call it when he directly quotes the words of our founding fathers

The founding fathers are not historian experts, so clearly the man did not have any experts to back up every one of his claims over history. Also, Glenn Becks personal interpretation of the founding fathers does not mean he speaks for them or references them correctly.

Really? The above quote proves what? That Mr. Wolf Thought even though the Nazi's were mass murdering lunatics that they actually had a good economic program?

Mr Wolfe made clear. There is not indication in history to link socialist programmes solely to evil acts or injustice. Evil crosses all paths, left to right. It doesnt occur with "socialist programmes". The jews were massacred in part due to cultural ignorance. It had nothing to do with socialist programmes. Stalin committed his own massacres because they were convenient to him economically. The same could be said for other left and rightwing societies.

Glenn Beck continues to insist the Obama administration is heading towards some kind of a dictatorship or martial law due to its policies, and that people will die. He is a fear mongerer and offers little facts beyond his own assumptions.

I cant defend every word that has come out of his mouth

Changing your tone all of a sudden?

The guy has multiple historians on staff who help with his content. EVERYTHING he talks about in regards to history can be researched and confirmed.

and yet you insist on defending everything that comes out of his mouth.

so ill rephrase my former statement

Nope, you made your bed, its time to lay in it.

I'm not being misled by anyone and there are no politicians making claims that are worth listening to right now IMO.

So you go to the pundits who do so for a living.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by Southern Guardian


C'mon SG, people are not allowed to change their positions?

Deny arrogance and ignorance.

I saw that to be ones own master of ones own destiny is to run your own company.

It's not just the master of ones destiny...you have power over the destiny of others. You can deny them the fruits of the good things in life based on money. It's not small businesses that are at fault with this though (for the most part). They have a connection with their workers. Corporations do not. A corporation knows no boundaries and does not care for any nations laws. It only knows that it has to abide by them. They have become floating entities that can now destroy/create economies in any country...with each new transition making their employees weaker.

I lost my last job due to outsourcing. It wasn't because our company wasn't profitable...it was. Shareholders in the company knew they could get a bump in their stock values just by outsourcing to Mexico for cheaper labor and lax environmental laws.

They could have stayed man. They didn't. An American company abandoned it's citizen's well being. This has happened all over the country and it continues to happen. Taxes have continued to go down since Reagan...yet wages have not kept up with inflation and now both parents have to work in most families to make ends meet. A majority of the good paying jobs are gone. Most people cannot be businessmen. They may be able to handle it...but obviously every American cannot have it's own business with it's own employees.

That will change. When the US goes off the cliff, which is just around the corner, people like me will excel.

Maybe you will. I'm not one to judge the type of person you are. All I can do is try to comprehend the words in your posts. I think things are going to be different than you picture in the future.

We can both sit here and have a nice conversation on what needs to be done....but the fact is when it all comes tumbling down...people will look for blame. They will see those who had the world in their hands with the entitlement of their money....and through their own greed let the majority fall into poverty.

In the end their redemption will come. The mega rich corporate millionares will have their due. Most Americans will not know how to handle what is going to come. You can be the most savvy businessman in the world...but it will then no longer matter because most of us will be in the same boat...including small businesses. They won't be going after just the government....if they do at all.

Above all this, I do believe capitalism can work...but not PURE capitalism. There has to be a top and bottom. If there isn't a set economic top and bottom...then the bottom becomes death and the top becomes overpowering. I'm a big believer in keeping things small and self sufficient. I don't like big government...but big government exists BECAUSE of our current version of capitalism...which is really corporatism.

I can see what you need and what I need. I will fill that void. It is my nature. It is also yours. You will do what is necessary to provide for your family or you will perish.

Family will always trump anything and everything. It trumps the Constitution, it trumps ideology, it trumps it all and I will fight to save it till my last breath. I'm sure you will as well.

reply to post by David9176


I formed corporations after my first business failure. It failed because of bringing in a financial partner that went to the work site and got injured climbing a ladder that was not built for his size. He was over 300#s.

Now, as a office worker I was not required to cover him with worker's comp. Now, it was his second day. In the WI worker's comp statutes I was not required to cover an employee for 2 weeks. Now, the law was set for this very reason. The work comp judge decided to make me responsible instead of the uninsured work comp fund. That put me out of business, along with the other 20 employees I had at the time. I had made an offer but the lawyer he used turned it down. I took the other option, which was perfectly legal to shut down my business.

Many of us agree on end game but just not how to get there.

May you and I flourish in the future, because of right now, there is no free enterprise or market systems. Just look at the Multi National corps that have mainly caused our problems. BUT, who allowed it? OUR GOV!

edit to add-and hell, if I start another corp I will use my connections on the net to forge a corp that cannot be stopped. My main problems with my initial companies was the lack of ambition of my workers. Maybe with the diversity of my connections now, I will succeed with my next endeavor.

