Sensible Erection | Supreme Court Ruling Spurs Corporation Run for Congress

Thursday, 28 January 2010

Supreme Court Ruling Spurs Corporation Run for Congress

quote [ "Until now," Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, "corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence-peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves." Murray Hill Inc. is believed to be the first "corporate person" to exercise its constitutional right to run for office. ]

Steven Seidenberg in McSweeney's.

Unrelated: Fact-checking Obama's State of the Union Address

Updated: I linked to the wrong article

SOTU Fact Check summary:

"We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families." TRUE

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections." BARELY TRUE

"At the beginning of the last decade ... America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade." MOSTLY TRUE

"We've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs." FALSE

The "pay-as-you-go law ... was a big reason why we had record surpluses in the 1990s." HALF TRUE

"For the first time in history, my administration posts our White House visitors online." MOSTLY TRUE

On a government spending freeze. FULL FLOP

[politics] [by f00m@nB@r@2:37pmGMT] [+5 Insightful]

Comments

kishi said @ 11:39pm GMT on 1st Nov [Score:1 Funny]
This time traveling modem really isn't worth the money.

puravida said @ 3:21pm GMT on 28th Jan [Score:1 Insightful]

ComposerNate said @ 3:40pm GMT on 28th Jan
"If corporations have rights to donate like individuals, then they also should have rights to run for public office. Cut out the middle-man; the hand of the market brings efficiency."
- ComposerNate, speaking sarcastically on Jan 21st, 2010

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 3:51pm GMT on 28th Jan
They misunderstand the ruling. Calling a corporation a "Person" is legal short hand ...they could easily call it a "Legal entity"

Never the less, while corporations can have the same obligations, liabilities and rights as a person, they are not legally defined as "people" so that a corporation can claim either citizenship, be drafted for military service or run for an election.

But concerning the ruling, free speech is a constitutional right in the US and as such, no person or association be it educational, labour oriented or a profit making business should be impeded in their right to express themselves within the confines of the law and especially to defend themselves against government policies which may not be in the interest of the association (be it educational. labour or a profit making business).

The solution to this is for Americans to amend their constitution.

sanepride said @ 4:38pm GMT on 28th Jan
The solution to this is for Americans to amend their constitution.

Which is gonna be pretty difficult to do, now that corporations can freely spend on campaigns to defeat the chances of such an amendment ever passing the 2/3 majority of Congress + 3/4 of state legislatures required.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 5:00pm GMT on 28th Jan
There are more americans in the US than corporations, that being said, corporations wouldn't have to spend one dime, the notion of limiting one of the Republic's greatest liberties simply won't fly with rank and file Americans.

Even if it means that property owners have the same rights as everyone else.

sanepride said @ 5:48pm GMT on 28th Jan
Although you probably overestimate the cognitive abilities of 'rank and file' Americans, I think most would concur that giving huge piles money to influence politics and policy is not necessarily the equivelent of free speech.

Krutz said @ 7:02pm GMT on 28th Jan
Presented with a reasonable and unemotional assessment of how influence works? Maybe.

But look at how many people who earn less than 50k a year voted in people running on giving the wealthy tax cuts, being convinced that "trickle-down" works or that someday they'd be rich, and they wouldn't want to pay a lot of taxes then, right?

And they fell for it.

sanepride said @ 7:07pm GMT on 28th Jan
Sadly true. This also explains how corporate influence has managed to sway public opinion on health care reform - from over 2/3 supporting it to only around 1/2 - through a persuasive campaign of disinformation and obfuscation. It seems that when people are told plainly exactly what's in the reform package support shoots back up to the original numbers.
Of course a lot of this is the fault of Obama for failing to make these facts clear.

Pudding_Master said @ 10:20pm GMT on 28th Jan
Yesterday my NFIB district representative or some such twat showed up at my office asking me to re-up my membership. I have been infuriated by the lies, misrepresentations, and half-truths in the ad campaigns they have been financing related to the last election the health care debate...

I chewed his ass for half an hour before I kicked him out.

Did the same thing to the Chamber of Commerce a few weeks ago.

FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN!!!!!!!

