1
   

Kerry has lost my vote.

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 09:31 am
Try here.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 09:57 am
In reading over that list, the Green party scares the hell out of me.

Quote:
7. The accumulation of individual wealth in the U.S. has reached grossly unbalanced proportions. It is clear that we cannot rely on the rich to regulate their profit-making excesses for the good of society through "trickle-down economics". We must take aggressive steps to restore a FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME. We support tax incentives for businesses that apply fair employee wage distributions standards, and income tax policies that restrict the accumulation of excessive individual wealth.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 09:59 am
Re: Scrat
I'm not particularly fond of the Green Party but just exactly how does this
plank in their platform:


9. We would raise corporate taxes. The corporate share of taxes has fallen from 33% in the 1940s to 15% today, while the individual share has risen from 44% to 73%, according to the Alliance for Democracy.

do this?

Scrat wrote:
1) Confiscate the assets of the 500 largest companies in the US.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 10:09 am
Re: Scrat
Scrat wrote:
Do you support these specific goals of the Green Party of America?:

1) Confiscate the assets of the 500 largest companies in the US.
Shocked Can you source this, please?
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 10:44 am
Bill,

Thanks for requesting some support for this:

Quote:
Do you support these specific goals of the Green Party of America?:

1) Confiscate the assets of the 500 largest companies in the US.


I'm a little curious about this too.

The green's objectives seem pretty good to me.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 11:00 am
This seems reasonable?? Shocked

Quote:
B. RE-ASSERTING LOCAL CITIZEN CONTROL OVER CORPORATIONS



Currently, corporations possess more rights and freedoms than natural human persons. Through a series of judicial rulings, and by virtue of their ability to control governments and economies by virtue of wealth, corporations have judicially rewritten our Constitution and have emerged as unaccountable, unelected governments. The Greens, therefore, support all reforms that seek to supplant governmental regulation of corporations with communities that seek to define corporations. In the interim, Greens support measures that hold executives and officers of corporations directly liable for harm that results from their decisions.

When we look at the HISTORY OF our states, we learn that citizens intentionally defined CORPORATIONS through charters - the certificates of incorporation. In exchange for the charter, a corporation was obligated to obey all laws, to serve the common good, and to cause no harm. Early state legislators wrote charter laws to limit corporate authority, and to ensure that when a corporation caused harm, they could revoke its charter.

In the late 19th century, however, corporations claimed special protections under the Constitution. Large companies used legal power to assert legal authority over what to make and how to make it, to move money, influence elections, bend governments to their will. They insisted that once formed, corporations may operate forever, with the privilege of limited liability and freedom from community or worker interference in business judgments.

It is inappropriate for investment and production decisions that can shape our communities and lives to be made essentially from afar, in boardrooms, closed-door regulatory agencies, and prohibitively expensive courtrooms.

It is unacceptable to have the level of influence now being exerted by corporate interests over the public interest. We challenge the propriety and equity of "corporate welfare" in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, payments, grants, bailouts, giveaways, unenforced laws and regulations; and historic, continuing access to our vast public resources, including millions of acres of land, forests, mineral resources, intellectual property rights, and government-created research.

We call for revisiting what one Supreme Court Justice called, when referring to the history of constitutional law, "the history of the impact of the modern corporation upon the American scene." We believe that corporations are neither inevitable nor always appropriate. Judicial and legislative decisions that have made it possible for big business to stay beyond the reach of democracy need to be re-examined.

Legal doctrines must be continually revised in recognition of the changing needs of an active, democratic citizenry. Huge multi-national corporations are artificial creations, not natural persons uniquely sheltered under constitutional protections. It is time to support local government and state government attempts to DEFINE CORPORATIONS and to prevent these entities from exercising democratic rights which are uniquely possessed by the citizens of the United States.

One point remains unequivocal: Because corporations have become the dominant economic institution of the planet, they must address and squarely face the social and environmental problems that afflict humankind.

0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 11:41 am
I'm afraid I have to go with McG on this one. I've voted green in the past to demonstrate my dissatisfaction with the 2 party candidates, but I did so rather ignorantly; not understanding the principles of the party. Having read the link to same, I could never again vote for that party. Who's fourth?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 11:50 am
That's one of my primary reasons for voting Green.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 12:54 pm
Quote:
Do you support these specific goals of the Green Party of America?:

1) Confiscate the assets of the 500 largest companies in the US.


I understand why Bill would not like this part of the Green platform, but I still don't see any support for the reactionary claim above. I don't see any call anywhere in ths thread to confiscate anything and I don't have an idea where the number 500 came up.