[edit on 2/25/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe

Corporations needed to be created to move to the next step in the evolvement of humanity. BUT, when we removed the RESPONSIBILITY of the heads of these corporations was a DETRIMENT to society.

I while running the several companies I ran, I made one frelling mistake in a concrete slab I poured. It JUST so happened to be my mother's neighbor. I to this day, will fix my mistake if I ever start a company again. THAT is what REAL people do, we do not hide behind the LAW.

Your attitude in your entrepreneurship is commendable - but allow me to ask, how large was the size of the company?

I believe the size of the corporation is a major factor in corruptibility - the larger the corporation and the more distant from the modern working person the execs and CEOs become, the less 'real' the person becomes. When one has such wealth and controls vast swaths of the economy, one has real, absolute power, and with that power the ability to bend laws and slip between the cracks. A smaller company, though still retaining the ability to give wealth to it's employees, would inherently be less corrupted than it's Wall Street and Madison Avenue cousins: no real ability to outsource to exploitative free trade zones, no excessive money to slip underneath the table to politicians, less negative impact environmentally, etc.

Though I support business size caps and regulated markets, I am not anti-market by any means, or anti-rich for that matter. The way I view it, free market economics as personified by the Austrian school of economics is pure anarcho-capitalism, which I believe would be a nightmare for the average workers. A framework needs to exist to prevent humanity from descending into a barbaric form of social Darwinism.

I guess ideally, I'm close to the Anarcho-syndicalism. Realistically, I'm closer to the ideas of John Maynard Keynes with a dash of humanitarianism... strict economic theorizing has the same result as acquiring power through wealth: one becomes detached from the real world.

Though I agree, the government is at part fault for our pseudo-fascist corporatist state with our political and economic spheres both dominated by multinational conglomerates (thanks mainly to people like Reagan), there is one fundamental difference. Despite the fact that I have been made cynical and jaded by the government, I believe that we the people can still impact the government and make it serve us. That cannot be said about the corporate powers that be.

Whew, I'm rambling now.

By the way, where the heck have ya been, End? It's been quiet without you around.




[edit on 25-2-2010 by Someone336]

reply to post by endisnighe


Well just understand that I'm not railing against small American businesses. If we are ever to come out of this recession...it will be because of them.

But we have to give them the power to do it! Cut their taxes. I agree. Corporations. TAX EM.

We are the largest consumer in the world. That is why a tariff increase is vital to a return to our economy. Will it increase prices? yes...of course...but prices will go up anyway as they have in the past and they will continue to as the debt grows.

Tariffs are 100 percent Constitutional and it kills me that conservatives won't even consider it. Despite what everone states...we need to be more protectionist. I believe all countries should be. Self sufficiency is the way to go. Globalism has severely hurt us.

If Tariffs go up...then International corporations cannot hide their money anymore and they will lose power. That's why it's so vital...and that's why I condemn Beck for what he stated.

It's income for our country and it helps/protects small businesses and give them a chance to grow.

Originally posted by Someone336
reply to post by endisnighe

 

Your attitude in your entrepreneurship is commendable - but allow me to ask, how large was the size of the company?

I believe the size of the corporation is a major factor in corruptibility - the larger the corporation and the more distant from the modern working person the execs and CEOs become, the less 'real' the person becomes. When one has such wealth and controls vast swaths of the economy, one has real, absolute power, and with that power the ability to bend laws and slip between the cracks. A smaller company, though still retaining the ability to give wealth to it's employees, would inherently be less corrupted than it's Wall Street and Madison Avenue cousins: no real ability to outsource to exploitative free trade zones, no excessive money to slip underneath the table to politicians, less negative impact environmentally, etc.

Though I support business size caps and regulated markets, I am not anti-market by any means, or anti-rich for that matter. The way I view it, free market economics as personified by the Austrian school of economics is pure anarcho-capitalism, which I believe would be a nightmare for the average workers. A framework needs to exist to prevent humanity from descending into a barbaric form of social Darwinism.

I guess ideally, I'm close to the Anarcho-syndicalism. Realistically, I'm closer to the ideas of John Maynard Keynes with a dash of humanitarianism... strict economic theorizing has the same result as acquiring power through wealth: one becomes detached from the real world.

Though I agree, the government is at part fault for our pseudo-fascist corporatist state with our political and economic spheres both dominated by multinational conglomerates (thanks mainly to people like Reagan), there is one fundamental difference. Despite the fact that I have been made cynical and jaded by the government, I believe that we the people can still impact the government and make it serve us. That cannot be said about the corporate powers that be.

Whew, I'm rambling now.