Naruki said @ 6:23am GMT on 29th Jan
What's worse is how many of them believed completely they were going to pay more taxes right then and there, despite the facts saying they didn't make enough to qualify.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 7:04pm GMT on 28th Jan
You are right, the influence of money does not equal free speech.

On the other hand not allowing an association to does equal a limit to free speech.

The question should be, should anyone, including corporations, unions, churches, universities etc, and individuals be allowed to use their money to influence politicies and politics.

I think yes.

Although I prefer the law we have here in Canada which puts a cap on how much am individual can donate to a party, candidate or leadership hopeful and disallows all donations from businesses, unions and associations.

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=fin&document=index&dir=lim&lang=e&textonly=false

sanepride said @ 7:35pm GMT on 28th Jan
And you do understand that the Supreme Court ruling pretty much invalidates any law along those lines as a limit on free speech?

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 7:45pm GMT on 28th Jan
I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS has no authority in Canada...

sanepride said @ 7:50pm GMT on 28th Jan
..yet.
I'm using it as an example. You're defending the SCOTUS ruling and I'm saying this Canadian law you like would be invalidated if it were in the US.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 8:07pm GMT on 28th Jan [Score:1 Underrated]
I am defending the SCOTUS ruling because in the context of the US constitution it is correct.

While in Canada, individuals and corporations have the same right of expression, built into the constitution and charter of rights are limitations which do not make "rights" absolute. And that is how we can have the freedom of expression and yet, have caps on political contributions.

So that leaves two options. Come up with a better argument to cap politcal donations that doesn't infringe free speech or amend the Bill of Rights to remove its absolutist nature.

sanepride said @ 8:42pm GMT on 28th Jan
In the context of the Constitution it is a reach to say the least. Corporations have always had an unfettered voice in actual speech, be it advertising or political endorsements. Applying this to campaign donations and direct political influence is judicial activism, plain and simple.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 2:50pm GMT on 29th Jan [Score:1 Underrated]
The argument is that supporting a political party is an exercise in free speech, and therefore protected. An infringement of this is a challenge to free speech.

I don't think the argument is complcated

mrcucumber said @ 3:16pm GMT on 29th Jan
As much as I don't like the consequences, I agree.

sanepride said @ 8:44pm GMT on 28th Jan
..and your last sentence indicates you don't fully comprehend the sweeping nature of the SCOTUS decision. It basically nullifies any argument that capping political donations doesn't infringe free speech.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 2:51pm GMT on 29th Jan
Correct. I understand it in exactly that way. Given the absolute nature of the Bill of Rights, how can it be seen in any other way?

arctan said @ 3:01pm GMT on 29th Jan [Score:1 Insightful]
American jurisprudence has never before been that the First Amendment or any other part of the Bill of Rights is "absolute". There's a long tradition of common-sense or "in the public interest" exceptions to the First Amendment, the most well-known being "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater".

As Lawrence Lessig points out above, corporations are not really "people"; they're legal fictitious entities that are *granted* some of the rights of real people *by the government* in return for certain considerations in the public interest.

The law is already giving the investors of a corporation a huge break by making them not liable for the actions and failures of the corporation as individuals -- something which was a huge innovation back when the LLC was invented -- in return for the decreased risk and encouragement of innovation that corporations supposedly provide.

It is not unreasonable to ask that in return for being *granted* these powers by the government, the corporation -- not the individuals inside it, but the big pool of money and resources created and protected by a certain chartering law itself -- have certain restrictions placed on its behavior.

This is not a violation of freedom of speech any more than it's a violation of freedom of speech to say that I can't shout "CUNTSCUNTSCUNTS" in my job as a public school teacher without being fired from that position by the government that hired me.

mrcucumber said @ 3:31pm GMT on 29th Jan
Quoting Lawrence Lessig :

"The government limits the legal liability of investors in that corporation in exchange for their risking their capital to spur innovation and growth. That benefit is significant. And the First Amendment question is whether in granting that benefit, the state would be free to limit the political advocacy that corporations engage in."

and....