What I do see is that the Greens want to hold executives liable, end tax loop-holes for corporations and to deny corporate entities political power. Of course these are general policy and I doubt we will agree on the specifics. The Greens are a progressive party after all.

But as far as McGentrix's ridiculous claims-- well if I didn't know any better, I would think that he was making things up.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 12:58 pm
MY ridiculous claims Question
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 01:07 pm
Occombill writes:
Quote:
Having read the link to same, I could never again vote for that party. Who's fourth?


Okay, I'll throw my hat into the ring. I'll have to get back to you on my platform, however.

Seriously, there has been a lot of beneath the surface rumors about Hillary waiting in the wings ready to jump on her white charger and gallup to the rescue of the Democrats. If Kerry continues to slip in the polls, what do you think would be the chance of that happening?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 01:14 pm
If she did it now she would lose New York state and that is a key state for the dems.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 01:40 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
I understand why Bill would not like this part of the Green platform, but I still don't see any support for the reactionary claim above. I don't see any call anywhere in ths thread to confiscate anything and I don't have an idea where the number 500 came up.
My conclusion was arrived at absent consideration of that statement being true or false. The deal breaker for me is their statement of being against NAFTA and other such Trade agreements. You may remember that one of the few times our politics ran parallel was our mutual opinion that such agreements make it easier for humans, if not necessarily Americans, to earn a living. There is no candidate that speaks for me; but my own beliefs force me to oppose any political body that encourages government control over business and discourages free trade between nations. I understand that their purpose is to elevate American's control of policy (within their own government), but can not condone that method. I disagree with all my heart with the conclusions leading up to this statement:
Quote:
The historic role of the United States has been to raise living standards, not to be dragged down by the lowest common denominator abroad.
Perhaps in the short term free trade produces this effect, but I truly believe that the people of the world should be entitled to a shot at our standards of prosperity. It's my opinion that once everyone on earth shares this "opportunity", that world peace becomes a possibility. I don't believe people need prosperity; I believe they need hope. Free trade agreements lend themselves to this hope.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 04:31 pm
Re: Scrat
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Scrat, for once I had hoped you were not playing the usual game, but it seems you can't resist doing it.

Where do you find the Green Party goals you cited? Or are they just your fantasy and you going to hide behind the old cliche of its just a communist plot?

BBB Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

And for once I thought you could avoid being insulting, and showing your ingorance.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 04:33 pm
Re: Scrat
Acquiunk wrote:
I'm not particularly fond of the Green Party but just exactly how does this
plank in their platform:


9. We would raise corporate taxes. The corporate share of taxes has fallen from 33% in the 1940s to 15% today, while the individual share has risen from 44% to 73%, according to the Alliance for Democracy.

do this?

Scrat wrote:
1) Confiscate the assets of the 500 largest companies in the US.

That citation doesn't "do" that. This one does:

Quote:
Democratic Conversion of Big Business: Mandatory break-up and conversion to democratic worker, consumer, and/or public ownership on a human scale of the largest 500 US industrial and commercial corporations that account for about 10% of employees, 50% of profits, 70% of sales, and 90% of manufacturing assets.
http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.html#6
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 04:37 pm
Apparently either some of the Greens in the US are more straightforward about what they want for America, or more draconian in their plans. My guess is that it's the former.

So, everybody still for the Greens? Rolling Eyes

They call the Green Party the Watermelon Party... Green on the outside, RED on the inside. :wink:
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 04:40 pm
The Green party has it right. Too bad there aren't enough progressives to vote them in.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 05:03 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
The Green party has it right. Too bad there aren't enough progressives to vote them in.

Okay, if they have it "right", riddle me this, batman; absent a few hundred years of entrepreneurial creation of wealth which resulted in the existence of the 90% of the material assets the Greens would loot for welfare programs, where would that wealth come from?

Answer: there is no evidence the vast bulk of it would exist outside the current system. SO.... once the Greens dismantle the apparatus of wealth creation and take with it the incentive for doing so, wherever do they plan to fund their largess into the future? Whence will come the assets to pillage?

Like liberals of all colors, the Greens have their hearts in the right place, and their heads... well, the TOS prohibits me from completing that phrase, but I'm sure you know where their heads are. Cool
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 05:08 pm
I've often wondered who's paying for the plane tickets flying these impassioned idealists all over the globe for their protests...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 05:30 pm
I think it's the same bane that has plagued us throughout the national history: good intentions so often result in unintended disastrous consequences.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/13/2024 at 08:43:03