By the way, where the heck have ya been, End? It's been quiet without you around.
[edit on 25-2-2010 by Someone336]

reply to post by Someone336


I was in country hell! My sister and B in law went to Mazatlan Mexico and I was house sitting and watching my 14 year old nephew. Damn, no wonder I never had kids! 10 days with him in a dial up country house drove me to stir crazy in only 6 days! Dropped him off at another sisters and went out drinking!

As for my companies, my first was the most successful. I had at the most 35 people working for me. My later companies were much more restrained due to the problems I acquired in my first.

One thing that I am going to tell you is going to destroy your earlier ideals of socialism. My initial company failed to continue to grow because of the LACK of my people to want more responsibilities. A LOT of people do not want anything BUT a 9 to 5 job.

I paid my employees in ALL different circumstances as a basis of percentage of the work. They did not really understand it, except for the fact that they made more than other companies. Of course I asked them to regulate themselves because I believe that everyone is their own best boss and best boss to their fellow workers. I never fired anyone, I did let people go that my workers told me were not pulling their weight, which of course increased production!

As for Keynes, I am sorry, but I had 2 courses of economics and could never understand that if you made the management larger than the means of production, how that could be sustainable.

Now, if our government's plans were to make the US the center of management and the rest of the world the production system, that would make sense?

I still feel that OUR GOV is trying to be the management system for business in the US. The problem is that lawyers and politicians have NO idea on how to run anything. They never have. It always ends up in tyranny. Because for the fact they have no idea on how the real world production works.

Corruption is what they understand. They think that is how things work. The best politicians of the past came from people like me and other builders. We see that the best way to promote production is to allow the altruistic and the knowledgeable to "give er" so to speak.

Get the hell out of the way and let US lead!

reply to post by endisnighe


Whoa, sounds like an interesting trip. I imagine the weather was nice though!

Sorry to hear about your collapse of your first company due to employee negligence... that is why I've described myself as a idealistic socialism. Socialism, communism, capitalism... all are equally idealistic and moving towards any of these functioning properly. I'm a firm believer that one's decision to follow any of these ideals stems not from being either lazy nor hard working but from the one's life experiences. However, I'm going to wax philosophically and indulge in the question that if people owned directly part of the business that they worked for and profited directly from this as opposed to an hourly wage, perhaps they would be more inclined to work? But of course, not every person is business owner material but perhaps this would stimulate them to take a more active role in the company. Perhaps the concept of management is the an obstruction in itself? So many times have I heard of workers complaining about the management this, the management that... why does the management get payed more to do less?

And this segues into my point about Keynes: I don't agree with him on all of his ideas, mainly just about the need for occasional government intervention in the market. I don't believe in the bail-outs, because frankly corporations of this size should not exist, and that was the Great Train Robbery of the American taxpayer. Every politician, economist and corporate executive involved in that clusterf*** should be in jail right now. Those corporations are freakish Frankenstein-esque monsters that we can thank certain politicians for creating through deregulation and repealing of anti-trust laws...

I still feel that OUR GOV is trying to be the management system for business in the US. The problem is that lawyers and politicians have NO idea on how to run anything. They never have. It always ends up in tyranny. Because for the fact they have no idea on how the real world production works.

Yes, and there is the rub. Though (in my opinion) the ideas of public healthcare and public schooling are excellent, the reality of such things, as provided by the latter, are a disaster thanks to the bloated bureaucracy in this country. Serious reformations must be made if these ideas are to truly take root - but this is a whole other ideological debate. I must point out though that ATS has helped me realized I share some traits with those of capitalist oriented view point.

Of course, perhaps it is time for me to put my money where my mouth is. Some friends and I have tossed around the idea of opening up brewery here in town - worker co-op style. Let the grand experiment begin!

[edit on 25-2-2010 by Someone336]

Well,Let us just look at what this Progessivism is to see if these two fellows meat the criteria

Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform. Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies. The Progressive Movement began in cities with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working condition for women.

Okay ,that seems clear cut.

In the United States, the term progressivism emerged in the late 19th century into the 20th century in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to both the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them.

Nothing there fits Reagan and his neoconservative politics.

So it is my belief, you are wrong in your initial assertion.

reply to post by David9176


I haven't read the whole thread yet, but you're opening a can of worms and the self-proclaimed conservatives are going to bite your head off. But you're right.

"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," -- Dick Cheney, to Paul O'Neill. Really, Dick? I wonder if he still feels that way. Or maybe he only said it because he was in office and he didn't mind spending boat loads of borrowed cash, as long he got to help decide how to spend it?

Reagan was the original Obama: a charismatic vote-getter who talks a tough talk while breaking his key campaign promises and paving the way for financial ruin.

But don't tell that to a registered Republican. They love Reagan.


[edit on 4-3-2010 by theWCH]