"The concentrated, and tacitly, coordinated efforts by large and powerful economic entities -- made large and powerful in part because of the gift of immunity given by the state -- could certainly help lead many to believe "money is buying results" in Congress."

A conundrum. The problem isn't with free speech, it's with the LLC, and, the puzzle of absolutes permeates many of our laws. Just look at the very next amendment.

lilmookieesquire said @ 11:19pm GMT on 28th Jan
I respectfully disagree. It's correct if companies are people, but that's a new concept. The requirements of being born in the US to be president underlines the importance of sovernty. Voters are suppose to be American.

While not a vote, I'd argue unlimited funds qualifies as undue political influence in canidate selection. The leverage that gives foreign powers over American politics is, in my opinion, interfering with national sovernty.

On the otherhand, I don't think this is a new problem- it's just stripping away pretenses. I have plenty of issues with the American political election process, but it's not like there is an easy fix-all solution out there.

Naruki said @ 6:31am GMT on 29th Jan
Here's one solution: anyone not directly running has a personal cap on political speech. Those who are running can contribute much more to their own campaign, but that amount too is capped.

Any entity that is not a person has a cap of zero dollars.

Thus, no individual can claim their voice is being unfairly stifled, and "entities" don't think so they don't really have a "voice" to begin with.

Corporations that wish to pay all their employees the personal limit will not be allowed to enforce how that money is spent.

I am completely against corporations big or small having any "voice" in politics. There is room for dedicated political organizations with reasonable restrictions, but their finances must be 100% open to review. If caught cheating, they are disbarred.

tiemy said @ 6:38pm GMT on 28th Jan
Having the same rights doesn't mean also having the same amount of power and influence to act on those rights. Why do I need to explain this?

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 7:40pm GMT on 28th Jan
Why should they be the same? Lets argue that we both have the right to free speech and to make an appeal. for support.

But if my rhetoric is better and I am the better speaker, I have more power to influence. Should I be forced to put marbles in my mouth to make my arguments appeal equal to the less abled to debate?

Why should a corporation, which is a collection of citizens joined by common ownership of property be limited in debating a policy put forth by a political party, which is collection of citizens joined by a common ideology?

And it isn't just corporations that are affected. If the president or congress were contemplating laws that seriously affected the rights of workers or their trade unions, wouldn't you expect and want the trade unions to be able to articulate their opposition to the best of their ability?

mrcucumber said @ 8:40pm GMT on 28th Jan
I'm no expert, but I don't think a corporation should have a louder voice simply because of the size of their wallet. Convincing someone of something is different than bribing them. I think that's the part people have trouble with. Nobody is suggesting hampering free speech, only whether you are using a bull horn and drowning everybody out when nobody else has one. It is sticky decision all the way around, though.

tiemy said @ 10:44pm GMT on 28th Jan [Score:1 Underrated]
The truism Morris seems oblivious to is that money equals speech. The more money you have, the greater the volume of your voice - that's simply axiomatic.

To claim that this ruling enforces an equality of ideas, then, is turning reality on its head. The motivation behind and practical effect of this decision will be to give powerful private interests - who already more or less run this country - even *more* power to drown out ideas that threaten their very narrow social interests.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 2:56pm GMT on 29th Jan
I would never claim that "To claim that this ruling enforces an equality of ideas..."

Mainly because Ideas are not equal, to claim they are is nonsense.

I will claim certainly that the political party that has the most funds stands a better chance of communicating their agenda better than the opposing view.

I will even go out on a limb that the party with the better agenda has a better chance of attracting more money.

arctan said @ 3:08pm GMT on 29th Jan
It's that last part that's an idiotic expression of blind faith (what we call the "just world fallacy") that is the fundamental reason right-wing free-marketeerism is so fucktarded.

Anyone who actually holds the Panglossian belief that the way the world functions is that if you remove all restrictions on how money flows, money will flow to exactly where it's supposed to and we'll be living in the best of all possible worlds, is a huge fucking moron.

A huge fucking moron who is a tremendous danger to the rest of us, like if we were all in a car that was spinning out of control and one of us had the irrational religious belief that steering wheels by nature gravitate toward where the car is supposed to go as long as you don't touch them and thus kept trying to strangle whoever was driving.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 5:06pm GMT on 29th Jan
It's amazing how many words you can pack into a post without making a logical argument.

To sum up your post,

Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a moron for the simple reason that they are a moron and furthmore, an unrelated analogy aprospos to nothing.

Is that an example of the losing argument before the SCOTUS?

arctan said @ 5:23pm GMT on 29th Jan
They're a moron because the idea that money will always accrue to the cause that is the most objectively just, fair and good for the people it asks to support it is a moronic idea.

I could go on at length about *why* it is a moronic idea, but it would take a while and it's been done better elsewhere at very great length, and frankly I really do think if it isn't self-evidently moronic to you already there's little hope for you. If you can actually look at the way buying, selling, and the accumulation of money works and think "Yes, the people with the best cause always get the most money to support that cause!", you don't live in reality.

tiemy said @ 2:48am GMT on 30th Jan
This is all true.

f00m@nB@r said @ 5:57am GMT on 30th Jan
the party with the better agenda has a better chance of attracting more money.

wat.

f00m@nB@r said @ 6:02am GMT on 30th Jan
Counterexample:

Let's say Microsoft would love it if anti-monopoly laws are done away with. They're pretty damn rich. Most large (hence rich) corporations would love the freedom to become monopolies. So, they all get together and throw as much money as they can spare to all candidates who run a pro-monopoly platform.

You really think consumers and small business taken together would be able to come up with more money than these guys?

Barnabas_Truman said @ 12:41am GMT on 31st Jan
Well, maybe "better" means "more popular amongst rich people."

Pudding_Master said @ 10:49pm GMT on 28th Jan
I think this is pretty cut and dry. This was absolutely not the intention of the first amendment. Remember William Henry Harrison was the first president to actively campaign for the presidency in 1841, more than 50 years after the constitution and the bill of rights were adopted. The writers of the first amendment weren't even thinking about political campaigns when they wrote the first amendment in the same way that we do now. I am pretty sure that the founding fathers would have viewed a corporation, or even a person for that matter, handing over millions of dollars to a candidate as nothing other than bribery....which it is.

Naruki said @ 6:33am GMT on 29th Jan
Here's a simple test of fairness:

Any corporations out there, tell us what you think.

If none answer in their own voice, then the issue is settled. They won't need representation.

:-)

lilmookieesquire said @ 10:59pm GMT on 28th Jan
The same reason non-citizens and felons can't vote.

arctan said @ 12:18am GMT on 29th Jan
Property owners do have the same rights as everyone else. A billionaire can make the same *personal* donations as a street sweeper.

The issue is giving *corporations*, which are not people at all but agglomerated organizations of people pooling their resources in a way such that no single person is accountable, the right to donate unlimited cash to campaigns.

Naruki said @ 6:35am GMT on 29th Jan
I took that as a dig at the old legal rules where only property owners had rights to free speech.

You are thinking in modern terms of homeowners vs corporations. Completely different from the point he was making.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 2:57pm GMT on 29th Jan
Just like an association of like minded concerned citizens...

arctan said @ 3:06pm GMT on 29th Jan
If every single stockholder in a corporation wishes to individually give their own personal money to a political campaign, that's allowed too.

What's *not* allowed is someone running a corporation *using the corporation's money* without asking each and every one of the people who invested in that corporation if they want to donate, as individuals.

The setup of a for-profit corporation is *not* that of an "association of like-minded citizens" -- it's a carefully crafted machine for making money where people can put in money and forget about it as long as they get dividends on their investment. It's an imaginary legal entity specifically created by the law that does very weird things with splitting apart people's money and people's legal and social liability for the things done with that money.

The whole reason corporations are not just "associations of people" is the thing that makes corporations attractive -- that a bunch of people pool their money into this thing called "Microsoft" and then trust a hiring/firing structure they personally have little oversight over to pick a bunch of managers to do whatever is in "Microsoft's" best interests without having to bug them about it 24/7.

This is a *bad structure* to be giving unlimited power to do whatever it wants, because the "it", the corporation, is structured almost by design to lack any of the conscience or principles of the real human beings who work for it, because it's designed so that the people making the decisions (employees) aren't responsible for the charter and the people responsible for the charter (stockholders) don't make the decisions. The employees can say "It's not *me* I'm doing this for, I'm just contractually obligated to do anything that increases our stock price" and the stockholders can say "It's not *me* who made this decision, we just put our money in in hopes of getting returns".

It's like a formula for how you make a sociopath.

symmetrian said @ 3:59pm GMT on 28th Jan
I can't find the story you're promoting at the link you provided.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 4:08pm GMT on 28th Jan
It's the one highlighted...

http://murrayhillincforcongress.com/

symmetrian said @ 6:16pm GMT on 28th Jan
Ah, so not the main link. I'd never seen someone link an article in a quote that doesn't pertain to the main link. Threw me off.

f00m@nB@r said @ 8:06pm GMT on 28th Jan
D'oh. My mistake. I think I pasted the wrong buffer.

symmetrian said @ 8:33pm GMT on 28th Jan
It actually works out fine, if someone is observant enough to click the link in the quotes. And even if not, the main link and the quote are still *related*, I was just far more interested in an actual announced political run by a corporate entity.

sanepride said @ 4:44pm GMT on 28th Jan
Justice Alito's 'You Lie!' moment.

Certainly not as disruptive and rude as Joe Wilson's infamous outburst, but historically significant, considering the long-standing tradition of SCOTUS Justices sitting impassively during these speeches. So much for judicial restraint and neutrality.

incpenners said @ 1:33am GMT on 29th Jan [Score:-1 Flamebait]
If precedent** is your concern, when's the last time a president called out a co-equal branch of government in a State of the Union Address and held them up to ridicule?

And he lied, to boot?

If Obama doesn't want to be called out himself -- as a liar-- in the halls of Congress, maybe he ought to consider not lying when he's speaking there.

Just a thought.
___________________________

** Is Obama going to invoke a right of long standing tradition to avoid criticism? LOL!

sanepride said @ 2:32am GMT on 29th Jan [Score:1 Insightful]
Actually I'll give you that, at least regarding the SCOTUS. A President calling out Congress, the other co-equal branch, is a little more commonplace.

ComposerNate said @ 2:37am GMT on 29th Jan [Score:2 Funny]

Congratulations, incpenners! You've been avatared!
ComposerNate's Greater Avatar Wall of SE Personalities

incpenners said @ 2:57am GMT on 29th Jan
He makes more money, but I'm better looking, and smarter.

He's a friend of a friend, not sure he'd be flattered.

But thanks for the effort.

ComposerNate said @ 3:29am GMT on 29th Jan
How about this replacement?

It tickles me.

ComposerNate said @ 3:30am GMT on 29th Jan
I tried a blank one too. Your choice?

lilmookieesquire said @ 4:58am GMT on 29th Jan
Well that works out then. He'll need the cash handicap.

BTW you forgot "more modest" ad well.

Krutz said @ 7:09am GMT on 29th Jan
When was the last time?

Well, Reagan did it twice, Bush at least once. So there you are.

And if criticizing a "co-equal branch" of the government is somehow new, why don't you go look at just about every president and every congress and their attitudes/opinions about each other since, well, pretty much since the founding of the country.

taeyn said @ 4:56pm GMT on 28th Jan [Score:1 Underrated]
i havent RTFA yet, but does this mean Corporations can now marry? what about same-sex corporations?

hildeaux said @ 4:58pm GMT on 28th Jan
I've made less than $20k/year ever since my first job and my taxes have done nothing but go up. I guess that because I've made the decision to not get married and have children until I am more financially prepared later in life, I don't deserve to be considered a "working family".

I guess those tax cuts he's talking about won't be applicable until I'm doing my 2010 taxes, but somehow I seriously doubt that even if I do somehow get a tax cut, it won't be significant enough to actually be of any help to me.

Seriously, fuck this guy.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 5:06pm GMT on 28th Jan
Well if you aren't married, and don't have kids, I can't see how you could be a family let alone a working family, you sound like an individual....now if you still live at home with your family...

tiemy said @ 6:35pm GMT on 28th Jan
I think you missed the point.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 7:04pm GMT on 28th Jan
Which was?

sanepride said @ 7:47pm GMT on 28th Jan
He doesn't have one. He's mad at Obama for raising his taxes. But since he would not yet have filed his 2009 taxes yet he doesn't know WTF he's talking about.

tiemy said @ 10:25pm GMT on 28th Jan
It was hildeaux's point, for starters, and W2s get mailed out in January (i.e., the month that's almost finished).

Naruki said @ 12:37pm GMT on 29th Jan
+1 Countering mrcucumber's Revenge Mod Mod

mrcucumber said @ 1:50pm GMT on 29th Jan
Maybe you look up the word 'revenge.'

His statement was flamebait and/or troll. You understand what that means, right?

sanepride said @ 3:52pm GMT on 29th Jan
My statement may have been harsh, but it is true. In fact I demonstrated below, using current IRS tax rates, that his taxes if anything are lower this year.
Is this your definition of flamebait/troll?

mrcucumber said @ 4:03pm GMT on 29th Jan
Yes, since you have absolutely no idea what their the details and particulars of their finances other than a big picture description, and yet you decided they don't know what they are talking about. Are you a tax attorney? Are you a registered cpa? Furthermore, it wasn't even him, it was hildeaux, and she made it very clear they were referring to 2010 filing for year 2009. Flamebait, troll, and constructed a strawman, because you just wanted to deride tiemy and ignore the point he and/or hildeaux were trying to make because you in your (in)finite wisdom decided to inaccurately correct them. You are so predictable it's pathetic.

sanepride said @ 9:39pm GMT on 29th Jan
Maybe you can create some kind of filter here to automatically downmod or pick a fight with me, since you seem ever determined to do so.

I was addressing Hildeaux's assertion -
I've made less than $20k/year ever since my first job and my taxes have done nothing but go up.

And in fact one doesn't need to be a CPA to determine that this simply cannot be true, especially for the coming tax year. The numbers are freely available. If you want to defend the right-wing fallacy that income taxes have gone up -especially under Obama - then be my guest. Personally I find it amusing that you and a confirmed socialist like tiemy are so eager to side with a false tea-bagger narrative. Political extremism it seems makes strange bedfellows.

Krutz said @ 10:42pm GMT on 29th Jan
One possibility: His payroll taxes could be going up.

That was a favorite of Reagan: Cut income taxes but raise the taxes that "the little people" paid more of.

sanepride said @ 11:15pm GMT on 29th Jan
Payroll taxes are what employers pay up front (generally what's withheld from employees' paychecks). Hildeaux didn't indicate he/she has any employees.

tiemy said @ 2:45am GMT on 30th Jan [Score:1 Informative]
... what? The issue was how tax policy is heavily skewed against low income workers making poverty-level income, not whether or not tax rates for those demographics have increased or decreased - the amount would be negligible either way - under Bush or Obama.

The latest idiotic teabagger or Obamaniac talking point - I don't follow either - was the last thing on my mind.

sanepride said @ 3:05am GMT on 30th Jan
Despite the efforts of the right we still have a progressive taxation system in the US. The poor pay a lower percent of their income in taxes than the rich. If your point is that it's not progressive enough then we're basically in agreement.
All I'm saying is that anyone claiming that their taxes have gone up under Obama is talking right-wing agitprop bullshit. They simply haven't. Most people's taxes have in fact gone down. Whether they've gone down enough is a different question. But as an apparent socialist I would assume you would embrace some sort of philosophy of a proportionately, progressively shared burden of taxation to support the needs of the whole society.

mrcucumber said @ 6:42pm GMT on 30th Jan
Don't get your balls in a twist, champ. It's the internet.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 12:42am GMT on 31st Jan
Don't you understand? If you die on the internet, you die IN REAL LIFE!

sanepride said @ 10:18pm GMT on 29th Jan
And I see you tacked a nice little -1 on my bail bond post. If that's not a revenge mod I don't know what is.
Pathetic indeed.

mrcucumber said @ 6:44pm GMT on 30th Jan
You and naruki need to look up the word revenge and it's usage. I gave you a reason for why I downmodded you here, and your post was....just boring. Yet guess what. I'm revenge modding.

Grow up.

sanepride said @ 5:43pm GMT on 28th Jan
And what time span are you talking about?
Just a reminder - assuming your federal income tax has actually gone up, the last filing period - for 2008 - would have been for income earned during the Bush Administration. Your taxes for income earned during the Obama administration aren't due till this April 15. So who is to blame for your taxes going up?

tiemy said @ 6:34pm GMT on 28th Jan
The tax cut Obama's referring to is the "Make Work Pay" credit, which amounts to a whopping $400.

Krutz said @ 7:04pm GMT on 28th Jan
Would you rather get a $300 ~~bribe~~ "tax rebate" in the mail while corporations like Exxon see their taxes cut?

tiemy said @ 11:11pm GMT on 28th Jan [Score:1 Underrated]
The fact that those two options could be presented as the only two we could expect to see from our political establishment is a good sign that there's something fundamentally wrong here.

It shows that the social interests of the overwhelming majority of the population are shut out from the concerns of official policymaking, and that the best the two parties can offer are token, blatantly inadequate measures that in no way infringe on the class privilege of a few thousand millionaires and billionaires.

But even then, the distinction between the two options here isn't even all that great. Obama has been touting corporate tax cuts since he came to power. His SOTU speech was riddled with references to his tax cuts and subsidies for business, all based on the ridiculous and reactionary premise that US business will always be the "true engine of job creation."

He's now taking a hatchet - Obama's words - to that small (1/6th) portion of the federal budget that serves the public interest, bleating on about "tightening our belt" while leaving funding for a gargantuan war machine and national security apparatus untouched. The list goes on and on here.

sanepride said @ 6:48am GMT on 29th Jan
His SOTU speech was riddled with references to his tax cuts and subsidies for business, all based on the ridiculous and reactionary premise that US business will always be the "true engine of job creation."

You omitted one important detail - he said small business.
He proposed raising taxes on large corporations. Now what differentiates one from the other- that's a matter of debate.

sanepride said @ 7:12pm GMT on 28th Jan
If you're making < $20K a $400 tax break is no small chunk of change. But it should be enough that in a time of record deficits that most people's taxes are simply not going up. And those whose taxes are going up are those who can most afford it.

hildeaux said @ 9:39pm GMT on 28th Jan
Yes, we wage workers should just be happy that we haven't had a tax increase. We don't deserve anything more, because you know, it's our own fault that we have these crappy jobs. After all, we're too stupid and lazy to have jobs as CEOs and get the same tax breaks as corporations. Tax cuts for the poor are just government handouts!

sanepride said @ 3:08am GMT on 29th Jan
Hey everybody thinks their taxes are too high, from minimum-wage earners to mega-gazillionaires. But as they say, death and taxes are the two constants in the universe.

So I've take the trouble to tell you exactly how much you're saving in taxes this year (subject to change, downward if anything):

Assuming you make 20K or less, you will pay 15% plus $835.
In 2008 it was 15% plus $805. I know, $30 less. But wait -

The standard deduction for a single filer is up $500 this year from last, and the personal exemption, which you would qualify for at least one, is up $150. So minus the $30 increase that's at least $620 less right off the bat then you paid in 2008. Plus whatever additional credits you may get for low income, etc. This stuff is still in the works.
So quit whining about Obama raising your taxes. It just isn't happening.

tiemy said @ 11:06pm GMT on 28th Jan [Score:1 Underrated]
Well, no, it's not. Food, gas, health insurance and the like aren't less expensive if you're living on less.

And telling the 40,000,000+ people living in poverty in this country to be grateful for a $400 tax credit when a few hundred parasites on Wall Street are cashing *billions* in bonuses is insulting. No rational person not among the select few spending $200,000 on a wrist watch is going to be able to reconcile that great disparity in wealth.

sanepride said @ 2:47am GMT on 29th Jan [Score:-1 Flamebait]
Look here Trotsky - if your point is that rich people should pay more taxes and poor people should pay less you'll get no argument from me. That's what the progressive tax system is all about and that is after all, more equitable and even socialist. But the fact is under Obama the lower and middle class tax burden has gone down (compared with the system under Bush, where the rich got the big breaks). So you're arguing against paying taxes? Like the libertarian tea baggers?

mrcucumber said @ 12:07pm GMT on 29th Jan
One of the most difficult concepts for, lets say people, to understand is the difference between 10% of 1,000 vs 10% of 100,000.00 within the context of 10,000 being average, or what is necessary for normal interaction.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 4:30pm GMT on 29th Jan
AAAGH FRACTIONS ARE HARD I WAS NEVER GOOD AT MATH, say the people of America as their collective attention swivels elsewhere.

Clearly the solution to all of America's problems is better math education.

hildeaux said @ 9:30pm GMT on 28th Jan
Read the comment.

I guess those tax cuts he's talking about won't be applicable until I'm doing my 2010 taxes, but somehow I seriously doubt that even if I do somehow get a tax cut, it won't be significant enough to actually be of any help to me.

hildeaux said @ 9:33pm GMT on 28th Jan
Also, uh, it's January 2010, so I'm aware how much I've paid during the first year of the Obama Administration. Unless you've seen my W2, which I'm pretty sure you haven't, you can't tell me with certainty that my taxes haven't gone up.

sanepride said @ 2:39am GMT on 29th Jan
Your W2 only reflects the taxes withheld. Until you calculate your final tax bill you don't know how much of that will be refunded. So until then, how do you know your taxes have gone up?

ComposerNate said @ 2:44am GMT on 29th Jan
Who decided the 2009 tax code? Wasn't that the Bush White House, part of the 2009 budget planned in November 2008?

I'm tax ignorant enough to not even know how to look that up myself.

sanepride said @ 2:52am GMT on 29th Jan [Score:1 Informative]
The tax code is subject to change well into 2010, especially regarding credits and refunds. For example, the IRS is now allowing donations for Haiti earthquake relief to be applied for 2009 tax deductions. So yes, the Obama administration would be largely responsible.

Lord of the Barnyard said @ 5:06pm GMT on 28th Jan [Score:1 Informative]
progressive constitutional lawyer thinks the ruling was correct, if sucky.

Lord of the Barnyard said @ 5:19pm GMT on 28th Jan [Score:1 Informative]
And a competent rebuttal.

ENZ said @ 6:25pm GMT on 28th Jan
If corporations are people, does that mean defacing a logo is a hate crime?

Barnabas_Truman said @ 11:10pm GMT on 28th Jan
If corporations are people, are they subject to military conscription?

ENZ said @ 2:34am GMT on 29th Jan
Na, they'd be like the rich kid who's parents used their connections to put them through officer's school. Last thing we need is a corporate entity with rank bars.

bbqkink said @ 6:58pm GMT on 28th Jan
The larger issue raised by Alito’s pouty face goes to the place of the Court in American life. In public, and especially in confirmation hearings, the Justices try to portray themselves as Olympian figures, removed from the hurly burly of politics. In Chief Justice Roberts’ famous (now mostly infamous) phrase at his confirmation hearing, the Justices are like baseball umpires, who do nothing more than call balls and strikes.

well he has proved it now

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/01/alitos-face.html#ixzz0dwCv8nAv

Krutz said @ 7:08pm GMT on 28th Jan [Score:1 Underrated]
Hell, Scalia hunts with Cheney and then magically ruled in Cheney's favor over his Energy Task Force fiasco.

And then you have Clarence Thomas whoring his book among other things over on Limbaugh's show.

But it's the liberals who can't be trusted to have an even hand in judicial matters, they're the ones who are "activist," riiiiiiiight...

sanepride said @ 7:21pm GMT on 28th Jan
Toobin is remarkably sympathetic to Alito and his indelicate reaction, which I find interesting.

Also interesting is the apparently antagonistic history he has with Obama. Considering the emotional deference SCOTUS justices are supposed to express - I'd say we have a nominee to replace Scalia as Chief Asshole Justice (though it's worth noting that Scalia chose not to attend the SOTU at all).

And oh yeah, funny how all Republican senators were making such a big show of questioning Sotomayor's impartiality during her confirmation hearings.